JAAPL
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 32:1:70-75 (2004)
Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
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 Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Commons, M.
Right arrow Articles by Gutheil, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Commons, M.
Right arrow Articles by Gutheil, T.
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts

ML Commons, PM Miller, and TG Gutheil

A pilot study of perceptions of different sources of expert bias, as well as of personal investment in case outcomes, was performed among attendees at a workshop at an annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Participants were asked to rate hypothetical responses by experts to various case outcomes and the biasing potential of different kinds of situations for opposing or other experts. A factor analysis produced two factors. Factor 1 included questions about situations that were obviously biasing (such as working only for the defense). Factor 2 included questions assessing the potential of certain situations to cause bias in experts, or how likely experts thought other experts were to be biased. In general, experts identified only four areas to be overtly biasing. All occurred within situations in which experts worked only for one or the other side of civil or criminal cases. Experts otherwise thought other experts were reasonably bias free and well able to compensate for any bias when it occurred. The data suggest that experts may deal with bias by turning down cases that may cause them personal discomfort.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
D. Mossman, S. G. Noffsinger, P. Ash, R. L. Frierson, J. Gerbasi, M. Hackett, C. F. Lewis, D. A. Pinals, C. L. Scott, K. G. Sieg, et al.
AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2007; 35(Supplement_4): S3 - S72.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
H. W. LeBourgeois III, D. A. Pinals, V. Williams, and P. S. Appelbaum
Hindsight Bias Among Psychiatrists
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, March 1, 2007; 35(1): 67 - 73.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
F. M. Dattilio, M. L. Commons, K. M. Adams, T. G. Gutheil, and R. L. Sadoff
A Pilot Rasch Scaling of Lawyers' Perceptions of Expert Bias
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2006; 34(4): 482 - 491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
D. B. Menkes
The Silent Expert
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, June 1, 2006; 34(2): 240 - 241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
T. G. Gutheil, D. H. Schetky, and R. I. Simon
Pejorative Testimony About Opposing Experts and Colleagues "Fouling One's Own Nest".
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, January 1, 2006; 34(1): 26 - 30.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
R. M. Wettstein
Quality and Quality Improvement in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, June 1, 2005; 33(2): 158 - 175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.