The Roles of Scientific and Clinical Epistemologies in Forensic Mental Health Assessments
This article discusses the respective contributions of scientific and clinical epistemologies to formulating expert opinions in personal injury and other forensic cases involving psychological testimony. It argues that each epistemology provides specific truth criteria that, though different, are bo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Psychological injury and law 2011-05, Vol.4 (2), p.127-139 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 139 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 127 |
| container_title | Psychological injury and law |
| container_volume | 4 |
| creator | Milchman, Madelyn Simring |
| description | This article discusses the respective contributions of scientific and clinical epistemologies to formulating expert opinions in personal injury and other forensic cases involving psychological testimony. It argues that each epistemology provides specific truth criteria that, though different, are both objective. It analyzes the reasons that some experts malign clinical judgments; compares each epistemology’s approach to truth; and identifies their respective roles in forensic assessments. It expands the scientific meanings of internal and external validity so that they apply to clinical evidence and then uses them to propose a schema for supporting or falsifying expert opinions as a whole. It concludes by discussing risks created by preferring one epistemology to the other, rather than appreciating their complementary roles. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12207-011-9104-5 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2919357226</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2919357226</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-37ebc0711b48fa4cac060eaf4ec8c61581490d0d26aafca6d4d0a29a031a40023</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9LAzEQxYMoWKsfwFvA8-pMNvvvWEprhYqgFfQU0my2TdluamY9-O1NWdGTpxmG33sz8xi7RrhFgOKOUAgoEkBMKgSZZCdshFVaJlUhytPfHt_O2QXRDiAHicWIva-2lj_71hL3DX8xzna9a5zhuqv5tHWdM7rls4Oj3u596zcukq7jcx9sR5F7jIJILKxu-y2fEFmifZzRJTtrdEv26qeO2et8tpoukuXT_cN0skxMinmfpIVdGygQ17JstDTaxNOsbqQ1pckxK1FWUEMtcq0bo_Na1qBFpSFFLQFEOmY3g-8h-I9PS73a-c_QxZVKVPHtrBAijxQOlAmeKNhGHYLb6_ClENQxQTUkqGKC6pigyqJGDBqKbLex4c_5f9E3luZzrw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2919357226</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Roles of Scientific and Clinical Epistemologies in Forensic Mental Health Assessments</title><source>ProQuest Central Essentials</source><source>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</source><source>ProQuest Central Student</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central Korea</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Milchman, Madelyn Simring</creator><creatorcontrib>Milchman, Madelyn Simring</creatorcontrib><description>This article discusses the respective contributions of scientific and clinical epistemologies to formulating expert opinions in personal injury and other forensic cases involving psychological testimony. It argues that each epistemology provides specific truth criteria that, though different, are both objective. It analyzes the reasons that some experts malign clinical judgments; compares each epistemology’s approach to truth; and identifies their respective roles in forensic assessments. It expands the scientific meanings of internal and external validity so that they apply to clinical evidence and then uses them to propose a schema for supporting or falsifying expert opinions as a whole. It concludes by discussing risks created by preferring one epistemology to the other, rather than appreciating their complementary roles.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1938-971X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-9728</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12207-011-9104-5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston: Springer US</publisher><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Child & adolescent psychiatry ; Child abuse & neglect ; Clinical decision making ; Clinical medicine ; Clinical Psychology ; Epistemology ; Forensic psychiatry ; Hypotheses ; Law and Psychology ; Mental health ; Psychology ; Psychotherapy ; Research methodology ; Scientific method ; Truth</subject><ispartof>Psychological injury and law, 2011-05, Vol.4 (2), p.127-139</ispartof><rights>Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. 2011</rights><rights>Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. 2011.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-37ebc0711b48fa4cac060eaf4ec8c61581490d0d26aafca6d4d0a29a031a40023</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-37ebc0711b48fa4cac060eaf4ec8c61581490d0d26aafca6d4d0a29a031a40023</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12207-011-9104-5$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2919357226?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21388,21389,21390,21391,23256,27924,27925,33530,33703,33744,34005,34314,41488,42557,43659,43787,43805,43953,44067,51319,64385,64389,72469</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Milchman, Madelyn Simring</creatorcontrib><title>The Roles of Scientific and Clinical Epistemologies in Forensic Mental Health Assessments</title><title>Psychological injury and law</title><addtitle>Psychol. Inj. and Law</addtitle><description>This article discusses the respective contributions of scientific and clinical epistemologies to formulating expert opinions in personal injury and other forensic cases involving psychological testimony. It argues that each epistemology provides specific truth criteria that, though different, are both objective. It analyzes the reasons that some experts malign clinical judgments; compares each epistemology’s approach to truth; and identifies their respective roles in forensic assessments. It expands the scientific meanings of internal and external validity so that they apply to clinical evidence and then uses them to propose a schema for supporting or falsifying expert opinions as a whole. It concludes by discussing risks created by preferring one epistemology to the other, rather than appreciating their complementary roles.