Forensic Psychology Education

Originally, the term “forensics” denoted the act of presenting information in a public forum (Shah & Sales, 1991). Today, it encompasses the application of knowledge and services to the legal field by various disciplines (e.g., American Board of Forensic Psychology, 2006; American Chemical Society, n.d.). Within psychology, the term “forensics” was traditionally associated with clinical psychologists providing services in legal settings (e.g., courts or correctional facilities) or to individuals involved with the law (e.g., parolees or probationers). However, some scholars and practitioners use “forensics” interchangeably with the broader field of psychology and law (DeMatteo, Marczyk, Krauss, & Burl, 2009).

For instance, a forensic psychologist has been defined as “any psychologist, whether experimental or clinical, who specializes in generating or conveying psychological research or assessment information intended for application to legal issues” (Grisso, 1987, p. 831). Similarly, forensic psychology has been defined as both (1) the research endeavor examining aspects of human behavior directly linked to the legal process and (2) the professional practice of psychology within or in consultation with a legal system encompassing civil and criminal law and their intersections, serving as “the application of psychological research, theory, practice, and conventional and specialized methodologies to provide information pertinent to a legal question” (Goldstein, 2007, p. 5).

Forensic Psychology Education

While the roots of forensic psychology can be traced back to the early 20th-century contributions of Hugo Munsterberg and Sigmund Freud (Bartol & Bartol, 2006), it wasn’t until 1973 that the inaugural specialized training program in psychology and law, which included a distinct forensic psychology component, was established at the University of Nebraska, under the leadership of Bruce Sales. Presently, there are more than 40 programs providing various forms of graduate training in forensic psychology (Burl, Shah, Filone, Foster, & DeMatteo, 2012). Furthermore, the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS), a division of the American Psychological Association (APA) known as Division 41, has witnessed a significant surge in its membership, boasting over 3,000 full and student members.

These forensic programs can be further categorized into subgroups based on the specific type of training they offer. Some programs offer dual degrees, combining JD (juris doctorate) and PhD (doctor of philosophy) or dual JD-PsyD (doctor of psychology) degrees. Within the PhD component, programs provide options for clinical or nonclinical training, or sometimes both. Certain programs allow students to pursue a PhD with a clinical specialization or a PsyD, with a programmatic focus on clinical forensic psychology or clinical psychology with a subspecialty in forensic psychology. For programs with a nonclinical training component, students can concentrate on the application of nonclinical psychology areas (e.g., cognitive, social, developmental) to forensic matters. Additionally, a handful of schools offer forensic training at the master’s level (for an up-to-date list of forensic psychology programs, refer to Aderhold, Boulas, & Huss, n.d.; AP-LS, n.d.-a).

To comprehend the reasons behind the existing disparities in training approaches, it is essential to grasp the distinct skill sets of forensic scientists and practitioners. The extensive scope of professional responsibilities and the scientific inquiries inherent in forensic practice necessitate diverse training methods. For instance, a typical use of expert testimony involves psychologists providing insights into the reliability of eyewitness testimony in a criminal trial. Such an expert witness might testify about the impact of various factors on perception, including stress and weapon focus. They could also offer testimony on how specific elements affect accurate identification, such as the forgetting curve and suggestive pretrial identification procedures (as seen in United States v. Norwood, 1996). While forensic clinical psychologists may indeed present this type of testimony (Contreras, 2001), it is more commonly associated with individuals trained in cognitive or social psychology, who specialize in studying fundamental perception, memory, and identification accuracy issues.

In contrast, clinical psychologists are more likely to offer testimony about assessments they have conducted on a litigant (e.g., Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007) or treatments they have administered to a litigant or offender (e.g., Ashford, Sales, & Reid, 2001). For example, they may provide testimony regarding the outcomes of their forensic assessments on various topics, such as determining the child’s best interests in postdivorce custodial placement (e.g., Benjamin & Gollan, 2003), evaluating the termination of parental rights in the child’s best interests (e.g., In re L.A.M., 2001), or assessing whether the defendant had a learning disability in a lawsuit alleging that chemical exposure caused the disability (e.g., Mancuso v. Consolidated Edison, Co., 2000). In other cases, both clinical and nonclinical forensic psychologists may educate the trier of fact (whether a jury or a judge in bench trials) about the current state of psychological knowledge on specific topics (e.g., rape trauma syndrome or the causes of eyewitness identification errors) rather than directly addressing a particular disputed factual question (as observed in People v. Wheeler, 1992).

While expert testimony holds significant importance within forensic work, it represents only one facet of the broader landscape of forensic practice opportunities. For instance, certain forensic psychologists engage in the management of forensic correctional facilities (as evidenced in works like Hafemeister, Hall, & Dvoskin, 2001), deliver therapeutic services within detention facilities for juvenile or adult offenders, or contribute to the formulation of policies for institutions and government entities. Moreover, beyond these practice-oriented roles, many psychologists contribute to research and scholarship, laying the groundwork for the field of forensic psychology.

The question arises: What type of education and training best equips individuals for this diverse array of activities? There exists no one-size-fits-all answer. Training options should be diverse, taking into account both the career aspirations of the trainee and the limitations imposed by existing educational programs. In this section, we delve into the practical and nuanced aspects of training objectives, methodologies, and associated issues.

Forensic Psychology Educational Goals

The pursuit of education and training is inherently tied to one’s career aspirations. For instance, a student with a keen interest in working with elderly patients naturally seeks training pertinent to gerontology, and educational programs aiming to attract students desiring to work with individuals afflicted by Alzheimer’s disease create tailored didactic, experiential, and research opportunities that align with the students’ needs in this domain. Likewise, students with a penchant for legal and law-related settings follow a similar path. In this section, we delineate the prevalent educational objectives in forensic psychology, shedding light on the most common training goals in the field (citation).

Now, let’s extend the content:

