A Forensic Examination of Court Reports

References

• Allan, A., Martin, M., & Allan, M. (2000). Assessments for the courts: A survey of Australian psychologists. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 7, 150–158.
   Google Scholar
• Allnut, S. H., & Chaplow, D. (2000). General principles of forensic report writing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 980–987.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Psychological Society. (2007). Code of ethics. Melbourne, Australia: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Psychological Society College of Forensic Psychologists. (2012). Information sheet 2: Writing reports for courts . Retrieved from http://www.m2cms.com.au/uploaded/52/Forensic‐reports.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1996). Establishing standards for criminal forensic reports: An empirical analysis. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 24(3), 297–317.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christy, A., Douglas, K. S., Otto, R. K., & Petrila, J. (2004). Juveniles evaluated incompetent to proceed: Characteristics and quality of mental health professionals’ evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 380–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conroy, M. A. (2006). Report writing and testimony. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(3), 237–260.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, C. E., & Davis, E. B. (1996). Information load and consistency of decisions. Psychological Reports, 79, 279–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, A., White, J., Howells, K., Whitford, H., O'brien, K., & Chartres, D. (2000). The uses of court‐ordered psychiatric and psychological reports in South Australian magistrates’ courts. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 7, 254–263.
   Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K. (2002). Do bail information schemes really affect bail decisions? The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 245–262.
   Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K. (2003). Psychological models of professional decision‐making. Psychological Science, 14, 175–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K. (2006). Legal decision making: Psychological reality meets legal idealism. In B. Brooks & M. Freeman (Eds.), Law and psychology (pp. 49–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K., & Ayton, P. (2001). Bailing and jailing the fast and frugal way. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 141–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle, D. J., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Thomas, S. D. M. (2011). An analysis of dangerous sexual offender assessment reports: Recommendations for best practice. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 18, 537–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edland, A. (1979). On cognitive processes under time stress: A selective review of the literature on time stress and related stress . Reports from the Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm, Suppl 68, 31.
   Google Scholar
• Foote, W. E., & Goodman‐delahunty, J. (2005). Evaluating sexual harassment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia‐retamero, R., & Dhami, M. K. (2011). Pictures speak louder than numbers: On communicating medical risks to immigrants with non‐native language proficiency. Health Expectations, 14(Suppl. 1), 46–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelinas, L., & Alain, M. (1993). Expertise psycho‐juridique: Une evaluation de deux types de rapports et de leur influence sur la perceptioon de jures potentiels. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25(2), 175–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., Hoffrage, U., & Sedlmeier, P. (2008). Cognitive illusions reconsidered. In C. R. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1, pp. 1018–1034). Amsterdam: North‐Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilliland, V., & Dunn, D. C. (2008). Decision making in civil disputes: The effects of legal role, frame and perceived chance of winning. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 512–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman‐delahunty, J., & Foote, W. E. (2011). Evaluating workplace discrimination and harassment. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman‐delahunty, J., & Foote, W. E. (2012). Evaluation for harassment and discrimination claims. In R. Roesch & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), Forensic assessments in criminal and civil law: A handbook for lawyers (pp. 175–190). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenfield, D., & Gottschalk, J. (2009). Writing forensic reports: A guide for mental health professionals. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, E. E., Stankovic, A., & Baranoski, M. (2010). Conceptualizing the forensic psychiatry report as performative narrative. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 38, 32–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grisso, T. (2010). Guidance for improving forensic reports: A review of common errors. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 102–115.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavailable injustice. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heilbrun, K., Dematteo, D., & Marczyk, G. (2004). Pragmatic psychology, forensic mental health assessment, and the case of Thomas Johnson: Applying principles to promote quality. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(1–2), 31–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Highhouse, S., & Gallo, A. (1997). Order effects in personnel decision making. Human Performance, 10, 31–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Keane, P. A. (2011). Expert witnesses in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, Practice Note Cm 7 . Retrieved January 4, 2012 from http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/how/practice_notes.html#cm7
   Google Scholar
• Kerstholt, J. H., & Jackson, J. L. (1998). Judicial decision making: Order of evidence presentation and availability of background information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 445–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1984). The mythology of legal decision making. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 5–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korobkin, R., & Guthrie, C. (1994). Psychological barriers to litigation settlement: An experimental approach. Michigan Law Review, 93, 107–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta‐analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lander, T., & Heilbrun, K. (2009). The content and quality of forensic mental health assessment: Validation of a principles‐based approach. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 8, 115–121.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynett, E., & Rogers, R. (2000). Emotions overriding forensic opinions: The potentially biasing effects of victim statements. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 28, 449–457.
   Google Scholar
• Marchevsky, D. (1998). Current views of solicitors on psychiatry court reports. Psychiatric Bulletin, 22, 33–35.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, M., Allan, A., & Allan, M. M. (2001). The use of psychological tests by Australian psychologists who do assessments for the courts. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 77–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcsherry, B., & Keyzer, P. (2009). Sex offenders and preventive detention. Sydney: The Federation Press.
   Google Scholar
• Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, J., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholson, R. A., & Norwood, S. (2000). The quality of forensic psychological assessments, reports, and testimony: Acknowledging the gap between promise and practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 9–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norko, M. A., & Buchanan, A. (2011). The psychiatric report: Principles and practice of forensic writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ownby, R. L. (1997). Psychological reports: A guide to report writing in professional psychology. New York: Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petrella, R. C., & Poythress, N. G. (1983). The quality of forensic evaluations: An interdisciplinary study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 76–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (2006). The MMPI, MMPI‐2, and MMPI‐A in court: A practical guide for expert witnesses and attorneys (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Poythress, N. G. (1983). Psychological issues in criminal proceedings: Judicial preference regarding expert testimony. Journal of Criminal Justice & Behavior, 10(2), 175–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rachlinski, J. J. (1996). Gains, losses and the psychology of litigation. Southern California Law Review, 70, 113–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redding, R. E., Floyd, M. Y., & Hawk, G. L. (2001). What judges and lawyers think about the testimony of mental health experts: A survey of the courts and bar. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 583–594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redding, R. E., & Repucci, N. D. (1999). Effects of lawyers’ socio‐political attitudes on their judgments of social science in legal decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 23(1), 31–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (1999). When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell? In G. Gigerenzer , P. M. Todd , & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 141–167). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rix, K. J. B. (1999). Expert evidence and the courts: Proposals for reform, the expert witness bodies and ‘the model report’. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 5, 154–160.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, R., & Acklin, M. W. (2010). Fitness in paradise: Quality of forensic reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(2), 131–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedlmeier, P. (2007). Statistical reasoning: Valid intuitions put to use. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 389–419). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Sedlmeier, P., & Hilton, D. (2011). Improving judgment and decision making through communication and representation. In M. K. Dhami , A. Schlottmann , & M. Waldmann (Eds.), Judgment and decision making as a skill: Learning, development, and evolution (pp. 229–258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sensibaugh, C. C., & Allgeier, E. R. (1996). Factors considered by Ohio juvenile court judges in judicial bypass judgments: A policy‐capturing approach. Politics and Life Sciences, 15, 35–47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skeem, J. L., & Golding, S. L. (1998). Community examiners’ evaluations of competence to stand trial: Common problems and suggestions for improvement. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 357–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Timmermans, D. (1993). The impact of task complexity on information use in multi‐attribute decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6, 95–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. (2005). Schedule 7– Expert witness code of conduct . New South Wales Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/subordleg+418+2005+FIRST+0+N
   Google Scholar
• van Koppen, P. J. (1990). Risk taking in civil law negotiations. Law and Human Behaviour, 14, 151–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, K. J., Wettstein, R. W., Sadoff, R. L., Silva, J. A., & Norko, A. M. (2011). History and function of the psychiatric report. In A. M. Norko & A. Buchanan (Eds.), The psychiatric report: Principles and practice of forensic writing (pp. 11–21). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wettstein, R. (2010). Commentary: Conceptualizing the forensic psychiatry report. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 38, 46–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, J., Day, A., & Hackett, L. (2007). Writing reports for courts: A practical guide for psychologists working in a forensic context. Bowen Hills, Queensland: Australian Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Witt, P. H. (2010). Forensic report checklist. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 233–240.
   Google Scholar