forensic psychology hypothesis examples

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

An Overview of Forensic Psychology

What do forensic psychologists do?

Peter Dazeley / Getty Images

What Is Forensic Psychology?

What do they do, distinguishing features, education and training.

Forensic psychology is a field that combines the practice of psychology and the law by utilizing psychological expertise within the justice system. Forensic psychology may encompass evaluating competency to stand trial, making sentencing recommendations, offering expert testimony, performing child custody evaluations, participating in jury selection, and providing psychotherapy to criminal offenders.

The word 'forensic' originates from the Latin word 'forensis,' which means "the forum," or the court system of Ancient Rome. The American Board of Forensic Psychology describes this field as the application of psychology to issues that involve the law and legal system.

Interest in forensic psychology has grown significantly in recent years. Increasing numbers of graduate programs offer dual degrees in psychology and law, while others provide specialization in forensic psychology.

Some psychologists hold a specialist degree in forensic psychology, but most are licensed psychologists with either a PhD. or PsyD. These professionals may work in both criminal and civil law areas.

While forensic psychology is considered a rather new specialty area within psychology, the field dates back to the earliest days in psychology's history. Philosophers and scientists have long sought to understand what makes people commit crimes, behave aggressively, or engage in antisocial behaviors.

Forensic psychology is a relatively new specialty area. In fact, forensic psychology was just officially recognized as a specialty area by the  American Psychological Association  in 2001.   Despite this, the field of forensic psychology has roots that date back to  Wilhelm Wundt's   first psychology lab  in Leipzig, German.

Learn more about some of the major events and key figures in the  history of forensic psychology .

Today, forensic psychologists are not only interested in understanding why such behaviors occur, but also in helping minimize and prevent such actions.

The field has experienced dramatic growth in recent years as more and more students become interested in this applied branch of psychology.   Popular movies, television programs, and books have helped popularize the field, often depicting brilliant heroes who solve vicious crimes or track down killers using psychology.

While depictions of forensic psychology in popular media are certainly dramatic and attention-grabbing, these portrayals are not necessarily accurate. That said, forensic psychologists do play an important role in the criminal justice system. It can be an exciting career for students interested in applying psychological principles to the legal system.

If you enjoy learning about the science of human behavior and the law, then forensic psychology will probably interest you quite a bit. The field has witnessed dramatic growth in recent years, as more and more students become interested in this applied branch of psychology. However, forensic psychology is about much more than the glamorized views portrayed in television shows, movies, and books.

Common Job Roles

Some of the functions typically performed within forensic psychology include:

• Competency evaluations
• Sentencing recommendations
• Evaluations of the risk of reoffending
• Testimony as an expert witness
• Child custody evaluations
• Academic research on criminality
• Consult with law enforcement
• Treatment of criminal offenders
• Provide psychological services to inmates and offenders
• Trial consultants who help with jury selection, witness preparation, or legal strategies
• Design correctional programs

Forensic psychology is defined as the intersection of psychology and the law, but forensic psychologists can perform many roles, so this definition can vary.

In many cases, people working in forensic psychology are not necessarily "forensic psychologists." These individuals might be clinical psychologists , school psychologists , neurologists, or counselors who lend their psychological expertise to provide testimony, analysis, or recommendations in legal or criminal cases.

For example, a clinical psychologist might provide mental health services such as assessment, diagnosis, and treatment to individuals who have come into contact with the criminal justice system. Clinicians might be asked to determine if a suspected criminal has a mental illness , or they may be asked to provide treatment to individuals who have substance abuse and addiction issues.

Another example is that of a school psychologist . While people in this profession typically work with children in school settings, a school psychologist working in forensic psychology might evaluate children in suspected abuse cases, help prepare children to give testimony in court, or offer testimony in child custody disputes.

So what exactly makes forensic psychology different from another specialty area such as clinical psychology? Typically, the duties of a forensic psychologist are fairly limited in terms of scope and duration. A forensic psychologist is asked to perform a very specific duty in each individual case, such as determining if a suspect is mentally competent to face charges.

Unlike the typical clinical setting where a client has voluntarily sought out assistance or evaluation, a forensic psychologist usually deals with clients who are not there of their own free will. This can make assessment, diagnosis, and treatment much more difficult since some clients willfully resist attempts at help.

Forensic psychology is not a common degree option, yet more and more schools are offering it as a specialty. If you are interested in becoming a forensic psychologist, you should take courses that focus on topics such as:

• Criminal psychology
• Social behavior
• Abnormal behavior
• Cognitive psychology
• Drugs and psychopharmacology
• Criminal justice

If your school does offer coursework or a degree option in forensic psychology, you can expect to tackle topics that include deviant behavior, the psychology of criminal behavior, criminal risk assessment, domestic violence , mental health social policy, juvenile criminal justice, and adult offender treatment.

The growing popularity of the field has also led to an increase in the number of master's level forensic psychology degrees. Many experts suggest that such programs, while popular and appealing, have a disadvantage over clinical, doctoral-level training. 

Doctoral-level study in forensic psychology typically focuses on topics including research methods, personality analysis, cognitive science, psychology and the law, ethical and legal issues, assessment, and treatment.

While there is no certification requirement for forensic psychologists, becoming a licensed psychologist has professional advantages in terms of establishing credibility and expertise.

While forensic psychology may not be all about solving crimes and getting inside the minds of criminals, there are still plenty of challenges for forensic psychologists. There are a number of different job options within the field of forensic psychology.

For example, some forensic psychologists work directly in the criminal justice system to assess, evaluate, and treat individuals who have committed crimes or have been the victims of crimes. Other forensic psychologists investigate cases of alleged child abuse, work with child witnesses, evaluate individuals involved in child custody disputes, and assess mental competency.

If you are interested in a field such as forensic or criminal psychology, you might want to spend some time researching some of the exciting career options in forensic psychology . 

The degree you choose to pursue may depend somewhat on what you want to do as a forensic psychologist, so figuring this out early on can be helpful in planning your educational path.

A Word From Verywell

Forensic psychology can be an exciting and challenging career choice. Skills that you might need if you choose to pursue a career in this field include the ability to communicate well, research problems, and think critically.

American Board of Forensic Psychology. About .

American Psychology Association. Speciality Guidelines for Forensic Psychology.

American Psychological Association.  What is forensic psychology?

Davies GM, Beech AR (eds). Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law Interventions. 3rd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2017.

Fulero SM, Wrightsman LS. Forensic Psychology . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2009.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Advanced search

Advanced Search

• AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Assessment
• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• Figures & Data
• Info & Metrics
• 1. Statement of Intent

This document is intended as a review of legal and psychiatric factors to offer practical guidance in the performance of forensic evaluations. It is a guideline developed through the participation of forensic psychiatrists who routinely conduct a variety of forensic assessments and who have expertise in conducting these evaluations in a variety of practice settings. The developmental process incorporated a thorough review that integrated feedback and revisions into the final draft. The final version was reviewed and approved by the Council of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law on October 26, 2014. Thus, the Guideline reflects a consensus among members and experts about the principles and practices applicable to the conduct of forensic assessments. However, it should not be construed as dictating the standard for forensic evaluations. While it is intended to inform practice, it does not present all currently acceptable ways of performing forensic evaluations, and following its recommendations does not lead to a guaranteed outcome. Differing facts, clinical factors, relevant statutes, administrative and case law, and the psychiatrist's judgment determine how to proceed in any individual forensic assessment.

The Guideline is for psychiatrists and other clinicians working in a forensic role who conduct evaluations and provide opinions in legal and regulatory matters. Any clinician who agrees to perform forensic assessments in any domain is expected to have the qualifications necessary to meet the professional standards in the relevant jurisdiction and to complete the evaluation at hand.

• 2. Introduction

Forensic assessment is one of the basic building blocks that form the foundation of the practice of psychiatry and the law, in addition to report-writing and giving testimony in court. Similar to any foundation, the integrity of the process depends on how well each brick is laid upon the other. In psychiatry and the law, the quality of the final product depends on the quality of the assessment, regardless of the practitioner's report-writing skills.

Forensic psychiatrists are often called on to act as consultants to the courts, lawyers, regulatory agencies, or other third parties. The referring agent has a specific psycholegal question that requires an expert opinion, generally to advance a legal requirement. To respond to that question, forensic psychiatrists generally conduct an assessment.

This Guideline is the product of a consensus based on the available literature and knowledge in a broad range of forensic assessments. The field of psychiatry and the law, along with the rest of medicine, is increasingly using an evidence-based approach. 1 Evidence-based medicine is defined by Sackett et al. as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individuals” (Ref. 2 , p 2). Sackett and collaborators made the point that all clinical assessments are, to a certain extent, individualized, based on the unique factors of each case.

• View inline

Objectives of the Guideline

The recommendations in the Guideline do not set a standard of practice and are not a substitute for knowledge-seeking, experience, or training among practitioners. It is the individual responsibility of each clinician to make appropriate decisions and judgments that are based on the circumstances of each case. It is also recognized that policies and procedures change with the passage of time and from one setting to another.

The writing of forensic psychiatric reports is beyond the scope of this Guideline. Report-writing is a vast topic in itself that has been covered in several other publications. 3 , – , 9

The text provides an overview that is applicable to various types of assessments: for criminal cases (competence to stand trial and culpability); for risk or dangerousness (of violence, sexual violence, or criminal recidivism); and for civil proceedings (disability, fitness for duty, testamentary capacity, guardianship, child custody, malpractice, and civil commitment). It is intended to complement, not replace, existing practice guidelines published by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) that focus in more depth on particular areas of evaluation.

• 3. Quality Improvement in Forensic Practice

Several studies and articles have assessed the quality of forensic psychology and psychiatry practice. 10 , – , 16 A review of the literature concluded that the level of practice falls short of professional aspirations for the field, although there have been incremental improvements during the 1990s. 12 No studies to date have observed forensic psychiatric interviews, although some, mainly in the field of psychology and the law, have looked at the content of forensic reports. In particular, these have examined the psychological tests used in criminal forensic evaluations, 13 emotional injury cases, 14 child custody assessments, 17 and neuropsychological assessments. 16 The results demonstrated significant inconsistencies and variable standards. One study, 15 for instance, noted poor agreement on such basic points as the presence of a mental disorder and the psychiatric diagnoses submitted by opposing experts. Given these findings, it is important to enhance the potential for consistent practices that can inform forensic assessment.

In 2010, Griffith and colleagues 4 conceptualized the forensic psychiatric report as a performative narrative. Although their article concentrated on the written report, it suggested that psychiatrists “listened hard to the voices they heard” (Ref. 4 , p 42). The authors also drew attention to aspects of the interpersonal relationships between parties, which may be significant. Kenneth Appelbaum, 18 commenting on the article, cautioned mental health experts to ensure the accuracy and veracity of their assessments. Mossman and colleagues 19 attempted to measure the accuracy of assessments in a quantitative manner. They compared multiple ratings per evaluee and concluded that evaluators are very accurate. However, recent research has examined the quality of forensic reports and rated them as mediocre, noting that there was fair agreement between the evaluators' conclusions and court findings. 20

Wettstein struck an optimistic note, stating, “in the long-term future, we expect that quality improvement at a more sophisticated level will transcend anything discussed heretofore” (Ref. 11 , p 172). This view built on his previous work with Simon, 21 in which they described general guidelines, shaped by the ethics principles of general and forensic psychiatry, as well as case law and statutes. Such guidance was intended to help practitioners maintain the integrity of forensic psychiatric consultation and examination.

• 4. Ethics Foundation

The American Medical Association's Code of Ethics states that “physicians have an obligation to assist in the administration of justice.” 22 Forensic psychiatrists are physicians who are trained to diagnose and treat patients within the ethics principles embedded in the doctor–patient relationship. However, as Paul Appelbaum 23 has stated, the role of the forensic psychiatrist in assisting court and other agents sometimes demands that the psychiatrist step outside of the doctor–patient relationship. The psychiatrist is primarily serving the interests or needs of the court, the retaining attorney, or another third party, but their interests may or may not serve those of the evaluee. 24 Therefore, in this context, the forensic practitioner strives for objectivity in seeking to answer a psycholegal question.

The ethical practice of forensic psychiatry has therefore been a subject of significant discussion in the psychiatric literature, with competing, complementary, and sometimes conflicting models of ethical practice offered. 23 , 25 , – , 36 Stone 37 has stated that the role of the forensic psychiatrist is so framed that the formulation of ethics guidelines is impossible. This view was countered by Paul Appelbaum, 23 who attested that the primary value of forensic psychiatry is to advance the interests of justice. With this in mind, ethical practice can be guided by the two principles of truth-telling and respect for persons. Bearing these principles in mind, we can distinguish between our clinical therapeutic and forensic roles. Weinstock and colleagues 38 noted that the conflicting values of law and medicine make balancing these roles a formidable task. They argued that traditional medical ethics remains the ideal goal and that the individual practitioner must attempt to resolve the ethics-related problems that arise. Griffith 27 introduced the notion of cultural formulation. The forensic evaluator seeks the sociocultural truth about the subject in the formulation of the particular behavior before the court. By using cultural formulation in this context, the forensic psychiatrist can come to a better understanding of the evaluee's experience, while appreciating the evaluee's psychosocial environment, thereby constructing a fuller and more accurate presentation of the data.

Other authors have developed syntheses of these frameworks based on compassion, 35 robust professionalism, 28 , 29 , 31 and an acknowledgment of the tension in holding simultaneously to both medical ethics and the demands of the criminal justice system. 32 , 33 The AAPL Ethics Guidelines call for adherence to honesty, striving for objectivity, and respect for persons in the organization's attempt to generate a workable code of ethics for forensic psychiatric practice. 39

In a general psychiatric practice, the patient presents signs and symptoms to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist then makes a diagnosis and formulation to help the patient understand the symptoms, with a view to treatment that will help to resolve the symptoms. In forensic psychiatry, the situation may be complicated by the attempt to apply specific signs and symptoms to legal criteria. Furthermore, evaluees in forensic contexts may exaggerate or minimize their symptoms for several reasons: for example, to maximize their injury in civil cases or to minimize their involvement or culpability in criminal cases. Forensic psychiatrists are concerned with the accuracy of the received information that forms the basis for their conclusions. Consequently, in performing assessments, they are particularly concerned about dissimulation and malingering of symptoms and disorders (discussed in Section 10.5, Malingering and Dissimulation).

Because the accuracy of the information received enhances the validity of the psychiatrist's conclusions, Heilbrun et al. 24 likened the forensic psychiatrist to an investigative journalist, recommending that third-party information be elicited from a variety of sources. Although collateral information may be helpful in general psychiatry, its importance is magnified in forensic psychiatry. Section 5.3, Collateral Information, is devoted to the collection of third-party (or collateral) information.

• 5. Assessment Process

5.1. Setting the Stage

The success of the forensic assessment begins with careful attention to detail in the initial agreement with the retaining party. In the initial contact with the referring agent, there are several determinations to be made by the forensic expert, such as whether there are any conflicts of interest, limitations to objectivity for the psychiatrist in the circumstances, and limitations based on state medical boards' rules regarding licensure to provide expert evaluation or testimony. As well, the expert must determine whether he has the requisite knowledge, skill, and experience to accept the case. The psychiatrist's qualifications in relation to a specific case can be evaluated by a discussion with the referring party concerning the precise psychiatric question(s) to be answered and the expert's role in the case. 7 , 40 , – , 42 In addition, experts must evaluate whether they have the time and resources necessary to respond to the retaining attorney within the required time frame. Establishing with the referring party a time frame for the completion of the evaluation is an important detail in properly setting the stage for the assessment. If the expert does not have the time or resources, a referral to a colleague may be in order. Summary 5.1A outlines the variables that the expert must consider in setting the stage for a case.

Setting the Stage

The potential for a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of one, can compromise objectivity. Conflicts may be legal (when the expert has participated in a case for the other party), monetary (when the expert has a financial interest in the outcome), administrative (when the expert serves in an official capacity that may create an interest in the outcome), educational (e.g., when the expert is a member of a training program and thus may be privy to information about the case from multiple perspectives), and personal (when the expert has a relationship with an individual involved in the case). 7 An examiner may also have political or ideological conflicts of interest. The possibility of conflicts should be explored during the initial contact with the referring agent, but conflicts may come to light only later in the case. In those situations, the expert should determine whether the conflict warrants recusal and referral to a colleague.

In many jurisdictions, plaintiffs cannot be required to travel more than a specified distance to attend an assessment. As a result, the retained expert may be required to travel to a mutually agreed upon location to assess the plaintiff. If the assessment is to take place in a state where the expert does not hold a medical license, the expert must determine whether the state requires that a forensic psychiatrist hold a medical license to conduct an assessment before agreeing to accept the case. 43

Discussions with the referring agent typically include asking what collateral information is available and will be provided by the referring agent (see Section 5.3, Collateral Information). These discussions should not be treated as sources of data or listed as such in the final report. 44 Throughout the assessment process, the expert should seek to identify gaps in the available data and make efforts to obtain the appropriate data from the referring agent or through releases of information signed by the evaluee.

The initial discussion is often followed by a written letter of agreement between the retaining agent and the expert. In general, written terms of agreement specify the expert's hourly rate, an estimate of the time needed for the consultation, and the arrangements for payment of a retainer fee, against which the work will be charged and which will be replenished as necessary. Examples of such retainer letters are available. 40 , 41 Fixed fees are common in some jurisdictions for some types of assessments, such as competence to stand trial. 36

Retainer Letter

5.2. Confidentiality

The flow of information in a forensic assessment is a central concern. As noted in the AAPL Ethics Guidelines, “the practice of forensic psychiatry often presents significant problems regarding confidentiality” because information is always released to the retaining party and may be released to other parties. 39 Thus, evaluees must always be informed of the limits of confidentiality, the persons with whom the information will be shared, and the purpose of the interview. Evaluees may require frequent reminders of the limits of confidentiality during the course of an assessment, especially when multiple interviews are conducted over a prolonged period.

Closely associated with the notice about the intended disclosure of the assessment results is the need to make clear to the evaluee the unusual role of the examiner. Many evaluees are accustomed to dealing with health care professionals under a set of expectations appropriate to a treatment relationship. A limited physician–patient relationship may still be present, even in forensic assessments, placing some continued obligation on the physician-examiner. 36 , 45 However, the forensic expert must make it clear that the assessment is not for the purposes of treatment and that the rules of confidentiality are different and governed by the requirements of the legal system. 36 , 46

Confidentiality

The limits of confidentiality are determined, in part, by which of the legal participants in the matter has retained the psychiatrist, with different warnings being appropriate, depending on whether the psychiatrist is working for the defense, the prosecution, or the court. 47 Specifically, the defense expert can inform the evaluee that, if the assessment is not going to be helpful to the case, the attorney may be able to keep it confidential as part of attorney work product. In some jurisdictions, the evaluee's understanding of the limits of confidentiality is assessed before proceeding. 48 In addition, use of an evaluee's self-incriminating statements given during a certain type of forensic assessment may be limited or excluded at subsequent criminal trials. 48 , – , 50 In some jurisdictions, reports written in one context may be used years later in other contexts. Although forensic reports are often initially protected, if they are introduced as evidence in testimony, they become accessible in the public domain.

The limits of confidentiality were complicated by passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 51 which introduced the Privacy Rule mandating confidentiality of all medical assessments by covered entities (i.e., health care providers who electronically transmit information). There are some exceptions to the Privacy Rule for assessments ordered by a court, but these exceptions do not apply to assessments requested by an evaluee's attorney or some other third-party requestors, such as the Social Security Administration. 45 Thus, it is prudent to secure a release of information from the evaluee and to provide a Notice of Privacy Practices if the evaluation is not ordered by a court. 52 These forms can be found in the literature. 41 , 47 Some state laws may create more stringent confidentiality requirements, and evaluators should be familiar with their jurisdiction's requirements. Other limits of confidentiality may include an evaluator's duty to report child or elder abuse or neglect, 53 a duty of disclosure related to serious threat of harm to the evaluee or to third parties (the duty to warn), 54 and other duties related to a specific jurisdiction. 55 , 56 If any of these duties arises, the expert should consult with supervisors, peers, or an attorney and discuss the potential release of information with the referring agent before making the disclosure. Collateral sources interviewed should also be given notice of the limits of confidentiality, the purpose of the assessment, and the likely uses of the assessment results. 7

Written documentation of the discussion about confidentiality should be made to establish a record regarding what the evaluee was told about the nature of the assessment. 47 , 57

Opinions vary regarding whether an evaluee should be warned that malingering on his part will be assessed. Such warnings are generally not recommended immediately before administering a test for malingering, because the effectiveness of the test may be compromised. 57 , – , 59 If the evaluator decides to provide a caution regarding the assessment of malingering, statements to the evaluee can be included in the informed-consent section of the written report. For example, the evaluator may state that the evaluee was informed at the beginning of the interview that methods of detecting exaggeration and poor effort would be part of the assessment process, or that the evaluator was assessing the evaluee's diagnosis and that it was important that all questions be answered as accurately as possible (Ref. 56 , p 244).

After the expert obtains informed consent for the assessment, the evaluee should be given an opportunity to ask questions regarding the process. If there are unanticipated questions, such as a request to make an audio- or video-recording of the examination or to have a third party present during the assessment, the examiner should consider contacting the retaining attorney with this new information before proceeding. In general, if an evaluee is seeking to record the interview, the examiner should do the same and retain a recording of the session. The evaluee also has the right to contact counsel regarding questions about the assessment process and should be allowed to do so before resuming the examination.

Although the informed consent of the evaluee is not necessary for some types of assessments (e.g., court-ordered assessments for competence to stand trial or involuntary commitment), the evaluator must avoid coercion in the interview. Regardless of its subtlety, coercion is inappropriate, and the evaluee or any collateral source should be free to decline to answer any or all questions. 60 However, the evaluator must also give the evaluee appropriate notice that refusal to participate in some or all of the assessment may be noted in the report in a court-ordered assessment. 46

5.3. Collateral Information

Collateral sources of information, when available, are usually an important element of the forensic assessment. With the consideration of multiple data sources, varying points of view may have to be reconciled. Memory deficits, effects of treatment, and malingering may affect the evaluee's statements. Collateral information may add to or complement the evaluee's account and may be compared with the evaluee's account to help detect malingering and assess reliability. However, the biases of various reporters also should be considered. 16

Collateral information for the expert's review may include written records, recordings, and collateral interviews. Records from police, psychiatric and medical treatment, school, the military, work, jail, and financial institutions may be appropriate, depending on the type of assessment. Reviewing assessments performed by other experts may help determine the consistency of reporting; as well, psychological testing scores and brain imaging may be relevant. 46

The expert opinion may benefit from interviews with several sources, including family members, colleagues, friends, victims, and witnesses, and the sources will vary by type of assessment. The interviews may be arranged through the referring agent or through the court. At the start of the interviews, participants should be warned about the limits of confidentiality, and the purpose of the interview should be explained. The warning should include informing the source of how the information may be used. It is advisable to inform collateral contacts that everything said is on the record and may be used in open court and made public, so that they can consider in advance what information to share. As with interviews of evaluees, interviews of collateral informants should involve open-ended questions with varying focal points. Leading questions should be avoided.

The collateral information to be sought depends on the specific question posed by the referring agent and the circumstances of the case. Collateral data are especially important in reconstructive assessments, such as those for sanity, testamentary capacity, and disability, in which the evaluee's mental state in the past is the focus. 6 Alternatively, in a competency assessment, police reports and allegations against the evaluee, as well as the reasons the court or attorney are requesting the assessment, are particularly relevant. A review of these materials may lead the psychiatrist to request additional materials or interviews. Experts should endeavor to obtain all necessary and relevant information as early in the process as possible, as subsequent revelations of contradictory or inconsistent data may change the expert's opinion.

Collateral Information

If the psychiatrist is retained by the court or by the attorney of the evaluee whose medical records are being sought (e.g., a defendant in a criminal matter, a former patient in a malpractice case, or a litigant seeking damages), the psychiatrist may obtain written consent directly from the evaluee. However, in most cases, requests for information or collateral interviews generally should be made through the retaining attorney. If hired by the court, the psychiatrist may also contact both attorneys as required. In some situations, the retaining attorney may have to pursue a court order to obtain collateral information requested by the expert.

The expert should perform a personal review of relevant information whenever possible and avoid relying on summaries prepared by attorneys, which may contain distortions or omit clinically important details. The psychiatrist may identify additional sources of information that is missing from an attorney's summary, which should then be sought. If the psychiatrist works with a team, other members of the team may summarize large volumes of information, although the psychiatrist signing the report accepts responsibility for its content. However, while the psychiatrist should be prepared to address the content of the report, team members who have gathered or generated information may also, although rarely, have to testify.

In general, the evaluator should review relevant documents as they become available. Reviewing collateral data before conducting interviews provides the expert with a more comprehensive understanding of the case, so that the expert may ask additional appropriate questions and note any inconsistencies. 42 However, in certain circumstances, reviewing information before an interview may not be desirable because of, for example, concerns that the written information may bias the evaluator. In some cases, a review may not be possible. For example, in civil cases, a judge may rule to exclude a plaintiff's history of civil litigation, including previous alleged damages or awards, if the judge finds that the prejudicial value of a prior lawsuit outweighs its probative value. The forensic evaluator should therefore clarify with the referring agent whether there have been rulings that exclude any evidence. Furthermore, some records may not be available or may not be reviewed because of time constraints. Additional sources of information, such as medical records, may not be available or reviewed in some types of evaluations, such as competence assessments, although regional practices may vary. 11

Collateral data facilitate objectivity and may aid in opinion formulation, furthering understanding of the evaluee's mental state at various points in time, such as before an accident or at the time of the offense. Criminal defendants' or civil plaintiffs' reports and recollections may differ from more objective and contemporaneous records. Such data may also help in assessing accuracy or malingering.

All relevant sources of information should be listed in the report, as well as any information that was requested but not received. The expert may modify the opinion should relevant additional information become available later.

5.3.1. Interviews by Other Mental Health Professionals

In certain jurisdictions, and particularly in multidisciplinary team settings, interview data gathered by ancillary mental health professionals may be used and incorporated into the forensic evaluator's report. These additional mental health professionals may assemble data from collateral informants. For example, they may gather psychosocial data by interviewing multiple sources, such as family, teachers, and other social contacts of the evaluee. When relying on data collected by another professional, the primary evaluator should be able to attest to the general reliability of the ancillary professional's work in contributing to the evaluator's opinion. In some cases, aspects of the data may be lacking in sufficient detail at critical junctures, or points may need further clarification. In such cases, the primary evaluator may ask the ancillary professional to supply further information or to reinterview a source, or the primary evaluator may follow up by reviewing data or reinterviewing sources.

Useful Records in Criminal and Civil Evaluations

5.3.2. Additional Sources

The evaluator must decide which collateral sources to contact. In determining how many collateral contacts are sufficient, the potential yield of additional contacts must be balanced with the expenditure of effort to contact them. For example, if a particular source can provide critical information, concerted efforts and several attempts to pursue this source may be appropriate. There are no rules about which collateral contacts are necessary in any given case, although, generally, the closer an individual is to the evaluee and the closer he was to the evaluee during the time frame of the incident, the more useful his information will be in helping to understand the context. Collateral sources should be selected because they will provide information directly relevant to the questions at hand. Such sources typically include family, friends, partners, coworkers, and witnesses.

Internet searches regarding the evaluee can also provide useful information. Social networking sites and other Internet social forums may contain information about the evaluee that conflicts with data provided by the evaluee or others, warranting further examination to contextualize this apparent conflict. An evaluee's online persona may constitute impression management or posturing, as people often behave or present themselves differently online than in person. It is also possible that the online information is more accurate than what the evaluee is telling the police and experts.

5.3.3. Criminal Assessments

Police reports and other official criminal records..

In criminal assessments, documentation of the criminal allegations constitutes key data. Generally, this documentation is found in a police report or a series of police reports from the different officers involved in an arrest. Additional sources may include grand jury records or transcripts of grand jury proceedings. These reports can be critical to forensic assessment because they provide the factual allegations that serve as the basis for criminal charges. For a pretrial assessment, these data can be used to help ascertain whether the evaluee understands the nature and meaning of the charges. 36 In some cases, it may be helpful or necessary to read or to have the evaluee read the actual police report, so that the evaluator can be sure that the evaluee has accurate information about the allegations and the identity of the witnesses. An evaluator's review of the content of the police report can also help in assessing the evaluee's rational and factual understanding of the charges.

The police report and other official documentation of the charges, such as witness statements, may provide critical information related to the evaluee's conduct or thinking at the time of the alleged offense. Such documentation can help the evaluator construct a picture of whether the defendant may have demonstrated symptoms of a mental disorder relevant to the question of criminal responsibility. Similarly, in sentencing assessments, the evaluator should use police reports and official documentation of the offense to enhance understanding of the details of the criminal conduct and in elucidating patterns of conduct and the relationship of mental illness or substance use to the crime. This understanding, in turn, can help inform treatment recommendations if needed.

Criminal Assessments

Although the evaluator in any criminal case should be familiar with the officially documented criminal allegations, whether the content of the police report is included in a specific criminal forensic evaluation report depends on the type of case (e.g., competence to stand trial or criminal responsibility) and differences in jurisdictional practice. In evaluations to determine criminal responsibility and aid in sentencing, evaluators may provide a succinct summary of the police report or official allegations in the body of the report, to help the reader understand the direction of the opinion. When summarizing police reports or allegations, the expert risks misrepresenting aspects of the allegations by quoting selectively or by omitting details that may prove to be relevant later in the proceedings. Thus, evaluators should recognize that such summaries must be carefully constructed, to avoid bias. Other approaches are to append the full police report or to simply list it as a source of information.

Contact with law enforcement and legal officials.

In criminal contexts, one of the important collateral sources can be information obtained from police officers and witnesses to alleged criminal conduct. However, there are some difficulties posed by telephoning police officers and other officials. It may be necessary to call a police officer outside of the evaluator's regular business hours, as officers may be available only during evening or night shifts. Officers may be surprised to receive a cold call from a forensic evaluator and may not be willing to speak. Some may want to review the request for an interview with their superior before agreeing to it. For all of these reasons, the evaluator may have to discuss such calls with the referring attorney before making a call to a police officer. The prosecuting attorney may not want the evaluator to interview the officer, and jurisdictional provisions may dictate how to proceed.

Once an interview with a police officer has been granted, it is important to remind the officer of the evaluator's role. Although police officers and witnesses may not have the same confidentiality concerns as evaluees, they should understand that the information revealed could be used in open court and in the court report. In interviewing a police officer, it is important to avoid leading questions and to probe the officer's recollection to draw out facts in detail (e.g., how the criminal defendant was acting, such as observations that the defendant was mumbling to himself or making unusual or bizarre statements). Also, evaluators should understand that, because officers face numerous situations involving persons with apparent mental conditions, their recollection of what, for them, is a routine event may be limited. 61 , 62 When they do remember offenses in detail, they typically and appropriately describe their observations in lay terms, and a skilled evaluator will attempt to understand these descriptions in clinical terms where appropriate. It may also be necessary to pursue questions more rigorously if an officer recounts only the basic facts and fails to address aspects of the encounter relevant to the evaluee's mental state.

5.3.4. Civil Assessments

When performing civil assessments that involve the workplace, it is often helpful to obtain a job description and a personnel file, which may include investigations and employment proceedings. In addition, it may be possible to obtain extensive data such as personal notes and diaries, computer files, and video recordings or undercover investigational reports. Counsel may also be able to supply data from lawsuits as well as transcripts from depositions. 46

For litigation involving claimed mental harm, the expert should request important legal documents. For example, the plaintiff's complaint outlines the emotional damage claimed and its relationship to the event or circumstance that is the subject of litigation. The complaint is usually countered by a list of specific questions (interrogatories) from the defense, followed by the plaintiff's answers to these interrogatories. Additional records are commonly requested and may be useful (see the list in Summary 5.3B ).

5.4. The Interview

5.4.1. physical setting.

The physical setting for forensic assessment interviews can vary from the private office of the forensic psychiatrist, to an attorney's office, to a correctional facility. The site is often determined by the purpose of the assessment. For example, for an assessment for a civil proceeding, the interview would generally be scheduled in an office, but for an assessment stemming from a violent crime, the interview may be held in the correctional facility where the evaluee is detained. As with all psychiatric interviews, attention must be given to the environmental aspects of the setting, such as lighting, ambient temperature, seating arrangements, safety, and the presence of a desk or table so that the interviewer can take notes by hand or on computer.

Interview Process: Physical Setting

Each specific setting gives rise to unique considerations for the interview. In one survey of state-certified forensic experts, distressing incidents were seen no more frequently in forensic practices than in nonforensic clinical work. 63 That said, forensic professionals should attend to areas of possible concern and seek consultation as needed to help identify strategies for safety, if necessary. Strategies noted by respondents to the survey by Leavitt and coworkers 63 included keeping doors to the interview room open, having a third party close by, and informing others of one's whereabouts.

In a private office, consideration should be given to entrance and exit strategies for the evaluee, who, like many psychiatric patients, may wish to remain anonymous and avoid other patients and office staff or who may wish to terminate the assessment abruptly. This consideration may be particularly important for evaluees attending sensitive assessments, such as those for complicated cases involving parental rights or sex offenses. In an attorney's office, the setting must also provide privacy for the evaluator and evaluee.

Exit strategies should also be considered for the evaluator. An evaluee may become threatening or aggressive as the result of an anger management problem, substance use, paranoid delusions, or the conflict-laden circumstances underlying the assessment. 45 The objectivity of the assessment may be affected if the evaluator does not feel safe, either because of the environment or because of the evaluee's conduct.

Correctional facilities offer unique challenges as a setting for forensic assessments. Arrangements must be made in advance to secure entry into the facility and to ensure that the evaluator is allowed to bring appropriate recording materials such as paper, writing instruments, a computer or tablet, and audio or video equipment. Safety is of fundamental importance for both the evaluee and the evaluator. If needed for the safety of the evaluator, assessments may be conducted by telephone, with the interviewer and the evaluee separated by a Plexiglas partition. In certain circumstances, the psychiatrist may wish to have a third party present to ensure safety or to have an objective observer in case of a litigious or difficult evaluee. If the presence of a correctional officer is necessary for safety, efforts should be made to preserve the confidentiality of the evaluee (e.g., by having the officer observe through a window). 6

The presence of others during the forensic assessment must be considered in advance. The evaluee's attorney may ask to be present, or the evaluee may request that a spouse be present. Teaching institutions often request that students, residents, interns, or fellows be allowed to observe as part of their learning process. All of these possibilities should be considered before conducting the assessment, not only to accommodate others physically in the setting, but also to avoid potential skewing or biasing of the interview because of the presence of others. Discussions about these factors with retaining attorneys may be necessary before the interview.

5.4.2. Interview Style

In establishing a style and structure for the interview, the evaluator may wish to begin by gathering general background information and mental status data. Alternatively, an evaluator may cover the most critical material first, and then fill in other areas subsequently. This approach is especially well-suited to certain situations: for example, when the evaluee is unlikely to remain cooperative over an extended period, when the evaluee may become unduly emotional, or when the evaluee may become impatient with what he deems to be irrelevant questions about the past. In many cases, evaluators must be flexible, as, even with a planned agenda for the interview schedule, there may be a need to reverse the order in which data are gathered. For some types of assessments (e.g., competence to stand trial), only one interview may be necessary. In other assessments, multiple interviews may be needed to cover the breadth and depth of the terrain in a complex case. The evaluator must decide on a plan for the course of the interviews.

Interview Process: Interview Style

Although focused questions or forensic assessment instruments may be used in the interview, the general style should consist of open-ended questions. This strategy enables a neutral exploration of the evaluee's narrative, state of mind, and style of presentation. 7 , 64 Open-ended questions can help the individual to become comfortable with talking to the evaluator and enable the examiner to establish a rapport with the evaluee before moving to more difficult material about the forensic matter at hand. 36 , 45 Closed questions, which demand a yes-or-no answer, may have their place in specific matters, but, as part of the strategy for seeking objectivity and honesty, the evaluator should guard against leading questions or questions that limit responsiveness from the evaluee.

It is an important characteristic of the forensic assessment that the evaluator, unlike a clinical interviewer, must take a questioning or skeptical approach to the interview. 7 It is also important not to be judgmental or biased against an evaluee. The approach, then, must include ongoing hypothesis testing until conclusions can be reached. Some support is necessary, for example, in ensuring the comfort of the evaluee. Likewise, empathy is not entirely off limits in a forensic assessment. Kenneth Appelbaum describes “forensic empathy” as the quest for “awareness of the perspectives and experiences of interviewees,” (Ref. 18 , p 44) to allow their voices and concerns to be aired in the assessment process. Shuman 65 offers a complementary perspective on empathy, which is to differentiate receptive from reflective empathy. The former corresponds to Appelbaum's description, in that Shuman describes receptive empathy as the “perception and understanding of the experiences of another person.” Reflective empathy, however, is problematic, in that it involves communicating an “interpretation or understanding to the defendant in a manner that implies a therapeutic alliance” (Ref. 65 , p 298). Such an implication may undermine objectivity and respect for persons, as it may work against the warnings about limits of confidentiality and the lack of a therapeutic relationship that are critical to ethical forensic practice. Recent work has concluded that empathy may help promote rapport, and therefore experts may use a moderate degree of empathy. 66 Thus, the use of clinical skill is essential to the assessment process, but the expert must be vigilant about the manner in which such skills are deployed in the forensic assessment.

The evaluator must also be vigilant for signs in himself of emotional reaction to the evaluee or the circumstances of the case. Awareness of inappropriate emotional responses to the case may well lead the expert to self-examination of those reactions. 7 , 67 The feelings and attitudes of the evaluator prompted by a case can be described as a forensic example of countertransference. Gutheil and Simon offer several examples of such a phenomenon in forensic practice, characterized by preoccupation with the examinee, secondary posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in the examiner, overimmersion in the evaluee's world view, personal conflict with the attorney, overidentification with and overacceptance of the attorney, and defensiveness in response to an attorney (Ref. 67 , pp 84–7).

The review of symptoms with a forensic evaluee is one area in which there is a close connection to ordinary clinical work. 7 The review of symptoms should be conducted in a manner similar to the way in which the expert conducts it in clinical practice, to assure the reliability of the evaluator's findings and to foster credibility about the assessment process leading to a forensic opinion. Since questions about symptoms by their very nature are leading questions, endorsement of new symptoms at this stage should merit careful consideration and due explanation.

5.4.3. Recording

It is generally considered important to make a thorough record of interviews. This is most often accomplished by taking careful, detailed notes during the interview, but may include audio- and video-recording. Interview notes and recordings are the property of the evaluator but are usually protected as the referring attorney's work product. If requested by the referring attorney or the court, copies of notes and recordings should be provided. If the expert testifies, the cross-examiner may also request these notes and recordings. As well, evaluators should be aware that written notes added to the records or materials may be subject to cross-examination. Therefore, care should be taken when recording in writing the content of discussions with attorneys, ad hoc aides-mémoire , or memoranda.

Interview Process: Recording

There is a debate over recording interviews. The concerns raised regarding audio- and video-recording of interviews are similar. A review of case law for the report of the AAPL task force on video-recording concluded that recording is an acceptable but not a mandatory procedure. 68 The usual purpose of recording is the creation of a complete record that may be reviewed at a later date for the expert's report or testimony preparation or as evidence at trial. In particular, a contemporaneous recording of the evaluee in a disturbed mental state that is produced at trial some time later, after he has recovered, can significantly enhance the credibility of the testimony.

Although the AAPL task force determined that video-recording the forensic interview is ethical, it did not offer a blanket endorsement of the practice. The advantages and disadvantages are reviewed in the guideline. 68 Video recordings are routinely used in cases of child sexual abuse, as they allow the victim's early statements to be preserved, and they may protect the child from the stress of repeated evaluations and testifying. Recordings may be required by case law when hypnosis is used. 69 In addition to allowing data to be preserved precisely, recording the interview allows it to be scrutinized for leading questions and examined for integrity and protects the evaluator against claims of inappropriate behavior.

Certain matters must be addressed well in advance of proceeding with video-recording of an interview. Some institutions do not allow video-recording, in which case an alternative approach may be chosen or, if possible, the interview should be conducted at another location. Recording may produce logistical problems, such as finding a suitable interview location and transporting valuable equipment, incurring considerable expense and inconvenience. Recording should not be done surreptitiously. In addition to warnings concerning the lack of confidentiality routinely made in forensic assessments, an evaluator who is recording an interview should inform the evaluee in advance that the interview will be recorded and that the recording becomes a legal document that may be introduced in court if the evaluator is used as an expert.

Evaluees may wish to record interviews for their own purposes. They may even attend an interview with a recording device. Without knowing the plans for use of a recording, the evaluator would be prudent to discourage or refuse to allow a one-sided recording of an interview by the evaluee. If the evaluee insists on recording the interview, the evaluator may need to consider audio- or video-recording as well. It may also be prudent to contact the lawyers involved before proceeding.

The evaluator should retain all materials, including written records or recordings of interviews, for the duration of the trial and appeals, and should contact the referring agent about discarding these materials after all proceedings are concluded. Materials supplied by the referring agent may be retained, shredded, or returned by agreement with the agent. As a general rule, interview notes and reports should be retained for the time mandated in each jurisdiction or in the pertinent organizational policy.

5.5. Assessments Without an Interview

If an assessment is limited to a record review with no interview, this limitation should be discussed in the report and testimony, which should indicate why a personal interview was not performed. The AAPL Ethics Guidelines state: For certain assessments (such as record reviews for malpractice cases), a personal examination is not required. In all other forensic evaluations, if, after appropriate effort, it is not feasible to conduct a personal examination, an opinion may nonetheless be rendered on the basis of other information. Under these circumstances, it is the responsibility of psychiatrists to make earnest efforts to ensure that their statements, opinions, and reports or testimony based on those opinions, clearly state that there was no personal examination and note any resulting limitations to their opinions [Ref. 39 , Section IV]. Experts are advised to consult the Ethics Guideline should this situation arise.

• 6. Assessment Content

6.1. Introduction

Forensic psychiatric assessments may be requested in a wide variety of civil and criminal cases.

Types of Assessments in Civil and Criminal Proceedings

Regardless of whether the matter is civil or criminal, the general purpose of forensic assessment is to answer a legal question. Questions can range widely: on the criminal side, from competence to stand trial to criminal responsibility and sentence mitigation, and, on the civil side, from psychic harm, malpractice, or standard of care to evaluation of asylum-seekers. Some assessments do not usually include an interview, but others generally do. Some require a report, and some do not. Some cases will await a preliminary opinion before an attorney decides that a report is needed. Some assessments are contemporaneous, and others require a retrospective review.

In civil cases, after clarifying the type of litigation with the referring agent, the expert should inquire whether there are statutory definitions, case law, or both that provide relevant definitions or guidance. For example, for disability cases, the definition of disability varies according to the responsible agency (e.g., Veteran's Administration, Social Security Administration, private insurance, or workers' compensation). It is critical that the forensic evaluator know which definitions of disability and work impairment are being applied to the referred case.

Two aspects of civil forensic psychiatric assessments may not be encountered in criminal assessments. First, if retained by the respondent, the evaluator may be asked to prepare a declaration outlining the nature and scope of the proposed forensic assessment of the plaintiff. Common components of such declarations include the length of the assessment, anticipated areas of inquiry, the specific psychological testing or assessment instruments that will be used, and whether the examination will be audio or video recorded. Second, civil psychiatric assessments conducted in the U.S. federal court system must follow Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 70 Rule 26(2)(B) outlines specific requirements in federal court for expert witnesses.

In criminal cases, the law and statutes may vary according to the jurisdiction, and the expert must become familiar with the requisite law in a particular jurisdiction. Forensic psychiatrists should also be aware that when they are retained as independent experts in criminal matters, either by defense or prosecution, a report may not be requested initially, giving the evaluator time to assess the case and formulate an opinion without a concrete work product that could later be used in court. Some jurisdictions protect the content of these assessments from disclosure, but others do not.

6.2. Information Gathering

6.2.1. psychiatric history.

The psychiatric history is an important element in all forensic assessments. First, it can help to establish any pre-existing context for a mental illness, clarifying the diagnosis and substantiating reported symptoms. 36 For example, the evaluee may reveal an episode or illness that was treated, which was not previously known, leading to the discovery of further relevant sources of information. Second, it can provide information that can be examined in light of the psycholegal matter at hand. For example, if a defendant reports that his criminal conduct was the result of his recently hearing voices but he has no history of mental illness, it would be important to assess new-onset symptoms.

The psychiatric history should include reports concerning onset, duration, and severity of symptoms, as well as those requiring hospitalization. When there is a pre-existing illness, the evaluator can assess the impact of a specific event in the longitudinal course of the illness, which may have bearing on causation. Inquiry about response to treatment and remission or improvement, if any, can help in estimating the persistence of impairment. 54

The referring agent may ask whether the evaluee's mental state has stabilized or whether further impairment is likely. To respond to this inquiry, the course of the illness and the response to treatment must be thoroughly reviewed. Disability insurance carriers often ask for an opinion concerning the adequacy of treatment. This necessitates detailed inquiry about the various treatment modalities used, the response to treatment, the adequacy of medication trials (dose and duration), the evaluee's adherence to the medication schedule, the side effects of medication, and the reasons for any discontinuation of treatment. A full history may also suggest the presence of a personality disorder or traits or suggest somatization.

Details of both a formal history of mental health treatment and symptoms that may never have been brought to the attention of a mental health professional should be elicited. Some symptoms may have been treated in the context of nonspecialist medical care (e.g., symptoms of depression or anxiety), and this possibility should not be overlooked.

A criminal or civil case leading to a forensic psychiatric examination may involve an evaluee with no psychiatric history. It is not uncommon for first-episode illnesses to be seen in forensic contexts. 71 In these cases, collateral sources of information, such as observation by family, friends, or other laypersons, may be the only information outside of the defendant's own account. Psychiatric opinions may be viewed with skepticism in court in the absence of psychiatric records corroborating the presence of a mental illness. This eventuality does not preclude the introduction of such data, but it does make it challenging at times, and the evaluator will therefore have to explain the derivation of conclusions and the inherent limitations of the data.

6.2.2. Personal History

The personal history obtained in the course of a forensic assessment is similar to that obtained in clinical settings, although some aspects may warrant extra attention. If the evaluee is intellectually or developmentally disabled or has a physical disability or neurological disorder, prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal illnesses and events may be relevant. Information on the achievement of developmental milestones is important when the evaluee is a child or adolescent. The preceding information is best obtained from, or corroborated by, collateral sources: for instance, parents, other caregivers, school records, or contemporaneous reports.

The history should provide a longitudinal review of personal, academic, social, and occupational functioning. 54 An individual's account of early developmental delays, even in the absence of corroborating collateral information, combined with evidence of functional impairments, may provide information relevant to case formulation. There should be an inquiry about the family of origin, including parents and siblings. The results should establish who raised the evaluee; whether the parents were separated or divorced; whether the family moved frequently; history of domestic violence that the evaluee witnessed; history of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse or neglect; and social service involvement and the reasons for it. Evaluees should be asked how they perceived their childhood and their relationships to parental figures, authority figures, and peers.

Educational history adds to a longitudinal focus on functioning, which is particularly relevant to assessments of occupational impairment. The evaluator should determine whether the evaluee was a good or poor student; moved frequently, interrupting his education; had a learning disability or needed special accommodations; had early behavioral problems or symptoms of conduct disorder; had a history of truancy, suspension, or expulsion; related well to peers and teachers; was involved in school life; had special educational placements or individual educational plans; graduated on time; and attended postsecondary institutions. Finally, the evaluee's academic performance and highest level of education should be determined.

An inquiry about the criteria for conduct disorder in childhood should be conducted. Interviews of the evaluee, a review of school and social agency records, and, if possible, interviews with caregivers are sometimes helpful.

In disability-related cases, the interview data should be sufficient to allow for an assessment of occupational performance. 72 The assessment should determine whether the evaluee is a valued worker who has a stable work history, as evidenced by promotions to positions of increased authority, consistently high job performance ratings, steady pay increases and bonuses, and commendations, or, alternatively, whether the evaluee has a poor work history, as evidenced by dismissal from numerous jobs, difficulty maintaining a job for a significant amount of time, poor job performance ratings, and numerous conflictual relationships with supervisors, coworkers, and members of the public. The evaluee should provide an explanation for probationary periods, discipline, sanctions, and complaints by supervisors, coworkers, and customers and clients. 45 , 73 This information may also be helpful in both civil and criminal assessments.

The forensic evaluator should ask about the character of the evaluee's personal relationships and should obtain thorough marital and religious histories. In many cases, a more detailed sexual history is important (e.g., cases involving sexual offenses and certain civil claims). Inquiry should also be made about the evaluee's financial status, current living arrangement, children, and custody and access arrangements for the children. Responses to questions about divorce, marriage, and the death of parents or other significant figures, can demonstrate the evaluee's capacity to establish and maintain relationships. 36

6.2.3. Previous Trauma

As with psychiatric assessments, forensic assessments include an exploration of previous trauma and coping mechanisms. In forensic assessments, it is particularly important to identify all occurrences and ascertain whether and to what degree they have contributed to the evaluee's presentation and prognosis.

Traumatic events may be of increased significance in particular types of forensic cases. For example, a mother who had been involved in a traumatic car accident as a child might be overprotective in her relationships with her children, and this information would be significant (although not dispositive) in a custody assessment. Similarly, an evaluee who had been disabled by a work-related accident might have PTSD as a result of a second accident, and the inter-relationships between the two events might be of overriding forensic importance. Traumatic experiences may affect the way in which an evaluee interprets others' behavior; a survivor of physical or sexual assault may interpret another's behavior as hostile or aggressive. For example, a female evaluee in a sexual harassment case who was stalked by an ex-boyfriend may be especially offended or unnerved when a male coworker absentmindedly stares in her direction, although the coworker's behavior was not intended to be discriminatory or threatening.

An individual with a history of victimization may be vulnerable to exploitation (such as sexual misconduct by a professional). It should be kept in mind that such a history (and the fact that an evaluee was vulnerable) does not necessarily mean that that the defendant is blameless or that the claimant does not have a legitimate case. It may, however, be relevant to the formulation. 74

In evaluating cases of recovered memory and early trauma, such as sexual abuse in childhood by a family member, the veracity and authenticity of the memories are often in question. 75 In taking a trauma history, the forensic psychiatrist should consider the relevance of particular types of traumatic events in light of the claims being raised. Examples of trauma that may be relevant to a case include physical or sexual abuse or neglect; natural disaster, motor vehicle accident, fire, or other dangerous event; and military combat or violent events. In criminal cases, a positive history of abuse and neglect, verified with collateral sources, may be important in formulating cases, especially those involving sexually anomalous or violent behavior. This history may also be helpful when victimization (e.g., battered-woman syndrome) is relevant to cases that involve mitigation of sentencing or defense of criminal conduct. In these types of cases, traumatic events may have implications for the causes of behavior, treatment planning, risk management, and risk assessment.

6.2.4. Medical History

The evaluator should record all serious illnesses, operations, and accidents as well as details of current medication and related adverse effects. The medication history may include a review of nonpharmacological somatic treatments (e.g., electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation) and over-the-counter, natural, and herbal preparations. The evaluator should note allergies and adverse drug reactions, if relevant.

In civil litigation, general medical causes may produce or exacerbate relevant symptoms. A recent deterioration in the evaluee's condition could be related to a history of traumatic brain injury, concussion, or other injury. The forensic psychiatrist should be alert to the presence of degenerative brain diseases such as multiple sclerosis or dementia, which can easily mimic psychiatric presentations. Episodic confusion and forgetfulness could be associated with postictal states following a seizure. Other medical factors that may be relevant to the forensic assessment include intellectual or developmental disability, narcolepsy, and sleep apnea. Some symptoms, such as complaints of depression and lack of energy, may be due to a remediable medical problem. Sleep apnea, for example, may cause daytime somnolence that prompts an employer to request a fitness-for-duty assessment of an employee on the grounds of suspected substance abuse.

Previous Medical and Surgical History

The psychiatrist should try to determine the interaction between medical conditions and other physical factors and their relationship to the evaluee's current functioning. For example, individuals with substance use disorders have a higher risk of head injury, but withdrawal syndromes or the substance use itself can cause or exacerbate the psychiatric presentation. Furthermore, some evaluees may overstate or exaggerate their level of functioning before the incident in question, particularly in cases in which a head injury is the alleged cause of disability. 76 , 77 As with the psychiatric history, the forensic evaluator should determine what treatment the evaluee received (or is currently receiving) for relevant medical conditions, with a view to assessing whether the condition or the treatment may have contributed to related psychiatric disorders.

Psychiatric symptoms or disorders may have a close relationship to disease processes such as neurologic disorders, including traumatic brain injury and its sequelae; endocrine diseases, such as diabetes or thyroid dysfunction; and a host of other diseases more peripherally related, such as rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, coronary artery disease, anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic pain. Symptoms associated with these conditions may also contribute to the development or exacerbation of substance use disorders. 53 The forensic evaluator should also inquire about current medications and adverse effects that may confound the presentation. The presence of comorbid medical or physical conditions may contribute to significant impairment or disability. 78 They may also contribute to criminal behavior and help the evaluator to understand it. In particular, neurological disorders, such as seizures, the sequelae of traumatic brain injury, and certain endocrine disorders, should always be considered when formulating cases involving impulsivity, violence, or sexually anomalous behavior.

When more information is needed about possible medical causes or factors, additional laboratory testing, imaging studies, collateral verification, or referral for neurological or psychological testing may be indicated. Typically, the psychiatrist completing the forensic assessment need not personally order the tests or make the referrals but may recommend that the referring agent or court arrange these additional assessments (see Section 8, Adjunctive Tests).

6.2.5. Family History

Mental disorders among first-degree relatives may reflect genetic or environmental influences that have also affected the evaluee. The personality of the parents, their financial situation, and the status of the family in the local community are all likely to have affected the environment in which the evaluee grew up. Events occurring within the family may be continuing sources of stress. An evaluee's experience of illness in the family may affect the way in which he presents symptoms.

The evaluator may gather information about the parents, including current age or age at death (and if deceased, the cause), health when alive, occupation, personality, and quality of relationship with the evaluee. For siblings, the evaluator may determine their ages, marital status, occupation, personality, psychiatric illness, and quality of relationship with the evaluee.

The evaluator may also inquire about histories of mental illness and substance abuse within the family, including attempted or completed suicide and hospitalization for psychiatric problems. The presence of symptoms that meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder in one or both parents could provide significant information. A positive family history can help in formulating an accurate diagnosis. The family history can also contribute to the diagnosis of an undetected mental illness that could be resolved through treatment, thereby mitigating or eliminating a current disability. Sometimes the family history reveals potential medical causes of the evaluee's symptoms. For example, the emergence of psychotic symptoms following a traumatic event may be caused by the early stages of Huntington's disease arising independently of the accident.

The family history may yield clues about the evaluee's early development and other psychosocial considerations. A history of psychosis (such as schizophrenia) in the family should prompt the psychiatrist to determine whether the evaluee has any symptoms of a thought disorder and whether these symptoms might have affected his behavior or his perception of what happened during the incident at issue. The presence of severe mental illness in a parent may not only suggest a genetic predisposition, but also raises the question of an absent parent or a chaotic household. Discussions with the evaluee about the current family structure and relationships with significant others can provide information relevant to treatment recommendations and prognostic observations.

An evaluee's family history can be significant in several additional ways, such as helping to explain how an individual developed beliefs about the effects or symptoms of a particular illness. For example, if someone within the evaluee's family has a seizure disorder and the evaluee has witnessed the seizures, the evaluee may consciously or unconsciously reproduce those symptoms. Such facts can be pertinent in cases of suspected malingering or somatization.

In medical malpractice cases, the forensic evaluator should determine whether the treating physician took a full family history and whether relevant family history may have been ignored or overlooked: for example, whether the physician inquired about a family history of suicide when conducting a suicide risk assessment. 79

In general, the forensic psychiatrist should not rely solely on the evaluee's self-reported family history. Whenever possible, the evaluator should use collateral sources of information, which may provide facts or clues that aid in the assessment, such as a family history of suicide or suicide attempts, violent behavior, criminal involvement, and legal difficulties.

6.2.6. Substance Use

The assessment of drug and alcohol use should include, for each substance used, the date of first use; average daily use; and symptoms, signs, and severity of the substance use disorder. For presentence assessments, the evaluee's treatment for a substance use disorder and related problems is likely to be particularly important.

The psychiatrist may not be able to rely on the evaluee's self-report. Evaluees may deny past problematic substance use, and even forthcoming evaluees may not disclose all relevant substance use. Some evaluees may deny problematic use of prescription medications, believing that, since drugs are prescribed, they are not substances in the sense described by the term substance use disorder. Similarly, the evaluee may be unaware of the nature of over-the-counter and prescription drugs. For example, the evaluee may not know that hydrocodone is an opioid with addictive potential. Hence, rather than asking evaluees whether they have taken specific medications or specific classes of drugs, the evaluators can inquire whether evaluees have taken pain pills or anything to help them sleep and investigate further if the response is positive. Some nutraceuticals (such as ginkgo biloba or St. John's wort) may be significant, and the evaluator may learn of their use by asking questions such as, “Are you taking any pills or supplements for your health?”

In civil and criminal cases involving incidents in the evaluee's past, the psychiatrist should also consider the possibility that the evaluee was intoxicated at the time of the incident in question and that substance use may have been involved during the claimant's legal involvement or conflicts. In civil cases, current withdrawal or substance use may also have implications for the evaluee's involvement and participation in the litigation in question. Gendel 80 provided an excellent introduction to the importance of substance use disorders in forensic psychiatry and litigation.

Systematic inquiries are especially helpful in obtaining a full substance use history. As well, self-report measures are available to aid in investigating or screening for substance use disorders. 81 , – , 83

It is especially important to consider whether any of the evaluee's reported symptoms may be related to substance use. For example, in a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, an evaluee, the plaintiff, may report that the defendant's belligerent conduct has caused significant anxiety, but the anxiety symptoms may be primarily attributable to a substance withdrawal syndrome or the use of a particular drug. An individual who drinks during the evening may experience tremors and sweating during the day and may interpret these symptoms as anxiety. On the other hand, anxiety resulting from the defendant's threatening behavior may provoke the evaluee to use sedatives or other substances in an attempt to self-medicate. In either case, evaluees may be guarded and may not be forthcoming about the substance use, fearing that such information may harm their credibility as plaintiffs or damage their case. The evaluator should consider these possibilities in conducting a complete and accurate psychiatric assessment.

A careful review of the evaluee's medical records can be especially helpful. Records from pharmacies or physicians' order forms may identify commonly abused prescription medications. The records may also indicate illnesses, injuries, or treatment related to substance use. A review of the evaluee's medical record could reveal signs of drug or alcohol use disorder, such as increased mean corpuscular volume or elevated liver function enzyme levels. 80 When reviewing these records, the forensic evaluator might also look for signs of pre-existing disability that may stem from substance use, such as head trauma. In a personal-injury suit, the plaintiff could be claiming side effects of traumatic brain injury characterized by memory loss, but his existing memory loss may be a consequence of chronic alcohol use. Similarly, memory difficulties could also derive from intoxication-induced blackouts. An evaluee's substance use may also increase the likelihood of developing a particular psychiatric disorder or symptom or even neuropsychiatric impairment. For example, alcohol may contribute to memory and word-finding deficiencies, whereas chronic marijuana use has been shown to increase the risk of early-onset psychosis. 84

Collateral sources such as treatment records should be cited when possible. Courts are likely to take a skeptical view of an evaluee's description of a positive response to treatment, especially if the offense or claim seems to be related to substance use.

6.2.7. Information Gathering in Criminal Cases

In obtaining various types of histories, there are special considerations in criminal cases. These constitute mainly differences in emphasis, depending on the forensic evaluee's clinical presentation and the offense.

The assessment should note neurological conditions, head injuries, seizures, and any illnesses that led to substantial periods of separation from the family. From the personal history, the nature, source, and character of family arguments probably carry more significance than their simple occurrence. Early risk factors for conduct, such as inconsistent parenting, neglectful or severe discipline, absent parents, and parental substance use should be subject to inquiry. 85 Parental unemployment and marital problems, including family violence, are particularly important. 86 School performance can offer information concerning attitude toward authority, attentional deficits, and intelligence level. Occupational history can provide insight into the evaluee's personality, including attitude toward authority. Repeated terminations of employment can reflect aggressiveness, antiauthority attitudes, paranoia, or awkwardness, although the evaluator should not assume that this is the case. Alternatively, a decline in the status of jobs held can be a sign of developing mental illness or of substance use disorder.

Particular judgment is required in eliciting a sexual history. In certain cases, detailed information is necessary (see also Section 11.4, Risk Assessment for Sexual Offenses), but in others it may be inappropriate to follow this line of questioning. As with occupational history, a client's relationship history may provide clues relating to traits such as jealousy, suspiciousness, or violent propensities, but cannot be taken as indicative without further information.

In criminal assessments, the history of offenses by the evaluee may be included. Many evaluees have extensive arrest and conviction records. In describing these, a balance must be struck between completeness and excessive detail. Generally, the offense history should include the types and number of offenses. Individual charges may be described, or, if there are several, they may be grouped (e.g., “The defendant has been convicted four times of robbery, and six times of assault and battery, dating back to 2002. Of the assault convictions, one last year involved the use of a weapon.”) When clustering the offenses together, the evaluator should provide enough detail to describe patterns that are discernible in the nature and timing of the offenses. In addition to the types of offenses, it is often helpful to include their outcomes, length of incarceration (“incarcerated 2 years after being found guilty in a jury trial”), and defaults or probation violations. This approach may be useful in revealing and setting out the length of time in the community before recidivism, or, alternatively, in delineating periods of stability.

In addition to the usual psychiatric history and interview, for criminal forensic assessments, the interview of the evaluee must include the elements that focus on the criminal psycholegal question at hand. As a result, the interview is structured around the purpose of the assessment and the forensic question. Criminal assessments may require interviews that explore present-state examinations (e.g., competence to stand trial) or that elucidate past mental states (e.g., criminal responsibility and competence to waive Miranda rights). 85

In the latter case, the psychiatric history should be related to temporal elements in the criminal assessment. For example, the interview might ascertain that an evaluee was gradually developing manic symptoms in the weeks before an alleged offense, leading to the hypothesis that, at the time of the offense, the defendant was manic with psychotic features. When the evaluee is interviewed several weeks later, after the initiation of treatment, the manic symptoms may or may not be evident.

In this regard, the timing of the interview may in some cases make a critical difference. Hence, in certain cases it is important to attempt to interview the evaluee as soon as possible after the crime, to observe the evaluee's mental state as close as possible to the alleged commission of the crime. Obtaining the interview close to the arrest can be a challenge, because access to evaluees depends on when the referral is made and logistical factors.

Depending on the type of criminal forensic assessment, there may be a need for more or less information related to the circumstances leading to the criminal charge(s). Thus, more information regarding the index offense is needed to determine criminal responsibility or to aid in sentencing, whereas less is needed to determine competence to stand trial or to proceed pro se . When more information is needed, it is as important to review the story from the evaluee's perspective as it is to have access to the case against him. For that matter, in any assessment related to mental status at a particular time point (e.g., competence to waive Miranda rights), the evaluator should understand the history and context of the time in question and relate it to the thoughts, perceptions, feelings, and psychological functioning of the evaluee at that time.

