A Historical Review and Resource Guide to the Scholarship of A Historical Review and Resource Guide to the Scholarship of Teaching and Training in Psychology and Law and Forensic Teaching and Training in Psychology and Law and Forensic Psychology Psychology

The field of psychology and law, including forensic psychology, is an exciting concentration of research activity and student training, has grown rapidly, but to what extent have teaching and training efforts in the field been systematically catalogued and evaluated? We conducted a historical review and content analysis of the American and Canadian literature on the scholarship of teaching and training in the field. This review catalogs (a) information related to the development of training and teaching, (b) descriptions of programs and courses at various levels, and (c) articles on teaching resources or techniques in this field. We hope it serves as a useful guide to the literature resource for those in the field and a catalyst for future interest in this area of scholarship, especially for future evaluations of teaching and training.

categorizes articles into subfield, educational level, and purpose. The subfields are (a) forensic/clinical (55%), (b) experimental/nonclinical (11%), and (c) general psychology and law (34%), which focused on both forensic/clinical and experimental/nonclinical topics or issues generally at the intersection of psychology and law. Articles discussed varying education levels, including undergraduate (34%), graduate (73%), and postdoctoral or continuing education (12%). The majority of graduate-level articles were written about programs in psychology (70%) or law (48%), but some discussed programs in medicine (10%) and criminal justice (5%). Articles reviewing training models, programs, or curriculum development were most prevalent (63%), compared to those about course content or development (22%), active learning techniques (21%), and teaching resources (10%). Only 21% of articles included evaluation data. Articles about course content or development and active teaching techniques were equally likely to include evaluation data as not, χ 2 s(1, ns = 22-23) < 2.13, ns. Articles regarding training models, programs, or curriculum development were significantly less likely to include evaluation data than to include it, χ 2 (1, n = 67) = 35.84, p < .001, and no articles about teaching resources included evaluation data.

What do the Articles Tell us about Training Models, Programs, and Curriculum Development?
The evolution of education in psychology and law was first reviewed by Tapp (1976), then by Ogloff, Tomkins, and Bersoff (1996) and Bersoff et al. (1997). Other articles have focused on the types and accessibility of training models in the field, discussed next.

Graduate-and Professional-Level Programs
Law programs. Before "Psychology and Law" existed, law scholars recognized the value of integrating psychological concepts into legal training. Early work MacDonald, 1958;Zusman, 1974) surveyed the availability of psychology, psychiatry, and social science courses in American law schools, finding that 17% of law schools offered such courses in 1932, 25% did by 1958, and nearly half did by 1974. The first in-depth analysis of such courses (Foster, 1976), revealed that professors from both law and social science disciplines were teaching a mix of law and non-law students courses that focused on psychology and law broadly as well as some specialty topics. Although professors generally endorsed training law students in psychological principles (Foster, 1976) and approved of teaching social science to law students (Zusman, 1974), there was little development of such training in law schools. Almost 25 years later, only 47% of Canadian law schools reported having scholarly exchange with psychology programs, 20% offered courses taught by psychologists, and 20% offered psychology and law courses (Ogloff, 1990). Barriers cited by MacDonald in 1958 were probably still relevant, including needing time and money to develop interdisciplinary courses as well as philosophical arguments about whether the tenets of psychology fit into the legal curriculum (Kalven, 1958). Many rejected these concerns with assertions that psychology training can (a) increase law schools' tuition income by attracting students interested in psychology and Teaching Psychology and Law 6 (b) raise law students' awareness of important psychological issues that arise in legal settings Melton, Monahan, & Saks, 1987;Winick & Wexler, 2006).
Other articles provide examples of the successful integration of psychology into specific law programs including the University of California Los Angeles , University of Wisconsin (Trubek & Plager, 1985), Indiana University (Trubek & Plager, 1985), and Indiana University-Bloomington (Applegate, D'Onofrio, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2009). Only Applegate et al. (2009) reported an evaluation, however, revealing differences between law and psychology professors in awareness and emphasis of various ethical issues (i.e., confidentiality, risk of subpoena, consent). Although there has been little evaluation of these programs, scholars from both fields suggest benefits as well as challenges of interdisciplinary training (Ballard & Nynam, 2009).

