Psychojargon in the psycholegal report: Ratings by judges, psychiatrists, and psychologists

Park Elliott Dietz, Gerald Cooke, Jonas R. Rappeport, Ira T. Silvergleit

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Questionnaires designed to measure the perceived value of technical terminology for psycholegal reports were completed by 67 judges, 78 forensic psychiatrists, and 126 forensic psychologists. Judges were asked for ratings of the degree to which each term aids their understanding, and clinicians were asked for ratings of the likelihood that they would use each term in a report for the court. Rank‐ordered ratings of the 45 terms were highly correlated among the three respondent groups, suggesting that forensic clinicians are generally aware of the problem of using incomprehensible psychojargon. Empirical ratings can be helpful in distinguishing between comprehensible and incomprehensible psychojargon for psycholegal use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)77-84
Number of pages8
JournalBehavioral Sciences & the Law
Volume1
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1983
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Psychojargon in the psycholegal report: Ratings by judges, psychiatrists, and psychologists'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this