These point-in-time analyses are best conducted by asking the evaluee to reflect on the months, weeks, days, hours, and even minutes before, during, and after the offense. The need for such detail is one of the reasons that forensic evaluations are often more time-consuming than regular psychiatric consultations. Different styles of approach in the interview can be used in gathering the required information. The evaluator can first ask for a full, uninterrupted account of the events in question, followed by a secondary review with questions probing for detail, consistencies, contradictions, and relevant facts. Another approach is to allow a first broad-brush account and then gather a full account with questions interjected, followed by a third, more detailed, full account. Sometimes it is necessary to interrupt an evaluee who may want to move on to other subjects, to ensure that he accurately describes his memories of to the time point of interest. An evaluee may resist this process, tending instead to gloss over the details. It is the role of the evaluator to keep the evaluee on task, even if it is sometimes difficult for the evaluee to stay focused. With any approach, it is important to avoid leading questions and to ensure that the evaluee can convey his story without suggestion. Suggestibility may be particularly relevant when interviewing children and persons with intellectual disabilities (see Section 10.2, Child and Adolescent Forensic Assessments, and Section 10.3, Assessments of Persons with Intellectual Disability).

For assessments in which a full, detailed self-description of the crime would not always be needed (e.g., competence to stand trial or to waive Miranda rights), the evaluator may nonetheless have reason to ask about the evaluee's account of the alleged crime in general terms. For example, in an evaluation of competence to stand trial, the evaluator may want to assess the defendant's ability to provide a rational account of the charges and to appreciate the nature of the allegations, to elucidate whether the evaluee has the capacity to confirm or refute the allegations when instructing the defense attorney and when appearing in court.

When performing assessments regarding competence to waive Miranda rights, the evaluator must delineate psychiatric symptoms and state of mind at the time that the rights were presented or identify chronic deficits that affect the evaluee's capacity to appreciate or understand the warning. Making this determination requires a history of psychiatric symptoms before and right up to the time that the evaluee waived his rights. Observations made immediately afterward by professionals or lay witnesses should be obtained and taken into account. It is often helpful to question the evaluee regarding any statements or contemporaneous observations made, to understand fully and recreate retrospectively the evaluee's mental state at the time, in relation to competence. 87 Competence of youths to waive Miranda rights is a common concern, and there are adjunctive instruments available for juvenile populations that an evaluator may find helpful in focusing the inquiry.

The assessment of competence to stand trial requires specific questions regarding whether the evaluee is competent to assist or instruct counsel and can participate in making decisions during the instant legal case. This area is comprehensively reviewed in the Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial. 36

6.2.8. Aid in Sentencing Evaluations

Mental health professionals can lend guidance in clinical matters regarding sentencing in a case. These evaluations are referred to differently in various jurisdictions and may be called aid in sentencing, presentencing, or probation evaluations. There are several principles of sentencing that may be articulated and emphasized differently in different jurisdictions, and the expert should be mindful that it is up to the court to weigh these. In addressing one of the principles of sentencing (i.e., rehabilitation), mental health experts typically offer opinions on the treatment needs and treatability of the offender. The expert may address whether the custodial environment could perpetuate the disordered state and therefore militate against the goals of sentencing. Such evaluations may include whether a particular treatment is available in custody, and whether this treatment might reduce the likelihood of recidivism. However, in some jurisdictions, the matter of treatment while in custody is not addressed. The expert may offer an opinion on whether successful treatment furthers the goal of making the community safer. Another matter is culpability at the time of the crime, based on an analysis of mental health or substance use factors that may have been contributory (even if they were insufficient for an insanity defense), thereby mitigating culpability. The expert can also assist the court by assessing the risk of reoffending, violence, or suicide. 6 Depending on the jurisdiction (e.g., federal versus state), there may be a need to contact a referral source, such as probation, to clarify the questions the court may want to have answered.

Special considerations in sentencing include young-offender statutes that require consideration of developmental disabilities; sexual offenses, which may involve a period of civil commitment after the sentence; and special assessments, which determine the appropriateness of a drug court, mental health court, or other special program for an offender with a mental disorder. The evaluator in the latter case must understand the admission criteria, referral process, 88 and focused goals of participation in these special programs, to determine whether a defendant is a good candidate for any of them. In some jurisdictions (such as Canada), mental health experts commonly address deterrence in presentencing evaluations. The evaluation may guide the court in determining whether an individual who has a mental disorder, or the diagnostic group to which an evaluee belongs (for example, people with schizophrenia), would be deterred by a sentence. 89 A thorough forensic psychiatric evaluation should not include an actual sentencing recommendation; that responsibility falls to the judge. 90 Rather, the evaluation must take into account the nature of the offender's mental disorder and the nuances of the sentencing options in helping to formulate opinions.

6.2.9. Death Penalty

The death penalty presents an ethics-related dilemma for forensic psychiatrists, because involvement in a case that may lead to a death sentence may conflict with strongly held beliefs about its morality. Some psychiatrists have resolved this dilemma by refusing to participate in any way in a potential death-penalty case. Others have drawn the line at a point in the legal process where they feel involvement is equivalent to participation in the infliction of capital punishment. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association, in consultation with the American Psychiatric Association (APA), has developed an ethics policy providing guidance for psychiatrists and physicians who deal with death row inmates in either a forensic or a treatment role. 91 These guidelines, which have also been adopted by the APA, should be consulted when the psychiatrist is considering treatment to restore competency for an inmate to be executed or is unsure of what constitutes unethical participation in an execution. One survey showed that most physicians were unaware of these guidelines. 92

In different states and jurisdictions, the availability of competent legal representation varies greatly. Some states have special capital defense units as part of the public defender's office; other states assign private attorneys who may never have handled a capital case. Although some funding should be available for evaluations by experts, the amount of funding also varies considerably in different states. Once a psychiatrist accepts a case for evaluation, there may be a contractual obligation to complete that evaluation.

The criteria for competency to be executed have had to be defined since the Supreme Court held in Ford v. Wainwright that execution of the “insane”, as people with severe mental illness are referred to in the decision, is constitutionally impermissible. 93 The Court was unable to agree on a standard for incompetence, but Justice Powell, in a concurring opinion, offered the following, “I would hold that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it” (Ref. 93 , p 422). This standard became the de facto one in most states until 2007, when the Supreme Court, in Panetti v. Quarterman , stated that, “the Ford opinions nowhere indicate that delusions are irrelevant to comprehension or awareness if they so impair the prisoner's concept of reality that he cannot reach a rational understanding of the reason for the execution” (Ref. 94 , p 958). Thus, the Court held that a “prisoner's awareness of the state's rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it” (Ref. 94 , p 959). However, the Court did not go on to define a specific competence standard. How much of a difference Panetti has made has depended entirely on how broadly the courts construe rationality. It is difficult to determine whether a prisoner rationally understands his punishment if it is unclear what renders a perception rational or irrational. A narrow conception of rationality would result in the execution of individuals who do not truly understand their sentences, whereas an expansive view would result in overprotection, shielding individuals who are capable of understanding the retributive dimensions of their execution. Although the Supreme Court left open the possibility that psychiatrists could be the final decision-makers in competence determinations, the AMA Ethics Guidelines prohibit that role. 91

Another facet of death penalty cases involves a jury's deciding whether the sentence is warranted after it has found the defendant guilty of a capital felony. This decision is made in a separate sentencing hearing involving a review of aggravating and mitigating factors. Psychiatrists are often asked to evaluate the defendant to explore what might be viewed as mitigation. These broad-ranging evaluations review an individual's history in great detail so that factors such as child abuse or neglect, even if unrelated to the crime, can be considered by the jury. These evaluations should therefore be thorough and often include psychological testing, brain scans, and collateral interviews of individuals who knew the defendant. In some cases, psychiatrists have testified about the future dangerousness of a defendant, whereas in others, they have been asked about the methodology of such risk assessments for the defense.

During the mandatory appeal of these cases, it is also common for psychiatrists be asked to review the defendant's history to ensure that no psychiatric factor has been overlooked by the original trial attorneys, who may not have asked for a psychiatric evaluation. This assessment may include a retrospective chart review, with or without an interview.

6.2.10. Information-Gathering in Civil Assessments

Personal-injury cases involving psychic trauma generate a frequently encountered type of civil assessment. In such cases, important areas of inquiry regarding the evaluee's claim include a detailed description of the alleged precipitating factors and their time course; the duration and amount of exposure to any alleged trauma; and the evaluee's thoughts, feelings, and behavior before, during, and immediately after the traumatic event. Reviewing the evaluee's specific claims outlined in the complaint and other legal documents may assist in addressing the concerns that are the focus of the litigation. In addition, a spouse or significant other, family members, or witnesses to the event can provide additional information on the evaluee's alleged exposure to trauma. This information can be obtained through direct interviews, depositions, or other available records. Any discrepancies in the evaluee's account of circumstances may be clarified through collateral records or statements.

Content of Assessment: Civil (Psychic Injury)

After gathering the evaluee's account, the psychiatrist should take a detailed history regarding the emotional impact, if any, of the alleged incident or trauma and the reasons for the evaluee's disability, if any. The effects of the incident can be reviewed in the immediate period (from the day of to a month after the incident); the medium term (more than one month to one year after the incident); and the long term (more than one year after the incident). When evaluating the claimed psychological effects of the alleged incident, the evaluator should carefully review collateral records (such as psychiatric, medical, and rehabilitation records or newspaper accounts), to assess the symptoms, their severity, and their time course. Questioning the evaluee about incidents and inconsistencies in the collateral contribution may aid in coming to conclusions. Areas to be covered include psychological and pharmacological treatments, adherence to treatment recommendations, reported treatment failures, adverse consequences of treatment interventions, factors that precipitate or aggravate symptoms, and measures that have been successful in relieving symptoms. Disability assessments generally require an evaluation of how the claimed psychological symptoms (such as a depressed mood or impaired concentration) affect the person's ability to work.

The evaluee's social functioning is important when assessing claims of emotional damage. Areas to explore include the status of current personal relationships, participation in exercise and hobbies, daily activities on each day of the week, recent or planned vacations, and scheduled activities (such as educational classes, attendance at religious institutions, and social groups). Regular activities, including those of daily living (such as cleaning, shopping, cooking, paying bills, driving or taking transportation, and maintaining a residence), are likewise relevant. The evaluator should compare the evaluee's current level of social functioning to the level before and immediately after the alleged incident. Finally, other potential social stressors that may independently cause emotional distress should be thoroughly explored. Such social stressors include loss of a family member or loved one, separation or difficulties in a relationship, family problems, criminal arrest, or exposure to an unrelated traumatic incident.

Evaluation of Social Functioning

Current occupational functioning should be reviewed when assessing a person's claimed emotional damage or disability. Specific questions to review with the evaluee include occupational activities and sources of income, attempts to return to work, and perceived emotional or situational barriers to resuming work. The evaluator should obtain a detailed employment history to determine whether an alleged incident has resulted in a subsequently claimed occupational impairment. Important areas include jobs and assigned duties, length of employment for each job, ability to work with others and accept or provide supervision, reasons for leaving employment, disciplinary actions related to employment, prior civil lawsuits regarding employment, and previous claims for occupational disability (such as workers' compensation, social security disability insurance, or private disability insurance).

Evaluation of Occupational Functioning

In another area of civil assessment, disability and fitness-for-duty evaluations, an expanded inquiry into the evaluee's educational and employment histories is necessary. 54 , 73 , 95 Evaluees should be asked to describe problematic situations encountered in the workplace or in attempts to obtain employment. An evaluee's own account of work-related functioning can be helpful when assessing claims of previous high functioning or when interpersonal problems are involved. 54

Evaluees may be referred for fitness-for-duty assessments inappropriately. The evaluee should have the opportunity to explain any work-related conflict that may provide an alternative explanation for the behavior that triggered the assessment. 96 The evaluator should gather information about previous workers' compensation or public or private disability claims, including length of time out of work and whether any accommodations were necessary upon return.

In disability or fitness-for-duty assessments, sufficient information about functioning in the current job should be gathered to relate an impairment to a specific job responsibility. A formal job description obtained from the employer can be used to define essential tasks. The evaluee should be asked to provide descriptions of situations in which occupational functioning was impaired. Lists of work functions can be helpful in organizing inquiries about possibly related impairments. 54 It is important to correlate the essential job requirements with the evaluee's claimed or observed impairments.

Military history and juvenile and adult legal histories are especially helpful in assessing risk of violence, which is often a facet of fitness-for-duty assessments. Military history should include the type of discharge and a description of disciplinary actions, if any. The evaluee's litigation history should also be explored in the assessment.

6.2.11. Assessment of Specific Civil Competence

Forensic psychiatrists are often retained to assess the psychiatric competence or capacity of an evaluee to engage in a specific act. In general competence, there are essential elements that should be considered, including the evaluee's awareness of the situation, factual understanding of the problems involved, appreciation of the likely consequences, ability to manipulate information rationally, ability to function in his own environment, and ability to perform the tasks demanded of him. Specific competence entails four elements, some of which are the same as general competence: communication of a choice sustained long enough to implement it, factual understanding of the problems involved, appreciation of the situation and its consequences, and rational manipulation of information. 97

Some of these specific competence assessments may involve consent to treatment, 98 guardianship evaluations, 99 testamentary capacity, 100 financial competence, and competence to enter into a contract. 97

The forensic psychiatric examination of competence follows the general principles of other assessments and includes a thorough psychiatric assessment, with an interview and a mental status examination, if possible, and an examination of collateral information. An exploration of how psychiatric diagnosis and various symptoms may interfere with any or all of the types of competence is essential.

Competence to consent to or refuse treatment involves an assessment of whether the evaluee can give informed consent. 98 This evaluation includes whether the evaluee understands information regarding the risks, benefits, and alternatives to treatment. Further, it is important to assess whether there is a mental disorder that interferes with the evaluee's decision-making capacity. Finally, his consent must be free and voluntary. This process requires that the treatment team disclose sufficient information to the evaluee. 97

An assessment of an evaluee's competence to manage financial affairs requires questioning about his awareness of his financial situation, as well as broader questioning about areas that may be affected by specific psychiatric symptoms. For example, a delusion that some organization is trying to steal an evaluee's money may affect financial decision-making. Having established the presence of delusions, it would still be necessary, as in this example, for the psychiatrist to identify a clear link between the delusion or other psychopathology and the financial decision-making task.

Evaluations for testamentary capacity (competence to compose a will) are generally retrospective, since the evaluee in most cases is a decedent whose will is being contested postmortem. The evaluator should make note, if writing a report or testifying, of the inability to conduct a personal interview and the resulting limitations of the assessment. The assessment relies on a retrospective assembly of information concerning the evaluee's mental state at the time of writing the will. It is important to attempt to assess whether the individual had the capacity to be aware of the value of the estate. A pertinent question is whether the evaluee was having delusions, which could directly affect his capacity to compose a realistic will. Another concern is whether the testator was subjected to undue influence: that is, was directly and deliberately manipulated or deceived by a party. The evaluator may be in a position to comment on whether a psychiatric condition or symptom(s) made the testator susceptible to manipulation that could legally constitute undue influence.

6.3. Mental Status Examination

A thorough mental status examination should be performed in most types of assessments. Information from direct inquiry related to aspects of functioning (e.g., basic cognitive assessments) adds to clinical observations and general interview data. The examination will elicit information about the frequency and severity of psychiatric symptoms, including mood, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, thought content, thought form, delusional beliefs, perceptual disturbances, cognition, and concentration and relevant comments, insights, and judgment. 36 The mental status assessment is usually helpful in formulating a diagnosis and in assessing the evaluee's strengths and vulnerabilities resulting from psychiatric symptoms or cognitive impairments. In considering the presence of malingering, the evaluator may focus on the inconsistencies between reporting and behavior (see Section 10.5, Malingering and Dissimulation). 36

Aspects of a Mental Status Examination

Particular care is necessary in addressing several aspects of mental status that are important in a criminal forensic assessment. Ideas of harming others are sometimes revealed through a series of questions relating to troubling or intrusive thoughts. Direct questions may still be needed, especially if a client gives indirect or evasive answers. Delusions can be difficult to ascertain and are often best elicited by using cues from the history or by inquiring about the possible causes of the symptoms. Testing the strength of delusional beliefs during an assessment, particularly when the interview is conducted in a correctional facility, requires tact and careful listening to the defendant, who may become argumentative or aggressive.

Some aspects of psychiatric phenomenology that are of significance in forensic assessments are listed in Summary 6.3 . In other respects, the assessment should address the same aspects that are assessed in general psychiatric settings.

The observations of hospital staff or of professionals in a correctional setting often complement the evaluee's presentation in the course of an interview; hence, any such useful observations may be included in the report. The evaluator should consider that evaluees detained in a correctional facility may not have undergone a detailed mental status examination, and it is not unusual for a forensic assessment to reveal genuine symptoms and signs that have not been identified in that setting.

• 7. Diagnosis

It is important to develop a diagnostic formulation that explains the evaluee's symptoms and signs and their relevance to the psycholegal question at issue. If symptoms and signs allow a diagnosis that is in accordance with the current categories of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), it should be so assigned. In North America, the DSM is the most frequently used reference, is familiar to attorneys and courts, and should therefore be used wherever possible. A discussion of the current diagnosis may be included in the report, depending on jurisdictional practices and the legal standards for an evaluation type. When diagnoses are offered, the expert should outline the reasoning leading to the current diagnosis and why it may differ from previous diagnoses on file.

There have been concerns about the misuse of DSM diagnoses in areas of litigation, as information conveyed by a diagnosis may not meet the requirements necessary to arrive at a legal decision. 101 The fifth edition of the DSM (DSM-5), in its “Cautionary Statement for Forensic Use of DSM-5” (Ref. 102 , p 25), warns experts and others that a specific diagnosis may not be consistent with the legal criteria that may be used to draw conclusions relevant to a particular legal standard. The statement continues by advising that additional information be elicited about the evaluee's functional impairments that may be related to the specific legal standard. Experts are advised to read this disclaimer and take note of it. The relationship between diagnosis and impairment is complex, and there can be psychiatric and legal overemphasis and reliance on diagnosis rather than on the assessment of functioning. 101 Providing a DSM diagnosis does not substitute for conducting a careful functional assessment. In personal injury litigation, assessment of damages should not be based on diagnosis alone, but rather on pre- and postincident functioning and whether a functional impairment was causally related to a defendant's conduct. Special caution is warranted when considering a diagnosis of PTSD in the context of personal injury cases. Unlike most of the alternatives, a diagnosis of PTSD assumes a causal event that was most likely the contributing factor. 103 Causality is also an area where the criteria for diagnoses may shift over time, necessitating reference to different versions of the DSM (e.g., DSM-IV-TR 104 versus DSM-5). If malingering or exaggeration of symptoms is suspected, the formal diagnosis (if any) requires careful consideration of alternative explanations for the evaluee's presentation. 105 Furthermore, a plaintiff may have subthreshold symptoms but still have impairment or, conversely, have a DSM diagnosis but little impairment. 101

Regardless of these reservations, as noted elsewhere in this document, competence evaluations are point-in-time assessments, in which forensic evaluators should attempt to make a DSM or ICD diagnosis, depending on the type of evaluation and the jurisdictional requirements. For example, in evaluations of competence to stand trial, most states require a diagnostic assessment. 36 Nevertheless, the evaluator must concentrate on the evaluee's contemporaneous level of functioning rather than rely on a specific diagnosis that is insufficient to reach a conclusion regarding the legal standard of competence. Once the diagnosis is made, it is important to consider the nexus between the diagnosis and the psycholegal questions. For example, many disability insurance carriers require a multiaxial DSM diagnosis, although this may change with the application of DSM-5. If there is insufficient information for a definitive diagnosis, a differential diagnosis with an explanation of the diagnostic uncertainty should be provided. 101

• 8. Adjunctive Tests

8.1. Introduction

Forensic assessments are strengthened by independent data, including results of standardized tests, which can augment clinical forensic evaluations in some cases. Evaluators should be aware that standardized tests have varying degrees of reliability. When a psychologist has performed the test and scoring and provides a report, unless the psychiatrist has specialized training, he should not claim expertise in the area. Rather, the psychiatrist in this situation should have a general understanding of the use of the individual test. A psychologist can be called to provide testimony, if necessary. By contrast, when testing is performed by a psychiatrist, a greater degree of knowledge about the test is required. Furthermore, some new instruments being used in the field, such as those for risk assessment, do not require psychological training, per se , for their administration or interpretation, but their use may nonetheless require specific training. In criminal contexts, adjunctive testing may include forensic assessment instruments (FAIs) specific to the forensic question at hand (see Summary 8.1 ). Several measures that assess aspects of competence to stand trial in either general or specific (e.g., developmentally disabled) populations have been devised. 106 , 107 In addition, Rogers 108 has created an instrument for assessment of criminal responsibility. The use of FAIs is not required, and no FAI is universally used in any type of forensic assessment. Evaluators who choose to use these instruments should be familiar with their applicability to each type of assessment.

