Advertisement

Selected Issues in Forensic Neuropsychology

  • Brian Goodyear
  • Douglas Umetsu

Summary

Despite its rapid growth in recent years, in many respects the field of forensic neuropsychology is still in its infancy. Numerous opportunities remain for neuropsychologists who wish to include some form of forensic work in their scope of practice. A good deal more research needs to be done in specific areas of interest to forensic neuropsychologists, such as malingering, mild TBI and toxic exposure. In addition, despite the proliferation of tests in recent years, there remains a need for the development of a state of the art, psychometrically sophisticated, comprehensive test battery that will permit neuropsychologists to be optimally rigorous and scientific in their work. The forensic role of neuropsychology, along with many other disciplines, is still being clarified by the courts. The full implications of the Daubert decision are not yet clear, but it would seem that the utility of neuropsychological testimony is sufficiently established in the forensic arena that its complete exclusion is highly unlikely. Regardless of whether neuropsychological testimony is ultimately defined as scientific knowledge or as some form of technical knowledge, it is incumbent on neuropsychologists to demonstrate that forensic neuropsychology is conducted in a rigorous, unbiased, professional manner so that opinions and conclusions can truly be offered with a reasonable degree of neuropsychological probability.

Keywords

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Expert Testimony Diffuse Axonal Injury Mild Head Injury Select Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, L., & Green, P. (1999). CARB and WMT effort scores in 57 patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, M.P. (1995). Mild traumatic brain injury: Pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical management. Neurology, 45, 1253–1260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, M.P. (1997). Minor traumatic brain injury: A review of physiogenesis and psychogenesis. Seminars in Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 2, 177–187.Google Scholar
  4. American Medical Association (2001). Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment (5th ed.). Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
  5. American Medical Association (1999). International classification of diseases, 9th rev., clinical modification. Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
  6. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  7. Axelrod, B.N., Vanderploeg, R.D., & Schinka, J.A. (1999). Comparing methods for estimating premorbid intellectual functioning. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14, 341–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berent, S. & Swartz, C.L. (1999). Essential psychometrics. In J.J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice (pp. 1–26). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  9. Berry, D.T.R., Wetter, M.W., Baer, R.A., Youngjohn, J.R., Gass, C.S., Lamb, D.G., Franzen, M.D., MacInnes, W.D., & Buchholz, D. (1995). Overreporting of closed-head injury symptoms on the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment, 7, 517–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bieliauskas, L. (1999). The measurement of personality and emotional functioning. In J.J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice (pp. 121–143). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  11. Binder, L.M. & Willis, S.C. (1991). Assessment of motivation after financially compensable minor head injury. Psychological Assessment, 3, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Binder, L.M. (1993). Assessment of malingering after mild head trauma with the Portland Digit Recognition Test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15, 170–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Binder, L.M., & Rohling, M.L. (1996). Money matters: A meta-analytic review of the effects of financial incentives on recovery after closed-head injury. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 7–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Binder, L.M. (1997). A review of mild head trauma. Part II: Clinical implications. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 19, 432–457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Binder, L.M., Rohling, M.L., & Larrabee, G.J. (1997). A review of mild head trauma. Part I: Meta-analytic review of neuropsychological studies. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 19, 421–431.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Blair, J.R., & Spreen, O. (1989). Predicting premorbid IQ: A revision of the National Adult Reading Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 3, 129–136.Google Scholar
  17. Boone, K.B., & Lu, P.H. (1999). Impact of somatoform symptomatology on credibility of cognitive performance. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 414–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Brandt, J. (1988). Malingered amnesia. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp.65–83). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Butcher, J.N., Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J.R., Tellegen, A. & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Manual for administration and scoring the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory — 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chapple v. Ganger. 851 F.Supp. 1481 (E.D. Wash, 1994).Google Scholar
  21. Conder, R., Allen, L., & Cox, D. (1992). Computerized Assessment of Response Bias test manual. Durham, NC: CogniSyst.Google Scholar
