tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post8608946687560556721..comments2024-03-20T19:17:02.285-07:00Comments on IN THE NEWS: Mental health expert witnesses slammed in courtKaren Franklin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-33452666287027338462012-09-03T09:31:42.616-07:002012-09-03T09:31:42.616-07:00Dr. Aranda,
Thanks for this commentary. I agree wi...Dr. Aranda,<br />Thanks for this commentary. I agree with you that the topic is complex and that, given the power that the legal system has handed over to forensic psychology and psychiatry, vigorous scrutiny of our opinions and conduct can be a very good thing. Karen Franklin, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-56528142490918408912012-09-01T20:54:55.733-07:002012-09-01T20:54:55.733-07:00What about situations in which an expert made comm...What about situations in which an expert made comments about the "quality" of another expert's findings or methods, even coming close to suggesting that the other expert's conduct may cross ethical boundaries? <br /><br />Consistent with the third conclusion, "Third, and perhaps most importantly, there really are hacks and quacks, charlatans and hired guns among are ranks," there really are experts who rely on outdated methods and assessments that are not valid in a given situation or type of case. And misuse statistics, use dated norms, and use incorrect comparison groups, wrong baselines, etc. See The American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (Ethics Code): Standard 9.02(a), "Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques"; and (b), "Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested. When such validity or reliability has not been established, psychologists describe the strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation."<br /><br />Many fail to consider cultural and diversity-based differences. Some have interpreters spontaneously translate a test from English into the examinee's native language, or persist in performing an examination with a non-English dominant examinee in English without considering the impact on the findings and failing to mention anything about language dominance and competence and limitations on the validity of the conclusions. See Ethics Code: Principle E, "Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices"; and Standard 9.02(c), "Psychologists use assessment methods that are appropriate to an individual's language preference and competence, unless the use of an alternative language is relevant to the assessment issues."<br /><br />Some forget to mention in their reports or on the stand how a records-only examination may pose limitations in validity. See Ethics Code: Standard 9.01(b), "... clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations."<br /><br />Clearly, not all of these situations arise during expert testimony and accusations are not "flying all over the place." But there are instances in which an expert may have used terms such as "inappropriate" and choice terms other than those in the "list of 46 different ways of calling an expert biased" noted in the article to refer to another expert or his or her work product.<br /><br />So, it is not just attorney and judges, but our own peers. And given the legitimacy suggested in the third conclusion, perhaps this is a good thing. A problem of course, is ferreting out false positives from true positives. <br /><br />Roy Aranda, Psy.D., J.D.<br />NY & Long IslandRoy Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11253655031903648614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-29300196613733314812012-08-11T20:28:12.208-07:002012-08-11T20:28:12.208-07:00Apparently, the truth means nothing, and those who...Apparently, the truth means nothing, and those who provide it with evidential support, logic and rational thinking are bullied and/or condemned when the truth they provide is undesirable. Is there no way for mental health experts to fight this sort of treatment when it happens?<br /><br />When I try to distinguish pathology from criminality, most people seem oblivious. References like "quack" and "phony" represent, to them, logical and conclusive ideals of those who present and explain a truth that either (1) goes over the layperson's head or (2) contradicts the "facts" or assumptions believed by said layperson.<br /><br />This scenario is not restricted to the mainstream public, however. One time, I witnessed an accident and was asked to provide testimony. The good citizen I was, I agreed. A few minutes into into my description of the events, the one lawyer began ignoring my commentary and took over the conversation. This guy obviously didn't like what I had to say and shut me out. Needless to say, I was not called into court to testify on the case.<br /><br />And I was only a casual witness, not a professional expert.<br /><br />Another time, I was on a discussion forum, conversing with a man who claimed to be a legal professional. I provided a lengthy and well-delineated explanation as to the nature of an adult male's attraction to adolescents and how that attraction is not pathological. I even provided a number of reputable links (yours among them) to substantiate my claims. He came back an adamantly disagreed, saying that his experience has taught him that such behavior "was not ok". I replied that I had never said such behavior "was ok," only that it wasn't pathological. Apparently, this supposed legal expert couldn't distinguish between pathology and crime, or somehow erroneously equated the two. I never heard back from him.<br /><br />Are those in the legal profession taught about mental pathology in law school? Such study would indeed seem a prudent consideration.<br /><br />Was I in error? I guess the only mistake I made was sharing a supported perspective that he didn't want to hear. People can get quite testy when their beliefs are challenged.researcheronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576084808353132904noreply@blogger.com