Recognizing Bias and Pursuing Objectivity in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations

Friday December 5th, 2025  | 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM EST

2 CE Credits

Program Description:

Conducting forensic psychological evaluations—amid adversarial criminal or civil litigation—features challenges that do not arise in general practice. In particular, forensic psychologists are challenged to maintain scientific neutrality within adversarial systems that subtly shape reasoning, interpretation, and testimony. This two-hour workshop bridges research on adversarial allegiance and evaluator biases with applied strategies for enhancing objectivity in forensic psychological and forensic neuropsychological evaluations. 

Dr. Daniel Murrie will summarize a program of research addressing evaluator differences and evaluator biases, particularly adversarial allegiance. He will provide strategies to enhance objectivity, accountability, and transparency in forensic practice. Dr. Chriscelyn Tussey will extend these principles to contexts where neuropsychological data inform forensic opinions. She will illustrate how referral framing, test and norm selection, confirmatory reasoning, and inconsistent data interpretation and application of validity findings can distort results and subsequent testimony. 

Drawing on cognitive science and forensic ethics, both presenters will provide empirically grounded strategies for recognizing and mitigating bias across the referral, evaluation, and testimony processes. This program is designed for forensic psychologists and forensic neuropsychologists who seek to improve reliability and objectivity, particularly amid adversarial pressure and scrutiny. 

Learning Objectives:

1. Participants will accurately list and describe at least three types of evaluator differences and evaluator biases (including adversarial allegiance) as demonstrated through a written or verbal knowledge check.
2. Participants will correctly identify at least three cognitive and contextual factors that contribute to bias during referral framing, data interpretation, and testimony on a post-training assessment or case vignette.
3. Given a sample neuropsychological data, participants will accurately evaluate and document at least two potential sources of bias (e.g., selective test use, confirmatory reasoning, inconsistent validity interpretations) using a standardized review checklist.
4. Participants will apply at least two structured, evidence-based strategies (e.g., structured data review protocols, peer consultation checklists) to a case scenario to demonstrate improved transparency, objectivity, and accountability.
   

Registration Rates:

NYSPA Member: $45
Forensic Division Member: $30
Non-Member: $75