This article was downloaded by:[Tavistock & Portman Centre]

On: 29 April 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 790382715]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Forensic Psychiatry &

Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714592861
Chilean psychologists as expert witnesses: The
challenges of a new criminal justice system
Javiera Navarro a; Gisli H. Gudjonsson b
a
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, UK
b
Department of Psychology (PO 78), Institute of Psychiatry, London

First Published on: 13 December 2007

To cite this Article: Navarro, Javiera and Gudjonsson, Gisli H. (2007) 'Chilean
psychologists as expert witnesses: The challenges of a new criminal justice system',
Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 19:2, 249 - 260
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14789940701692324
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14789940701692324

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
 The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology
Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2008, 249–260
Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

Chilean psychologists as expert witnesses: The challenges of a

new criminal justice system
Javiera Navarroa and Gisli H. Gudjonssonb*
a
Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London, UK; bDepartment of Psychology (PO
78), Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF
(Received in final form 20 September 2007)

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the nature and extent of the
work of forensic psychologists in Chile, to investigate how it has
changed with the recent reform of the criminal justice system (RCJS)
there, and to compare the role of expert witness for psychologists in
Chile, the UK, and the USA. A sample of 167 Chilean psychologists
(35% of those approached) completed a detailed questionnaire about
their court work experience and training. The results showed that
psychologists in Chile are actively involved in court work and are
playing an important role in the RCJS. Many of them produce an
enormous number of reports but have received little or no training with
regard to forensic assessments, report writing, or court appearance.
Most of the cases involve child protection and suspected sexual abuse,
where credibility issues are often a key focus. Evaluation of cases often
relies on projective tests and there is a lack of reliable forensic measures
available to Chilean psychologists. Court work has become much more
demanding following the 2000 RCJS, because psychologists now have to
give oral evidence in many more cases. The study raises concerns about
the quality of the work of forensic psychologists in Chile. They need
more training and a better understanding of their role in an adversarial
system. More research and better communication with experts from
other countries might enrich forensic practice in Chile.
Keywords: forensic psychology; expert witnesses; court reports; forensic
assessments; reform of criminal justice system; Chile

Introduction
In December 2000 a major reform was introduced in Chile, which resulted in
a more adversarial justice system with public and oral trials. Since then,
Chilean psychologists have had to testify in court and cope with the scrutiny
of cross-examination. This paper describes the nature and extent of the work

*Corresponding author. Email: g.gudjonsson@iop.kcl.ac.uk

ISSN 1478-9949 print/ISSN 1478-9957 online

Ó 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14789940701692324
http://www.informaworld.com
 250 J. Navarro and G.H. Gudjonsson
of forensic psychologists in Chile and how it has changed with the reform of
the criminal justice system (RCJS). In addition, the findings will be
Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

compared with surveys of the role of psychologists working for the courts in
the UK and the USA. The UK and the USA were chosen because of the
large amount of data available and the countries’ long traditions of
adversarial justice systems.
Surveys conducted in the UK have mainly focused on the extent of
involvement of psychologists in court. Gudjonsson (1996) concluded that
the role of the forensic psychologist had broadened considerably, and that
psychologists commonly prepared reports in civil cases concerning
compensation but testified rarely in court in those cases. In contrast, in
criminal cases psychologists prepared a limited number of reports but
testified in one of every five cases in which they submitted a report. Forensic
clinical psychology has had a particularly strong impact on cases of disputed
confession in the Court of Appeal (Gudjonsson, 2003).
Surveys conducted in the USA have predominantly focused on the type of
psycho-legal issues addressed by psychologists and the assessment methods
utilised in their reports for court. The data show that the most common issues
addressed by forensic psychologists are the ability to stand trial and child
custody evaluations, and the most common methodology is psychometric
testing (e.g., Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997; Borum & Grisso, 1996; Lally, 2003).
A recent survey by Lally (2003) showed that specific forensic instruments are
widely available to forensic psychologists, and that projective techniques are
usually rejected by the courts due to poor validity and lack of general
acceptance. Despite the amount of information available regarding how forensic
psychologists do their work, no information is available in the research literature
regarding how frequently psychologists in the USA testify in court.

Methodology
Study design
As the current study aimed to obtain descriptive information, a cross-
sectional survey study design was adopted. No previous data were available
regarding the work of forensic psychologists in Chile. Therefore, an
exploratory design was used as this would allow us to develop a
comprehensive understanding of the situation.
The UK’s BPS Survey (Gudjonsson, 1996) was the model used when
developing this study. The main reason for this was to facilitate a
comparison between psychologists in Chile and psychologists in the UK.