Sample Forensic Assessment Instruments for Competence to Stand Trial

8.2. Psychological Testing

It is important that psychological testing be conducted by an examiner with the level of training and professional qualifications required by the test developers and that terms of reporting be established before testing begins. In some cases, the forensic psychiatrist subcontracts psychological testing; in other cases, a psychologist may conduct psychological testing independently or as part of a hospital team. It is important that the evaluee understand for whom the tester is working and to whom the examiner will report. As well, the examiner must adhere to the specific rules for use of the test. For example, forensic experts should not administer a psychological test to evaluees outside the standardization sample of the test (e.g., the Static 99 cannot be used to assess risk in female sex offenders). 117

Psychological testing can be subclassified by the required qualifications of the administrator (psychologist versus nonpsychologist versus trained specialist versus self), the psychological properties being assessed (e.g., neuropsychology versus personality), and whether the instrument is under copyright (proprietary versus nonproprietary). Testing without a specific question is rarely productive. For example, conducting intelligence testing on a university professor may make no sense. If dementia is in the differential diagnosis, formal neuropsychological testing combined with focused diagnostic testing to identify the cause of the suspected dementia may be a better use of resources.

Obstructions to the validity of the results of a forensic psychiatric assessment include deception, malingering, simulation, and dissimulation. Psychological testing may be useful in identifying the presence of such misrepresentations (see Section 10.5, Malingering and Dissimulation). 118

Selected tests are administered by a psychiatrist and may provide useful information pertinent to an assessment. The use of psychiatric rating scales can help quantify symptoms and measure changes in severity. Many are accompanied by a manual that provides reliability and validity measures for the scale; hence, such scales lend a measure of objectivity to the assessment. A full discussion of these scales is outside the scope of this Guideline.

8.3. Actuarial Tests and Structured Professional Judgment

The quintessential actuarial tests are those established by the life insurance industry to assign insurance rates to its clients. Actuarial tables are designed to distinguish people with long life expectancies from those with short ones. The tests are highly effective because they are based on large samples that represent the population to which the individual belongs. The accuracy of actuarial tables decreases as the size of the sample decreases and as the individual differs from the standardization sample.

By contrast, most forensic actuarial instruments are based on smaller samples with unique characteristics, which may limit their generalizability. Therefore, experts should be aware of how closely the evaluee resembles the sample on which a given test is based. Instruments are valid only if the individual resembles the group for which the scale was developed. Evaluators should be aware of both the strengths and limitations of actuarial tests, given that the tests support probabilistic statements concerning large groups, but do not permit determinations about the risk of recidivism, guilt, or innocence of an individual or support statements about the individual's predicted actions in the ensuing years. Claims made for tests on web sites established by the tests' authors should be treated with caution. Forensic psychiatrists should review both supportive and critical peer-reviewed literature concerning any actuarial instrument that they use to formulate their opinions. They should also be prepared to articulate, in testimony or in a report, why they have not used instruments that other experts have employed.

Structured professional judgment methods have evolved as a response to the acknowledged limitations of actuarial tests. This approach incorporates clinical judgment without assigning numeric probabilities. 119

As actuarial scales and guides to clinical assessment proliferate, it is useful to consult the scientific literature as well as sites that provide links to information about specific instruments (e.g., the Psychopathy Checklist, Revised, 120 the Static-99R, 117 the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, 121 the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal, 122 and the Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management-20 119 ). Again, experts are cautioned against relying solely on web sites of developers of the instruments. Attending training sessions on the use of these guides is helpful and may be required for certification to use the instrument (see Section 11, Risk Assessment). 123 , 124 A useful review text on this subject is available. 125

8.4. Physical Examination

General physical examinations are typically conducted as part of the routine protocol during hospital admission to hospitals, including forensic assessment or rehabilitation units. Although forensic psychiatrists have training in medical examination, they are typically consulted or retained to provide an expert psychiatric opinion. In most cases, the physical examination is best conducted by medical colleagues, and the psychiatrists order, analyze, interpret and synthesize the results based on their broad medical training. For example, if the forensic psychiatrist's opinion depends on a hypothesis that the evaluee has undiagnosed myxedema, it is advisable to seek some comment or confirmation by an independent endocrinologist who is knowledgeable in thyroid disease. However, in some cases, examinations such as those to detect tardive dyskinesia or cogwheel rigidity would be performed by the psychiatrist.

8.5. Clinical Testing and Imaging

Clinical tests such as electroencephalography and neuroimaging are attractive to the legal world because they give the impression of independent objective evidence of an altered brain. Forensic psychiatrists should be familiar with both current and past techniques used to assess neurophysiological function; more important, they should be aware of the substantial limitations that have been ascribed to these methods to date. A standard reference textbook can assist in putting a visually dramatic finding in context. 126 In some circumstances, consultation with a colleague expert in the specific area may be desirable. Similarly, if there is an unexpected or incidental finding, it is wise to obtain independent verification from an expert in neuroimaging. The relevance (if any) of such findings to the legal questions in a case should be carefully evaluated in the context of the overall assessment.

8.6. Penile Plethysmography and Visual Reaction Time Screening

Penile plethysmography (PPG) and visual reaction time (VRT) are examples of tests based on validated psychophysiologic observations: in penile volume and circumference increase when men are sexually aroused; and evaluees tend to look longer at pictures of people whom they find sexually attractive than at pictures of those to whom they are not attracted. There is a substantial body of peer-reviewed discussion of PPG 127 , 128 and some literature on VRT. 129 Experts who use either method to assess sexual preference should be aware that neither test is designed to determine guilt or innocence. 128 , 130 These tests are currently of most use in assessing suitability for treatment and in tracking response to treatment, but are also useful in assessing anomalous sexual preference, particularly for risk assessments. 131 PPG is available in both Canada and the United States, but with different stimulus sets, as sets used in Canada that involve children cannot be used in the United States because of concerns that such material might violate prohibitions against possessing child pornography.

For PPG, reliability and validity statistics have been published, but can vary between laboratories and among test stimuli. 132 , 133 This test should be conducted and interpreted only by qualified specialists, with the voluntary, informed consent of the evaluee.

VRT is another test that has gained some, if not widespread, acceptability in the field. 132 It has the advantage of being administered fairly easily by a trained administrator using only a laptop computer. Recent research has suggested acceptable sensitivity and specificity, and it has been ruled admissible in some (but not all) jurisdictions. 134 Some contend that VRT measures can easily be voluntarily manipulated by the evaluee, especially since the mechanism of the test is widely available on the Internet.

Adjunctive Testing

• 9. Opinions

Once all pertinent information has been obtained, the forensic evaluator formulates an opinion. The opinion should be substantiated and its foundation clearly delineated. 8 The evaluator should keep in mind that the scientific foundation for the opinion may have to withstand a Daubert 135 challenge in court. In other words, the evaluator should ensure that the scientific technique used is reliable and generally accepted, among other factors. 1

Many forensic evaluators provide a caveat that their opinions are based on the information currently available and that additional information may require further consideration and therefore could alter the opinion rendered. When an opinion cannot be rendered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the referral source should be notified before the evaluator writes a report. In some cases, further information or testing may be needed before the evaluator can render a final opinion. The referring source may nevertheless ask for a preliminary opinion. Although these opinions can be problematic and are not generally recommended, if a preliminary opinion is given, its limitations should be explained and the need for further information described.

9.1. Nature of Psychic Harm

In civil cases alleging psychic harm, the evaluee typically argues that psychiatric symptoms or current disability is due to a tortious event that is the subject of the litigation. A forensic psychiatrist can help courts to address whether the alleged negligent act or omission proximately caused the claimed injury, but the psychiatrist should be careful not to attempt to address questions beyond the specific one(s) asked by the court or retaining attorney. 136

Common cases in which psychic harm may be at issue include allegations of disability due to medical intervention, discrimination or harassment in employment, or PTSD or related illness due to a traumatic event. 136 In cases in which intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress is alleged, the forensic psychiatrist is typically asked to assess and describe the evaluee's level of disability, which can help the court evaluate the level of damages. 45 Gerbasi 137 recommends paying special attention to somatization, pre-existing conditions, diagnosable personality disorders, and malingering (see Section 10.5, Malingering and Dissimulation).

Psychic Harm and Special Concerns

The evaluee may have a genuine psychiatric disorder that is nonetheless unrelated to the alleged injury. 76 For example, the claimant in a personal-injury lawsuit may have had a major depressive disorder before the accident that is the subject of the litigation, with no change in the severity of symptoms after the event. In another example, a claimant may have a genetic predisposition toward developing a particular mental illness, and finding whether that illness was triggered by the event that is the subject of the litigation usually requires a multifactorial analysis. The psychiatrist should also consider whether the litigation may be affecting the claimant's psychiatric symptoms. 76 , 138 Hence, the forensic examiner must consider multiple potential causes to determine what role, if any, the tortious event played.

If an evaluee has a pre-existing illness that was exacerbated or worsened by the tortious event, the court may require evidence that the change was causally linked to the event. During the assessment, the forensic psychiatrist should consider differential diagnoses and be prepared to testify concerning the reason for the diagnosis vis-à-vis other possible diagnoses that would be more or less favorable to the evaluee's case.

9.2. Disability

For disability determinations, opinions should address the link between signs and symptoms, if any, of a mental illness and occupational impairment. 139 In workplace-related disability claims, the assessment is conducted to answer one of the following concerns: “[w]hether the employee has a psychiatric diagnosis, and if so, its duration, symptoms, and prognosis; the etiology or causation of the disorder and, specifically, its relationship to work; and whether the disorder has resulted in a work-related impairment” (Ref. 72 , p 307). For determining the degree of impairment, the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment can be an invaluable resource, and some disability determinations, such as examinations for workers' compensation, require or recommend its use in the assessment and report. 45 , 76 , 140

Disability insurance carriers generally provide a list of questions for the expert, and the report should respond to these specific concerns. 54 The questions may vary, but they ordinarily center on whether the evaluee is impaired as a result of mental illness or substance abuse to the degree that occupational functioning is compromised. 54 , 73 The first question is usually about the diagnosis and its foundation, including the signs and symptoms that support the diagnosis. The psychiatric history can be used as supporting evidence, as well. The next questions normally deal with the relationship between the symptoms and signs of the mental illness and the degree of impairment, if any, in occupational functioning. Many carriers ask about evidence of residual functioning. The evaluator should review the evaluee's job description to respond with examples relevant to the specific occupation. 54

If the evaluee's employer has a same-occupation policy (a policy that mandates that the evaluee cannot be moved to a different type of employment), then there will be a question about restrictions or limitations in relation to the essential tasks of that occupation. A restriction is an activity that an evaluee should not engage in because of the risk of exacerbating or precipitating psychiatric symptoms, whereas a limitation is an activity that an evaluee cannot engage in because of psychiatric symptoms (documented loss of function). There may be questions about how long the impairments are likely to last, whether further improvement is likely if treatment is optimized, and whether the evaluee has reached maximum medical improvement. The side effects of medication, the relapsing nature of an illness, the effect of the workplace on the disorder, and the presence of a substance use disorder should be considered. 54

Disability insurance policies may require claimants to be receiving treatment appropriate for their condition. Therefore, questions about the adequacy of treatment are usually posed. The evaluator may be asked to make recommendations about optimizing treatment and to offer an opinion about whether a medical condition could be affecting the response to treatment and whether further assessment would be helpful. 54 The additional assessment may include recommendations for psychological or neuropsychological testing and for medical testing or consultation.

There are likely to be questions about secondary gain, exaggeration, and malingering. 54 , 72 Alternative causes of current claimed impairment should be considered. 73 Evaluees may have a history of positive motivation to return to work, reflected by unsuccessful attempts to return, use of strategies to optimize performance, and efforts to find alternative, less stressful positions. 72 Others may have taken the position, from the onset of symptoms, that they can never work and may have applied for long-term disability insurance before receiving any treatment, or they may not have been compliant with treatment. The evaluator should summarize information about job performance, attitude about working in current and previous jobs, consistency between reported symptoms and descriptions of daily activities, and the results of psychological and neuropsychological tests in assessing secondary gain, exaggeration, or malingering. If there are no specific questions, then the directions given above can be used as a framework for organizing the overall opinion.

9.3. Fitness for Duty

As for other types of reports, a fitness-for-duty (also called fitness-to-work or fitness-to-practice) report should address the referral questions. The employer is seeking information about whether the employee is currently fit for duty, whether the employee can return to work with or without restrictions or accommodations on a full- or part-time basis, whether there is a need for workplace monitoring, and whether treatment is necessary to maintain occupational functioning. In many cases, there are concerns about whether the employee poses a serious risk of harm to self or others.

The answer may not be a simple yes or no. The evaluator's opinion may be that the employee is temporarily unfit for duty, but that the impairments are expected to resolve with treatment. Under these circumstances, the opinion should include an estimate of the time that should be allowed for improvement sufficient to enable a safe return to work. The evaluator may recommend placing conditions on a return to work, such as the employee's continued acceptance of treatment and implementation of a workplace monitoring agreement. 45

Alternatively, improvement sufficient to enable a return to work may be unlikely. In that situation, there may be a conclusion that the employee is permanently unfit for duty. In other cases, an employee may be currently unfit, but further assessment may be necessary to determine whether response to treatment will be sufficient to enable a return to work.

In recommending accommodations, the evaluator should consult with the employer concerning which accommodations are available to the employee. In many cases, the employee may be able to return to an alternative position permanently or temporarily. Many employers allow a return on a part-time basis as long as the accommodation is time limited. If a workplace monitor is recommended, then there should be instructions for the monitor concerning the symptoms or signs indicating a relapse that necessitates intervention. 54

There may be questions about safety considerations related to the occupation of the evaluee. For example, fitness-for-duty assessments of law enforcement officers address whether the evaluee can safely carry a firearm. 95 A fitness-for-duty assessment of a physician examines whether the physician has psychiatric impairments that would negatively affect the ability to practice safely and whether oversight and monitoring of the practice is indicated. 42 , 52 , 96 However, the evaluating forensic psychiatrist does not offer an opinion about the physician's ability to practice according to the standards of the physician's specialty; that matter is decided by peer review.

9.4. Prognosis

An opinion concerning prognosis is essential to most civil forensic assessments because it has bearing on the assessment of damages. In many cases, an evaluee may not have had adequate treatment, and the prognosis should be given under two scenarios: first, assuming that the evaluee remains on the current treatment regimen and, second, considering the likely improvement with enhanced treatment. 54 In formulating an opinion, it is helpful to consider the natural history of the disorder; including the positive and negative prognostic signs; residual functional capacity; psychiatric history, including response to treatment; and personal history. 45 , 54 Other considerations include motivation, psychosocial circumstances, physical illness, adverse effects of medication, and comorbidity. Factors other than a psychiatric disorder may contribute to the evaluee's claim of impairment.

9.5. Treatment Recommendations

The psychiatrist should determine and describe any treatment the evaluee received before the forensic assessment, the evaluee's adherence to treatment, and the evaluee's response to treatment. The forensic psychiatrist also may have to determine the treatment necessary to improve the evaluee's level of functioning and whether additional or different treatment is likely to help. 136 This analysis could be appropriate in a variety of civil (e.g., disability, fitness for duty) and criminal (e.g., sentence mitigation, risk for recidivism) evaluations.

The outlook may depend on the evaluee's willingness to undergo treatment. “Sometimes a consultant has to report that further improvement of the [evaluee's] physical or emotional symptoms is unlikely unless the [evaluee] is able and willing to enter psychiatric treatment. This is frequently indicated when [an evaluee] is immobilized by anger or depression” (Ref. 141 , p 169).

Whenever possible, treatment recommendations should be evidence based. The practice guidelines published by the American Psychiatric Association 142 can help the evaluator to identify appropriate treatments for the evaluee's condition. 136

• 10. Special Situations

10.1. Challenging Assessments

Certain evaluee presentations can make forensic assessment more challenging. The approach to assessing these evaluees must be tailored to the assessment setting, the type of assessment being performed, and the need for clinical intervention for the evaluee. In such difficult assessments, the safety of the evaluee and evaluator must be of paramount concern.

10.1.1. Evaluees with Psychosis

In certain forensic assessments, the evaluation of an acutely psychotic client may present challenges, especially if the assessment focuses on past mental status (e.g., mental status at the time of a criminal offense or of a personal injury), rather than present status. Nevertheless, it is important to perform and preferably record results of a mental status examination as soon after the original offense or event as possible, although current psychotic symptoms may prevent evaluees from accurately reporting the events around the time of a personal injury or their mental status at the time of an alleged offense. Evaluees with psychotic symptoms may also demonstrate impairment in their interactions with the interviewer. If paranoid, they may withhold information from the evaluator that would be crucial to formulating the forensic opinion. If delusional, they may incorporate the evaluator into the delusional system. Having recorded the original mental status examination, the expert should conduct follow-up visits to obtain the information needed for a complete assessment. In criminal responsibility assessments conducted long after the arrest, psychotic symptoms may impair a criminal defendant's ability to remember the events accurately. Conversely, if the forensic assessment focuses on a present mental status assessment (e.g., competence to stand trial or disability), the presence of psychotic symptoms is a particularly relevant and primary consideration in the formulation of an opinion. For these reasons, it is most appropriate to consider the degree of impairment the symptoms are causing and the degree of disability affecting the competence or capacity under evaluation.

Evaluees with Psychosis

For evaluees with severe mental illness, the evaluator may find it necessary to arrange for treatment. Although forensic psychiatrists do not function as treating psychiatrists, they should act responsibly concerning evaluees' health needs, similar to physicians' duties, as set out in the American Medical Association's Opinion on Medical Testimony . 22 The evaluator may have to initiate an assessment for hospitalization of an evaluee or to refer the evaluee to an outpatient psychiatrist or mental health clinic for treatment. If at all possible, unless there is an emergency, forensic evaluators should avoid providing direct treatment to evaluees (acting as both the treating psychiatrist and the assessor 143 ), in accordance with the ethics guidelines established by AAPL. 39

Finally, for safety reasons, careful preparation before the interview can be helpful in case of unpredictable behavior in a psychotic evaluee. Section 5.4.1, Physical Setting, and the following section review the physical setting and other factors relevant to aggressive evaluees and safety.

10.1.2. Aggressive Evaluees

In the course of their practice, all forensic psychiatrists have to deal with evaluees with a history of aggression. In one study examining aggression toward forensic evaluators, 42 percent reported having received threats of physical harm or nonviolent injury. 144 When aggressive behavior toward clinicians occurs in forensic settings, it may be related to psychosis or may be precipitated by situational factors, such as the denial of an evaluee's demands.

Dealing with aggressive evaluees can be stressful, and various management strategies are available. These include informing coworkers that an evaluation is going take place, carefully confronting the evaluee when indicated, avoiding the evaluee, seeking consultation from a peer, and notifying available security personnel. Confronting the evaluee about aggressive behavior has its advantages and disadvantages, but it should always be done with caution.

Anticipation of potential aggression is an important strategy for enhancing clinician safety. Clinical, psychological, and historical factors increase the potential for violence. Such factors include a history of repeated violence, agitation, anger, disorganized behavior, intoxication, personality disorder, noncompliance with psychiatric treatment, threat-control-override delusions, and poor impulse control.

Several techniques can be useful in enhancing safety. First, forensic examiners should always maintain a humane and respectful approach to evaluees. Recognizing affect, validating it when appropriate, and encouraging the evaluee to discuss feelings can reduce the risk of violence. It is also important to keep an appropriate physical distance from potentially violent evaluees, at least an arm's length. Ideally, an interview with a potentially violent evaluee should occur in a quiet, comfortable setting with both parties seated. Access to an exit door should be unimpeded for both the clinician and the evaluee. Particular care and preventive planning are necessary if a potentially violent evaluee is interviewed in a private office. If a private office is the only available location, the presence of family members and staff can be useful in preventing or defusing violence.

Finally, in dealing with aggressive evaluees, evaluators must learn to recognize and manage countertransference. If an evaluator has feelings of arousal, attraction, or anger during an assessment, the reaction may be due to countertransference. Methods useful in managing countertransference include consultation with a colleague, clinical case conferences, ethics training, and training in managing aggressive behavior. Bringing a colleague to the interview is sometimes helpful in diffusing the transference and providing security. When an evaluator becomes aware during an interview of strong feelings of countertransference that interfere with the process or its objectivity or with safety, he may wish to bring the interview to a close and resort to one of these methods.

If an evaluee assaults the forensic evaluator, the evaluator should consider withdrawing from the assessment, as his objectivity may be compromised. The prosecution of such assaults is controversial, especially if the evaluator has been hired by the defense attorney. Before deciding whether to file a formal complaint with the police, consultation is recommended with another clinician, the retaining party, or legal and administrative staff (if the evaluation is conducted in a facility setting).

10.1.3. Uncooperative Evaluees

In forensic practice, clients frequently fail to attend the assessment or refuse assessment. This behavior can be particularly troublesome when an assessment is ordered by the court. A court order is not a guarantee of compliance. The first approach to refusal is a determination of whether it is purposeful and competent. If the client understands the nature and purpose of the assessment, the agency of the evaluator, and the potential consequences of refusing the assessment and if he has a nondelusional motive for refusing, his decision may be a competent one. Once this determination has been made, the evaluator should inform the retaining attorney or judge of the situation. Because of the medicolegal context for forensic assessments, malingering is a consideration in evaluees who do not cooperate (see Section 10.5, Malingering and Dissimulation).

If a forensic evaluee remains uncooperative, the evaluator may have to resort to conducting an assessment through the use of collateral sources (see Section 5.3, Collateral Information). If a forensic opinion is offered through the sole use of collateral sources, the evaluator must inform the court in both writing and testimony that a personal examination was attempted and was unsuccessful and that the opinion is being offered through the use of collateral sources. Limitations of the opinion should also be disclosed.