  1. Clinical Assessment and Evaluation: A fundamental goal in forensic psychology education involves acquiring expertise in clinical assessment and evaluation techniques. This encompasses understanding the intricacies of psychological assessments, diagnostic procedures, and evaluation methodologies specific to legal contexts. Students are trained to conduct assessments related to mental health, competency, risk assessment, and child custody, among others.
  2. Legal and Ethical Foundations: Another critical aspect of forensic psychology training revolves around comprehending the legal and ethical underpinnings of the field. This includes an in-depth exploration of relevant laws, regulations, and ethical principles governing the practice. Students must develop a firm grasp of the legal framework in which they will operate and the ethical standards they must uphold.
  3. Criminal Justice System Familiarity: To excel in forensic psychology, students often seek education that provides a deep understanding of the criminal justice system. This entails learning about the legal proceedings, court processes, and the roles of various professionals within the system, such as judges, attorneys, and law enforcement personnel.
  4. Psychological Research Skills: Research competence is highly valued in forensic psychology. Students are trained in research methodologies, data analysis, and the critical evaluation of scientific literature. This skill set allows them to contribute to the empirical foundation of forensic psychology and stay updated with the latest research findings.
  5. Expert Witness Testimony: For those aspiring to become expert witnesses, training programs offer instruction on the preparation and presentation of expert witness testimony. This includes effective communication skills, report writing, and the ability to convey complex psychological concepts to a lay audience, such as judges and juries.
  6. Specialized Knowledge Areas: Forensic psychology encompasses a wide range of specialized areas, including but not limited to criminal profiling, forensic assessment of trauma survivors, and forensic assessment of juvenile offenders. Training programs may offer specialized coursework and practical experiences to cater to students’ specific interests.
  7. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Given the interdisciplinary nature of forensic psychology, students are encouraged to develop collaboration skills. This involves working effectively with professionals from various fields, including law enforcement, legal professionals, social workers, and healthcare providers.
  8. Cultural Competence: In an increasingly diverse society, cultural competence is crucial. Training programs emphasize the importance of understanding cultural factors and their impact on individuals involved in legal proceedings, ensuring fair and equitable forensic assessments and interventions.
  9. Continuous Professional Development: Lifelong learning is an integral component of forensic psychology. Graduates are encouraged to engage in continuous professional development, staying updated with evolving legal standards, psychological research, and ethical guidelines throughout their careers.

In summary, the educational goals in forensic psychology are multifaceted, encompassing clinical, legal, ethical, and research-oriented objectives. Tailored training equips individuals with the knowledge and skills required to excel in diverse forensic contexts while upholding the highest ethical standards.

Approaches to Achieving Educational Goals

Forensic psychology is a field with diverse training and career objectives, which can significantly vary both within and across categories. To cater to these distinctive goals, training programs have adopted different programmatic approaches. However, these approaches are shaped not only by educational objectives but also by administrative constraints that influence the scope of training programs, such as the availability of faculty expertise in forensics. Consequently, each subtype of training program offers unique advantages and limitations that impact the effectiveness of preparing students for their specific forensic careers. In this section, we delineate the most prevalent types of training programs while shedding light on the areas where they excel and where they may fall short in equipping students for various forensic career paths.

Let’s extend the discussion further:

  1. Doctoral Programs with a Forensic Specialization: These programs typically grant a Ph.D. or Psy.D. degree and provide specialized training in forensic psychology. They are well-suited for students who aspire to become forensic practitioners, expert witnesses, or researchers in the field. The benefit lies in their comprehensive curriculum tailored to forensic topics. However, limited faculty resources may result in competitive admissions and restricted research opportunities.
  2. Joint J.D.-Ph.D. or J.D.-Psy.D. Programs: Ideal for individuals interested in the intersection of psychology and law, these programs offer dual degrees in psychology and law. Graduates are equipped to work as attorney-psychologists, combining legal expertise with psychological insights. The advantage is the versatility of career options, but the extensive duration of the program and its demanding nature can be challenging.
  3. Clinical Psychology Programs with a Forensic Emphasis: Clinical psychology programs that incorporate forensic coursework or internships prepare students for clinical practice within legal contexts. Graduates often work in correctional facilities, forensic mental health clinics, or provide psychological assessments for legal cases. The benefit is hands-on clinical experience, but the focus on clinical training may limit research opportunities.
  4. Research-Oriented Programs: Some programs prioritize research in forensic psychology, allowing students to delve deeply into empirical studies and scholarship. Graduates are well-prepared for careers as forensic researchers, academics, or consultants. The advantage is rigorous research training, but limited emphasis on clinical practice may hinder those seeking practitioner roles.
  5. Master’s Programs in Forensic Psychology: Master’s programs are suitable for individuals seeking specialized training without pursuing a doctoral degree. These programs offer a focused curriculum on forensic topics and can lead to careers in criminal justice, victim advocacy, or forensic analysis. The benefit is a shorter duration and practical skills, but career opportunities may be less diverse than doctoral programs.
  6. Online or Part-Time Programs: Designed for working professionals or those with geographical constraints, online or part-time programs offer flexibility in pursuing forensic psychology education. They cater to individuals seeking to advance their careers while maintaining existing commitments. However, the limited in-person interaction may impact hands-on training.
  7. Psy.D. Programs with a Forensic Subspecialty: Psy.D. programs with a forensic subspecialty provide clinical training with a focus on forensic practice. Graduates often become clinical forensic psychologists working in legal settings. The benefit is comprehensive clinical preparation, but limited emphasis on research may restrict academic or research-oriented careers.
  8. Interdisciplinary Programs: These programs promote collaboration between psychology and related disciplines, such as law or criminology. Graduates gain a broader understanding of the intersection of psychology and law, suitable for roles involving interdisciplinary expertise. The advantage is a holistic perspective, but specialization in forensic psychology may be less pronounced.

In conclusion, the diversity of training programs in forensic psychology reflects the multifaceted nature of the field and the varying career goals of students. While each type of program offers distinct advantages, the choice of program should align with individual aspirations and the specific demands of prospective forensic careers.  Read more about Approaches to Achieving Educational Goals.

Faculty Expertise and Student Goals

When considering a forensic psychology program, one essential aspect to examine is the qualifications and expertise of the faculty and adjunct supervisors. Program faculty should possess the requisite qualifications and proficiency to effectively teach and supervise students in their designated areas (APA, 2002, Standard 2.01). While this may appear self-evident, the burgeoning demand for forensic psychological training and the establishment of new programs emphasize the need for thorough scrutiny of faculty expertise in delivering forensic education.

It is crucial to acknowledge that competence in delivering clinical services does not automatically translate into competence in providing forensic clinical services, nonclinical forensic services, or conducting forensic research. Therefore, when assessing a program’s faculty, prospective students and institutions should exercise discernment to ensure that the faculty’s expertise aligns with the specific forensic training being sought.

To ascertain faculty qualifications, consider the following factors:

  1. Academic Background: Faculty members should possess relevant academic credentials, including advanced degrees in psychology or related fields. Faculty with doctorates in forensic psychology or closely related disciplines bring specialized knowledge to the program.
  2. Research and Publication Record: Evaluate faculty members’ research contributions to the field of forensic psychology. A strong research and publication record indicates their engagement with current forensic issues and their ability to guide students in scholarly endeavors.
  3. Professional Experience: Faculty with substantial experience in forensic practice, whether as expert witnesses, clinical forensic psychologists, or researchers, offer practical insights and real-world perspectives to students.
  4. Supervision and Mentorship: Assess faculty members’ track record in mentoring students and providing effective supervision, particularly in forensic contexts. The ability to guide students through experiential learning is invaluable.
  5. Diversity of Expertise: A diverse faculty with expertise in various forensic subfields, such as criminal, civil, juvenile, or family forensic psychology, can provide a well-rounded education that caters to different student interests.
  6. Affiliations and Associations: Faculty members’ involvement in relevant professional associations, such as the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS), signifies their commitment to the field of forensic psychology.
  7. Teaching Experience: Consider faculty members’ teaching experience, especially in forensic psychology courses. Effective educators are essential for delivering high-quality forensic education.
  8. Adjunct Supervisors: If adjunct supervisors are involved in the program, assess their qualifications and practical experience in forensic settings. They play a pivotal role in students’ practical training.
  9. Student Outcomes: Investigate the success and achievements of former students who were under the guidance of program faculty. Positive student outcomes can reflect the quality of faculty mentorship.

