This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 80 January 2003 • American Psychologist Board of Psychological Specialties to ascertain their most current standards. Contrary to information given by Otto and Heilbrun (2002, p. 13), the American Board of Psychological Specialties has never certified ballistic experts or handwriting ana- lysts. The absurdity of such a comment alone should have raised at least a scintilla of intel- lectual interest in reporting the truth about the ACFE. To obtain a copy of “What It Takes to Be a Diplomate in 2002,” write to the editor of The Forensic Examiner at the ACFE ad- dress given below. The article also appears on the ACFE Web site: http://www.acfe.com. APA has become a large, premiere or- ganization in the field of mental health. APA members must be very cautious that APA does not become so large that they are unable to examine themselves within that organiza- tion. Members need to be careful that APA does not become just like the unjust organiza- tions that they fought for many years because those organizations monopolized the field. Other organizations need to be allowed to go through grandfathering, growth, and the im- provement of their credentials and standards over time. APA members should not come to believe that they alone hold the truths of the psychological professions. As a member of APA, I do not approve of this type of behavior among fellow psy- chologists. I find it petty, disrespectful, and unworthy of the profession. The ACFE has ever-increasing high standards and objectively defined criteria for membership and diplo- mate status. This organization welcomes ac- curate and unbiased reviews of its program, neither of which were provided by Otto and Heilbrun (2002). The organization’s stan- dards are available to any researcher interest- ed in comparing them with those of any other organization, including APA. REFERENCES Hansen, M. (2000, February). Expertise to go. American Bar Association Journal, 86, 44–52. MacDonald, E. (1999, February 8). The mak- ing of an expert witness: It’s in the creden- tials. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B4. Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The prac- tice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57, 5–18. Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to Michael Baer, Ameri- can Board of Psychological Specialties, Ameri- can College of Forensic Examiners, ACFE Foundation, Inc., 2750 East Sunshine, Spring- field, MO 65804. E-mail: drmikebaer@aol.com Forensic Psychology and Board Certification Kirk S. Heilbrun Drexel University Randy K. Otto University of South Florida Baer (2003, this issue) made several points in commenting on our recent article (Otto & Heilbrun, January 2002). We respond briefly to each. Baer (2003) first wrote that we were on a “quest to discredit all but closely protected American Psychological Association (APA) affiliated organizations” (p. 79). There is no formal affiliation between the APA and any of the organizations mentioned in our article, with the exception of the American Psychol- ogy–Law Society (which is an APA divi- sion). As summarized in our abstract (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002), our main purposes were to “distinguish between and identify levels of forensic knowledge and practice, establish guidelines for practice, educate legal con- sumers, and devote more attention to treat- ment issues in forensic contexts” (p. 5). In trying to accomplish these goals, we pointed out that “board certification” from different organizations may have different meanings, depending on the criteria applied in making decisions about candidates. Important criteria include the requirements for training, experi- ence, licensure, work product review, and examination. It is also important to consider whether these criteria have been applied to all those who hold board certification from an organization. Baer (2003) also wrote that the “Wall Street Journal (MacDonald, 1999) and the American Bar Association Journal (Hansen, 2000)” are “uninformed sources” that “have been discredited” (p. 79). We leave to the judgment of interested readers whether these sources have indeed been discredited (Baer did not say how or by whom). However, Baer’s related point about primary sources is a good one. Readers are encouraged to con- sider our article (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002), Baer’s response, this reply, the original Wall Street Journal article (MacDonald, 1999), the American Bar Association Journal fea- ture (Hansen, 2000), and the primary litera- ture from any organization offering board certification in deciding about the value of any particular board certification. In his comment, Baer (2003) also noted that “the American Board of Psychological Specialties has never certified ballistics ex- perts or handwriting analysts” (p. 80). We intended to convey that the American College of Forensic Examiners (with which the Amer- ican Board of Psychological Specialties is affiliated) has certified ballistics experts and handwriting analysts, not that the American Board of Psychological Specialties has done so. However, our language in that sentence could have been misinterpreted, so we wel- come this chance to clarify what we meant and to apologize for any misunderstanding that may have resulted from this language. We have never believed and did not intend to suggest such. One of the larger questions underscored by our article (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002) and by Baer’s (2003) reply concerns how a consum- er of psychological services may understand a credential such as “board certification.” This question is by no means unique to forensic psychology—it arises in other areas of ap- plied psychology, in medicine, and probably in a variety of other areas of human service. The question is particularly salient in contem- porary forensic psychology, however, be- cause services are delivered in the context of an adversarial legal system in which impor- tant decisions involving liberty interests, public safety, custody as a parent, property, and a variety of personal injuries are made. Judges and attorneys are appropriately interested in the basis for expertise in forensic experts. Those who practice in this area should feel ethically and professionally obligated to clar- ify the basis for such expertise—including how their board certification was earned. REFERENCES Baer, M. (2002). Comment on Otto and Heilbrun (2002). American Psychologist, 58, 79–80. Hansen, M. (2000, February). Expertise to go. American Bar Association Journal, 86, 44–52. MacDonald, E. (1999, February 8). The mak- ing of an expert witness: It’s in the creden- tials. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B4. Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The prac- tice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57, 5–18. Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to Kirk S. Heilbrun, Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Mail Stop 626, 245 North 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102- 1192. E-mail: kirk.heilbrun@drexel.edu DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.80