TY - JOUR
T1 - Ethical considerations for peer review in forensic neuropsychology
AU - Johnson-Greene, Doug
AU - Bechtold, Kathleen T.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Elizabeth, J. Bechtold, J.D. who kindly reviewed our interpretation of the legal cares cited in this paper. Support for this paper was provided in part through a generous grant from the Medstar Research Institute # 2001-111.
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - The role of an expert is to assist the trier of fact in weighing evidence and reaching conclusions. Critical evaluation of opposing experts is an integral part of this process. In more recent times, cross-examination has given way to critical evaluation of opposing experts outside of the courtroom, a tactic we refer to as peer review in this paper. Though neuropsychologists frequently review the work of their colleagues, we are concerned here primarily with commentary that is at best misleading, and occasionally malicious, unethical, and unprofessional. Despite a growing trend to use experts as peer reviewers in the medicolegal arena, expectations concerning ethical and professional conduct of neuropsychologists have been absent. Enforcement of appropriate conduct is further complicated by the ambiguity of existing ethical standards and state statutes, and their limited applicability to all neuropsychologists who provide forensic services. This article provides an overview of ethical and professional issues pertaining to forensic peer review and concludes with recommendations for appropriate professional conduct.
AB - The role of an expert is to assist the trier of fact in weighing evidence and reaching conclusions. Critical evaluation of opposing experts is an integral part of this process. In more recent times, cross-examination has given way to critical evaluation of opposing experts outside of the courtroom, a tactic we refer to as peer review in this paper. Though neuropsychologists frequently review the work of their colleagues, we are concerned here primarily with commentary that is at best misleading, and occasionally malicious, unethical, and unprofessional. Despite a growing trend to use experts as peer reviewers in the medicolegal arena, expectations concerning ethical and professional conduct of neuropsychologists have been absent. Enforcement of appropriate conduct is further complicated by the ambiguity of existing ethical standards and state statutes, and their limited applicability to all neuropsychologists who provide forensic services. This article provides an overview of ethical and professional issues pertaining to forensic peer review and concludes with recommendations for appropriate professional conduct.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036267374&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036267374&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1076/clin.16.1.97.8335
DO - 10.1076/clin.16.1.97.8335
M3 - Review article
C2 - 11992232
AN - SCOPUS:0036267374
SN - 1385-4046
VL - 16
SP - 97
EP - 104
JO - Clinical Neuropsychologist
JF - Clinical Neuropsychologist
IS - 1
ER -