By carefully evaluating these factors, prospective students can make informed decisions about the alignment of faculty expertise with their educational and career objectives in forensic psychology. Additionally, institutions can ensure that their faculty possesses the necessary qualifications to deliver comprehensive and effective forensic training. Read more about Faculty Expertise and Student Goals.

Faculty as Advisors and Mentors

When evaluating a forensic psychology program, it’s not only the faculty’s expertise that matters but also their role as advisors or mentors. Understanding these roles is crucial because they can significantly impact a student’s educational experience and future success. Here, we explore the distinctions between advisors and mentors and offer guidance on making informed decisions:

Advisor Role:

  • Advisors typically focus on providing information, guidance, and answering student inquiries related to coursework, program requirements, and academic policies.
  • They often limit their involvement to academic matters and may not engage extensively in students’ personal and professional development.
  • The advisor’s primary function is to facilitate the successful completion of program requirements.

Mentor Role:

  • Mentors take a more personal and invested approach to students’ growth and success.
  • They actively support students’ development, both academically and professionally, by offering guidance, encouragement, and personalized advice.
  • Mentors provide opportunities for students to expand their knowledge, skills, and networks, often extending beyond the classroom.

To choose the right faculty advisor or mentor:

  1. Clarify Your Expectations: Reflect on your expectations and preferences regarding faculty-student interactions. Do you seek personalized guidance and mentorship, or are you primarily interested in academic advisement?
  2. Ask About Faculty Roles: Inquire about the faculty’s approach to advising and mentoring during the program. Are they willing to provide guidance beyond coursework, such as career advice and research opportunities?
  3. Research Faculty Members: Investigate faculty members’ backgrounds, teaching styles, and engagement with students. Look for signs of mentorship, such as involvement in research projects, willingness to supervise independent studies, or offering career guidance.
  4. Speak with Current Students: Connect with current students in the program to gather insights into their experiences with faculty. They can provide valuable perspectives on the level of mentorship available.
  5. Consider Your Career Goals: Evaluate how your career aspirations align with the type of faculty interaction you desire. For example, if you plan to pursue research or forensic practice, having a mentor who can guide you in these areas may be beneficial.
  6. Express Your Needs: Communicate your expectations and goals with potential faculty advisors or mentors. Open and honest communication is essential to ensure a productive relationship.
  7. Seek Feedback: Ask for feedback from former students who have worked with specific faculty members as mentors. Their experiences can inform your decision.

Remember that the choice between an advisor and a mentor is a personal one, and both roles can be valuable depending on your goals and preferences. Whether you seek academic advisement or a more comprehensive mentorship experience, selecting the right faculty member to guide you in your forensic psychology journey is a critical decision.

Degree and Nondegree Education

Training in forensic psychology offers various degree and nondegree options to accommodate diverse career goals and educational preferences. Here, we explore the range of educational opportunities available:

Degree Programs:

  1. Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Forensic Psychology:
    • A Ph.D. program provides in-depth academic and research training in forensic psychology.
    • Ideal for those aspiring to become forensic psychologists with expertise in both clinical and nonclinical aspects.
    • Includes coursework, research, and often clinical experience.
  2. Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) with Forensic Specialization:
    • Psy.D. programs emphasize clinical training and practical experience.
    • Suitable for individuals seeking a strong foundation in clinical forensic psychology and clinical practice.
    • Combines coursework, clinical training, and practical experience.
  3. Master of Arts (M.A.) or Master of Science (M.S.) in Forensic Psychology:
    • M.A. or M.S. programs offer a shorter duration of study focused on forensic psychology principles and practices.
    • Designed for those interested in entry-level forensic roles or further specialization within psychology.
    • Includes coursework and may involve practical experience.
  4. Master of Legal Studies (MLS) with Concentration in Forensic Psychology:
    • MLS programs integrate legal studies with forensic psychology principles.
    • Suitable for individuals who wish to work at the intersection of law and psychology without obtaining a psychology degree.
    • Offers a comprehensive understanding of legal and forensic issues.

Nondegree Training:

  1. Certificate Programs:
    • Nondegree certificate programs provide specialized training in forensic psychology topics.
    • Ideal for professionals seeking to enhance their skills in specific areas, such as forensic assessment or expert testimony.
    • Typically shorter in duration than degree programs.
  2. Continuing Education Workshops and Seminars:
    • Short-term workshops and seminars offer focused education on specific forensic psychology subjects.
    • Beneficial for practicing psychologists and legal professionals looking to update their knowledge and skills.
    • Provides opportunities for networking and staying current with industry trends.
  3. Online Courses and Webinars:
    • Online platforms offer a range of courses and webinars on forensic psychology topics.
    • Convenient for individuals seeking flexible learning options or remote access to specialized training.
    • Allows professionals to acquire knowledge at their own pace.
  4. Internship and Supervised Experience:
    • Practical experience through internships or supervised work with experienced forensic psychologists.
    • Offers hands-on exposure to forensic practice and prepares individuals for future roles.
    • Complements formal education with real-world application.

When considering forensic psychology training, it’s essential to align your educational choice with your career objectives. Degree programs provide comprehensive training, while nondegree options offer flexibility and targeted skill development. Evaluating your career goals and preferred learning style will help you select the most suitable training path in the field of forensic psychology.  Read more about Degree and Nondegree Education.

Diplomates in forensic psychology hold a unique and prestigious certification jointly awarded by two prominent organizations: the American Board of Forensic Psychology (ABFP) and its overseeing body, the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP). This certification signifies their expertise in the integration of psychological principles with the U.S. legal system. Let’s delve into the significance and requirements of this distinctive certification:

1. Expertise in Psychology and Law:

  • Diplomates in forensic psychology are recognized experts in the application of psychological knowledge and practices within the realm of U.S. law and the legal system.
  • Their specialization encompasses a wide range of forensic issues, including criminal and civil matters, expert testimony, assessment, and interventions.

2. Certification by ABFP and ABPP:

  • To attain the Diplomate status in forensic psychology, professionals must meet rigorous standards set by both the ABFP and ABPP.
  • The ABFP focuses on evaluating candidates’ forensic expertise, ensuring they possess comprehensive knowledge and skills relevant to the field.
  • The ABPP, as the overseeing body, ensures that candidates meet the high standards expected of board-certified psychologists.

