Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Point and Counterpoint: Forensic Use of the Millon Inventories

Point and Counterpoint: Forensic Use of the Millon Inventories Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2000 Adversarial Forum Richard L. Wiener, Editor In 1999, Law and Human Behavior published a paper by R. Rogers, R. T. Salekin, and K. W. Sewell entitled, ‘‘Validation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory for Axis II disorders: Does it meet the Daubert standard?’’ Rogers et al. presented data that they argued drew into question the usefulness of the Millon inventories for forensic evaluations. In this adversarial forum, Frank Dyer and Joseph McCann in one article and Paul Retzlaff in a second paper respond to the arguments of Rogers et al. (1999), suggesting that the Rogers et al. position is not without error itself. Because this issue is one of great importance for practicing forensic psychologists, I invited Rogers and his colleagues to respond to this round of comments. In the pages that follow are three papers that attempt to untangle many of the issues that resulted from the original Rogers et al. paper published in this journal. 0147-7307/00/0800-0485$18.00/1  2000 American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior Springer Journals

Point and Counterpoint: Forensic Use of the Millon Inventories

Law and Human Behavior , Volume 24 (4) – Oct 19, 2004

Point and Counterpoint: Forensic Use of the Millon Inventories

Abstract

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2000 Adversarial Forum Richard L. Wiener, Editor In 1999, Law and Human Behavior published a paper by R. Rogers, R. T. Salekin, and K. W. Sewell entitled, ‘‘Validation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory for Axis II disorders: Does it meet the Daubert standard?’’ Rogers et al. presented data that they argued drew into question the usefulness of the Millon inventories for forensic evaluations. In this adversarial forum,...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/point-and-counterpoint-forensic-use-of-the-millon-inventories-MCiRq5Qbmi

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by American Psychology-Law Society/Division of the American Psychological Association
Subject
Psychology; Law and Psychology; Criminology and Criminal Justice, general; Personality and Social Psychology; Community and Environmental Psychology
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1023/A:1005548531041
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2000 Adversarial Forum Richard L. Wiener, Editor In 1999, Law and Human Behavior published a paper by R. Rogers, R. T. Salekin, and K. W. Sewell entitled, ‘‘Validation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory for Axis II disorders: Does it meet the Daubert standard?’’ Rogers et al. presented data that they argued drew into question the usefulness of the Millon inventories for forensic evaluations. In this adversarial forum, Frank Dyer and Joseph McCann in one article and Paul Retzlaff in a second paper respond to the arguments of Rogers et al. (1999), suggesting that the Rogers et al. position is not without error itself. Because this issue is one of great importance for practicing forensic psychologists, I invited Rogers and his colleagues to respond to this round of comments. In the pages that follow are three papers that attempt to untangle many of the issues that resulted from the original Rogers et al. paper published in this journal. 0147-7307/00/0800-0485$18.00/1  2000 American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 19, 2004

There are no references for this article.