LORANDOS: Doctor, your ethical code obligates you to testify truthfully, honestly, and candidly in any and all legal proceedings, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: And in particular, standard 7.04a of your ethical code states: a) in forensic testimony and reports, psychologists testify truthfully, honestly, and candidly and, consistent with applicable legal procedures, describe fairly the bases for their testimony and conclusions. Now my question; this standard applies to your professional work, correct?
Witness: Oh yes, yes.
LORANDOS: And standard 7.04b of your ethical code states, "When necessary to avoid misleading, psychologists acknowledge the limits of their data or conclusions." Now my question; and you are obligated to comply with these ethical standards, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: Now the relevant research identifies many problems related to the various diagnostic classifications of the DSM Four, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: Consider, for example, a 1999 article that appeared in the journal, The American Psychologist. You're familiar with The American Psychologist, are you not?
Witness: Oh yes.
LORANDOS: And, first of all, The American Psychologist is the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association, isn't it?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: Each and every member of the American Psychological Association does not necessarily receive all of the journals of the American Psychological Association.
Witness: No.
LORANDOS: But every member of the American Psychological Association receives The American Psychologist, correct?
Witness: That is correct.
LORANDOS: And a 1999 article by Peterson and Trierweiler published in The American Psychologist entitled, Scholarship in Psychology: The Advantages of an Expanded Vision, could be related to your testimony in this matter, couldn't it?
Witness: Could be.
LORANDOS: Now, consider the following statement from Peterson and Trierweiler's 1999 article and I'll read a quote, "It is hard to think of any academic or professional colleague who does not discuss the DSM Four with a skeptical grain of salt as simply a modestly useful convention to be observed." Now my question; ethically you would agree with this, would you not?
Witness: Well I don't know. There may be some accuracy to it.
LORANDOS: Thank you. And you have not published anything in a peer review journal that would necessitate reconsidering Peterson and Trierweiler's position with respect to the DSM Four, have you?
Witness: No.
LORANDOS: And you cannot cite any data published in a peer review journal that would necessitate reconsidering Peterson and Trierweiler's position. Correct?
Witness: Well, spontaneously as I sit here off the top of my head, no.
LORANDOS: Thank you. That's what we're doing here; we're asking you questions today, right now. And if the DSM Four amounts to no more than a "modestly useful convention," ethical standards 7.04a and b obligate you to respond accordingly, correct?
Witness: If that's the case, yes.
LORANDOS: Now The American Journal of Forensic Psychology is a generally accepted peer review journal in your field, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: In a 1999 article by Campbell published in The American Journal of Forensic Psychology entitled, Challenging the Evidentiary Reliability of DSM Four, could be relevant to your opinions in this case, correct?
Witness: It could be.
LORANDOS: Now please consider the following statement from Doctor Campbell's 1999 article; let me just read a portion. "As a psychologist, I am ethically obligated to 1) express significant reservations regarding the accuracy or limitations of my interpretations, and 2) to acknowledge the limits of my data and conclusions." Now my question; according to your ethical code, you are obligated to act in the same way, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: Now please consider this statement from the 1999 article by Campbell published in The American Journal of Forensic Psychology. And I'll quote, "Consequently, ethically mandated considerations of truth and candor related to my work obligate me to make the following disclaimer: there are many limitations related to DSM Four in general and an unknown margin of error associated with any DSM Four diagnostic classification in particular." Now my question doctor; according to your ethical code, you are obligated to acknowledge these same problems with the DSM Four, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: Thank you. Now one last quote from this article I'd like to draw your attention to, in this 1999 article in The American Journal of Forensic Psychology and I'll quote, "At this point and time the DSM Four provides mental health professionals with a common vernacular that may assist them in communicating with each other. There are no data currently available demonstrating that the DSM Four leads to reliable diagnostic conclusions." Now my question, doctor; according to your ethical code, you're obligated to recognize these problems with the DSM Four. Correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: And you have not published any data in a peer review journal necessitating that we reconsider Campbell's conclusions, correct?
Witness: No.
LORANDOS: And, as you sit here today, sir, you cannot cite any data published in a peer review scientific journal necessitating that we reconsider Campbell's conclusions. Correct?
Witness: No. I didn't know you were going to be asking those kinds of questions.
LORANDOS: Well I am sir and there is an unknown margin of error associated with the DSM Four diagnostic classification. Isn't that true?
Witness: That appears to be the case.
LORANDOS: And you have not published any data in a peer review journal necessitating that we reconsider Campbell's conclusion regarding this unknown margin of error. Correct?
Witness: No. No I've not.
LORANDOS: And you cannot cite any data in a peer review published scientific journal necessitating that we reconsider Campbell's conclusions regarding the unknown margin of error in the DSM Four, correct?
Witness: No.
LORANDOS: And there are no currently available data demonstrating that the DSM Four leads to reliable diagnostic findings. Isn't that true?
Witness: That appears to be the case.
LORANDOS: And you have not published any data in a peer review journal necessitating that we would have to reconsider Campbell's conclusions and the conclusions of others that there are no currently available data demonstrating that DSM Four leads to reliable diagnostic findings, correct?
Witness: That is correct.
LORANDOS: And you can't cite any data published in a peer review journal necessitating that we reconsider those conclusions, can you?
Witness: Uh...No.
LORANDOS: Therefore doctor, at best the DSM Four provides a mental health professional a common vernacular to use with other mental health professionals that may assist them in communicating with each other, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: And you have not published any data in a peer review journal necessitating that we alter that conclusion?
Witness: No.
LORANDOS: And, as you sit here today, you can't cite any data in a peer review journal published by anyone else necessitating that we reconsider that conclusion?
Witness: No, I think everybody would agree about the common vernacular.
LORANDOS: Thank you. And your ethical code obligates you, as a psychologist to acknowledge these many problems associated with the DSM Four, correct?
Witness: If those problems exist as they seem to, yes.
LORANDOS: And, as they seem to, you are ethically obligated to describe them in your work and in your testimony correct?
Witness: Correct.
LORANDOS: Thank you.
