Dr. Steve Tutty on Clinical and Forensic Psychology, Objectivity, and the Importance of Evidence-Based Evaluations

Recently, we caught up with Steve Tutty to better understand the difference between clinical and forensic psychology, as they are clear differences the public may not realize.

Forensic and clinical psychologists may work behind closed doors, but their  evaluation findings can affect some of the most important decisions that impact someone’s life. It doesn’t matter if the work is done for civil (e.g., autism, ADHD, twice exceptional, anxiety, depression, etc.)or legal cases (e.g., personal injury), – the role entails the exercise of scientific discipline & rigor, application of objective data, and  a commitment to objectivity when forming a diagnostic opinion and best case prognosis..

Dr. Tutty has adhered to these principles while working in both clinical and forensic psychology roles.. As a licensed clinical psychologist with more than 25 years of clinical and forensic experience, Steve Tutty has served individuals and families across multiple jurisdictions, including as a Washington State Psychologist and Utah Psychologist. His approach to forensic evaluations emphasizes the same principles that guide his work in clinical psychology, neuropsychology, research, and civil assessment, ensuring that each evaluation is grounded in objectivity, scientific rigor, and professional integrity.

When it pertains to forensic matters, he highlights the fact that he is not an advocate for either side, as he lets the data speak for itself, unless safety concerns are present (e.g., danger to self, danger to others), which ultimately trumps neutrality to preserve the safety of the client or targeted person(s). 

Q: How do you define the role of a forensic psychologist?

Steve Tutty: The role is fundamentally different from traditional therapy. In clinical treatment, the psychologist’s primary responsibility is helping the individual improve their mental health and overall functioning. In forensic psychology, the responsibility shifts to the court whereby a specific scope of questions have been raised (e.g., nexus of the injury and identified neurological deficits). 

A forensic psychologist serves the facts rather than the individuals involved in the dispute. That means gathering information from multiple sources, reviewing documentation, administering validated psychological testing when appropriate, conducting collateral interviews, and integrating all available evidence before reaching data-driven conclusions.

Objectivity is essential because the opinions produced during a forensic evaluation may influence legal decisions, employment matters, disability determinations, or other important outcomes. The evaluation must be supported by reliable data rather than personal assumptions or advocacy.

Q: Many people assume psychological evaluations are subjective. Is that a misconception?

Steve Tutty: It is one of the most common misconceptions about our profession.

People often think psychologists simply talk to someone for an hour and form an opinion based on their gut intuition. Modern evidence-based assessment is considerably more structured. In essence, a comprehensive forensic evaluation incorporates standardized psychological measures, clinical interviews, behavioral observations, input from parents, teachers, and medical providers, review of medical and educational records when appropriate, and how this information corresponds to the research base regarding the clinical domain of question. Every conclusion should be supported by converging sources of evidence rather than relying on a single observation.

Scientific methodology exists precisely because human judgment alone can be vulnerable to bias. The purpose of standardized assessment is to reduce those biases and improve the reliability of professional opinions.

Q: What does an evidence-based assessment actually involve?

Steve Tutty: Evidence-based assessment means integrating multiple components.

First, clinical and forensic psychologists rely on scientifically validated assessment instruments that have demonstrated reliability and validity through research. Second, we interpret those findings within the context of the individual’s developmental history, current presentation, available records, and collateral sources.. Third, we compare all of the information to established scientific literature rather than relying solely on personal experience or gut intuition..

No single test determines the outcome of a clinical and forensic evaluation. Instead, each piece of information contributes to a broader understanding of the individual, and how best to improve their functioning and provide a lifespan pathway for recovery

If different sources of information are inconsistent, those inconsistencies deserve careful analysis rather than being ignored. Sometimes discrepancies reveal important clinical information. Other times they highlight the need for additional investigation before reaching conclusions.

That systematic approach strengthens the credibility of psychological expertise while helping ensure opinions remain supported by objective evidence.

Q: Why is neutrality so important in forensic psychology?

Steve Tutty: Neutrality protects the integrity of the profession.

