faust_forensic - r; ' l’ueiite 204 . selves the value of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–14. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: r; ' l’ueiite 204 . selves the value of our testimony. He argues that it is inappropriate for psychologists to be addressing questions about the admissability of their data. While providing some validity to the arguments made by Faust and Wedding, Barth and colleagues carefully rewew the methodology-behind the research cited by Faust and Wedding. They conclude that while' con— cerns should be raised regarding the validity of neuropsychological infor— mation (as every. scientist should about their respective diSCipline), the arguments may hold limited validity themselves. ' ~ . I ’ Central to the questions raised by all authors 18 how yalid is clinical neuropsychology. The forensic arena provides a magnification of Mac is- sues in the field. Hence, it should come as no surprise that questions about the field are first noted in this context. However, care should be taken by all involved to realize that these are valid and important questions that need to be addressed. Further, all parties should subscribe to reasonable empirical approaches in attempting to address these. issues. Personal and emotionally driven arguments are of no value in this important task. At best they mask the real issues, at worst they validate the concerns others might have about the field. . We welcome and will publish peer-reViewed commentary that ad— dresses the issues raised by these authors. Neuropsychology Review, Vol. 2, N0. 3, 1991 Forensic Neuropsychology: The Art of Practicing a Science that Does Not Yet Exist David Faust1 Despite its future promise, neuropsychological evidence generally lacks scien— tifically demonstrated value for resolving legal issues, and thus, if admitted into count, should be accorded little or no weight. In support of this contention, examples of problems and limits in forensic neuropsychology are described. These include contrasts between the clinical and forensic context; the base-rate problem; lack of standardized practices; problems assessing credibility or ma- lingering; difliculties determining prior fianctioning, limits in the capacity to integrate complex data; and the lack of relation between judgmental accuracy and education,experience, or credentials. Some possible counterarguments are also addressed. KEY WORDS: forensic neuropsycliology; clinical assessment; neuropsychological methods; in— tellectual functioning. INTRODUCTION Neuropsychological evidence is generally of negligible value in resolv— ing legal issues. Whether neuropsychological evidence should be admitted into the courts is ultimately a matter for the courts to decide, but if ad— mitted such evidence should be accorded little or no weight. In presenting this argument I cannot be comprehensive as the subject matter is so vast (for more detailed coverage see Faust et al., 1991). Thus, I will offer a sample of problems that illustrate the obstacles and limitations in knowl- edge that need to be overcome before neuropsychological evidence will offer true assistance to the trier of fact. IPsychology Department, Chafce Center, University of Rhodc lsland, Kingston, Rliodc Island 02881. To whom correspondence should be addressed. 205 l040-7308/9l/O90()-0205$06.50/0 (D l‘)‘)l Plenum Publishing Corporation —d9 1eu11u1111 3911 119199391 31111 10 13019 ‘19A9M0H '9391119p u191c1 92119901 10 1911119191 3p01119111 pU9 31391 11911111 1111M [(991n999 9111 39A10Au1 [(3010119/{3d01 -n911 1991u119 u1 119199391 p911dde 9111 10 1101110d01d 91q919p1su09 V 393173 91111715 311319/1 snogAqO '391du19X9 10 391193 e 113n01111 919113n111 pue uodn 3n901 mou 111m 1 13911u09 10 9d£1 p11111 31111 31 11 ‘139191u1 1o 3uo1139nb pu9 3uo1191nd0d 1991d£1 01 99ue1q1u9391 p911u111 1(1u0 1110113 A9111 19111 3u0113911b pue ‘319np1A1pu1 ‘3u011911113 01 93p9 -1mou>1 91111u9193 pue 391np9901d (1391111111 U9110 pue) 3111131X9 £11U911n9 u1011 3uo119z11919U93 p901q me1p o1 p911nb91 9‘q £9111 ue191u119 9111 ‘an1 '311n09 9111 01 9999119191 13919913 10 3111991109 pue 3911331 9111 u1011 1u919111p [(19/1 119110 919 3130u391p pu9 119199391 19913010119/(3d01n9u‘ p911dd9 u1 p9A10A111 930111 p91dn990 9A911 19111 su199u09 pue 3139191u1 9111, '3u01139nb 19391 91119 ~9d3 3391pp9 19111 391np9901d 10 31391 19913010119£3d01119u no 391111113 ‘fiue 11 ‘M91 9q 111m 919111 39399 £ue1u u1 '139191111 19391 10 3uo1139nb 01 K11eu11u11u 919191 [(9111 p1911 9111 U11111M 119199391 p119 93p91m0u>1 91111u9193 191111111 1 “'319110p ‘u01111u1 e uo me 9301 p1n09 91911 11111115 ‘>1u11111(11991 1 1911/11 p193 1 11 93n999q ‘uo1139nb 19111 19M3ue 1‘u99 1,, ‘93pn1 9111 3u11191 pue 119dx9 ue 39 pu913 9111 3111>191 9u1391u1 01 p1911 31 11 3991911M “‘nOK 111111 11131111 [(93 01 9,1911 1 1911/11 pm: 911 01 1u9m 1‘u0p 1 9311999q ‘noK 101 191191 19111 9111M 191.19q p11 >1u1111 J‘uop 1,, ‘1u9119d 3‘9u0 01 3u1£es 9u1391111 U99 9uo ‘91u119 9111 u1 1119919 10 99u91u93 e 01 91nq111u09 U9A9 [(9111 9399 9u1911X9 9111 u1 pu9 ‘3139191u1 S‘QQUflUBXQ 9111 L111M 9p19u109 10u flew 10 Kew 1111111 9111 3u11191 '99u1u19X9 9111 10 10/191 u1 99U9p1A9 9111 110131p 10 *1ue13 A119u011u91u1 01 10u pue ‘K1139u011 9999p1A9 1u9391d 01—-11 3993 9113 10 911 39 11 1199 01 119dx9 ue 1199de 3111109 9111 ‘13911u09 u1 'd1911 19111 9p1A01d 01 9101 311911013 ~39101d 911131 11 pm»: ‘d1911 101 u9191u119 .9111 1110 $1993 1119119d 9111 ‘3uo11911113 199111119 130111 111 919119 9111 u1 p9199dX9 19111 1u011 19111p 390p 1(1u0u1u109 111001 -11n09 9111 u1 119191u119 9111 101 papuaju] 9101 9111 19111 31391191111011 ‘1u1od u191u RN '39101 91SU9101 p119 199111119 1199M19q 99U919111p 9111 1n0q9 £1u191199un p93391dx9 191110u9 pue ‘331111193 330199 3111113 1910111911911 3u119113u01u9p 919p p91s9nb91 19111911191 191110ue ‘1u00111n09 9111 u1 1911,1191 K91d 3ue191u119 19111 311113933n3 39 939339d 31101A9Jd 9111 p9191d191111 3191111911191 9111 10 9uQ 11: 'd 'A1139u011 pun K1u9do uo119u11o1u1 9301931p o1 p9u11ou1 3391 9q [(91u p9u1u19x9( ‘3u1913 uos19d 9111 pun ‘K11A11991q0 pno19 1(9u1 9211119du19 10 11oddns o1 K9u9pu91 p9u1913 -119 s‘ue191u119 9111 ‘p9911991d 10 191111u91 3391 u911o 31 9101 913119101 9111 'K19319Ap9 1911u910d 9 s9111099q 311111 u919111119 9111 'uo119u1u19x9 19pun u0319d 9111 101 su01199 -11du11 311 19A91911M ‘111n11 1911mm 0) 11993 p9913u1 pu9 111939 3u1d1911 311u9119d 9111 39 9101 1911111191 910111 119111 91011 111113 0319 9u919 913u9101 9111 191u9 011m 3u9191u113 L02 K3010119£3d01119N 913u91oJ wwwmfiu .. M-..M.__.-. 1991918 (8861) 1191812 pm: 18an sv '(13861 ‘113n9u9A93 pue 319303) 3u11193 91su9101 9111 01 1991u119 9111 1u011 39/1019 9113 .10 911 u911m K1q919p13u09 93u9119 AeLu 9101 3‘u9191u119 9111 ‘pu099s (1'1 ‘11) ‘31101'191011u09 9319/1119 3911191191 9111 u911m [11111991139 ‘31111199-9umu 01 1119111A1nb9 s1 91911d01dd9 31 19q91 9111 10 9sn 1uo11/11101 s1911p1111pu110 uo11991111u9p1 K1u0 311w19d 119111,“ 91np9901d 9 1o 1u9u1do19A9p 9111 ‘3n111 $039199 31111 111 1191 011M s19np1A1p -u1 3u01u9 K1111q9119A 19913 9111 3u119p1su09 ‘99u99111u31‘3 911199d3 911111 3911 “939111911 u191q,, 10 19q91 9111 '99u99111u313 9w03 3911 191191 911111 K1uo 1911111 01 1n13111u991u 31 11 ‘p91913 (9861) u9119}1 3V 'K9u919du109 191u91u 10 K1199d99 19u011911n1 3‘19np1A1pu1 9111 39 119113 ‘9n331 19391 9 01 K1191u1u11u. 919191 K91u 9391uep 1111:1q 1o 3130u391p 9111 ‘91d1u9X9 1011 '1U9A9 10 [(1111111 119 10 s99119nb93u09 11939119 9111 01 Rem 19919 flue u1 91919-1 1ou,1{91u 3130u391p 1991u119 9 ‘9u0 10:1 '1u001111109 9111 pu9 91u119 9111 u99m19q (1861 ‘u1>131z) sd93 1911u910d 119113 991111 13991 19 919 919111 '1991 10 19111 9111, 31111319 10 91qed99 31 10 ‘K11p119A 1o K991119 —99 91q9u03991 1111M 31101139nb 19391 .19m3u9 01 91q9 31 U9191u119 9111 10 1101119111 9111 19111 11311q9139 01 1191 u911o K11111n 199111119 10 3u01191131101119p 10 31111919 ‘19A9 4111011 ‘1X91u09 19391 9111 01 39211919u93 33999n3 10 19A91 31111 19111 930ddn3 [(9111 119dx9 UV '1x91u09 10 3u11193 19919119 9111 u11111m 3uo113911b 11191199 311119msu1: 111 33999113 10 99139p 911103 3911911199 X p011191/\1 19913010119/(3d01n9N 930ddns SJX91u03 91su91011 pun 199111113 9111 u99M1911 31311111103 SEl'IdWVXEI EIWOS “DO "lOHOASdOIIHC’IN OlSNflHOd NI SNOI.LV1LIW['I (INV SWH’IHOHJ 'A3010119K3d01n9u 913u9101 10 3n1913 91111u9193 9111 19p1su09 01 91q1330d 31 11 ‘p111111 u1 3111039101 9111 11111111 119199391 91111119193 1131101111 u9A01d 1o p919113110u19p 9q p111qu 1nq p91un339 9(1 109 111110113 1991u339339 1991u119 10 [(99111999 .10 9n19A 9111 ‘39u11 939111 31101171 ‘19K 919111 919 9111 91911911 1011 0p 1 ‘19A9M011 '1991 10 191.11 9111 3131339 1(1n11 19111 1u9111339339 913u9101 101 110119puno1 9 919919 K119n1u9A9 111/11 3110119 119199391 939111 19111 919d1911ue 1 ‘1991 u1 'K111.10M93191d 11119919 919 [(3010119K3d01n9u 1991u119 u11111m 119199391 10 £111U9nb pue K1119nb 9111 ‘19111921 'p1911 9111 u1 3110119 119199391 311121911119 1 we 10u ‘(39111A1199 119113 119 3u1310p119 1(1p1111q 39 9u193 9111 1011 31 119111111) 319np1A1pu1 p91n1111-u1e1q 01 3991/1193 1911391991 .10 911n9d919111 9p1A01d 01 3110119 3u1z1911119 1ou we 1 ‘91du19x9 1011 91011921 9 39 £3010119/(3d01n9u 1ou pue ‘K3010119st01119u 913119101 p19m01 p91991 —1p 919 31u31911119 [(111 ‘pu0993 '3u0119/111ou1 10 ‘99U9311191u1 ‘A111391u1 ‘19199 ~19119 ‘3131301011953d 31113U9119119 39 p9m91A 9q p1n0113 1U9391d 111m 1 3u11110u ‘131111 '3u1n31e 1011 we 1 1911211 19919 9119111 01 1131M 1 ‘3u1p99901d 910193 19111111 . . 