Faculty Bibliography

The niche of forensic neuropsychology and use of neuropsychologists as expert witnesses has proliferated over the past two decades. Neuropsychologists conduct evaluations or provide consultation to assist triers of fact in both civil and criminal arenas. This article delivers a succinct overview of an array of factors that warrant consideration from the time of referral for a neuropsychological evaluation through the delivery of a verdict or settlement and receipt of payment for services. Readers are offered a primer on relevant legal criteria, distinctions between court settings, and applicable ethical standards and guidelines. Suggestions are made regarding the expert witness retention agreement and strategies for direct and cross examination are reviewed. Logistical and liability considerations are also explored. Real world examples are included to illustrate some of the obstacles that neuropsychologist expert witnesses may encounter.

Clinical observations have suggested that children who experience physical or sexual abuse may provide indicators in their drawings that can distinguish them from nonabused children. Some have even suggested that a child's drawings and the interpretive testimony of a trained mental health clinician should be admissible in court as evidence of a child's abuse status. Many of these comments, however, may reflect a limited consideration of the available research. The current article provides a comprehensive literature review of the controlled research to determine whether any graphic indicators (e.g., genitalia, omission of body parts) or predefined scoring system can reliability and validly discriminate abused from nonabused children. Results indicate that, although individual studies have found support for various indicators or scoring systems, these results are rarely replicated, many times studies finding significant results suffer from serious methodological flaws and alternative explanations for findings (e.g., mental illness) are often present. No graphic indicator or scoring system possessed sufficient empirical evidence to support its use for identifying sexual or physical abuse. A discussion of the legal ramifications of these results is provided.

Actuarial risk assessment measures are often admitted in court, partly because strong psychometric properties such as interrater agreement suggest that they increase reliability and reduce subjectivity in forensic evaluation. But how strong is rater agreement when raters are retained by opposing sides in adversarial legal proceedings? The authors review sexual offender civil commitment cases in which opposing evaluators reported scores on the STATIC-99, the Minnesota Sex Offender Sex Offender Screening Tool--Revised (MnSOST-R), or the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) for the same individual. Differences between scores from opposing evaluators were often greater than expected based on rater agreement values reported in the instrument manuals and research literature. Score differences were often in a direction that supported the party who retained each evaluator. Rater agreement was stronger for the STATIC-99, intraclass correlation coefficient ([ICC]A,1) = .64; than for the MnSOST-R, ICC(A,1) = .48; and the PCL-R, ICC(A,1) = .42. STATIC-99 scores appeared less influenced by adversarial allegiance. Overall, however, results raise concern that an evaluator's adversarial allegiance could influence some assessment instrument scores in forensic evaluation.