Rogers R, Dolmetsch R, Wasyliw O E, Cavanaugh J L
Int J Law Psychiatry. 1982;5(2):187-203. doi: 10.1016/0160-2527(82)90005-x.
Forensic psychiatry and psychology, with an extensive history of clinical practice, is only recently emerging as a new scientific specialty. It is confronted with both general scientific-methodological issues, as well as unique, empirically-based psycholegal applications. Aimed towards a broader, more flexible paradigm for understanding the basis of our scientific inquiry, the paper examines various research and methodological issues. As a model for connecting and understanding these complicated and interrelated issues, Holton's explicit and useful model of scientific structure is provided. The methodology, logical and statistical analysis, and themata are explored with regards to their potential impact on scientific inquiry in forensic psychiatry. This paper argues for several considerations in furthering research. From a methodological basis, the prospective researcher has to consider (1) whether the methodology is, in part, predetermining the results; (2) whether the results are a prediction of the inclusion criteria rather than an independent finding; (3) what balance between specificity and generalizability is designed within the research study; and (4) what is the impact of various methodological artifacts on the results and conclusions of forensic psychiatric research (e.g., demand characteristics, evaluation apprehension, experimenter bias, systems influence). Further, the forensic psychiatric researcher is asked to consider the basis of the "validity" of his research findings in comparison with "objective reality" from the perspective of logical and statistical analysis. Scientists within forensic psychiatry are asked to consider (1) whether to employ "best fit" or complementarity in understanding their results; (2) how to make explicit the steps in data transformation and redefinition within their study; (3) what are the implications of exclusive use of null hypothesis testing in establishing research results; and (4) what is the comparative utility of non-parametric and multivariate statistical procedures in studying and understanding experimental variables. Finally, in acknowledging the non-linear and sometimes self-justifying aspect of science, researchers are invited to examine their basic assumptions, and the self-perpetuating and constraining nature of unacknowledged themata, as well as their impact on forensic psychiatry. This paper is conceptualized as a movement towards articulating both general methodological issues and their unique application to forensic psychiatry. The brief exposition of Holton's model and review of illustrative research in forensic psychiatry constitutes one attempt to strengthen the scientific rigor of forensic psychiatric research.
法医精神病学和心理学有着悠久的临床实践历史，只是最近才作为一门新的科学专业兴起。它既面临一般的科学方法论问题，也面临独特的、基于实证的心理法学应用问题。本文旨在探讨一个更广泛、更灵活的范式，以理解我们科学探究的基础，研究了各种研究和方法论问题。作为连接和理解这些复杂且相互关联问题的模型，提供了霍尔顿明确且有用的科学结构模型。探讨了方法论、逻辑和统计分析以及主题对法医精神病学科学探究的潜在影响。本文主张在推进研究时应考虑几个因素。从方法论基础来看，未来的研究者必须考虑：（1）该方法论是否在一定程度上预先决定了结果；（2）结果是否是纳入标准的预测而非独立发现；（3）研究中设计的特异性和普遍性之间的平衡是什么；（4）各种方法论假象对法医精神病学研究的结果和结论有何影响（例如，需求特征、评价忧虑、实验者偏差、系统影响）。此外，要求法医精神病学研究者从逻辑和统计分析的角度，考虑其研究结果与“客观现实”相比的“有效性”基础。要求法医精神病学领域的科学家考虑：（1）在理解结果时是采用“最佳拟合”还是互补性；（2）如何在其研究中明确数据转换和重新定义的步骤；（3）在确立研究结果时仅使用零假设检验有何影响；（4）非参数和多变量统计程序在研究和理解实验变量方面的比较效用是什么。最后，鉴于科学具有非线性且有时自我辩护的一面，邀请研究者审视他们的基本假设，以及未被承认的主题的自我延续和限制性质，及其对法医精神病学的影响。本文被概念化为朝着阐明一般方法论问题及其在法医精神病学中的独特应用的方向迈进。对霍尔顿模型的简要阐述以及对法医精神病学中说明性研究的回顾，构成了加强法医精神病学研究科学严谨性的一次尝试。