Medical programs.
Articles referencing medical programs tended to focus on forensic psychiatry.  survey revealed that approximately 2/3 of medical schools offered some workshop or lecture on forensic psychiatry and 2/3 of residency programs offered relevant lectures, conference seminars, and practical work. Overall, medical schools justified the fact that they did not provide students with good forensic training by claiming there was little interest in psychiatry, let alone forensic psychiatry.
Training increased by 1974, however, when Sadoff, Thrasher, and Gottleib reported that 81% of medical schools offered at least some coverage of forensic psychiatry topics. By 1987, Felthous and Miller found 22% of medical schools offered courses covering mental health law and 10% offered courses explicitly focused on psychiatry and law. No other articles traced the availability of medically relevant training until 2011, when Kent-Wilkinson reviewed the history of education in forensic nursing and identified needs for training development.  recently noted that forensic psychiatrists should adopt teaching roles in a variety of medical settings. , however, offered the only profile of a specific formal training program: At the University of Southern California, psychiatrists learn to conduct forensic interviews, analyze issues from both medical and legal perspectives, and present cases to persuade legal audiences. No articles presented significant evaluative data regarding training efficacy.
Psychology programs. Several articles surveyed the nature and extent of psychology and law training in graduate psychology programs. Grisso et al. (1982) found that 1/3 of American doctoral Teaching Psychology and Law 7 psychology programs had or planned to have a legal psychology course, but only ten offered formalized psychology and law training, including five joint-degree programs. In 1990, Ogloff (1990) found that 54% of Canadian graduate psychology programs reported student interest in psychology and law, but only 12% actually offered relevant courses. Two decades later, Hall et al. (2010) identified 34 graduate programs in legal and forensic psychology across America and Canada. (See also Phillips, 1983;Tomkins & Ogloff, 1990;Simourd & Wormith, 1995;Helmus et al., 2011;and Burl et al., 2012.). Next, we review programrelevant articles following the clinical-forensic, experimental/nonclinical, and joint-degree training models.
Clinical-forensic programs. Morgan, Beer, Fitzgerald, and Mandracchia (2007) found that 52% of clinical and counseling psychology graduate students wanted training in forensic issues. Students in clinical-forensic programs are trained in clinical psychology with a focus on forensic issues through coursework and practica and/or internship experiences . They may earn a Master's, Psy.D., or Ph.D. (DeMatteo, Marczyk, Krauss, & Burl, 2009). The earliest articles reviewing clinical-forensic programs focused on the need to train students to work with correctional populations (e.g., . 3 For example, Kaslow and Abrams (1976) described Hahnemann College's doctoral-level clinical training model which included courses, symposia, workshops, and practical training at a maximum-security correctional facility. Symonds (1975, 1976) described the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Psy.D. forensic psychology training model. Later articles addressed clinical-forensic models and the content of other existing programs Goldenberg, 1978;Grisso et al., 1982;Otto, Heilbrun, & Grisso, 1990;Ogloff, 1999), with  proposing a taxonomy of competencies that training should instill (e.g., assessment, intervention, consultation, research, supervision-training, management-administration).
Some articles discussed training broadly, others addressed the need for focus on forensic issues (e.g., Rosen, 1983), and some described practica and predoctoral internships Morgan et al., 2007). More than half of doctoral programs with no formal forensic training provide it through practica (often focused on forensic assessment and evaluations) in criminal justice settings such as prisons, jails, juvenile detention centers, and forensic mental health units (Fernandez, Davis, Conroy, & Boccaccini, 2009;Hedge & Brodsky, 2013;Heilbrun, Kelley, Koller, Giallella, & Peterson, 2013;Magaletta Teaching Psychology and Law 8 et al., 2013). Some authors assessed the availability and benefit of predoctoral internships with clinical rotations focused on forensic or correctional issues (see the Association for Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers for an online database). This literature suggests that less than 15% of APA-accredited internship sites offered regular forensic training through 1975 (Levine, Wilson, & Sales, 1980), but training opportunites increased by 1980, with only 20% requiring forensic training but 70% offering some kind of forensic evaluation or treatment activity (Lawlor, Siskind, & Brooks, 1981). More recent work suggests that internships at both forensic and correctional sites offer a variety of training experiences with different types of patients (Ax & Morgan, 2002), and more students are now starting internships with backgrounds in forensic or correctional training (Magaletta, Patry, & Norcross, 2012). Even so, Packer (2008) cautions that the increasing demand for specialized forensic training opportunities continues to outpace their availability.
Some suggest that the doctorate should be the entry-level degree for practitioners in this field (Clements & Wakeman, 2007), but others call for more Master's-level training models Zaitchik, Berman, Whitworth, & Platania, 2007). The literature discusses two types of Master's programs: Those aimed at preparing students for doctoral level-study (e.g., John Jay College of Criminal Justice) and those focused on training practitioners for jobs (e.g., Roger Williams University). Such programs, growing in popularity (Burl et al., 2012), tend to offer more varied coursework than doctoral programs, and provide similar career paths in assessment, treatment, and government work. Even so, fewer Master's than doctoral graduates obtain academic and private industry positions (Hall et al., 2010).
Psychology and law programs.  was the first to publish an article proposing a training model for graduate psychology programs seeking to integrate psychology and law, broadly defined, into their curricula. He suggested that students (a) take introductory courses that cut across both research and applied psychological and legal topics; (b) be exposed to empirical research, case law, ethical issues, and forensic settings via in-depth law seminars; and (c) have field placements as appropriate for clinicalforensic and nonclinical students. Similarly structured integrated models of psychology and law training can be found within a number of graduate psychology programs that offer a Ph.D. in nonclinical fields of psychology, such as experimental, cognitive, and social psychology. These programs also provide training on the application of psychology to law and public policy. For example, Melton (1990) reviewed the development and impact of the University of Nebraska's Law/Psychology program, which trains students to explore psychological issues in the context of the law, and Ogloff (1999) described the Law and Psychology program at Simon Fraser University, which offers two training tracks: clinical-forensic or experimental, the latter of which trains students specifically for research and applied policy skills related to law and psychology through both coursework and practical training opportunities. (Other programs are reviewed by Applegate et al., 2009, andBallard &Nyman, 2009.) The most recent literature discusses new areas for the integration of psychology and law training (e.g., geropsychology, Wharton, Shaw, Scogin, & Allen, 2013).  (Melton, 1990;Hafemeister, Ogloff, & Small, 1990;Ogloff, 1990;Reynolds, 1997;, which promotes research aimed at improving legal and social welfare policy and practice. Students earn credits toward both degrees by taking integrated courses on topics such as law and behavioral sciences, mental health law, children's issues, domestic violence, and forensic psychological assessment. Reynolds (1997) described four other interdisciplinary programs in community and applied research but concluded that the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's joint-degree program was the best model. A number of other programs exist, but were not reviewed in the literature.

Evaluation of psychology programs.
We uncovered no study comparing the efficacy of different training models using the same measures of success. Yet there is some evidence that programs prepare their students to find and manage jobs in psychology and law. For example, Tomkins and Ogloff's (1990) survey showed that most graduates of clinical-forensic and psychology-and-law training programs obtained employment in either psychology, law, or criminal justice departments or public policy settings. In terms of internship training, Pietz, DeMier, Dienst, Green, and Scully (1998) surveyed current and recent interns who had at least a 50% rotation in a forensic or correctional setting. Countering assumptions that such internships provide only a narrow range of experiences, interns were satisfied with the breadth of their training, their overall internship experiences, and their supervision. They were more interested in seeking employment in a forensic or correctional setting after the internship than before it, and successful in securing employment (Ax & Morgan, 2002). Malesky and Proctor's (2012) recent survey of training Teaching Psychology and Law 10 directors suggests that forensic training at internships and the reputation of internship sites influence whether graduates receive postdoctoral forensic fellowships.  found that 57% of students who had predoctoral internships in correctional mental health settings were hired into correctional systems-their prior experience in criminal justice settings was the strongest predictor of those placements.
Other publications focused on the success of joint-degree program graduates. Students surveyed by Hafemeister et al. (1990) agreed that both the psychological and legal training were sufficient, but expressed concerns about the time and expense of training. They believed their interdisciplinary training would benefit their future careers, borne out by Melton's (1990) finding that most graduates from the jointdegree program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln were successful finding work at the interface of psychology and law. In fact,  noted that, whereas graduates of clinical-forensic programs are typically viewed as "outsiders" in the legal system, graduates of joint-degree programs receive the most respect because they have a broad knowledge base of both psychological and legal principles.

