法律与心理专家相遇:提高法医心理评估的八项最佳实践

T. Neal, K. Martire, Jennifer L. Johan, Elizabeth M. Mathers, R. Otto
{"title":"法律与心理专家相遇:提高法医心理评估的八项最佳实践","authors":"T. Neal, K. Martire, Jennifer L. Johan, Elizabeth M. Mathers, R. Otto","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We review the state of forensic mental health assessment. The field is in much better shape than in the past; however, significant problems of quality remain, with much room for improvement. We provide an overview of forensic psychology's history and discuss its possible future, with multiple audiences in mind. We distill decades of scholarship from and about fundamental basic science and forensic science, clinical and forensic psychology, and the law of expert evidence into eight best practices for the validity of a forensic psychological assessment. We argue these best practices should apply when a psychological assessment relies on the norms, values, and esteem of science to inform legal processes. The eight key considerations include ( a) foundational validity of the assessment; ( b) validity of the assessment as applied; ( c) management and mitigation of bias; ( d) attention to quality assurance; ( e) appropriate communication of data, results, and opinions; (  f ) explicit consideration of limitations and assumptions; ( g) weighing of alternative views or disagreements; and ( h) adherence with ethical obligations, professional guidelines, codes of conduct, and rules of evidence. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 18 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Law Meets Psychological Expertise: Eight Best Practices to Improve Forensic Psychological Assessment\",\"authors\":\"T. Neal, K. Martire, Jennifer L. Johan, Elizabeth M. Mathers, R. Otto\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We review the state of forensic mental health assessment. The field is in much better shape than in the past; however, significant problems of quality remain, with much room for improvement. We provide an overview of forensic psychology's history and discuss its possible future, with multiple audiences in mind. We distill decades of scholarship from and about fundamental basic science and forensic science, clinical and forensic psychology, and the law of expert evidence into eight best practices for the validity of a forensic psychological assessment. We argue these best practices should apply when a psychological assessment relies on the norms, values, and esteem of science to inform legal processes. The eight key considerations include ( a) foundational validity of the assessment; ( b) validity of the assessment as applied; ( c) management and mitigation of bias; ( d) attention to quality assurance; ( e) appropriate communication of data, results, and opinions; (  f ) explicit consideration of limitations and assumptions; ( g) weighing of alternative views or disagreements; and ( h) adherence with ethical obligations, professional guidelines, codes of conduct, and rules of evidence. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 18 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Law and Social Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Law and Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148","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: 4

摘要

我们回顾了法医心理健康评估的现状。这片田地的情况比过去好得多;然而,质量仍然存在重大问题,还有很大的改进空间。我们提供了一个概述法医心理学的历史和讨论其可能的未来,与多个观众在脑海中。我们将几十年的基础科学和法医学、临床和法医心理学以及专家证据法的学术成果提炼成法医心理评估有效性的八个最佳实践。我们认为,当心理评估依赖于规范、价值观和对科学的尊重来为法律程序提供信息时,这些最佳实践应该适用。八个关键考虑因素包括:(a)评估的基本有效性;(b)适用的评估的有效性;(c)管理和减轻偏见;(d)重视质量保证;(e)适当沟通数据、结果和意见;(f)明确考虑限制和假设;(g)权衡各种不同意见或分歧;(h)遵守道德义务、专业准则、行为准则和证据规则。预计《法律与社会科学年度评论》第18卷的最终在线出版日期为2022年10月。修订后的估计数请参阅http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Law Meets Psychological Expertise: Eight Best Practices to Improve Forensic Psychological Assessment
We review the state of forensic mental health assessment. The field is in much better shape than in the past; however, significant problems of quality remain, with much room for improvement. We provide an overview of forensic psychology's history and discuss its possible future, with multiple audiences in mind. We distill decades of scholarship from and about fundamental basic science and forensic science, clinical and forensic psychology, and the law of expert evidence into eight best practices for the validity of a forensic psychological assessment. We argue these best practices should apply when a psychological assessment relies on the norms, values, and esteem of science to inform legal processes. The eight key considerations include ( a) foundational validity of the assessment; ( b) validity of the assessment as applied; ( c) management and mitigation of bias; ( d) attention to quality assurance; ( e) appropriate communication of data, results, and opinions; (  f ) explicit consideration of limitations and assumptions; ( g) weighing of alternative views or disagreements; and ( h) adherence with ethical obligations, professional guidelines, codes of conduct, and rules of evidence. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 18 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Bankruptcy Law's Knowns and Unknowns Centering Race in Studies of Low-Wage Immigrant Labor Authoritarian Legality and State Capitalism in China Mandatory Employment Arbitration How to Study Global Lawmaking: Lessons from Intellectual Property Rights and International Health Emergencies
×
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