9oz 20kt ~ Faust plieation to the legal context. For one, many of these studies involve indi— viduals for whom brain damage has been established with virtual or near certainty by some method other than neuropsychological tests, such as a CT scan. In cases of this type the courts do not need the neuropsycholo— gist’s assistance in identifying brain damage, for when brain damage can be identified definitively or with virtual certainty by other methods, the trier of fact does not need the neuropsychologist to indicate what is already known. In contrast, when the courts need help in determining the presence of brain damage because other methods do not previde definitive evidence, the neuropsychologist is generally reduced to speculation and guesswork. The field has thus far developed limited procedures for even evaluating or determining the accuracy of neuropsychological assessment techniques when other methods cannot identify brain damage with relative certainty, much less an adequate and scientifically established assessment technology for making such determinations. Further, although many studies demon- strate reasonable accuracy in identifying obvious brain damage, which can usually be detected through other methods anyway, various studies show poor accuracy when neuropsychological methods are applied to less obvious or gross cases. The latter might involve cases in which brain damage can still be detected with a high degree of accuracy through other means, such as advanced imaging techniques. Some examples of such studies can be provided. Sweet et al. (1985) administered the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB) to groups of patients, one of which was comprised of individuals described as having subtle brain damage. The use of various classification rules resulted in the misidentification of from two-thirds to three-fourths of these subjects. "I‘heclassification rules had achieved higher levels .Of accuracy with other samples. Klesges et (11’s. (1985) research involved the Halstead—Reitan Neu- ropsychological Battery (H-R) and less extreme cases than those common in many other studies with the battery. Accuracy in identifying brain dam— age exceeded by only 1% the level that would have been obtained by ap- plying the base rates, i.e., disregarding the testing entirely and merely guessing that every subject was brain damaged. Stated differently, the I-I-R contributed virtually nothing to accurate identification. I Golden (1986) noted that neuropsychological assessment methods were developed around clear cases of brain injury. He stated, These are situations where patients suffered massive strokes, dementing illnesses, and other disorders which are easily diagnosed, in many cases, simply by inspection and a conversation with a patient. In such clear cases the role of these factors is Overwhelmed by the brain injury itself. These techniques become questionable when they are taken from such evaluations to the more subtle and difficult forensic evalu- ations‘where all this information is neither so striking nor so clear. (p. 12) a: .;r:rttmm“fi? Forensic Neuropsychology 209 If the accuracy of neuropsychological assessment is dubious in subtle cases in which it is still possible to obtain independent verification of brain damage through other methods, can it be presumed that such assessment is sufficiently accurate for legal purposes in even more subtle cases, or cases in which it is not possible to obtain independent verification of brain dam- age? There would seem little or no justification for such a presumption, especially in the absence of supportive research. Rather, the accuracy with which brain damage is identified in such cases is uncertain, at best, and subject to considerable doubt. Earlier studies on mild head injury suggest- ing that long-lasting and serious deficit is common, in contrast to later and better controlled studies, suggesting that good'or excellent recovery is typi— cal (e.g., Levin et 11]., 1987), show that what might be seen as the sensitivity of neuropsychological tests may instead represent false-positive error, that is, the tendency to identify disorder that is not present. One might further consider that litigation involving mild head injury is quite common. Description and Prediction of Everyday Functioning In many courtroom cases, the key issue is h0w the individual is func- tioning, and will function, in everyday life. The implications of a brain injury are obviously much different if it is associated with negligible versus sig- nificant impairment in everyday functioning. However, the neuropsycholo- ‘ gist’s attempt to link tests or observation data to everyday functioning is greatly hampered by the lack of scientific data on the topic. Studies exam- ining the relation between neuropsychological test performance and every- day functioning have yielded, at best, mixed findings (see chap. 4 of Faust er (1]., 1991). Further, this research is limited in scope, oraddreSSes only a restricted range of neuropsychological batteries or tests. For example, there is a dearth of research on everyday functioning that involves the flexible battery or process-qualitative approaches, which so many practitioners use. Even if one argues that such approaches’are not amenable to studies on everyday functioning, which would seem equivalent to maintaining that their properties in this regard must be decided by something other than scientific data, it is still possible to determine whether adherents of these approaches reach accurate judgments or predictions about everyday func- tioning. In summarizing the state of research on neuropsychological test per- formance and everyday functioning in 1984, Dodrill and Clemmons stated, “Most comments offered by neuropsychologists concerning the likelihood of successful life performance are based on clinical judgment rather than on empirical criteria established with neuropsychological tests” (p. 520). QHIBA sq; noddns ;ou ssop Kpn;s sggg;u9gos ‘JsAsmoH ';9eg go 1911; sq; ;sgsse mas 1qu s;u9w8pn[ s;smsse o; spesg pue s;squlsul Amf JsAo QBBJUEAPB ue sspgAOJd sgq; geq; pue ‘uoguzuuogug go ssomos sSJs/qp “stfisgug” o; 99;; 11qu [1239st s/uzq qu; ;eq; Lump quung Kmu‘ suegsgqu 'psuge;qo sq osgs New amp geuogw/ussqo pue suodsJ-glss ‘sldunexs 10:1 'sseq ewp sq; go uogs -uedxs .10 souspsdxs SB qons ‘suestu snogJeA anOJq; s;ss; go JQMOd sAggogp -s;‘d sq; u; 3;}qu 9wos.19Ao o; 9qu 919 qu; geq; Lump Aeu'l suegsgqu 'pswnssld sq ;ou -ues s.lsmod sAgm‘gszd qons figugenso pue ‘psmn'puos ussq seq Buguopoung Rep/{19m uo qowsssJ ou ‘sspsneq pue s;ss; 130m 10:1 'Buguonoung s.1n;ng go uog;9!szd JOU ‘Buguogmung ;us;1no go uog;dg;ossp sgemsoe gguusd spo -q;su1 ;U9Lussssse .10 s;ss; [eogfimoqo/{sdomsu m‘q; uomsodmd sq; gloddns ;ou ssop qomsss; msuns ‘(0661 ‘suVOJsog'Q pu‘e Jsddng, sss) 9peu1 Buysq s; ssslfiogd anoun (389ch ug ‘;snefl sss) uoymgos s;snbspe ue wogg leg Ups 5; Kfioloqsfisdomsu pue ‘swsgqogd psmoqdmos pue ;[noggggp Kgssusul -uq sssge; Buguogmung Rep/(19m go uog;sgp9;d pue nondglossp sql 'ssmosmo sAngsu 910m psplsgfi geq; ssgpn;s sq; o; [hqenb Joggsdns [(119919 13 go 93U9p_lA9 spgAOJd ;ou op sstuoomo sAmsod 9.10111 psplsgfi wq; ssgpms sq; ;eq; 9; ;ugod sq l ‘smelg [esgBolopoquu‘ [1101} 991g 91!; ssmbsmo 9Ag;289u fiugmoqs ssgpn;s sq; ;eq; Alduq o; Jou ‘SJoqme sssq‘; go stoggs slgqmquom sq; 919131u9p o; pspuswg mm 919 s;usLuLuoo sssqg mom ;ou plnos Suppom ;ou 919m oqm Kueug moq mom; ;ou ssop suo ‘SnlLL 'ps/(oldwsun 919m s;ssfqns p9&O[du1sun sq; fiqm 0; se uogwsgggssds go 5199; spngsug Rpms (8/51) 727 12 uogusH sq; Lq suogm; qwn 'pswloglsd ;ou semsuogjiqsuoo sldgqnm sq; go uogmpqm—ssogo ‘qu; ~md 'suxosmo go uog;9gps;d sq; o; .‘Kpgesm JO ‘Kg;sspou1 Kluo psmqgnuoo ups ssmsesw Iaogfiogoqofisdomsu sq; ‘sssfileue uogmgsuoo sgdmhug anOJq; psugqulos 9.19M s;ss; SUOIJEA sq; u9qm '9zgs ;sspou1 go 919m punog 9.19m ;eq; suopegs; sAg;ogo9;d Jsfiuons sq; usAs pus ‘Bugqogmung go ssogpug o; uogmlsj 9m” psmoqs s;ss; sq; go gsom ‘Kneuomppv 'suogmndod go ssdfi; ;uslsggjgp q;gm uoggtapqu-ssom pslgnbsg sqnss; Jgsq; ;eq; psgou sslqsswsq; sgoqme squ 'suogmnns go ssdfi; ;u919gggp u! slenpgAgpug go ssdfi; ;u9;9gggp s/qozxug 0; £19)”; 918 59929 sysus'Jog pue ‘swslqogd Kmuomlnd q;gm slenpy/qpug JQPlO p‘s/qo/xu; Rpms (9861) 7:119 Kass/“Sow sq; ‘QIdwEXO 1031 '(1661 "In 12 13mg sss ‘;qud qu; go uogssnosgp psne;sp g Jog) s;u9um1;sug [esgfiogoqofisdm ~nsu go Jsmod sApsgszd sq; 10g 939:) Suoggs Apegnsggmd e oxen; JOU op ssgpms sssq; ‘s;sgxs wq; smgerm smefisu qu;o sq; pslouflg suo g; usAs ‘JsAsmoH 'fiugqogmung KepAJsAs pue. souewxoglsd ;ss; [eogfioloqsfisdansu ussm';sq suopegsosse Jsfiuoxgs ;ss§8ns mq; (81,61) 72719 uo;esH pus ($360 727 12 Aussms'sw [{q psmnpuoo 9soq; se qofis ‘ssgpngs sums 912 sxsqL '9ouéuIJOngd ;ss; geogfiogoqo/{sdomsu [[BJQAOHpIP usq; xspug sgq go Kgqenb sq;'q;gm UOpB‘IQJJOO qufigq 12 osmoqs uogmorips go IQAQ’I 'uoggezglegnsseAsi nz mogoqofl'sdmnsN sgsusmgg Imqslss Jog ss;epgpues go anJS 2 fluotue sgq go Amen!) psssssse-glss pus s;ss; [eogfiogoqsfis‘domsu go sngss 2 Ho soueLuJongd [1131’er usszmsq 99 go uogwgsuos e p9uge;qo (9861) '[v :9 pJIBEI '3uguog19‘ung flap/(19m go suods; ~g[ss pue s;ss; [eogfioloqsfisdomsu sq; uo souewjoggsd ussmsq “suognqs; on .10 gewgugw” psuge;qo SJ9qomsssJ sssq; ‘.19A9MOH ';u9uugcdtug Rep/(19m 19112913 nods; o; Bugpus; sssusgp 191129.13 Bunssfifins SQJOOS psumqo qu 5:11: mpgAgpug q;gm ‘fiuguOggoung Map/{.1919 go s;;'odsJ-g[ss 1mm s’uogmsg mesgggufigs; go jsqumu e psmoqs sn;e;s muonows go ssmsesw 'ssmsesul [eogfiogoqo -l(sdomsu uo ssueuuoglsd pue ‘sn;e;s [Buoy;ouls ‘Bugumwung KepAJs/ss go suodsJ-gps ussmsq suoqegsJ psugwexs (L861) suosmd puu uo;[9qg '(9Z9 ‘d) “UOISIOQJd msm Kggosds o; 9[qg‘s‘soduq .10 ;[nsggggp s! qogqm go sxnmu “ng sq; ‘supls go K;ng 43A 2 ssqnbs; sgq o; ;usLu;snfps ssnessq sq flew ‘s‘smos go ‘3;qu ‘9819Lus ;ou ssop ;u9u1;sn_{pe s;suqun o; menodwg 391;};qu go UJQJJBd snbgun .10 11291:) e ‘s;ss; S‘pE‘QlSWI—I Edoujv” ‘psgegs suowwsD pue [lglpoq ‘Kprus Jysq; go s;[nss; sq; Bug'ssnssgp u1 'Suguog’mung Knemed sns;9A Buguogmung —uo'u se xspUg siq; uo psgggssu'p ssoq; ussmsq suoqsugwgp stnssc sqmu o; sgqgssod ;ou Sam ;g ‘9[dLu"2xs god ‘91‘qgssod 9.19M Suog;sug;syp 33013 Kguo sgoqgne sq; [{q ps;ou se q8noq;[e ‘;usu1;s'n[pe "Bis/\o go xspug us no s;|nss.1 Supogpsld u! psugemz sem 191x91 soueqo‘ JsAo guswsAOdeg szsgg ‘9ouuqs Kq psgssdxs [sAs[ Aomnsse sq; 49m 051; pue %51 go SJUQUJQAOJCILU! 9A!) —osdssJ psonpmd Eung u! souspusdspu! pue ;u91u;sn_fp13 lBLlO[1lZ:)0/\ ;syps.l(l o; SQIQEpEA sssq; go 930 'Kuum [nonsmd psmuq go 919m Buguogmung o; UOEJBFDJ jueogglufigs Mesqspms e psmoqs ;eq; s;ss; .IO ssgquggeA msg sq; usAgg 'BugAq u; souspusdspug .Io ;usw;snfpe [euogmsolx quggs fiugmgpsgd ug gngssn QAOJd gou pgp s;ss; 3-H sq; go 190w "s;ssfqns fiugugews; sq; uo p9;epqe.