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.     

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.     

Breaking Bad: DSM-5 Description, Criticisms, and Recommendations

The special issue on the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, American Psychiatric Association, 2013) in the journal Psychological Injury and Law has considered its changes relative to the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision, American Psychiatric Association, 2000) from both a clinical utility and scientific point of view. Although the manual did not undergo wholesale change, the changes to diagnostic categories relevant to the area of psychological injuries (especially posttraumatic stress disorder, mild traumatic brain injury, and chronic pain) present both practical and forensic conundrums, complicating clinical and legal work in the area. The articles in the special issue number nine (including the present one), and involve ones on the major psychological injuries, as well as personality. Separate articles deal with forensics and ethics, with a final one considering forensic psychiatric work using the DSMs. The authors collectively indicate that the DSM-5 is rife with utility and scientific difficulties, although it still might be used in practice and for court in the context of careful, comprehensive assessments and critical analysis. More importantly, ongoing and future research should be considered in revising the DSM-5. Some of the articles review in depth the extant research on their topics and all make recommendations that are useful. The articles include those (in order in the special issue) by: Zoellner et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Biehn et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Schultz (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Young (2013); Hopwood and Sellbom (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Thomas (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Gordon and Cosgrove (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); and an opinion piece by Frances and Halon (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013), the chief chair of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, American Psychiatric Association 1994).     

Determining Disability: New Advances in Conceptualization and Research

This special issue of Psychological Injury and Law on disability presents state-of-the-art conceptualization and empirical research that will help psychologists and attorneys in the area of disability determination. This paper constitutes an introduction to and contextualization of the articles in the issue. It focuses on key advances in the field of disability research that are anticipated to move forward the practice of psychological injury and law. These new advances include the following: (1) a theoretical shift toward an integrative and dynamic biopsychosocial framework of health and disability, (2) development of complex multidimensional constructs of motivation, including primary, secondary, and tertiary gains and losses involved in disability claims, (3) increased emphasis on the perception of fairness and justice in disability claims from both psychological and legal perspectives, (4) increased understanding of the functional impact of psychological impairment, (5) inclusion of age-related factors in predicting disability, and (6) the interdisciplinary growth of this field.     

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: 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: 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.     

Neuroscience and Neurolaw

At the intersection of neuroscience and psychological science stands neuropsychology, providing patients, triers of fact, and other parties a quantifiable, evidence-based method for understanding cognitive, emotional, and behavioral changes that occur in the context of injury or disease. The purposes of this special issue of Psychological Injury and Law are to (1) illustrate the ways in which neuroscience, psychological practice, professional ethics, and laws are intertwined in the evaluation and treatment of persons who have been injured or are experiencing a neurological disease, (2) demonstrate the ways in which neuropsychological practice is applied to forensic questions, and (3) promote quality neuropsychological practice and services to patients, courts, and other consumers of neuropsychological services. This special issue provides a sample of the types of ways that practitioners integrate neuroscience and clinical psychology, informed by and consistent with relevant laws and professional ethics, to understand people who have cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral problems stemming from neurological injuries or other disorders.     

New PIL Sections: Aims and Scope

The journal Psychological Injury and Law has added three new sections, increasing the reach of the journal. The three new sections are: Malingering and Symptom Validity Testing, Practice Matters, and State/ Provincial/ International Affairs. The editorial describes the aims and scope of each new section.     

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.     

Forensic Assessment of Adults Reporting Childhood Sexualized Assault: Risk,Resilience, and Impacts

Though childhood sexualized assault (CSA) increases risk for varied psychological difficulties, no single condition, syndrome, or set of difficulties is reliably associated with such experiences. CSA likely disrupts or impairs normal development in complex ways that depend on the risk and resilience factors present before, during, and after CSA. CSA characteristics that increase risk for later difficulties include young age, trauma inflicted by another person, number of occurrences, violence or intrusiveness, betrayal of trust, adverse peri-traumatic reactions, negative reactions from others following disclosure, and a context of previous sexualized assault or maltreatment. Resilience increases with positive self-esteem, better intellectual functioning, good self-control, positive social support, and early therapeutic intervention. CSA is associated with impaired psychological development, mental health disorders, behavioural and relationship difficulties, physical health problems, reduced intellectual function, lower educational achievement, lower occupational attainment, and reduced lifetime income. Any particular difficulty may be problematic in its own right and may also contribute to other difficulties in the interlocking domains of individual abilities and attributes, relationships, and significant life activities. In individual forensic assessment cases, general evidence on CSA risk/resilience and impacts can be used in combination with the lifespan developmental analysis (Barnes & Josefowitz, Psychological Injury and Law, 2014), to determine whether and how CSA contributed to psychological injuries.     

