Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Ethics in Research

Ethics in Research

Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.

Bias

Bias

Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

Confounding in statistical epidemiology represents a pivotal challenge, referring to the distortion in the perceived relationship between an exposure and an outcome due to the presence of a third variable, known as a confounder. This variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome but is not a direct link in their causal chain. Its presence can lead to erroneous interpretations of the exposure's effect, either exaggerating or underestimating the true association. This...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Quantitative EEG Correlates of Outcome in Older Psychiatric Patients: Part II: Two-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Depression.

The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry·2017

Same author

Older adults and psychoanalytic treatment: it's about time.

Psychodynamic psychiatry·2014

Same journal

National Survey of Undergraduate and Graduate Medical Education Exposure to Correctional Psychiatry.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

Pregnancy Criminalization in the United States.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

In Reply.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

Letter.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Practice Resource for Managing Violence in State Hospitals with Forensic Patients.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

Plea Bargaining Participation and Competency Evaluation Considerations.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 14, 2026

Use of Galvanic Skin Responses, Salivary Biomarkers, and Self-reports to Assess Undergraduate Student Performance During a Laboratory Exam Activity

Use of Galvanic Skin Responses, Salivary Biomarkers, and Self-reports to Assess Undergraduate Student Performance During a Laboratory Exam Activity

Published on: February 10, 2016

Assessing Undue Influence.

Daniel A Plotkin¹, James E Spar², Howard L Horwitz²

¹Dr. Plotkin is Clinical Professor (Voluntary) and Dr. Spar is Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Mr. Horowitz is an attorney in Beverly Hills, CA. dplotkin@sbcglobal.net.

The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

|September 21, 2016

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Mental health professionals (MHPs) face challenges providing expert opinions on undue influence (UI) due to unclear definitions. A new California law clarifies UI, offering guidance for MHPs in legal cases.

More Related Videos

The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test

The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test

Published on: November 19, 2015

Author Spotlight: A Novel Setup to Conduct Naturalistic Laboratory Experiments with Real Human Actors in Scenarios

Author Spotlight: A Novel Setup to Conduct Naturalistic Laboratory Experiments with Real Human Actors in Scenarios

Published on: August 4, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 14, 2026

Use of Galvanic Skin Responses, Salivary Biomarkers, and Self-reports to Assess Undergraduate Student Performance During a Laboratory Exam Activity

Use of Galvanic Skin Responses, Salivary Biomarkers, and Self-reports to Assess Undergraduate Student Performance During a Laboratory Exam Activity

Published on: February 10, 2016

The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test

The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test

Published on: November 19, 2015

Author Spotlight: A Novel Setup to Conduct Naturalistic Laboratory Experiments with Real Human Actors in Scenarios

Author Spotlight: A Novel Setup to Conduct Naturalistic Laboratory Experiments with Real Human Actors in Scenarios

Published on: August 4, 2023

Area of Science:

Legal Psychology
Forensic Mental Health

Background:

Undue influence (UI) is a common claim in legal disputes involving wills, trusts, and elder abuse.
Mental health professionals (MHPs) are often required to provide expert testimony on UI.
Existing literature offers conflicting guidance on MHPs' conduct when opining on UI, stemming from a lack of a clear definition.

Purpose of the Study:

To address the challenges MHPs face in providing expert opinions on undue influence (UI).
To review the concept of UI in light of recent legal clarifications.
To propose guiding principles for MHPs acting as experts in UI litigation.

Main Methods:

Analysis of legal definitions and statutory schemes related to undue influence.
Review of existing literature concerning mental health professional (MHP) expert testimony on undue influence.
Development of a framework for guiding MHP expert opinions in UI cases.

Main Results:

A recent California statutory scheme has introduced greater clarity to the definition and application of undue influence (UI).
This legal clarification provides a foundation for more consistent expert opinions from mental health professionals (MHPs).

Conclusions:

The evolving legal landscape, particularly in California, necessitates updated guidance for mental health professionals (MHPs) serving as experts in undue influence (UI) cases.
Establishing clear principles will enhance the quality and consistency of expert testimony in UI litigation, benefiting both the legal system and individuals involved.