Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Greenberg, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Long, A. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Greenberg, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Long, A. C.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Injuries
*Stress
*Wounds
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Utility of Psychological Testing in Assessing Emotional Damages in Personal Injury Litigation

Stuart A. Greenberg

University of Washington

Randy K. Otto

Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida

Anna C. Long

University of Washington

Psychological testing and assessment instruments frequently play a small but important role when psychologists assist the courts as emotional damage experts in personal injury matters. However, examiners frequently, if sometimes inadvertently, mislead the court with test interpretations that are based on clinical rather than forensic populations and that fail to appreciate the lack of robustness of clinical measures in this forensic context. Whereas published computerized interpretations repeatedly remind experts that personality test results should only be used as a method to generate hypotheses about the examinee that are to be subjected to further investigation and consideration, experts all too often inform the courts of test interpretations as if the test results were measures of clinical constructs rather than plaintiffs’ self-reports of symptoms.

Key Words: psychological testing • forensics • test interpretations

Assessment, Vol. 10, No. 4, 411-419 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1073191103259532
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?