Forensic Assessment

Forensic assessment

 Forensic assessment may involve the use of psychological tests or assessment instruments.
 The decision about how and when to use a test as part of a forensic assessment involves
consideration of the relevance of the test to the legal question or to the psychological
construct that underlies the legal issue.
 Whether a given test is relevant should be determined by the specific issues involved in the
psycho-legal referral question.
 Only tests or instruments with a sound theoretical and psychometric base should be used.
Cont..

 Forensic examiners should assess any research findings concerning correlations between
testing results and legally relevant behaviors.
 Testing results and generated hypotheses should be verified with archival or third-party
data.
 Corroboration is crucial in forensic contexts because examinees may knowingly or
unknowingly present themselves in a manner that helps their legal situation.
Cont..

 Finally, examiners should be concerned about how the selected test will be received by the
legal system and should ensure that the test and its applicability to the legal question at
hand are fully explained.
 The volume of tests that may be used in forensic settings is so vast that it is impossible to
mention all types or examples.
 However, three general classifications exist, reflecting the degree of direct relevance the
test has to a specific legal issue.
Non-forensic assessment tools

 It includes tests and assessment techniques that were developed for the assessment,
diagnosis, and/or treatment planning of non-forensic populations in primarily therapeutic
contexts.
 Research has shown that in addition to clinical interviewing, this test category is the one
most commonly used in forensic assessment.
 However, despite their widespread use, caution is advised when selecting these tests to aid
in forensic assessment.
Cont..

 Conventional psychological tests have limited use in forensic contexts because they were
not devised to address psycho-legal questions and typically do not use forensic populations
in their development or validation.
 If such tests are used, it is essential that the link between the test and the legal issue at hand
be adequately established.
 Examples of this category include tests to measure achievement, personality, or intellectual
ability (e.g., Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement-Third Edition, Personality
Assessment Inventory, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III).
Forensically Relevant Tools

 It includes tests that were not specifically developed for addressing legal issues but are
considered to be forensically relevant in that they address clinical constructs that are often
pertinent to persons involved in legal situations.
 Perhaps the most popular of forensically relevant instruments are measures that assess an
examinee’s response style, specifically evaluating minimization or feigning of problems
(e.g., Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-II or Structured Interview of Reported
Symptoms).
 Other forensically relevant instruments include tests that may help in child custody
assessments (e.g., Parenting Stress Index) or measures of psychopathy (e.g., Hare
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised).
Forensic Assessment Tools

 Forensic assessment instruments are designed to address specific legal.

 These tests are directly relevant to the assessment of psycho-legal capacities, abilities, or
knowledge.
 Such instruments can enhance the quality of a forensic assessment by providing relatively
standardized assessment procedures and methods for classifying or quantifying an
examinee’s responses.
Cont..

 The use of forensic assessment instruments may serve to reduce examiner bias and/or error
and may allow for meaningful comparisons over time or between different examiners.
 Forensic assessment instruments range from simple interview guides that help structure
interviews around the appropriate legal issues to instruments that are constructed and
validated with a solid research base.
 In conjunction with the rise in forensic assessment and the need for psychological input in
legal cases, the development and validation of specialized forensic assessment instruments
is becoming more critical.
Cont..

 Forensic assessment instruments exist in most areas of forensic assessment.

 For example, the Inwald Personality Inventory was developed to assess police officer
candidates for behavior and maladjustments that might negatively affect their performance
as police officers.
 The Jail Screening Assessment Tool was developed to identify inmates during intake who
may require a more formal mental health assessment.
 In addition to their usefulness in law enforcement and correctional settings, forensic
assessment instruments are especially prevalent in civil, and criminal settings.
Civil Setting Tools

 Instruments in civil settings include measures of parenting capacity, daily decision making,
and competency to consent to research or manage health care decisions (e.g., MacArthur
Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment).
The MacArthur Competence Assessment
Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T)
 It is the product of an 8-year study of patients' capacities to make treatment decisions.
 It is a semi-structured interview that assists clinicians who are conducting assessments of
patients' competence to consent to treatment.
 The process provides a patient with the information about the medical/psychiatric
condition that needs intervention, the type of treatment being recommended, its risks and
benefits, as well as other possible treatments and their probable consequences.
 During this process, the MacCAT-T prompts the clinician to ask questions that assess the
patient's understanding, appreciation, and reasoning regarding treatment decisions.
Criminal Setting Tools