In some jurisdictions, depending on the type of assessment, courts allow the presence of counsel at psychiatric examinations in criminal forensic assessments, which can facilitate participation of an uncooperative evaluee. It is important to consult the statutes or case law in the jurisdiction if this is considered. 145 In civil assessments, the retaining attorney or the evaluee's attorney may be asked to facilitate the evaluee's participation, but there is no clear guidance on whether counsel can be present at the assessment. If present, the attorney should not be allowed to disrupt the assessment in any way. Consideration should be given to ensuring that the evaluee is unable to make eye contact with counsel before answering questions, to avoid nonverbal cues that could, either intentionally or unintentionally, suggest answers. For example, video-recording equipment can be set up in the assessment room and a monitor in an adjoining room to permit the attorney to observe the evaluation without intruding.

Some forensic evaluees are uncooperative through concealing their genuine psychiatric symptoms in an attempt to appear mentally healthy. This phenomenon, referred to as dissimulation, is described in Section 10.5.5, Dissimulation.

10.1.4. Mute Evaluees

When evaluating mute clients, the main challenge lies in the determination of the etiology of the mutism (congenital aphasia, neurologically acquired aphasia, catatonia, conversion disorder, or selective aphasia). These assessments often involve consultation with other nonpsychiatric clinicians and interviews with collateral sources.

Evaluees with congenital, nonselective mutism usually have a well-established medical history of the disorder and present particular challenges, primarily due to communication limitations. Forensic assessment may be possible only if the client can communicate with formal American Sign Language. Mutism has been well recognized as a limitation to criminal competence. 146 Mute evaluees cannot be tried without meeting a threshold of competence for which the standards have been articulated. Mutism in an evaluee remains a rare and complicated psycholegal situation.

The differentiation between neurologically acquired aphasia and selective mutism usually requires consultation with a neurologist and may necessitate neuroimaging. Difficulty with word-finding and speech organization are more common than complete mutism. Catatonia generally includes additional findings, including posturing, negativism, waxy flexibility, and other symptoms. In depressive stupors, prominent psychomotor impairment is also present. Careful observations of the evaluee should be documented and records and collateral information reviewed. It is within the expertise of a psychiatrist to make a diagnosis that will be of help to the court.

The most difficult differential diagnosis of mutism is in distinguishing a conversion disorder from malingering (i.e., whether the evaluee's mutism is under voluntary control). In conversion disorder, there is often a history of conversion symptoms and evidence of repression and dissociative phenomena, with mutism being one of many symptoms. By contrast, in malingering, there is frequently a history of antisocial conduct, an extensive criminal record, and a refusal to submit to psychological testing. Inpatient assessment is often necessary to distinguish between these entities.

Causes of Mutism

10.2. Child and Adolescent Forensic Assessments

Psychiatrists may be requested to conduct a forensic psychiatric assessment of a child or adolescent for criminal or civil proceedings. Generally, all assessments of children should be conducted by clinicians with training or qualification in child psychiatry. Although the general principles outlined in the sections regarding the assessment of adults also apply to the assessment of children and adolescents, there are some important additional areas to consider.

Child and Adolescent Assessments: Special Considerations

10.2.1. Informed Consent

In most circumstances, minors cannot provide informed consent. Therefore, consent for the assessment and release of information must be sought from those legally empowered to provide them: typically parents or guardians, or, if the minor is a ward of the state, an appropriate representative. 147 , 148 Parents and guardians may also be required to provide consent for audio- or video-recording. There are exceptions: cases in which minors may provide informed consent include minors waived to adult criminal court, emancipated minors, minors undergoing parental bypass evaluations for abortion, and mature minors. Also, fundamental rights may not be waived by anyone other than the person who holds them, even if that person is a minor (e.g., a parent cannot waive a minor's right to avoid self-incrimination). When application of these exceptions and rights becomes complicated, states may appoint a guardian ad litem to help the court weigh the various factors and consider the various interests in a case. State evaluators investigating an abuse or neglect report do not need consent in most jurisdictions.

Nevertheless, informed assent should be sought at the outset of an interview of a child or adolescent, even if the minor cannot consent. Minors should be given information in developmentally appropriate terms, regarding the nature of the assessment, who will read the report, and other limits on confidentiality; as well, they should be notified that they do not have to answer questions. The evaluator should ask child evaluees to state their understanding of the purpose of the assessment and whether anyone has told them what to say. Child evaluees should be informed that they can ask questions about the process at any point during the examination and that they can take breaks and speak with their parent or parents whenever they wish to do so. Again, there are exceptions: psychiatrists evaluating possible sexual abuse generally do not tell minors exactly what they are evaluating because it would be a suggestive intervention, nor do they reveal what the likely outcome of the assessment could be, as the minor may want to protect the parent.

Interviews of children give rise to some particular ethics-related problems that the evaluator should consider. 148 , 149 The person giving consent may not be acting in the best interest of the child. For example, a parent in a custody dispute may act in the parent's own interest. If the child is a state ward, the state's interest and child's interest may diverge. Because of their immaturity, minors are less likely than adults to understand the rights that are described to them. For example, a child may feel more obliged to cooperate because of deference to authority, 150 be less likely to understand the consequences of certain admissions, or be overly trusting of the interviewer.

10.2.2. Observation by Others

Requests from a third party (such as a parent, therapist, or attorney) to observe a child's or adolescent's forensic assessment are much more common than requests to observe an adult assessment. Honoring such requests should be discouraged, as the presence of third parties may substantially influence the assessment process. Arguments for others being present are often made on the basis that the child needs protection or support because of the risk of harm during the assessment. The presence of a third party may be appropriate when a young child has significant separation difficulties, has demonstrated an inability to be interviewed alone, or needs an interpreter. 151 If others are to observe, it is important to set appropriate ground rules (such as whether the observers will be in view of the child and whether they can participate). For some types of assessments (especially sexual abuse investigations), video-recording is recommended and is becoming the standard (see Section 5.4.3, Recording).

Assessments of children and adolescents for civil suits often involve observations of the parent–child relationship and sometimes a child–sibling relationship. In general, the nature and length of these collateral observations are negotiated in advance with all parties.

10.2.3. Collateral Interviews and Information

In clinical work with children and adolescents, their parents, guardians, or other caretakers are routinely interviewed to obtain additional history because children are not mature historians or reporters. 151 In cases in which the parents are not parties to the litigation, whether the evaluator can have access to parents is often decided by the court. In some forensic assessments of minors, involving parents and others in the evaluation is crucial (e.g., custody assessments). 152 In some legal situations, including those that are particularly contentious, the parent, guardian, or caretaker may refuse to provide collateral information about the child during the assessment. In this case, the forensic evaluator should consider alternative methods of obtaining important collateral data. Such methods include having the parent, guardian, or caretaker questioned during a deposition or requesting a court order that the party complete relevant child-assessment forms. Because a significant portion of a child's daily life involves school, forensic evaluators may require a detailed review of a child's academic records.

10.2.4. Interviewing Style

Interviewing children and adolescents involves techniques different from those used in interviewing adults, and therefore requires special training. Of particular relevance in forensic interviews of children are the significantly greater effects of leading questions and prior suggestion, since children are more suggestible than adults. 153 , 154

10.2.5. Published Standards for Sexual Abuse and Child Custody Assessments

Because sexual abuse and child custody assessments focus on children, but children are formal parties to the litigations, evaluations of children have a different structure than the one used in the typical individual-focused forensic assessment. Some professional organizations have published standards or practice parameters for the conduct of these assessments. 152 , 155 Several published sources provide guidance for child abuse and custody assessments, a subject that is beyond the scope of this Guideline. Forensic evaluators should be aware that new allegations of child abuse made by a child or adolescent during the course of the assessment necessitate referral to child protection services.

10.2.6. Civil Litigation Involving Children and Adolescents

There are common situations in which a psychiatric assessment of a child or adolescent may be relevant during the course of civil litigation. First, the psychiatrist may be asked to evaluate whether the child was affected emotionally as a result of an event. The plaintiff's complaint outlines the alleged cause of injury and claims mental injury with phrases such as emotional distress, extreme emotional distress, emotional damages, psychic harm, or mental anguish. The relationship between an event and the resulting emotional injury can be grouped into two broad categories: a physical injury causing emotional harm (physical–mental) and emotional injuries causing emotional harm (mental–mental).

Common examples of physical injuries that can lead to mental injury include nonvehicular accidents, vehicular accidents (e.g., motor vehicle, airplane), natural disasters (flood, fires, earthquakes), and physical or sexual abuse. Emotional injuries that can result in a mental injury are wide-ranging and include the loss of a parent or close relative, witnessing harm caused to others, and being verbally victimized (such as taunts associated with sexual harassment, bullying, or threats from others).

A second important category of civil litigation involves medical malpractice or negligence. In this situation, the psychiatrist is asked to review a case to determine whether any providers (e.g., doctors, psychologists, nurses, social workers) or institutions (e.g., hospitals, detention facilities) were negligent in the care that was provided to the child or adolescent. As in adult cases, medical malpractice consists of four key components, often referred to as the 4 Ds: a duty to the patient, and a dereliction of that duty, which directly results in damages . For negligence to be established, all four components must be present. Therefore, the forensic assessment determines not only whether there were deviations from the standard of care through acts of omission or commission, but also whether the deviations were directly or proximately related to the claimed emotional damage.

Third, a psychiatrist may be requested to conduct a psychological autopsy of a young person for the purpose of retrospectively evaluating mental status at the time of death. In some situations, although the actual cause of death (such as a gunshot wound to the head) may be clear, the manner or mode of death may be unclear. Mode of death is classified into four types—natural, accidental, suicide, or homicide—and is directly relevant to civil litigation involving insurance policies, which do not provide coverage for suicide-related deaths, and to investigations into whether a third party or a product caused the death.

Fourth, disability assessments (such as Social Security assessments) may lead to civil litigation when the evaluated child or adolescent is denied financial benefits and coverage. Fifth, special education assessments in a school setting may also be legally challenged when there is a disagreement between the parents or guardian and the school concerning its assessment or recommended education plan.

Finally, child custody assessments nearly always require a forensic assessment of the child, of each parent's or guardian's current ability to provide care for the child, and of the child–parent relationship, of child–sibling relationships, and of the best interest of the child.

10.3. Assessments of Persons with Intellectual Disability

Forensic psychiatrists are likely to encounter individuals with intellectual disability (ID). Competent assessment of an evaluee with ID requires the evaluator to adapt the approach to account for the unique characteristics of the evaluee. 156

Laws surrounding and defining ID are specific in different jurisdictions, and the forensic evaluator should be familiar with such laws before conducting an assessment.

Definition of Intellectual Disability

10.3.1. Nomenclature

The nomenclature regarding persons with ID has evolved over time. Recently, there has been a change from use of mental retardation (DSM-IV-TR) to intellectual disability (DSM-5). In light of this shift in terminology, this document uses the current term. An important concept to remember when talking about people with ID is people first. For example, using the phrase a person with ID is more respectful and less stigmatizing than an ID person.

10.3.2. Conducting the Assessment

When conducting an assessment of a person with ID, the psychiatrist must take into account not only the current presentation but also the underlying condition. These considerations do not require evaluators to abandon their usual approach completely; rather, they should adapt their usual approach to fit the unique circumstances. There are several strategies that can improve the likelihood of a successful assessment. 157 , 158

Identify an appropriate location for the assessment in a safe setting that is quiet and private, if possible. The assessment and surrounding circumstances can be frightening, distracting, or overstimulating to a person with ID. A confounding variable is that some individuals with ID enjoy the attention they receive for disruptive behavior, especially when other family members or staff members constitute the audience. Finding a quiet, private place can limit this confounding factor.

Seek collateral sources of information. Persons with ID have difficulty providing a history, and their reliability as reporters may be compromised. Contacting family members, coworkers, teachers, and any other involved person is vital to achieving an accurate assessment. Both recent and long-term histories of the individual, including their prior level of functioning and usual behavior, are helpful in understanding the context of the situation. Use of previous records and reports are likely to be helpful. School and vocational records and, in the United States, Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), should be obtained.

During the clinical assessment, explore the advantage of including family members or familiar staff in some situations. Having caregivers present serves a dual purpose: first, the evaluee benefits from the predictability fostered by the presence of someone familiar; second, the evaluee's regular caregivers are needed to provide history. Hence, a caregiver's presence may be helpful in an initial interview, but may not be necessary as the evaluation proceeds or in subsequent interviews. It is, however, beneficial to have caregivers available nearby throughout the evaluation to provide assistance or collateral information. As noted earlier, in some cases the presence of family members or staff can encourage disruptive behavior by providing an audience.

The presence of an ID often renders the evaluee poorly equipped to provide a history. Limitations in the person's capacity to communicate verbally and to articulate the nature of the problem pose a challenge. The caregiver's vantage point may be comprehensive or may provide only limited information. In addition, caregivers or family members of a person who is undergoing a forensic assessment may be reluctant to provide accurate or complete information if they are concerned that full information may harm their interests.

During the assessment, the psychiatrist should take time to explain tests and procedures as simply and clearly as needed for the evaluee to follow what is happening and to reduce the evaluee's anxiety. A person with ID may not be able to give consent for the assessment or understand its implications; however, it may be helpful to obtain assent. The evaluator may have to obtain full and informed legal consent from a guardian or obtain a judicial order.

An interdisciplinary team approach to assessment and treatment planning is often necessary when evaluating persons with ID. Similarly, in the forensic assessment, it may be necessary to engage staff from other disciplines, such as a psychologist skilled at conducting psychological or neuropsychological testing.

10.3.3. Direct Observation of Behavior

Consideration should be given to a suitable environment for the assessment of evaluees with ID. It is often difficult to obtain a reliable or comprehensive picture of persons with ID in an office or other location outside their familiar environment. Observing evaluees in their normal, everyday surroundings can yield a wealth of information.

10.3.4. Complications in Assessment

Dual diagnosis is a phrase in psychiatry that usually means the co-occurrence of mental illness and substance use. In the context of ID, however, it has an alternative meaning: the co-occurrence of ID and psychiatric illness.

In a standard psychiatric practice, a patient would have been identified as having ID, and longitudinal records would provide a frame of reference. In contrast, in forensic psychiatry, individuals encountered may have ID that has not yet been diagnosed. The characteristic signs and symptoms of ID may be masked or enhanced intentionally by the evaluee. For example, evaluees who believe they will benefit from feigning ID may try to hide their intellectual and social capabilities. Alternatively, individuals may try to appear intelligent to conceal their disability. Collateral sources of information are integral to accurate assessment (see also Section 10.5, Malingering and Dissimulation). 159 , 160

Strategies for Assessments of Persons with Intellectual Disability

It is essential to distinguish among underlying medical illness, environmental stressors, and the onset or exacerbation of a psychiatric disorder as potential causes of behavioral decompensations. Such a differential diagnosis requires a thorough history and physical examination, using collateral sources to compensate for the patient's potential difficulties with self-reporting. 161 The evaluee's regular caregivers can contribute data to aid in comparing the evaluee's acute presentation with baseline condition and level of function.

10.3.5. Degree of Suspicion About Intellectual Disability

The evaluator's degree of suspicion about ID during the assessment can increase the likelihood that ID will become a relevant factor. If there is a low degree of suspicion, the evaluator may overlook or minimize deficits. If there is a high degree of suspicion, the evaluator may be inclined to look for clarification of abilities and deficits, obtain specific testing, and seek collateral sources of information. Evaluators should have a high degree of suspicion if there are any indications of ID, to ensure that complete information is obtained and a complete assessment is conducted.

10.3.6. Evaluator Bias

Evaluator bias may also play a significant role in the formulation of the forensic opinion. 162 The evaluator may cast the findings in a better or worse light based on a expectations, desired outcome, political considerations, or pressure from the referring agent. The attitude and conduct of the evaluee may also contribute to bias. An adversarial evaluee may be evaluated differently from a cooperative one, despite their having the same underlying diagnoses.

To avoid bias, it is important to keep in mind that an evaluee with ID may demonstrate poor tolerance of frustration, may become irritable and exhibit behavioral decompensation, or may develop psychiatric symptoms that become the focus of an assessment. ID often results in increased vulnerability to stress and in sensitivity to changes in the environment. In fact, the presence of ID may lead to vulnerabilities or set the stage for the decompensation that causes the situation that necessitates a forensic psychiatric assessment.

Short- and long-term stressors that may trigger such behavioral problems in individuals with ID or dual diagnosis include frustration with difficulty communicating, using problematic behavior as a means of communication, or both; alterations in conditions, such as medication changes, loss of caretakers or loved ones, physical discomfort or illness, stigmatization, or bullying; emotional conditions resulting from psychiatric disorders (in cases of dual diagnosis); and frustration due to realization of mental deficits. 161

If disruptive behavior has been effective in removing a person with ID from an uncomfortable situation in the past, the use of such behavior may be reinforced and repeated. Every effort should be made to understand and contextualize this behavior.

10.4. Cultural Factors in Forensic Evaluations

10.4.1. contextualizing culture, race, and ethnicity in forensic assessments.

An understanding of race, culture, and ethnicity plays an important role in the medicolegal system. 163 Regardless of whether they are attorneys, probation officers, judges, experts, witnesses, or jurors, people who participate in legal proceedings bring their own preconceived notions, attitudes, and value systems to the table. 164 These preconceptions affect their relationships with others, especially during interpersonal interactions and decision-making.

It is widely accepted that mental health clinicians must possess an ability to provide a cultural context and formulation for clinical and forensic work, to provide effective assessment and treatment of diverse populations. Cultural formulation skills are rapidly becoming accepted in all aspects of psychiatric practice, including forensic psychiatry. 165 Overcoming potential language barriers and comprehending the cultural beliefs and values held by an evaluee, may be important when providing a comprehensive and meaningful assessment of the evaluee's mental health and overall functioning. Cultural considerations should inform the forensic assessment of psychological and behavioral problems, since the legal matters prompting such assessments, whether civil, criminal, or family-related, often have serious consequences. 164

10.4.2. Disparities in Diagnosis

Several researchers have identified disparities in how psychiatric disorders are diagnosed in racial and ethnic minorities. For example, blacks are diagnosed more frequently than whites with psychotic disorders and less often with mood and anxiety disorders. 166 , 167 These diagnostic differences may be influenced by cultural differences in communication and interaction styles, values, and belief systems in the doctor–patient dyad. It has been asserted that this is especially true when patients from minority groups receive treatment and care from members of dominant groups. 168 , – , 172 A physician may hold a preconceived notion that a patient has a certain condition and may preferentially or subconsciously skew his (the physician's) beliefs according to the strength of the information received in the assessment. 173 If not carefully managed, these preconceived notions may result in misattributions and reinforcement of cultural stereotypes. Racial and cultural biases not only influence the ways in which clinicians diagnose disorders, but also affect the types of treatment proposed.

