Forensic Psychological Assessment and Why Board Certification Matters

By Dr. Tyler Gerdin, PsyD, ABPP | Gerdin Psychological Services

When a legal case turns on a question of psychological injury, mental capacity, disability status, the quality of the psychological evaluation at the center of it matters enormously. Not just clinically, but legally. An evaluation built on sound methods, validated tools, and defensible professional standards can anchor a case. One that isn’t can be dismantled on cross examination, excluded by the court, or quietly dismissed by the adjudicator reading it.

Attorneys, insurers, and HR professionals who regularly work with forensic psychological evaluations know this. What’s less consistently understood is how to identify, in advance, whether the evaluator they’re considering has the training and credentials to produce work that holds up.

What a Forensic Psychological Evaluation Involves

Forensic psychological evaluation is psychological assessment conducted in the service of legal or organizational decision making, as distinct from clinical assessment conducted in the service of treatment. The referral questions are different, the audience is different, and the standards are different.

Common forensic referral types include psychological injury evaluations (personal injury, workers’ compensation, employment litigation), independent medical examinations (IMEs), fitness for duty evaluations, disability evaluations, risk assessments, and competency evaluations (Neal & Grisso, 2014; Foote & Goodman-Delahunty, 2020). In all of these contexts, the psychologist is not functioning as a treating clinician. They are functioning as an impartial evaluator whose job is to apply psychological science to a psycholegal question, and to produce findings that can withstand scrutiny in an adversarial setting.

A well conducted forensic evaluation typically includes a thorough record review, a structured clinical interview, standardized psychological testing selected for the referral question, collection of collateral information, and a written report that clearly links data to conclusions while explicitly acknowledging limitations and alternative explanations (Miller, 2012; Neal et al., 2022). When required, the evaluator may also testify about their findings and methodology under oath.

Why Quality Varies So Widely in Forensic Psychological Assessment

Here is something the research on forensic psychological assessment is candid about: quality is highly variable, and the gap between professional best practices and routine practice is persistent and documented.

A landmark study of forensic evaluators found that while most used standardized assessment tools, an astonishing 286 different instruments were reported across practitioners, suggesting that there is no consistent standard of care in practice and that evaluator choice of tools varies enormously (Neal & Grisso, 2014). Subsequent reviews have found that forensic reports frequently fall short of professional guidelines in how they link data to opinions, how they handle alternative explanations, and how transparently they communicate limitations (Nicholson & Norwood, 2000; Neal et al., 2022).

This matters to the legal stakeholders reading reports and retaining experts because a report’s professional appearance does not guarantee its methodological soundness. Psychological assessment reports can look authoritative while resting on inadequate methods, inappropriate tools, or conclusions that outrun the data. The adversarial process is supposed to catch this, but it works better when the retaining party understands what rigorous forensic practice looks like before they select an evaluator.

Malingering Detection and Validity Testing in Forensic Evaluations

In any forensic evaluation involving claimed psychological injury, disability, or impairment, the question of symptom validity is central, and in many contexts, legally required. The stakes of getting this wrong run in both directions: failing to detect exaggerated or feigned symptoms can result in invalid findings that harm legitimate legal outcomes, while falsely flagging a genuine claimant as malingering does its own form of damage.

Contemporary forensic psychological assessment uses validated symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs) as standard components of injury and IME evaluations, not as an expression of suspicion toward the examinee, but as a methodological requirement for producing defensible conclusions (Foote & Goodman-Delahunty, 2020; LaDuke et al., 2018). An evaluation that doesn’t include these measures in appropriate contexts is methodologically incomplete regardless of the evaluator’s clinical experience.

The forensic psychologist’s role in this regard is to present findings impartially, not to advocate for a particular outcome, not to perform as a “hired gun” for the retaining party, but to apply scientific methods and report what the data actually show, including when those findings are complex or inconclusive. That impartiality is not merely an ethical aspiration. It’s what makes forensic testimony credible to the court.

What ABPP Board Certification Means for Forensic Psychological Evaluations

Here is where the credentialing conversation becomes concrete for attorneys and other legal professionals.

Licensure as a psychologist establishes that a practitioner has met the minimum requirements to practice psychology generally. It does not establish forensic competence specifically. The field of psychology encompasses clinical treatment, assessment, research, organizational consulting, and forensic practice, all under the same license. A practitioner who is a competent clinician is not automatically a competent forensic evaluator, and the differences in training, method, and role are substantial.

Board certification through the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) represents a higher, specialty level credential that requires demonstrated competence beyond generic licensure. The ABPP in Clinical Psychology, the specialty most directly relevant to psychological injury, diagnosis, disability, and IME work, involves peer review of work samples, written examination, and an oral examination conducted by established experts in the specialty. It is explicitly not a “vanity board” credential that can be obtained by paying a fee, a category of credential that courts have begun to identify and penalize, in some cases moving to exclude testimony from psychologists who present dubious certifications as markers of expertise (Dattilio & Giorgi-Guarnieri, 2003).

The research on what board certification actually predicts is instructive. A study examining PTSD evaluations found that board certified psychologists were significantly more likely to use DSM diagnostic criteria correctly, incorporate collateral information, use recommended instruments, and employ methods to detect over reporting, compared to non certified peers (Torres et al., 2012).

Courts are increasingly asking about specific board certification when qualifying psychological experts. The ABPP credential provides a clear, peer reviewed answer to that question, one that is recognized across the legal community and reflects genuine demonstrated competence in assessment rather than self designation.

How to Choose a Qualified Forensic Psychologist

When selecting a forensic psychological evaluator, the credential question is worth asking explicitly. Does the evaluator hold board certification in a relevant specialty, clinical psychology or clinical neuropsychology, through the ABPP or an equivalent peer reviewed body? Does their practice include the use of standardized, validated instruments selected for the referral question? Do their reports explicitly address the psycholegal question posed, link conclusions to data, and acknowledge limitations and alternative explanations? In cases involving claimed psychological injury or impairment, do they routinely include validity testing?

These are not nitpicky technical questions. They are the methodological foundations that determine whether a forensic opinion will hold up to cross examination, meet evidentiary standards, and be given weight by the decision maker, judge, jury, arbitrator, or administrative body, who reads it.

Forensic Psychological Evaluations and IMEs in Spokane, Washington

Dr. Tyler Gerdin, PsyD, ABPP is a board certified clinical psychologist offering forensic psychological evaluations, independent medical examinations, IMEs, disability assessment, and related assessment services in the Spokane, Washington area. Referrals are accepted from attorneys, insurance carriers, employers, and HR professionals. Evaluations are conducted using validated, evidence based methods with explicit attention to malingering detection, impartiality, and the production of reports that meet professional and legal standards.

If you are an attorney, adjuster, or HR professional with questions about a referral, reach out at drgerdin@gerdinpsych.com or 509-676-4313.

Dr. Tyler Gerdin, PsyD, ABPP is a board certified clinical psychologist in Spokane, Washington, specializing in psychological and neuropsychological assessment for neurodivergent teens and adults.