 Criminal settings that use forensic assessment instruments are

 juvenile justice proceedings
 adult criminal cases
 The majority of forensic assessment instruments used with juveniles were designed
primarily for use with adults (e.g., Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for
Defendants with Mental Retardation), although instruments created specifically for
addressing forensic issues with juveniles are on the rise (e.g., Juvenile Adjudicative
Competence Interview).
Cont..

 Forensic assessment instruments are most well-known for their use in adult criminal court
settings and are especially prevalent in the area of competency to stand trial (e.g., Fitness
Interview Test-Revised, MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal
Adjudication, and Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial-Revised)
 Although measures exist for other areas of criminal forensic assessment (e.g., Grisso’s
Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights and
Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales).
Competence Assessment for Standing Trial
for Defendants with Mental Retardation
 The Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants With Mental Retardation
(CAST*MR) consists of 50 questions and was designed to assess defendants’
understanding of basic legal concepts, ability to assist their attorneys, and ability to relate
important information regarding their own legal circumstances.
 The first two sections of the CAST*MR consist of 40 multiple-choice questions. This
format was chosen as it provides a quick and reliable means of assessing defendants’
understanding.
Fitness Interview Test-Revised (FIT-R)

 The Fitness Interview Test - Revised (FIT-R) is a structured interview for assessing a person's competence
to stand trial.
 The FIT-R can be used as a brief screening instrument for assessing fitness, where individuals who score
at an “unfit” or “questionably unfit” level will be referred for a more thorough evaluation.
 An individual’s degree of impairment on each item is rated using a three-point scale (no impairment,
possible/mild impairment, and definite/serious impairment), which is clearly explained and defined for
evaluators.
 The FIT-R comprises 16 items divided into three sections that parallel the Canadian and U.S. legal criteria
for competence to stand trial.
 The first section, Understanding the Nature or Object of the Proceedings: Factual Knowledge of Criminal
Procedure
 The second section, Understanding the Possible Consequences of the Proceedings: Appreciation of Personal
Involvement in and Importance of the Proceedings
 The third section, Communication With Counsel: Ability to Participate in Defense
The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool–Criminal
Adjudication

 The MacCAT-CA is a 22-item structured interview for the pretrial assessment of

adjudicative competence.
 Uses a vignette format and objectively scored questions to standardize the measurement of
three competence-related abilities: understanding, reasoning, and appreciation.
 The eight understanding and eight reasoning items are based on a brief vignette that
describes a hypothetical crime; the 16 items query about prosecution of the hypothetical
defendant. This approach was designed to introduce legal issues in a way that distances the
defendant from the specifics of his or her own case.
 The six appreciation items query defendants about their attitudes and beliefs concerning
the legal process as it surrounds their own cases.
Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-
CRAS)

 The Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS) is a structured decision

model for quantifying relevant psychological variables that are salient for the retrospective
evaluation of insanity.
 Three rationally constructed scales evaluate diagnostic issues:
 Patient Reliability, which includes malingering or involuntary interference with accurate recall;
 Organicity, which addresses the likely effects of brain damage or mental retardation; and
 Psychiatric Disorders, which examines the effects of key Axis I symptoms.
Conclusion

 A marked increase in commercially available forensically relevant and forensic assessment

instruments has occurred in recent years, with this trend showing no signs of slowing
down.
 Measures have been developed and published in two ways.
 The first is more methodical and scientific in that a test is made commercially available only after
it has been researched, peer-reviewed, and refined with the normative data collected.
 The second, and more questionable, method involves publication of an instrument after only
preliminary research has been conducted.
Cont..

 Prevailing testing standards and the SGFP caution against the use of tests that have not
undergone adequate research and development.
 In addition to these cautions, each state has varying requirements for the admissibility of
expert testimony.
Thankyou!