Ethical and Methodological Considerations for Gender Researchers in Forensic Psychology

  • Kenneth V. Heard


Forensic psychology is a broad and rapidly growing field that encompasses the intersection of psychology and the law. Although psychologists have been involved with research on forensically relevant subjects and have consulted on forensic issues for over 100 years, the field has been in a period of expansion and professionalization since the 1970 s. As is often the case during the growth of a profession, there remains some disagreement about the boundaries, definitions, and terminologies that form the common understanding of what forensic psychology is, what minimum or common training standards are necessary or sufficient for forensic psychology as a discipline, and what criteria must be met for an individual to be labeled a “forensic psychologist.


Differential Item Functioning Hate Crime Correctional Staff Forensic Psychology Forensic Context 
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.


  1. Adler, P. (1990). Ethnographic research in hidden populations: Penetrating the drug world. In E. Lambert (Ed.), The collection and interpretation of data from hidden populations (pp. 96–112). [DHHS Publication Number NDA 90-1678]. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  2. American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession. (2006). Charting our progress: The status of women in the profession today. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  3. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Psychological Association. (2009). Archival description: Specialty of forensic psychology. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from
  6. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong, G. (1993). Like that Desmond Morris. In D. Hobbs & T. May (Eds.), Interpreting the field: Accounts of ethnography (pp. 2–43). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  8. Artiola i Fortuny, L., & Mullaney, H. A. (1997). Neuropsychology with Spanish speakers: Language use and proficiency issues for test development. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 19, 615–622.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourgois, P. (1989). In search of Horatio Alger: Culture and ideology in the crack economy. Contemporary Drug Problems, 16, 619–649.Google Scholar
  11. Brajuha, M., & Hallowell, L. (1986). Legal intrusion and the politics of fieldwork: The impact of the Brajuha case. Urban Life, 14, 454–478.Google Scholar
  12. Breivik, K., & Olweus, D. (2006). Adolescents’ adjustment in four post-divorce family structures: Single mother, stepfather, joint physical custody, and single father families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 99–25.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, N. J., Berkovic, S. F., & Scheffer, I. E. (2007). Vaccination, seizures and “vaccine damage.” Current Opinion in Neurology, 20, 181–187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchanan, T. (2000). Potential of the internet for personality research. In H. M. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 121–265). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bursoff, D. N. (1999). Table of cases. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  16. Center for Sex Offender Management. (2007). Female sex offenders. Silver Spring, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  17. Christofides, T. C. (2003). A generalized randomized response technique. Metrika, 57, 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. (2006). Federal rules of evidence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  20. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dalton, D. R., Wimbush, J. C., & Daily, C. M. (1994). Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate base rates for sensitive behavior. Personnel Psychology, 47, 817–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
  23. Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends, and violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Deer, B. (2009, February 8) Hidden records show MMR truth. Sunday Times. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from
  25. Demuth, S., & Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Department of State v. Washington Post, 456 U.S. 595 (1982).Google Scholar
  27. Dickens, G., Sugarman, P., Ahmad, F., Edgar, S., Hofberg, K., & Tewari, S. (2007). Gender differences amongst adult arsonists at psychiatric assessment. Medical Sciences and the Law, 47, 233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Faust, D., & Ackley, M. A. (1998). Did you think it was going to be easy? Some methodological suggestions for the investigation and development of malingering-detection techniques. In C. R. Reynolds (Ed.), Detection of malingering during head injury litigation (pp. 1–54). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  29. Faust, D., & Heard, K. V. (2003a). Biased experts: Strategies for identifying and demonstrating unfair practices. In I. Z. Schultz & D. O. Brady (Eds.), Psychological injuries at trial (pp. 1706–1739). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  30. Faust, D., & Heard, K. V. (2003b). Objectifying subjective injury claims. In I. Z. Schultz & D. O. Brady (Eds.), Psychological injuries at trial (pp. 1686–1705). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  31. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (1992). Uniform crime reporting handbook (NIBRS ed.). Clarksville, WV: Author.Google Scholar
  32. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook. Clarksburg, WV: Author.Google Scholar
  33. Ferrell, J. (1997). Criminological verstehen: Inside the immediacy of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2008). Female and male sex offenders: A comparison of recidivism patterns and risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1394–1413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Girshick, L. (2002). Woman-to-woman sexual violence: Does she call it rape? Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Goode, E. (2002). Sexual involvement and social research in a fat civil rights organization. Qualitative Sociology, 25, 501–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greenberg, S. A., & Schuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology, 28, 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Halsey, N.A., & Hyman, S. L. (2001). Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autistic spectrum disorders: Report from the New Challenges in Childhood Immunization Conference convened in Oak Brook, Illinois, June 12–13, 2000. Pediatrics, 107, E84Google Scholar
  39. Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 124–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  41. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated January 4, 1984, 583 F. Suppl. 991 (1984).Google Scholar
  42. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated January 4 1984, 750 F. 2d 223 (1984).Google Scholar
