Clinical neuropsychology in forensic contexts: Practitioners' experience, training, and practice.

Despite their increasing involvement in the United States legal system, little is known about neuropsychological practitioners working in forensic contexts. Neuropsychologists (N 59) recruited from the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology were surveyed about their experience, training, and practice. The majority of participants reported practicing in both civil and criminal forensic contexts (64%), with a minority restricting their practice to civil cases only (34%); practicing solely within the criminal forensic context was rarely reported (2%). Participants reported conducting forensic assessments across a variety of legal questions, primarily personal injury and civil and criminal competencies. The majority of participants’ graduate and postdoctoral training was in neuropsychology, typically supplemented by forensic training through postgraduate continuing education. Challenges to admissibility of expert testimony were rare and were more likely to target specific sections of the practitioners’ testimony rather than their admissibility as experts overall. Differences in challenges to admissibility based on jurisdiction were found for those participants practicing within criminal but not civil forensic contexts (p .034). Though certain trends are noted, results suggest substantial variability exists among practitioners in the field. Implications regarding the experience, training, and practice of neuropsychological practitioners within civil and criminal forensic contexts are discussed, along with broader implications for field leaders as they continue to advance the subspecialty of forensic neuropsychology.