Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Psychological Injury and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ever expanding role of a forensic neuropsychologist in civil litigation has rightfully led to a higher level of expectation for this expert, in realms such as clinical and courtroom knowledge, objectivity, and work product utility. The onus is on forensic neuropsychologists to ensure that these expectations are met. Recognizing that bias is inherent in clinical and forensic work, it is imperative that in high stakes situations such as forensic neuropsychological assessment, the evaluator is proactively conscientious in recognizing, and minimizing, the effects of these biases. This article highlights 12, of many, common biases about which the prudent forensic neuropsychologist should always be mindful of, during evaluation as well as the provision of deposition or trial testimony. Role, cognitive, and practice biases are defined and illustrated with examples. Specific suggestions are extracted from both empirical literature and forensic experience on how to recognize and mitigate these biases. The information contained in this article is intended to provide sound and practical strategies that can be useful for forensic neuropsychological practitioners. Attorneys will also find the content useful when working with such experts, including during deposition and cross examination preparation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1985). The group attribution error. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 563–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19. doi:10.1037/a0029889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babitsky, S., & Mangraviti, J. J. (2005). How to become a dangerous expert witness. Falmouth, MA: SEAK, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, L. M., Iverson, G. L., & Brooks, B. L. (2009). To err is human: “Abnormal” neuropsychological scores and variability are common in healthy adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 31–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, L.M., Ruff, R.M., Iverson, G.L., Bush, S.S., MacAllister, W.S., Richards, P.M. & Stutts, M. (2012). Conflict of interest inherent in contingency fee arrangements NAN Policy & Planning Committee. Retrieved August 28, 2015 from https://www.nanonline.org/docs/ResearchandPublications/PositionPapers/Position%20Statement%20on%20Contingency%20fee.pdf

  • Boone, K.B. (2013). Clinical practice of forensic neuropsychology. New York: Guilford.

  • Borum, R., Otto, R. & Golding, S. (1993). Improving clinical judgment and decision making in forensic evaluation. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, Spring, 35–76.

  • Brodsky, S. L. (1999). The expert expert witness (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodsky, S. L. (2013). Testifying in court; guidelines and maxims for the expert witness (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, B., Kadoura, B., Turley, B., Crawford, S., Mikrogianakis, A., & Barlow, K. (2013). Perception of recovery after pediatric mild traumatic brain injury is influenced by the “Good Old Days” bias: Tangible implications for clinical practice and outcomes research. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(2), 186–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006). Ethical issues in forensic psychology: a systematic model for decision making. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, L.J., Cassidy, J.D., Peloso, P.M., Borg, J., von Holst, H., Holm, L. et al., (2004). Prognosis for mild traumatic brain injury: results of the WHO collaborating centre task force on mild traumatic brain injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, (43 Suppl): 84–105.

  • Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74(3), 271–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cripe, L.I. (2002). Limitations of records reviews. Division of Clinical Neuropsychology Newsletter 40, Vol. 20, No. 1, 7–8 & 29–30.

  • Croskerry, P. (2002). Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Academy of Emergency Medicine, 9, 1184–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2003). Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decision making. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 41(1), 110–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P., & Nimmo, G. (2011). Better clinical decision making and reducing diagnostic error. The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 41(2), 155–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. H. (2002). Self-perception in mild traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(8), 609–621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deidan, C., & Bush, S. (2002). Addressing perceived ethical violations by colleagues. In S. S. Bush & M. L. Drexler (Eds.), Ethical issues in clinical neuropsychology (pp. 281–305). Lisse, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Asper, C. M., Schretlen, D. J., & Pearlson, G. D. (2004). How well does IQ predict neuropsychological test performance in normal adults? Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 82–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dikmen, S., Machamer, J., & Temkin, N. (2001). Mild head injury: facts and artifacts. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 23(6), 729–738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dodrill, C.B. (1997). Myths of neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 1–17.

  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1975). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

  • Friedrich, J. (1993). Primary error detection and minimization (PEDMIN) Strategies in social cognition: a reinterpretation of confirmation bias phenomena. Psychological Review, 100(2), 298–319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, E. J. (2003). Thinking about thinking. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 41, 121–122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology; Research and Practice, 28(1), 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiffenstein, M. F. (2009). Clinical myths of forensic neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(2), 286–296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greiffenstein, M.F., Baker, W.J. & Johnson-Greene, D. (2002). Actual versus self- reported scholastic achievement of litigating postconcussion and severe closed head injury claimants. Psychological Assessment, Vol. 14, No, 202–208.

  • Greiffenstein, M. F., & Kaufmann, P. M. (2012). Neuropsychology and the law: principles of productive attorney-neuropsychologist relations. In G. Larrabee (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: a scientific approach (pp. 23–69). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groopman, J. & Hartzband P. (2011). Thinking about our thinking as physicians. American College of Physicians: Internist. Available at: http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2011/10/mindful.htm. Accessed 18, September 2015.

  • Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical vs. mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gunstad, J., & Suhr, J. A. (2001). “Expectation as etiology” versus “the good old days”: Postconcussion symptoms and symptom reporting in athletes, headache sufferers, and depressed individuals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7(3), 323–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gunstad, J., & Suhr, J. A. (2004). Cognitive factors in postconcussion syndrome symptom report. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(3), 391–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, N. (1997). Confidence in judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(2), 78–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heaton, R.K, Miller, S.W., Taylor, M.J. & Grant I. (2004). Revised comprehensive norms for an expanded Halsted-Reitan Battery: Demographically adjusted neuropsychological norms for African American and Caucasian adult’s professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

  • Heilbronner, R. (2008). Neuropsychology in the courtroom: expert analysis of reports and testimony. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilsabeck, R. C., Gouvier, W. D., & Bolter, J. F. (1998). Reconstructive memory bias in recall of neuropsychological symptoms. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20(3), 328–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, A. M., Jr., & Hartlage, L. C. (2010). Handbook of forensic neuropsychology. New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, G. L., Lange, R. T., Brooks, B. L., & Rennison, V. L. (2010). Good old days” bias following mild traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24(1), 17–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, E., Schultz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 557–571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economy Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, P. M. (2009). Neuropsychological practice and forensic consulting: Cases, controversies, and legal authority. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(4), 556. CE Workshop Presented at the 7th Annual AACN Conference, San Diego, CA.

  • Kaufmann, P.M. & Greiffenstein, M.F. (2013). Forensic Neuropsychology: Training, Scope of Practice, and Quality Control. National Academy of Neuropsychology Bulletin, vol. 27 no. 1, 11–15. Retrieved August 3, 2015 from https://www.nanonline.org/docs/ResearchandPublications/NANBulletin/Spring%202013%20Bulletin.pdf

  • Kukucka, J., & Kassin, S. M. (2014). Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 256–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Labarge, A. S., McCaffrey, R. J., & Brown, T. A. (2003). Neuropsychologist’s ability to determine the predictive value of diagnostic tests. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 165–175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G. J. (2003). Detection of malingering using atypical performance patterns on standard neuropsychological tests. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17(3), 410–25.

  • Larrabee, G. J. (Ed.). (2005). Forensic neuropsychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G. J. (Ed.). (2012). Forensic neuropsychology: a scientific approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees Haley, P. R., Williams, C. W., Zasler, N. D., Marguilies, S., English, L. T., & Stevens, K. B. (1997). Response bias in plaintiff’s histories. Brain Injury, 12(11), 791–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees-Haley, P. R. (1999). Commentary on Sweet and Moulthrop’s debiasing procedures. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 1(3), 43–47.

  • Lees-Haley, P. R., & Brown, R. S. (1993). Neuropsychological complaint base rates of 170 personal injury claimants. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 8, 203–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malina, A. C., Nelson, N. W., & Sweet, J. J. (2005). Framing the relationships in forensic neuropsychology: Ethical issues. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4(3), 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martelli, M. F., Bush, S. S., & Zasler, N. D. (2003). Identifying, avoiding, and addressing ethical misconduct in neuropsychological and medicolegal practice. International Journal of Forensic Psychology, 1(1), 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, M.A. (2014). Good habits start early: Identifying and managing potential bias in forensic evaluations as an early career forensic psychologist. Division 41 /publication/newsletters/news/2014/10/index.aspx.

  • McCaffrey, R. J., Bauer, L., O’Bryant, S. E., & Palav, A. A. (2006). Practitioner’s guide to symptom base rates in the general population. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, R. J., Palav, A. A., O’Bryant, S. E., & Labarge, A. S. (2003). Practitioners guide to symptom base rates in clinical neuropsychology. New York: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, R. J., Williams, A. D., Fisher, J. M., & Laing, L. C. (2004). The practice of forensic neuropsychology: Meeting challenges in the courtroom. New York: Springer-Verlag, LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrea, M. (2008). Mild traumatic brain injury and postconcussional syndrome: the new evidence base for diagnosis and treatment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Pres.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrea, M., Iverson, G. L., McAllister, T. L., Hammeke, T. A., Powell, M. R., Barr, W. B., & Kelly, J. P. (2009). An integrated review of recovery after mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI): Implications for clinical management. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(8), 1368–1390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194–216.

  • Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: a handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, R., Traut-Mattausch, E., Jonas, E., Leucht, S., Kane, J. M., Maino, K., Kissling, W. & Hamann, J. (2011). Confirmation bias: Why psychiatrists stick to wrong preliminary diagnoses. Psychological Medicine, 41, 2651–2659.

