The Experts below are selected from a list of 22701 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gerald Young - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Introducing Psychological Injury and Law
Psychological Injury and Law, 2020Co-Authors: Gerald Young, William E. Foote, Kathryn F. Fokas, Patricia K. Kerig, Angela Mailis, Julie Brovko, Eileen A. Kohutis, Shawn Mccall, Eleni G. Hapidou, Jane Goodman-delahuntyAbstract:Psychology Injury and law is a specialized forensic psychology field that concerns reaching legal thresholds for actionable negligent or related injuries having a Psychological component, such as for posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, and mild traumatic brain Injury. The presenting Psychological injuries have to be related causally to the event at issue, and if pre-existing injuries, vulnerabilities, or psychopathologies are involved at baseline, they have to be exacerbated by the event at issue, or added to in unique ways such that the Psychological effects of the event at issue go beyond the de minimis range. The articles in this special issue deal with the legal aspects of cases of Psychological Injury, including in legal steps and procedures to follow and the causal question of whether an index event is responsible for claimed injuries. They deal with the major Psychological injuries, and others such as somatic symptom disorder and factitious disorder. They address best practices in assessment such that testimony and reports proffered to court are probative, i.e., helping the trier of fact to arrive at judicious decisions. The articles in the special issue review the reliable and valid tests in the field, including those that examine negative response bias, negative impression management, symptom exaggeration, feigning, and possible malingering. The latter should be ruled in only through the most compelling evidence in the whole file of an examinee, including test results and inconsistencies. The court will engage in admissibility challenges when testimony, reports, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations do not meet the expected standards of being scientific, comprehensive, impartial, and having considered all the reliable data at hand. The critical topics in the field that cut across the articles in the special issue relate to (a) conceptual and definitional issues, (b) confounds and confusions, (c) assessment and testing, (d) feigning/malingering, and (e) medicolegal/legal/court implications. The articles in the special issue are reviewed in terms of these five themes.
-
Civil Forensic Evaluation in Psychological Injury and Law: Legal, Professional, and Ethical Considerations
Psychological Injury and Law, 2020Co-Authors: William E. Foote, Jane Goodman-delahunty, Gerald YoungAbstract:Psychologists who work as therapists or administrators, or who engage in forensic practice in criminal justice settings, find it daunting to transition into practice in civil cases involving personal Injury, namely Psychological Injury from the Psychological perspective. In civil cases, Psychological Injury arises from allegedly deliberate or negligent acts of the defendant(s) that the plaintiff contends caused Psychological conditions to appear. These alleged acts are disputed in courts and other tribunals. Conditions considered in Psychological Injury cases include posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, chronic pain conditions, and sequelae of traumatic brain Injury. This article outlines a detailed case sequence from referral through the end of expert testimony to guide the practitioner to work effectively in this field of practice. It addresses the rules and regulations that govern admissibility of expert evidence in court. The article provides ethical and professional guidance throughout, including best practices in assessment and testing, and emphasizes evidence-based forensic practice.
-
The Cry for Help in Psychological Injury and Law: Concepts and Review
Psychological Injury and Law, 2019Co-Authors: Gerald YoungAbstract:The cry for help is one of the explanations of results indicating negative impression management on symptom validity tests (SVTs) and respondent validity scales of personality and related inventories used in the area of Psychological/psychiatric Injury and law. One common interpretation of scale/test findings like these is that respondents are exaggerating, and their symptoms are due to feigning or even malingering. However, research shows that patients with scale/test results on these measures and inventories that indicate symptom over-reporting might be expressing genuine extreme psychopathology or emotional distress. A related possibility is that the respondents are catastrophizing, thinking the worst, desperate and pleading for understanding and help. That is, they might be “crying out for help.” The cry for help motivation in the context of psychiatric forensic disability and related psychiatric/Psychological evaluations is poorly defined in the literature, leading to contradictory research results and interpretations. Also, certain conditions and disorders that are relevant to forensic disability evaluations and related contexts might, in and of themselves, include a cry for help, complicating the forensic conclusion (e.g., dissociation, somatic symptom disorder). The present paper addresses definitional issues related to the cry for help, including its conscious/unconscious status, reviews the literature on it, suggests ways of measuring it (and the prevalence of malingering), indicates the ethical scope of when it should be used, and offers research strategies to improve the reliability and validity of its use in the forensic disability and related evaluation context.