3. Rigorous Assessment and Evaluation:

  • Prospective Diplomates undergo a thorough examination process, which typically includes written and oral examinations.
  • These assessments assess their competence in applying psychological principles within legal contexts and evaluating their knowledge of pertinent ethical guidelines.

4. Commitment to Ethical Practice:

  • Diplomates are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in their practice.
  • They adhere to the ethical principles set forth by professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), in their forensic work.

5. Continual Professional Development:

  • To maintain their Diplomate status, forensic psychologists engage in ongoing professional development.
  • They stay current with advancements in forensic psychology, attend relevant conferences, and contribute to the field’s growth through research and practice.

6. Acknowledgment of Expertise:

  • Diplomate status is a mark of distinction and expertise recognized by peers, legal professionals, and the broader community.
  • It attests to a forensic psychologist’s ability to provide valuable insights and assessments within legal proceedings.

Diplomates in forensic psychology play a vital role in the interface between psychology and the legal system. Their certification reflects a commitment to excellence, ethical practice, and the application of psychological knowledge to enhance the functioning of the U.S. legal system. Read more about Diplomates in Forensic Psychology.

Master’s Programs in Forensic Psychology

Over the past four decades, the field of forensic psychology has experienced remarkable growth, both in academia and professional practice. Early practitioners often entered forensic roles without specialized training, but the increasing demand for expertise in this field has led to the development of graduate programs dedicated to forensic psychology, or psychology and law. These master’s programs have emerged to address the need for well-prepared forensic professionals. Let’s explore the significance and evolution of master’s programs in forensic psychology:

1. Bridging the Gap:

  • Master’s programs in forensic psychology serve as a bridge between general psychology education and specialized knowledge required for forensic practice.
  • They equip students with the skills, insights, and understanding needed to excel in various aspects of the field, from research and policy advocacy to clinical forensic services.

2. Explosive Growth:

  • In the past three decades, there has been an exponential increase in the number of graduate-level programs offering training in forensic psychology.
  • This growth reflects the recognition of the importance of forensic psychology and the need for well-trained professionals to address complex legal and psychological issues.

3. Specialized Coursework:

  • Master’s programs in forensic psychology typically offer specialized coursework that delves into various facets of the field.
  • Students engage in studies related to criminal psychology, legal processes, ethical considerations, and the application of psychological principles within the legal system.

4. Practical and Research Experience:

  • These programs emphasize practical experience and research opportunities to ensure students are well-rounded and prepared for real-world challenges.
  • Students may engage in internships, case studies, and research projects that directly apply forensic psychology principles.

5. Enhancing Competence:

  • Graduates of these programs emerge with enhanced competence to conduct research, influence policy decisions, and provide expert opinions in legal matters.
  • Their training equips them to contribute effectively to the field’s growth and address complex issues in forensic psychology.

6. Meeting Growing Demand:

  • The proliferation of master’s programs in forensic psychology reflects the growing demand for professionals who can navigate the intersection of psychology and the law.
  • These programs prepare future generations of forensic practitioners to meet the evolving challenges of the field.

7. Advancing Research and Policy:

  • Graduates of master’s programs play a crucial role in conducting sound research, advocating for relevant policies, and delivering competent clinical forensic services.
  • Their expertise contributes to the development of evidence-based practices and informs legal decision-making.

Master’s programs in forensic psychology are instrumental in nurturing expertise at the intersection of psychology and the law. They prepare students to excel in diverse forensic roles and contribute significantly to the field’s evolution, ensuring that forensic practitioners are well-equipped to address complex legal and psychological challenges. Read more about Master’s Programs in Forensic Psychology.

Doctoral Programs in Forensic Psychology

Doctoral programs stand as the preeminent educational avenue for cultivating scholars in the dynamic field of forensic psychology. These programs cater to a diverse student body passionate about delving into the fundamental domains of psychology and law. While numerous training models exist with the aim of imparting knowledge in both disciplines, a consensus on the optimal model remains elusive. Nonetheless, there are well-established guidelines outlining the essential objectives that should underpin every doctoral program. Irrespective of the chosen training model, graduates of such programs find themselves poised for a multitude of compelling career prospects. Prospective students should note, however, that securing admission to these esteemed programs often involves fierce competition.

Here, we delve into the realm of doctoral programs in forensic psychology, illuminating their significance, diversity, and the rewarding opportunities they offer:

1. A Pinnacle of Education:

  • Doctoral programs represent the pinnacle of education in forensic psychology, attracting students with a fervor for the intricate interplay between psychology and the law.
  • These programs are characterized by their rigorous training, extensive research opportunities, and comprehensive curriculum, preparing students to be leading experts in the field.

2. Varied Training Models:

  • Various training models exist, each designed to educate students in both psychology and law. These models reflect diverse approaches to bridging the two disciplines.
  • While there’s ongoing debate about the ideal model, established guidelines outline the core objectives that should be present in every doctoral program.

3. Common Educational Goals:

  • Doctoral programs aim to equip students with advanced knowledge, research skills, and practical expertise in forensic psychology.
  • They foster critical thinking, research acumen, and a deep understanding of the legal system, enabling graduates to navigate complex issues at the intersection of psychology and law.

4. Abundant Career Opportunities:

  • Graduates of doctoral programs in forensic psychology enjoy a wealth of career opportunities. They are prepared to take on pivotal roles in academia, research, clinical practice, and legal consultancy.
  • These professionals contribute significantly to shaping forensic psychology as an evolving field, influencing policy, conducting groundbreaking research, and serving as expert witnesses in legal proceedings.

5. Competitive Admissions:

  • Aspiring students should be prepared for the competitive nature of admissions to doctoral programs in forensic psychology.
  • These programs attract highly motivated individuals, and securing a coveted spot often requires a distinguished academic record, research experience, and a compelling passion for the field.

6. Shaping the Future:

  • Doctoral programs produce scholars who play a pivotal role in advancing our understanding of human behavior within the legal context.
  • They are at the forefront of developing evidence-based practices, influencing legal decisions, and addressing the complex challenges posed by the intersection of psychology and the law.

Doctoral programs in forensic psychology represent a unique and demanding educational path. They nurture scholars who stand as future leaders in this multidisciplinary field, prepared to make lasting contributions to the realms of psychology and law. These programs are the crucible where expertise, innovation, and passion combine to shape the future of forensic psychology.  Read more about Doctoral Programs in Forensic Psychology.

Postdoctoral Residencies in Forensic Psychology

Forensic psychology was formally recognized as a specialty by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2001 (through the Committee for Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology). The basic elements of specialty training in professional psychology are graduate education (doctoral program), internship, and postdoctoral training. Read more about Postdoctoral Residencies in Forensic Psychology.