  22. Cripe, L.I. (1999). The use of the MMPI with closed head injury. In N.R. Varney & R.J. Roberts (Eds.), The evaluation and treatment of mild traumatic brain injury. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Cullum, C.M., Heaton, R.K., & Grant, I. (1991). Psychogenic factors influencing neuropsychological performance: Somatoform disorders, factitious disorders and malingering. In H.O. Doerr & A.S. Carlin (Eds.), Forensic neuropsychology: Legal and scientific bases. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  24. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).Google Scholar
  25. Dikmen, S.S., McLean, A., & Temkin, N. (1986). Neuropsychological and psychosocial consequences of mild head injury. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 49, 1227–1232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Dikmen, S.S., & Levin, H.S. (1993). Methodological issues in the study of mild head injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 8(3), 30–37.Google Scholar
  27. Dikmen, S.S., Machamer, J.E., Winn, H.R., & Temkin, N.R. (1995). Neuropsychological outcome at 1-year post head injury. Neuropsychology, 9, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Erlanger, D.M., Kutner, K.C., Barth, J.T., & Barnes, R. (1999). Neuropsychology of sports-related head injury: Dementia pugilistica to post concussion syndrome. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 193–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Faust, D., Ziskin, J., & Hiers, J.B. (1991). Brain damage claims: Coping with neuropsychological evidence. Los Angeles: Law and Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ford, C.V. (1995). Conversion disorder and somatoform disorder not otherwise specifed. In G.O. Gabbard (Ed.), Treatments of psychiatric disorders (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1735–1753). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  31. Frederick, R.I. (1997). Validity Indicator Profile: Manual. Minnetonka: NCS Assessments.Google Scholar
  32. Gasquoine, P.G. (1997). Postconcussion symptoms. Neuropsychology Review, 7, 77–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. General Electric Co. v. Joiner. 117 S. Ct. 1243 (1997).Google Scholar
  34. Gennarelli, T.A., & Graham, D.I. (1998). Neuropathology of the head injuries. Seminars in Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 3, 160–175.Google Scholar
  35. Gervais, R., Green, P., & Allen, L. (1999). Differential sensitivity to symptom exaggeration of verbal, visual, and numerical symptom validity tests. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  36. Glass, L.S. (1991). The legal base in forensic neuropsychology. In H.O. Doerr & A.S. Carlin (Eds.), Forensic neuropsychology: legal and scientific bases. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  37. Gouvier, W., Uddo-Crane, M., & Brown, L. (1988). Base rates of post-concussional symptoms. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 3, 273–278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Gouvier, W.D. (1999). Base rates and clinical decision making in neuropsychology. In J.J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice (pp. 27–37). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  39. Green, W.P., Allen, L.M., & Astner, K. (1996). The Word Memory Test: A user’s guide to the oral and computer-administered forms. Durham, NC: CogniSyst.Google Scholar
  40. Griffenstein, M.F., Baker, W.J., & Gola, T. (1994). Validation of malingered amnesia measures with a large clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 6, 218–224.Google Scholar
  41. Guilmette, T.J., Hart, K.J., & Giuliano, A.J. (1993). Malingering detection: The use of a forced-choice method in identifying organic versus simulated memory impairment. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 59–69.Google Scholar
  42. Hartman, D.E. (1999). Neuropsychology and the (neuro)toxic tort. In J.J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice (pp. 339–367). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  43. Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. (1951). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory manual. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  44. Heaton, R., Grant, I., & Matthews, C. (1991). Comprehensive norms for an expanded Halstead-Reitan battery. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  45. Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hoffman, R.G., Scott, J.G., Emick, M.A., & Adams, R.L. (1999). The MMPI-2 and closed-head injury: Effects of litigation and head injury severity. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 1(2), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Iverson, G.L., & Binder, L.M. (2000). Detecting exaggeration and malingering in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 15, 829–858.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kathol, R. (1996). Unexplained neurologic complaints. In M. Rizzo & D. Tranel (Eds.), Head injury and postconcussive syndrome (pp. 321–332). New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  49. Kibby, M., & Long, C.J. (1999). Effective treatment of mild traumatic brain injury and understanding its neurological consequences. In M.J. Raymond, T.L. Bennett, L.C. Hartlage, & C.M. Cullum (Eds.), Mild traumatic brain injury: A clinician’s guide. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  50. Kraus, J.F., & Nourjah, P. (1989). The epidemiology of mild head injury. In H.S. Levin, H.M. Eisenberg, & A.L. Benton (Eds.), Mild head injury (pp. 8–22).Google Scholar
