Dr. Wade Silverman, Ph.D | home
False Memories and Forensic Practice - 2
This is the second article considering the American Psychological Association working group on the investigation of childhood abuse. You will recall that in the first article, I described two different camps with respect to the approach to the salience of false memories.
Researchers and clinicians have basically different views in regard to this issue. Researchers are more concerned with false memory. Clinicians are concerned with treating trauma. Therefore, when using a forensic psychologist to evaluate a person who reports memories of childhood abuse you must be aware of these different professional approaches.
At the more practical level, be certain that your expert uses a broad array of sources of information to offer an opinion. Do not accept work based solely on the self-report of the plaintiff or defendant.
A second recommendation offered by the committee is that the expert should always rule out potential sources of suggestion and/or contamination.
Third, the working group suggested that an examiner cannot make his or her judgment about the validity of a plaintiff's complaint based solely on the manifestation of symptoms. This is because there are no symptoms or complex of symptoms clearly associated with a history of childhood sexual abuse.
If a therapist is accused of implanting pseudomemories, it is important to note that both therapist and client reports of what occurred in therapy may or may not be accurate. Once again multiple sources of data must be collected. Finally, experts should attempt to base their opinion on direct or videotaped observation rather than on written or audio taped materials.
|