Formal recognition of forensic psychology as a distinct specialty by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2001 marked a significant milestone (accomplished through the Committee for Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology). In the realm of professional psychology, specialty training typically encompasses three essential components: graduate education (doctoral program), internship, and postdoctoral training. Delving deeper into the realm of postdoctoral residencies in forensic psychology sheds light on the culmination of specialized training.

Here, we delve into the crucial role of postdoctoral residencies in forensic psychology, unraveling their significance, structure, and the unique challenges they address:

1. Advanced Specialization:

  • Postdoctoral residencies represent the pinnacle of training in forensic psychology, providing advanced specialization beyond doctoral education and internship.
  • These programs offer an opportunity for aspiring forensic psychologists to immerse themselves in the intricacies of the field and refine their expertise.

2. Recognition of Specialty:

  • The formal recognition of forensic psychology as a specialty underscores the need for advanced training to meet the demands of this multidisciplinary domain.
  • Postdoctoral residencies align with this recognition, preparing professionals to tackle complex issues at the intersection of psychology and the law.

3. Extensive Training Goals:

  • Postdoctoral residencies aim to accomplish a wide range of training goals. These include honing clinical skills, conducting high-level research, refining assessment and evaluation abilities, and gaining practical experience in legal contexts.
  • Residents are exposed to diverse forensic settings, from correctional facilities and courtrooms to consulting firms, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of forensic psychology practice.

4. Enhanced Ethical Understanding:

  • Building on foundational training in ethics, postdoctoral residencies delve deeper into the nuanced ethical considerations that arise in forensic practice.
  • Residents learn to navigate the intricate ethical landscape of forensic psychology, ensuring principled and responsible conduct.

5. Meeting Unique Challenges:

  • Forensic psychology presents unique challenges, from managing complex legal cases to working with diverse populations.
  • Postdoctoral residencies provide a structured environment for residents to confront these challenges, guided by experienced mentors and supervisors.

6. Shaping the Future of the Field:

  • Graduates of postdoctoral residencies play a pivotal role in shaping the future of forensic psychology.
  • They become leaders, researchers, and practitioners who drive innovation, influence policy, and contribute to the growth and evolution of the field.

7. Bridging Theory and Practice:

  • Postdoctoral residencies bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and real-world application. Residents engage in hands-on experiences that deepen their understanding of the field’s practical aspects.
  • This immersion in forensic practice equips them to address complex issues faced by clients, courts, and the legal system.

8. A Competitive Path:

  • Admission to postdoctoral residencies in forensic psychology is highly competitive. Aspiring residents must demonstrate exceptional academic records, clinical competence, and a genuine commitment to the field.
  • The rigorous selection process ensures that residents are well-prepared to meet the demands of forensic practice.

Postdoctoral residencies in forensic psychology stand as a crucial phase in the journey to becoming a seasoned and adept forensic psychologist. They represent the culmination of specialized training, preparing professionals to navigate the intricate web of psychology and the law with skill, ethics, and expertise. In these programs, the future leaders of forensic psychology are nurtured, equipped to address the complex challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

Number of Trainees

The number of trainees enrolled in a forensic psychology program is a critical factor that significantly shapes their educational experience. The size of the student body can influence various aspects of training, from individualized attention to the breadth of training opportunities. This section delves into the impact of the number of trainees on forensic psychology education:

1. Small Cohorts for Personalized Attention:

  • Programs with a limited number of enrolled students often provide a more intimate learning environment. Trainees can expect personalized attention from faculty and mentors.
  • Small cohorts foster close-knit communities where students can build strong relationships with their peers and faculty, facilitating mentorship and collaboration.

2. Limitations on Peer Interaction:

  • While small cohorts offer individualized attention, they may limit opportunities for trainees to interact, share experiences, and learn from a diverse group of graduate students.
  • The lack of a broad peer network could restrict exposure to different perspectives and approaches within the field.

3. Balance of Experiential Opportunities:

  • The size of the student body can impact the availability of experiential and didactic training options. Smaller programs may offer fewer opportunities in this regard.
  • Trainees in programs with fewer peers might need to actively seek external opportunities to complement their training.

4. Broader Range of Coursework:

  • Larger forensic training programs, with a higher number of enrolled students, tend to offer a more extensive array of training opportunities and coursework.
  • A larger student body often correlates with a greater number of faculty members, leading to a diverse curriculum covering various forensic psychology topics.

5. Diverse Faculty Presence:

  • The size of the student body directly affects the faculty-student ratio. Larger programs are more likely to have a substantial number of faculty members.
  • This diversity in faculty can enrich trainees’ experiences by exposing them to a wide range of expertise and research interests.

6. Realistic Program Expectations:

  • Prospective trainees should consider their preferred learning environment and career goals when selecting a program.
  • Smaller cohorts may suit those seeking a close-knit, personalized experience, while larger programs can provide a broader educational landscape.

7. Balancing Individual Attention and Diversity:

  • The choice between a smaller or larger program involves a trade-off between individualized attention and exposure to diverse perspectives.
  • Trainees should weigh their priorities and objectives to select a program that aligns with their educational and professional aspirations.

Ultimately, the number of trainees in a forensic psychology program plays a pivotal role in shaping the educational journey of aspiring forensic psychologists. It impacts the level of personalized attention, the breadth of training opportunities, and the diversity of experiences available to trainees. Prospective students should assess their own preferences and goals to choose a program that best aligns with their vision for a career in forensic psychology.

Didactic and Experiential Training

Effective training in forensic psychology involves a well-rounded blend of didactic and experiential components. Both these elements are essential for comprehensive skill development and knowledge acquisition in the field. This section explores the significance of combining didactic and experiential training in forensic psychology:

1. Didactic Courses:

  • Building a Knowledge Base: Didactic courses are fundamental in equipping trainees with the essential scientific and practical knowledge that forms the foundation of forensic psychology.
  • Comprehensive Learning: These courses offer an extensive understanding of various aspects of forensic psychology, including legal principles, psychological theories, assessment techniques, and ethical considerations.
  • Critical Thinking: Didactic training encourages critical thinking and analytical skills, enabling trainees to evaluate complex issues and make informed decisions.

2. Experiential Training:

  • Hands-On Learning: Experiential training involves practical, hands-on experiences gained through externships, internships, and supervised practica.
  • Real-World Exposure: Trainees engage in real-world forensic settings, allowing them to apply theoretical knowledge to practical situations and develop valuable skills.
  • Mentorship and Supervision: Experienced professionals oversee and guide trainees during experiential training, providing mentorship, feedback, and opportunities for skill refinement.

3. Enhancing Learning:

  • Complementary Role: Experiential training complements didactic learning by translating theoretical concepts into real practice scenarios. It bridges the gap between theory and application.
  • Exposure to Diversity: Trainees encounter diverse cases, clients, and legal contexts during experiential training, broadening their understanding of the field.
  • Skill Development: Practical experiences help trainees develop competencies in assessment, intervention, report writing, and courtroom testimony.

4. Preventing Narrow Specialization:

  • Expanding Perspectives: Relying solely on experiential training with one practitioner may lead to a narrow focus on that practitioner’s specific methods and practices. Didactic courses broaden trainees’ perspectives.
  • Informed Decision-Making: Exposure to various didactic courses and experiential settings enables trainees to make informed career choices based on a more comprehensive understanding of forensic psychology.

5. Comprehensive Training Programs:

  • Effective Programs: The most effective forensic psychology training programs strike a balance between didactic and experiential components, ensuring that graduates are well-prepared for diverse forensic roles.
  • Career Readiness: Combining classroom education with practical experience enhances trainees’ readiness for careers in forensic psychology.

6. Lifelong Learning:

  • Continual Growth: Forensic psychologists must commit to lifelong learning and stay updated on evolving legal standards, psychological research, and assessment techniques.
  • Adapting to Change: A strong foundation in both didactic and experiential training equips professionals to adapt to changes in the field.

In summary, the integration of didactic and experiential training is crucial for the comprehensive education of forensic psychologists. Didactic courses provide the necessary knowledge base, while experiential training offers practical skills and real-world exposure. Balancing these components ensures that trainees are well-prepared for the multifaceted demands of forensic psychology and contributes to their long-term success in the field.  Read more about Didactic and Experiential Training.

Learning the Relevant Law and How to Find It

In the realm of forensic psychology training, it’s essential to emphasize the development of legal research and training skills. While trainees often gain knowledge of relevant legal standards governing forensic evaluations in their respective jurisdictions, it is equally important to equip them with the skills necessary to navigate, interpret, and stay updated on the law. Effective training should encompass the following components:

  1. Legal Research Skills:
    • Trainees should be proficient in identifying and accessing the central case law applicable to specific forensic evaluation questions within their jurisdiction.
    • Developing the ability to navigate legal databases, court records, and relevant legal literature is essential.
  2. Application of Legal Standards:
    • Understanding the legal standards is just the beginning. Trainees must learn how to apply these standards effectively in forensic psychological practice.
    • They should be adept at tailoring their evaluations to address the specific legal criteria relevant to the case at hand.
  3. Staying Informed:
    • Legal standards can change over time due to evolving case law and legislative amendments. Trainees should develop strategies for staying current with these changes.
    • Continuous monitoring of legal developments ensures that forensic psychologists provide assessments aligned with the latest legal requirements.
  4. Cross-Jurisdictional Awareness:
    • Forensic professionals should be aware of legal standards in other jurisdictions that may influence their work, especially in cases with multi-jurisdictional aspects.
    • A broader understanding of legal variations enhances the competence of forensic evaluations.
  5. Admissibility and Procedural Knowledge:
    • Beyond the evaluation standards, trainees need to be knowledgeable about legal procedural rules, particularly those governing the admissibility of expert testimony.
    • Familiarity with procedural nuances ensures that forensic assessments meet the necessary legal criteria for courtroom acceptance.
  6. Interdisciplinary Collaboration:
    • Collaborative relationships with legal professionals, such as attorneys, can provide valuable insights into legal nuances and enhance the effectiveness of forensic work.
    • Engaging with legal experts allows forensic psychologists to better align their evaluations with legal expectations.
  7. Ethical Considerations:
    • Ethical responsibilities in forensic psychology encompass not only the psychological but also the legal and professional dimensions.
    • Trainees should develop a keen understanding of the ethical obligations associated with legal assessments.
  8. Continual Learning:
    • Legal competence is an ongoing endeavor. Forensic psychologists should commit to lifelong learning, ensuring they remain well-versed in evolving legal standards and practices.

Incorporating comprehensive legal training components into forensic psychology programs is imperative. It empowers trainees with the skills and knowledge needed to perform high-quality forensic evaluations, adapt to changing legal landscapes, and contribute effectively to the legal system. By nurturing legal competence, training programs prepare future forensic psychologists to excel in their multifaceted roles.

Forensic Ethics Training

Forensic psychology training programs must place a stronger emphasis on the ethical dimensions of forensic practice. Currently, there is a notable deficiency in ethical coursework within forensic specialty programs. Less than 15% of doctoral programs in forensic psychology offer dedicated courses on forensic psychological ethics. While master’s programs perform better in this regard, with roughly half offering ethics courses, the overall lack of specialized ethics training remains a significant concern (Burl et al., 2012).

Ethical challenges in forensic practice are distinct from those encountered in general psychology practice. Forensic practitioners often grapple with a unique set of ethical issues that demand specialized guidance. For example, determining the client in a forensic context, such as when working with prisoners, presents intricate questions—Is it the prisoner, the prison, or the Department of Corrections? Addressing such complex scenarios requires a nuanced understanding of forensic ethics.

To navigate these challenges effectively, specialized ethical guidelines tailored to forensic psychology practice have been developed (APA, 2013). While these guidelines are aspirational, they serve as essential reference points for ethical decision-making in forensic contexts. It is imperative that all forensic practitioners are not only aware of these guidelines but also comprehend and strive to adhere to them. Moreover, staying informed about the latest developments in forensic ethics scholarship is crucial.

To ensure comprehensive ethics training, it is essential for forensic programs to enlist experts in ethics to teach the ethics curriculum. This expertise should be complemented by instructors well-versed in forensic ethics. This two-pronged approach is vital for preparing competent forensic specialists who can navigate the distinctive ethical challenges of their field.

In many graduate psychology programs, general ethics training is often provided by practitioners or faculty members who lack expertise in ethics. Forensic programs need to reevaluate whether this approach aligns with the goal of producing competent forensic specialists. The answer, we believe, is in the negative. Elevating the quality of ethics education is not just a recommendation but a fundamental necessity to ensure that future forensic psychologists are equipped to meet the ethical demands of their profession.

Trial Consultant Training

The realm of trial consulting encompasses a diverse range of services, from jury research to presentation strategies and aiding with exhibits. While this multifaceted field caters to the needs of its clients, there are no standardized academic or professional prerequisites for trial consultants. Consequently, the training landscape for trial consultants is marked by considerable variability, with approaches varying across the profession.

