Third Party Presence During Criminal Forensic Evaluations: Psychologists' Opinions, Attitudes, and Practices

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 561-569

  Shealy, Clayton ^a   Cramer, Robert J ^b   Pirelli, Gianni ^c  

^a Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

^c CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

ethics; forensic evaluations; guidelines; psychological evaluations; third party observers

Indexed keywords

EID: 57949101474     PISSN: 07357028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.39.6.561     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. Policy statement on the presence of third party observers in neuropsychological assessments. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 15 (2001) 433-439
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing (1999), American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC
3. American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist 57 (2002) 1060-1073
4. Blase J.J. Trained third party presence during forensic neuropsychological evaluations. In: Horton A.M., and Hartlage L.C. (Eds). Handbook of forensic neuropsychology (2003), Springer Publishing, New York 369-381
5. Bond C.F., and Titus L.J. Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin 94 (1983) 265-292
6. Constantinou M., Ashendorf L., and McCaffrey R.J. When the third party observer of a neuropsychological evaluation is an audio recorder. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 16 (2002) 407-412
7. Constantinou M., Ashendorf L., and McCaffrey R.J. Effects of a third party observer during neuropsychological assessment: When the observer is a video camera. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology 4 (2005) 39-47
8. Cramer R.J., and Brodsky S.L. Undue influence or ensuring client's rights: Attorney presence during forensic psychology evaluations. Ethics & Behavior 17 (2007) 51-60
9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. S. Ct. (1993).
10. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 470, n14 (1981).
11. Harcourt Assessment. Legal policies (2006). http://harcourtassessment.com Retrieved July 9, 2006, from http://harcourtassessment.com
12. Kehrer C.A., Sanchez P.N., Habif U., Rosenbaum J.G., and Townes B.D. Effects of a significant-other observer on neuropsychological test performance. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 14 (2000) 67-71
13. Lynch J.K. The effect of an observer's presence on neuropsychological test performance: A test of the social facilitation phenomenon. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 57 (1997) 7230
14. McCaffrey R.J., Fisher J.M., Gold B.A., and Lynch J.K. Presence of third parties during neuropsychological evaluations: Who is evaluating who?. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 10 (1996) 435-449
15. National Academy of Neuropsychology. Presence of third party observers during neuropsychological testing: Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 15 (2000) 379-380
16. Shuman D.W. Psychiatric and psychological evidence. 2nd ed. (1994), McGraw-Hill, New York
17. Simon R.I. "Three's a crowd": The presence of third parties during a forensic psychiatric examination. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law 24 (1996) 3-25
18. United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 93 S Ct 2568, 37 L Ed 2d 619 (1973).
19. Zonana H. Ask the experts. Newsletter of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 21 (1996) 16-17