Neuropsychological review of records in forensic cases: An AACN best practices paper with international perspectives.

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
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.

法医案件中的神经心理学记录审查:具有国际视野的 AACN 最佳实践文件。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信