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


     

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34:4:482-491 (2006)
Copyright © 2006 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dattilio, F. M.
Right arrow Articles by Sadoff, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dattilio, F. M.
Right arrow Articles by Sadoff, R. L.
REGULAR ARTICLE

A Pilot Rasch Scaling of Lawyers' Perceptions of Expert Bias

Frank M. Dattilio, PhD, Michael Lamport Commons, PhD, Kathryn Marie Adams, BS, Thomas G. Gutheil, MD and Robert L. Sadoff, MD

Dr. Dattilio is Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, and Clinical Associate in Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Commons is Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. At the time of this study, Ms. Adams was Research Associate, Program in Psychiatry and the Law, Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Boston, MA. Dr. Gutheil is Professor of Psychiatry and Co-Founder, Program in Psychiatry and the Law, BIDMC Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Dr. Sadoff is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Director, Center for Studies in Socio-Legal Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. This study was funded by a general grant awarded through the Pennsylvania Bar Institute to the first author. Address correspondence to: Frank M. Dattilio, PhD, 1251 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard, Suite 304-D, Allentown, PA 18103. E-mail: frankdattilio{at}cs.com

How seriously do attorneys consider the biases of their retained mental health experts? Participants in this pilot study included 40 attorneys, randomly selected from a pool of members of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, who rated—for their biasing potential—several situations that might affect the behavior of an expert. A Rasch analysis produced a linear scale as to the perceived biasing potential of these different items from most to least biasing. Among other results, the study suggests that attorneys do view mental health experts who work on both sides of cases as being more balanced in their testimony. However, they also indicated that they have a preference for using individuals who repeatedly testify for one side. Working for only one side in both civil and criminal cases yielded large scaled values. Additional comments offered by respondents indicated that: (1) an opposing expert also serving as the litigant's treater and (2) an opposing expert being viewed as a "hired gun" (supplying an opinion only for money) were viewed by subjects as not being very biased. A discussion of the results raises the need for future research in this area.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.