ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015
The Clinical Assessment in the Legal Field: An Empirical Study of Bias and Limitations in Forensic Expertise.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Role-playing interventions in adult psychotherapy: a systematic review of clinical applications, reported outcomes, and future directions.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Court-appointed expert consultation in Italy: an ethnographic study of parents' beliefs, expectations, and experiences.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Early Support for People Who Hear Voices: Exploratory Research on Family Medicine Physicians' Clinical Practice and Beliefs.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Offence type and neurodiversity: A comparison of 12-17-year-old boys charged with a criminal offence by diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or both.Criminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH · 2022Article
- What isResearch in psychotherapy (Milano) · 2022Article
- Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2022Article
- Methodological Bias That Can Reduce (or Affect) the Process of Diagnostic Construction in Clinical Settings.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- What Works for Promoting Health at School: Improving Programs against the Substance Abuse.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Getting Better Acquainted with Auditory Voice Hallucinations (AVHs): A Need for Clinical and Social Change.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the literature, psychological assessment in forensic contexts is one of the most controversial application areas for clinical psychology. This paper presents a review of systematic judgment errors in the forensic field. Forty-six psychological reports written by psychologists, court consultants, have been analyzed with content analysis to identify typical judgment errors related to the following areas: (a) distortions in the attribution of causality, (b) inferential errors, and (c) epistemological inconsistencies. Results indicated that systematic errors of judgment, usually referred also as "the man in the street," are widely present in the forensic evaluations of specialist consultants. Clinical and practical implications are taken into account. This article could lead to significant benefits for clinical psychologists who want to deal with this sensitive issue and are interested in improving the quality of their contribution to the justice system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.