Abstract
In an article in Psychological Assessment, Putnam, Adams, & Schneider (1992) presented a case study in which retesting by separate examiners over a brief time period yielded consistent results. Although Putnam et al. raised a number of points that deserve attention, some of their suggestions about the relevance of their case to legal assessments seem to extend well beyond what their data and methodology justify, and they misrepresented Faust & Ziskins'views on psychology and law. The author discusses limits of the case study method and clarifies his views on the use of psychological evidence in the courtroom
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