Undergraduate-Level Programs
Nearly 60 years ago,  suggested that psychology and law training should begin at the undergraduate level, specifically with regard to forensic issues for medical students. Twenty-five years later, Swenson (1983) echoed the benefits of training undergraduates. In 1990, Ogloff found that 19% of psychology programs in Canada offered undergraduate psychology and law courses, and Ogloff et al. (1996) suggested that undergraduate training in the field was growing. Even so, Bersoff et al. (1997) concluded that student demand exceeded availability and called for more offerings. Reaching similar conclusions, Fulero et al. (1999) recommended a model for undergraduate psychology and law programs, including suggestions for the depth and breadth of training, overall goals, specific teaching resources and active learning techniques for covering course material, and practical and applied opportunities to prepare undergraduates for graduate-level education or careers. Stark-Wrobelwski, Wiggins, and Ryan (2006) also noted that undergraduate training should educate students about career options. Authors recognized the challenge of finding resources to develop training for undergraduates, but noted that students could be exposed to relevant topics through introductory psychology classes or curricula of other departments (e.g., criminal justice, Wallace, 1990). As with graduate programs, Teaching Psychology and Law 11 however, evaluations of undergraduate training models are lacking, so it remains to be seen whether any of these models are effective in preparing students for postbaccalaureate work.

Graduate-Level Courses
In 1932, Ebaugh and Jefferson described a course that teaches doctoral-level clinical psychology students and law students about the overlap between the two fields. The authors outlined specific course topics, such as the development and symptoms of mental illnesses and legal issues pertaining to such illnesses. More than 70 years later, Knapp and VandeCreek (2004) wrote about a course designed to teach professional ethics using case law to students in clinical psychology programs.
In the years between those two papers, three publications focused on integrating clinical-forensic topics into law courses, including teaching law students how to question assumptions about laws addressing psychological issues (Wexler, 1990), what role psychology has in the legal system (e.g., expert testimony, Shealy, 1977), and how mental health issues might affect cases (e.g., competence to stand trial, Shealy, 1977;Watson, 1963). Five other articles reviewed the prevalence and nature of integrated psychology and law courses offered in law (Foster, 1976;Monahan & Walker, 1985), medical (Felthous & Miller, 1989), and psychology programs Liss, 1992). In 1982, Grisso et al. voiced concern that there appeared to be no "core" topics across such courses, but by 1992, Liss reported that "core" topics (i.e., psychological and legal theories, jury research, eyewitness behavior, insanity defense, and expert witness testimony) occurred with great frequency, appearing in 43% to 74% of graduate and undergraduate psychology and law classes. More recently, Clump and Doll (2007) discussed the specific issue of incorporating assigned readings into the design of Master's-level forensic psychology courses in light of their research showing that only 54% of students completed the readings before class. Buxton and Dubin (1977) reported the only evaluation of a graduate-level law course focused on psychiatry and the law, taught jointly by a psychiatrist and a lawyer. Course topics included awareness of unconscious processes during interviewing, the psychological impact of divorce and custody proceedings on those involved, competency to stand trial, and the insanity defense. Law students' reactions to the course were assessed one year later, and the consensus was that the course had been highly valuable in helping the students to recognize legally relevant psychiatric issues.