Participants
Seven well-known institutions in Chile employ psychologists to work closely
with the courts: the Prosecutor’s National Office, the Solicitor’s National
 The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 251
Office, the Prison Service, the National Service for Legal Medicine, the
National Office for Child Protection, the police, and forensic units in
Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

psychiatric hospitals. The total number of psychologists employed at the

time of the survey was 431.
In addition, the sample included 33 other psychologists registered with
the Chilean Psychological Society because they had stated their area of
expertise as forensic psychology (Chilean Psychological Society, personal
communication, March 2006). The final sample therefore comprised 464
psychologists working in the forensic system.

Measure
The BPS Survey (Gudjonsson, 1996) was back-translated (English–Spanish–
English) to ensure that the English and Spanish versions were equivalent
enough to be compared. Then its contents were adapted to the Chilean legal
system. Questions related to the RCJS were added to the survey. A pilot
study was performed with Chilean psychologists to test that the instrument
was properly understood. The Chilean survey had 27 questions and took
approximately 20 minutes to complete. Responses were mainly given in
multiple choice or Likert format, to obtain quantitative information (a copy
of the questionnaire is available from the authors upon request).
The survey had four sections. The first part requested information about
professional background (qualifications and years of experience). The
second part was designed to gather information about the extent of the
psychological work undertaken (number of reports completed for different
legal proceedings). The third part assessed the nature of the work
undertaken (assessment instruments used and level of training in those
instruments). The final part was designed to gather information about the
impact of the RCJS on practice, especially regarding expert evidence.

Procedure
The first step was to obtain the names and email addresses of all
psychologists in the sample frame. For this purpose, all institutions were
contacted and informed about the study. After obtaining consent and
registers from the institutions, the second step was to contact the
participants. Every participant included in the sampling frame received
the survey by email with a letter briefly explaining the aims of the study. The
relevant institutions collaborated in sending out questionnaires when no
email access was available. The survey was to be answered by psychologists
who had written at least one court report in the past five years. The survey
was anonymous, and participation was voluntary. To encourage responses,
the survey could be returned in three ways: respondents could send it by
email, send it by traditional mail, or have someone collect it from their
 252 J. Navarro and G.H. Gudjonsson
workplace. In addition, three emails were sent reminding the participants to
respond. Of 464 questionnaires sent out between February and March 2006,
Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

167 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis by the end of June
2006. This was a response rate of 35%, comparable to the rates achieved by
similar surveys (e.g., Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997; Lally, 2003).

Results
Who are Chile’s forensic psychologists?
Psychologists in the sample stated their gender, professional background,
and the institution to which they belonged. They also stated how many years
of experience they had in psychology and in forensic psychology, together
with the training they had received. The majority of forensic psychologists in
Chile are women (n ¼ 117, 70%) and the majority have a background in
clinical psychology (n ¼ 118, 71%). They work in a wide variety of
governmental institutions. They have on average 6.8 years of experience as
psychologists and 4.3 years of experience as forensic psychologists. Nearly
three-quarters (n ¼ 123, 75%) had no forensic training before working in
the field. Almost one-quarter (n ¼ 41, 25%) had had no forensic training to
date, even though they are systematically involved in writing reports for
courts.

What is the extent of their work for the courts?

The second aim of the study was to determine the amount of work done for
the courts by psychologists in Chile: the number of reports they submitted
for criminal, civil, and family proceedings, and the psycho-legal issues they
addressed in these reports.
The first step was to assess the number of reports they wrote. Table 1
provides a detailed description of the number of reports prepared for

Table 1. Number of reports in the Chilean and UK surveys.

2006 Chilean survey 1995 UK survey*

Cases n** %*** Sum**** Range n** %*** Sum**** Range
Criminal 150 92% 30,159 0–2500 270 54% 2541 1–278
Civil 122 74.8% 21,120 0–3000 332 67% 9354 1–2000
Family 77 47.5% 1557 0–155 221 44% 3794 1–800
Others 3 1.2% 81 0–40 96 19% 482 1–50
Total 167 100% 52,917 498 100% 16,881

