Psychological Injury and Law

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 1–6 | Cite as

Forensic Thinking in Disability Assessment: an Introduction to a Special Issue

  • Benjamin J. LovettEmail author
  • Allyson G. Harrison

The practice of forensic psychology is often associated with prison populations, court-ordered evaluations, and psychologists testifying to judges or juries. This association is understandable; those are important aspects of forensic practice. However, the scope of forensic practice is larger than this popular conception suggests; the American Psychological Association’s (2013) Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology defines forensic work as “professional practice by any psychologist…when applying the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law to assist in addressing legal, contractual, and administrative matters.” Furthermore, the Guidelines “apply in all matters in which psychologists provide expertise to judicial, administrative, and educational systems” (p. 7). A great deal of clinical work, then, actually has a forensic aspect to it; specifically in the context of disability assessment, a psychologist performs forensic work when determining...


Disability Assessment 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

No original data from human participants were collected for this paper.

Animal Rights

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.


  1. Adelman, H. S., Lauber, B. A., Nelson, P., & Smith, D. C. (1989). Toward a procedure for minimizing and detecting false positive diagnoses of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 234–244. Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Association on Higher Education and Disability. (2012). Supporting accommodation requests: Guidance on documentation practices. Retrieved from:
  4. Bibber v. National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, Inc. (2016). Unites States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania, Civil Action 15 – 4987.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, P. B., Rohrich, R. J., & Chung, K. C. (2011). The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 128(1), 305–310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Faust, D., Hart, K. J., Guilmette, T. J., & Arkes, H. R. (1988). Neuropsychologists’ capacity to detect adolescent malingerers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(5), 508–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., Murphy, K., & Dempsey, K. (2002). ADA-based accommodations in higher education: A survey of clinicians about documentation requirements and diagnostic standards. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 357–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1), 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harrison, A. G. (2017). Clinical, ethical, and forensic implications of a flexible threshold for LD and ADHD in postsecondary settings. Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrison, A. G., & Edwards, M. J. (2010). Symptom exaggeration in post-secondary students: Preliminary base rates in a Canadian sample. Applied Neuropsychology, 17(2), 135–143.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrison, A. G., Lovett, B. J., & Gordon, M. (2013). Documenting disabilities in postsecondary settings: Diagnosticians’ understanding of legal regulations and diagnostic standards. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 28(4), 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrison, A. G., Nay, S., & Armstrong, I. T. (2016). Diagnostic accuracy of the Conners’ Adult ADHD rating scale in a postsecondary population. Journal of Attention Disorders, Advanced Online Publication, 1087054715625299.Google Scholar
  13. Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Participants, C. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference Statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(7), 1093–1129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Heilbrun, K., & LaDuke, C. (2015). Foundational aspects of forensic mental health assessment. In B. Cutler & P. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  15. Iverson, G. (2014). Improving the methodology for identifying cognitive impairment in psychiatry and neurology. In Keynote lecture presented at the 25 th Anniversary Conference of the Swedish Neuropsychological Society. Stockholm: Sweden.Google Scholar
  16. Kirkwood, M. W. (Ed.). (2015). Validity testing in child and adolescent assessment. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  17. Lasser, J., & Adams, K. (2007). The effects of war on children: School psychologists’ role and function. School Psychology International, 28(1), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee, C. M., & Hunsley, J. (2015). Evidence-based practice: Separating science from pseudoscience. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 60(12), 534–540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewak, D. (2018). Rich parents are using doctor’s notes to help kids cheat the SATs. In New York post Retrieved from
  20. Lovett, B. J., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2015). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Research-based practice. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lovett, B. J., Gordon, M., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2016). Legal conceptions of impairment: Implications for the assessment of psychiatric disabilities. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Assessing impairment: From theory to practice (2nd ed., pp. 125–139). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, P. K., Schroeder, R. W., & Odland, A. P. (2015). Neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices: A survey of North American professionals. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(6), 741–776.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, K. (2018). “The system is clearly abused”: Why 2018 was a terrible year for emotional support pets on planes. Yahoo lifestyle news. Accessed at:
  24. Millis, S. R., & Kaufmann, P. M. (2018). Assessment of incomplete effort and malingering in the neuropsychological examination. In J. E. Morgan & J. H. Ricker (Eds.), Textbook of clinical neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 927–941). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E. M., & Condit, D. C. (2002). Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(8), 1094–1102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson, N. W., Sweet, J. J., Berry, D. T., Bryant, F. B., & Granacher, R. P. (2007). Response validity in forensic neuropsychology: Exploratory factor analytic evidence of distinct cognitive and psychological constructs. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13(3), 440–449.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). (2016). Inquiry report on systemic barriers to academic accommodation for postsecondary students with mental health disabilities. In Retrieved from Scholar
  28. Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. New York: VintageGoogle Scholar
  29. Suhr, J. A. (2015). Psychological assessment: A problem-solving perspective. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. Sullivan, B. K., May, K., & Galbally, L. (2007). Symptom exaggeration by college adults in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disorder assessments. Applied Neuropsychology, 14(3), 189–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyState University of New York at CortlandCortlandUSA
  2. 2.Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations