Psychotherapy for Psychological Injury: A Biopsychosocial and Forensic Perspective

This article reviews the predominant psychological approaches to therapy and other treatments in the field of psychological injury. Mostly, they concern cognitive behavior therapy and its variants. However, because of the simultaneous physical injuries or physiological effects that accompany these types of injury, practitioners should adopt an integrated biopsychosocial approach in treatment (Sperry, L., Treatment of chronic medical conditions: Cognitive-behavioral therapy strategies and integrative treatment protocols. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2006; Treatment of chronic medical conditions: Cognitive-behavioral therapy strategies and integrative treatment protocols. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2009). The paper presents a componential model of therapy that integrates the cognitive-behavioral, biopsychosocial, and forensic approaches. More research needs to be undertaken that takes into account the difficulties of conducting therapy with individuals who are expressing psychological injury. This will help in the quest to formulate evidence-based but flexible practice guidelines. The paper concludes with a model that may serve to scaffold the numerous psychotherapies that are available into a more coherent framework.     

Coping in Psychological Injury: A Biopsychosocial and Forensic Perspective

This paper examines stress and coping from the perspective of psychological injury, which concerns injuries attributed to an event at claim. The paper explores current conceptualizations of stress and coping and includes discussion of resilience. In particular, the paper focuses on biopsychosocial approaches, given their relevance to the area of psychological in jury and law. The paper presents a model of coping that integrates biopsychosocial and forensic aspects. As part of the model, the author develops the concept of forensic appraisals, which are particular to the area of psychological injury and law. The paper discusses implications for practice and assessment.     

Personality Disorder in Psychological Injury: A Biopsychosocial and Forensic Perspective

The present paper explores personality disorder from a biopsychosocial and developmental perspective, in particular, while considering forensic applications. It reviews criticisms of the current approach to classification, especially about its categorical in nature. Then, the paper focuses on the Five-Factor Model of personality dimensions and the attempts to relate it to understanding and assessing personality disorder (Costa and Widiger 2002). Developmental research is revealing that from early in life, temperament and personality seem to conform to a five-factor structure akin to the Big Five, although there are exceptions. Next, the paper examines the biopsychosocial model of personality and considers how personality disorder in the healthcare context affects treatment, relations with providers, and so on. Lastly, the paper examines Young’s (1997) stage model of development in relation to the Big Five and shows how the manner in which it deals with the development of the self may facilitate understanding of personality development and its disturbance. Recommendations and implications are considered.     

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: 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: An Integrative Model

This article briefly reviews the literature on three areas of psychological injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, and traumatic brain injury, preparatory to presentation of an integrated biopsychosocial and forensic model of multifactorial causality. The model is the first in the field to (a) cover in one model the three types of psychological injury, (b) while including a full range of causality factors relevant to forensic psychology (such as pre-event, event-, post-event, and unrelated factors), and (c) while addressing the relevance of biopsychological and stress as a cohering factors in all conditions. (d) The model emphasizes the importance of individual differences, for example, in causality of symptom presentation. (e) The model acknowledges that in individual evaluations, psychologists need to consider threats to validity, response biases, and possible malingering, and verify whether pre-event factors fully explain post-event presentation.     

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: 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.     

诉讼法视野中的法医DNA证据研究

作为一种科学证据,法医DNA证据在凶杀、性犯罪等案件的审判中被广泛运用。但是该证据能否最终被法庭采纳,取决于其提取、保管、送检以及鉴定过程中是否受到一系列严格的诉讼程序加以规范,并经过庭审的质证,从而最终通过法庭的审查判断。而庭审质证能否有效进行,又与警察、鉴定人出庭作证以及交叉询问制度的真正确立息息相关。     

诉讼法视野中的法医DNA证据研究

作为一种科学证据,法医DNA证据在凶杀、性犯罪等案件的审判中被广泛运用。但是该证据能否最终被法庭采纳,取决于其提取、保管、送检以及鉴定过程中是否受到一系列严格的诉讼程序加以规范,并经过庭审的质证,从而最终通过法庭的审查判断。而庭审质证能否有效进行,又与警察、鉴定人出庭作证以及交叉询问制度的真正确立息息相关。     

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.