Note: *from Gudjonsson (1996); **the number of subjects who produced at least one report;
***the percentage of subjects in relation to the total sample (n ¼ 167 and n ¼ 498); ****the
sum of reports produced by all psychologists in each sample.
 The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 253
different proceedings in Chile, and offers comparisons with the number of
reports prepared by forensic psychologists in the UK. In summary, the
Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

number of reports prepared by the sample over the previous five years was
52,917. This was an average of 65 reports per psychologist per year. This is
one of the most relevant findings of the study when compared to the 1995
UK survey. In the latter, 498 psychologists wrote 16,881 reports – an
average of seven reports per psychologist per year (Gudjonsson, 1996). This
suggests that Chilean psychologists produce almost 10 times more court
reports than British psychologists.
The second step was to assess the different proceedings in which they
were involved. Table 1 also shows the types of cases for which reports were
prepared. The majority of reports were prepared for criminal proceedings,
representing 57% of all reports. Civil proceedings represented only 40% of
the total figure. This contrasts with the findings of the 1995 UK survey, in
which the majority of reports (55%) were prepared for civil cases and only
15% were written for criminal cases (Gudjonsson, 1996). This suggests that
psychologists in Chile are more involved in criminal cases than their British
counterparts.
Regarding the extent to which Chilean psychologists are involved in
criminal cases, it was ascertained that 92% of the sample had prepared at
least one report, while 50% had prepared 50 reports or more and 25% had
prepared 150 reports or more. Regarding the extent to which psychologists
are involved in civil cases, it was ascertained that 75% of the sample had
prepared at least one report, while 50% had prepared 20 reports or more
and 25% had prepared 100 reports or more. Regarding the extent to which
psychologists are involved in family cases, according to the data the number
of reports prepared for family cases was 1,557, which represented only 3%
of all reports produced. Less than 50% of the sample had produced reports
in family cases. This low figure can be explained largely because family
courts in Chile only came into being in October 2005, and before this civil
courts dealt with all family matters. Therefore, it would be more precise to
say that civil proceedings including family matters represent 43% of the
work of forensic psychologists and criminal proceedings represent 57%.
To arrive at an accurate description of the extent of psychologists’ work,
the study considered not only the number of reports compiled for criminal
and civil cases, but also the number of reports produced addressing different
psycho-legal issues. Table 2 shows the number of respondents who had
produced at least one report in each specific psycho-legal category, and the
total number of reports produced in each category.
Psychologists in Chile are most commonly involved in child protection
and sentencing cases. These together account for over 30,000 reports (16,019
and 15,313, respectively). The other four main matters addressed in reports
are personality assessment of sex offenders (5,533), emotional harm in
victims of sexual abuse (5,087), criminal responsibility (4,626), and
 254 J. Navarro and G.H. Gudjonsson
Table 2. Psycho-legal issues.

Psycho-legal issues %** Sum*** Range****

Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

n*
Child protection 110 67.4% 16,019 1–2760
Sexual abuse: emotional harm to victim 93 57% 5087 1–494
Sexual abuse: credibility of victim 75 45.7% 3,238 1–400
Compensation (PTSD þ others) 72 43.6% 3295 1–500
Sexual abuse: personality assessment 61 37.4% 5533 1–850
of suspect
Criminal responsibility 59 36.1% 4626 1–600
Sentencing 45 27.6% 15,313 1–2500
Sexual abuse: credibility of suspect 34 20.7% 1090 1–200
Ability to stand trial (fitness to plead) 29 17.7% 572 1–100
False confessions 27 16.4% 1001 1–500
Other reports 10 6% 1352 1–390

Note: *the number of subjects who had produced at least one report for each psycho-legal issue;
**the percentage of subjects in relation to the total sample (n ¼ 167); ***the sum of reports
produced by all psychologists in the sample for each psycho-legal issue; ****the range of reports
produced for each psycho-legal issue; PTSD ¼ post-traumatic stress disorder.

credibility assessments in sexual abuse (4,328). It is important to consider

that three of the latter directly involve sexual abuse cases, and account for
almost 15,000 of the reports written.
Over two-thirds of psychologists (67.4%) have written reports for child
protection cases. In contrast, only one-quarter have (27.6%) addressed
sentencing issues in their reports. This means that a small group of
psychologists produced a large number of reports. The other main issues,
involving around half of the psychologists in the sample, were emotional
harm (57%), credibility in victims (45.7%), and compensation cases
(43.6%). Personality assessments in sex offenders and criminal responsibility
assessments were performed by around one-third of psychologists (37.4%
and 36.1%, respectively).

What is the nature of their work for the courts?

