Undue influence or ensuring rights?: Attorney presence during forensic psychology evaluations

Ethics and Behavior

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 51-60

  Cramer, Robert J ^a,b   Brodsky, Stanley L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Attorney presence; Ethics; Forensic evaluation; Third party presence

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548572607     PISSN: 10508422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508420701310059     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN). (2001). Policy statement on the presence of third party observers in neuropsychological assessment. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 433-439.
2. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
3. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
4. Binder, L. M., & Johnson-Greene, D. (1995). Observer effects on neuropsychological performance: A case report. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 74-78.
5. Brodsky, S. L. (1999). The expert expert witness: More maxims and guidelines for testifying in court. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. Brodsky, S. L., Kruh, I., & Hovey, M. A. (1996). Clinical testimony about child abuse: Fears and effectiveness. Ohio Psychologist, 43(6), 4-6.
7. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
8. Constantinou, M., Ashendorf, L., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2002). When the third party observer of a neuropsychological evaluation is an audio recorder. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16, 407-412.
9. Constantinou, M., Ashendorf, L., & McCaffrey, R.J. (2005). Effects of a third party observer during neuropsychological assessment: When the observer is a video camera. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 39-47.
10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. S. Ct. (1993).
11. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981).
12. Greenfield, D. P. (1999). Psychiatry/psychology: Psychiatric/ psychological evaluations should not be observed or recorded by opposing counsel. Forensic Examiner, 8(1-2), 23-26.
13. Kehrer, C. A., Sanchez, P. N., Habif, U., Rosenbaum, J. G., & Townes, B. D. (2000). Effects of a significant-other observer on neuropsychological test performance. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14, 67-71.
14. Lee, D., & Reynolds, C. R., & Willson, V. L. (2003), Standardized test administration: Why bother? Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 3, 55-81.
15. Lynch, J. K. (2005). Effect of a third party observer on neuropsychological test performance following closed head injury. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4, 17-25.
16. Lynch, J. K., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2004). Neuropsychological assessments in the presence of third parties: Ethical issues and literature review. NYS Psychologist, 16(3), 25-29.
17. McCaffrey, R. J., Fisher, J. M., Gold, B. A., & Lynch, J. K. (1996). Presence of third parties during neuropsychological evaluations: Who is evaluating who? Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10, 435-449.
18. McSweeney, A. J., Becker, B. C., Naugle, R. I., Snow, W. G., Binder, L. M., & Thompson, L. L. (1998). Ethical issues related to the presence of third party observers in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. Clinica\Neuropsychologist, 12, 552-559.
19. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J. Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
20. National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN). (2000). Presence of third party observers during neuropsychological testing: Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 379-380.
21. Rachlin, S., & Schwartz, H. I. (1988). The presence of counsel at forensic psychiatric examinations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 33, 1008-1014.
22. Simon, R. I. (1996). "Three's a crowd": The presence of third parties during a forensic psychiatric examination. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 24, 3-25.
23. Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). How effective is the presence-of counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased line-up procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 64-75.
24. van Gorp, W., & McMullen, W. J. (1997). Possible sources of bias in forensic neuropsychological evaluations. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 180-187.