Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

examined may very well be harmed by the outcome of

the forensic psychological examination (consider the

losing party in a custody dispute), but the court benefits

from the “good” produced by the forensic psychologist

(whose purpose in a custody dispute is to serve the best

interests of the child). Even in a case where the client

of the forensic services is an individual attorney (who

has, e.g., retained a forensic psychological consultant to

review records and examine his or her client in a per-

sonal injury matter) and the result of the forensic ser-

vices is not favorable to the attorney’s client (e.g., the

opinion of the forensic psychologist is that the client’s

psychological problems are primarily a result of factors

other than the claimed acts), the forensic practitioner

has nonetheless helped the attorney by providing him

or her with important psychological information about

his or her client and/or case prior to entering a court-

room. This information provides the attorney with pos-

sible strategies for structuring the case, approaching

settlement, and presenting evidence at trial. Further-

more, the psychological information directly benefits

the court by potentially expediting the judicial process

(e.g., if the case settles rather than moving to a full-

blown trial) and indirectly benefits society as a whole

(i.e., by facilitating due process). In these ways, the

forensic practitioner has fulfilled a commitment to

beneficence/nonmalfeasance regardless of the content

of the opinion provided to the attorney.

Guidance: Standard of Care

(EPPCC) and Aspirational (SGFP)

In considering the application of ethics to a profession,

it is important to distinguish between standards of care

and aspirational guidelines. A standard of careis a

required and enforceable mandate that directs profes-

sional conduct and decision making. The goal of a stan-

dard is to provide the minimum expectations for a

particular profession. When a professional has violated

such a code of conduct, a governing body may seek

recourse and enforce consequences to that professional.

With regard to the practice of forensic psychology, stan-

dards of care are defined and enforced by the American

Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psy-

chologists and Code of Conduct (EPPCC). However,

these standards are designed primarily to govern the pro-

fession of psychology in general and not designed

specifically for the practice of forensic psychology.

An aspirational guideline, or principle, is similar to

a standard in that it provides professionals with infor-

mation to help guide their conduct and professional

judgment. Unlike a standard, however, an aspirational

guideline is not a mandate; nor is it enforceable.

Accordingly, aspirational guidelines are expected to be

integrated with other relevant sources of information to

help guide professional decision making. For forensic

practitioners, aspirational guidelines have been provided

by the American Psychology-Law Society’s Specialty

Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (SGFP). The goal

of these guidelines is to help inform forensic practition-

ers and guide professional judgment in the practice of

psychology and the law. Four major themes of profes-

sional guidelines to be reviewed here include compe-

tence, judgment, responsibility, and accountability.

Technical and

Substantive Competence

In forensic psychological practice, one can conceptu-

alize two major types of competence: technical and

substantive. Technical competence refers to the parties

and the experts having met the deadlines and other

technical requirements to be “legally qualified” to tes-

tify on a particular issue. These competencies are

mostly identified in Civil Rules 26 and 35 and to a

lesser extent in the Rules of Evidence. For example, a

court may decide that an expert is technically not

“qualified” to testify if the subject matter of the

expert’s preferred testimony was not adequately dis-

closed or if a written report signed by the expert was

not provided in a timely manner.

Substantive competence refers to whether the

forensic practitioner has the requisite expertise, scien-

tific knowledge, and experience to be helpful to the

trier of fact. The court must be satisfied that the psy-

chologist is adequately qualified to testify by virtue of

the psychologist’s education, training, and/or experi-

ence; that the preferred testimony is sufficiently based

on reliable facts or data; that it is the product of reli-

able principles and methods; and that the psychologist

has applied the principles and methods reliably to the

facts of the case. These competencies are mostly iden-

tified in the Rules of Evidence and are elaborated on

in Frye v. United States(1923) and Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharmaceuticals(1993).

Professional Competence

A forensic psychologist may have substantive compe-

tence in some areas (e.g., child development, psycho-

metrics) but not in others (e.g., competency to

stand trial, sex-offender risk assessment). Substantive

260 ———Ethical Guidelines and Principles

E-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 260