Criminal and civil courts and the New Jersey State Parole Board have accepted the use of psychological testing as an important component of making legal and factual determinations in both the civil and criminal litigation and for considerations as to whether a person is suitable for release on parole. Such testing may add an air of scientific authority resulting in an over reliance on conclusions drawn from the instrument. While psychological testing does add value, the courts recognize and it must be emphasized that the ultimate determinations involving psychological issues reside with the court and/or fact finder. The “objective test” result and related “expert” opinion may be considered, but are not binding on the court and/or fact finder. Given the stakes in establishing defenses in criminal law, sentencing, whether someone may be returned to society in parole determinations, and family law custody disputes, counsel must understand the benefits and limitations of psychological testing in the forensic context.
Mental Health professionals are permitted to bolster their conclusions with the use of psychological testing instruments. Such testing instruments have commonly been given the misleading designation of “objective testing.” In practice, such testing is far from “objective.” There are many reasons that such tests are not “objective” and must be scrutinized:
- Many psychological testing instruments are not meant to be used in forensic context (this is a frequent area of abuse);
- The administration of the test itself involves subjective assessment and conclusions drawn by the professional administering the instrument;
- The tests may be administered incorrectly and the scoring completed either in error or in disregard of the instructions and/or cautions in the training/scoring manuals themselves;
- The test itself may be inherently unreliable; and
- The test scoring may be based upon hearsay provided by third parties and/or self-reporting by the subject, information that may not be complete, accurate, and/or has not been verified.
It is therefore critical that when confronted with the results of a so-called “objective” psychological test that counsel investigate the purpose of the instrument, the manner in which it is administered, and how it is ultimately scored.
- First, counsel should obtain a copy of the training and/or scoring materials related to the instrument. Many of the training and scoring manuals set forth the limitations of the instruments and caution about its use in forensic settings. It is surprising how often tests are used and relied upon in contexts that are inappropriate;
- Second, counsel should research the history of the use of the instrument and peer reviewed journal articles evaluating the instrument. It is remarkable that in some cases the creator/author of the instrument itself warns against misuse and/or journal articles report “false positives,” or even that the instrument fails to satisfy accepted legal standards of scientific reliability;
- Third, counsel should obtain the raw data upon which the expert scored the results of the test and rescore the test (rescoring to be done by counsel’s own qualified expert). Remarkably, either through erroneous administration, simple error, or intentional skewing, the scoring of the raw data itself may be incorrect.
The results of all “objective” psychological tests should be closely evaluated and challenged. It is important to understand the limitations of such testing when “objective test” results are used against your clients and to understand the limitations of such testing when used to advance the interests of your clients.
Stay posted - I will follow up this article with a series of individual posts involving assessments of various “objective” psychological tests that, for better or for worse, have found their way into our judicial system.
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the date of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.