In his classic article on the ecacy of psychotherapy, Eysenck (1952) argued for the suspension of all training for therapists because of his ยฎndings that groups of untreated patients did as well, if not better than, those undergoing a course of psychotherapy. Since the publication of Eysenck's article, the past several decades have seen a tremendous growth in research into the process and outcome of various forms of psychotherapy (e.g., VandenBos, 1986). Indeed, Eysenck's data have been challenged by subsequent ยฎndings, but the ยฎeld of psychotherapy outcome research has many unanswered questions. In fact, one prominent psychotherapy researcher commented: ``It is almost a truism that psychotherapy is a ยฎeld beset with a multitude of problems that, unless remedied, may have extremely serious consequences in the foreseeable future'' (Strupp, 1986, p. 120). Since the publication of Strupp's prophetic statement, managed care has had extremely serious consequences for the provision of mental health treatment; the need for researchbased assessment and treatment is more pressing than ever before.
Many of the above noted issues also have their parallels in forensic mental health services. For instance, there are those who have called for either restrictions (Dawes, 1994) or a complete ban on psychiatric expert testimony (Hagen, 1997), although the empirical and rational basis for this latter argument has been soundly criticized (Fulero, 1997). Moreover, several issues have caused considerable scientiยฎc, professional, and public debate in recent years over the use of psychological and psychiatric principles to administer justice in our courtrooms. The legitimacy of repressed'' memories, appropriateness of the insanity defense, validation'' of childhood sexual abuse, and the validity of expert testimony in general (e.g., Faust & Ziskin, 1988;Fowler & Matarazzo, 1988) have all been at the center of this debate.
Despite these concerns, there remains a strong value of empiricism that underlies the ethical practice of forensic psychology and psychiatry. Many peerreviewed journals devoted to the interface between law and the behavioral sciences serve as outlets for studies that address sophisticated and complex psycholegal issues There have also been signiยฎcant advances in important areas such as the suggestibility of child witnesses (e.g., Ceci & Bruck, 1995), assessment of malingering (e.g., Rogers, 1997), and risk assessment (e.g.