The results of empirical research in psychology and psychiatry are inc
reasingly being used to formulate as well as understand problems at th
e interface of law and psychiatry. There has been a proliferation of s
tudies, such as the determinants of individual competence or threat to
self or others, the results of which are influencing policy and legis
lative decisions as well as buttressing holdings in court cases. In th
is article, I explore the issues of interpretation of epidemiological
studies, particularly the role of ideological positions on the design
and results of empirical findings, the importance of the way data are
interpreted, and the role of ideologies in the way research findings a
re presented to provide support for policy positions. Two levels of an
alysis are involved in determining the validity of a study. The first
addresses the questions of whether the study meets the statistical and
epidemiological requirements for reliable results. These include cons
iderations such as the appropriateness of the study design and methods
for gathering and interpreting data. The second focuses on the underl
ying framework of the study. This involves factors such as the perspec
tives and values of those conducting the study, the explicit and impli
cit dominating ideologies where they operate, and the extent to which
the study is constructed to reaffirm specific ideologies. This level o
f analysis is essential for disclosing the influences of ideologies on
the results of studies and the way in which data are interpreted. In
this article, I try to demonstrate through critiques of selected studi
es that the first stage of analysis is insufficient without an examina
tion of underlying preconceived values to establish the meaningfulness
of results.