Clinical Neuropsychology in the Criminal Forensic Setting

Denney, Robert L.; Wynkoop, Timothy F.

doi:10.1097/00001199-200004000-00005

Cited by 59 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Three recent book chapters worth reading include: Bush (2003), who describes a solo neuropsychology practice that includes a significant component of forensic referrals; Heilbronner and Pliskin (2002), who discuss the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of neuropsychology in the forensic arena; and Sweet, Grote, et al (2002) who emphasize ethical issues in forensic neuropsychology. More detailed information about specific aspects of forensic practice can also be found in any number of other articles related to: disability determination (Puente, 1987); traumatic brain injury litigation (Heilbronner & Karavidas, 1997); competency issues (Marson, Cody, Ingram, & Harrell, 1995); and criminal law (Denney & Wynkoop, 2000;Martell, 1992). Of course, the topic of malingering assessment has become PRACTICE OF FORENSIC NEUROPSYCHOLOGY 315 somewhat of a ''cottage industry'' unto itself and is one area in which neuropsychologists have already proven their worth and value to those in the legal arena (Gouvier, Lees-Haley, Hayes-Hammer, 2002;Reynolds, 1998).…”

Section: Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Status Report On the Practice of Forensic Neuropsychology

Heilbronner

2004

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The practice of forensic neuropsychology has experienced tremendous growth over the past two decades, becoming perhaps the most rapidly expanding area of practice within the field of clinical neuropsychology. Indeed, there have been many important advancements in the field that have helped to position neuropsychologists as instrumental participants within the forensic arena. Yet, there is currently no consensus in our field regarding what constitutes competency in forensic neuropsychology and also no specific guidelines or standards of practice to inform neuropsychologists about how to operate in the forensic arena. There are even fewer safeguards to protect the public from questionable methods of practice. This article provides a status report on the practice of forensic neuropsychology. It employs a framework emphasized by Otto and Heilbrun (2002) in their assessment of the field of forensic psychology. Emphasis is directed toward identifying recent advances in the field and documenting some of the inherent flaws and weaknesses in forensic practice to help advance the practice of forensic neuropsychology toward a more established specialty area.

show abstract

Section: Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Status Report On the Practice of Forensic Neuropsychology

Heilbronner

2004

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases, the presence of neuropsychological impairments may have direct implications for legal competency and legal responsibility (Denney & Wynkoop, 2000) as well as judgments about the risk for future criminal behavior (Hancock, Tapscott, & Hoaken, 2010;Sreenivasan et al, 1997). It is essential for mental health professionals working with these patients to have an accurate understanding of the risk that institutionalized psychiatric patients have for neuropsychological impairment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Self-Reported Neuropsychological Risk Factors and RBANS Test Performance Among Forensically Committed Psychiatric Inpatients

Bailie

King

Kinney

et al. 2012

Applied Neuropsychology: Adult

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients who are committed to a psychiatric inpatient hospital are at increased risk for neuropsychological compromise. This study investigated a large (n = 260) and diverse sample of patients at a forensic state psychiatric hospital. A substantial proportion (35.8%) of the sample performed two standard deviations below the normative mean on the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). In addition, 65% of the participants reported a history of developmental delays, less than 12 years of education, or past learning difficulties. Participants who reported these developmental and academic problems performed worse on the RBANS compared with those without such a history. Additionally, the more developmental/educational risk factors a participant reported, the more likely they were to be impaired on the RBANS. Half of the sample reported a history of at least one neurological risk factor (e.g., history of head injury with loss of consciousness). However, in this sample, a history of neurological risk factors did not influence overall performance on the RBANS and did not increase the likelihood of impairment. These results speak to the relevance of neuropsychological services at state psychiatric hospitals and provide some evidence that a history of developmental or academic problems may help identify psychiatric patients with neuropsychological compromise.

show abstract

“…Neuropsychological testing taps specific behaviors that are associated with brain function in a valid, reliable and Daubert-worthy way (Stern, 2001), and serves as a natural bridge between the structural and functional neurophysiological parameters measured by neuroimaging, and the actual cognitive and behavioral strengths and weaknesses of the individual that may be relevant in court (Denney & Sullivan, 2008;Martell, 1992). Because of its unique ability to link scan patterns with specific behaviors, neuropsychological testing should be routinely incorporated as an integral part of all forensic neuroimaging cases as a means of assisting the trier of fact to understand the behavioral ramifications of any brain defects identified by either structural or functional imaging.…”

Section: Scientifically Supported Usesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroscience and the law: Philosophical differences and practical constraints

Martell¹

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controversies surrounding the value of neuroscience as forensic evidence are explored from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, as well as from a practical analysis of the state of the scientific research literature. At a fundamental philosophical level there are profound differences in how law and neuroscience view the issue of criminal responsibility along the continuum from free will to determinism. At a more practical level, significant limitations in the current state of neuroimaging research constrain its ability to inform legal decision-making. Scientifically supported and unsupported forensic applications for brain imaging are discussed, and recommendations for forensic report writing are offered.

show abstract

Clinical Neuropsychology in the Criminal Forensic Setting

Cited by 59 publications

References 37 publications

A Status Report On the Practice of Forensic Neuropsychology

A Status Report On the Practice of Forensic Neuropsychology

The Relationship Between Self-Reported Neuropsychological Risk Factors and RBANS Test Performance Among Forensically Committed Psychiatric Inpatients

Neuroscience and the law: Philosophical differences and practical constraints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About