Review of Casuality of Psychological Injury: Presenting Evidence in Court
What do you expect when a defense-oriented forensic neuropsychologist writes a book review?
Obviously, you get a defense-oriented review.
My recent issue of Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 23 (2008) 221-227 recently arrived on my desk. Included was an interesting book review by Jerid Fisher, Ph.D., of a new book entitled “Causality of Psychological Injury: Presenting Evidence in Court” by Gerald Young, Andrew W. Kane and Keith Nicholson. According to Amazon.com:
“This sequel to the authors Psychological Knowledge in Court offers a welcome expansion on key concepts, terms, and issues in causality, bringing much needed clarity to psychological injury assessments and the legal contexts that employ them.
Focusing on PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and chronic pain (and grounding readers in salient U.S. and Canadian case law), Causality sets out a multifactorial causality framework to facilitate admissibility of psychological evidence in court. Issues concerning malingering are examined in depth, as are clinical gray areas that can jeopardize validity. At the same time, the book clearly explains what lawyers and clinicians need to understand about each others workof crucial importance since the two sides often seem to speak at cross-purposes.
The authors and six guest contributors
- Illustrate the roles of preexisting vulnerabilities, traumatic events, and post-event occurrences in psychological impairment and disability
- Review the literature on PTSD, TBI, and chronic pain for legal relevance
- Identify current challenges and controversies in the field, as well as emerging areas for research
- Recommend methods and instruments for conducting more courtworthy assessments
- Provide a detailed critical review of malingering and related phenomena
- Propose a more accurate, shared terminology of causality
Valid causality judgments are based on sound knowledge of research on large populations and careful testing of individuals; at the same time they must conform to stringent legal standards of relevance and reliability to be accepted for testimony. Forensic practitioners and attorneys will turn to Causality of Psychological Injury as their professional paths increasingly cross in seeking comprehensive and state of the art information.”
Unfortunately, Dr. Fisher fails to do the book justice. When Dr. Fisher agrees with the authors’ position he likes the chapter, but when he disagrees, he criticizes the authors of the specific chapter. For instance, Dr. Fisher writes “I was delighted to find a concise summary of why third-party observers should not be allowed during the course of forensic neuropsychological examination . . . The summary was so well done I shared it with several defense attorneys to facilitate their understanding of the methodological issues and legal precedence prohibiting third-party observers.”
On the other hand, when discussing the discredited fake bad scale, Dr. Fisher criticizes Nicholson and Martelli’s discussion of the fake bad scale, writing “While the authors discuss the fake bad scale, they ultimately dismiss its usefulness. These same authors (Chapter 16, Malingering: Traumatic Brain Injury) agree with the flawed conclusions of Butcher, et al. who have previously challenged the voracity of the FBS. Nicholson and Martelli failed to provide a balanced view of the literature on the FBS . . . ”
It is a shame that the editorial board of the Archives would select such a defense-oriented neuropsychologist to write this review and more surprising that they would publish such an unbalanced biased review of this book.
On the other hand, the review sparked my interest and I ordered the book and will provide my own viewpoint after I have had an opportunity to read it.
Search Post in Google | MSN | Yahoo! | Google Blogs | Technorati