  43. Inciardi, J. A. (1993). Some considerations on the methods, dangers, and ethics of crack house research. In J. A. Inciardi, D. Lockwood, & A. Potieger (Eds.), Women and crack cocaine (pp. 147–157). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. International Test Commission (ITC). (2000a). ITC guidelines for test use. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from
  45. International Test Commission (ITC). (2000b). ITC guidelines on adapting tests. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from
  46. Jablonska, B., & Lindberg, L. (2007). Risk behaviors, victimization, and mental distress among adolescents in different family structures. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42, 656–664.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson, M. T, Krafka, C., & Cecil, J. S. (2000). Expert testimony in federal civil trials: A preliminary analysis. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  48. Kelly, J. B. (2007). Children’s living arrangements following separation and divorce: Insights from empirical and clinical research. Family Process, 46, 35–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Krafka, C., Dunn, M. A., Johnson, M. T., Cecil, J. S., & Miletich, D. (2002). Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 8, 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of the Board of Scientific Affairs’ Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet. American Psychologist, 59, 105–117.Google Scholar
  51. Kushner, M. A. (2006). In whose best interest: The ruling or the children? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44 (3/4), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., Hox, J. J., Van der Heijden, P. G. M., & Maas, C. J. M. (2005). Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirty-five years of validation. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 319–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Leo, R. A. (1995). Trial and tribulations: Courts, ethnography, and the need for evidentiary privilege for academic researchers. American Sociologist, 26, 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leo, R. A. (1996). The ethics of deceptive research roles reconsidered: A response to Kai Erickson. American Sociologist, 27, 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lillenfeld, S. O. (1998). Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of psychopathy. Behavior Research and Therapy, 36, 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Madsen, K. M., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wolfram, J., Thorsen, P., et al. (2002). A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. New England Journal of Medicine, 374, 1477–1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Madsen, K. M., & Vestergaard, M. (2004). MMR vaccination and autism: What is the evidence for a causal association? Drug Safety, 27, 831–840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Marquart, J. (1986). Doing research in prison: The strengths and weaknesses of full participation as a guard. Justice Quarterly, 3, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mears, D., & Watson, J. (2006). Toward a fair and balanced assessment of supermax prisons. Justice Quarterly, 23, 232–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meehl, P. E. (1971/1991). Law and the fireside inductions: Some reflections of a clinical psychologist. In C. A. Anderson & K. Gunderson (Eds.), Paul E. Meehl: Selected philosophical and methodological papers (pp. 440–480). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  61. Mitrushina, M., Boone, K. B., Razani, J., & D’Elia, L. F. (2005). Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mittenberg, W., Patton C., Canyock, E., & Condit, D. (2002). Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 1094–1102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Phillips, D. M. (2002). The mismeasure of crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. (2002). Frequently asked questions on certificates of confidentiality. Retrieved March, 15, 2009, from
  65. Newman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  66. Nicholls, T. L., Ogloff, J. R., Brink, J., & Spidel, A. (2005). Psychopathy in women: A review of its clinical usefulness for assessing risk for aggression and criminality. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 779–802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Nordberg, P. B. (2006). Psychologists & psychiatrists. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from,
  68. Peek, C. (2004). Breaking out of the prison hierarchy: Transgender prisoners, rape, and the eighth amendment. Santa Clara Law Review, 44, 1211–1212.Google Scholar
  69. Perrone, D. (2006). New York club kids: A contextual understanding of club drug use. In B. Sanders (Ed.), Drugs, clubs, and young people (pp. 26–49). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  70. Polsky, N. (1969). Hustlers, beats, and others. Garden City, NY: Anchor.Google Scholar
  71. Rabinowitz, V. C., & Martin, D. (2001). Choices and consequences: Methodological issues in the study of gender. In R. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (29–52). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Reips, U. (2002). Standards for internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49, 243–256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Reynolds, C. R. (Ed.). (1997). Detection of malingering during head injury litigation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. Riedel, M. (2000). Research strategies for secondary data: A perspective for criminology and criminal justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Roe-Sepowitz, D., & Krysik, J. (2008). Examining the sexual offenses of female juveniles: The relevance of childhood maltreatment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 405–412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  77. Scarce, R. (2005). Contempt of court: A scholar’s battle for free speech. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
  78. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Supple, A. J., Aquilino, W. S., & Wright, D. L. (1999). Collecting sensitive self-report data with laptop computers: Impact on the response tendencies of adolescents in a home interview. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 9, 467–488.Google Scholar
  80. Tucillo, J. A., DeFilippis, J. A., Denney, R. L., & Dsurney, J. (2002). Licensure requirements for interjurisdictional forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology, 33, 377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Maanen, J. (1982). Fieldwork on the beat. In J. Van Maanen, J. Dabbs, & R. R. Faulkner (Eds.), Varieties of qualitative research (pp. 103–151). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  82. Warner, S. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Wimbush, J. C., & Dalton, D. R. (1997). Baserate for employee theft: Convergence of multiple methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 756–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yablonsky, L. (1968). On crime, violence, LSD, and legal immunity for social sciences. Criminologica, 3, 148–149.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth V. Heard
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations