Avoiding bias in expert testimony

Psychiatric Annals

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 260-270

  Gutheil, Thomas G ^a,c   Simon, Robert I ^b  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COMPETITION; EXPERIENCE; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LAW; LAWYER; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MONEY; NARCISSISM; POLITICAL SYSTEM; PSYCHIATRIST; RELIGION; REVIEW; TRANSFERENCE;

EID: 2342436106     PISSN: 00485713     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3928/0048-5713-20040401-06     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. Ethical guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. 1995. Available online at: http://www.emory. edu/AAPL/ethics.htm. Accessed February 20, 2004.
2. Gutheil TG. The Psychiatrist as Expert Witness. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1998.
3. Gutheil TG, Simon RI. Mastering Forensic Psychiatric Practice: Advanced Strategies for the Expert Witness. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2002.
4. Lynette E, Rogers R. Emotions overriding forensic opinions? The potentially biasing effect of victim statements. J Psychiatry Law. 2000;28(4):449-457.
5. Gutheil TG, Commons ML, Miller PM. Personal questions on cross examination: a pilot study of expert witness attitudes. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2001;29(1):85-88.
6. Melton GB, Petrilla J, Poythress NG, et al. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1997.
7. Strasburger LH, Miller PM, Commons MC, Gutheil TG, LaLlave J. Stress and the forensic psychiatrist: a pilot study. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2003;31(1):18-26.
8. Commons ML, Miller PM, Gutheil TG. Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. In press.
9. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
10. Anonymous (review). In discussion of: Commons ML, Miller PM, Gutheil TG. Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. In press.
11. Strasburger LH, Gutheil TG, Brodsky A. On wearing two hats: role conflict in serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness. Am J Psychiatry. 1997;154(4):448-456.
12. Schouten R. Pitfalls of clinical practice: the treating clinician as expert witness. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1993;1(1):64-65.
13. Gutheil TG, Simon RI. Attorney pressures on the expert witness: early warning signs of endangered honesty, objectivity and fair compensation. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1999;27(4):546-553.
14. Gutheil TG, Commons ML, Miller PM. Withholding, seducing and threatening: a pilot study of further attorney pressures on expert witnesses. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2001;29(3):336-339.
15. Gutheil TG, Commons ML, Miller PM. Expert witness billing practices revisited: a pilot study of further data. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2001;29(2):202-206.
16. Dietz PE. The quest for excellence in forensic psychiatry. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1996;24(2):153-163.
17. Weinstock R, Leong GG, Silva J. Opinions by AAPL forensic psychiatrists on controversial ethical guidelines: a survey. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1997;19(3):237-248.
18. Unger R, ed. Handbook of the Psychology of Women and Gender. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
19. Slovenko R. The hazards of writing or disclosing information in psychiatry. Behav Sci Law. 1983;1(1):109-127.
20. Diamond BL. The fallacy of the impartial expert. Arch Criminal Psychodynamics. 1959;3:221-236.
21. Simon RI. The credible forensic psychiatric evaluation in multiple chemical sensitivity litigation. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1998;26(3):361-374.
22. Simon RI, Wettstein RM. Toward the development of guidelines for the conduct of forensic examinations. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1997;25(1):17-30.
23. Shuman DW. The use of empathy in forensic examinations. Ethics & Behavior. 1994;3(3 and 4):289-302.