Michael D Chafetz, Jerry J Sweet, Kyle B Boone, Darcy Cox, Vicki Hall, Michael W Kirkwood, Jose M Lafosse, Thomas Merten, Christian Oldenburg
{"title":"Neuropsychological review of records in forensic cases: An AACN best practices paper with international perspectives.","authors":"Michael D Chafetz, Jerry J Sweet, Kyle B Boone, Darcy Cox, Vicki Hall, Michael W Kirkwood, Jose M Lafosse, Thomas Merten, Christian Oldenburg","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2025.2461750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: The purpose of this American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) <i>best practices</i> paper is to provide the neuropsychological community with the fundamentals of a competent forensic review of records. <b>Method</b>: Narrative review addressing fundamental factors related to review of records. Examples highlighted information necessary for a forensic determination of traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the data from records that can be used to address questions regarding validity of presentation. International and intra-jurisdictional perspectives within the US were used to illustrate the necessity of adhering the review to the rules. <b>Results</b>: Factors identified involve ethical responsibilities, completeness in obtaining and reviewing relevant records, evaluation of credibility of the records, considerations regarding examinee self-reporting, grounding of opinions within peer-reviewed science, determination of causation in the context of litigation, and avoiding bias in reporting, as well as consideration of cultural and language factors. Different jurisdictional rules require close attention. <b>Conclusions</b>: Neuropsychologists need to be aware of the need for a competent review of records to obtain basic facts, maintain objectivity, and provide a context for conclusions in a neuropsychological examination report. In litigation cases, opinions based solely on review of records may be challenged for reasons that might include not having personally evaluated the plaintiff, and whether opinions meet <i>Daubert</i> criteria pertaining to sufficient scientific bases and facts. A thorough review in the context of examination helps deal with litigant/claimant subjectivity and malleability of self-report, and it can provide critical reasoning about other factors relevant to causation.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":" ","pages":"1-31"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2025.2461750","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) best practices paper is to provide the neuropsychological community with the fundamentals of a competent forensic review of records. Method: Narrative review addressing fundamental factors related to review of records. Examples highlighted information necessary for a forensic determination of traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the data from records that can be used to address questions regarding validity of presentation. International and intra-jurisdictional perspectives within the US were used to illustrate the necessity of adhering the review to the rules. Results: Factors identified involve ethical responsibilities, completeness in obtaining and reviewing relevant records, evaluation of credibility of the records, considerations regarding examinee self-reporting, grounding of opinions within peer-reviewed science, determination of causation in the context of litigation, and avoiding bias in reporting, as well as consideration of cultural and language factors. Different jurisdictional rules require close attention. Conclusions: Neuropsychologists need to be aware of the need for a competent review of records to obtain basic facts, maintain objectivity, and provide a context for conclusions in a neuropsychological examination report. In litigation cases, opinions based solely on review of records may be challenged for reasons that might include not having personally evaluated the plaintiff, and whether opinions meet Daubert criteria pertaining to sufficient scientific bases and facts. A thorough review in the context of examination helps deal with litigant/claimant subjectivity and malleability of self-report, and it can provide critical reasoning about other factors relevant to causation.
期刊介绍:
The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.