\ usq; pue QIdLUBS uogm/qjsp e qfinogq; psdogsAsp 9.19M ssu'npssmd sAgmgp ~s1d ‘SQJOOS 199; [esgfiogoqsfisdomsu sq; 10:1 's‘me;s geuogpung pm; 99109.: Idww sq; ussmsq psuge;qo s;sm suogmgsl meogggufigs 0N umpch ‘;usuns -uos o; pssoddo se ‘sAg;sgp91d psugw‘exs seq mq; ssgpn;s Klqo sq; go suo s; squ 1912; smsfi no; 5 s;ssfqns 99st go sh;e;s [Buonoung sq; pun Jspgosqp sngss q;gm s;usoss]ope go 59.1095 (Moms/ml Mgleuomsd ogsu‘qdmnw 2109: 911qu 1(1qu pue u—H sq; ussmsq s’uognqs; ps‘zfileue (1786;) suowL‘UsK) pue [[ppoq 'pspgAOJd' sq osge ueo sgdo; sgq; uo qomsss; go ssldugexa f “(069 'd) “BUEUOEJDUW [939nm qons ssssse o; suesw 19q;o go guswd019A9p sq; pue ssmsesul .mo go ‘hgpqm [BUJ9;X9, sq; uo qomsss; sjow Jog sfisq guy/q; ;uspusdspu[ go s>1mz1 KepfilsAs gsq;‘o qungdo; .10 mom 0; [figsedeo go ;usu1‘sssssv,, ‘psgusulwoa (0661) 727 JBQJJQUIHHD ‘Kpusosg slow puv_'(9zg 'd) “ssg’pms psseq [(1129qu -m9 uo 9g” fig fiuguoymung ;n0qe suopogpsld .mo Joqoue Anasgggssds 910w 9m ;eq; pliewsp 103p oggggusgo's pue s‘pjéphms [‘esgqgg” ‘ps;e;s qunng qu‘L 15mm 1)] Z 2l2 Faust of experience or these purported data integration abilities, and rather shows that clinicians cannot even begin to approach or manage such complex mental feats (see below). Lacking an established scientific foundation from which to describe or predict everyday functioning, the neuropsychologists judgments about such matters are based on little more than conjecture. Where there is a lack of evidence to support the accuracy or validity of neuropsychologists’ appraisals regarding a particular legal question, it should not be assumed that these determinations can be made accurately. Rather, the burden of proof should be on the one who offers expert tes- timony to show through proper scientific means that either the method employed or the particular diagnostician achieves a respectable degree of descriptive or predictive validity with regard to the question being asked. The Base-Rate Problem The term “base rates” simply refers to the frequency with which some- thing occurs. For example, if a disorder occurs in 1 of 101) individuals, the base rate is 1%. Base rates are critically important in diagnOSis and pre- diction. Lacking knowledge of base rates, one can rarely, if ever, determine whether a diagnostic sign or indicator is valid, or even whether use-of a valid sign increases or decreases the accuracy of diagnosis or prediction. First, in order to judge whether a true relation eXists between such things as a symptom and a disorder, one must know the frequency (base ‘ rate) with which the symptom occurs among thoseiwith and without the disorder. For example, although a 6- or 7-point difference between the highest and lowest subtest score on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale '--—'Revised (WAlS-R) might be viewed as a sign of brain' damage, research shows that this level of scatter is common among normal indiVidu'als (Mata- razzo et (11., 1988). Thus, in order to determine whether a .valid relation exists between a possible diagnostic sign and a disorder, it is not enough to know how often the two co-occur. One must also know how often the sign occurs among individuals without the disorder. Llnless the Sign. is more common among those with the disorder than those Without it, the Sign does not bear a valid relation to the disorder. This point applies whether the sign is a behavioral symptom, a score on a neuropsychological test, or a characteristic of interview behavior. I . Second, even should a diagnostic Sign show a valid or demonstrated relation to a disorder or outcome, another form of base-rate information is necessary to determine whether the sign is truly useful in identifying dis- order or predicting outcome. One must also know the frequency of the disorder or outcome. Lacking this information, the clinician does not even E I: j Forensic Neuropsycliology 213 know whether use of the valid sign leads to more frequent errors in the identification of the disorder than would result were the sign disregarded entirely. Such principles were outlined years ago by Meehl and Rosen (1955), and a number of researches have addressed their application to neuropsychology (e.g., Russell, 1984; Willis, 1984). 7 Various studies within neuropsychology demonstrate the first facet of the base-rate problem — that test results or symptoms thought to indicate abnormality may be observed with similar frequency among normal indi- viduals. For example, Gouvier et a1. (1988) found that various “symptoms” thought to be specific to head-injured individuals were sometimes reported with similar frequency among normal individuals. Clark and Spreen (1983) found that the absence of an ear advantage on dichotic listening tasks, 1 which had been linked to deviancy, was common among normal subjects. Other literature illustrates the second facet of the base-rate problem, that is, for lack of knowledge about the frequency of a conditiOn, one can— not determine the value of a purported diagnostic sign or test. A further corollary is that the evaluation of a diagnostic sign or test requires com— parison of its accuracy to that achieved when one founds judgments on the base rates alone (i.e., assumes the condition is always present if the base rate exceeds 50%, or that it is never present if the base rate falls below 50%). For example, Goldstein and Shelly (1984) report on the accuracy 'of ' varying tests in identifying brain damage. Among the measures employed, the WAlS produced about a 66% correct classification rate. However, in this study, the base rate for brain damage among the subjects was 68%. Absent this testing, if one played the base rates and assumed that every subject was brain damaged, one would have achieved a 68% hit rate, which slightly exceeds the accuracy achieved with the WAlS. As such, this study does'not‘prOVide evidence that‘the WAlS is useful in the identificatiOn of brain damage. The point here is not to argue for or against the use of the WAIS in the diagnosis of brain damage, but rather to illustrate the need to compare diagnostic accuracy rates with those achieved using the base rates alone. ' Clinicians may not realize that the value of diagnostic signs or testing results varies in relation to the base rates of the conditions or outcomes one wishes to identify. Even should the issue be recognized, the base rates for many disorders are not established. Further, base-rate data about the overall or general frequency of clinical conditions are often of limited use, and rather one needs to know the frequencies applicable to one’s work setting or the circumstances under which assessment is conducted. As Rus— sell (1984) and Boyd (1982) observed, base rates may vary across different settings or assessment contexts. The frequency of certain conditions among individuals seen for forensic assessment may differ considerably from the 'Kfi919119 1119u1999999 1o s91n9991u 10 9910119 9‘19uo1111991d 9111 01 p990ddo 99 9111919 9‘99u1u19X9 9111 1991191 suo19n19u09 919M111n 1o sfiugpug 9111 119ng 01 1u91X9 9111 1n0q9 K111191199 -un 91q919p191109 9919919 91111 ‘p9/(o1d'u19 991n999111 911199139 9111 no fiu1pU9d9p 1911119 U99 1U91u999999 19913010119/(9d01n9u uo p911191qo 91111991 9111 99n999q ‘u198v 1119111999999 10 9p011191u 10 9p19pu919 1noq9 1U9u199189 10 >1991 9111 pu9 ‘Kfio1oq9/{9do1n9u u1q11m 991nd91p pU9 991919110111109 §u103u0 9111 91991191 K19>111 K119191111) 9nopu91u911 91111, '9191101111991d 1sou1 Aq p99n 91991 10 99111 -999u1 10 199 911199d9 011 91 919111 101 ‘K111ou1u1 9 u11111m 11119 91 19uo1111991d 9111 ‘119901dd9 9A1191119nb-999901d .10 91q1X911 9 10 ‘A19119q 199 19111ou9 10 9u0 91 11 1911191111 ‘99n [(9111 19110111199111 9 £19119q 10 1199o1dd9 1911M 19119111 0N '1119u1 ~999999 19918010119/(9d01n9u o1 119901dd9 11919110 p19p11919 on 91 919111 19111 91 ‘K1119111d0d 1o 99n~10 A9u9nb911 Kq p9u119p 11 19991 19 ‘Kfio1oq9/(9do1n9u u1 “pJBpUBJS” 9111 ‘91991pu1 91(9A1n9 191110 pu9 11101111 st 1‘22 19 9119u111n9 9v ‘99u9A9191 19391 10 9110119911b Bu119ms -u9 u1 1199111999 911 191n91119d 111 pu9 ‘11011911'1qu109 19u0919d 1911 10 9111 10 fi11p119A 9111 3u11111u13X9 119199991 91111u9199 191u101 p91u10119d 9,1911 10u 111m 19uo1111991d 9111 ‘99999 10 A1110f91u 19913 9111 u1 '999111u19X9 990199 9u0119u -1q1u09 999111 19119 119M £91u pu9 ‘91991 10 u0119u1qu109 umo 119111 1911119u09 10 “1119Au1” 9u9191u11'9 Ku131u 19111 9199dd9 11 ‘911111 '19uu9u1 p9z119np1A1p111 10 91q9119A 9 u1 1u9111 01 91991 191110 pp9 u911o 919u01111991d ‘p9sn 919 991191 -19q p19pu919 U911m U9A9‘ 19111 19988119 ‘(9851) 71719 [(9111939111 Kq p919npu09 19111 99 1110111 [(911.1119 1pm 1111,“ p9u1c1u109 98111191111 9,79 19 91191u11n9 '511919/111) 91q919p19u09 8u1199§fin9 91111991 10 ‘9u1911 999111 10 1110q no 99191 1119LU9910pU9 19‘11u119 p9p191A ‘1u91u999999 19918010119 —£9d01n911 111 9A1199 1901u 990111 391131119111 ‘9dr1013qn9 10 919K19u9 s, 71) 19 9119111 ~11n9 '1u9‘111999999 U9 1111M p99901d £9111 99 91991 199199 K9111 119111111 111 [(9111 9111 10 9911 [(9111 91991 911199119 9111 ‘K1q919p1’9u09 99u11191u09 ‘K19A 01 A1911” 919 91U91911p91u919111c1 '991'11p9901d 10199 11110'11un 9 9q11999p1ou 990p—119901d ~d9 9A1191119nB-9‘99901d 9111—uo1191u9110 p991opu9 1(1‘1u9nb911 190m 9111 19111 ‘991n09 10 ‘p9z11180991 9C1 p1n0119 11 ('99119901dd9 191110 101 £1089199 19uo111pp9 u9 99111 919111 9sn999q %001 01 c111 pp9 1ou op 991n811 999111) ‘%I 3U95U913HUD-W-m1 PUB f%9'3E1NN"I 15%21 15191198 P9X!:I f%01€ :H‘H f%117 :9A1191119n0-999901d :sm01101 99 919m 1119u1991opU9 1o 99391u9919d ‘1u9u1999999 19918010119£sd01n9u o1 119901dd9 10 u01191u9110 Bu19991pp9 111911 p919191 9 110 '119110 910111 10 [(1191n891 11 9911.1(9111 19111,p91991pu1 %0z u9111 9991 11119 ‘519119q 91111 9911 191911 [(9111 19111 p91991pu1 9199puod991 9111 10 %09 19110 ‘gNN'I 9111 10:1 'U9110 910w 10 K119111391 K19119q 91111 9911 K9111 19111 p91991pu1 %0g u9111 9991 pue ‘519119q 9111U9 9111 9911 19A9u A9111 19111 p9199 -1p111 91U9pu0d991 9111 10 04,09 [(1199u ‘H-H 9111101 ‘19111 91du199 11111 9111 101 911n991 '8u1q11999c1 '99119119q p19pu919 10 £19119A 9 139911 s1U9puod991 119111111 SIZ mowqafisdomsN 919119103 1111M K9u9nb911 9111 p99991pp9 9w911 u191193 'K301011ofisd01n911 1991u119 1111M 1u9ux9A10Au1 119111 111 p9119/1 011m s191’101111991d 10 9dn013q119 101 0919 p119 ‘91011M 9 99 91du199 119111 101 91111991 p911191 717 19 91191u11n9 1p999q 1190:1q p119 p911919p 190u1 9111 9c1 01 Lu999 1311101111 (0661) SJ!) 19 9119u111111) 99911 -991d 1u9u1999999 19918010119A9d01n9u uo p919npu09 91(9111119 9111 Emmy '93111pu11 10 919p 9Lu99 9111 p9p191£ 99119901dd9 119 19111 p91un999 9m 11 1991SU99u0u 9c1 p1n0m 1199019119 1u91u999999 191110u9 1o 9uo 1o 99891u9Ap991p pu9 99391u9/1p9 9111 1110q9 111.111 9111 111 9111911111319 1101uLu09 ‘K9M 19111oue 111 19119111 91111 19 fiu1>1001 "1.1-1.1 9111 9n919A 119901dd9 £19119q 9111111911 9111 99n 011M 9u9191u119 1199,1119q 99191 1u91u99139 Bu1z/{19u9 119199991 ou £119n111A u99q 9911 919111 91dLU9X9 10:1 '99119119q 19918010119/(9d01n9u fiu1£113A 990199 p9’u191qo 91111991 10 K9u91919u09 9111 9u11u9X9 01 9110119 p9111u11 u99c1 9A911 919111 11111an1) 919 9u01119991z 119113 '9u019n19u09 911199 9111 01 p991 .10 3111111 91n99 9111 91n9991u A11911U9599 [(9111 ‘1911119 9p011191u 119111 113n011119 19111 ‘999191119u0u ‘119999 K91u 91918010119 —K9do1n9N '1u91u09 911199d9 u1 d9119A0 ou K191n109q9 1111111 91991 [(01d1u9 (1:111 u0919d 91u99 9111 fiu1u11119X9 91913010119K9do1n911 0111119111 11110111 09 911 11119 99nb11111991 u0119n19A9 u1 99911919111p ‘p99p111 1101111119991) p19pu919 9 9111A -01d 01 91q1990du11 [(1199u 91 11 99>19u1 91301119111 1u9111999999 113918010119/(91101 -n9u U1 u0119119A ‘(9860 U9p109 pu9 m11K99M 01 fiu1p1099v '11191U999999 19918010119A9do1119u 01 9911990111119 111 [(119.19A1p 91(1121911191109 91 9.191111 999119111d 11921111911111113 10 119111 '91911 9191-99911 119119911 911110 uo11991109 pu9 9911991 9111 10 u0111u80991 991111b91 p1z919u1 pun 119991111 -91p 2111911999 9q 1ouu99 19111 9u0 ‘911991199111019 199130101101119111 1019111 1. 