Case study: cognitive errorsin court experts’ assessments in autism spectrum cases

IF 0.7 Q4 PSYCHIATRY Postepy Psychiatrii i Neurologii Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.5114/PPN.2020.103638
M. Wodziński
{"title":"Case study: cognitive errorsin court experts’ assessments in autism spectrum cases","authors":"M. Wodziński","doi":"10.5114/PPN.2020.103638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The paper presents conclusions from a comparative analysis of the medical and court documentation of a 5-year-old patient on the autism spectrum. The goal of the research was to identify potential cognitive errors made by the evaluating court experts. Case description: During the meeting of the County Committee for the Assessment of Disability, the patient was denied a proper dis- ability certificate taking into account his actual level of impaired functioning. The patient’s family appealed against the decision and had court experts appointed to re-assess the case. The documentation created in this process served as the material for the analysis presented in this paper. Comment: The study analyses the risk of cognitive errors that may occur in the assessments issued by court experts appointed to evaluate the level of patient’s disability. This is due to the fact that such evaluations are often based, among other things, on a stereo- typical perception of ASD-people or personal susceptibility to certain heuristics. Self-advocacy and neuro-diversity movements have been campaigning to change the assessment-issuing system for years but have been unsuccessful. Exposing the cognitive errors that can be found in expert assessments in a full-scale study might constitute an important step towards improving the current state of affairs.","PeriodicalId":39142,"journal":{"name":"Postepy Psychiatrii i Neurologii","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postepy Psychiatrii i Neurologii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/PPN.2020.103638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: The paper presents conclusions from a comparative analysis of the medical and court documentation of a 5-year-old patient on the autism spectrum. The goal of the research was to identify potential cognitive errors made by the evaluating court experts. Case description: During the meeting of the County Committee for the Assessment of Disability, the patient was denied a proper dis- ability certificate taking into account his actual level of impaired functioning. The patient’s family appealed against the decision and had court experts appointed to re-assess the case. The documentation created in this process served as the material for the analysis presented in this paper. Comment: The study analyses the risk of cognitive errors that may occur in the assessments issued by court experts appointed to evaluate the level of patient’s disability. This is due to the fact that such evaluations are often based, among other things, on a stereo- typical perception of ASD-people or personal susceptibility to certain heuristics. Self-advocacy and neuro-diversity movements have been campaigning to change the assessment-issuing system for years but have been unsuccessful. Exposing the cognitive errors that can be found in expert assessments in a full-scale study might constitute an important step towards improving the current state of affairs.
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
案例研究:法庭专家在自闭症谱系案例评估中的认知错误
目的:本文通过对一名5岁自闭症患者的医学和法庭文件进行比较分析,得出结论。这项研究的目的是识别评估法庭专家可能犯的认知错误。案例描述:在县残疾评估委员会会议期间,考虑到患者的实际功能受损程度,该患者被拒绝提供适当的残疾证明。患者家属对该决定提出上诉,并任命法庭专家重新评估此案。在此过程中创建的文档作为本文中提出的分析的材料。评论:该研究分析了由法庭专家评估患者残疾水平时可能出现的认知错误风险。这是由于这样一个事实,即这种评估通常是基于对自闭症患者的立体典型感知或个人对某些启发式的敏感性。多年来,自我倡导和神经多样性运动一直在努力改变评估发布系统,但一直没有成功。在全面研究中揭露专家评估中可能发现的认知错误,可能是朝着改善现状迈出的重要一步。
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
Postepy Psychiatrii i Neurologii
Postepy Psychiatrii i Neurologii Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The quarterly Advances in Psychiatry and Neurology is aimed at psychiatrists, neurologists as well as scientists working in related areas of basic and clinical research, psychology, social sciences and humanities. The journal publishes original papers, review articles, case reports, and - at the initiative of the Editorial Board – reflections or experiences on currently vivid theoretical and practical questions or controversies. Articles submitted to the journal are evaluated first by the Section Editors, specialists in the fields of psychiatry, clinical psychology, science of the brain and mind and neurology, and reviewed by acknowledged authorities in the respective field. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
期刊最新文献
The conceptual basis of addiction memory, allostasis and dual processes, and the classical therapy of addiction. Time of day and chronotype in the assessment of cognitive functions Pulmonary embolism masked by symptoms of mental disorders The COVID-19 pandemic: new challenges for the mental health protection system The Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale as an instrument for assessing quality – a psychometric evaluation
×
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