Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

questions honestly or spontaneously when someone

else is in the room. The effect of the observer on the

outcome may be particularly powerful when the plain-

tiff is a child and the observer is the therapist or a par-

ent who has a distinct opinion about what happened

and how it affected the child. The child may be aware

of the parent’s or therapist’s view and may capitulate

to it in any case, but it is possibly more likely to do so

when the parent or the therapist is in the room.

Third, observers sometimes have difficulty remain-

ing passive or silent. They may attempt to contribute

to the discussion, speaking for the plaintiff. Indirectly,

they may telegraph their attitudes to the plaintiff and

affect the plaintiff’s answers to questions. When mul-

tiple interviews occur, observers may intervene

between interviews by pointing out to the examinee

any problem areas and suggesting alternative answers

to questions.

Examiners may, for all of these reasons, object to

the presence of an observer or may attempt to struc-

ture the observation. This structuring might include,

for example, offering to audio or video record the

examination (possibly through an observation win-

dow) in lieu of having an observer in the room,

requesting a neutral observer whose input is limited to

ending the interview if the plaintiff seems to be in

need of such protection, or seating the observer out-

side the line of vision of the examiner. Ultimately,

however, the court may override these requests in

favor of unrestricted observation.

Techniques Used in

Personal Injury Assessment

The techniques and instruments that may be useful in

personal injury assessment are as varied as the nature

of the claimed psychological injury. Often the data

collected by the forensic examiner through interview

or questionnaires address day-to-day functioning. The

examiner may ask for collateral data in the form of

documents, records, or interviews with people who

would have relevant information about the plaintiff’s

past and present lifestyle. Information is gathered

regarding how the plaintiff lived before, including

the interests, activities, and pleasure in life that are

reflected in collateral information. Also explored

are the plaintiff’s coping resources as manifested in

the handling of previous crises or trauma.

Testing may include formal assessment of any

claimed loss in cognitive function, as well as assess-

ment of general personality functioning, response style,

or impression management and in-depth exploration

of specific reported symptoms. While there is a prolif-

eration of instruments designed to assess trauma or

posttraumatic stress, face validity may render these

instruments so vulnerable to dissimulation that their

utility is limited for forensic purposes. Similarly, check-

listswithout well-designed measures of response style

may generate unreliable results regarding depression

or anxiety. Multisource, multimethod assessment

accomplished with reliable tools leads to robust psy-

chological findings that are useful to the court.

Report of Findings

Ordinarily, the referring attorney is given the findings

of an examination, and then, he or she determines

whether they are sufficiently useful to justify calling

the psychologist to testify. If the psychologist is desig-

nated as a testifying expert, opposing counsel may

request a deposition to determine what opinions will

be offered and the foundation for those opinions. Per-

sonal injury matters are often, but not always, resolved

at some point before the case is set for trial. If settle-

ment efforts fail and the case goes to court, the expert

may testify to the findings of the examination. The fact

finder (generally a jury but sometimes a judge alone)

makes the determination about whether the defendant

owed a duty, whether that duty was breached, whether

the plaintiff was injured as a result of the breach, and

what the defendant owes to make the plaintiff whole.

This determination may be reached, at least in part, by

relying on expert testimony, but the expert does not

make the determination. Rather it is a matter for the

fact finder to decide.

Mary Connell

See also Capacity to Consent to Treatment; Damage Awards;

Detection of Deception in Children; Detection of

Deception in High-Stakes Liars; Disability and Workers’

Compensation Claims, Assessment of; Forensic

Assessment; Litigation Stress; Malingering

Further Readings

Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Diagnostic

test usage by forensic psychologists in emotional injury

cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,

30,253–259.

Foote, W. E., & Shuman, D. W. (2006). Consent, disclosure

and waiver for the forensic psychological evaluation:

Rethinking the roles of psychologist and lawyer.

Personal Injury and Emotional Distress——— 553

P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 553