-
Causality in Psychological Injury and Law: Models
Unifying Causality and Psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Gerald YoungAbstract:In the second chapter in the present book on causality in the area of Psychological Injury and law, I present a new model that includes iatrogenesis among the various influences on individuals with Psychological injuries. Much of the chapter deals with iatrogenesis, which has not been a central topic in psychology despite its importance in the medical field. I review other models in the area of Psychological Injury and law that include iatrogenesis, as well as the many terms related to it. This chapter and the prior one emphasize the need to conduct comprehensive assessments that are impartial and scientifically informed in order to evaluate effectively Psychological Injury determinations and their causality.
-
Causality in Psychological Injury and Law: Basics and Critics
Unifying Causality and Psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Gerald YoungAbstract:In the next two chapters of the present work, I turn to an area of psychology in which I have helped place causality as a central concept (Psychological Injury and law; e.g., Young, Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/Psychological Injury: Implications for practice and court. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media, 2014; Young, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2015; Young & Drogin, Mental Health Law & Policy Journal, 3, 373–417, 2014). Psychological injuries concern contentious conditions, especially PTSD, chronic pain, and mild TBI. The chapter considers causation both in civil law and in terms of mens rea in criminal law. I propose new terms that might help disambiguate some of the confusion in the field (e.g., biopsychosocial causation). The biopsychosocial model serves as a central focus in the area of Psychological Injury and law (along with forensic considerations).
Maureen F. Dollard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Further validation of the Psychological Injury risk indicator scale.
Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2012Co-Authors: Peter C. Winwood, Roger Peters, Martin Peters, Maureen F. DollardAbstract:OBJECTIVE:: Confirm the Psychological Injury Risk Indicator (PIRI) scale capacity to facilitate routine assessment of Psychological health of workers in high-stress environments. METHOD:: A cross-sectional study compared the PIRI scale scores with two experienced clinical psychologists' assessment of defined Psychological Injury in 93 participants. A second, longitudinal, study assessed PIRI predictive capacity for emotional exhaustion, physical health, and work engagement in 420 participants over 14 months. RESULTS:: The PIRI scale was shown to (a) determine the degree of Psychological Injury in participants with high correspondence to a specialist clinical interview; and (b) predict future emotional exhaustion, physical health, and work engagement to a significantly better degree than the 12-item General Health Questionnaire and Kessler-10 measures. CONCLUSIONS:: The PIRI scale shows a valuable capacity to provide accurate routine Psychological health assessment for at-risk workers in high-strain work environments. Language: en
-
Psychosocial culture and pathways to Psychological Injury within policing
Police Practice and Research, 2012Co-Authors: Michelle R. Tuckey, Peter C. Winwood, Maureen F. DollardAbstract:This study explored the evolution of work‐related Psychological Injury in policing, focusing on the role of police psychosocial culture. In addition to primary interview data from 19 former officers, 4 focus groups and 17 spontaneous written submissions were sources of triangulation. Whether sustained as a result of traumatic stress experience or via the more common erosive stress pathway, the psychosocial context surrounding operational policing played a critical role in Psychological Injury development and progression. The mitigation of Psychological Injury within policing requires that meaningful efforts be directed at challenging the cultural imperative towards emotional control and improving organization‐wide psychosocial care.
-
Identification and measurement of work-related Psychological Injury: piloting the Psychological Injury risk indicator among frontline police.
Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2009Co-Authors: Peter C. Winwood, Michelle R. Tuckey, Ronald Peters, Maureen F. DollardAbstract:Objective: To develop a self-report measure of work-related Psychological Injury, the Psychological Injury Risk Indicator (PIRI), with a comparable level of accuracy and reliability to individual clinical assessment by a skilled clinical psychologist. Method: Two pilot studies investigated the responses of a) 34 frontline police officers completing the PIRI measure who were also examined by a highly experienced clinical psychologist and b) 217 officers who completed the PIRI measure and also the General Health Questionnaire 12 measure. Results: The PIRI scale identified both the presence and the level of Psychological Injury in the clinical group with a remarkably high level of correspondence to concurrent clinical assessment (r 0.80). Significance: The PIRI scale can be used both for the individual assessment of Psychological Injury and as a potential online screening tool. Its latter use is that it could enable the early identification of evolving Psychological Injury among workers, facilitating timely and career-preserving intervention. (J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51:1057–1065) P sychological Injury associated with work-related stress is an increasingly frequent consequence of the twentyfirst century workplace. Its direct financial costs in compensation, sick leave, and lost productivity and its indirect emotional costs to affected
Jonathan P. Vallano - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Impact of Psychological Injury Evidence and Jurors’ Schemas on Civil Case Decisions
Psychological Injury and Law, 2018Co-Authors: Jonathan P. Vallano, Kristen A. SlapinskiAbstract:Psychological Injury evidence is at the heart of many civil claims. Due to the recent burgeoning of sexual harassment and assault claims which predominantly involve Psychological distress, it is especially important to understand how jurors process this evidence at the most basic (or schema) level, and how these preconceived notions influence processing of trial evidence and subsequent legal judgments. As a result, the present paper explores rarely addressed—but fundamental—issues regarding how jurors perceive Psychological Injury evidence. Specifically, do jurors have Psychological Injury schemas? And if so, what injuries do these schemas contain, how stable are they, how are they evaluated, and how do they affect jurors’ case perceptions and legal decisions? A review of relevant theory and empirical research reveals that jurors have Psychological Injury schemas, but they are often poorly developed and susceptible to the influence of prompts used to retrieve these schemas (e.g., questions posed by attorneys during voir dire, the actual injuries adduced by the plaintiff). Also interesting is that despite the relative importance of Psychological Injury evidence, tremendous gaps remain regarding what actual types of Psychological injuries jurors believe typically result in civil cases, how stable these Injury schemas are, and precisely how they affect jurors’ decisions. This paper addresses these important issues to help organize and direct future research on the subject, including proposing a model for how Psychological Injury schemas interact with jurors’ perceptions of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries to affect their legal decisions.
-
Psychological Injuries and Legal Decision Making in Civil Cases: What We Know and What We Do not Know
Psychological Injury and Law, 2013Co-Authors: Jonathan P. VallanoAbstract:Civil plaintiffs frequently seek monetary compensation for their Psychological injuries. Despite the increased study of Psychological Injury within the legal system, there has been little empirical examination of how Psychological Injury evidence impacts legal decisions. To illuminate what is known (and not known) on this topic, this paper reviews legal and empirical research regarding how legal decision makers (judges and jurors) perceive and use Psychological Injury evidence to render civil judgments. A few themes emerged from this review: (1) Courts generally devalue Psychological Injury, often making it difficult for plaintiffs to pursue and succeed on these claims; (2) these difficulties are a likely byproduct of legal decision-makers’ misperceptions of mental illness; and (3) despite a recent surge in empirical research on how jurors perceive and use Psychological Injury evidence to render civil decisions, many unexplored areas remain. Specific recommendations for legal policy and suggestions for future research are highlighted throughout this review.
-
Is this Injury Reasonable? Do Psychological Injury Expectations Affect Mock Jurors' Legal Decisions in a Sexual Harassment Case?
Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 2013Co-Authors: Jonathan P. Vallano, Ryan J. Winter, Steve D. CharmanAbstract:The experiments examined the viability of a proposed decision-making process to explain how jurors’ expectations for a sexual harassment complainant’s Psychological Injury affect their legal decisions. Two experiments provided undergraduate mock jurors with a sexual harassment allegation that manipulated their range of expectations for reasonable Psychological injuries (mild vs. mild to severe) and the severity of the complainant’s alleged Psychological Injury (from minimal to extreme). Experiment 1 (N ¼ 295) found that participants expecting mild injuries found the complainant’s Psychological Injury allegations to be less reasonable and credible than participants expecting mild to severe injuries. Experiment 2 (N ¼ 202) investigated whether these expectations influenced liability and compensatory damage decisions. As the Injury increased from minimal to moderate severity, participants expecting mild injuries found less liability, whereas participants expecting mild to severe injuries found significantly more liability. Both expectations and Injury severity independently impacted damage decisions, but not in an interactive fashion. We discuss the applicability of the proposed decision-making process to explain legal decisions in sexual harassment cases.
