Standard Elements of Forensic
Residency Programs
Gary Melton and colleagues, in one of the classic
books on forensic psychology, identified, in addition
to basic clinical training, the following elements of
specialized knowledge and experience required by
forensic psychologists:- Understanding of how the legal system works
- Forensic evaluation methodologies, including spe-
cialized forensic instruments - Legal doctrines relevant to forensic evaluations
- Research about areas that are relevant to forensic
psychology but that are not part of the standard “clin-
ical” preparation - Rules, procedures, and techniques related to provid-
ing expert witness testimony
An additional, important element relates to special
ethical dilemmas and practice issues that are unique to
forensic practice. All forensic psychologists must be
familiar with the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic
Psychologists (which were developed in 1991 jointly
by the American Psychology-Law Society and the
American Academy of Forensic Psychology and are
currently being revised). Residency training programs
in forensic psychology should prepare residents for
forensic practice by providing education and training
within all these areas, at a minimum.Accessing Information
About Programs
The majority of the current forensic residency pro-
grams emphasize forensic work within the criminal
justice system (as opposed to areas of civil prac-
tice). Most programs focus on work with adults (in
areas such as competency to stand trial, criminal
responsibility, aid in sentencing, violence risk
assessments, sex offender evaluations), although
some focus on juveniles. At least one program
focuses on civil work with children and families,
including child custody issues and termination
of parental rights. As there is no current directory of
forensic residency programs, specific information
about the available programs can be obtained either
through their advertisements in the APA Monitor(publication of the APA) or through the American
Psychology-Law Society Newsletter.Ira K. PackerSee alsoDiplomates in Forensic Psychology; Forensic
AssessmentFurther Readings
Bersoff, D., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Grisso, T., Hans, V.,
Poythress, N. G., & Roesch, R. (1997). Training in law
and psychology: Models from the Villanova Conference.
American Psychologist, 52,1301–1310.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C.
(1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts. New
York: Guilford Press.
Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic
psychology: A look to the future in light of the past.
American Psychologist, 57,5–18.
Packer, I. K., & Borum, R. (2003). Forensic training
and practice. In A. M.Goldstein (Ed.),Handbook of
psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 21–32).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.POSTEVENTINFORMATION
AND EYEWITNESSMEMORY
Human memory, however accurate generally, is not
a perfect processing system. Over time, our memory
becomes less accurate, primarily for two reasons.
First, our memory is not permanent, and information
fades from memory over time. Most people are famil-
iar from experience with this unfortunate feature of
memory but are less familiar with the second factor
that influences the accuracy of memory—memory can
be distorted by the influence of postevent information.
Although memory can be influenced by subsequent
experiences, there are constraints on the conditions
under which this is likely to occur. Nonetheless, when
memory accuracy is a premium, such as in forensic
situations involving eyewitness memory, it is impor-
tant to recognize that eyewitness memory can be sug-
gestively influenced. In these situations, the impact of
postevent information should be minimized by avoid-
ing misleading questions, and when it is relevant to
do so, jurors should be informed about the potential
fallacies in eyewitness memory that can result from a
suggestive interview.Postevent Information and Eyewitness Memory——— 607P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 607