Taking the stand: Issues and strategies in forensic neuropsychology

Abstract

Neuropsychologists are participating in the legal process with increasing frequency. Simultaneously, attorneys are becoming more sophisticated about the limitations of the field, leaving the expert neuropsychologist vulnerable to increasingly rigorous cross-examination. Five substantive areas in which common assumptions are vulnerable to the weight of scientific evidence are reviewed in an effort to enhance the preparedness and credibility of the neuropsychological expert witness. These include: (1) the lack of uniformity in neuropsychological assessment; (2) research on training, experience, and judgment accuracy; (3) the modest capacity to predict everyday and work functioning from neuropsychological test results; (4) evidence indicating an inability to detect malingering; and (5) the problems clinicians have with complex data integration. When appropriate, suggestions for corrective strategies in forensic evaluations and expert testimony are provided.