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。

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":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:这篇美国临床神经心理学学会(AACN)最佳实践论文的目的是为神经心理学社区提供一个称职的法医审查记录的基础。方法:叙事性回顾,探讨与文献回顾相关的基本因素。举例强调了法医鉴定创伤性脑损伤(TBI)所必需的信息,以及可用于解决有关陈述有效性问题的记录数据。美国内部的国际和司法管辖区的观点被用来说明遵守规则的审查的必要性。结果:确定的因素包括道德责任、获取和审查相关记录的完整性、记录的可信度评估、对考生自我报告的考虑、同行评议科学的观点基础、确定诉讼背景下的因果关系、避免报告中的偏见,以及考虑文化和语言因素。不同的司法规则需要密切关注。结论:神经心理学家需要意识到需要对记录进行有效的审查,以获得基本事实,保持客观性,并为神经心理学检查报告中的结论提供背景。在诉讼案件中,仅仅基于对记录的审查的意见可能会受到质疑,原因可能包括没有亲自评估原告,以及这些意见是否符合与充分的科学依据和事实有关的道伯特标准。在审查的背景下进行彻底的审查有助于处理当事人/索赔人的主观性和自我报告的可塑性,它可以为与因果关系相关的其他因素提供批判性推理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Neuropsychological review of records in forensic cases: An AACN best practices paper with international perspectives.

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.

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
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