Forensic neuropsychology: the art of practicing a science that does not yet exist

Abstract

Despite its future promise, neuropsychological evidence generally lacks scientifically demonstrated value for resolving legal issues, and thus, if admitted into court, should be accorded little or no weight. In support of this contention, examples of problems and limits in forensic neuropsychology are described. These include contrasts between the clinical and forensic context; the base-rate problem; lack of standardized practices; problems assessing credibility or malingering; difficulties determining prior functioning, limits in the capacity to integrate complex data; and the lack of relation between judgmental accuracy and education, experience, or credentials. Some possible counterarguments are also addressed.