Dr. Amy James
342 FOLLOWERS
Dr. Amy James is a clinical and forensic psychologist specializing in answering psychological questions within a legal context. Dr. James provides forensic mental health evaluations, direct and cross-examination consultation, trial/hearing consultation to attorneys, and testimony preparation practice to mental health professionals.
Child Forensic Interviewing: RADAR Developers are Making Strides Toward Meeting the Daubert Standard
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
In 2019, I wrote a critique of the RADAR protocol and provided reasons it fell short of meeting Daubert standards for admissibility in court. As a recap, for evidence to be admissible in a court of law in federal and many states courts, including North Carolina courts, Daubert standards should be met. The Daubert standard comes from the Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Under Daubert, the factors to be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are:
(1) Whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested
(2 ..read more
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
Every publication I have read places the ownership of the school threat assessment process squarely within the realm of the public school system. I strongly disagree that this is the best option. The primary duty of the school system is to educate students. It is essential to educate students in a safe environment, yet the primary goal remains education. The primary purpose of the mental health system is to diagnose and treat individuals with mental health problems and also to engage in prevention activities. While safety is a concern for both systems, the primary goal of public safety within ..read more
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
In order for evidence to be admissible in a court of law in federal and many states courts, including North Carolina, Daubert standards must be met. The Daubert standard comes from the Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Under Daubert , the factors that may be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standar ..read more
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
Our society is one that (thankfully) affords our citizens significant constitutional rights, which can not be removed without due process. There are times in which rights are stripped away. Some of these rights include the right to be the guardian of one’s person, the right to be the guardian of one’s finances, the right to parent, the right to live freely, the right to vote, and the right to possess or own a firearm. In our country, Felons are not legally allowed to possess or own a firearm. What about someone is dangerous or potentially dangerous?
Our society is currently facing a complex si ..read more
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
I turn away many, many referrals and requests for evaluations. The most frequent reason I will not accept a referral or an evaluation is because the person calling (person to be evaluated, referring attorney, or referring agency) wants what we (forensic psychologists) refer to as a BFE. A back-door forensic evaluation. BFEs usually happen because of three reasons. 1) Error in the referral and/or scheduling process (lack of asking adequate questions prior to scheduling or 2) Deception by the referring source or the person being evaluated (most likely because they want their insurance to pay for ..read more
Child Forensic Interviewing: RADAR Developers are Making Strides Toward Meeting the Daubert Standard
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
In 2019, I wrote a critique of the RADAR protocol and provided reasons it fell short of meeting Daubert standards for admissibility in court. As a recap, for evidence to be admissible in a court of law in federal and many states courts, including North Carolina courts, Daubert standards should be met. The Daubert standard comes from the Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Under Daubert, the factors to be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are:
(1) Whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested
(2 ..read more
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
Every publication I have read places the ownership of the school threat assessment process squarely within the realm of the public school system. I strongly disagree that this is the best option. The primary duty of the school system is to educate students. It is essential to educate students in a safe environment, yet the primary goal remains education. The primary purpose of the mental health system is to diagnose and treat individuals with mental health problems and also to engage in prevention activities. While safety is a concern for both systems, the primary goal of public safety within ..read more
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
In order for evidence to be admissible in a court of law in federal and many states courts, including North Carolina, Daubert standards must be met. The Daubert standard comes from the Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Under Daubert , the factors that may be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standar ..read more
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
Our society is one that (thankfully) affords our citizens significant constitutional rights, which can not be removed without due process. There are times in which rights are stripped away. Some of these rights include the right to be the guardian of one’s person, the right to be the guardian of one’s finances, the right to parent, the right to live freely, the right to vote, and the right to possess or own a firearm. In our country, Felons are not legally allowed to possess or own a firearm. What about someone is dangerous or potentially dangerous?
Our society is currently facing a complex si ..read more
Dr. Amy James
2y ago
I turn away many, many referrals and requests for evaluations. The most frequent reason I will not accept a referral or an evaluation is because the person calling (person to be evaluated, referring attorney, or referring agency) wants what we (forensic psychologists) refer to as a BFE. A back-door forensic evaluation. BFEs usually happen because of three reasons. 1) Error in the referral and/or scheduling process (lack of asking adequate questions prior to scheduling or 2) Deception by the referring source or the person being evaluated (most likely because they want their insurance to pay for ..read more