10.4.3. Culture as Part of Formulation

When considering culture as part of the case formulation process, the forensic psychiatrist must first identify the traditions, values, and behavioral norms of the evaluee that are pertinent to the consultation questions. Asking evaluees questions that explore the different complex components of their identity and self-concept may reveal their culturally syntonic belief systems and help the psychiatrist to situate them in their social world. 163

Culture should be considered in appreciating the evaluee's distinctiveness, with care taken to avoid stereotyping. 174 The psychiatrist should take into account that many people have had religious or cultural “personal experiences that have contributed to the shaping of [their] moral life” (Ref. 34 , p 372). Most people believe that the legal system is fair, but some disagree 46 and may have complex sociocultural reasons for their belief. 175 Even personal concepts of wrongfulness may be steeped in cultural and social definitions, and these concepts may be taken into consideration in certain situations, such as evaluations for mitigating factors in sentencing. 164

Aggarwal 163 and Kirmayer 174 both argued that situating behavior in its cultural context often provides insight and clarification into an individual's reasoning process. Through careful assessment, the forensic psychiatrist's role in exploration of the cultural contexts of behavior may also help explain the behavior. 176

In addition to the forensic psychiatrist's duty to provide culturally informed assessments, cultural concerns arise in other forensic settings. Various authors have commented on the cultural context of the forensic psychiatrist's role in the courtroom. 25 , 26 , 177 Conveying the nuances of culture and identity in the courtroom may facilitate increased empathy that could affect the assessment of a defendant's culpability. 163 , 174 , 178

10.4.4. Cultural Identity

Cultural identity should not be assumed but should be explored. 172 Culture may have a strong influence on boundaries and what is considered acceptable behavior during the assessment. 177 Some cultures use more physical touching, whereas in other cultures, an evaluee may think it inappropriate to shake hands with an evaluator of the opposite sex. 36 , 164 Looking directly at a person is considered disrespectful in some Arabic and Asian cultures. Extra caution may be needed in the nonconfidentiality warning of some patients because of potential difficulty in their understanding that there is no doctor–patient relationship between them and their examiner. The evaluator should be even more careful to ask open-ended questions, rather than closed questions, as in some cultures a yes reply may simply acknowledge that the evaluee is listening. 164

Competence in cultural formulation includes respect for and knowledge of other cultures, as well as self-assessment to guard against cultural biases. 36 Culture should be integrated into assessment and service delivery. In the United States, the evaluator is often of the dominant group while the forensic evaluee may be of a minority ethnic or racial group, and the effect of this diversity should be considered in interactions with the evaluee. The forensic psychiatrist's knowledge of different cultures should include verbal and nonverbal communication styles, professional values, and power relationships. 36 Respect for personal space, volume of speech, eye contact, gestures, and physical contact should be considered. Distress may manifest in culturally specific ways in individuals with different life histories. 179

Religion, culture, and race may affect a psychiatrist's worldview, causing bias (or the appearance of bias). The cultural background of the evaluee must not affect the objectivity of the forensic examiner. Transference and countertransference may require additional attention in cross-cultural contexts; self-examination of bias regarding ethnicity and belief systems should be conducted. 178 The psychiatrist should also be aware that attitudes toward mental illness and the stigma that it carries differ across groups. In complicated cases, it may be useful to consult colleagues or others in an effort to broaden understanding of the defendant's background. 178 , 179

10.4.5. Culture and Diagnosis

There are many cultural differences in the expression of mental illness. As previously discussed, members of various nondominant groups may experience mental illness differently or communicate their distress in different ways. 164 Defining entities as culture-bound syndromes can be helpful in conceptualization, but concerns have been raised as well. Including culture-bound syndromes in the DSM raises the question of whether these syndromes meet criteria for mental illness sufficient to be used in a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. 179 For example, latah is a startle-induced dissociative reaction described in the Malay culture. 164 Although amok is often regarded as a Malaysian culture-bound syndrome, amok -like indiscriminate massacre behavior after a stressor has been observed in other cultures. 164 , 180 Belief in voodoo death, which is thought to occur when a person breaks a taboo and then suddenly dies, has been observed in multiple cultures. 164

10.4.6. Language Differences

The evaluator should arrange for the interview to occur in the evaluee's primary language or bilingually, as misunderstandings due to language differences may lead to improper diagnosis. 179 However, the presence of the interpreter may alter the assessment. The interpreter may have a bias, for example, if he is a relative of or is known by the evaluee and is interpreting information that may be embarrassing to the family. 172 Even a neutral, qualified translator may introduce distortions into the process. Translation choices may alter some of the content of questions and responses, with substitutions, omissions, or distortions. 36 , 179 Hence, the interpreter should be asked to translate verbatim, and the evaluator should maintain eye contact with the evaluee throughout the interview. 179

10.4.7. Culture and Psychological Testing and Mental Status Examination

Although psychological testing can provide valuable insight, care should be taken to ensure that the test is interpreted in a culturally meaningful way. Language disparities, cross-cultural meanings, test environment, and tester biases should be considered. 178 The attitude of the evaluee toward testing is also important: some evaluees may merely be acquiescent or may provide socially desirable replies. 164

It is argued that there is no culture-neutral, universally acceptable test. 164 The influence of culture on various tests must be acknowledged. It affects the changes in norms, special translations, equivalency efforts, and modifications. 164 Evaluations of the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory) 180 revealed cross-ethnic differences among whites, blacks, and Native Americans, whereas a new version (MMPI-2) shows the “relative unimportance of ethnic group difference” (Ref. 147 , p 80). A Chinese test similar to the MMPI has also been developed to account for cultural differences with Americans. 164 Similarly, Chinese and Vietnamese depression scales have been developed because of somatic and emotional experiences of depression in these cultures that are poorly captured by Western scales. There is some concern that the Mini Mental State Examination overclassifies blacks as having dementia, but the evidence of this phenomenon is mixed. 179 Tests should be administered with care in evaluees from cultural backgrounds for which there are no standardized data available for interpretation of the results. 178 It is important to consult test manuals for further information.

It has been argued that the Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R), 120 has limited generalizability cross-culturally. The test was originally standardized among only Western populations that were almost exclusively white in origin; therefore, some suggest that the PCL-R should be used with caution in nonwhite and non-Western groups, although the manual of the test addresses the possibility and counters the argument. 164 Because the administration of the PCL-R requires semistructured interviews and examiner rating, some argue that knowledge of cultural concerns is essential when using the test. 120

In addition, even parts of the formal mental status assessment may require adaptation. Mood and affect may be expressed differently across cultures. In particular, different groups may display different affects in the presence of strangers. 164 An expressed belief might be interpreted as a delusion by an evaluator who is unfamiliar with religious beliefs in another culture. Similarly, a report of hearing a deceased relative's voice in a bereaved Latino, Native American, or an Inuk may be a culturally sanctioned expression of grieving rather than a psychotic symptom. Some cautious suspiciousness, as distinguished from paranoia, is adaptive among those of some minority ethnic groups. 172

Expressions of various types of distress, regardless of whether they meet the criteria for a specific psychiatric disorder, may be affected by culture. Tseng and colleagues 164 note several cultural concepts of distress, including culture-bound syndromes, idioms of distress, and cultural explanations of symptoms. Idioms of distress (i.e., ways in which sociocultural groups convey affliction) are particularly relevant to considerations of religious culture. 182 , 183 As well, in some cultures, including those in China, somatization complaints are used as idioms of distress, unlike Western conceptualizations. 164

10.4.8. Culture in Specific Types of Assessments

Specific forensic assessments with cultural overtones may be requested of an evaluator, such as discrimination torts and parental fitness in transracial adoptions. 184 However, regardless of the type of assessment, the forensic psychiatrist must be aware of cultural manifestations of distress and potential biases in performing assessments, to make accurate diagnoses. There is some literature on how to conduct an assessment of a claim of emotional distress due to psychological harm caused by racism. 185 In addition, although there is an emerging body of literature that examines transracial adoptions, views vary on approaches to performing these assessments and to arriving at an opinion that reflects the best interests of the child. 184 , 186 Literature is also available on the effect of religious beliefs on capacity evaluations 187 , 188 and on distinguishing religious views from psychopathology. 189 , – , 192 A full discussion of these types of assessments is beyond the scope of this Guideline.

Importance of Culture in Assessment

10.5. Malingering and Dissimulation

The detection of malingered mental illness requires a thorough knowledge of the clinical characteristics of genuine illness and a systematic approach to the forensic assessment. A conclusion of malingering is the result of a process of careful analysis, identification of objective indicators, clinical judgment, and use of scientifically validated psychological tests when necessary. 193 Despite recent advances in neuroscience, there remain significant limitations to the use of neurotechnology for detecting malingering, and its application is not yet recommended outside of research settings. 194 Hence, clinical detection of malingered mental illness remains a fundamental skill in forensic psychiatry.

10.5.1. Malingering

Malingering is described in DSM-5 as a condition that the clinician may encounter that is not attributable to a mental disorder, consisting of the intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms, motivated by external incentives. 102 Malingering requires differentiation from factitious disorder, which is also the deliberate simulation of illness, but for the purpose of seeking to adopt a sick role. 195 The motivation to assume a sick role can be thought of as an internal (i.e., psychological) incentive.

Malingering may be further categorized as pure malingering, partial malingering, or false imputation. 196 Pure malingering is used to describe feigning a nonexistent disorder. If the individual has actual symptoms, but consciously exaggerates them, it is called partial malingering. False imputation refers to ascribing actual symptoms to a cause that the individual consciously recognizes as having no relationship to the symptoms.

There is an extensive body of literature about malingered hallucinations, 197 delusions, 198 and cognitive symptoms. 199 A review of this topic is beyond the scope of this Guideline, but can be found in the references cited.

Motives to malinger fall into two general categories: avoiding difficult real-life situations or punishment (avoiding pain) and obtaining compensation or medications (seeking pleasure). In criminal assessments, evaluees may seek to avoid punishment by feigning insanity at the time of the act or incompetence to stand trial after the act. 200 In civil actions, evaluees may malinger to seek financial gain from social security disability, veteran's benefits, workers' compensation, or damages after alleged accidents. 201

10.5.2. Clinical Indicators of Malingering

Evaluees who are malingering may be detected clinically when they have inadequate or incomplete knowledge of the illness they are feigning, or they overact the part 202 in a mistaken belief that the more bizarre the behavior, the more convincing it will be ( Summary 10.5.2 ). Such evaluees give a greater number of evasive answers and may repeat questions or answer questions slowly to give themselves time to think about how to deceive the evaluator. 201

Evaluees who are malingering are more likely to be eager to thrust forward their illness, in contrast to those with, for example, genuine schizophrenia, who are often reluctant to discuss their symptoms. 203 Malingering evaluees may attempt to take control of the interview or otherwise behave in an intimidating or hostile manner in an effort to cause the psychiatrist to terminate the interview prematurely. They are unlikely to give a successful imitation of the subtle signs of schizophrenia, such as symptoms of deficits (e.g., flat affect, alogia, and avolition), impaired relatedness, digressive speech, or peculiar thinking.

Clinical Factors Suggestive of Malingering

The detection of malingering also requires special attention to rare or improbable symptoms that are almost never reported, even in severely disturbed patients. 204 , 205 Examiners may ask evaluees suspected of malingering about improbable symptoms to see whether they will endorse them. For example, “When people talk to you, do you see the words they speak spelled out?” 205 or “Have you ever believed that automobiles are members of an organized religion?” 206

Malingering evaluees may give a false or incomplete history during an assessment, with excessively guarded, hesitant, or “I don't know” responses to even simple questions. The current self-report of symptoms should be compared with descriptions in the medical, psychiatric, or correctional mental health records. 193 , 200 Such evaluees often indicate current psychiatric symptoms that are inconsistent with their recent level of functioning 208 or with other professed symptoms or observed behavior. Inconsistencies or disparities between self-reported and real-world observations should be carefully investigated. Repeated testing may be necessary to explain inconsistency over time, since malingering is not a stable trait. 207

10.5.3. Comprehensive Malingering Assessment

Because of the complexities involved in concluding with reasonable medical certainty that a patient is malingering, a comprehensive malingering assessment may be considered, particularly in difficult cases. 193 , 207 , 209 , 210 An outline for the comprehensive assessment of malingering is given in Summary 10.5.3 .

Any information that will assist in supporting or refuting alleged symptoms should be carefully reviewed (e.g., prior treatment records, insurance records, police reports, and interviews of family and social contacts). Interview technique is critical in the detection of malingering. It is important to avoid verbal or nonverbal communication of suspicion to the evaluee. Careful attention to the principles of interviewing is essential (see Section 5.4, The Interview). In very difficult cases, inpatient assessment should be considered, if possible, as psychotic symptoms are extremely difficult to fabricate and sustain while under constant, intensive observation.

The evaluation of malingering or exaggeration of symptoms by individuals with mild ID can present particular challenges (see Section 10.3, Assessments of Persons with Intellectual Disability). Psychological testing can be very helpful in the detection of malingering. For example, the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) has demonstrated a high rate of detection of malingering in groups of subjects with ID. 199

Rogers et al. 198 noted that several measures are available for identifying feigned cognitive impairment. In selecting a measure, it is important to find one that uses multiple detection strategies. A measure that reveals repeated failures on very simple items is insufficient, as malingering evaluees may successfully mimic mild to moderate impairment, which is enough to achieve their objective. The single-measure approach is also susceptible to changes in strategies by evaluees as a result of simple coaching. Therefore, referral to an expert in this area, with whom an effective approach to detecting malingering can be discussed and implemented, is recommended.

Psychological testing for malingering may be specialized, using such tests as the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, 2nd edition (SIRS-2), 211 or can rely on an embedded approach, such as in the MMPI-2. The SIRS-2 relies on endorsement of clinical characteristics rarely found or observed in genuine patients. In addition, feigners may endorse indiscriminate symptoms, an excessive degree or magnitude of symptoms, or rare symptom combinations. The validity of the test is established across the sexes and ethnic groups. It should be noted, however, that the text is somewhat cumbersome to administer and score. The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), 212 was developed specifically as a screening instrument for feigned mental disorders in forensic settings. It can also be used to detect malingering of intellectual disability or cognitive impairment, as evaluees tend to take a broad-based approach to malingering across the spectrum of disorders. The advantage of this test is its brevity and ease of administration and scoring, but it should always be used in conjunction with other methods of detecting malingering.

Two examples of tests with embedded validity scales are the MMPI-2 and the Personality Assessment Inventory. 198 The MMPI-2 has multiple validity scales, some of which are particularly useful in detecting feigned mental disorder. 213 Rogers et al. 198 outlined some useful points, as well as numerous pitfalls to avoid, in the use of this instrument. The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) 214 is also useful in the detection of malingering, although it lacks the extensive database of the MMPI-2. Readers are directed to a useful meta-analysis that suggests very high specificity, but warns about the modest sensitivity of the PAI, concluding that it should be used along with other measures. 215

The MMPI-2 is also useful in detecting feigned medical complaints, which may be the subject matter of forensic assessment. This test should generally be used in conjunction with a medical examination by an expert specialist. 118

10.5.4. Malingered Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Resnick 216 pointed out that malingering should be considered in all claimants who are seeking damages after personal injury. In his experience, supported by research in this area, feigning symptoms of PTSD is not difficult. Even in naïve subjects presented with a checklist of symptoms, close to 90 percent can accurately endorse PTSD symptoms. In the real world, evaluees can easily research the diagnostic symptoms before an evaluation and in some circumstances may be coached to give the desired answers. In addition, in some claims of PTSD the evaluee may have symptoms of the disorder but exaggerate them for the purposes of the evaluation, making detection even more difficult. Nevertheless, the literature reveals some particular strategies that the clinician may include in a comprehensive evaluation, to differentiate malingerers from genuine claimants.

For instance, in an interview, evaluees may give a history of an inability to work, while contemporaneously being able to enjoy recreation. 185 They may be sullen, resentful, uncooperative, suspicious, 216 evasive, and inconsistent. 185 They may have antisocial traits and a poor work record.

Collateral information may be helpful. Significant others and close family members may have something to gain from the claim and may therefore corroborate the evaluee's account, but other acquaintances, such as coworkers and employers, may be more frank. Sometimes lawyers will obtain video recordings of evaluees engaging in various activities that may be inconsistent with their history.

Psychological testing may be helpful as part of a comprehensive evaluation. The MMPI-2 has several validity scales that may be helpful. Rogers and colleagues, 217 in a comprehensive meta-analysis, concluded that the Fp and D scales are the most useful. The PAI 214 may also be pertinent. Specific trauma inventories are less helpful, since they are more transparent. Evaluators should use open-ended questions to elicit symptoms in the interview before using symptom checklists, which may serve to suggest symptoms to the evaluee. Resnick and Knoll 216 proposed a model that incorporates many of the above-noted factors, thereby serving as a useful guide for experts. The book provides a more comprehensive review of testing for malingering.

Comprehensive Malingering Assessment

10.5.5. Clinical Assessment of Malingering in Criminal Defendants

When evaluating criminal defendants in a forensic setting, the psychiatrist must always consider malingering. 46 In addition to conducting a thorough review and preparing for the assessment of the criminal defendant, the psychiatrist should gather information about the defendant and the crime. Comparing this information with the evaluee's self-report upon questioning may be a method of assessing veracity.

Attempts should be made to evaluate the defendant as soon as possible after the crime. Although it is not always possible, early evaluation reduces the likelihood that the evaluee has been coached or has had sufficient time to observe genuine psychosis in a hospital setting, plan a deceptive strategy, craft a consistent story, or rehearse fabrications. As well, normal memory distortions are less likely to occur.

When symptoms such as memory loss, dissociation, or depersonalization during an offense are claimed, it is important to consider whether the symptoms, if genuine, were precipitated by the offense itself. Memory impairment is commonly claimed by those who have committed a violent crime and may represent truthful reporting. (In contrast, memory in one who commits a homicide may be enhanced by the powerful emotion associated with its perpetration. 218 )

Offenders commonly report dissociation during a violent crime. The veracity and intensity of the dissociation must be carefully explored, as research has suggested that such symptoms may not constitute a mental disease and that dissociation may be a normal response of some offenders to the traumatic events that they have caused. 219 That is, violent offenders may be traumatized by their own acts and may go on to develop mental disorders as a result of the offense they have committed. 220 Thus, such symptoms occur only after the offense.

A crime without an apparent motive (e.g., the killing of a stranger) may lend credence to the presence of genuine mental illness. In Canadian law, the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the defense of automatism and set forth specific criteria related to credibility that should be considered. 221 Several clues can assist the psychiatrist in the detection of fraudulent insanity defenses. 222 For example, a psychotic explanation for a crime should be questioned if the crime fits the same pattern as previous criminal convictions. Evaluees who malinger are likely to have nonpsychotic, rational, alternative motives for their behavior that flow from the more commonplace human passions such as revenge, jealousy, greed, and anger. They are also more likely to have a history of murder or rape, a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or sexual sadism, and greater levels of psychopathy. 223

Malingering defendants may present themselves as doubly blameless within the context of their feigned illness. In such cases, the defendant's version of the offense may demonstrate what is called a double denial of responsibility. 216 Common examples include some type of disavowal of having committed the crime, yet a simultaneous attribution of the crime to psychosis. Allegations involving double denial conform to the following theme: “I am not responsible because of reason one, and, if this is not accepted, I am also not responsible because of reason two.” Genuine insanity defenses are usually associated with only one psychotic explanation of why the defendant did not appreciate the wrongfulness of the act, not with dual explanations. Thus, the presence of dual explanations should prompt the psychiatrist to consider the possibility that the defendant has supplemented his claims of mental illness at the time of the offense.

10.5.6. Dissimulation

Dissimulation is the concealment of genuine symptoms of mental illness in an effort to portray psychological health. 224 Forensic psychiatrists are trained to detect malingering, but they must be equally vigilant for the possibility that a defendant will attempt to conceal genuine illness. There is a paucity of research concerning defendants who seek to suppress signs of mental illness, or otherwise simulate sanity. 225 However, the denial of psychiatric symptoms has been reported anecdotally in persons who have committed crimes. 226

• 11. Risk Assessment

11.1. Introduction

Forensic psychiatrists are often asked to perform risk assessments. The most frequent types of assessment are for risk of violence, inappropriate sexual behavior, and criminal recidivism. Psychiatric risk assessment is a broad and varied topic, and a full commentary on all types of risk assessment is outside the scope of this Guideline. Detailed descriptions of the process are available in the academic and professional literature and are referenced in a resource document on psychiatric violence risk assessment published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2012. 227

Risk assessment takes place in a variety of contexts. Assessment of risk of future violent or sexual offenses is an important element of sexually violent predator proceedings in the United States and of the equivalent dangerous offender criminal sentencing hearings in Canada. Risk assessments are also used in other tribunals in which future dangerousness is a significant factor. These include criminal sentencing hearings, probation or parole assessments, death penalty aggravation or mitigation, child custody, disposition assessments involving people found insane or not criminally responsible because of mental illness, hospital civil commitment proceedings, threat assessments, and assessment of potential violent self-harm.

It is important to ensure that all parties understand the type of risk that is being appraised, the methods used, and limitations of the assessment. Clarifying the question is often an important preliminary step in conducting an assessment. Risk assessments usually include appraisal of what could happen, under what circumstances, and over how long a time. Offering an opinion about management interventions and whether they may change risk is often part of the task.

11.2. Ethics

In risk assessment, a psychiatric opinion can affect the evaluee's interests. Courts sometimes increase the length of a prison sentence, for instance, in response to the content of a forensic report. 32 Ethics guidelines do not preclude evaluations that may contribute to an outcome, such as a longer sentence, that the evaluee would regard as unfavorable, provided the purpose of the evaluation has been explained to the evaluee in advance. 228 , 229 Broadly speaking, two justifications have been offered for mental health professionals' provision of risk assessments in these circumstances. The first is that psychiatrists and psychologists, when they are working for attorneys and courts, are serving not as clinicians but as evaluators, guided by an alternative ethic based on respecting others, truthfulness, and justice 23 , 26 , 31 (see also Section 4, Ethics Foundation). The second is that mental health professionals have a duty, not only to their patients but also to the medical profession and to society as a whole, as exemplified by assisting in the administration of justice. 229 These duties have to be balanced according to the circumstances of the case. Depending on the nature of this balance, it may be ethical to conduct a medical evaluation with an outcome that the evaluee regards as contrary to his interests. It would be prudent to consult the AAPL Ethics Guidelines for forensic psychiatric practices that apply to risk assessments in legal settings. 39

11.3. Conducting the Evaluation and Writing the Report

One of the most important elements of the background information is the evaluee's past behavior. In general, the more independent the sources of information about past behavior, the better. It is important to inform all the potential providers of information about the limits to confidentiality, especially when the evaluee is also providing information. The principles summarized in Section 5.2, Confidentiality, are designed to ensure that the evaluee understands the principles and limits of confidentiality in the forensic assessment. Particular care should be taken to be clear about the limits of confidentiality when the evaluator is retained by the prosecution.

As with other types of forensic psychiatric evaluation, examiners should strive for objectivity in risk assessments. The assessment should be as complete as possible under the circumstances. It should include an interview; however, if permission is not given for a personal interview, the refusal and the reason for it should be mentioned in the report. The limitations that the lack of a personal interview imposes on the final conclusions should also be noted. The use of structured assessment tools in risk assessment has increased in recent years, and their predictive validity has now been demonstrated in a range of settings. These tools can act as an aide-mémoire for the evaluator. The factors that affect risk in an individual case cannot always be captured by an instrument, however, and the clinical and forensic roles of these techniques remain a subject of debate. 230

Conclusions regarding the likelihood of risk are usually best expressed in probabilistic terms that make clear the level of confidence with which the opinion is held. 231 , 232 They should take into account factors that reduce the risk and those that increase it. 232 , – , 234 Depending on the question asked, they should also include some discussion of how the case can best be managed.