  51. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999).Google Scholar
  52. Laing, L.C., & Fisher, J.M. (1997). Neuropsychology in civil proceedings. In R.J. McCaffrey, A.D. Williams, J.M Fisher, & L.C. Laing (Eds.), The practice of forensic neuropsychology: Meeting challenges in the courtroom (pp. 117–133). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  53. Larrabee, G. (1997). Neuropsychological outcome, post concussion symptoms, and forensic considerations in mild closed head trauma. Seminars in Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 2, 196–206.Google Scholar
  54. Larrabee, G. (2000). Forensic neuropsychological assessment. In R.D. Vanderploeg (Ed.), Clinician’s guide to neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Lees-Haley, P.R., English, L.T., & Glenn, W.J. (1991). A fake bad scale on the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports, 68, 203–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Lees-Haley, P.R., & Brown, R.S. (1993). Neuropsychological complaint base rates of 170 personal injury claimants. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 8, 203–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lees-Haley, P.R., & Dunn, J.T. (1996). Forensic issues in the neuropsychological assessment of patients with postconcussive syndrome. In M. Rizzo & D. Tranel (Eds.), Head injury and postconcussive syndrome (pp.481–498). New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  58. Levin, H., Mattis, S., Ruff, R., Eisenberg, H., Marshall, L., Tabaddor, K., High, W., & Frankowski, R., (1987). Neurobehavioral outcome following minor head injury: A three-center study. Journal of Neurosurgery, 66, 234–243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Lezak, M.D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Martell, D.A. (1992). Forensic neuropsychology and the criminal law. Law and human behavior, 16, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Martin, R.C., Bolter, J.F., Todd, M.E., Gouvier, W.D., & Niccolls, R. (1993). Effects of sophistication and motivation on the detection of malingered memory performance using a computerized forced-choice task. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15, 867–880.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Merskey, H. (1995). The analysis of hysteria: Understanding conversion and dissociation (2nd ed.). London: Gaskell.Google Scholar
  63. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee of the Head Injury Interdisciplinary Special Interest Group of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. (1993). Definition of mild traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 8, 86–87.Google Scholar
  64. Millis, S.R., Putnam, S.H., Adams, K.M., & Ricker, J.H. (1995). The California Verbal Learning Test in the detection of incomplete effort in neuropsychological evaluation. Psychological Assessment, 7, 463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Millis, S.R. & Putnam, S.H. (1996). Detection of malingering in postconcussive syndrome. In M. Rizzo & D. Tranel (Eds.), Head injury and postconcussive syndrome (pp.481–498). New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  66. Mittenberg, W., Azrin, R., Millsaps, C., & Heilbronner, R. (1993). Identification of malingered head injury on the Wechsler Memory Scale — Revised. Psychological Assessment, 5, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mittenberg, W., & Strauman, S. (2000). Diagnosis of mild head injury and the postconcussion syndrome. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 15, 783–791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Povlishock, J. (1993). Pathobiology of traumatically induced axonal injury in animals and man. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 22, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Putnam, S.H., & DeLuca, J.W. (1990). The TCN professional practice survey: Part 1: General practices of neuropsychologists in primary employment and private practice settings. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 4, 199–243.Google Scholar
  70. Putnam, S.H., & Millis, S.R. (1994). Psychosocial factors in the development and maintenance of chronic somatic and functional symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury. Advances in Medical Psychotherapy, 7, 1–22.Google Scholar
  71. Putnam, S.H., Ricker, J.H., Ross, S.R., & Kurtz, J.E. (1999). Considering premorbid functioning: Beyond cognition to a conceptualization of personality in postinjury functioning. In J.J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice (pp. 83–119). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  72. Rankin, E.J., & Adams, R.L. (1999). The neuropsychological evaluation: Clinical and scientific foundations. In J.J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice (pp. 83–119). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  73. Reed, J. (1996). Fixed vs. flexible neuropsychological test batteries under the Daubert standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 315–322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Reed, J. (1999). Current status of the admissibility of expert testimony after Daubert and Joiner. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 1(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rehkopf, D.G., & Fisher, J.M. (1997). Neuropsychology in criminal proceedings. In R.J. McCaffrey, A.D. Williams, J.M Fisher, & L.C. Laing (Eds.), The practice of forensic neuropsychology: Meeting challenges in the courtroom (pp. 135–151). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  76. Reitan, R., & Wolfson, D. (1997a). Emotional disturbances and their interaction with neuropsychological deficits. Neuropsychology Review, 7, 3–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reitan, R., & Wolfson, D. (1997b). Consistency of neuropsychological test scores of head-injured subjects involved in litigation compared with head-injured subjects not involved in litigation: Development of the Retest Consistency Index. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 69–76.Google Scholar
