Untitled document (2)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Arizona State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
546
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by KidAtom12099
One question that I would like to ask pertains to best practice #2 Field validity. One thing the section mentions is that field validity and the evidence pertaining to it is little to none. So my question would be
does the practitioner use research validity to also draw conclusions based on findings?
Since field validity is less common, practitioners have to use other research findings (qualitative and quantitative) to represent their conclusions. One example I found within
this module is the twitter post on Canada's deadliest mass shooting. The presentation by Neal mentions that field validity is whether or not it is repeatable and accurate in the real world. With cases like that, being in the field to understand what/why it happened, will most likely not be typical. Although it can be repeated, as we have had numerous mass shootings, each crime is different and not exactly repeatable. How do researchers use the tools and methods outside the lab in this type of case? Is it possible to take research from labs and other crimes into a mass shooting situation but we aren't there at the moment it happens. Unfortunately, we are not able to
predict crimes such as mass shootings, so we can study and research things but field validity is much harder to study. Tools and psychometrics can be used to figure out why someone committed a crime, but I think that it all takes place after, in a lab or office. Select one of the Videos assigned for this module (i.e., the 1-hour webinar about the Special Issue on Personality Assessments in Legal Contexts, or the video of Drs. Martire & Neal testifying as part of the Mass Casualty Commission). In your discussion post, provide some constructive criticism of the content of one or the other (i.e., either the special issue / its approach, or the expert testimony / its foundation). What limitation(s) did you note that could have made it better?
Video neal - ●
Eight best practice - well documented concerns from forensic psychological techniques
●
Field validty- about whether or not it is repeatable, accurate, ext in a real world ●
Psychological autopsy ○
Type of psychological assessment that is retrospective trying to clarify info about
persons death ? unknown state of mind or circumstances surrounding person who has died
○
Inteviews by proxy-
■
People might want to share more or less
■
People might not want to share at all
■
Own motivations or particular things they might or might not share
■
All these can affect quality of info psychologist are able to collect so you might not be able to get solid validity of psych autopsy
●
Behavioral profile- typically done with law enforcement
○
Offender is unknown and evaluator is using known information to predict psychological profile of unknown offender
○
Example fbi behavioral science unit most of them game up through law enforcement rather than psychologists ○
Because of that ?’s - can behavioral profiles be a forensic profile? ○
Cross examination:
●
Victims families - psychological autopsy
○
Gina Gulet
○
They both said hard to know what both police and victims family could benefit from the report of psych autopsy ●
When asked if they victims should just simply ignore the report
○
They said they aren't sure
○
Alot of struggle in report but potential value in some areas
○
If people do read it it is through the lens of some of criticism they have identified but look with caution
○
Could benefit if in a different form
○
Not info that would help find if it is accurate bc they dont know foundational validity ○
The testimony of Dr. Martire and Dr. Neal gave a lot of information on the idea of what a psychological evaluation is and how the best practices tie into the field of psychology. I think that they made a lot of good points but one of the things I found most interesting was when they talked about behavioral profiling. I didn’t realize that profiling can be on the fence of whether it is psychological or not. Although I knew that law enforcement were more likely to do profiling, I
feel as if it is more psychological and should be done by people with a psychology background. One thing that I would have liked to hear more about is the legal side of things. I think hearing more of how the research both doctors conducted could work in the legal field, such as with law enforcement and how they could incorporate the best practices into profiles or other work. I felt like with the cross examination, they did a lot of “i don’t know” or were unsure of an answer. Like with the family of Gina, they were asked if the family could benefit from reading the report and they both were unsure because they don't know the foundational validity of the report and that they could benefit from something else. I realize it could be hard to know exactly what would work for each case, and with something as big as the mass casualty commission, I think
incorporating more evidence based answers would help get a little more understanding. Overall, I did enjoy watching both parts of the testimony.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help