  • Mittenberg, W., DiGiulio, D. V., Perrin, S., & Bass, A. E. (1992). Symptoms following mild head injury: Expectation as aetiology. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 55, 200–204.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, M. W., Bruder, G. E., Fava, M., Delis, D. C., Quitkin, F. M., & Rosenbaum, J. F. (1994). Norms for depressed patients for the California Verbal Learning Test: Association with depression severity and self-report of cognitive difficulties. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9, 81–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, P. M., & Tussey, C. M. (2013). The Neuropsychologist as expert witness: Testimony in civil and criminal settings. Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, P. M., & Wortzel, H. S. (2015). Avoiding dual agency in clinical and medicolegal practice. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 21(5), 370–373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinowitz, B. & Torgan, E. (2013) Exposing an expert witness’ bias during cross examination: Collateral attack. New York Law Journal 1–10. Retrieved 09-01-2015 at http://www.gairgair.com/ben-b-rubinowitz.html

  • Ruff, R. M. (2009). Best practice guidelines for forensic neuropsychological examinations of patients with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 24, 131–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schatman, M. E., & Thoman, J. L. (2014). Erratum to: Cherry–picking records in independent medical examinations: Strategies for intervention to mitigate a legal and ethical imbroglio. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 290–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schretlen, D. J., Testa, S. M., Winicki, J. M., Pearlson, G. D., & Gordon, B. (2008). Frequency and bases of abnormal performance by healthy adults on neuropsychological testing. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14, 426–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sladeczek, I. E., Dumont, F., Martel, C. A., & Karagiannakis, A. (2006). Making sense of client data: Clinical experience and confirmation revisited. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 60, 375–391.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strasburger, L. H., Gutheil, T. G., & Brodsky, A. (1997). On wearing two hats: Role conflict in serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(4), 448–456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, J.J. (1999). Forensic neuropsychology. Fundamentals and practice. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

  • Sweet, J. J., King, J. H., Malina, A. C., Bergman, M. A., & Simmons, A. (2002). Documenting the prominence of forensic neuropsychology at national meetings and in relevant professional journals from 1990–2000. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16(4), 481–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, J. J., Meyer, D. G., Nelson, N. W., & Moberg, P. J. (2011). The TCN/AACN 2010 “Salary Survey”: Professional practices, beliefs, and incomes of U.S. neuropsychologists. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(1), 12–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, J. J., & Moulthrop, M. A. (1999). Self-examination questions as a means of identifying bias in adversarial assessments. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 1(1), 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thammasitboon, S. & Cutrer, W. (2013). Diagnostic decision-making and strategies to improve diagnosis. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, Volume 43, Issue 9, 232 – 241. ISSN 1538–5442, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2013.07.003

  • Vick, A., Estrada, C., & Rodriguez, J. M. (2013). Clinical reasoning for the infectious disease specialist: a primer to recognize cognitive biases. Clinical Infectious Disease, 57(4), 573–578. doi:10.1093/cid/cit248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waller, N. G., Younce, L. J., Grove, W. M., & Faust, D. (2006). A Paul Meehl Reader: Essays on the practice of scientific psychology. Matowah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedding, D., & Faust, D. (1989). Clinical judgment and decision making in neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 4, 233–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woody, R. H. (2009). Ethical considerations of multiple roles in forensic settings. Ethics and Behavior, 19, 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woody, R. H. (2011). Letters of protection: Ethical and legal financial considerations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 11(4), 361–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C. C., Yuen, K. M., Huang, S. J., Hsiao, S. H., Tsai, Y. H., & Lin, W. C. (2014). “Good-old-days” bias: a prospective follow-up study to examine the preinjury supernormal status in patients with mild traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 36(4), 399–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young, S., Kopelman, M., & Gudjonsson, G. (2009). Forensic neuropsychology in practice: a guide to assessment and legal processes. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Practice, Louisville/Denver, CO, USA

    Paul M. Richards & Jennifer A. Geiger

  2. Independent Practice, New York University School of Medicine/Bellevue Hospital Center, New York, NY, USA

    Chriscelyn M. Tussey

Authors
  1. Paul M. Richards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer A. Geiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chriscelyn M. Tussey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul M. Richards.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

12 Sources of Bias in Forensic Neuropsychology

1. Role bias: Conflating clinical and forensic roles

2. Financial/Payment bias

3. Referral source bias (and retaining attorney pressure)

4. Self report bias (Need for corroborative data)

5. Under-utilization of base rates

6. Ignoring normal variance in test scores

7. Confirmation bias

8. Personal and political bias

9. Group attribution error

10. Diagnosis momentum

11. Good old days bias

12. Overconfidence

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richards, P.M., Geiger, J.A. & Tussey, C.M. The Dirty Dozen: 12 Sources of Bias in Forensic Neuropsychology with Ways to Mitigate. Psychol. Inj. and Law 8, 265–280 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9235-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9235-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation