Psychometric Test Development and Assessment-4Common Test Utilization in Forensic Neuropsychological Assessment: A Survey of National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN) and International Neuropsychology Society (INS) Members:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Common test utilization is foundational to the legal admissibility of neuropsychological evidence, and therefore the role of clinical neuropsychology in legal decision-making. Prior surveys tracking the development of forensic neuropsychology have failed to address generally accepted assessment practices, however, namely common test utilization. The current study assessed professional practice and common test utilization among clinical neuropsychologists engaging in forensic assessment. Method: Doctoral level clinical neuropsychologists (N = 507) residing in the United States and Canada were randomly selected from the combined memberships of the National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN) and International Neuropsychological Society (INS). All participants were surveyed about their demographics, professional practices, and common test utilization across neuropsychological domains. Participants who reported engaging in forensic assessment (n = 257) were further surveyed about their forensic practices. Results: The majority of respondents who reported engaging in forensic assessment were men (58%) and Caucasian (92%), and had higher ages (d = 0.52) and years of practice (d = 0.66) than non-forensic respondents. General patterns emerged regarding clinical populations and forensic referral questions. Common test utilization among participants specializing in forensic assessment (n = 45) was described across neuropsychological domains (see table). Importantly, common test utilization in forensic assessment did not appear to differ significantly from common test utilization in general neuropsychological assessment. Conclusion: This study was the first to describe common test utilization among neuropsychologists engaging in forensic assessment. The results provide useful information to clinical neuropsychologists, field leaders in neuropsychology and forensic psychology, and legal professionals on the role of clinical neuropsychology in civil and criminal legal decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".