Forensic psychological examinations in personal injury cases: Empirical haves and have nots

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 79-95

  Greenberg, Stuart A ^a   Wheeler, Jennifer G ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Empirical basis; Forensic psychology examination; Personal injury; Psychological research; Torts

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; DISTRESS SYNDROME; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; INJURY; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL FUNCTION; MENTAL HEALTH; OFFENDER; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; SHORT SURVEY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 3042720627     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v04n01_06     Document Type: Short Survey

References (14)

1. Butcher, J. N., & Miller, K. B. (1999). Personality assessment in personal injury litigation. In A. K. Hess and I. B. Weiner, The handbook of forensic psychology (2nd ed.), (pp. 104-126). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2. Borum, R., Otto, R., & Golding, S. (1993). Improving clinical judgment and decision making in forensic evaluation. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 21(1) 35-76.
3. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 1991.
4. Ekman, P. (1992). Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. NY: WW Norton and Co., Inc.
5. Greenberg, S. A. (2003a). A Draft Model for Personal Injury Examinations in Personal Injury Examinations: The Application of Psychology to the Law of Torts of Emotional Distress. Unpublished manuscript, workshop materials of the American Academy of Forensic Psychology, Dallas, Texas.
6. Greenberg, S. A. (2003b). The forensic history questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript available for purchase from the author at 2815 Eastlake Ave E, Suite 220, Seattle, WA 98102.
7. Greenberg, S. A., Shuman, D. W., & Meyer, R. G. (in press). Unmasking Forensic Diagnosis, International J of Law and Psychiatry.
8. Holmes, T. H. & Rahe, R. H. 1967. The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-318.
9. Lees-Haley, P. R., Williams, C. W., Zasler, N. D., Margulies, S., English, L. T. & Stevens, K.B. (1997). Response bias in plaintiffs' histories. Brain Injury, 11, 791-799.
10. Schwarz, N. & Vaughn, L. A. (2002). The availability heuristic revisited: ease of recall and content of recall as distinct sources of information. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 103-119.
11. Shuman, D. W. and Greenberg, S. A. (in press). Expert witnesses, the adversary system, and the voice of reason: reconciling impartiality and advocacy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.
12. Shuman, D. W. (1994). Psychiatric and Psychological Evidence Pp. 6-12 (2d ed.). Colorado Springs, CO: Shepard's/McGraw-Hill, Inc.
13. Shuman, D. W. & Greenberg, S. A. (1998). The Role of Ethical Norms in the Admissibility of Expert Testimony. The Judges' Journal: A Quarterly of the Judicial Division, 37, NO. 1.
14. Simon, R. I. & Shuman, D. W. (Eds.) (2002). Retrospective assessment of mental states in litigation: Predicting the past. DC: American Psychiatric Press.