Unlike treating psychologists, forensic psychologists are not serving as advocates. Our obligation is to the evaluation process itself and to the scientific standards governing our work for the courts.People often assume that because one party retained the evaluator, the evaluator should support that party’s position. That is not how ethical forensic psychology operates.

Professional credibility depends upon maintaining independence regardless of who requested the evaluation. Sometimes the evidence supports the referring party’s concerns. Sometimes it does not. The responsibility is to accurately report the findings, wherever they lead.

Maintaining that neutrality ultimately serves everyone involved because reliable decisions depend on accurate information rather than confirmation bias. However, if the case involves emergent needs (e.g., suicidality, homicidality), that information, including the source of that ideation, must be reported to ensure the safety of the client or targeted person(s).

Q: How has clinical and forensic psychology evolved over the course of your career?

Steve Tutty: The field has become increasingly sophisticated.

There is now much greater emphasis on empirical research, standardized assessment protocols, neuropsychological science, and evidence-based practice than did not exist several decades ago.

Psychological testing has continued to improve, as well, and our understanding of cognitive functioning has expanded, particularly how evidence based research has strengthened the scientific foundation supporting many assessment procedures.

Technology has also influenced the profession. Digital records, telehealth capabilities in appropriate settings, and improved access to scientific literature (e.g., Pubmed) have expanded the resources available to evaluators while reinforcing the importance of maintaining rigorous professional standards.

At the same time, the core principles remain unchanged. Careful analysis, scientific methodology, ethical practice, and objective reasoning continue to define high-quality forensic work.

Q: Your background includes extensive clinical psychology research. How has that influenced your forensic work?

Steve Tutty: Research changes the way you think.

My clinical and research experience has involved participating in peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials, which demands  hypothesis testing, methodological rigor, statistical reasoning, and evidence to either accept or reject hypotheses rather than personal expectations. Throughout my career, I have contributed to published randomized clinical trials involving ADHD, depression, and the telehealth movement, – experiences that have strengthened my commitment to scientific inquiry.

Those same principles apply directly to forensic evaluations.

When approaching a legal case, the goal is not to prove a theory. The goal is to evaluate competing or rival hypotheses, examine available evidence, determine which conclusions are most strongly supported by the evidence, and offer an opinion on the nexus of injury and pathway for recovery.

That scientific mindset encourages intellectual humility. Sometimes the evidence confirms an initial impression. Sometimes it requires revising that impression entirely.

Good forensic psychology depends upon being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Q: What qualities distinguish a high-quality forensic evaluation?

Steve Tutty: Thoroughness, transparency, and scientific support.

A strong forensic evaluation clearly explains the methods used, identifies the information reviewed, describes any assessment instruments administered, discusses limitations, and connects conclusions directly to the supporting evidence.

The reasoning process should be understandable and defensible. Another qualified forensic psychologist reviewing the same materials should be able to understand how the conclusions were reached, even if there are reasonable differences in interpretation.

Professional opinions carry greater weight when the methodology is transparent and grounded in accepted standards of practice.

Q: What advice would you give people who may undergo a forensic evaluation?

Steve Tutty: Understand its purpose.

A forensic evaluation(e.g., personal injury) is not designed to provide therapy or determine who may be at fault. In contrast, it is intended to answer specific neuropsychological questions using objective methods, as discussed earlier. It is therefore best that the individual being assessed put forth their best effort and avoid minimizing or exaggerating their symptoms for personal gain

The Value of Scientific Objectivity 

Given the continued evolution of psychology, the evolution of clinical and forensic psychology is parallel with the healthcare and behavioral sciences movement towards evidence-based decisions. The profession continues to elevate its reliability of accurate scientifically supported opinion through empirical research, reliable standardized testing, and adherence to ethical guidelines.

According to Steve Tutty, those advancements reinforce his originally held beliefs about professionalism through the application of objectivity as a professional obligation, through the use of scientifically based methodologies as foundational to proper forensic assessment, and through establishing and maintaining the true worth of psychological assessment by allowing for the use of independent and transparent practices while being based upon evidence.

In an area where the evaluation of critical information can significantly affect the lives of individuals, the commitment to neutrality and scientific soundness defines excellence in forensic psychology.