A survey of clinical neuropsychologists with experience in forensic contexts: prevalence, training, and jurisdictional differences in civil and criminal cases

Despite the rapid growth of the subspecialty known as forensic neuropsychology, little is known about the prevalence of neuropsychologists acting as experts in civil and criminal forensic contexts, the training undertaken by these neuropsychologists, or differences in their practices across civil and criminal cases, legal questions, or jurisdictions. Neuropsychologists with experience in the forensic context were surveyed to address these gaps. The majority of participants reported conducting evaluations in both civil and criminal forensic contexts across a variety of legal issues, while others restricted their practices to civil cases alone. Participants appeared to have specialized early in neuropsychology through formal graduate and continued post-graduate training, while their training in forensic concepts appears to have occurred primarily through postgraduate continuing education and supervision. No jurisdictional differences were found between neuropsychologists conducting evaluations in civil cases, though participants were more likely to practice in criminal cases in Frye states. Challenges to the admissibility appeared infrequent, and were more likely to be partial challenges instead of challenging participants’ qualifications as experts overall. Continued investigation of neuropsychologists practicing in civil and criminal contexts will remain important as the subspecialty of forensic neuropsychology continues to develop. This is especially relevant given the growing role of neuropsychology in better informing decision-making in the United States legal system.M.S., Psychology -- Drexel University, 201