The Rigor of Research Design and “Forensic” Publications in Neuropsychological Research

Abstract

Seven neuropsychology journals that publish on topics relevant to clinical neuropsychology were examined for their experimental rigor according to the standards of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) in their Clinical Practice Guidelines. By using a keyword approach on topics relevant to forensic neuropsychology, all articles that reported empirical findings from 2003 through 2008 were identified. Each study was rated by AAN classification criteria that ranged from a level I classification (prospective, most rigorous, and independent) to level IV (least rigorous). The typical forensic neuropsychological study averaged a class III ranking. Few studies were based on large sample sizes or utilized a reported masking or blind technique with regards to subject selection and how diagnostic criteria were met and/or data analyzed. While the authors for the average study reported a university affiliation, few reported explicit Institutional Review Board statements. Considerable variability across these seven journals with regards to conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies was observed and only a few studies reported explicit statements about funding or COI issues. These observations suggest that neuropsychological research on forensic topics currently has many limitations and that future research needs to address these issues.

Psychological Injury and Law: Editorial Policies on Defamation and Disclosure

“…In addition to Bigler et al (2009), Williams et al (2009, in an article that is tentatively scheduled for publication in the next issue of this journal, have disclosed fully all relevant potential conflicts of interest in their article. Both articles referred to PIL as having good disclosure policies.…”

“…In many or most legal jurisdictions, by taking reasonable precautions to ensure accuracy in every detail, the individual will not be held liable for defamation or libel, even if a statement turns out to be false and defamatory or libelous. Bigler et al (2009) have published an article in the present issue of PIL that suggests a policy that the journal should adopt with respect to full disclosure about the categories that they present, at least where they are applicable. The authors used a format in which they disclosed: (a) author contributions; (b) study concept and design; (c) acquisition of data; (d) analysis and interpretation of data; (e) drafting of the manuscript; (f) critical revisions of the manuscript for important intellectual content; (g) statistical analysis; (h) administrative, technical, and material support; (i) supervision; (j) financial disclosures; and (k) funding/support.…”