Forensic neuropsychology: a reply to the method skeptics.
Various critics or "method skeptics" have contended that clinical neuropsychology is not sufficiently developed as a science to be offered as evidence in legal or trial proceedings. The present article attempts to balance the extreme position of the method skeptics with an overview of legal and research data that support forensic applications of neuropsychology. It is suggested that clinical evidence can usefully inform legal decision making and that the modern trend has been for courts to be increasingly open to such expert testimony. The relevance of studies of clinical judgement, experience, and actuarial prediction is discussed, and neuropsychological assessment validity is specifically addressed. It is concluded that the arguments of the method skeptics should guide future research and caution forensic neuropsychologists, but that a retreat from the courtroom is unwarranted.
Barth
J T
JT
Department of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry, University of Virginia Medical School, Charlottesville 22901.
Ryan
T V
TV
Hawk
G L
GL
D001925:Brain Damage, Chronic / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000523:psychology; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D007298:Insanity Defense; D016365:Liability, Legal; D019965:Neurocognitive Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000523:psychology; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011594:Psychometrics; D015203:Reproducibility of Results