The third aim of the study was to assess the quality of the work done by
forensic psychologists. This involved ascertaining the psychological assess-
ment tools they used, the other sources of information they considered, and
how they processed different information when writing their reports and
giving evidence in court. This was important because it gave an insight not
only into the extent of psychological work but also into its quality.
First, the respondents were asked to indicate the techniques they used on
a list with various options including clinical interview, psychological tests,
collateral information, and file review. Table 3 shows how frequently
psychologists reported each technique. Second, psychologists had to assess
 The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 255
Table 3. Techniques used for court evidence.

Technique %** Mean rank*** Median rank***

Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

n*
Clinical interview 164 98.8 1.63 1
Projective techniques for 161 97 2.74 2
personality assessment
Study of files 150 90.4 3.75 4
Interviews with informants 148 89.2 4.32 4
Intellectual assessment 129 77.7 4.16 4
Credibility assessment 97 58.4 3.36 3
Psychometric techniques for 94 56.6 3.71 4
personality assessment
Forensic assessment instruments 34 21.2 4.97 5
Other 3 2 7 7

Note: *the number of subjects who reported using each technique; **the percentage of subjects
in relation to the total sample (n ¼ 167); ***the mean and the median of ranks from 1 to 7,
where 1 is the most important technique and 7 the least important technique.

the importance that each technique had for them when writing their reports
and rank them (1 ¼ the most important technique; 7 ¼ the least important
technique). Table 3 also shows the mean rank obtained by each technique.
Table 3 lists these techniques according to how frequently they were used
by forensic psychologists in Chile. The most important technique was
clinical interview, which was used by 98.8% of the sample. Second were
projective techniques, used by 97% of the sample. Third, file review and
collateral informants were used by 90.4% and 89.2% of the sample,
respectively. The fourth most commonly used technique was intellectual
assessments, employed by 77.7% of the sample. It is important to consider
the fact that forensic assessment techniques are the techniques mentioned
least by the sample (21.2%).
A different way of analysing the data is to consider the importance
psychologists assigned to each technique, as showed by the mean rank of
each technique, and here the results were slightly different. Again, clinical
interview ranked first with a mean score of 1.63, and projective techniques
came in second place with 2.74. However, in third place were credibility
assessments with 3.36, and in fourth place psychometric techniques with
3.71. This means that even though only a limited number of psychologists
use credibility assessments (58.4%) and psychometric techniques (56.6%),
those who use them confer great importance to them. Credibility assessment
is the only area where forensic assessment instruments (FAIs) were being
used.
Of the sample, 58.4% reported performing credibility assessments and
10.2% of the total sample reported that for them these techniques were the
most important way of obtaining information. Half of the psychologists
 256 J. Navarro and G.H. Gudjonsson
(48.8%) had training in credibility assessment. When asked to state how
confident they felt doing credibility assessments on a scale from one to five
Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

(1 ¼ very confident; 5 ¼ very unconfident), those with training reported a

mean score of 2.33 and those without training reported a mean score of 3.23.
However, it is important to note that among those without training, 30%
felt very confident in performing these assessments.

How has their practice changed since RCJS?

The final aim of the study was to evaluate how the reform had affected the
work of forensic psychologists in Chile. This meant finding out how
frequently they went to court, how receptive they perceived courts to be to
their evidence, how prepared they felt to give evidence, and the ways in
which they perceived that the reform had modified their everyday practice.
This information was essential to an accurate analysis of forensic
psychology in Chile in the context of the new legal framework.
Giving evidence in court more often is the main change for psychologists
working in the RCJS. Since the RCJS began in December 2000, 65.6% of
the sample had given evidence in court at least once. The mean number of
court appearances was six, with a median of two, and the range was 1–60. Of
those psychologists who had given evidence, 20% had been to court only
once or twice and a further 23% of the respondents had been to court 10
times or more. This is high when we take into account that the last phase of
the reform started only in June 2005; at that point, 40% of the country’s
population was incorporated into the RCJS. Considering data from the
Prosecutor’s Office (Boletı´n Estadı´stico Ministerio Público, 2005) regarding
the number of oral trials in 2000–2005 (6,776), and sum of court
appearances made by this sample (1,030), it is possible to say that
psychologists in the sample have participated in 15.2% of all the oral trials
held in Chile. All of this means that psychologists from the sample are
actively involved in court work and are playing an important role in the
RCJS.
Information from the survey also allows analysis of how frequently
psychologists have to testify after submitting a report – the proportion can
be calculated from the number of reports produced and the number of court
appearances. This was done only with criminal reports, because to date this
is the only system that has oral trials. Out of 30,159 reports prepared for
criminal cases only 1030 required court appearances. It is therefore possible
to say that psychologists testified in court in approximately 3.4% of all the
criminal cases in which they submitted a report. In contrast, psychologists in
the UK testified in 20% of the criminal cases in which they submitted a
report (Gudjonsson, 1996). The low proportion of court appearances in
relation to reports submitted in the Chilean survey is possibly due to the
relatively small number cases that reach oral trial.
 The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 257