Setting the Record Straight: Comment on Gurley,Piechowski, Sheehan,and Gray (2014) on the Admissibility of the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) in Court

Gurley et al. (Psychological Injury and Law 7:9–17, 2014) express reservations about the admissibility of testimony based on the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) in court. They question whether there is sufficient evidentiary foundation in the underlying psychometrics and adequate general acceptance among psychologists for R-PAS-based testimony to meet either the Daubert or Frye criteria for admissibility and also raise doubts about how well it meets the criteria for the use of forensic tests proposed by Heilbrun (Law and Human Behavior 16:257–272, 1992). This invited comment addresses their concerns about the admissibility of R-PAS-based testimony and corrects some erroneous statements about the psychometrics of R-PAS and the pertinent empirical literature. Gurley et al. characterize R-PAS as being in competition with the established Comprehensive System (CS; Exner 2003), though we clarify that it is actually an evolutionary development from the CS and designed to be a replacement for it. We also point out how their conclusion that R-PAS-based forensic testimony may be hazardous or premature is based on an insufficient familiarity with the R-PAS scientific and professional literature, a misinterpretation of the Frye and Daubert evidentiary standards, and a mischaracterization of several of Heilbrun’s (Law and Human Behavior 16:257–272, 1992) criteria for the use of tests in forensic testimony.     

Excellence in Psychological Injury and Law: Book Review of Motor Vehicle Collisions by Duckworth, Iezzi, and O’Donohue (2008)

In several ways, the book on motor vehicle collisions by Duckworth, Iezzi, and O’Donohue (2008) breaks new ground and should be considered a must-read for workers in the area of psychological injury and law. The editors have assembled a team of expert authors who have cogently analyzed the scientific evidence in the area of motor vehicle collisions and their aftermath, while calling for more research. The book is replete with information that will help practitioners understand and deal with cases involving conditions such as chronic pain, posttraumatic stress, and traumatic brain injury. Practitioners will learn about complications in such cases, including threats to validity and legal aspects. The inclusion of chapters from a medical perspective is a welcome innovation. The book is only lacking in that, although assessment is considered throughout, chapters specifically addressing this topic are not included. The book review concludes that the Motor vehicle collisions book by Duckworth et al. should be included as part of the growing list of excellent resources in the area of psychological injury and law.     

Resource Material for Ethical Psychological Assessment of Symptom and Performance Validity,Including Malingering

The present paper offers resource material for evaluation of malingering, response bias, and symptom and performance validity. The material mostly consists of noncontroversial, paraphrased excerpts from relevant consensus statements, guidelines, codes, books, and articles. The five principles of the American Psychological Association (APA) ethics code were used to integrate the material. In addition, five other principles were needed (e.g., on science). The companion article on a new consensus statement on the ethical use of symptom and performance validity written for the Association for Psychological Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law (ASAPIL) in the journal Psychological Injury and Law (PIL; Bush, Ruff, & Heibronner, 2014) was instigated by and written partly based on the resources described in the present paper. The resources offered in the present paper are divided into the following sections: I. Malingering; II. Related Terms; III. APA Ethics Code; IV. Other Ethics Guidelines; V. Practice Guidelines; VI. Assessment Guidelines; VII. Other Ethical Sources; IX. Biases, Fallacies, Errors; X. Prior SVT-M/PVT-M Statements; XI. A New Ethical Model of Ten Principles; and XII. Instrumentation, and followed by Conclusions. The ten principles of the present ethical guidelines could be used to help revise the APA ethics code. The companion statement constitutes a major advance in the field and the present resource material facilitates its use.     