  78. Rizzo, M. & Tranel, D. (1996). Overview of head injury and postconcussive syndrome. In M. Rizzo & D. Tranel (Eds.), Head injury and postconcussive syndrome (pp. 1–18). New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  79. Ruff, R.M., & Richardson, A.M. (1999). Mild traumatic brain injury. In J.J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice (pp. 313–338). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  80. Satz, P., Alfano, M.S., Light, R., Morgenstern, H., Zaucha, K., Asarnow, R.F., & Newton, S. (1999). Persistent post-concussive syndrome: A proposed methodology and literature review to determine the effects, if any, of mild head and other bodily injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21, 620–628.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Seashore, C.E., Lewis, D. & Saetveit, D.L. (1960). Seashore measures of musical talent (rev. ed.). New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  82. Slick, D., Hopp, G., Strauss, E., & Thompson, G. (1997). Victoria Symptom Validity Test. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  83. Slick, D.J., Sherman, E.M.S., & Iverson, G.L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychological, 13, 545–561.Google Scholar
  84. Sosin, D.M., Sniezek, J.E., & Thurman, D.J. (1996). Incidence of mild and moderate brain injury in the United States, 1991. Brain Injury, 10, 47–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Taylor, A.E., Cox, C.A., & Mailis, A. (1996). Persistent neuropsychological deficits following whiplash: Evidence for chronic mild traumatic brain injury? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 529–535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Taylor, J.S. (1999). The legal environment pertaining to clinical neuropsychology. In J.J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice (pp. 419–442). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  87. Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974). Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: A practical scale. Lancet, 2, 81–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Thorne, F.C. (1947). The clinical method in science. American Psychologist, 2, 159–166.Google Scholar
  89. Tombaugh, T. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  90. Torner, J.C., & Schootman, M. (1996). Epidemiology of closed head injury. In M. Rizzo & D. Tranel (Eds.), Head injury and postconcussive syndrome (pp. 19–46). New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  91. Tsushima, W.T. (1996). MMPI measures of malingering and neuropsychological test performance among head injury patients. The Forensic Examiner, 5(5&6), 34–35.Google Scholar
  92. Tsushima, W.T., & Tsushima, V.G. (2001). Comparison of the Fake Bad Scale and other MMPI-2 validity scales with personal injury litigants. Assessment, 8, 205–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Warrington, E.K. (1984). Recognition Memory Test: Manual Windsor, U.K.: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  94. Weintraub, M.I. (1996). Chronic pain, soft-tissue injury, and litigation law. In M. Rizzo & D. Tranel (Eds.), Head injury and postconcussive syndrome (pp. 499–506). New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  95. Williams, A.D. (1997a). Fixed versus flexible batteries. In R.J. McCaffrey, A.D. Williams, J.M Fisher, & L.C. Laing (Eds.), The practice of forensic neuropsychology: Meeting challenges in the courtroom (pp. 57–70). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  96. Williams, A.D. (1997b). Special issues in the evaluation of mild traumatic brain injury. In R.J. McCaffrey, A.D. Williams, J.M Fisher, & L.C. Laing (Eds.), The practice of forensic neuropsychology: Meeting challenges in the courtroom (pp. 71–89). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  97. Williams, J.M. (1998). The malingering of memory disorder. In C.R. Reynolds (Ed.), Detection of malingering during head injury litigation. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  98. World Health Organization (1992). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (10th ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar
  99. Wrightson, P., & Gronwall, D. (1999). Mild head injury: A guide to management. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Youngjohn, J.R. (1995). Confirmed attorney coaching prior to neuropsychological evaluation. Assessmen, 2, 279–283.Google Scholar
  101. Youngjohn, J.R., Burrows, L. & Erdal, K. (1995). Brain damage or compensation neurosis? The controversial post-concussion syndrome. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 112–123.Google Scholar
  102. Youngjohn, J.R., Davis, D., & Wolf, I. (1997). Head injury and the MMPI-2: Paradoxical severity effects and the influence of litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9, 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zakzanis, K.K., Leach, L., & Kaplan, E. (1999). Neuropsychological differential diagnosis. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Goodyear
    • 1
  • Douglas Umetsu
    • 2
  1. 1.Private PracticeAiea
  2. 2.Tripler Army MCHonolulu

Personalised recommendations