Testifying in Court: Guidelines and Maxims for the Expert Witness, Second Edition

and James R. Flens. Dense, highly technical language is used to derive the primary point: this test can add to hypothesis testing in the forensic context, especially if the data are compared with and interpreted in the context of the interview and with other data available in a forensic context. The ASEBA gathers self-report and collateral data by using a range of instruments to assess behavioral, emotional, and adaptive functioning across the lifespan, yielding competence profiles, and assessing the patient for empirically based diagnoses, such as those in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, by means of computerized calculations that also produce a narrative report. As with other tests, when properly used, the ASEBA can yield valid data in forensic settings. However, when such an instrument is improperly used (e.g., scored by a computer), it may generate quantitative data that are presented in the context of a narrative (familiar, easy to follow, and intelligible) report that can create a sense of coherence and “truthiness” that is not always justified. According to the back matter, this is a clearly written book that is accessible to both the novice and experienced clinician. I could not disagree more. This multiauthored text is written in dense technical language. The knowledge assumed in psychology and forensic psychology is considerable. Absent formal training in psychology, the material covered extends beyond the scope of knowledge and expertise of most forensic psychiatrists. Some chapters are more accessible than others. The chapters review in detail the validity research for tests and subtests, to help prepare psychologists for testimony as to the validity of measures used with respect to the question posed by the court. For forensic psychiatrists interested in going deeper into this field the answer to the question posed in the first paragraph is a qualified yes.