Degrees of freedom as a breeding ground for biases-A threat to forensic practice.

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000579
Aileen Oeberst, Verena Oberlader
{"title":"Degrees of freedom as a breeding ground for biases-A threat to forensic practice.","authors":"Aileen Oeberst, Verena Oberlader","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Researcher-based degrees of freedom have been shown to contribute to low replication rates in science. That is, researchers' options within the process of designing and conducting empirical tests may increase the probability of false positive findings. The aim of this study was to transfer the concept of degrees of freedom to the practice of forensic-psychological assessment as it may likewise pose a severe threat to the reliability and validity of forensic assessments. Using an example from statement validity assessment, we identified degrees of freedom, calculated the different possible workflows that forensic experts can take, and elaborated on their consequences for the reliability and validity of their assessments. Importantly, we elaborated on why degrees of freedom likely not only increase noise in the results but also foster the occurrence of systematic biases in forensic practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Degrees of freedom in forensic-psychological assessments exist and lead to an enormous number of different possible workflows. As this threatens the interrater reliability and validity of forensic assessments and may lead to biases, we call for research on this issue and put forward recommendations for forensic practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000579","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Researcher-based degrees of freedom have been shown to contribute to low replication rates in science. That is, researchers' options within the process of designing and conducting empirical tests may increase the probability of false positive findings. The aim of this study was to transfer the concept of degrees of freedom to the practice of forensic-psychological assessment as it may likewise pose a severe threat to the reliability and validity of forensic assessments. Using an example from statement validity assessment, we identified degrees of freedom, calculated the different possible workflows that forensic experts can take, and elaborated on their consequences for the reliability and validity of their assessments. Importantly, we elaborated on why degrees of freedom likely not only increase noise in the results but also foster the occurrence of systematic biases in forensic practice.

Conclusion: Degrees of freedom in forensic-psychological assessments exist and lead to an enormous number of different possible workflows. As this threatens the interrater reliability and validity of forensic assessments and may lead to biases, we call for research on this issue and put forward recommendations for forensic practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自由度是滋生偏见的温床--对法医实践的威胁。
目的:研究人员的自由度已被证明会导致科学领域的低复制率。也就是说,研究人员在设计和进行实证测试过程中的选择可能会增加出现假阳性结果的概率。本研究旨在将自由度的概念应用到法医心理评估实践中,因为它同样可能对法医评估的可靠性和有效性构成严重威胁。我们以陈述有效性评估为例,确定了自由度,计算了法医专家可能采取的不同工作流程,并阐述了其对评估可靠性和有效性的影响。重要的是,我们阐述了为什么自由度不仅可能增加结果中的噪音,还可能在法医实践中助长系统性偏见的发生:结论:法医心理评估中自由度的存在导致了大量不同的工作流程。由于这威胁到法医评估的互评可靠性和有效性,并可能导致偏差,我们呼吁对这一问题进行研究,并为法医实践提出建议。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
期刊最新文献
The state of open science in the field of psychology and law. The Miranda penalty: Inferring guilt from suspects' silence. Comparing predictive validity of Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory scores in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadian youth. Regional gender bias and year predict gender representation on civil trial teams. Lived experiences of bias in compensation and reintegration associated with false admissions of guilt.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1