9919919 11191c101d 9191-99911 9111 '9uo11991111u9p1 1991109 119111 91109110119 9.10111 u1 91111991 99u9p1A9 “9111110ddn9” 9111 10 99n 11 M0u>1 £11991 1011 990p 11919111 -119 9111 ‘(u191q01d 9111 10 999119191119 10) 919p 919.1-999q p9p99u 1011991 101 19111 99u919111 11999 u1 31111191109199 ‘9991d K11 999h1d 1101111110 1911 .10 9111 1195.911 u9191u119 9111 119111111 uo 919p “GAIJJOddnS” 9111 1181101111 03 UUZ) 911991 91111 1111M 191111u9191 011M 19191191 V 'p91191 9911 9110 119111111 110dn‘1z19p 911110 9n19A 11111199 9111 m0u>1 1ou 9901) 9110 ‘A11u919111p 1191913 '19p1091p 911110 9u011991111119p1 1991109 u9111 199.1109u1 ‘910111 Auuw u9A9 10 ‘910111 1111991 K9111 19111911m 1o ‘1n199n £119n199 919 19p1091p 9 K111u9p1 01 p9911 911101d1u/(9 1o sufigs: 9111 19111911111 111101111 1ou 111m 9uo '91u99 9111 91 11n991 9111 ‘91q9119A9un 919 99191 999q 9111 10 ul91q01d 9191-999q 9111 10 999u919/‘v19 9:1991 9uo 191119111111 1 '1u91u999999 19913010119K9d01n9u 919u9101 101 U999 990111 fiuoum 9u0111pu09 10 919p1091p 911011911 101 99191 99911 9111 1n0c19 um0111-1 91 911111 ‘19A9M0H '98u11199 10 s1X91u09 1u91u999999 191110 u1 puno; K9u911l>911 HZ 19111111 216 Faust Golden et a]. (1982) have addressed diversity in theory and method within neuropsychology. Responding to a critical commentary on the LNNB, they explained, “Clearly, much of the controversy that appears to exist is based on a divergence in theoretical orientation” (p. 298). They further indicated, “Since many of these differences rest upon basic philo- sophical differences, they are not likely to be resolved” (p. 298). Guilmette et (1!. (1990) have also addressed varying approaches to neuropsychological assessment, such as set versus flexible batteries. They too pointed out the lack of scientific underpinnings for the selection of assessment strategies, stating, “Practitioners require much greater scientific guidance in order to know when and how to optimally utilize each approach. Comparative stud— ies in this area would seem to be of utmost importance” (p. 390). Indeed, lacking the needed scientific knowledge, the selection of one approach over another often must be based on other factors or considerations, such as clinical impression, personal philosophy, and biases. I Assessment of Credibility Research shows that individuals can alter their scores on intellectual, ncuropsychological, and personality tests (Rogers, 1984, 1988). Although results have not been entirely consistent, there is positive evidence that numerous measures are susceptible to faking. Mensch and Woods (1986), for example, administered the LNNB to 32 subjects on two occasions. On one administration, subjects were instructed to perform as best they could; on a second administration they were instructed to produce results that would suggest brain damage. Across the subscales of the LNNB, subjects ' produced higher (more abnormal) scores Under the “'fake:bad” condition. Mensch and weeds further noted that virtually every subject taking the test under the “fake—bad” instructions produced elevations on a sufficient _ number of scales to suggest the possibility of brain damage. Given the number of tests shown to be susceptible to faking, it would be dubious to presume that individuals cannot alter their responses on tests that have not yet been subjected to such study. Rogers (1984) noted that his overview of psychological tests “underscores the susceptibility of all psy- chometric approaches to dissimulation. More specifically, neither the am- biguity of the method or its intended goal (i.e., clinical, personality, research, or vocational) prevents deliberate distortion of responses” (p. 98). Altering test results and getting away with it are different matters. Studies that have directly examined neuropsychologists’ capacity to detect faking or malingering on a comprehensive neuropsychological battery have generally shown poor rates of detection (Heaton et al., 1978; Faust, Hart, Forensic Neuropsychology ' 217 and Guilmette, 1988; Faust, Hart, Guilmette, and Arkes, 1988). For exam~ ple, in the Heaton et al. study, practitioners performed at chance level to about 20% above chance level when attempting to distinguish the H—R pro- tocols of individuals with genuine neuropsychological dysfunction versus those faking dysfunction. The clinicians’ accuracy was not related to their level of experience nor to their confidence in their judgments. Faust et al.’s studies suggest that children and adolescents can alter their scores on neu- ropsychological tests, and in so doing fool clinicians into diagnosing brain damage. Methodological objections have been raised to these types of stud- ies on the detection of malingering (e.g., Bigler, 1990), to which Faust and colleagues have responded (see Faust and Guilmette, 1990). In any case, it is not as if there is a body of research of superior methodological quality directly showing that clinicians are facile at this detective task, thereby off- setting the doubts created by these negative outcomes. I Whatever the shortcomings of clinicians’ attempts to detect malinger- ing, there are objective approaches of proven usefulness. In particular, vari- ous validity indices have been developed for the MMPI, a number of which have demonstrated utility in the detection of malingering (Greene, 1988; Ziskin and Faust, 1988). Symptom validity testing also shows promise and has gained some empirical support (Binder and Pankratz, 1987; Pankratz, 1979). Therealso has been a flurry of research activity on the topic of malingering, and in the coming years neuropsychologists may well add tech— / niques of proven value to the MMPI. In the course of these research ef- forts, it will be important to ensure that methods apply to forensic populations, and further that clinicians follow validated decision rules rather than accepting the outcomes when they agree with their subjective , impressions and rejecting them when theydo not, which is, essentiallyhthe same as relying on subjective judgment. Problems Determining Prior Functioning In order to determine whether an injury or event has produced a loss or decline in functioning, one needs to know how an individual functioned beforehand. As McMahon (1983) noted, “One cannot assess a loss or defi- cit without knowing the-premorbid level of functioning, without knowing what abilities were present before the alleged loss occurred. . . . Whatever the source, such premorbid data are essential—both for comparative pur- poses to assess loss and for the purpose of formulating a prognosis” (p. 409). Although there is broad agreement on this need, formal methods for assessing prior functioning, when available, are prone to substantial error. When such formal methods are lacking the clinician often must rely upon p1QJOLU91d 3u1191u1139 A1q91191 ‘319A91 19n1991191u1 3‘u91p11119 uo 399U9n11 -u1 [91111111901903 pUB ‘19u0119n11s ‘19u01191n191u 9111 USA19” ‘u91p11119 01 p193 ~91 u1 p91913 K9111 '3u1uo119un1 1011d 3u1339339 101 p011191u 9191n999 K1113111 ‘p919p119A-119m 011 31 919111 112111 p9A19sqo (1851) 1913011 pu9 393391}1 ‘(988 'd) “£1111q91191 19191191u1 10 3191191 11101 911911 pu9 u0111n1111 pu9 1u91113pn1 199 -1u119 uodq [in/19911 K191” 3u1u0119un1 1011d 311119u11139 101 3p011191u 130w 19111 119199113111 (17861) 727 19 9u0198 ‘91d1u9X9 10:1 '3n1913 1011d 3u1u11u1919p 101 3po11191u 10 3u1pu913 91111u9193 9111 p921191uum3 9,1911 310111119 3n0119A 'sdo19A9p 1313010119K3d01n9u 9111 3u013391d -u11 9111 Kq 9301 10 u193 o1 119nm 911911 K9u1 319q1119u1 K11u191 11911111 111 ‘39399 913u9101 111 p919n1u9999 9q 01 111993 131110111 3u199u09 939111 '3991n03 119113 10 511111199qu 9111 1n0q9 (9851) 2119191193 pu9 (1361) uo191pu9d p119 11019911 39 119n3 310111n9 Kq p93191 3u199u09 u9A13 9n19A 91q9u01139nb 1o 9q K9u1 9p1A01d K9111 u0119u1101u1 9111 10 9n19A 9111 ‘K111u91 9111 M91A191u1 u9191u119 9111 p1110113 u9AE1 (6517—81517 'dd) “£111u9 p9x11 9 39 ‘1u9119d 191uo.11 9111 10 A1119u0319d 9111, ‘K93 ‘1n0q9 3u1>1191 110 1313111 pu9 9s1n09 191191 9111 93191 p1n0113 310190p KUBLU 19111 ‘91q91191391 1911911011 ‘91q9pu91319pun 311111 31 11 '19111930119 99u9A -9191 311 Ku9p 10 1(1pu11q 11 1n0q9 9191n99d3 1911119 13nu1 03 pu9 ‘K1119u0319d 31111 1110q9 911111 u1991 £11919U93 9111 “1119121 3‘1u9119d 9111 111111 u011991unu11u09 p003 K119’n3nun ‘19A9M011 ‘3u1119g1,, ‘191111n1 puv (8517 'd) “£1111u13111 011011d 3K9]: 9111 u1 19np1A1p111 9111 10 X1119u0319d 9111 ‘u0119nb9 9111 u1 1u9uod1u09 19111119 39 ‘9pn19u1 13n1u 939w9p 11191q10 u0133n931p KuV” ‘p9A193q0 (SL61) 19up199 SV ('3861 ‘131193 p119 up131z 993—3u1uo1191m1[(1119u0319d 1U911119 3u1339339 A11n91111p 91q919p13u09 31 919111 ‘1991 111) '3up1'991 919 3u1uo119un1 K1119u0319d 1011d 3u1339339 101 3p01119u1 p919p119A ‘u1939 9191.1 '3U101d1ufis 10 mm; 10 A113u91u1 9111 99u9n11u1 01 p193 31 3u1uo119un11§1119u0319d 93n999q 10 ‘3919qu 939111 u1 93U9119 9u11u1919p 01 1911119 ‘p9339339 9q p1n0113 3u1u0119‘un1 19101A9119q pu9 A1119u0319d 1011d 19111 p9119339 K1uo1uu109 0319 31 11 1,119 19 p9119199391 11 ‘p9119199391 K119u11u11u u99q 911911 19111 39919 191110 111 3111913 1011d 9u11111919p 01' A1199d99 9111 1'n0q9 p9um‘391d 9q p111qu 1911/11 ‘9919 p9119199391 139q 9111 u1 [£10199131193u11 U99q 911911 31111391 11 '5991n999 10 991391) 91q9u03991 9 mm p9u1u11919p 9q u99 39919 1u9111119d 130m 10 Ku91u u1 3u1u0119un1 1011d 19111-_1r111q110p 3111993 11 ‘31111 10 119 U9A19 '9991d 13111 9111 u1 39191111139 939111 3u11u101 101 3p01119u1 11191111913 KU9 919 919111 31111un339 ‘39119119q 19913010119/(3d01n9u 110 p919A09 39919 9111 111 3-111u0119un1 1011d 3u1‘191u1139 u1 p9A911199 33999113 9111 no u0119111101u1 91111u9193 ou £11911 -U9339 31 919111 ‘39399 130111 111 '3u11391 19111991191111 111 99191109 930111 puofi9q 03 19111 ‘su0119un1 911111199119 pu9 [(10u19u1 39 119113 ‘3911111q9 10 93u91 9 191109 31u9u1339339 19913010119/(3d01n911 ‘K13n01Aq0 '39919 p9119199391-119m 3391 3H1 -A10A111 3u0119u11139 10 £991n999 9111 1n0q9 1qnop 1911u913qn3 393191—3u1u011 ~9un1 19111991191111 "919110—9919 p9119199391 51931191111 130111 9111111 3u1u011911n1- 1011d 3111191111139 101 3p01119u1 9191n999 d019A9p 01 91111191 9A119191 9111 612 moloqaisdmmN 913119103 39191111139 9191n999 01 311991 L19901dd9 31111 ‘31 19111 ‘u01sn19u09 91130dd0 9111 13933113 01 119199391 10 K119n9d 9 31 919111 pun ‘p9m911 11131101193 31 1101119111 99u91u10119d 139q 9111 19111 .199dd9 p1nom 11 ‘311111 '(1661 “[17 1.9 u93u91101N) Kpms 1u9991 9 111 [(1199111) p919113u0u19p 39m 3u1u0119un1 101.1d 919w113919/10 o1 K9u9pu91 p9>119u1 31111 'K1111q9 19n1991191u1 10 19913010119/(3d01n9u 11919110 10 1101191u113919/10 p9>119u1 9 ‘9q u1939 111m 1111391 1991dfi1 9111 ‘391093 139113111 M91 .10 ‘91093 139113111 9111 39311 9110 11 '&19119q 19913010119K3do1n9u 9 330.1912 p9199dX9 9q u99 1911993 91q919p13u09 19111 391991pu1 (L861) 717 12 39p1q1uno ->191V Kq 119199391 ‘K119111u1s '311110d ()z—g1 Kq 01 91993 11115 1911199 9111 3919111 -113919A0 (131—911 10 91093 1u911n391 9111 ‘u99u1 9111 9A0q9 as E/I1_1 311121 119111111 ‘91093 1391qr13 31111 10 3139q 9111 no 01 91993 11113 3919101d U9111 9110 11 '01 10 u991u 1391an 9111 9A0q9 ‘31u10d 17 10 g 10 ‘p991d3 1u1od—L 31111 11911 1n0q9 31191 19111 91093 1391q113 9u0 13991 19 u191q0 K119911119 >p1n0m 19111311119111 9391919 [99119111011511 31111 '001 10 01 91995! 11nd “9n11” 9 3911 1911p1A1pu1 119 19111 91un339 ‘31111 u9A19 ‘(8861 "122 13 02291919w) u-S1VM 9111 u0 391093 1391qn3 139N101 p119 139113111 119111 u99m19q 99u919111p 1u1od-L 9 1n0q9 M43113 31911111A1pu1 191u10u ‘91d1u9X9 103 '3301 10 u01191u113919AO 119 10 p911m90 3911 3301 19111 u013n19u09 93191 9 1911119 31119q 1111391 91q1330d 9111 ‘3111u0119un1 1011d10 ‘110119111113919Ao 33013 9 10u11 ‘u0119111113919A0 U9 01 p991 01 [(19311 31 11990.1dd9 1112 119n3 112111 umoqs [(11399 9q 1199 11 '3u‘111011911’n'1 1011d 9191u1139 01 391113129111 9A11111309 191110 .10 31111391 99119311191111 no 311191110 11211111A1pu1 9111 391093 139113111 9111 10 910111 .10 9u0 39311 9110 1191111“ 111 “‘p0111'91u 991112111101 —19d 139q,, 9111 31 11990.1dd9 “111011 1‘u0pn/“p1011” 9111 0.1 11919191 £19300 ' “21/101 K13u13391131p” 39 391q9119A 9111d91301u9p uo p119d9p 19111 3p011191u 10 [(991119 -99 9111 p9q11939p 91.1 '99u9119 119111 1919913 0u 599111999 3191110 p119 ‘99119119 u9111 1919913 (11113113 [(1110 319/191 [(991n999 p9M0113 111911110 911103 19111 p91m19 -u09 13119 91d01 9111 110 391pn139111 1o .19quinu 9 p9m91A91 (1861) 1119131911 -118 (1661 "In 19 13n9r1993) u91p111191111m p93n 919 K9111 u911M [(1.19111911112d ‘3p01119111 939111 1111M u01uu10911n 1011 31 101.19 191111913an 19111 1110113 391111113 3n0119A '3111913 911uo1109901903 p119 1101199np9 39 119113 ‘31111391 19n1991191u1 110 391093 1111M 919191109 01 umoqs, SQIQBEJ‘BA 9111d91301u9p 30 911301111109 9 110 3u1u0119un1 19n1991191u1 1011:! 10 39191u1139 puno; 119901dd9 1911101111; “'91q9119111n 1(13n011010u” 9.19 3u0119u11139 1u91111391 9111 (9861) 7D 19 3933991 01 3111111099117} ‘139q 112 ‘p9x11u 1199q 3911 119901111112 31111 no 119199393 31391an “p1011 1‘u0p” 01 31391qn3 “131011,, A1q91uns -91d,919 1911M s919du109 10 ‘31391qn3 .19131199M 9111 3u01u9 1911993 uo 3pu9d -9p 119901dd9 119113 9110 'K1111q9 19n1991191u1 uo p93n901 9,1911 3u1u0119un1 1011d 3u1u1u11919p 101 3p01119u1 d019A9p 01 3110119 9A13U91X9 130m 9111 I . '(g861 ‘u91u1n9)1 pU9 3p10u&9}1) 9'1191u91q01d 9.10111 mm 39 p9q11939p u99q 911911 11911111 ‘39119901dd9 9A11991qn3 10 91131uo13391d1.u1 1311 911 R [Z 220 Faust levels is extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible with current technolo— gies” (p. 10). Limits in methods for determining prior intellectual, neu— ropsychological, and emotional status would seem to highlight the need to obtain concrete evidence about prior functioning (e.g., past school records) and information from collateral sources, including those who do not have a direct investment in the outcome of the case. Capacity for Complex Data Integration Many neuropsychologists endorse the importance of data integratiOn and the analysis of configural relations among data. For example, Wasyliw and Golden (1985) noted that “without an integration of relevant data re— garding the mechanisms of injury, the neuropsychology of the brain, the effects of personality factors, and clinical experience with given procedures, the data from any test procedures can be misleading" (p. 153). Costa (1988) ' stated, “Clinical neuropsychological formulation always relies on interpre- tation of pattern, and pattern in turn, colors the interpretation of any given test result” (p. 5). Lezak (1983) indicated, “For the examination to supply answers to many of the diagnostic questions and most of the treatment and planning questions requires integration of all the data—~from tests, ob— servations made in the course of the examination, and the history of the problem” (p. 162). Although the need to “integrate all of the data” is em— phasized by these and many other neuropsychologists, and although the ability to do so is often taken for granted, it is extremely doubtful that clinicians can perform such cognitive operations. Elsewhere, I have re- ? “viewed literature; on clinicians’ capacities to integrate complex data (e.g.,fl Faust, 1984, 1990; Faust et al., 1991, chap. 5). The reader can consult these sources for detailed documentation of the points that follow. Evidence for limitations in the ability to manage complex data comes from various sources. One line of research examines clinicians’ judgmental accuracy when they are provided with varying amounts of information. This research suggests that once clinicians are provided with a limited amount' of valid information, additional information does not lead to a significant gain in judgmental accuracy (see Faust et al., 1991). In fact, accuracy may even decrease. For example, in Wedding’s (1983) study, diagnostic errors were as or more common when judgments were based on a complete, ver- sus a partial, H-R battery. Such a result is likely explained by clinicians’ difficulties distinguishing between valid and invalid variables. As more and more data are obtained, there will be more and more potentially “bad” data, or data that are not useful for purposes of prediction. If one alters Forensic Neuropsychology 221 or adjusts judgments founded on better data in accord with less valid or invalid data, judgmental accuracy will decline. Other research shows that it is possible, using mathematical methods, to build models or decision-making formulae that reproduce clinicians’ de‘ cisions with a high degree of accuracy. Accurate reproduction can be achieved even with models that disregard configural relations among vari- ables. Modeling studies should not be interpreted as showing that clinicians are unable to perform any type of configural analysis. The models are de— signed to copy clinicians’ decisions, not necessarily their underlying reason— ing. What the findings do suggest, however, is that clinicians’ decisions, even those they believe depend upon configural analysis, can be largely duplicated by procedures that ignore configural relations. These findings create serious doubt that any configural analyses that clinicians might per- form contribute anything of importance to judgmental accuracy, which in turn raises serious questions about clinicians’ ability to perform sophisti— cated configural analysis. Further strengthening this conclusion is the find- ing that simple actuarial formulae, 'which merely add together a few variables, consistently equal or exceed the accuracy of clinicians given ac— cess to more extensive data and who claim to perform complex data analysis (see Dawes et al., 1989). (The one study in neuropsychology [Heaton et al., 1981] sometimes claimed to demonstrate exception to the actuarial advan- tage does not carry this burden as it compared clinical and automated judg— ment, the latter containing only one of the two elements that necessarily define an actuarial procedure, the other being conclusions based on em— pirically established frequencies.) Research also shows that individuals have difficulties deciphering interactive or configural cues among even two or three variables (see ‘ Slovic‘and’ Lichtenstein, ’1971).Taken together, these various lines of re- search suggest that individuals, clinicians included, have a restricted ca— pacity to manage or use complex data. Although many studies have now been conducted, virtually none of them have demonstrated or uncovered capacities for complex data integration or configural analysis that even begin to approach the level of complexity described and prescribed by clinicians advocating such strategies. Individuals often have difficulty properly integrating even two or three variables, much less the dozens and dozens of variables produced, for example, by a series of neuropsy- chological and personality tests, combined with a clinical interview. Sum~ marizing the scientific research on complex judgment capacity, Faust (1990) stated, Clinicians’ purported capacity to integrate numerous variables is not supported by scientific research . . . . To maintain [an alternative position] . . . when so much research points in this direction and so little research suggests otherwise, would 9s9111 10 99u91s1x9 9111 ‘K11u919111p p91e1g ‘uo1ss9101d 9111 Kq p9A10S9Jun u1eu1 -91 pm; 121319A011u00 9112 390991 9111 s90u121su1119119 qans u1 112111 112910 [(111121 1u99s plnom 11 'S91pn1s 9.x1110ddnsuou pue 9A1110ddns 9111 9501912 p9£o1du19 sp01119ui 9111 U! A11101J9dns [1919/10 11391:) on 91 919111 113111 9soddns 19111101 pue ‘11 mm 8u119111u09 9191110 pue uo111sod 12 Suploddns 91uos ‘991pn1s 10 19s a 51 919111 9soddns 911101 91ues 9111 uo 1s1x9 s91pn1s Menuoo 113111 [(19311 911nb s1 11 ‘s91pms 9A1110ddns 10 J9q1ur1u e 9119 um 119dx99111 11 ‘19A9M0H 911111219111 9111110ddns 911105 911:) 01 91qe 9q [{qu 119dx9 9111 ‘912919 911103 111 ‘91dUJBX9 1051 '9m1eJ9111 K111111100 .IO 9§p91m0m1 01111119105 u1 31111111 Ala/we u1e1ci -‘X9 10 ‘ss1ws1p ‘9211111u1u1 01 1du1911e flew 31318010110/(sd0m9u O[SUQ.IO_:{ 9.1n1e.1911r1 9A111339N 8u1ss11us1q .10 9.1n1e.1911r1 9A!)