Impact of RCJS on forensic psychology

Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

The RCJS has resulted in major changes to the role of forensic psychologists in
Chile. To assess the consequences of the reform for psychological work it was
useful to use a ‘before and after’ scheme, in which psychologists rated different
variables in terms of how much they had been affected by the reform.
First, as may have been predicted, 85% of the sample reported that the
reform had had a major impact on their professional practice. Table 4 shows
the consequences of the reform for forensic psychology, and the importance
psychologists assigned to each one of them. Mean ranks from 1 to 2.5 were
designated ‘important change’ and ranks from 2.6 to 4 were ‘moderate
change’. Mean ranks of more than 4 were not considered to be areas of
change.
In summary, the two major consequences reported by psychologists were
the need for more training and the perception of facing more challenges in
their practice. Two further important consequences were an increase in
workload and greater feelings of exposure and stress. A positive
consequence perceived by psychologists was that the RCJS contributed to
the better practice of psychology. An important fact to mention is that
psychologists reported no increase in their salaries, despite reporting
increased workloads and greater pressure.

Discussion
Forensic psychology is a new discipline and in recent years the expansion
has been rapid in a variety of areas (Gudjonsson & Haward, 1998). In Chile,

Table 4. Impact of the RCJS on forensic psychology practice.

Mean* Median** Quality of change**

(1) Need for more training 1.5 1 Important change
(2) Facing more challenges 1.6 1 Important change
(3) More workload 2.0 2 Important change
(4) Greater feeling of exposure 2.2 2 Important change
(5) Greater feeling of stress 2.3 2 Important change
(6) Better practice of psychology 2.4 2 Important change
(7) Better communication with lawyers 2.8 3 Moderate change
(8) More prestige 3.1 3 Moderate change
(9) Better communication with clients 3.1 3 Moderate change
(10) More difficulties in my work 3.2 3 Moderate change
(11) Better communication with judges 3.4 3 Moderate change
(12) Feeling less confident 3.5 4 Moderate change
(13) An increase in salary 4.0 5 No change

Note: *1 ¼ a very important change, 5 ¼ not important at all; **1–2.5 ¼ important change,
2.6–4 ¼ moderate change, 4.1–5 ¼ no change.
 258 J. Navarro and G.H. Gudjonsson
before the RCJS, psychologists only gave expert evidence in the form of
written reports and frequently their conclusions were included in a
Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

psychiatric report sent to judges. This was similar to the UK situation in

the 1960s (Gudjonsson & Haward, 1998) and until more recently in Iceland
(Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson, 2004). Recently Chilean psychologists have
become increasingly involved as experts for the courts.
In Chile, psychologists involved in court work are young, have little
training, and yet are expected to produce a great number of reports. Their
lack of experience and training raises ethical concerns; there should be
regulation to ensure the quality of work and the integrity of the profession.
Lally (2003) has argued that psychological testing provides a stable and
valid foundation on which to base expert opinion. Gudjonsson (1996) has
reported that psychologists preparing court reports usually base their
evidence on a combination of material obtained from interviewing the client,
studying files, and psychological testing. The data from the Chilean survey
confirms that psychologists in Chile, as in other countries, base their
opinions on a range of different sources. However, there are two main
differences between forensic psychologists in Chile and forensic psycholo-
gists in Anglo-Saxon countries. One is the importance psychologists in Chile
give to projective techniques, and the second is the absence of forensic
assessment instruments in Chile.
In Anglo-Saxon countries, a large number of forensic assessment
instruments (FAIs) have been introduced over the last decade. FAIs are
standardised methods which assess behaviours directly relevant to
legal issues, such as ability to stand trial, criminal responsibility, and
competence to give reliable accounts during police interviewing (DeClue,
2005). Lally (2003), in his survey of chartered forensic psychologists in the
USA, found that the majority of psychologists rated FAIs as acceptable and
useful.
Grisso (1986) has described the range of forensic instruments available
for practitioners and researchers. Individual practice may, of course, vary
considerably across professionals. For example, in the UK a growing
number of psychologists are involved in the assessment of disputed
confessions, where measures of suggestibility and compliance are commonly
used (Gudjonsson, 2003).
Chile needs to develop its own forensic instruments or adapt the forensic
instruments currently in use in other jurisdictions.
In Chile, the involvement of psychologists in child sex abuse cases is the
source of many of the complexities in the field. The main difficulty in these
cases is that the credibility of the child is challenged and, without clear rules
of evidence, psychologists in Chile providing this type of testimony are
asked to validate children’s statements. They use credibility assessment
techniques for this purpose. The current survey shows that credibility
assessments are the foremost FAI used in Chile. However, worryingly, many
 The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 259
Chilean psychologists perform these assessments without proper training. In
addition, the validity of these techniques has been challenged by the
Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

