A Response to Shealy, Cramer, and Pirelli's "Third Party Presence During Criminal Forensic Evaluations: Psychologists' Opinions, Attitudes, and Practices"

I provide my position on third-party observation in Criminal forensic assessments studied by C. Shealy. R. Cramer, and G. Pirelli (2008), comment on the traditional authority reflected by the study, note the statements on the issue by the Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (2007) and the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (2001) and the proposed third draft of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology by the Committee oil the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2008). and offer a rationale for allowing observation. The study by Shealy, Cramer, and Pirelli documented traditional authority on observation in forensic assessment. not evidence-based practice. Because there is scant data of the effects of observation on outcomes. in order to define evidence-based practice and inform the reality of assessments that are observed, psychologists should research the effects of third-party observation.