Psychological Injury and Law: Defining a Field

This article elaborates definitional and conceptual issues relevant to the field of psychological injury and law. It reviews the literature in the major areas that mark the field—law, forensic psychology, disability, and assessment/malingering. To meet admissibility requirements of testimony in court, psychologists and other mental health professionals need to maintain a comprehensive, impartial, and scientifically informed approach to assessments based on a state-of-the-art knowledge, such as made available in this journal.     

Psychological Injury and Law: Special Issue Epilogue

To conclude the special series in the issue, which marks the end of the first volume of the journal, Psychological Injury and Law, the epilogue highlights its major goals and contributions. The special issue takes the field in more diverse directions. It demonstrates the multiple research and practice foci that are emerging in the field and its interdisciplinarity, from the law and forensics to practice and treatment. The field needs to view the person in context and not from one side or the other of the adversarial divide.     

Psychological Injury and Law: Editorial on Practice Criteria

The area of psychological injury and law is one that is interdisciplinary, requiring knowledge in multiple areas. Psychologists should acquire the necessary background knowledge before working in it. At the same time, many clinicians encounter these types of cases. Credentialing bodies in states and provinces should consider establishing criteria for working in the area of psychological injury and law. Working groups in each jurisdiction can be established to help create these criteria. The journal Psychological Injury and Law (PIL) and its parent society, the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law (ASAPIL), can actively help the field of practicing psychology meet the objectives of this proposal.     

Psychological Injury and Law: A Biopsychosocial and Forensic Perspective

The articles in the present special issue on the area of psychological injury and law broaden understanding of the area by considering topics outside the range of the seven major areas that mark the field. In the articles in this special issue, common themes include: (a) having comprehensive, recent literature reviews, (b) presentation of models related to psychological injury and law in which existing models are integrated, (c) integration of biopsychological and forensic perspectives, and (d) consideration of development or change processes, and examination of causality. (e) All the articles discuss possible improvements to the DSM-IV; for example, there should be a separate, sixth axis pertaining to causality.     

Psychological Injury and Law: Introduction to the First Issue

In this introductory article to the special series of articles written to initiate the new journal, Psychological Injury and Law, I provide the background and impetus for this fast-growing area as a distinct field of scientific study. Professionals working in the area need to be aware of its diverse components, from evidence law and forensic psychology to disability and assessment, to its three core areas of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and other distress, chronic pain, and traumatic brain injury, as well as issues such as malingering. I provide summaries of the articles in this special series that appear in this inaugural issue. The remaining articles of the special series of articles to introduce the journal are presented in the next two issues.     

Psychological Injury and Law: Journal Policy on Ongoing Debates

This journal, Psychological Injury and Law, has made it a policy to publish articles that are part of ongoing debates. They might not be subject to the standard review process and are published from the perspective that the reader should decide on the merits of the science and arguments presented and that rebuttals, as well, should be allowed in order to make the best scientific case possible. In response to queries, the journal editor describes in depth the review process undertaken for Butcher et al. (Psychological Injury and Law 1(3):191–209, 2008). The journal editor indicated to the reviewers of Butcher et al. (Psychological Injury and Law 1(3):191–209, 2008), that “we let opinions stand even if we do not agree with them, checking uniquely the methodology, data, and science underlying the opinion, and let the scholar writing the rebuttal deal with any differences of opinion, also by addressing methodology, data, and science.” Ben Porath et al. (Psychological Injury and Law 2(2), 2009) have written a rebuttal of Butcher et al., equally reviewed from this perspective.     

Psychological Injury and Law: Editorial on the Young and the Tested

In this editorial about our dynamic new journal and association, I describe how young professionals and students in both the mental health field and the legal profession can play a role in the association and how they can benefit from it and the journal. The association and journal are meant to serve the education and career aspirations of young people and, at the same time, we look forward to their contributions.     

Psychological Injury and Law: Editorial Introducing a Journal and an Association

In this inaugural editorial to the journal, I describe briefly the topic of psychological injury and law and the association set up to house this the new journal on the topic. I present the journal’s aims and scope and invite members of the relevant professional communities to participate in our work and publications.     

Disentangling the Disability Quagmire in Psychological Injury and Law

This paper aims to critically analyze the evolution of six models of conceptualization, determination, and prediction of occupational disability relevant in the medico-legal context of psychological injury. The six models are the (a) biomedical, (b) forensic, (c) psychosocial, (d) ecological, (e) economic, and (f) biopsychosocial. We will discuss the key commonalities and differences among the models, including disciplinary tradition, research paradigm, recognition of person–environment interaction, key tenets, and implications for practice and research in psychological injury. The paper will highlight and discuss psychosocial issues, often underemphasized in forensic psychological practice, including: (a) balanced assessment of primary, secondary, and tertiary gains and losses, (b) self-perception, (c) disability identity, (d) beliefs and expectations, (e) coping, (f) adaptation and positive growth, (g) social stigma and social reactions to disability, including disability harassment, and (h) recognition of system-based environmental influences and demands. We will provide a special focus on the current state of the science and practice of prediction of disability, of particular interest to researchers and clinicians involved in clinical and occupational prognostication in psychological injuries. Finally, we will draw conclusions and recommendations for future research and best practices in the psychological injury area using a cross-diagnostic, dynamic, functionally based, and integrated biopsychosocial and forensic model of disability.     

