The Dirty Dozen: 12 Sources of Bias in Forensic Neuropsychology with Ways to Mitigate

Richards, Paul M.; Geiger, Jennifer A.; Tussey, Chriscelyn M.

doi:10.1007/s12207-015-9235-1

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mendel et al () demonstrated that psychiatrists' and medical students' confirmatory biases generate inaccurate diagnoses and therefore inappropriate treatments. Richards, Geiger, and Tussey () warns against the effects of confirmatory bias in forensic neuropsychological examinations.…”

Section: Confirmatory Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of Resist/Refuse Dynamics: Confirmatory Bias and Abductive Inference in Child Custody Evaluations

Garber¹

2020

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Had Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective, the great Sherlock Holmes, actually engaged in deductive reasoning, he would have solved many fewer crimes. In fact, Holmes' logical progression from astute observation to hypotheses is a model of a type of inductive reasoning. This paper argues that mental health professionals tasked to evaluate why a child is resisting/refusing contact with one parent must approach each family the way that Holmes approached each case, without a presumed suspect, moving systematically from detail to hypothesis, well‐versed in the full range of dynamics that may be at play, and erring in favor of parsimony rather than pathology. By contrast, the custody evaluator who approaches these matters through a deductive process, seeking data that support an a priori theory, is vulnerable to confirmatory bias and doing harm to the child whose interests are paramount. The literature concerned with resist/refuse dynamics is reviewed, yielding 13 non‐mutually exclusive variables that evaluators must consider so as to more fully identify why a particular child is resisting or refusing contact with one parent. On this basis, the hybrid model is expanded to include the full spectrum of contributing dynamics. Specific recommendations are made for judicial officers in the interest of writing orders for custody evaluations that minimize the risk of confirmatory bias. Key Points for the Family Court Community Deductive reasoning seeks to confirm or refute an a priori hypothesis Deductive reasoning is highly vulnerable to confirmational bias Confirmational bias can corrupt and invalidate forensic evaluation to the detriment of all involved Resist/refuse dynamics must be understood through an inductive process that is open to all possible hypotheses A survey of the literature identifies at least thirteen mutually compatible hypotheses, all of which must be evaluated Courts must take care to word orders for forensic family evaluations in a manner that minimizes confirmatory bias and invites inductive investigation

show abstract

Section: Confirmatory Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of Resist/Refuse Dynamics: Confirmatory Bias and Abductive Inference in Child Custody Evaluations

Garber¹

2020

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, the initial literature search may introduce confirmation bias, which is the tendency to interpret a study's results in favor of the author's opinion. 27 Thus, researchers must acknowledge both the supporting and opposing sides of a certain topic. For instance, Pickrell et al presented evidence in the management of atrophic mandible fractures regarding the use of thin or thick bone grafts.…”

Section: Pitfallsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing an Evidence-based Article in Plastic Surgery: Translating Research into High-quality Care

Wood

Kim

Chung

2019

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a triad that integrates the physician's medical expertise and the patient's individual characteristics with the best available scientific evidence. As patients become more active in the clinical decision-making process, the application of evidence-based practice in the field of plastic surgery is more critical now than ever. As a field that is recognized by its innovation, plastic surgeons must understand the various aspects of EBM to enhance and keep the field at the top of medical discovery. Many initiatives have been implemented to guide researchers in the collection, analysis, and distribution of high-quality evidence. In particular, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery introduced a new EBM series to provide plastic surgeons with the appropriate resources to generate and integrate high-quality evidence into their practices. As a part of this initiative, this article will assist researchers in producing an evidence-based article that is well-written, relevant, and impactful to incorporate evidence-based practice into the specialty.

show abstract

“…Much has been written about how forensic psychological expert testimony may be plagued by self-report bias (Richards et al, 2015;Young, 2016), i.e., the tendency of experts to rely extensively on what claimants say about their history and symptoms. Such self-reports can be unreliable, especially in forensic settings were incentives may play a role.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The prevalence of malingering in litigation and compensation cases might be as high as 15-30% (Young, 2015). The simple trauma approach advocated by Brand et al (2017a,b) completely ignores these statistics and if adopted by potential expert witnesses may lead to what has been termed base rate neglect (Richards et al, 2015), the failure to take into account alternative causal pathways that are as likely or even more likely than the diagnostic option with which the expert starts. Disregarding alternatives may result in a confirmatory mission and ultimately, in a false-positive error (e.g., misdiagnosing a person with a dissociative disorder).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why “Trauma-Related Dissociation” Is a Misnomer in Courts: a Critical Analysis of Brand et al. (2017a, b)

Patihis

2018

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic psychologists are sometimes faced with the task of educating triers of fact about the evidential weight of dissociative experiences reported by claimants in litigation procedures. In their two-part essay, Brand et al. (2017a,b) provide advice to experts who find themselves in such situation. We argue that the Brand et al. approach is problematic and might induce confirmation bias in experts. Their approach is not well connected to the extant literature on recovered memories, dissociative amnesia, memory distortions, and symptom validity testing. In some instances, Brand et al. (2017a,b) simplify the current body of knowledge about dissociation; in other instances, they ignore relevant empirical studies to an extent that is worrisome.

show abstract

The Dirty Dozen: 12 Sources of Bias in Forensic Neuropsychology with Ways to Mitigate

Cited by 24 publications

References 60 publications

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of Resist/Refuse Dynamics: Confirmatory Bias and Abductive Inference in Child Custody Evaluations

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of Resist/Refuse Dynamics: Confirmatory Bias and Abductive Inference in Child Custody Evaluations

Writing an Evidence-based Article in Plastic Surgery: Translating Research into High-quality Care

Why “Trauma-Related Dissociation” Is a Misnomer in Courts: a Critical Analysis of Brand et al. (2017a, b)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About