!SO({ 10 gums 9111139193 SLNEIWHDXIVHSLLNHOO 310 DNI’IdWVS TI.va V '1u919111p 9112 sBu1111 11211.1 p.10M slu1z191u119 9111 911111 p111011s 9u0 ‘191x9 s9op 19111 99u9p1A9 91111u9gos 9111 1 911ds9p 113111 8u1nfije o1 1u91eA1nb9 K111211u9ss9 919 pue 9.1n1ex9111 9A111239u 10 9991 9111 u1 A11 9ou9p11u00 10 ‘90u9119dxa ‘fiu1u1211 se s91q9112A qons u0 p9seq K012111091: .10; 511111219 ‘sn11_1‘ 'uogsnpuoo 91111911191112 112 13933113 01 11011293 -91 01111u91os 10 Apoq 91qmed1uoa ou s1 919111 pue ‘9A11efi9u 0311; S1 ‘9OU9p ~11u09 pue 90u9119dX9 se qons ‘9110 [(9111 :1qu 81019121 [(1911 9111 uo 110129391 ‘19A9m01.1 'sfiugpug 110.199S91 9111 mm; 1d1u9X9 9112 [(9111 19111 .10 ‘919100912 9112 s1u9w8pn1119111 111111 90U9p1A9 s13 u9>191 9q ueo suo11eo1111enb 999111 111111 Su1fi1d1u1 10 8u111111z19 ‘31911u9p919 .10 90119119dx9 119111110 >1z>eq 11131 U9110 s119d -X9 911111319111 0111111913 9A11939u 1111M p91u011u09 u9qm ‘pu009g 'p991pnf91d 9q £9111 s1u91u3pnf 119111 ‘KoeJnooe 01 p91e191 ‘10u 911). 1nq ‘9q 01 111993 19111 $019121 uodn [(191 Mn! pue 98pnf 9111 112111 1U91X9 9111 01 ‘131151 '3199d991 011111 151291 112 111 1ue110du11 s1 Aoemooe 10 s19>11121u0pn9sd uo 91n11319111 31111 's1u9u18pn[ 119111 u1 1119p11u00 911nb ss919111 -.19A9Ll QJQM 3111210111110 fluent—51591 117313010110stom9u u0 Eupm; 10 0011991 -9p 9111—1991103 sum u2101u11o ou 119mm u1 x391 911sou8121p e u0 12111 pun01 (8861) 91191u11n9 pue ‘JJBH usan ‘91d1uex9 103 (mm 3727,13 u191su91q011 £9851 ‘s9meq “89) K991119012 10 19,191 1Bn1oe 119111fiq p91u2111am s1 ueq1 s1u9u18pn1119111 u1 1u9p11u00 910m 9112 s1enp1A1pu1 ‘s1 1e,q1.‘90u9p11u0919A0 $1 8u1pu11 9111512111911 9111 ‘s91pms snow/1 ssOJOV '(5861 ‘3u1pp91y1 1'39) 9112109012 15291 9111 Buowe 8u19q 39w119wos s98pn_f 1u9p11u099101u 9111 mm ‘u0111a1 ~91 9A11efi9u 9 mm 10 ‘Aoemooe 1u9w8pn[ 119111 pue 9ou9p11u00 ‘éu9191u11o u99m19q u011e191 ou 10 911111 911211su0u19p 591pn1s snopi‘zA '(3861 31011119315 59861 ‘s9meq "3-9) 99JBes1p u91go Koemooe 10 s91nse9111 9A11991q0 pue A9121 410913 1e1u9wfipnf s‘9u0 1n0qe s19119q 9/0199!an 112111 SMOLIS 119112999}; gzz mnlanKSWHnoN 0151191011 I 'K3010110/(sxlm -n9u u1 99u9119dX9 1eo1u119 10 s1n011 000‘31 snSJ9A 1105 10 K3010119st0mau u1 u01s1/u9dns 909101-9091 10 3111011 003 sns19A 0 10 191191 1121139111 12 11111“ 930111 912 119ns ‘sanJB Bunsenuoo K1113111 01 p919111s91 sem s1sfi1eue 11911M 119/19 ‘Koemooe 1121u91u811nf pun ‘90u9119dx9 ‘3u1u1911 ‘91s1301011959d01n9u u99m1 -9q suo1112191 ou punoot (8361) K9Aec1 pue ‘9u1nqqs1d ‘s9)11V ‘11911 ‘91191u —11n9 ‘1sned 9321qu u1exq 10 9d£1 .10 99u9s91d 3u1u11u1919p U! K013100013 pue s9§pnf g1 fiuouxe K191113q 3-11 9111 1111111 99U911‘9dx9 1011d u99~119q 911011 43191 1ueo111u31s K119011911e1s ou p9u191qo (€861) fiu1pp9m ‘119119p 9u1n1193 1111“ 950111 31131911 119119p 8u1)11e_.1 s1enp1A1pu1 10 $1090101d 113918010110/(91101 -n9u qs1n3u11s1p 01 K11oed90 9111 pue 901191J9dx9 10 19191 u99m9q u011e191 0U puno; (8L61) 727,19 u011z91.1 's9119111aq 1391 113013010119st0m9u p9A10A111 9/1911 s91pn1s 191110 '(6961 ‘319qp109 fgL61 "an1’93 pue u1011u9>1ue1g "89) $1991 Bu1u99los .10 s1seq' 9111 uo 9812pr U191q'3u1fi111u9p1 u1 ss999ns 33313010110 -l(sduou pue s‘1s1fio1oq'0/(sd U99m19q s99u919111p ou AAqu s91pn1s 91u03 , ’ ‘ '(6861 ‘1an Due 3u1ppam 99s) su1z101u110 p99u9119dX9 5391 um] suogsnpuoo 9113100312 910w 1101191 11111213 -1u11o p99u9119dx9 9.10111 19111 1101119951: 9111 110ddns 10u s90p 1101139991 31111 'fioemooe 9A1101p91d 10 011sou3121p puu 90u9'1'19dX9 u99m19q 1101112191 9111 1392M -Bu12 9/1911 ‘K11‘12011199ds K8010119st01n9u 111'1111M s91p'ms 10 19q1u'nu 12 pm; ‘11219 -u9‘B 111 K301011o/(sd 1129111110 1111mm sagpms sn“o1.nzA ‘K11uuon1ppv 1121111911913 $1111 >138] 011M 930111 u2111 sue1911sou881p 91133110012 910111 9113 [(3010119/{sd01n9u 11291u119 10 K3010119/{sd ogsu9'1‘01‘u1 s91ewo1d1p 112111 13933ns o1 90U9p1A910 mm 2 s1 919111 ‘91dwek9 10d '(8861 ‘JSI‘IBd pungu1>1$1z 99s) K912111901; 01 13911119.! 1ou 9m K9111 33938119 112111 99U9p1A9 91111qu 199111) 91 919111 3910112111311 9111 10 19qumu e 101 pue ‘Koemobe pue S91qe1JBA 1190s u99m19q 1101113191 9A1J150d e 8u1m0qs 113189891 10 11111a9p 2 91 919111 ‘19A9M0H 'su01u1d0 119111 u1 ssald -x9 K9111 9911915111109 9111 put; ‘s1e11u9p919 pué‘ ‘93u9119dk9 ‘3u1u1911 punOJB -)191aq ‘SJJQdXQ $12 110113 ‘Koemooe 10 sx9>111zu1 91qeuose91 _I{1Bu1u199s ‘199J1pu1 110 pu9d9p .01 1nq 9sm0991 911111 mm 1191 U9110 91 192110 19111 9111 ‘qsns 3V «0131110912 121119u13pnf 3‘119dx9 011199115 9111 uo 1101112u1101u1 9A119'9fqo mm 01 K19>111 51 Km! .10 9Bpnf 9111 ‘u0111ppe u1 “'Su119‘o’u11121u sum 911 112111 away 1‘up1p 1,, ‘p911z1s 1313010110£sd01n9u 12 ‘9se‘91u0011moa 1u939.1 13 U1 ‘91duw -X9 1051 912911; 91111u91os 191110 u1 91q1ssod ‘9q flew 112111 110111201111911 9411109! -t10 10 9d£1 9111 191S91 u911'o suo1u1do Luoonmoo ‘51s1fio1oqofisdom9N bemoav 30 51931112111 9911211 1 _ (8” 'd) 1115111 1eu01ss9101d 119112119 2. sn p9q1ms .9p K191e1xdoxdde 9q an1 111311u 11011121391u'1'9‘1ép p111: S1sK112u12‘121n311u09 x9’1d1uo‘o‘ 1u.10119d o1 £11oedco 9111 1111911911 u0u11u09 9111 'Bup1u1111 1n31151m u1 951319x9 ue w995 15“ “)1 ZZZ 224 Faust a negative studies creates substantial doubt, and doubt erodes credibility. Further, if there exists mixed evidence and the scientific community has not yet been unable to solve the issues, how can the trier of fact be expected to do so during the course of a trial? in some cases there is a tendency to dismiss negative literature that does: exist, such as that on clinical versus actuarial judgment, for hypotheti- cal evidence, that is, evidence the clinician speculates would materialize were certain studies undertaken. A common version of this argument is that some set of studies has not involved experts. For example, I have heard it argued that research on clinical versus actuarial judgment might (or w0uld!) come out differently if “real” eXperts were involved (and this de- spite the fact that a number of these studies involved highly qualified pro— fessionals—see Dawes et a1., 1989). One could get the impression that what defines an expert, in the eyes of such a critic, is a study in which the cli- nicians achieve the results the critic thinks they should. la science, hope or belief is not a substitute for evidence, and one conducts research to see how it will turn out. . In other cases there is little or no evidence on a particular topic or method. For example, there is very little research linking children’s per- forrnance on neuropsychological batteries to their everyday functioning. In the absence of positive literature on a method, there is often little basis for presuming that the method works well or produces positive results. Sin— cere belief in a method cannot substitute for positive data, nor does it serve as a basis for dismissing negative evidence. Fortune—tellers may believe sin— cercly in their abilities, but I think few forensic psychologists would think it proper were the judge to invite such soothsayers into the court and ask _them to predict the plaintiff’s future. As I-lyman (1977) has so clearly de- scribed and as research also shows (see LichtenStein et (11., 1982), mamas: ’ als, including mental health professionals, often develop inflated beliefs in their powers of judgment. The need for scientific evidence is further bola stered by the frequency with which positive beliefs or conjectures have been disproven, once subjected to scientific scrutiny. As a result, we no longer swing the mentally disordered from wicker baskets suspended from the ceil~ ing, drill holes in their skulls, or inject them with malaria. The Chapmans’ (1967, 1969) seminal research on illusory correlation shows the ease with which false beliefs are formed and, once formed, resist counterevidence. Various topics covered in the more general literature on clinical psy- chology and clinical judgment have not been adequately studied within neu— ropsychology, and therefore generalization to neuropsychology has not been established. However, this provides little basis for the proposition that the neuropsychologist is free from the problems or limits demonstrated in other areas. Generalization has in fact been shown in a number of areas Forensic Neuropsycliulogy 225 (see Wedding and Faust, 1989), and at best, where there is a lack of re- search examining generalization, the issue is unresolved. Lack of evidence in either direction for a proposition should not be misconstrued as pOSitive evidence for that proposition. ' Purported Discontinuity Between Psychology and Clinical Neuropsychology The neuropsychologist may attempt to separate his or her specialty area from the flaws and limits of general clinical psychology. It may be claimed or suggested that the neuropsychologist, or neuropsychology, is not subject to the same problems and limits as clinical psychology in general and somehow stands above it. Neuropsychology, although possessing dis- tinctive features, is still a subarea or branch of clinical psychology and shares many common features. In many instances, in fact, the neuropsy- chologist and general clinical practitioner use the exact same methods. As do other clinical psychologists, the neuropsychologist often conducts inter- views. As do other clinical psychologists, neurbpsychologists often admin- ister and interpret personality tests. Such activities may be described as essential components of neuropsychological evaluation. That it happens to be a neuropsychologist who conducts an interview and administers person- - ality tests does not alter their problematic features. The neuropsychologist is no less restricted by the limits of interview techniques and