Generally, trial consultant training involves several key components:

  1. Academic Background: Many trial consultants come from backgrounds in the social sciences, which provides them with valuable insights into human behavior, decision-making, and group dynamics. This foundation is often more advantageous than a legal background.
  2. On-the-Job Training: Practical experience is a crucial aspect of trial consultant training. Working in real-world legal cases allows consultants to develop competencies and refine their skills, which are challenging to acquire through other means. On-the-job training equips them with a deep understanding of the intricacies of legal proceedings and courtroom dynamics.
  3. Continuing Education: Staying current is essential in the ever-evolving field of trial consulting. Consultants engage in ongoing education to remain abreast of industry developments, as well as advances in methodology, technology, and statistical techniques. This commitment to lifelong learning ensures that they can offer clients the most up-to-date and effective strategies.
  4. Academic Excellence: While formal academic requirements may not be standard, many successful trial consultants hold graduate degrees in fields such as psychology, sociology, or communication. These academic credentials provide a strong foundation for understanding human behavior and communication dynamics, which are central to effective trial consulting.

In summary, the training journey of a trial consultant is diverse and adaptable. It combines academic knowledge, practical experience, and a commitment to ongoing learning. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, these varied training elements collectively equip trial consultants with the skills and expertise needed to excel in their field and provide invaluable support to clients in the legal arena.  Read more about Trial Consultant Training.

Forensic Psychological Competence

Establishing a clear definition of forensic psychological competence, whether in practice or research across various domains, presents a challenging endeavor. The mere acceptance of certain types of expert testimony, research methodologies, or practices by the legal system is an inadequate gauge for assessing the competence of individuals involved in these activities. For instance, consider a jurisdiction that has admitted expert testimony solely based on clinical intuition regarding a defendant’s future dangerousness in a death penalty case (as exemplified in the Barefoot v. Estelle case in 1983). In such a scenario, a practitioner offering such testimony would not be considered forensically competent.

Forensic competence encompasses a deeper understanding. A competent forensic practitioner would:

  1. Be knowledgeable about the superiority of actuarially derived predictions of dangerousness over unstructured clinical judgments, recognizing the empirical evidence supporting this fact (Grove & Meehl, 1996; Krauss & Sales, 2001).
  2. Acknowledge the limitations of using an existing actuarial instrument as the sole basis for expert testimony on dangerousness (Krauss, McCabe, & McFadden, 2009; Monahan et al., 2002).

Moreover, competence in forensic psychology does not equate to replicating past practices exactly as learned during training. It involves an ongoing commitment to staying informed about advancements in the field, understanding variations in applicable laws across different jurisdictions, and adapting to changes in legal standards over time. Forensic training programs should instill in their graduates a mindset of intellectual rigor, fostering a habit of questioning whether their actions align with contemporary best practices and ethical standards or merely perpetuate outdated approaches.

Ultimately, competence in forensic psychology is a dynamic and evolving concept that requires continuous learning, adaptability, and critical self-assessment to ensure that forensic practitioners consistently adhere to the highest standards of professional practice and ethics.

The timing and methods of forensic training present a fundamental challenge in the field. As mentioned earlier, forensic training can occur at various stages of a psychologist’s career, including predoctoral, during internship, postdoctoral, through continuing education, on-the-job training, or self-directed reading. Each of these approaches may be suitable for imparting forensic psychological expertise, but a significant knowledge gap exists regarding their effectiveness in cultivating the necessary knowledge and skills.

This issue highlights the importance of systematically evaluating the impact of different training methods on the acquisition of forensic psychological competencies. To ensure that forensic practitioners meet the highest standards of professional practice and ethics, the field must invest in research and assessment efforts that assess the outcomes of various training approaches. Such investigations would provide valuable insights into the most effective educational pathways for developing competent forensic psychologists.

Credentialing in forensic psychology is a complex and evolving endeavor that demands careful consideration of the training methods and timing to ensure that practitioners possess the requisite knowledge and skills to meet the unique demands of the field. Conducting rigorous research in this area is essential for advancing the quality of forensic psychological training and ultimately enhancing the standards of practice in the discipline. Read more about Credentialing in Forensic Psychology.

Maintaining and Increasing Forensic Psychological Competence

Assessing the effectiveness of forensic training programs extends beyond initial education. A critical measure of program success is whether graduates are motivated to pursue ongoing education opportunities aimed at preserving and expanding their forensic psychological competence. However, currently, there is a lack of comprehensive data to address this issue adequately.

Continuing education programs in the field of forensic psychology do exist, but a detailed analysis of their content, coverage, geographic availability, and alignment with the diverse training needs of forensic psychologists remains limited. To ensure that practitioners in the field have access to high-quality continuing education that aligns with the evolving demands of forensic practice, research in this area is crucial.

Future studies should aim to shed light on these important aspects of continuing education in forensic psychology. By gaining a better understanding of the landscape of continuing education programs and their effectiveness, the field can take significant steps toward maintaining and enhancing the competence of forensic psychologists throughout their careers.

Accreditation of Forensic Psychological Training

The accreditation of forensic doctoral training programs in psychology currently falls under the umbrella of the American Psychological Association (APA), but it is important to note that these programs are not accredited as distinct entities. Instead, they often rely on the accreditation status of their generalist clinical, counseling, or school psychology programs.

The question of whether accreditation specifically tailored to forensic psychological training programs would enhance the quality of forensic practice training is a matter for the field to carefully consider. If the consensus within the profession is that such accreditation would be beneficial, it may necessitate collaboration with the APA Accreditation Office to establish a framework for accrediting forensic training programs effectively.

Additionally, concerns surrounding the accreditation of forensic internship and postdoctoral training programs in the field should also be examined and addressed by the relevant stakeholders. These discussions and potential actions can play a vital role in shaping the future of forensic psychological training and enhancing its overall quality.

Challenges in Training Forensic Psychology Scientists

Specialized programs dedicated to training forensic psychology scientists face unique challenges in their educational mission. To conduct meaningful forensic psychological research, these programs must equip their students with the essential skill of identifying the critical questions that require answers within the legal context.

For instance, consider the case of McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), where the defendant, Kemp, an African American, was accused of the murder of a White man. In this case, the defense presented expert testimony to support its argument that Georgia’s death penalty statute and procedures exhibited racial discrimination against the defendant.

Training programs in forensic psychology must teach their students how to discern and articulate such pressing questions that demand examination by psychological science. This capacity to pinpoint the key inquiries that the law needs to address is pivotal for forensic psychology scientists as they contribute to the field through research and expert analysis. Read more about Forensic Psychology Educational Challenges.

Empirical Research on Forensic Psychology Training

To advance the field of forensic psychology and enhance the competence of practitioners, it is imperative that forensic psychology training programs undergo empirical scrutiny. This research-driven evaluation is essential for identifying the most effective pathways to improving forensic competence in practice. However, this undertaking is not without its complexities, especially as the field has traditionally not embraced a robust research agenda to evaluate its training methods.

One significant challenge in this endeavor is the potential confounding factor of the knowledge base imparted during training. For instance, if a particular training approach fails to demonstrate empirical evidence of producing competence in practice, it raises the question of whether the deficiency lies in the approach itself or in the inherent validity of the knowledge being transmitted. While this poses challenges in research design, it underscores the critical importance of addressing this larger issue – the necessity for empirical investigations into the outcomes of diverse training approaches.

