Abstract
Seven neuropsychology journals that publish on topics relevant to clinical neuropsychology were examined for their experimental rigor according to the standards of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) in their Clinical Practice Guidelines. By using a keyword approach on topics relevant to forensic neuropsychology, all articles that reported empirical findings from 2003 through 2008 were identified. Each study was rated by AAN classification criteria that ranged from a level I classification (prospective, most rigorous, and independent) to level IV (least rigorous). The typical forensic neuropsychological study averaged a class III ranking. Few studies were based on large sample sizes or utilized a reported masking or blind technique with regards to subject selection and how diagnostic criteria were met and/or data analyzed. While the authors for the average study reported a university affiliation, few reported explicit Institutional Review Board statements. Considerable variability across these seven journals with regards to conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies was observed and only a few studies reported explicit statements about funding or COI issues. These observations suggest that neuropsychological research on forensic topics currently has many limitations and that future research needs to address these issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 454–465.
Bigler, E. D. (2006). Can author bias be determined in forensic neuropsychology research published in Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 503–508.
Borenstein, J. (2008). The expanding purview: Institutional review boards and the review of human subjects research. Accountability in Research, 15, 188–204.
Campbell, E. G., Louis, K. S., & Blumenthal, D. (1998). Looking a gift horse in the mouth: Corporate gifts supporting life sciences research. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 995–999.
Chelune, G. J. (2008). Evidence-based research and practice in clinical neuropsychology. Clinical Neuropsychology, 1–14.
Cipolotti, L., & Warrington, E. K. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 58, 655–664.
Cohen, J. J., Cruess, S., & Davidson, C. (2007). Alliance between society and medicine: The public’s stake in medical professionalism. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 670–673.
Edlund, W., Gronseth, G., So, Y., & Franklin, G. (2004 Edition). Clinical practice guideline process manual: For the quality standards subcommittee (QSS) and the therapeutics and technology assessment subcommittee (TTA). St. Paul: American Academy of Neurology.
Elliott, K. C. (2008). Scientific judgment and the limits of conflict-of-interest policies. Accountability in Research, 15, 1–29.
Garb, H. N. (2005). Clinical judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 67–89.
Heilbronner, R. L. (2004). A status report on the practice of forensic neuropsychology. Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 312–326.
Hunsley, J., & Mash, E. J. (2007). Evidence-based assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 29–51.
Illes, J., & Pierce, R. (2008). Introduction: Accountability in neuroethics. Accountability in Research, 15, 205–208.
Iverson, G. L. (2006). Misdiagnosis of the persistent postconcussion syndrome in patients with depression. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 303–310.
Jorgensen, A. W., Hilden, J., & Gotzsche, P. C. (2006). Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: Systematic review. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 333, 782.
Kantowitz, B. H., Elmes, D. G., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Experimental psychology. Belmont: Wadswoth.
Kim, S. Y. (2004). Evidence-based ethics for neurology and psychiatry research. NeuroRx: The Journal of the American Society for Experimental Therapeutics, 1, 372–377.
Klee, C. H., & Friedman, H. J. (2001). Neurolitigation: a perspective on the elements of expert testimony for extending the Daubert challenge. NeuroRehabilitation, 16, 79–85.
Levy, N., & Clarke, S. (2008). Neuroethics and psychiatry. Current Opinions in Psychiatry, 21, 568–571.
MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 259–287.
Martelli, M. F., Zasler, N. D., & Johnson-Greene, D. (2001). Promoting ethical and objective practice in the medicolegal arena of disability evaluation. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics in North America, 12, 571–585.
McHenry, L. B., & Jureidini, J. N. (2008). Industry-sponsored ghostwriting in clinical trial reporting: a case study. Accountability in Research, 15, 152–167.
Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product$$ How industry's assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitka, M. (2008). Critics say FDA's off-label guidance allows marketing disguised as science. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299, 1759–1761.
Morin, K., Rakatansky, H., Riddick Jr., F. A., Morse, L. J., O'Bannon 3rd, J. M., Goldrich, M. S., et al. (2002). Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 78–84.
Namaka, M., Crook, A., Doupe, A., Kler, K., Vasconcelos, M., Klowak, M., et al. (2008). Examining the evidence: Complementary adjunctive therapies for multiple sclerosis. Neurological Research, 30, 710–719.
Parker, L. S., & Kienholz, M. L. (2008). Disclosure issues in neuroscience research. Accountability in Research, 15, 226–241.
Peyser, J. M., Rao, S. M., LaRocca, N. G., & Kaplan, E. (1990). Guidelines for neuropsychological research in multiple sclerosis. Archives of Neurology, 47, 94–97.
Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299, 1800–1812.
Safer, D. J. (2002). Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190, 583–592.
Schneider, N., Lingner, H., & Schwartz, F. W. (2007). Disclosing conflicts of interest in German publications concerning health services research. BMC Health Services Research, 778.
Stern, B. H. (2001). Admissibility of neuropsychological testimony after Daubert and Kumho. NeuroRehabilitation, 16, 93–101.
Stern, B. H., & Brown, , J. (2008). Litigating brain injuries. Eagan: West Publishing, Thomson Reuters.
Sweet, J. J., Nelson, N. W., & Moberg, P. J. (2006). The TCN/AACN 2005 “salary survey”: professional practices, beliefs, and incomes of U.S. neuropsychologists. Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 325–364.
Vitiello, B., Heiligenstein, J. H., Riddle, M. A., Greenhill, L. L., & Fegert, J. M. (2004). The interface between publicly funded and industry-funded research in pediatric psychopharmacology: Opportunities for integration and collaboration. Biological Psychiatry, 56, 3–9.
Warner, T. D., & Gluck, J. P. (2003). What do we really know about conflicts of interest in biomedical research? Psychopharmacology, 171, 36–46.
Author contributions
Dr. Bigler had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design
Bigler
Acquisition of data
Bigler, Green, Farrer, Roper, Millward
Analysis and interpretation of data
Bigler, Green, Farrer, Roper, Millward
Drafting of the manuscript
Bigler
Critical revisions of the manuscript for important intellectual content
Bigler, Green, Farrer, Roper, Millward
Statistical analysis
Bigler, Green, Farrer, Roper, Millward
Administrative, technical, and material support
Bigler
Supervision
Bigler
Financial disclosures
This research was funded by an internal grant from the College of Family, Home, and Social Science where Green and Farrer were paid student research assistants and Roper and Millward were unpaid student research assistants. Dr. Bigler does see forensic cases where approximately 70% are referred by plaintiff counsel and 30% from defense.
Funding/support
This study was supported by an internal university grant from the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences, Brigham Young University.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Jo Ann Petrie, M.S., in manuscript preparation and editing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bigler, E.D., Green, R.R., Farrer, T.J. et al. The Rigor of Research Design and “Forensic” Publications in Neuropsychological Research. Psychol. Inj. and Law 2, 43–52 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-009-9032-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-009-9032-9