Formal training in forensic mental health: psychiatry and psychology.

The field of forensic mental health has grown exponentially in the past decades to include forensic psychiatrists and psychologists serving as the primary experts to the court systems. However, many colleagues have chosen to pursue the avenue of serving as forensic experts without obtaining formal training and experience. This article discusses the importance of formal education, training and experience for psychiatrists and psychologists working in forensic settings and the ethical implications that befall those who fail to obtain such credentials. Specific aspects of training and supervised experience are discussed in detail.

A pilot Rasch scaling of lawyers' perceptions of expert bias.

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