In the pursuit of advancing forensic psychology, future scholarship should earnestly tackle this challenge, seeking to empirically assess and refine training methodologies to better equip forensic psychologists with the skills and knowledge needed to excel in their practice.


  1. 2012 California Rules of Court 5.225 (d)-(i). Retrieved from
  2. Aderhold, B., Boulas, J., & Huss, M. T. (n.d.). Guide to graduate programs in psy­chology and law. Retrieved from
  3. American Board of Forensic Psychology. (2006). ABFP brochure. Retrieved from
  4. American Board of Forensic Psychology. (n.d.). Apply for ABFP/ABPP forensic board certification. Retrieved from
  5. American Board of Professional Psychology. (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved from
  6. American Chemical Society. Forensic chemists. Retrieved from
  7. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57,1060-1073.
  8. American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68 (1), 7-19.
  9. American Psychological Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology. (1947). Recom­mended graduate training program in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 2, 539-558.
  10. American Psychology-Law Society. (n.d.-a). Graduate programs. Retrieved from
  11. American Psychology-Law Society. (n.d.-b). Predoctoral Internship Training Programs. Retrieved from
  12. American Psychology-Law Society. (n.d.-c). Postdoctoral Opportunities. Retrieved from
  13. American Psychology-Law Society. (n.d.-d). Certificate programs. Retrieved from
  14. American Psychology-Law Society. (n.d.-e). Master’s programs. Retrieved from
  15. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 9-55.
  16. Ashford, J. B., Sales, B. D., & Reid, W. H. (Eds.). (2001). Treating adult and juvenile offenders with special needs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  17. Barefoot v. Estelle, 460 U.S. 880 (1983).
  18. Bartol, C., & Bartol, A. (2006). History of forensic psychology. In B. Weiner & A. Hess (Eds.), The handbook offorensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 3-28). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  19. Beck, C. J. A., & Sales, B. D. (2001). Family mediation: Facts, myths and future prospects. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  20. Benjamin, G. A. H., & Gollan, J. K. (2003). Family evaluation in custody litigation: Reducing risks of ethical infractions and malpractice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  21. Burl, J., Shah, S., Filone, S., Foster, E., & DeMatteo, D. (2012). A survey of graduate training programs and coursework in forensic psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 48-53.
  22. Contreras, R. (2001, August 10). More courts let experts debunk witness accounts. Wall Street Journal, B, P1.
  23. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
  24. DeMatteo, D., Marczyk, G., Krauss, D., & Burl, J. (2009). Educational and training models in forensic psychology. Trainingand Education in Professional Psychology, 3, 184-191.
  25. English, P. W., & Sales, B. D. (2005). More than the law: Social and behavioral knowledge in legal decision-making. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  26. Findley, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (2012). The science of attorney advocacy: How courtroom behavior affects jury decision making. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  27. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
  28. Goldstein, A. M. (2007). Forensic psychology: Toward a standard of care. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles (pp. 3-41). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  29. Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments & instruments. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
  30. Grisso, T. (1987). The economic and scientific future of forensic psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 9, 831 -839.
  31. Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments & instruments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
  32. Grove, W. & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparing the efficiency of informal (impressionistic, subjective) and formal (mechanistic, algorithmic) predictions procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 2, 293-323.
  33. Hafemeister, T. L., Hall, S. R., & Dvoskin, J. A. (2001). Administrative concerns associated with the treatment of offenders with mental illness. In J. B. Ashford, B. D. Sales, & W. H. Reid (Eds.), Treating adult and juvenile offenders with special needs (pp. 419-444). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  34. Harris v. Forklift, 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993). In re L.A.M., 2001 WL 246371, Iowa.
  35. Krauss, D. (2004). Adjusting risk of recidivism: Do judicial departures worsen or improve recidivism prediction under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 731 -750.
  36. Krauss, D., Cassar, D., & Strother, A. (2009). The admissibility of expert testimony in the United States, the Commonwealth, and elsewhere. In D. Krauss & J. Lieberman (Eds.). Psychological expertise in court (Vol. 2, pp. 1-24). London, England: Ashgate Press.
  37. Krauss, D., McCabe, J., & McFadden, S. (2009). Limited expertise and experts: Problems with the continued use of future dangerousness in capital sentencing. In R. Schopp, R. Wiener, B. Bornstein, & S. Wilborn (Eds.), Mental disorder and criminal law: Responsibility, punishment, and competency (pp. 135-158). New York, NY: Springer.
  38. Krauss, D., & Sales, B. D. (2000). Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 6, 843-879.
  39. Krauss, D., & Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 267-310.
  40. Krauss, D., & Sales, B. D. (2003). Forensic psychology, public policy, and the law. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic psychology (pp. 543-561). Volume 11 in I. B. Weiner (Ed.-in-Chief), Handbook ofpsychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  41. Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
  42. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).
  43. Malesky, A., & Proctor, S. (2012). Training experiences essential for obtaining a forensic psychology postdoctoral fellowship. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12, 163-172.
  44. Mancuso v. Consolidated Edison, Co., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 20534 (2d Cir. 2000).
  45. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).
  46. Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  47. Miller, M. O., Sales, B. D., & Delgado, J. (2003). Law and mental health professionals: Arizona (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  48. Monahan, J., Steadman, H. J., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P. S., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., … Banks, S. (2002). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  49. People v. Wheeler, 602N.E.2d 826 (Ill., 1992).
  50. Peterson, D. (2003). Unintended consequences: Ventures and misadventures in the education of professional psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 791 -800.
  51. Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2005). The enduring value of the Boulder model: “Upon this rock we will build.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61,1147-1150.
  52. Quinsey, V., Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  53. Sales, B. D. (1983). The legal regulation of psychology: Professional and scientific interactions. In C. J. Scheirer & B. L. Hammonds (Eds.), The master lecture series. Vol. 2, Psychology and the law (pp. 5-36). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  54. Sales, B. D., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Experts in court: Reconciling law, science, and professional knowledge. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  55. Schopp, R. F. (2001). Competence, condemnation, and commitment: An integrated theory of mental health law. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  56. Shah, S. A., & Sales, B. D. (1991). Research in law and mental health: Introduction and Overview. In S. A. Shah & B. D. Sales (Eds.), Law and mental health: Major developments and research needs (pp. 1 -24). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (National Institute of Mental Health Monograph).
  57. Shuman, D., & Greenberg, S. (2003). The expert, the adversary system, and the voice of reason: Reconciling objectivity and advocacy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 219-224.
  58. United States Code, 18 USC §17.
  59. United States v. Norwood, 939 F. Supp. 1132 (D.N.J. 1996).
  60. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
  61. Wisconsin Code, §971.15. Mental responsibility of defendant. Retrieved from
  62. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).