Continuing Education Courses
Only three articles described continuing education seminars. First, Tuteur (1965) reviewed seminars designed to introduce court personnel (e.g., judges, attorneys) to psychiatry through case studies involving problems that were particularly relevant to legal professionals, such as exhibitionism or child molestation, and discussions of those issues. Later, Cohen, Folberg, Sack, and Lingas (1977) described two continuing education seminars for psychiatrists and pediatricians including issues such as expert testimony in child custody cases and discussions about the differences between psychiatric and legal perspectives. Cohen et al. (1977) evaluated with a pretest/posttest comparison: Students demonstrated improved understanding of 60% of the family law topics covered after the first seminar and 75% after the second seminar. Miller, Clark, Veltkamp, Burton, and Swope (2008) recently discussed using teleconferencing and videoconferencing to deliver training and continuing education on child maltreatment issues to mental health practitioners. They did not, however, evaluate the effectiveness of such delivery methods. Because the literature on the content and development of continuing education in psychology and law is so limited, readers might get the impression that such programs are not widely available, despite the fact that they are offered frequently by organizations such as the American Academy of Forensic Psychology and the National Judicial College. This a fruitful topic for future pedagogical scholarship.

Undergraduate-Level Courses
Ten articles described undergraduate psychology and law courses. In 1940, Britt described a course designed for undergraduates interested in law school that focused on relating legal theories to social psychological research Nearly four decades later, Glenwick (1978) described a course that exposed students to criminal justice problems by scheduling class visits to courts, prisons, and community correctional centers; inviting judges, attorneys, and forensic psychologists to guest lecture; and using multiple active learning techniques (discussed later) (Greene, 1987;Perry, Huss, McAuliff, & Galas, 1996).
Glenwick evaluated students' perceptions of the course and quality of field experiences and speakers. Greene (1987) described the first undergraduate psychology and law course to cover both clinicalforensic and nonclinical topics. The course reviewed how the legal system functions and how those Teaching Psychology and Law 13 functions could be informed by psychological research on topics such as reliability of confessions, jury selection, eyewitness testimony, and forensic evaluations of competence. Greene's evaluation revealed that students liked the course, considered going into law because of the course, and felt that the course forced them to evaluate, and sometimes change, their opinions. Perry et al. (1996) described a course with similar goals and content, and provided practical suggestions for coping with issues related to class size, allocating the appropriate amount of time to different topics, student group conflicts, accessibility of legal resources, and workload for both students and instructors. Their course was rated as "superior" by 90-93% of students over 2 years. Two other publications described more narrowly focused courses. Benn and Gay (1992) described a children's rights course, co-taught by a lawyer and developmental psychologist. Miller Consistent with what we have already reviewed, her research revealed that courses covered 32 topics ranging from general review and theory to criminal, civil, and broader legal issues. Laub, Maeder, and Bornstein (2010) recently found that participating in a psychology and law course enhanced students' knowledge of psycholegal topics, but also shifted their attitudes toward the legal system, highlighting the need for instructors to be conscious of such effects. (See also Mandracchia, Shaw, & Morgan, 2013.) Stalder and Stec (2007) surveyed introductory psychology students to determine their interests in various applied areas of psychology. Students reported only an average level of interest in the law, which did not change significantly by the end of the course. This evaluative data suggests that introductory psychology courses could do a better job of enhancing student interest in this particular subfield.