international scientific community, especially in their use as evidence in

court (e.g., Vrij, 2005).

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this study is that it is the first of its kind in Chile, and
provides a great deal of information on psychological work in the country.
The second strength is that it was performed at a time of crucial changes in
Chile, and therefore provides information about psychologists’ work before
and after the RCJS. This has allowed measurement of the impact of the
RCJS on forensic psychology.
One of the disadvantages of the methodology used was the exclusion of
those professionals who infrequently produce a court report. This includes
psychologists working for the National Health Service in Chile or in private
practice. These groups provide expert evidence when expert services have
collapsed, when the case is considered less serious, or in areas of the country
where there is no access to other expert services. This may have been a
potential source of bias. Another source of bias to consider is non-
respondents. Different strategies were used to encourage a high number of
responses, and the response rate achieved is one of the strengths of the
study. However, no information is available regarding non-respondents.
The study assessed the quality of court reports only through
psychologists’ own account of the techniques used in their work. No
analysis was performed on real reports. This can also be considered a
limitation of the study, and highlights the need for new studies which
examine the quality of court reports in Chile. Finally, the survey was
retrospective; psychologists had to recall information from the past five
years, which may have resulted in a recall bias.
The present study also raises important issues about the varied criteria
used in different jurisdictions as regards the admissibility of expert evidence.
Some countries are much more lax about the admissibility of expert evidence
than others (Gudjonsson, 2003; Kapardis, 2003; Ormerod & Roberts, 2006).
It could be argued that in Chile expert evidence is too readily admitted and
relied upon. It appears to lack scientific credibility and careful judicial
scrutiny. It is doubtful that it would meet the rigorous criteria set out in the
Daubert judgment in the USA or the criteria used by the English courts
(Kapardis, 2003).

References
Ackerman, M.J., & Ackerman, M.C. (1997). Custody evaluation practices: A survey
of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 28, 137–145.
 260 J. Navarro and G.H. Gudjonsson
Boletı´n Estadı´stico Ministerio Público. (2005). Santiago de Chile: Publicación
Ministerio Público Fiscalı́a Nacional.
Downloaded By: [Tavistock & Portman Centre] At: 08:26 29 April 2008

Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1996). Establishing standards for criminal forensic reports:
An empirical analysis. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law,
24, 297–317.
DeClue, G. (2005). Interrogations and disputed confessions: A manual for forensic
psychological practice. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments.
New York: Plenum Publishers.
Gudjonsson, G.H. (1996). Psychological evidence in court: Results from the 1995
survey. The Psychologist, 5, 213–217.
Gudjonsson, G.H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A
handbook. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Gudjonsson, G.H., & Haward, L.R.H. (1998). Forensic psychology: A guide to
practice. London: Routledge.
Kapardis, A. (2003). Psychology and law: A critical introduction (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lally, S.J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey
of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491–498.
Leslie, O., Young, S., Valentine, T., & Gudjonsson, G. (2007). Criminal barristers’
opinions and perceptions of mental health experts. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry
and Psychology, 18, 394–410.
Ormerod, D., & Roberts, A. (2006). The admissibility of expert evidence. In
A. Heaton-Armstrong, E. Shepherd, G.H. Gudjonsson, & D. Wolchover (Eds.),
Witness testimony: Psychological, investigative and evidential perspectives
(pp. 401–423). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sigurdsson, J.F., & Gudjonsson, G.H. (2004). Forensic psychology in Iceland: A
survey of members of the Icelandic Psychological Society. Scandinavian Journal
of Psychology, 45, 325–329.
Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A quantitative review of the first 37
studies. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11, 3–41.