Comparative analysis of expertises in psychology and psychiatry
Identifikátory výsledku
Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61988987%3A17250%2F14%3AA1501AQC" target="_blank" >RIV/61988987:17250/14:A1501AQC - isvavai.cz</a>
Výsledek na webu
—
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
—
Alternativní jazyky
Jazyk výsledku
angličtina
Název v původním jazyce
Comparative analysis of expertises in psychology and psychiatry
Popis výsledku v původním jazyce
Expert opinions are an important part of many legal proceedings. To be a useful instrument they must meet the requirements of ?validity? and ?reliability? in the sense of multiple observers consent. Consensus or disagreement of forensic expertise indicates the actual usefulness, validity and effectiveness of this practice. We analyzed 40 cases containing a pair of expert opinions. The comparison showed that of the 40 selected cases only 3 cases showed disagreement in the forensic experts? conclusions. The results of comparative analysis also showed that experts from different areas use different language and focus on slightly different aspectsin describing the evaluated cases. The observed ratio of mutual agreement and disagreement indicates a high proficiency and competence of experts. The results show that the forensic expertise is justified in the justice system of Czech Republic and these expertises describe reality objectively (in the sense of consensus of different professionals)
Název v anglickém jazyce
Comparative analysis of expertises in psychology and psychiatry
Popis výsledku anglicky
Expert opinions are an important part of many legal proceedings. To be a useful instrument they must meet the requirements of ?validity? and ?reliability? in the sense of multiple observers consent. Consensus or disagreement of forensic expertise indicates the actual usefulness, validity and effectiveness of this practice. We analyzed 40 cases containing a pair of expert opinions. The comparison showed that of the 40 selected cases only 3 cases showed disagreement in the forensic experts? conclusions. The results of comparative analysis also showed that experts from different areas use different language and focus on slightly different aspectsin describing the evaluated cases. The observed ratio of mutual agreement and disagreement indicates a high proficiency and competence of experts. The results show that the forensic expertise is justified in the justice system of Czech Republic and these expertises describe reality objectively (in the sense of consensus of different professionals)
Klasifikace
Druh
D - Stať ve sborníku
CEP obor
AN - Psychologie
OECD FORD obor
—
Návaznosti výsledku
Projekt
—
Návaznosti
I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Ostatní
Rok uplatnění
2014
Kód důvěrnosti údajů
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku
Název statě ve sborníku
The proceedings of 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science, Engineering and Risk Management 2013
ISBN
978-80-87894-01-9
ISSN
—
e-ISSN
—
Počet stran výsledku
7
Strana od-do
475-481
Název nakladatele
Publishing House Curriculum
Místo vydání
Praha
Místo konání akce
Bratislava
Datum konání akce
1. 12. 2013
Typ akce podle státní příslušnosti
WRD - Celosvětová akce
Kód UT WoS článku
—