-
The Impact of Psychological Injuries on Sexual Harassment Determinations
Psychological Injury and Law, 2012Co-Authors: Ryan J. Winter, Jonathan P. VallanoAbstract:Although a plethora of studies focus on jury decision making in sexual harassment cases, few studies examine damage award assessments in such suits, and even fewer explore the impact of Psychological Injury on jurors’ liability and damage award assessments. In the present study, 342 undergraduates read a hostile environment sexual harassment case that manipulated the plaintiff’s Psychological Injury level (severe vs. mild vs. control) to investigate whether males and females made different damage decisions. Males using a reasonable person standard found more liability as the severity of the plaintiff’s Psychological Injury increased. However, males using a reasonable woman standard found less liability with the addition of any Psychological Injury information. Similarly, for mild and severe injuries, males using the reasonable woman standard awarded lower damages than males using the reasonable person standard. Females tended to find more harassment than males, but Psychological Injury and legal standard had little impact on females’ legal decisions. We discuss these findings in light of the positive relationship often observed between the plaintiff’s Injury severity level and pro-plaintiff verdicts.
Peter C. Winwood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Measuring Psychological trauma in the workplace: psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Psychological Injury risk indicator-a cross-sectional study.
TheScientificWorldJournal, 2015Co-Authors: Nicola Magnavita, Sergio Garbarino, Peter C. WinwoodAbstract:Background. The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the Psychological Injury Risk Indicator (PIRI) and to validate its psychometric properties. Methods. Workers from 24 small companies were invited to self-complete the PIRI before undergoing their routine medical examination at the workplace. All participants (841 out of 845, 99.6%) were also asked to report occupational injuries and episodes of violence that had occurred at the workplace in the previous 12 months and were given the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) to complete. Results. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 4-factor structure, “sleep problems,” “recovery failure,” “posttraumatic stress symptoms,” and “chronic fatigue,” which were the same subscales observed in the original version. The internal consistency was excellent (alpha = 0.932). ROC curve analysis revealed that the PIRI was much more efficient than GHQ12 in diagnosing workers who had suffered trauma (workplace violence or Injury) in the previous year, as it revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.679 (95% CI: 0.625–0.734) for the PIRI, while for the GHQ12 the AUC was 0.551 (not significant). Conclusions. This study, performed on a large population of workers, provides evidence of the validity of the Italian version of the PIRI.
-
Prevalence and Organisational Factors of Psychological Injury Among Australian School Teachers
Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology, 2014Co-Authors: Adam Garrick, Peter C. Winwood, Anita S. Mak, Stuart Cathcart, Arnold B. Bakker, Kurt LushingtonAbstract:In this study, we investigated the prevalence, severity, and organisational factors of risk for Psychological Injury in a national sample of Australian school teachers, using the Psychological Injury Risk Indicator. We predicted that teachers would report higher levels of risk for Psychological Injury if working in schools located in rural areas, with a low socioeconomic index, and low psychosocial safety climate. Teachers from across Australia ( N = 960) completed an online survey that measured risk for Psychological Injury and relevant organisational factors. We found a high number of teachers (26%) whose responses showed high risk, indicating the need for professional intervention in order to avoid potentially debilitating Psychological Injury. Analyses also showed main effects for two organisational factors, indicating that teachers most at risk for Psychological Injury tended to be employed by schools with low psychosocial safety climate and in areas with a low socioeconomic index. These results highlight the severe levels of work-related Psychological Injury risk in the Australian teacher population, and the important role for school administration and education departments in maintaining a working environment that supports staff Psychologically.
-
Psychosocial culture and pathways to Psychological Injury within policing
Police Practice and Research, 2012Co-Authors: Michelle R. Tuckey, Peter C. Winwood, Maureen F. DollardAbstract:This study explored the evolution of work‐related Psychological Injury in policing, focusing on the role of police psychosocial culture. In addition to primary interview data from 19 former officers, 4 focus groups and 17 spontaneous written submissions were sources of triangulation. Whether sustained as a result of traumatic stress experience or via the more common erosive stress pathway, the psychosocial context surrounding operational policing played a critical role in Psychological Injury development and progression. The mitigation of Psychological Injury within policing requires that meaningful efforts be directed at challenging the cultural imperative towards emotional control and improving organization‐wide psychosocial care.
-
Further validation of the Psychological Injury risk indicator scale.
Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2012Co-Authors: Peter C. Winwood, Roger Peters, Martin Peters, Maureen F. DollardAbstract:OBJECTIVE:: Confirm the Psychological Injury Risk Indicator (PIRI) scale capacity to facilitate routine assessment of Psychological health of workers in high-stress environments. METHOD:: A cross-sectional study compared the PIRI scale scores with two experienced clinical psychologists' assessment of defined Psychological Injury in 93 participants. A second, longitudinal, study assessed PIRI predictive capacity for emotional exhaustion, physical health, and work engagement in 420 participants over 14 months. RESULTS:: The PIRI scale was shown to (a) determine the degree of Psychological Injury in participants with high correspondence to a specialist clinical interview; and (b) predict future emotional exhaustion, physical health, and work engagement to a significantly better degree than the 12-item General Health Questionnaire and Kessler-10 measures. CONCLUSIONS:: The PIRI scale shows a valuable capacity to provide accurate routine Psychological health assessment for at-risk workers in high-strain work environments. Language: en
-
Identification and measurement of work-related Psychological Injury: piloting the Psychological Injury risk indicator among frontline police.
Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2009Co-Authors: Peter C. Winwood, Michelle R. Tuckey, Ronald Peters, Maureen F. DollardAbstract:Objective: To develop a self-report measure of work-related Psychological Injury, the Psychological Injury Risk Indicator (PIRI), with a comparable level of accuracy and reliability to individual clinical assessment by a skilled clinical psychologist. Method: Two pilot studies investigated the responses of a) 34 frontline police officers completing the PIRI measure who were also examined by a highly experienced clinical psychologist and b) 217 officers who completed the PIRI measure and also the General Health Questionnaire 12 measure. Results: The PIRI scale identified both the presence and the level of Psychological Injury in the clinical group with a remarkably high level of correspondence to concurrent clinical assessment (r 0.80). Significance: The PIRI scale can be used both for the individual assessment of Psychological Injury and as a potential online screening tool. Its latter use is that it could enable the early identification of evolving Psychological Injury among workers, facilitating timely and career-preserving intervention. (J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51:1057–1065) P sychological Injury associated with work-related stress is an increasingly frequent consequence of the twentyfirst century workplace. Its direct financial costs in compensation, sick leave, and lost productivity and its indirect emotional costs to affected
Thor Johansen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Core Competencies in VA Compensation and Pension Exams for PTSD and Other Mental Disorders
Psychological Injury and Law, 2017Co-Authors: Thor JohansenAbstract:The concept of core competencies has in recent years seen a rising interest as the mental health field has increasingly focused on empirically validated approaches to assessment and intervention. VA compensation and pension (CP Ridgeway in Psychological Injury and Law, 5: 72–87, 2012; Worthen & Moering in Psychological Injury and Law, 4: 187–216, 2011). It does, however, attempt to describe the core competencies required by those clinicians who perform posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental disorders C&P evaluations on behalf of the VA.
-
Core Competencies in VA Compensation and Pension Exams for PTSD and Other Mental Disorders
Psychological Injury and Law, 2017Co-Authors: Thor JohansenAbstract:The concept of core competencies has in recent years seen a rising interest as the mental health field has increasingly focused on empirically validated approaches to assessment and intervention. VA compensation and pension (C&P) examiners are required to complete some basic training outlined by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), but little has been put forth about the specific skills, knowledge, and attitudes required of the examiner. Outlining core competencies for C&P examiners helps gauge to what extent an examiner meets the standards of their professional role. Such a framework is helpful for those responsible for training new examiners within the VA as well as for contracted examiners who need continuing education. Additionally, core competencies provide experienced examiners a framework to help self-evaluate as they continue to develop their skills. This article does not intend to address how to perform C&P examinations, because such issues have been addressed thoroughly elsewhere (i.e., Moering in Psychological Injury and Law , 4: 217–234, 2011 ; Ridgeway in Psychological Injury and Law , 5: 72–87, 2012 ; Worthen & Moering in Psychological Injury and Law , 4: 187–216, 2011 ). It does, however, attempt to describe the core competencies required by those clinicians who perform posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental disorders C&P evaluations on behalf of the VA.