personality tests than is the general clinical practitioner (for a review of such methods in the context of legal assessment, see Ziskin and Faust, 1988). The neuropsychologist may concede the ab0ve points but still assert that the difference. lies in- the use of neuropsychological tests, or tests SPC“, , cifically designed to assess brain functions or intellectual/cognitive abilities. Reynolds (1982), however, has disabused this notion. When discussing neu- ropsychological tests, he stated, “There is little that can be said to be psy- chologically or psychometrically unique about any of these tests. They are more or less similar to tests that psychologists have been using for the last 60 or so years” (p. 76). Golden (1986) and Russell (1987) also discuss the psychometric limits of neuropsychological tests. Acceptance Acceptance within the scientific community, or by the court, is often cited to support forensic activities in clinical neuropsychology. Acceptance within the profession should not necessarily be equated with “scientifically sound” or “established.” First, groups of individuals can share incorrect pm: aouegwd sgq .103 equand KuoLL 'JCI ){uutp 01 mm 0512 pInom I 'sluew -UJOO Inpqfinoqz pua 3110;;9 new 10; xuqu 01 mm pxnoml ulqu ‘SJamagAQJ snOLuKuoue 01 smeuuuoo ssaJppe 1 91qule sq: u! seoeld Jo Jequmu 12 ul SLNEIWDGEI’IMONXDV '[9Aen go sanueAB msu 9189.10 mm 3qnop 011 mm pue u! pafiefiue Kuan 9.12 susgfioloqo -stom9u Knew 1qu >188] 13 ‘Jaqun; fiugpaaomd QJOJSQ sapyxgoe [euopep ~un0; uo snoo; 01 aAponnsuoo pue a[qysuas 130w tsauxpguxos s! 3; ‘JaAamoH 'ugemal 1qu suogeuwyl sq; adsooe Andqu pIans 9m 1w; .IOU ‘Supuzul am am sseufimd 9111 D10 pnoxd sq JOU p111qu 9m fies 01 s; sgql JO auoN '(suogsnpuoo ammooe qoeal 01 s; ‘Kloaqx u; ‘qagq/VQ saAnoafqo x391 s‘auo Buman go aoueqo [euqugux sum 91an Jqfinoql euo J! mewssasse ue amauapunqou plnom Alqewnsald a‘uo pue Juana 9m unqi 191110 01 s; uoptzfiuqo s‘ouo 10}."1ue.19;}!p s! jxawoo dgsuQJO} GILL 'sxsp Juaux 42911 pamposse Rue pue JuawsAOde; JO sppo pajms OLD s1daooe K18U§M0u>1 pue passansgp Alqyua; s! auoawos UQLIM Anemode ‘1x91uoo7 {Boguno sq] 11; 399219 910m eq ABLu sagwpunoq s‘euo 'auo alqmouoq Knoegjad 8 sq man 102 mu o1 aogoqo 9111 fumng 01 alqgssodwg .10 QIQBUOSBQJUH 919m paAauaq quz SJSQHbQJ pasngaj eAeq slsyfioloqo/{sd alqgsuodsaJ [[12 ‘19};gp flew eopomd }0 seem 1qu0 Hg .10 team ogsuam; 9q1 u! suogmnwn paAgacuad qfinoquv mom [Buomppe 911m B ueq: 910w annbal Raw .10 13pm JOU KBUJ safipglq papeau 9q1 mou 105—suog1nlos £999 .10 )pgnb 151991 £913 pm; ‘aseq 93p9[mou>{ ogpuapsaq; u; sdefi U101} Rulewpd LUQJS sw9[q01d ‘seéle JQLDO uI 'Koemooe [muawfipnf Bugsealouy pue sasegq [muswfipnf fiugseemap Jo; spoqlatuimau dew/mp 01 Sugfin osle we I ‘qoaeasal mannko ul 'suopenleAe [9891 SugAOdeg .10; seqoemdde uo SJsgfioloqo/(sdomau pue smgfioioqofisd go sanJB snopeA 01 Buguessld Kq Pug ‘(686I ‘15ned PUB 3WPPQAA f6861 ‘qummN‘Pue lsm’d f986I ‘lSnefl "313) auawfipnf {eoguglo Buy/x01de .10} 3969112119 mqu qfiual m Suggm Kq SUJQIQOqubnS J0 uog‘mlos sq; 01 Bugqjamos amqynuoo 0; pam met; 1 'uopensguglupe JO SGanQOOJd mqu xel os JOU mam momma/m J! pQAIOS Auses aq uelgo plnoo spoqmw zuawssasse pmpums mono; 01 smue; sq: Kq [39112910 swalqoxd ‘aldumxa 10d 'ammmm ogguagos sq; 01 [(199013 910w Supaqpe Kq pue sang/mos Juawsss'SSB u; @123 .1918913 Bugsgomxs Kq penauoo sq pmoo [Boloqofisdomeu ogsuaJo; enfield mm SLUQIqOJd 9q1 JO sums ' 'elqm sq; uo umop’ xbeq any map puefl‘Op 0‘1 Janaq Bungewos ;0 m1qu ueo nofi ssa[un Jomop 9q1 ezpmm 01 SquA 3; 11,, ‘puod‘sax auo p[nom ‘ssaoansgo éougqo 0192 peq AJQBJns uguq Bu‘gpuadmg s‘suo 1am somos pawmguy ue Kq pIOj auo 619M ‘pédopAap eq 19qu Eugqmwos 12m slysap LZZ moloanSdOJllaN agsuamfl sq) anus Ann} 1 qfinoqnle ‘(deaq )1un_f [unmanaxug 9x11 no added pay us fimoeld pmmoi/(em 8u0{ 12 03 plnom 113m uomsod 12) uopmz aAgmmJgge alums 1sa'fifins ueo auo ssalun iuaus ugeuxaj plnoqs we 1qu may/x 9m pumsmp -un 10H 0p 1 'suopoajgp gAgmuxaue fiulpgAOJq moun azpppo 01 aowassgp 49913 e pug asgzuaxa Mdlua m2 9! 1g naqi pams sxamagAax 9111 go auo 'uMop u‘eq) pue ‘pJBMlOJ 5992.1 ‘10191919002 9111 suq aq mq; 1111M “'fiungue fies JOU no/( 3qu JSafifins pd ‘13983ns‘ 01 Janaq fiugqlfiue 9Aeq J‘UOp noK 31,, ‘sfies pun ‘Mopugm sgq umop snor mm a 01 saqoa‘agos .IQA!.1p aq‘L Milne 8} 9‘3pr aq‘L “idoms” ‘ueo sq se K1pnoI sevsmoqs pug/$112 (mum; suue syq ssAem ‘Luyq s1ods uegllsapad V 'Jqfigu [(8305 e uo Buyssmo uq/{ueo e saqoemdde Jspoww e ‘paads e 1312; 001 sdeqmd Je Suns/uni u' ' ' LSEIDDHS 0L HELLLEIH DNIHMNV BAVH .LNOG (10A Ill.” 'uaAOJd JO pamnsuomap Knuoggwagos [mm pesnguoo aq plnoqs ‘aoumdaooe s‘unoo mp .10 ‘aoumdaoo‘e ]BUO!SSQ}’OIJd-Jaq1 -;9N, 'lnpsn s; souapyxa 9m 1an SQAOJd eoumdsooe qons 12m flunsafifins: pue punom Bugumz uaqz suadxa ogs‘usxo; {mm ‘s1u9um3m 959111 paldaooe sewn -awos QABq sunoo QLLL ‘sunoo sq; o; mgdpq 919m seagluas .1!an 12151 paugeg -ugeux 131g oqm s1spwgqofisd pm; SJSgfioloqo/(sd usaq’ usuo seq 1; se squnmfi lemons) uo papuno; Kluouuuoo s; Justunfim sq; ‘3qu puofigg OJgJaLu p9)[32[ .10 p.12pumsqns sum Kuowusal JO >110,“ sgsyfioloqq/{sd sq) pmpum: 19.1110 emos 01 Sugpxooou 19m anfiw osle auo ueo moq fln;asn s! 11 131p 3001 se name; eq 03 s; aouapgAa at” 50 U0¥SS§LupB 's‘JJnoo 91p g1 3110M LUOOJ 1.11103 .10} spxepuezs [BUO!SSQJOJd 193 01 megs Lug/5A alquedqxooug finepuazod wags plnom Juawnfile ue Lpns 'Kuouxpszn qons mupe £an 1qu s; [ngasn 1; pug sunoo 9L1} 1qu souapyAe 9L1) Knedldfii “'1ngasn souapggxa (12318010qofisd01 -n9u .10) jeogfioloqofisd pug sunoo 9%, 112m 3; 1uaum8m 191110 914; ‘(ggl 'd) “qu2091 1123p!de punos ‘pooB 1111M paungoa sq anw Aaq; fzuepgjns 10u anfcem [mum p9A!QOJQd'puB ‘ueumoe [Boguno ‘leaddc 949mm; fjsfiugp JSazepnf 91; say upqu SquJQd” ‘asugs p003 anew 01 Jeedde [(9111 qszn leogfioloqofisd [2 no szlnsal qfinoquu mm 19mm; paaou 9H '(LZ‘I 'd) {“qmsp pwq e 5qu pm: padolanap [(15929 S; KBolquLu leagunQ” ‘pams (9860 sploufiea 9V meaJ sun u; ssaulnatesn pue peau 3;; 01 3139112 suopou asqesuouuuoo go umm -syuI 1591091109 seq souaps qogqm 1mm KOUQfleJJ sq], pun ‘10119 .IQAOOUI’I pm; gauaq 1591,91 s5, aduagos go uonpun; Jo{euj V 'saqoaal 1mm slenpgAgg‘u'g’Byug 139qu JO Jamod aApeJno pBOJq 9(1) u! Janet] seqons ‘asle; 9q 9; mo pawn} .1912] 5qu pug ,pauoddns Kneoggwagos 1011 sgm seq; pgpq qqlos p31on .92 finalauafi sjauogmomd qogqm u; 'sgoumsu! 911:) 01‘ KSFQ s; u ~(UO[JB[QJ -.IOO Mosnm no 143199591 6961 pm; [961 ‘sumudqu am 993 mafia) spneq 15mm 922 228 Faust .2 input, and 'Drs. Robyn Dawes, Lew Goldberg, and Jay Ziskin for reviewing an earlier version of the manuscript and offering many helpful suggestions. REFERENCES Alekoumbides, A., Charter, R. A., Adkins, T. G., and Seacat, (1987). The diagnosis of brain damage by the WAIS, WMS, and Reitan Battery utilizing standardized scores cor- rected for age and education. The International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology 9: l l~28. I _ . Baird A. D. Adams, K. M., Ausman, .l. L. and Diaz, F. G. (1985). Medical, neuropsychologi- cal and quality-of—life correlates of cerebrovaseular disease. Rehabilitation Psychology 30: 145—155. I . Barona, A., Reynolds, C. R., and Chastain, R. (1984). A demographically based index of premorbid intelligence for the WAIS-R. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 52: 885-887. ' . ' Bigler, E. D. (1990). Neuropsychology and malingering: Comment on Faust, Hart, and Gun- mette (1988). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58: 244-247. ’ ' Binder L. M., and Pankratz, L. (1987). Neuropsyehological evtdence of a factitious memory complaint. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 9: 167-171. . ‘ Blankenhorn, A., and Cerbus, G. (1975). Clinical and actuarial evaluation of organic brain damage by psychologists and non-psychologists using the Memory for DeSIgns. Perceptual in 1 Motor Skills 40: 99~102. . ‘ i . Boytl L. (1982). Reply to Woodward. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 50. 22:19-290. ' - ‘ ‘ d“ Chapman L. J., and Chapman, J. P. (1967). GeneSis of popular but erroneous psycho ing- nostie observations. Joumal ofAbnormal Psychology 72: 193-204. f Chapman L. 1., and Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use 0 valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology 74: 271-280. Clark C. M. and Spreen, O. (1983). Psychometric propertiesiof dichotic words tests. Journal 'CI' 'al Neurm Ichology 5: 169—179. _ ‘ C0513} L.u(1ic988). Clirliijgal neuropsychology: Prospects and problems. The Clinical Neuropsy- chologist 2: 3—1 1. 7 Dawes R. M. “(1986). Representative thinking in clinicaljudgment. Clinical Psychology Review _ , 1 25-441. ’ . . ' ' Dow: 4R. M. Faust, D., and Meehl. P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. SCiencc 243: 1668-1674. V _ . . Dodrill C. B. and Cleninions, D. (1984). Use of neuropsychological tests to identify high school students with epilepsy who later demonstrate inadequate performances in life. I‘ . ‘ . n . ‘ 7. J nimal 0 Consulting and Clinical Psychology 52. 520 52' ~ . t ‘ ) Faust‘ D. (1984). The Limits of Scientific Reasoning, Umverstty 0t Minnesota Press, Minnea- . . 0 ~ o . I . “ . Fauslik D. (1986). Research on human judgment and its application to clinical practice. Pro l P icholo : Research and Practice 17: 420-430. I _ ' . . ‘ Fausjit 5311998). Datiyintegration in legal evaluations: Can clinictans deliver on their prem- s‘? Behavioral Sciences and the Law 7: 469-483. . . ~ Fauslt CD. (in press). The use of neuropsychological tests to describe and prescribe. Why pol- ilahing the crystal ball won’t help. In Glueckauf, R., 8eclirest, L., Bond, G., and McDo'nel, 13. (eds) Improving the Quality of Assessment Practices in Rehabilitation Psychology, Sage, Lo don. - ’ . i ’ Faust and Guilmette, T. J. (1990). To say it’s not so d0esn t prove that it isn t._Research ( on the detection of malingering. Reply to Bigler. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology 58: 248-250. Forensic Neuropsyeliology ‘ 229 Faust, D., Guilmelte, T. 1., Hart, K., Arkes, H. R., Fishburne, F. 1., and Davey, L. (1988). NeuropSychologists’ training, experience, and judgment accuracy. Archives of Clinical Neu- ropsychology 3: 145-163. Faust, D., Hart, K., and Guilmette, T. J. (1988). Pediatric malingering: The capacity of children to fake believable deficits on neuropsychological testing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 56: 578-582. Faust, D., Hart, K., Guilmette, T. J., and Arkes, H. R. (1988). Neuropsychologists’ capacity to detect adolescent malingerers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 19: 508— 515. Faust, D., and Nurcombe, B. (1989). Improving the accuracy of clinical judgment. Psychiatry - 52: 197-208. Faust, D., and Ziskin, J. (1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science 241: 31-35. Faust, D., Ziskin, 1., and Hiers, J. B. (1991). Brain Damage Claims: Coping with Neuropsy- chological Evidence (Vols. 1 and 2), Law and Psychology Press, Los Angeles. Fischhoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 422- 444. Gardner, H. (1975). The Shattered Mind: The Person After Brain Damage, Knopf, New York. Goldberg, L. R. (1959). The effectiveness of clinicians’ judgments: The diagnosis of organic brain damage from the Bender-Gestalt Test. Journal of Consulting Psychology 23: 28-33. Golden, C. J. (1986). Forensic neuropsychology: Introduction and overview. In Golden, C. J., and Strider, M. A. (eds), Forensic Neuropsychology, Plenum, New York, pp. 1-47. Golden, C. J., Ariel, R. N.,>McKay, S. E., Wilkening, G. N., Wolf, B. A., and Maclnncs, W. D. (1982). The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Theoretical orientation and comment. Joitrnal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 50: 291-300. Goldstcin, G., and Shelly, C. (1984). Discriminative validity of various intelligence and neu- ropsychological tests. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 52: 383-389. Gouvier, W. D., Uddo-Crane, M., and Brown, L. M. (1988). Base rates for post-concussional symptoms. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 3: 273-278. Greene, R. L. (1988). Assessment of malingering and defensiveness by objective personality inventories. In Rogers, R. (ed.), Clinical Assessment of Malingci'ing and Deception, Guil- ford, New York, pp. 123—158. Guilmette, T. 1., Faust, D., Hart, K., and Arkes, H. R. (1990). A national survey of psycholo— gists who offer neuropsychological services. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 5: 373- ,, 392. .. . . , .. .s Heaton, R. K., Clielune, G. 1., and Lehman, R. A. W. (1978). Using neuropsychological and personality tests to assess the likelihood of patient employment. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 166: 408-416. ’ Heaton, R. K., Grant, 1., Anthony, W. Z., and Lehman, A. W. (1981). A comparison of clinical and automated interpretation of the Halstead-Reitan Battery. Journal of Clinical Neu- ropsychology 3: 121-141. Heaton, R. K., and Pendleton, M. G. (1981). Use of neuropsychological tests to predict adult patients’ everyday functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 49: 807-821. Heaton, R. K., Smith, H. H., Jr., Lehman, R. A., 6’4 Vogt, A. T. (1978). Prospects for faking believable deficits on neuropsychological testing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology 46: 892-900. Hyman, R. (1977). “Cold reading”: How to convince strangers you know all about them. The thetic, 18-37. Klesges, R. C., Fisher, L., Vasey, M., and Pheley, A. (1985). Predicting adult premorbid func- tioning levels: Another look. The International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology 7: 1-3. Klesges, R. C., and Troster, A. I. (1987). A review of premorbid indices of intellectual and neuropsychological functioning: What have we learned in the past five years? The Inter- national Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology 9: 1-1 I. Haw, Sacha/VII M . 'sa1sfiuV .501 ‘ssajd [(3010113st pue me ‘ ' 9 “— s1oA) K11o1u11sal 10318010113161; 11110 0111111119st 111144 31111103 '(8861) 'q ‘12negppulgz'fg‘g1z1512 ‘ O ‘ 'sa193uV 30'1 "ssmd A30 o 358 ue I ' 1 11:) p.11: z lpue 1 's1oA) [1101111191, 111013010119164 111117 011101119163 11,1141 SuIldoq3 ($321) 'AI‘ASIIIHSI'Z 595-199 .3; 60101101351 1119111113 11110 3111111151103 [0 1111111101 '59121 aseci go uonmaplsuoa ' 111 s1soufle1p 1ea1fio1oqafisdomau o1 qoemddu 1e11gn1bie 11210 5181([211298 '(17861') '9 ‘51111M '593-953 :17 430101191fid01119N 1101111 0 321.9 ' . I -1m131(sd01n:1u u1 fiup1mu uo1s1nop pun matufipnf 1eo1u113 (5850111. 429$ putq'élV‘fiflslgpam -1Crd0111aN 1119111113 'Kfio1m13stomau u1 uo1131p91d 1eo1‘1s11e1s pue' 1113111113 (‘gfllxlgpaM 1 I 1 1791-5171 :5 M07 2111111111 599112139 11101110 .5 .'1(Jnfu . 1u9mssasse 9111 u1 u0112n111A9 1eo1301oqo£§dom9N '(5851) '3“ugpi19 131m! {go-gaghmsem I: ‘3 K a 'uo1sog ‘smqs11qnd agumpnoV 191mm '59191191311'11103 03113121111 1119111559: 1/ . [17 1111. 911310 ((8010119A9d01naN 2111 '(2255‘1) '('spa) 'g ')1 ‘9u019313 pue "a 'Q ‘mddnl ‘ I '931-981 :55 0101191C1c11w111113 111111 31111115110 0 11an 51911123 111313010119st01nn1q unsexqu-npnq 9111 10 sp0111am 1112pue1§ lpue 3111-1101513; 9111 10 uos1mdwo3 '(5851) 'w '3 ‘uegAqy‘pu‘é' "1‘; 115119on “3 'q ‘uowso "f. ‘199Ms ' -‘ : as 7 111111111}; 17110 10111111193 1011011021110310 '1uaw'5pnf u1 fiu1ssasmd WHEEL/3061117191 1(9) wiggfii‘f saqmzojdde uogssmfim pue uegssfing 10 ugs111‘adtu’o3 '(1161) '3 ‘u191sué‘1113r1 pue "d ‘31Ao1s 3617-1351; :51; 1130101191611 1113111113 [0 101111101 '59 11111211 31 d ‘ 8‘ -ou1:>p uo paseq aou9311101u1 p1q10w91d 10 59112111115910 KomnooV (13615391 'V ‘31::21LJQA113 ICZ mololpfisdomaN 313113.103 {017-961; 2137 K301011916}; 1119111113 [0 1111111101 '9111 Knpkmlm ug Bu1uo11aun1 1123130113113 -1(sd01nau 119111 10 mowssa'sse-“as (3911011031V '(1851) 'V '01‘suos12d pue "Q 'N ‘ub11'nq; ' ' '1z9-119 :3 430101191£cd0111nN 10111211111211.1131 11110 1119111113 10 111111n01 [17861 $1.101 moN ‘ssmd p.101xo ‘('119) 'N ‘5)100111 '53911911b311103 [1111le 111111 1111905 ’109130101131Cs'd 30111111 111121.] 1193013] m91A91 3009 '(9861) '1 'w ‘Z1mml1:‘g 155-9“ :5 1130101191Cs'd01naN 101113111119dxg 111111 1119111113 10 1111111101 "5:111:11 -1eq 1s91 1931fio1oqofisdom9u 3u113n11suoa 101 poqwlu 911239 93u913191 V '(1861) 'm ‘3 ‘11msn‘d '85-05 'dd “11 ‘p1a11fiu11ds ‘snwoq 1, 119110111111; (1011111119111111111111 1/ 767010113 491101113111 1110111113 ‘('spo) 'w '1' 211101133 put; "a 'd ‘onik‘rl. u1 «1011113 ue1193-pea1s1eH 0111 01 119111191 spoqwm s1sfi1uun umned 1o 1uau1do'1o1mp pue [(109111 '(17351) 'M '3 11355113 11917-131717 :11 K001119161; 111111 A1117 [0 1111111101- '3111193u11111u 10 uo11'11u1u19xa-91 V ' ' ' “1111111 0111 1nq fiu1q1oN,, '(9351) '1 '1' ‘qfineunm3 put: "a ‘smfiou 'gog-ggz ‘dd 51.101 maN ‘p10111ng '11011d2930 171m fix/11931111011110 11131ussass1/ 1119111113 ‘('p:;) '3 ‘519303 u1 'sp01119m 1uagu11a 10 sn11z1s 1ua11n3 '(8851) '11 ‘510303 1 '111-56 :3 M117 :1111 111117 $2311.? 195- 10101nm13g 'uopdaoap pun fiugmfiungw 10 1apou1 1113111de 1111 31112111011178“) '11 ‘smfiou ‘199-109 'dd Wm moN ‘Ka11M '29112311191111fo 3100111111011 ‘('p:1) 'g 'g ‘uew1om u1 $911235 1191311991111 9111 mm oauafi111mu1 s‘uax'p11‘qa 10 1umussassn 1eo1u113 (9361') 's 'V"U1zui1xiiz)'1 111m "11 '3 ‘sp1uufiau 151-131 :1 [(301011M1d01119N 1110111113 10 sna11191y 3131110511) 111uo11tzz>npo 1o wowssns ~51? 11131301Ql13£sd01n9u u1 a1aA1nu 9111:11u011ofisd 1nq uaumzm 111;)1u113' '(9351) )1 '3 ‘sp1oufinu '61-91 :g1 110110911113 1'11'1119111110101110 111111 11311125211 [0 1111111101'u011mzt) V :uommnpn 111 wowssossn 11131301011ofisd0maN '(Z851) '5 '3 ‘spmufiou '63-5 'dd 51.101 moN ‘ssmd £11919A1un pJOJXO 31121110110 91.111111101Cs‘dr111131v f0 11131ussass1/1179180101131C1d011121v ‘(V'spa) 'w ')1 ‘sumpV pun "13 ‘111‘1'21'5 u1 'Manng 111313010113 -1(sd01naN ue1193-p291s1c1—1 911110 sasuq 11131flo1opoq1au1 pm: 1110113109111 '(9361) ‘w '11 ‘11911911 , 'OIV‘6OV =11: Axe/011m 1119111113 171111 3111111151103 1’0 1111111101'511311911 Mosuos 1nuo119‘un1 10 1uo1u1nm1 pue 1uoLussnssm 9111 .101 sampbooxd :Bugugunm 1u01'du1fls pun flunsm 1(11p11m 11101de3 '(5161) '1 ‘7.n*:1>1un(1 ‘ '115-191; 21:1 KXOIOIPICWIOJ 41.711 [01119111112133 111111 1110111113 [0 1111111101 'Kflo1m13fisd01nou 11231u113 111 lpoqmul aoumum1 -.1:;d 159q, 513111291 uo a1ou 111911110 V '(1651) 'w '1' ‘11osgu1oa pun "V ‘opno "'1 g ‘uasuauow 139-6; :8 A3010q01C9d01n3N 1119111113 [0 101111101111110111111191111 .1111 'HNN'I 9111 no 9311111121) ugmq fiu1ufi191 10 summed '(9351) '1' '(1 ‘spOoM pun "1' 'V ‘Lpsuaw '913-1761 :zg 11112111111 1119180101191CVJ 'ssmos ‘Bumm 10 ‘summad ‘sufl1s o1119u10qo£sd 10 Kouspma 9111 pue K1111q12q01d 1u9paoa1uV '(9951) 'V “1133011 put; "'3 'd ‘11199w ' '152-[gz :L 1(30101191C1d01119N 1111113111112dx3 p111; 1110111113 10 1111111101 'suosmd 111 Runoyuonp pue £1111eaq u1 fiu1uo119un1 chKm/u) ()1 51111113 1231‘3010113st01nau 30 d1qsuo1131 4121 (5861) 'yq )1 ‘swupV pun "d '9 ‘oumcfipd ")1 '3 ‘110113911 "1 ‘1uu19 "1 'V ‘Kuazamsow . 'Lz‘v-Iov ‘dd $11011 MON ‘SSQJd umth 'AB0101191C11101112N 1119111113 jo 11101101711110; ‘('5‘pa)"f 'd *a1uaom 111111 "1‘ ‘3 ‘11911109 111 'Kfio10113flsdgunml 1113111113 111 5311551 315119103 (1:361) 'V "51 $011111pr ‘zgz-ggz :91 :19119111d 111111 11.71113;- -33 1301011911311 1011011101on '011231111193 fiugugnn 5N1 mesa: 311121su11d1ua Afloumafisdmnnu 1ea1u113 u1 59111un110ddo d1t1su191u1 '(9851) '1' '(1 3:11.13 pun “'11 'd ‘Koue'w "1' '11 ‘KanJn35W ‘095-016 =11: K301011264 11191111310 101111151 ‘n‘ldwes‘ Hoii‘v‘zwmp’uvis ZI‘SIVM 0111 11! mums 1sa1qns-Ja1u1 '(8861) '0 '(1 ‘umumH pun "V ‘81011111d “1.1 'w ‘131uec1 "(1 '1‘ ‘oszmew 171315-9111; 'dd 511101 MON ‘ssmd K11510A1un nflppqum3 11311111711111) 1911.111012]; 11011101129111) 1.7111111 1112111311111 ‘('sp9) ‘V ‘KXSIQAL [11111 “d 21111015 "(1 ‘umuou’qcx u1 '0861 01 1111 01111 10 011111 9111 =5911111qvq01d10 “onmqnva '(Z86I) '0 '"1 ‘sduuild pin2 "11"‘11'011110915 *‘s‘ ‘umsumuon 'X-‘OA maN ‘SSQJd £11519A1un pmgxo '('pa puz) 1101111an11! 109130101191Cvd011mN '(5361) 'q 'yq "1127.91 'gpz-vgz :99 {(198,111s0111aN [o 1111111101'Kpn1s Jams—301111 V 1&1er 1312911 Jou1u1 3u1mo1103 awoomo 12101Aeq0q01noN '(1861) '5 '3 ‘1)15md)1u12'.ld put). ".11 "w 'm ‘IIBEH ")1 ‘JOPPBQEL ":1 "I ‘IIV‘ISJWN "W ‘H ‘EJQQUOSEH “W ‘21 ‘JJn‘d "S ‘SEURW "S 'H ‘UEATI 15111111 0% ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/01/2011 for the course CLP 7934 taught by Professor Staff during the Summer '08 term at University of Florida.

Page1 / 14

faust_forensic - r; ' l’ueiite 204 . selves the value of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 14. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online