Forensic Journal



Forensic journal

Problems and rationale for the study

A panel criticized the national sample of forensic reports used in the study. It comprised of forensic-mental health persons who have served for the American board of Forensic Psychology as reviewers (Grisso, T, 2012). This sample of research highlights all kinds of discrete faults that were confronted by reviewers in the reports. Later on these issues are transformed into pre-descriptive statements to aid in the writing of forensic report. The study also shed importance on the paramount and frequent report writing problems that are part of this sample. The results achieved were not primarily used for explaining the forensic reports quality in America, but their aim was to provide help and support in enhancing the forensic reports quality (Ackerman, 2006).

Author's question and Problems to be investigated

This question is divided into two parts:

The types of discrete faults that were confronted by reviewers in the report. This question is further subdivided into 10 categories. These include Introductory Material, Style and Organization, Data Reporting, psychological Test Reporting (Interpretation and Data) and giving wrong interpretations and opinions on the clinical and Forensic questions (Weiner, 2006). The other part of the questions deals with the frequent report writing problem in writing a Forensic Report, that is, highlighted by the practice sample reviewers.

Rationale and need for the study

In the first question, there were many rationales and need for carrying out its study. The main reason was to concentrate on demands and requirements of forensic reports in particular, rather than providing general guidance on clinical reports. Various of these requirements and demands originate from the fact that these reports are made for lay persons (professional in law). These people would use these demands to support evidence in legal forms. Many examples of this logic are quoted. Such as, “listing of all sources of data for the evaluation”. In this requirement, all the sources of information used by the examiner are given. This is not only helpful and relevant for general clinical cases, but also for forensic reports.

There are many uses and rationales for the other part of the question. Some of them are: These faults are supported by ABFP-experienced forensic reviewers and authorities in forensic psychology in previous publications. Hence, they grant an authoritative “short list” of topics on which forensic examiners having less experience and students who are part of ABFP examination process, can concentrate as ...