What do the Articles Tell us about Teaching Resources
Some articles reviewed psychology and law textbooks, including the most popular historically, Wrightsman's (1991) Psychology and the Legal System (Britt, 1940;Felthous & Miller, 1989;Liss, 1992;Slobogin, 1991;Tapp 1976). Others reviewed teaching-related specialty journals, interdisciplinary texts, and articles (Felthouse & Miller, 1989;Tapp, 1976). We found no reviews of current texts, but the field now has more psychology and law texts than ever-at least 6 undergraduate and graduate psychology and law Teaching Psychology and Law 14 textbooks were published in 2014, including Greene and Heilbrun's (2014)

th edition of Wrightsman's
Psychology and the Legal System (see also , 2014, 2014Kapardis, 2014;and Monahan & Walker, 2014). Other articles focused on coverage received by specific psychology and law topics in textbooks on introductory psychology (Letourneau & Lewis, 1999) or criminology (Snell & Green, 1994), or how teachers could use legal or forensic topics to teach psychological concepts (e.g., Costanzo, 2013;Costanzo & Costanzo, 2013). We found no textbook evaluations.

What do the Articles Tell us about Active Learning Techniques?
Many authors have described exercises or in-class demonstrations to teach students about concepts in an active and creative rather than passive manner. As noted by Perry et al. (1996), such "active learning techniques" benefit students by increasing student interest in material and motivation for learning (Weimer, 1987) and encouraging deeper learning and critical thinking skills as compared to traditional lecture formats (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; see also Fulero et al., 1999;E. Greene in Woody, 2003). Watson (1963) was the first to mention active learning techniques, discussing how strategies from medical and social work classes, such as group discussion of specific case problems, can be adapted to engage law students in thinking about psychological and psychiatric issues. The most popular active learning technique described in the psychology and law literature is the mock trial demonstration (Cohen et al., 1977;Glenwick, 1978;Fass, 1999;Levine & Pinsker, 1994;Perry et al., 1996;Schumacher & Brodsky, 1988). For example, Werth et al. (2002) described how students acted as witnesses and attorneys in a mock replay of the Jack Kevorkian trial to learn about euthanasia, bioethics, trial mechanics, and jury nullification. Greene (2008) described using mock appellate courts to demonstrate the role of psychologists as experts and advocates. Evaluations reveal its popularity with students: 87% of undergraduates rated Fass' (1999) mock trial exercise as very useful in providing a better understanding of issues related to the insanity defense. Werth et al.'s (2002) undergradautes said that the mock trial was the most interesting part of the class and brought together the course material. Perry et al. (1996) reported that 91% of undergraduates rated the mock trial as excellent or good, a valuable learning tool, and recommended repeating the exercise the following year. Greene (2008) provided the most compelling data, comparing pre-and post-course data to show that her mock court activity imparted Teaching Psychology and Law 15 knowledge about appellate courts, and improved students' perceptions of their ability to organize research material, form and support an opinion, and speak in public. The mock trial paradigm is also used in teaching law students Schumacher & Brodsky, 1988), medical students, and hospital personnel Cohen et al., 1977;Levine & Pinsker, 1994).
Other articles have focused on the use of films in classes (e.g., Glenwick, 1978). Anderson (1992) discussed the benefits and risks of using popular film critique to teach undergraduates a wide variety of topics, including but not limited to involuntary commitment, eyewitness testimony, and police psychology. Schwarzmueller (2006) found that films led students to perceive entertainment media as less accurate, increased students' awareness of unethical portrayals of forensic professionals in the media, and increased students' understanding of the influence of television programs and movies on people's knowledge about forensic issues. (See also Greene, 1987;Kennedy, Senses, & Ayan, 2011;and Miller, 1997.) Three publications described demonstrations to teach deception detection, whereby a student is directed to tell the truth or lie while others judge that student's truthfulness (DesForges & Lee, 1995;Grosch & Sparrow, 1992;Morris, 2003). Morris also had students indicate confidence in their judgments, finding that significantly more students who participated in the activity (versus did not) learned the material, and students rated the activity as enjoyable and memorable. Grosch and Sparrow (1992) reported using a galvanic skin response monitor to teach about psychophysiological responses to lying. Gee and Dyck (1998) described what might be the quintessential psychology and law teaching demonstration: the staged eyewitness-testimony situation. They presented a movie scene depicting a robbery and arrest and subsequently quizzed undergraduates about the scene. Students were surprised at their inaccuracy, leading to a discussion of the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. Students rated the demonstration as helpful and agreed that it clarified concepts relative to techniques typically used in the class. This was the only article describing such an activity, even though psychologists have been using such demonstrations in their classes since the turn of the last century (Munsterburg, 1908).
Finally, Perry et al. (1996) described an entire undergraduate psychology and law course built upon active learning techniques, including attending an actual jury trial, interviewing key legal players, student debates framed as oral arguments, discussing relevant current events, and mock trial Teaching Psychology and Law 16 demonstrations using actual cases. Students assigned positive ratings to the first three techniques.

Conclusion
Our historical review of the scholarship of teaching and training within the field of psychology and law provides insights into the development of this field, reveals areas in need of increased attention, and provides the reader interested in program development or effective teaching with a complete resource list complete with bibliographic previews of source content. Our work reveals the need for more scientific evaluation of programs as well as teaching and training techniques. Where data do exist, they are typically descriptive and or opinion data (e.g., student ratings of activities or materials) rather than convincing program evaluation data. Some notable exceptions are models for others hoping to introduce innovative courses (Cohen et al., 1977) or teaching techniques (Morris, 2003) into the psychology and law curriculum.
Insightful reviews of psychology and law graduate programs certainly exist (e.g., Hall et al., 2010;Helmus et al., 2011), but future research is needed to compare the actual efficacy of different training models in producing students who are prepared and knowledgeable, and who can find APA-accredited internships, postdoctoral placements, and job placements (see e.g., Hall et al., 2010), which is necessary for maintaining quality psychology and law graduate programs. Controlled evaluations are needed to provide an empirical basis for addressing what type of teaching and training is best for what purposes, including the appropriateness of training at each level. For example, although some believe that general competencies should be developed during graduate training with specialized foci (e.g., forensic psychology) at the postdoctoral level, specialization at the graduate level continues to increase ). It may be that certain jobs or employment settings involve greater success with doctoral or postdoctoral training, whereas others may be appropriate for Master's students, but data are required before any conclusions can be drawn. The need for good evaluation becomes even more important as the number of for-profit programs grows. Are such programs employing the best training techniques?
We uncovered a need for scientific assessment of teaching and training in psychology and law, which will bring us closer to the goal of a true scholarship of teaching and learning in this field. Programs should be able to provide evidence that they prepare students for particular types of careers; proper evaluation and, where appropriate, accreditation is important. Evaluation could be done both Teaching Psychology and Law 17 retrospectively and prospectively to mark the success of programs in producing top scholars and practitioners. For example, one could examine whether the number or impact of articles published in top journals differs by whether authors were trained in psychology and law versus general psychology programs, or by which specific psychology and law program the authors attended. One could also examine the number of people in leadership roles in the field trained in psychology and law versus other programs.
Similar techniques could be used to track those in leadership roles in forensic psychology.
We agree with many recommendations made in the literature we reviewed, such as maintaining a focus on offering undergraduates psychology and law classes and ensuring that undergraduate training starts by infusing topics related to law into introductory psychology courses. The latter is especially important given that introductory psychology is the entry portal to the field and therefore offers our best opportunity to engage minorities and women. Minorities are overrepresented as defendants in the legal system, and in turn, many topics important to the field are relevant to minority and diversity issues (e.g., cross-race identification, racial bias in jury decision making, racial and gender discrimination in laws and lawsuits). These would be attractive topics for research by students from underrepresented backgrounds.
Reviews of psychology and law courses reveal reasonable consistency in the core topics covered and the techniques and exercises designed to teach the topics. Again, this consistency is reflected by the growing popularity of such courses at universities (Fulero et al., 1999) and has likely been facilitated by the growing access to teaching techniques and course syllabi, published in the AP-LS newsletter and made available on the AP-LS website (http://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/). More people who already teach psychology and law should describe their techniques and courses in such venues, for the benefit of college teachers who are and are not in the field of psychology and law. This could be facilitated by a partnership between AP-LS and APA Division 2: Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
In summary, we hope that this review will serve as a reference for those looking for (a) historical information related to the development of training and teaching in the field of psychology and law, (b) descriptions of programs and courses at various levels, and (c) articles on teaching resources or teaching techniques in this field. Teaching and training in forensic psychology and psychology and law will continue to grow, and we hope that this review facilitates its progression.