</description><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Child & adolescent psychiatry</subject><subject>Child abuse & neglect</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinical Psychology</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Forensic psychiatry</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Law and Psychology</subject><subject>Mental health</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychotherapy</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Scientific method</subject><subject>Truth</subject><issn>1938-971X</issn><issn>1938-9728</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE9LAzEQxYMoWKsfwFvA8-pMNvvvWEprhYqgFfQU0my2TdluamY9-O1NWdGTpxmG33sz8xi7RrhFgOKOUAgoEkBMKgSZZCdshFVaJlUhytPfHt_O2QXRDiAHicWIva-2lj_71hL3DX8xzna9a5zhuqv5tHWdM7rls4Oj3u596zcukq7jcx9sR5F7jIJILKxu-y2fEFmifZzRJTtrdEv26qeO2et8tpoukuXT_cN0skxMinmfpIVdGygQ17JstDTaxNOsbqQ1pckxK1FWUEMtcq0bo_Na1qBFpSFFLQFEOmY3g-8h-I9PS73a-c_QxZVKVPHtrBAijxQOlAmeKNhGHYLb6_ClENQxQTUkqGKC6pigyqJGDBqKbLex4c_5f9E3luZzrw</recordid><startdate>20110501</startdate><enddate>20110501</enddate><creator>Milchman, Madelyn Simring</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110501</creationdate><title>The Roles of Scientific and Clinical Epistemologies in Forensic Mental Health Assessments</title><author>Milchman, Madelyn Simring</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-37ebc0711b48fa4cac060eaf4ec8c61581490d0d26aafca6d4d0a29a031a40023</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Child & adolescent psychiatry</topic><topic>Child abuse & neglect</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinical Psychology</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Forensic psychiatry</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Law and Psychology</topic><topic>Mental health</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychotherapy</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Scientific method</topic><topic>Truth</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Milchman, Madelyn Simring</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Psychological injury and law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Milchman, Madelyn Simring</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Roles of Scientific and Clinical Epistemologies in Forensic Mental Health Assessments</atitle><jtitle>Psychological injury and law</jtitle><stitle>Psychol. Inj. and Law</stitle><date>2011-05-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>127</spage><epage>139</epage><pages>127-139</pages><issn>1938-971X</issn><eissn>1938-9728</eissn><abstract>This article discusses the respective contributions of scientific and clinical epistemologies to formulating expert opinions in personal injury and other forensic cases involving psychological testimony. It argues that each epistemology provides specific truth criteria that, though different, are both objective. It analyzes the reasons that some experts malign clinical judgments; compares each epistemology’s approach to truth; and identifies their respective roles in forensic assessments. It expands the scientific meanings of internal and external validity so that they apply to clinical evidence and then uses them to propose a schema for supporting or falsifying expert opinions as a whole. It concludes by discussing risks created by preferring one epistemology to the other, rather than appreciating their complementary roles.</abstract><cop>Boston</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s12207-011-9104-5</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1938-971X |
| ispartof | Psychological injury and law, 2011-05, Vol.4 (2), p.127-139 |
| issn | 1938-971X 1938-9728 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2919357226 |
| source | ProQuest Central Essentials; ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition); ProQuest Central Student; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; SpringerNature Journals; ProQuest Central Korea; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland; ProQuest Central |
| subjects | Behavioral Science and Psychology Child & adolescent psychiatry Child abuse & neglect Clinical decision making Clinical medicine Clinical Psychology Epistemology Forensic psychiatry Hypotheses Law and Psychology Mental health Psychology Psychotherapy Research methodology Scientific method Truth |
| title | The Roles of Scientific and Clinical Epistemologies in Forensic Mental Health Assessments |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T15%3A04%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Roles%20of%20Scientific%20and%20Clinical%20Epistemologies%20in%20Forensic%20Mental%20Health%20Assessments&rft.jtitle=Psychological%20injury%20and%20law&rft.au=Milchman,%20Madelyn%20Simring&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=127&rft.epage=139&rft.pages=127-139&rft.issn=1938-971X&rft.eissn=1938-9728&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12207-011-9104-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2919357226%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2919357226&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |