• About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
    • Foundations of Forensics
    • Arson
    • Bite Mark
    • Blood & Bodily Fluids
    • Child Abuse Allegations
    • Crime Scene Investigation
    • Death Investigation
    • Detection Dogs
    • Digital Evidence
    • DNA
    • Drug Analysis
    • Drug Recognition Experts
    • Eyewitness ID
    • Fingerprints
    • Firearms
    • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
    • Measurement Uncertainty
    • Mental Health
    • Toxicology
    • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
    • Forensic Consultations
    • Books
    • Cases
    • Featured Articles
    • Legislation
    • Motions and Briefs
      • Discovery Motions
      • Funding for Experts
      • Motions for Appropriate Relief
      • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
      • Motions for Independent Testing
      • Motions to Preserve Evidence
      • Motions to Suppress
      • Analyst Certification Motions
    • Reports & Publications
    • Trainings
    • Websites
    • Forensic Terminology
    • Online Research Tools
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
    • Find a Private Investigator
  • Subscribe
  • Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Forensic Resources

North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

Header Right

MENUMENU
  • About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
        • Foundations of Forensics
        • Arson
        • Bite Mark
        • Blood & Bodily Fluids
        • Child Abuse Allegations
        • Crime Scene Investigation
        • Death Investigation
        • Detection Dogs
        • Digital Evidence
        • DNA
        • Drug Analysis
        • Drug Recognition Experts
        • Eyewitness ID
        • Fingerprints
        • Firearms
        • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
        • Measurement Uncertainty
        • Mental Health
        • Toxicology
        • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
        • Forensic Consultations
        • Books
        • Cases
        • Featured Articles
        • Legislation
        • Reports & Publications
        • Trainings
        • Websites
        • Forensic Terminology
        • Online Research Tools
        • Motions and Briefs
          • Discovery Motions
          • Funding for Experts
          • Motions for Appropriate Relief
          • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
          • Motions for Independent Testing
          • Motions to Preserve Evidence
          • Motions to Suppress
          • Analyst Certification Motions
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
    • Find a Private Investigator
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Reports & Publications / Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping “Junk Science” Out of the Courtroom?

Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping “Junk Science” Out of the Courtroom?

February 19, 2020 //  by Sarah Olson//  Leave a Comment

The Association for Psychological Science published a review by Tess Neal, Christopher Slobogin, Michael Saks, David Faigman, and Kurt Geisinger on the psychological assessment tools used by forensic psychologists. The study found 67% are generally accepted in the field and only about 40% have generally favorable reviews of their psychometric and technical properties.

The study also found that legal challenges to the admission of this evidence are infrequent. Legal challenges occurred in only 5.1% of cases in the sample. When challenges were raised, they succeeded about a third of the time. Challenges to the most scientifically suspect tools are almost nonexistent.

Attorneys should take a look at the article and consider what testing instruments are being used by state and defense experts who are performing psychological testing in their cases. The study is available here. On p. 149-150, there is information about 30 psychological tests used in forensic settings and how this study rated them for general acceptance and quality.

The study contains recommendations for attorneys, including information on how to research the validity of a psychological test. The American Psychological Association (APA) website has basic information about testing and assessment information available here. The APA recommends the Buros Center for Testing, which is web-based service that is available for a small fee and contains reviews of over 3,500 commercially available tests, including information about the test’s purpose, appropriate populations, score ranges, publication date, admission time, and critical reviews, including reviews of the technical quality of the tests written by independent experts. Of course, attorneys should consult with their own expert in assessing what instruments may be most appropriate in a particular case.

A news article on this study is linked here.

Category: Practice Tips, Reports & PublicationsForensic Discipline: Experts, Mental Health

Previous Post: « Share the love!
Next Post: Behavioral Science Briefs for the Trial Advocate »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Site Footer

The Forensic Resource Counsel provides assistance to North Carolina attorneys litigating scientific evidence issues.
Information provided on this website is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Copyright © 2023 · Office of Indigent Defense Services · All Rights Reserved · Website by Tomatillo Design

Copyright © 2023 Forensic Resources · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Mai Theme