Psychological Injury and Law: Editorial on Truth and Consequences, Psychologists and Attorneys

Psychology and law are established but evolving professions that need to communicate better with each other. In the interface of psychology and law in civil proceedings, such as in cases of psychological injury in tort, psychology can help in arriving at just and fair legal decisions that are appropriate in context. Professionals in the legal and mental health communities will find that the combination of the journal, Psychological Injury and Law, and its housing association, ASAPIL, function as a bridge between the two communities.     

Psychological Injury and Law: Assumptions and Foundations, Controversies and Myths, Needed Directions

Psychological injury and law is a fast-developing field that is constructing a set of foundational assumptions and core knowledge guiding its science and practice. At the same time, it is marked by controversies, functions in an adversarial legal system and related systems, and is bedeviled by myths. I present a list of 25 basic assumptions, core knowledge, controversies, myths, and needed directions. With well-designed conceptualization and research on critical issues, the assumptions and core knowledge base in the field of psychological injury and law can continue to improve in quality, reducing its controversies and myths, and moderating the impact of the adversarial nature of the legal system and related systems in which it must function.     

Psychological Injury and Law: Editorial on What Mental Health Clinicians/Practitioners Need to Know

Mental health clinicians and practitioners often deal with cases of psychological injury (e.g., PTSD, pain, TBI), but frequently remain unprepared for the intricacies of providing adequate quality of service and of potential legal challenges of such cases. The editorial lists the areas in which specified knowledge is needed in working with cases of psychological injury and the dangers of being unprepared for court. At the same time, the list constitutes guides to central topics of the journal, Psychological Injury and Law, and its parent organization, the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law (ASAPIL). Professionals in mental health should be aware of the risks inherent in working in the field, as well as remedies, such as this journal.     

Trends in Psychological/Psychiatric Injury and Law: Continuing Education, Practice Comments, Recommendations

This literature review of the major topics in the field of psychological/psychiatric injury and law is aimed at developing commentary for practice in the area. The field is a fast-developing one, with over ten major topics that it needs to integrate. In particular, the present review focuses current work on: law (evidence, tort); forensic psychology; assessment and testing; psychological injuries (posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, other); the APA DSM-5 draft (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders; American Psychiatric Association 2010); malingering; causality; multicultural considerations; disability; the American Medical Association (AMA) Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment (Rondinelli et al. 2008); models; and treatment. At the end of each section of the article, practice comments introduce critical issues in applying the research to psychological work in the area. Whether undertaking tort evaluations, disability, and treatment plan assessments or treating individuals with psychological injuries, the professional needs state-of-the-art information in all the areas listed in order to remain scientifically informed, comprehensive, and impartial. The article concludes with recommendations for an integrated field in psychological/psychiatric injury and law, study in the field, research in its major areas, best practice policies, for example in assessment and treatment, and model building.     

Erratum to: Trends in Psychological/Psychiatric Injury and Law: Continuing Education, Practice Comments, Recommendations

This literature review of the major topics in the field of psychological/psychiatric injury and law is aimed at developing practice in the area. The field is a fast-developing one, with over ten major topics that it needs to integrate. In particular, the present review focuses on current work on: law (evidence, tort); forensic psychology; assessment and testing; psychological injuries (posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, other); the APA DSM-5 draft (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders; American Psychiatric Association 2010); malingering; causality; multicultural considerations; disability; the American Medical Association (AMA) Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment (Rondinelli et al. 2008); models; and treatment. At the end of each section of the article, practice comments introduce critical issues in applying the research to psychological work in the area. Whether undertaking tort evaluations, disability, and treatment plan assessments or treating individuals with psychological injuries, the professional needs state-of-the-art information in all the areas listed in order to remain scientifically informed, comprehensive, and impartial. The article concludes with recommendations for an integrated field in psychological/psychiatric injury and law, study in the field, research in its major areas, best practice policies, for example in assessment and treatment, and model building.     

执法者心态变迁对执法活动的影响

我国目前正处于一个由传统社会向现代社会过渡的转型时期。在这一时期,执法者的心态一方面会产生由单一型转向多元宽容、由浮躁非理性转向成熟理性等积极变化;另一方面,也会产生由相对平衡转向失衡、由心理平和转向心理矛盾增多等消极变化。相应的,执法者心态的变迁会对执法活动产生或正面或负面的影响,这就需要针对不同的情况,采取相应的措施,扬长避短。     

Psychological Assessment of Symptom and Performance Validity,Response Bias,and Malingering: Official Position of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law

Evidence-based forensic psychological opinions require thorough and accurate information about examinees. Psychometric instruments can facilitate diagnostic decision making, but they rely on examinees to respond honestly to questions and put forth good effort on cognitive tests. Given the strong incentives for examinees in psychological injury cases to minimize prior problems and emphasize postaccident or posttrauma problems, the assessment of validity as part of forensic psychological evaluations is essential. Best practices in forensic psychology have their foundation in ethical principles. The purpose of this position statement is to promote ethical psychological practice in legal contexts by reviewing validity assessment issues and their ethical foundations. Because no previously published document focused specifically on symptom and performance validity assessment in psychological injury evaluations performed in forensic contexts, such a position statement provided by a professional organization devoted to the interface of psychological injury and law was needed to inform and guide practitioners and to educate other interested parties. The position statement emphasizes (a) the need for ethical practice in assessing validity, (b) consideration of factors such as culture and functional limitations, and (c) the importance of adopting a comprehensive, impartial, and scientific approach to validity assessment. The position statement acknowledges areas of differing opinions and the need for further research.