Their commitment to adhering to their established thinking paradigm could hinder their capacity to discover more effective treatments to aid patients or address the situations under investigation.
Whether an expert witness is retained by the prosecution or defense can influence their assessment of the case, including their perception of the accused's level of guilt.
Supported research explains that those who develop "specific psychotherapy treatments show more interest for the evidence-based practice of their own therapies compared to others.
"[6] Most often, forensic experts tend to form a biased opinion in favor of the party retaining their services, rather than maintaining objectivity based on the available evidence.
Some studies have evaluated biases in legal cases and have observed that forensic psychologists may be hired by a specific party or attorney due to their preexisting attitude in favor of capital punishment.
The authors emphasize the significance of cross-examinations in forensic contexts until effective interventions to mitigate allegiance bias are identified.
The researchers highlighted the importance of opposing expert testimony, cross-examination, and, in extreme cases, even the threat of prosecution as strategies to help mitigate allegiance bias.
They may inadvertently exhibit allegiance bias by selectively testing previous articles against their own work and overstating the conclusions they draw.
Several meta-analyses have shown contradictory results between experimenter's allegiance (EA) and assessment effect sizes in favor of the preferred conclusions.
[19] Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably.
[24] Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of evaluations of health care interventions.
In this explanation and elaboration document, they have explained the meaning and rationale for each checklist item & have include an example of good reporting, while also where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature.