Forensic issues and measurement - answers

Questions:
1. What are some of the differences between traditional and forensic assessment?
“…forensic assessment is molded by the prerequisites of the legal system, whereas
traditional assessment is shaped by the needs of the client and current professional
standards” (Gregory, 2011, p. 507). For example, when assessing the intelligence of a test-
taker, the focus is on administering the test fairly, accurately, ethically, and to produce a
report which is in the test taker’s best interests (e.g., to provide them with constructive
advice). In forensic settings, while tests should be fair, accurate, and ethical, the purpose is
not to help the test taker achieve a desired outcome (e.g., to appear innocent). Additionally,
if there is any doubt about the accuracy or unbiased nature of the testing, it may not meet
the conditions required to be admissible as evidence.

As also mentioned in the weekly reading (see pp. 507-508), whereas intelligence testing
might involve considering a wide range of things that could impact on the test taker’s score
(e.g., pre-existing mental conditions, depression, socioeconomic status, cultural
background), these concerns may not be relevant to something such as the competency to
stand trial. Instead, something that is the equivalent of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is what lawyers
and judges might be looking for.

Another major difference is the autonomy of test-takers (see p. 508). Within normal testing,
test takers have to voluntarily consent to participate in a form of measurement or testing. In
forensic settings the test may be court-ordered and the test taker has little to no choice in
the matter. This can influence the process of actually administering a test, as someone who
is unwilling to participate, or is trying to achieve a desirable outcome, may be less likely to
be a co-operative, open, and honest participant (e.g., malingering).

2. Compare and contrast the insanity defence with issues of competency to stand
trial.
Insanity defense (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity; NGRI, pp. 512-515):
- Generally based on the notion that the defendant did not know what s/he was doing
or that what they were doing was wrong on account of an underlying mental illness
or disability.
o There are subtle differences in rules on what constitutes NGRI. For example,
the differences between the M’Naughton rule and the Model Penal Code (see
p. 513).
Competency to stand trial (pp. 515-518):
- Based on perceptions of a defendant’s ability to understand the criminal process,
ability to adequately consult with legal counsel and understand legal proceedings,
and to reasonably understand what is going on.

“Legal insanity pertains to the moment of the criminal act, whereas incompetency implies a
current, ongoing condition…” (p. 516).
 3. Describe measures of malingering.
- See pp. 509-512
o Structured Interview of Reported Systems (SIRS): 172 questions across 8
primary subscales and 5 supplementary subscales that aims to identify
whether or not respondents are honest about their reported symptoms, or if
the test taker is displaying ‘definite’ or ‘probable’ feigning.
o Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): 50-item visual recognition test in
which people who might be faking a brain injury may intentionally perform
poorly. As the test is quite easy despite appearing to be difficult, and people
with actual brain injuries tend to score fairly highly, low scores can be an
indication that malingering has occurred.
o Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): The entire test isn’t
used, but rather the validity scales. The validity scales aim to determine if
someone is exaggerating or downplaying psychological symptoms, over-
reporting somatic symptoms, and providing inconsistent responses. A
malingerer might be expected to be caught out by these questions.

4. How well can psychologists predict future violence? Why is this so difficult?
Four factors related to the difficulty of predicting violence are mentioned on p. 518:
- The definition of ‘violence’ can be inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another
- The existing literature and research linking violence with various outcomes does not
provide any clear, obvious answers.
- Even mental health professionals can have biased judgement when assessing a
particular individual
- It is often perceived to be better outcome (at least based on public opinion) to
overpredict rather than underpredict violence (e.g., incarcerating someone who
might not be violent compared to letting a violent person walk free, who then
commits another violent crime).

Pp. 519-520 outlines some of the criteria used to predict future violent behaviour, but also
the moderate (at best) probability for accurate predictions to occur.

Activities:
1. Search the Australian Psychological Society (APS) College of Forensic Psychologists
Webpage (url: http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/cfp/) and identify the role of
Forensic Psychologists in Australia.

2. Brainstorm some of the famous villains in movies and identify which characters
best fit with Cleckley’s 16 signs of a psychopath.
Here’s Cleckley’s list:

1. Considerable superficial charm and average or above average intelligence.

2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
3. Absence of anxiety or other “neurotic” symptoms. Considerable poise, calmness and
verbal facility.
4. Unreliability, disregard for obligations, no sense of responsibility, in matters of little and
great import.
5. Untruthfulness and insincerity.
6. Antisocial behavior which is inadequately motivated and poorly planned, seeming to
stem from an inexplicable impulsiveness.
7. Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior.
8. Poor judgment and failure to learn from experience.
9. Pathological egocentricity. Total self-centeredness and an incapacity for real love and
attachment.
10. General poverty of deep and lasting emotions.
11. Lack of any true insight; inability to see oneself as others do.
12. Ingratitude for any special considerations, kindness and trust.
13. Fantastic and objectionable behavior, after drinking and sometimes even when not
drinking. Vulgarity, rudeness, quick mood shifts, pranks for facile entertainment.
14. No history of genuine suicide attempts (i.e., have made false suicide threats before).
15. An impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated sex life.
16. Failure to have a life plan and to live in any ordered way (unless it is for destructive
purposes or a sham).

If you’ve got any famous movie villains you’d like to discuss based on these criteria, please
contribute to the Discussion Board.