Limits...
The Clinical Assessment in the Legal Field: An Empirical Study of Bias and Limitations in Forensic Expertise.

Iudici A, Salvini A, Faccio E, Castelnuovo G - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: Results indicated that systematic errors of judgment, usually referred also as "the man in the street," are widely present in the forensic evaluations of specialist consultants.Clinical and practical implications are taken into account.This article could lead to significant benefits for clinical psychologists who want to deal with this sensitive issue and are interested in improving the quality of their contribution to the justice system.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova Padova, Italy.

ABSTRACT
According to the literature, psychological assessment in forensic contexts is one of the most controversial application areas for clinical psychology. This paper presents a review of systematic judgment errors in the forensic field. Forty-six psychological reports written by psychologists, court consultants, have been analyzed with content analysis to identify typical judgment errors related to the following areas: (a) distortions in the attribution of causality, (b) inferential errors, and (c) epistemological inconsistencies. Results indicated that systematic errors of judgment, usually referred also as "the man in the street," are widely present in the forensic evaluations of specialist consultants. Clinical and practical implications are taken into account. This article could lead to significant benefits for clinical psychologists who want to deal with this sensitive issue and are interested in improving the quality of their contribution to the justice system.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Average number of errors per category.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4663720&req=5

Figure 4: Average number of errors per category.

Mentions: Regarding the second objective (see Appendix 2) 840 errors were identified: 193 attribution errors (22.98%), 85 inferential errors (10%) and 562 epistemological errors (66.9%) (Figure 4; Table 4, Average number of errors por category).


The Clinical Assessment in the Legal Field: An Empirical Study of Bias and Limitations in Forensic Expertise.

Iudici A, Salvini A, Faccio E, Castelnuovo G - Front Psychol (2015)

Average number of errors per category.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4663720&req=5

Figure 4: Average number of errors per category.
Mentions: Regarding the second objective (see Appendix 2) 840 errors were identified: 193 attribution errors (22.98%), 85 inferential errors (10%) and 562 epistemological errors (66.9%) (Figure 4; Table 4, Average number of errors por category).

Bottom Line: Results indicated that systematic errors of judgment, usually referred also as "the man in the street," are widely present in the forensic evaluations of specialist consultants.Clinical and practical implications are taken into account.This article could lead to significant benefits for clinical psychologists who want to deal with this sensitive issue and are interested in improving the quality of their contribution to the justice system.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova Padova, Italy.

ABSTRACT
According to the literature, psychological assessment in forensic contexts is one of the most controversial application areas for clinical psychology. This paper presents a review of systematic judgment errors in the forensic field. Forty-six psychological reports written by psychologists, court consultants, have been analyzed with content analysis to identify typical judgment errors related to the following areas: (a) distortions in the attribution of causality, (b) inferential errors, and (c) epistemological inconsistencies. Results indicated that systematic errors of judgment, usually referred also as "the man in the street," are widely present in the forensic evaluations of specialist consultants. Clinical and practical implications are taken into account. This article could lead to significant benefits for clinical psychologists who want to deal with this sensitive issue and are interested in improving the quality of their contribution to the justice system.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus