Clinical judgment in forensic neuropsychology: a comment on the risks of claiming more than can be delivered

Abstract

There is a vast and growing literature in psychology demonstrating the general limits of human judgment and clinical inference. These findings clearly apply in the new specialty of clinical neuropsychology, and there is little empirical research to support the widespread belief that judgmental accuracy correlates substantially with experience, professional stature, or reputation as a neuropsychologist. However, the demand characteristics of expert testimony in the forensic arena may encourage individual neuropsychologists to state or intimate that they have unique or special expertise in understanding brain-behavior relationships, or in predicting outcomes following cerebral insult or injury. These claims will be increasingly difficult to substantiate as attorneys become more conversant with the literature on human judgment.