Protecting the integrity of forensic psychological testing: a reply to geffner, et al. (2009)
Recommendations regarding psychological test use made by Geffner, Conradi, Geis, and Aranda (2009) directly contradict well established standards of practice, guidelines promulgated by several professional organizations, and well-known legal standards regarding the admissibility of evidence in Court...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Child Custody Vol. 7; no. 1; pp. 78 - 93 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | commentary Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Jan-Mar2010
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105125312&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 105125312 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 15379418 2QEI jtl: Journal of Child Custody issn: 15379418 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jan-Mar2010 vid: 7 iid: 1 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 105125312 105125312 2010572201 10.1080/15379410903554857 105125312 ppf: 78 ppct: 15 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Protecting the integrity of forensic psychological testing: a reply to geffner, et al. (2009) aug: au: Medoff D affil: Suffolk University and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts sug: subj: Child Custody Evaluation Jurisprudence Standards Practice Guidelines Standards Psychological Tests Ethical Issues Data Collection Methods Standards Decision Making Evidence, Legal Standards Forensic Psychiatry Standards Legal Procedure Standards Reliability and Validity ab: Recommendations regarding psychological test use made by Geffner, Conradi, Geis, and Aranda (2009) directly contradict well established standards of practice, guidelines promulgated by several professional organizations, and well-known legal standards regarding the admissibility of evidence in Court. This article refutes these recommendations and argues that test selection in the forensic context requires adherence to the principles enumerated in established case law as well as relevant ethical principles and standards of practice reflected in practice guidelines. Utilizing subjectively based and scientifically unreliable psychological assessment tools such as those recommended by Geffner and his colleagues introduces unknowable degrees of error, jeopardizes the integrity of evaluative methodologies in use, and seriously compromises the data that comprises the foundation upon which psychological opinions are rendered and legal decisions are made. In making their recommendations, these authors ignore an extensive and important body of empirical literature, professional practice guidelines, and legal rules requiring the use of scientifically supported, validated, and reliable test instruments for forensic use. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: commentary Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|