Ethical issues in forensic psychology

Learning Forensic Assessment

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 55-73

  Connell, Mary A ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949553079     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203939888     Document Type: Chapter

References (44)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
2. American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677-680.
3. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
4. Bala, N. (2005). Tippins and Wittman asked the wrong questions: Evaluators may not be "experts," but they can express best interests opinions. Family Court Review, 43, 554-562.
5. Bennett, B.E., Bryant, B.K., VandenBos, G.R., & Greenwood, A. (1990). Professional liability and risk management. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. Bow, J.N., & Quinnell, F.A. (2004). Critique of child custody evaluations by the legal profession. Family Court Review, 42, 115-126.
7. Bush, S.S., Connell, M.A., & Denney, R.L. (2006). Ethical practice in forensic Psychology: A systematic model for decision making. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8. Canadian Psychological Association. (2000). Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (3rd ed.). Accessed on November 23, 2006 at http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Canadian%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20for%20Psycho.pdf.
9. Canadian Psychological Association (2001).Practice guidelines for providers of psychological services. Ottawa, Ontario: Author.
10. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, American Psychology-Law Society and Division 41 of the APA (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
11. Connell, M. (2006). Notification of purpose in custody evaluation: Informing the parties and their counsel. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 37, 446-451.
12. Connell, M. & Koocher, G. (2003). HIPAA & forensic practice. American Psychology Law Society News, 23, 16-19.
13. Constantinou, M., Ashendorf, L., & McCaffrey, R.J. (2002). When the 3rd party observer of a neuropsychological evaluation is an audio-recorder. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16, 407-412.
14. Constantinou, M., & McCaffrey, R.J. (2003). The effects of 3rd party observation: When the observer is a video camera. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 788-789.
15. Cunningham, M.D. (2006). Informed consent in capital sentencing evaluations: Targets and content. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 37, 452-459.
16. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
17. Erard, R.E. (2006). Tell it to the judge!: A counter-perspective to Wittman & Tippins (2005) on ultimate issue testimony in child custody matters. National Psychologist, 15, 1.
18. Foote, W.E. & Shuman, D.W. (2006). Consent, disclosure, and waiver for the forensic psychological evaluation: rethinking the roles of psychologist and lawyer. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 37, 437-445.
19. Frederick, R. (1997) Validity Indicator Profile. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.
20. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir 1923).
21. Gould, J.W., Kirkpatrick, H.D., Austin, W.G., & Martindale, D.A. (2004). Critiquing a colleague's forensic work product: A suggested protocol for application to child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 1, 37-64.
22. Greenberg, S., & Shuman, D. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 50-57.
23. Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
24. Grisso, T. (1990). Evolving guidelines for divorce/custody evaluations. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 28, 35-41.
25. Harcourt Assessment (2003). HIPAA position statement. Accessed November 21, 2006, at http://harcourtassessment.com/hai/images/pdf/legal/HIPAA_Position.pdf.
26. Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
27. Heilbrun, K., Warren, J., & Picarello, K. (2003). Third party information in forensic assessment. In A. Goldstein, (Ed.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 69-86). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
28. Iverson, G.L., & Slick, D.J. (2003). Ethical issues associated with psychological and neuropsychological assessment of persons from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. In I.Z. Schultz & D.O. Brady (Eds.), Psychological injuries at trial (pp. 2066-2087). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
29. Kehrer, C.A., Sanchez, P.N., Habif, U., Rosenbaum, G.J., & Townes, B.D. (2000). Effects of a significant-other observer on neuropsychological test performance. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition, 14, 67-71.
30. Knapp, S., & Vandecreek, L. (2003). A guide to the 2002 revision of the American Psychological Association's Ethics Code. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
31. Koocher, G.P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1998). Ethics in psychology: Professional standards and cases (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Lynch, J.K. (2003). The effect of an observer on neuropsychological test performance following TBI. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 791.
33. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Mil. R. Evid. 513 (2000).
34. Martindale, D.A., & Gould, J.W. (2004). The forensic model: Ethics and scientific methodology applied to custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 1, 1-22.
35. Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts. New York: The Guilford Press.
36. Otto, R., Buffington-Vollum, J., & Edens, J.F. (2002). Child custody evaluation. In A.M. Goldstein (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 11: Forensic Psychology (pp. 179-208). New York: Wiley.
37. Pearson Assessments. (2005). HIPAA regulations: Frequently asked questions. Accessed at http://www.pearsonassessments.com/catalog/hipaa.pdf on November 21, 2006
38. Shuman, D.W., & Greenberg, S.A. (2003). The expert witness, the adversary system, and the voice of reason: Reconciling impartiality and advocacy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 219-224.
39. Shuman, D.W., & Greenberg, S.A. (1998, winter). The role of ethical norms in the admissibility of expert testimony. The Judge's Journal, 5-9 & 42.
40. Social Security Act § 1172(e) (codified at 42 U.S.C.§ 1320d-1(e)).
41. Tippins, T.M., & Wittman, J.P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43, 193-222.
42. Tombaugh, T. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
43. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1996). Public Law 104-191: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Retrieved November 24, 2003 from http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/.
44. Wechsler, D. (1997). Weschsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.