The clinical assessment in the legal field: An empirical study of bias and limitations in forensic expertise

Antonio Iudici, Alessandro Salvini, Elena Faccio, Gianluca Castelnuovo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

According to the literature, psychological assessment in forensic contexts is one of the most controversial application areas for clinical psychology. This paper presents a review of systematic judgment errors in the forensic field. Forty-six psychological reports written by psychologists, court consultants, have been analyzed with content analysis to identify typical judgment errors related to the following areas: (a) distortions in the attribution of causality, (b) inferential errors, and (c) epistemological inconsistencies. Results indicated that systematic errors of judgment, usually referred also as "the man in the street," are widely present in the forensic evaluations of specialist consultants. Clinical and practical implications are taken into account. This article could lead to significant benefits for clinical psychologists who want to deal with this sensitive issue and are interested in improving the quality of their contribution to the justice system.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1831
JournalFrontiers in Psychology
Volume6
Issue numberNOV
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Psychology
Consultants
Clinical Psychology
Social Justice
Causality

Keywords

  • Assestment
  • Bias
  • Clinical trials as topic
  • Forensic psychiatry
  • Forensic psychology
  • Systematic error

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

The clinical assessment in the legal field : An empirical study of bias and limitations in forensic expertise. / Iudici, Antonio; Salvini, Alessandro; Faccio, Elena; Castelnuovo, Gianluca.

In: Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6, No. NOV, 1831, 2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{042ec54e03e24be7af19069d47dfca86,
title = "The clinical assessment in the legal field: An empirical study of bias and limitations in forensic expertise",
abstract = "According to the literature, psychological assessment in forensic contexts is one of the most controversial application areas for clinical psychology. This paper presents a review of systematic judgment errors in the forensic field. Forty-six psychological reports written by psychologists, court consultants, have been analyzed with content analysis to identify typical judgment errors related to the following areas: (a) distortions in the attribution of causality, (b) inferential errors, and (c) epistemological inconsistencies. Results indicated that systematic errors of judgment, usually referred also as {"}the man in the street,{"} are widely present in the forensic evaluations of specialist consultants. Clinical and practical implications are taken into account. This article could lead to significant benefits for clinical psychologists who want to deal with this sensitive issue and are interested in improving the quality of their contribution to the justice system.",
keywords = "Assestment, Bias, Clinical trials as topic, Forensic psychiatry, Forensic psychology, Systematic error",
author = "Antonio Iudici and Alessandro Salvini and Elena Faccio and Gianluca Castelnuovo",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01831",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
journal = "Frontiers in Psychology",
issn = "1664-1078",
publisher = "Frontiers Media S.A.",
number = "NOV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The clinical assessment in the legal field

T2 - An empirical study of bias and limitations in forensic expertise

AU - Iudici, Antonio

AU - Salvini, Alessandro

AU - Faccio, Elena

AU - Castelnuovo, Gianluca

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - According to the literature, psychological assessment in forensic contexts is one of the most controversial application areas for clinical psychology. This paper presents a review of systematic judgment errors in the forensic field. Forty-six psychological reports written by psychologists, court consultants, have been analyzed with content analysis to identify typical judgment errors related to the following areas: (a) distortions in the attribution of causality, (b) inferential errors, and (c) epistemological inconsistencies. Results indicated that systematic errors of judgment, usually referred also as "the man in the street," are widely present in the forensic evaluations of specialist consultants. Clinical and practical implications are taken into account. This article could lead to significant benefits for clinical psychologists who want to deal with this sensitive issue and are interested in improving the quality of their contribution to the justice system.

AB - According to the literature, psychological assessment in forensic contexts is one of the most controversial application areas for clinical psychology. This paper presents a review of systematic judgment errors in the forensic field. Forty-six psychological reports written by psychologists, court consultants, have been analyzed with content analysis to identify typical judgment errors related to the following areas: (a) distortions in the attribution of causality, (b) inferential errors, and (c) epistemological inconsistencies. Results indicated that systematic errors of judgment, usually referred also as "the man in the street," are widely present in the forensic evaluations of specialist consultants. Clinical and practical implications are taken into account. This article could lead to significant benefits for clinical psychologists who want to deal with this sensitive issue and are interested in improving the quality of their contribution to the justice system.

KW - Assestment

KW - Bias

KW - Clinical trials as topic

KW - Forensic psychiatry

KW - Forensic psychology

KW - Systematic error

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949641546&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84949641546&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01831

DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01831

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84949641546

VL - 6

JO - Frontiers in Psychology

JF - Frontiers in Psychology

SN - 1664-1078

IS - NOV

M1 - 1831

ER -