Why “Trauma-Related Dissociation” Is a Misnomer in Courts: a Critical Analysis of Brand et al. (2017a,b)

Forensic psychologists are sometimes faced with the task of educating triers of fact about the evidential weight of dissociative experiences reported by claimants in litigation procedures. In their two-part essay, Brand et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283–297, 2017a; Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 298–312, 2017b) provide advice to experts who find themselves in such situation. We argue that the Brand et al. approach is problematic and might induce confirmation bias in experts. Their approach is not well connected to the extant literature on recovered memories, dissociative amnesia, memory distortions, and symptom validity testing. In some instances, Brand et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283–297, 2017a; Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 298–312, 2017b) simplify the current body of knowledge about dissociation; in other instances, they ignore relevant empirical studies to an extent that is worrisome.     

The Evolutionary Game‐Theoretic Foundations of Law

Interdisciplinary work in the law often starts and stops with the social sciences. To produce a complete understanding of how law, evolutionary game‐theoretic insights must, however, supplement these more standard social scientific methods. To illustrate, this article critically examines The Force of Law by Frederick Schauer and The Expressive Powers of Law by Richard McAdams. Combining the methods of analytic jurisprudence and social psychology, Schauer clarifies the need for a philosophically respectable and empirically well‐grounded account of the ubiquity of legal sanctions. Drawing primarily on economic and social psychological paradigms, McAdams highlights law's potential to alter human behavior through expressions that coordinate. Still, these contributions generate further puzzles about how law works, which can be addressed using evolutionary game‐theoretic resources. Drawing on these resources, this article argues that legal sanctions are ubiquitous to law not only because they can motivate legal compliance, as Schauer suggests, but also because they provide the general evolutionary stability conditions for intrinsic legal motivation. In reaction to McAdams, this article argues that law's expressive powers can function to coordinate human behavior only because humans are naturally and culturally evolved to share a prior background agreement in forms of life. Evolutionary game‐theoretic resources can thus be used to develop a unified framework from within which to understand some of the complex interrelationships between legal sanctions, intrinsic legal motivation, and law's coordinating power. Going forward, interdisciplinary studies of how law works should include greater syntheses of contemporary insights from evolutionary game theory.     

Types of Malingering in PTSD: Evidence from a Psychological Injury Paradigm

Psychological Injury and Law - The extent to which persons may feign or malinger psychological symptoms is an important concern for civil litigation, specifically in the context of personal injury....     

Ill-Treatment of Pain in the DSM-5

The just-published psychiatric diagnostic manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), American Psychiatric Association (2013), has been lauded by its organizers (e.g., Regier, Kuhl, and Kupfer in World Psychiatry 12, pp. 92–98, 2013), but has been criticized on multiple grounds, as well. Several of its major diagnostic categories concern the area of psychological injury and law (e.g., tort cases involving posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic pain, and traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The one for chronic pain seems the one most greatly changed. The approach to chronic pain in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (American Psychiatric Association 2000) and the DSM-5 are compared, leading to an alternative diagnostic criteria list partly based on the changes in the DSM-5. The DSM-5 should be used with caution in forensic assessments. This applies especially to the psychological injury patient, including the pain one, given the high stakes involved and the need for accuracy in assessment based on a reliable and valid diagnostic system. Future iterations of the manual should be improved in both these regards.     

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.     

Morality, Law and the Fair Distribution of Freedom

Hart’s criticism of Devlin’s stance on the legal enforcement of morality has been highly influential in shaping a new liberal sensibility and in paving the way to many important legal reforms in the UK. After 50 years it is perhaps time to go back to Law, Liberty and Morality to see it in the perspective of the general evolution of Hart’s thought since the early 50s. This is a period of extraordinary creativity for the Oxford philosopher, in which he writes many important contributions to legal, moral and political philosophy. Prominent among these is ‘Are There Any Natural Rights?’, an article that sets the agenda for Hart’s subsequent work on liberty, fairness and rights, and provides the philosophical background for the liberal understanding of the relations between law and morality defended in Law, Liberty and Morality.