1.
This paper is a review of articles, not programs per se. Thus, we review American and Canadian programs that are discussed in the literature, but not all that are currently available (for that, see Burl, Shah, Filone, Foster, & DeMatteo, 2012;Hall, Cook, & Berman, 2010;and Helmus, Babchishin, Camilleri, & Olver, 2011). In addition, the AP-LS website provides a current list of clinical Ph.D. and Psy.D.
programs with a concentration in forensic psychology, non-clinical Ph.D. programs with specialty foci in psychology and law, dual-degree programs, Master's programs in forensic psychology, and predoctoral internships and postdoctoral fellowships offering training in forensic psychology. Interested readers might also see Ruchensky and Huss's (2014) list of current graduate programs in forensic and legal psychology, which includes admissions information (e.g., students' average GRE scores, funding availability, etc.) and other program details (e.g., availability of internships/practica, employment of graduates, etc.).

2.
For those interested in the evolution of this literature in terms of relative participation of faculty from teaching versus research-oriented institutions and of women versus men, we performed analyses indicating that significantly more articles were published by first authors from top-tier research universities (48%) than regional universities (19%), non-academic institutions (18%), unranked research universities (10%), liberal arts colleges (3%), or community colleges (3%), χ 2 s(1, ns = 53-70) > 12.86, ps < .001. This is logical, given that more emphasis is placed on publication for promotion and tenure at top-tier research universities than other institutions. The publication frequency for first authors from regional universities, non-academic institutions, and unranked research universities was similar, χ 2 s(1, ns = 29-31) < 3.33, ns, but significantly higher than that of authors from liberal arts colleges or community colleges, χ 2 s(1, ns = 13-22) > 3.78, ps < .05, which did not statistically differ from each other, χ 2 (1, n = 6) = .00, ns.
Three-quarters of articles (n = 78; 74%) were first-authored by men, a significant difference, χ 2 (1, N = 105) = 24.77, p < .001, with no articles first-authored by women until 1976. We expected to find less gender disparity in publications over time, as women's access to education and careers has been increasing, and as women have become better represented on faculties within psychology. Thus, we tested for gender differences in publication rates for each decade separately, starting with the 1970s, finding significant differences for each decade, all χ 2 s(1, ns = 15-29) > 4.77, ps < .03, until the 2000s, since Teaching Psychology and Law 29 which time there have been no significant differences, χ 2 s(1, ns = 18-20) < 3.20, ns.

3.
The fields of "forensic psychology" and "correctional psychology," are often confused.
Forensic psychology refers to court-related practices such as providing evaluations and testimony related to defendants' sanity at the time of offense or competence to stand trial, issues related to malingering, child custody and visitation determinations, etc. Correctional psychology refers to the application of psychology within correctional settings, primarily with regard to facilitating offender rehabilitation and reintegration into society. However, just providing psychological services to individuals in correctional settings does not make the service forensic (e.g., therapy with an inmate without any legal implications). Training models/programs, curriculum development