Conclusions should be informed by empirical research on the correlates of violence, but also by the skills that psychiatrists learn in training and develop in their clinical practice. The validity of a psychiatric report is greatest when those skills can be applied. When they cannot, for instance, because the subject will not be in treatment during the period of risk or does not have a condition that psychiatrists are accustomed to managing, the conclusion should be qualified accordingly. 235

11.4. Risk Assessment for Sexual Offenses

Sexually violent predator statutes require specialist evaluations that address the risk of sexual offense. For risk assessments concerning sexual reoffense, emphasis should be placed on paraphilic acts and interests. The evaluee should be questioned about the nature and frequency of this behavior. In particular, evidence of escalation or de-escalation should be sought. The evaluator should question the evaluee about fantasies and impulses in the sexual domain. Careful inquiry about the evaluee's thoughts, feelings, and intent at the time of the alleged acts is important. Questions about the evaluee's attitude toward what he has allegedly done should also be part of the assessment.

Defensiveness, denial, and minimization are common in sex offenders. 236 Sometimes, multiple interviews are necessary to make a full evaluation of the offender. Concern about being labeled a sex offender should be acknowledged, especially for first-time sex offenders and for those who expect to face lengthy sentences. In the assessment of risk for sexual recidivism, a thorough sexual history should be taken. In particular, it is helpful to learn about early sexual experiences, especially whether the evaluee was sexually abused as a child.

Early sexual behavior may be the forme fruste of a paraphilia. A sexual history should include an assessment of gender identity, sexual orientation, and sexual dysfunctions. A history of known sexually transmitted infections and treatment should also be obtained. Questions about impulsivity, judgment, and antisocial behavior before the age of 15 are significant. In addition, it is helpful to try to elicit information regarding attitudes toward women and toward engaging in sex acts with children, as well as evidence of sexual entitlement and preoccupation. 124 A history of the evaluee's ability to form and maintain relationships is also important, especially if it can be independently verified. Similarly, ascertaining the evaluee's ability to follow through on commitments such as education and career helps to complete the picture. These factors are also pertinent when evaluating the presence or absence of antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy.

Assessment of substance use is particularly relevant because of its relationship to sexual offenses. It includes careful interviewing of the evaluee and providers of collateral information and the use of screening tools. 237 Formal mental status examination and functional inquiry about psychiatric symptoms are important for determining whether the sexual behavior is linked to mental illness, a significant factor in risk assessment and management. 238 Adjunctive testing is generally considered important in these assessments. Psychometric testing, usually in collaboration with a psychologist, is often advisable as well.

Tests of endocrine function, which may include tests for diabetes and thyroid disease and specific levels of sex hormones, are sometimes indicated. 239 Neuropsychological testing by a psychologist, electroencephalography, and imaging studies can identify a variety of brain diseases that may have prognostic implications. Self-report measures of sexual behavior and attitudes provide another window into the mind of the evaluee. 240 Other investigations include sexual preference testing by PPG and VRT (see Section 8.6, Penile Plethysmography and Visual Reaction Time Screening). Regardless of the approach, experts should be familiar with the psychometric properties of the technique.

• 12. Conclusion

This Guideline has set the groundwork for forensic assessments, which form the basis for reports and court testimony. The background and approaches provided here are intended to contribute to training new forensic psychiatrists, assist experienced forensic experts in improving their skills and handling complex situations, provide a menu of considerations when undertaking an assessment, and identify gaps in knowledge for further research.

Forensic psychiatrists have a unique role. They must step outside of the usual parameters of the confidential physician–patient relationship in a variety of ways, providing information about the evaluee to lawyers or courts, maintaining a neutral attitude toward the evaluee interview, investigating the evaluee's account through other interviews and reports, recording interviews, and referring the evaluee to colleagues for needed treatment to avoid conflict of interest. The expert thus must tread a fine line between the referring agent and the evaluee, seeking to answer the psycholegal question as objectively as possible.

Preparing this Guideline has also involved finding balances between the weight of evidence and the wealth of experience that the authors, informed by members of AAPL, have brought to it; between providing prescriptive advice and fostering experts' judgment based on their training and experience; and between best practices (empirically or experientially determined) and the need to cope with practical and logistical constraints. The approach offered herein is intended to support forensic psychiatrists with information and guidance, while empowering them to develop analytical capabilities to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

This document is therefore a roadmap through the process, content, and considerations relevant to civil and criminal cases. Because of differences among jurisdictions and in practice, certain protocols are not clear cut. Differing conceptions of the purpose of the assessment, the expert's role, standards, and ethics-related requirements can lead to honest but varying approaches to the task. Where there are wider discrepancies in practice, the Guideline provides options with advantages and disadvantages, or remains deliberately open-ended in its conclusions. Such areas are excellent topics for further research; as well, the experience of the community of experts can lead to further shared knowledge of best practices and alternative approaches.

This document does not cover report-writing or testifying. Many of the subjects given brief treatment here are covered in more depth in published texts and journal articles. Some areas, such as developmental disability and cultural competence in forensic psychiatric contexts, as well as risk assessment, have come to the fore in recent years and continue to be the subject of intensive research. The reference list is a resource for further reading. For useful, more in-depth coverage of particular areas of forensic assessment, refer to the other AAPL Practice Guidelines. 36 , 39 , 45 , 46 , 68

As with other guidelines, it is hoped that this one will contribute to practice improvement and professional development in forensic assessment and, ultimately, to better outcomes in justice and mental health.

↵ * The AAPL Task Force on a Forensic Assessment Guideline consisted of: Graham D. Glancy, MBChB, FRCP(C) (Chair); Peter Ash, MD; Erica PJ Bath, MD; Alec Buchanan, PhD, MD; Paul Fedoroff, MD; Richard L. Frierson, MD; Victoria L. Harris, MD; Susan J. Hatters Friedman, MD; Mark J. Hauser, MD; James Knoll, MD; Mike Norko, MD; Debra Pinals, MD; Marilyn Price, MD, CM; Patricia Recupero, MD, JD; Charles L. Scott, MD; and Howard V. Zonana, MD.

The following members of the Task Force composed a Steering Committee for development of the Guideline: Drs. Glancy, Buchanan, Norko, Pinals, and Zonana.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the following for their assistance and advice in preparing this Guideline: Jacquelyn Coleman, Elizabeth Ferris, Stefan Treffers, Dylan Glancy, and Kirsten Donovan.

Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.

• © 2015 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
• Glancy GD ,
• Sackett DL ,
• Straus SE ,
• Richardson WS ,
• Greenfield DP ,
• Gottschalk JA
• Griffith EE ,
• Stankovic A ,
• Baranoski M
• Griffith EEH ,
• Baranoski MV
• Wettstein RM
• Buchanan A ,
• Nicholson RA ,
• Boccaccini MT ,
• Heilbrun K ,
• Marczyk GR ,
• DeMatteo D ,
• Appelbaum KL
• Mossman D ,
• Vanness DJ ,
• Acklin MW ,
• Nguyen AH ,
• 22. ↵ Opinion E-9.07, Medical Testimony . Chicago : American Medical Association , 1994
• Appelbaum PS
• Goldstein AM
• Picarello K
• Griffith EE
• Candilis PJ ,
• Martinez R ,
• Candilis PJ
• Noffsinger SG ,
• Weinstock R ,
• 39. ↵ American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry . Section IV. Adopted May, 2005. Available at http://www.aapl.org/ethics.htm . Accessed November 6, 2009
• Resnick PJ ,
• Anfang SA ,
• Drukteinis AM ,
• Giorgi-Guarnieri D ,
• Janofsky J ,
• 48. ↵ Commonwealth v. Lamb, 311 N.E.2d 47 (Mass. 1974) .
• 49. ↵ Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) .
• 50. ↵ Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) .
• 51. ↵ Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) .
• Janofsky JS
• Chaimowitz GA ,
• Blackburn J
• McDermott B
• Gervais RO ,
• Allen LM III . ,
• Weinberger LE ,
• Teplin LA ,
• Leavitt N ,
• Presskreischer H ,
• Maykuth PL ,
• Recupero PR
• Brodsky SL ,
• Gutheil TG ,
• 68. ↵ AAPL Task Force : Videotaping of forensic psychiatric evaluations . J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 27 : 345 – 58 , 1999 OpenUrl FREE Full Text
• 69. ↵ State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525 (1981) .
• 70. ↵ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .
• Bourget D ,
• Labelle A ,
• Binder RL ,
• Ciccone JR ,
• Greiffenstein MF ,
• Johnson-Greene D
• Merikangas KR ,
• Lazowski LE ,
• Miller FG ,
• Lozhkina O ,
• Compton MT ,
• Farrington DP ,
• Goldstein NES ,
• Romaine CLR ,
• Steadman HJ ,
• Redlich AD ,
• Griffin P ,
• Drogin EY ,
• Dattilio FM ,
• Sadoff RL ,
• Atkins EL ,
• Appelbaum KL ,
• Zaitchik MC
• 91. ↵ Opinion 2.06: Capital Punishment . Chicago : American Medical Association , 2000
• Farber NJ ,
• 93. ↵ Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) .
• 94. ↵ Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) .
• Pinals DA ,
• Appelbaum PS ,
• Foubister N ,
• 102. ↵ American Psychiatric Association : Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition . Washington, DC : American Psychiatric Association , 2013
• Spitzer RL ,
• Lilienfeld SO
• 104. ↵ American Psychiatric Association : Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fourth Edition , Text Revision . Washington, DC : American Psychiatric Association , 2000
• LeBourgeois HW ,
• Thompson JW ,
• Tillbrook CE ,
• Briggs SR ,
• Robertson HC
• Everington CT
• Everington CT ,
• Luckasson R
• Poythress NG ,
• Nussbaum D ,
• Tremblay H ,
• Douglas K ,
• Quinsey VL ,
• Harris GT ,
• Roberts A ,
• Fleminger S ,
• Kopelman MD ,
• Marshall W ,
• Fernandez Y
• Grudzinskas AJ ,
• Bradford JM ,
• Fedoroff J ,
• Hanson RK ,
• Bussiere MT
• Karlstrom E ,
• Bradford JM
• Schwartz BK
• Johnson SA ,
• 135. ↵ Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) .
• Recupero PR ,
• Drukteinis A
• 140. ↵ Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment . Chicago : American Medical Association , 2008
• 142. ↵ Practice Guideline for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults . Washington, DC : American Psychiatric Association , 2006
• Strasburger L ,
• Linhorst DM ,
• Rachlin S ,
• 146. ↵ Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) .
• Benedek EP ,
• Sankaran VS ,
• Kulkofsky S ,
• Klemfuss JZ ,
• Hauser MJ ,
• Luckasson R ,
• Schalock RL
• Schalock RL ,
• Rosenfeld B ,
• Everington C ,
• Notario-Smull H ,
• Morrissey C ,
• Aggarwal NK
• Matthews D ,
• Tseng W-S ,
• Williams DR ,
• Gonzalez HM ,
• Neighbors H ,
• Breslau J ,
• Kendler KS ,
• Adebimpe VR ,
• Adebimpe VR
• 172. ↵ Cultural Assessment in Clinical Psychiatry . Washington, DC : American Psychiatric Publishing , 2008
• Miranda J ,
• McGuire T ,
• Williams D ,
• Kirmayer LJ ,
• Rousseau C ,
• Packer IK ,
• Kirmayer LJ
• Miller PM ,
• Commons ML ,
• Boehnlein JK ,
• Schaefer MN ,
• Butcher JN ,
• Graham JR ,
• Ben-Porath YS ,
• Fischer C ,
• Marchie A ,
• Schumaker JF
• Greenberg D ,
• Witztum E ,
• Buchbinder JT
• Bergeron RL
• Carter RT ,
• Waldfogel S ,
• Stotland NL
• Robinson LH
• Barnhouse R
• Josephson AM ,
• Heilbronner RL ,
• Morgan JE ,
• Foster KR ,
• Langleben DD
• Kanaan RA ,
• McCarthy-Jones S ,
• Granacher RP ,
• Shandera AL ,
• Soliman S ,
• Wachspress M ,
• Berenberg AN ,
• Vitacco MJ ,
• Kucharski LT ,
• Meehan KB ,
• Sewell KW ,
• Martin MA ,
• Boccaccini MT
• Woodworth M ,
• ten Brinke L ,
• Rivard JM ,
• Martell D ,
• Warren JI ,
• Murrie DC ,
• Chauhan P ,
• Gacono CB ,
• Sheppard K ,
• Benedek D ,
• 228. ↵ American Psychiatric Association : The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry . Washington, DC : American Psychiatric Association , 2013
• 229. ↵ College Report CR 147 . London, UK : Royal College of Psychiatrists , 2008
• Howells K ,
• Pollock N ,
• Dvoskin J ,
• Grudzinskas JA ,
• Bradford J ,
• Berlin FS ,
• Langevin R ,
• Yarber WL ,
• Bauserman R

In this issue

• Table of Contents
• Index by author

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager

• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Jump to section

Related articles, cited by..., more in this toc section.

• American Psychiatric Association resource document on preserving patient confidentiality in the era of information technology

Similar Articles

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

• Define forensic psychology.
• Outline the history of forensic psychology.

Describe the roles and responsibilities of forensic psychologists.

• Outline some of the professional issues faced by forensic psychologists.
• Compare and contrast the fields of psychology and law.
• Outline the training opportunities for students in forensic psychology.

Forensic psychology is a dynamic field that provides challenging opportunities for the application of psychological research and practice to legal issues. This textbook provides a broad overview of the roles of psychologists in their work with police, the courts, jails and prisons, forensic hospitals, and juvenile facilities. In this opening chapter, we will define the field of forensic psychology, and describe contributions psychologists make as trial consultants, expert witnesses, evaluators, treatment providers, and researchers. While we are strongly positive about these contributions, we also recognize that conflicts may arise when the two disciplines of law and psychology attempt to interact on legal issues that have a psychological component. These conflicts are highlighted in this chapter but also addressed throughout this book. We conclude this chapter with a discussion of the education and training needed for those desiring to pursue a career in forensic psychology.

1.1 Defining forensic psychology

Learning Objective 1.1

Forensic psychology can be conceptualized as encompassing both sides of the justice system (civil and criminal) as well as two broad aspects of psychology (clinical and experimental). It would seem that defining forensic psychology should be a straightforward task. Alas, this is not the case. The difficulty stems from the fact that the professionals who work in forensic psychology come from a wide range of graduate and professional backgrounds. Some have degrees in clinical or counselling psychology; others have graduate training in other areas of psychology, such as social, developmental, cognitive, or neuropsychology. Others have backgrounds in law, some with degrees in both psychology and law. The nature of their contributions to forensic psychology also varies. Forensic psychologists can work both within and outside the legal system. Some psychologists provide services directly to the court by assessing such issues as competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, or child custody. Others are researchers, typically based in universities, who conduct basic or applied research on such topics as eyewitness behaviour or jury decision making. Still others combine both research and clinical practice. This potential for working both within and outside the legal system has led Haney (1980) to comment, “Psychologists have been slow to decide whether they want to stand outside the system to study, critique, and change it, or to embrace and be employed by it. And the law has been tentative in deciding how it will use and grant access to psychologists” (p. 152). Haney’s comment still rings true today, over three decades later.

For these reasons, it has been difficult to arrive at a definition that encompasses all of these professional backgrounds and varied roles. Table 1.1 shows a sample of definitions that various individuals and organizations have proposed. Some, like the one used by Goldstein, offer broad descriptions that attempt to encompass all of the backgrounds and roles mentioned here, distinguishing the research and practice contributions. Others, such as those used by the American Psychological Association or the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists , focus more on the applied roles of psychologists as providers of expertise to the legal system.

The conflicts involved in arriving at a definition of forensic psychology were the subject of Professor Jack Brigham’s 1999 presidential address to the American Psychology-Law Society. He posed the question, “What is forensic psychology, anyway?” His answer reflects the distinctions between clinical and nonclinical participants in forensic psychology:

To return to my original question about what is forensic psychology , I believe that there are two levels of classification that yield two sets of definitions. At the level of ethical guidelines and professional responsibility, the broad defi nition fits best. Any psychologist (clinical, social, cognitive, developmental, etc.) who works within the legal system is a forensic psychologist in this sense, and the same high ethical and professional standards should apply to all. When it comes to how the legal system and the public conceptualize forensic psychology, however, there is a definite clinical flavor. The clinical/nonclinical distinction is a meaningful one, I believe. For example, educational, training, and licens ing issues that are pertinent to clinical forensic psychologists may be irrelevant or inapplicable to nonclinical forensic psychologists. Further, clinicians and nonclinicians differ in their orientation to the legal process and in the role that they are likely to play in the courtroom (e.g., individual assessments vs. research-based social fact evidence). So there you have it—two varieties of forensic psychologists, clinical and nonclinical. (Brigham, 1999, p. 295)

It is of note that some graduate programs use both narrow and broad definitions to define their program. John Jay College at the City University of New York (CUNY), which has MA and PhD programs in forensic psychology, is one example. The core curriculum in the clinical doctoral program is clinically focused; the broader definition is apparent in nonclinical elective courses in the program and in an interdisciplinary concentration in psychology and law, as well as an experimental doctoral program, both available to CUNY psychology doctoral students who are interested in forensic psychology but whose interests do not require clinical training. We have adopted a broad definition for this book.

1.2 History of Forensic Psychology

Learning Objective 1.2

There is general agreement that although medical experts testified in some criminal cases in the 1800s (see Figure 1.1), the roots of modern-day psychology and law were not established until the early part of the 20th century. If these roots can be traced to one individual, it would perhaps be Hugo Munsterberg, who was the director of Harvard’s Psychological Laboratory. Munsterberg was a strong advocate of the application of psychological research to legal issues. In his book On the Witness Stand , published in 1908, Munsterberg reviewed research on such topics as the reliability of eyewitness testimony, false confessions, and crime detection and prevention, and argued that the legal system should make greater use of this research. He wrote that “the courts will have to learn, sooner or later, that the individual differences of men can be tested today by the methods of experimental psychology far beyond anything which common sense and social experience suggest” (p. 63). Munsterberg was a controversial figure whose claims for the contributions of psychology to law were not supported by empirical research.

Historical overview of forensic psychology

1843. Daniel M’Naghten is found not guilty by reason of insanity.

• 1908. Psychologist Hugo Munsterberg’s On the Witness Stand is published.
• 1909–18. Guy Whipple publishes a series of articles in Psychological Bulletin extending European research (e.g., Stern, Binet) on observation, memory, and witness testimony.
• 1906. In a speech to Austrian judges, Sigmund Freud suggests that psychology has important applications for their field.
• 1909. Legal scholar John H. Wigmore satirizes Munsterberg’s claims in a law review article.
• 1954. The “Social Science Brief,” written by psychologists Kenneth Clark, lsidor Chein, and Stuart Cook and signed by 35 social scientists, is cited in a footnote of the momentous Brown vs. Board of Education decision outlawing school segregation.
• 1971. The Program in Law and Social Science is established at the National Science Foundation.
• 1976. “Psychology and the Law” is first reviewed (by J.L.Tapp) in the Annual Review of Psychology.
• 1968–69. The American PsychologyLaw Society (AP-LS) is founded.
• 1974. First jointdegree psychology-law program is established (University of Nebraska).
• 1977. Law and Human Behavior begins publication as the AP-LS journal.
• 1984. AP-LS merges with Division 41 of APA.
• 1995. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law begins publication as an APA journal.
• 2011. Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists updated.
• 1980–81. American Psychological Association (APA) Division 41 is established with a merger with AP-LS.
• 1991. Specialty Guidelines for Forensic” Psychologists published.
• 2001. APA designates forensic psychology as a specialty area.

Criticisms of Munsterberg were rampant. As Doyle (2005) commented, “What Munsterberg had failed to grasp was that his knowledge about the reliability of witnesses was not sufficient to answer the legal system’s concern for the reliability of the verdicts ” (p. 30). Notable among the critiques from both the legal and psychological communities was one by the legal scholar John Wigmore. In a satirical article published in a law review in 1909, Wigmore staged a mock lawsuit in which he accused Munsterberg of libelling the legal profession and exaggerating his claim of what psychology had to offer the law. He subjected Munsterberg’s claims to a rigorous cross-examination in which he argued that psychological testimony about issues such as eyewitness credibility should not be admissible in the courts. Of course, Munsterberg was found guilty. It is of interest to note that, despite his scathing critique of Munsterberg, Wigmore (1940) was positive about the potential of psychology to offer assistance to the courts on a range of legal issues, noting that the courts would be ready for psychologists when psychologists were ready for the courts. It was not until the past few decades that psychology has begun to answer Wigmore’s call.

At the same time that Munsterberg published his book, Louis Brandeis, a lawyer who would later become a U.S. Supreme Court justice, submitted a brief, in the case of Muller v. Oregon (1908), that summarized the social science research showing the impact that longer working hours had on the health and well-being of women. The Oregon court’s decision was consistent with the conclusions Brandeis reached in the brief. This marked the first time that social science research was presented in court in the form of a brief, and subsequent briefs of this nature became known as Brandeis briefs . In the United States, they are also referred to as amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs (Roesch, Golding, Hans, & Reppucci, 1991). Insight 1.1 provides an example of a brief introduced in a British Columbia Supreme Court case. Professional associations may also provide summaries of relevant research to legislative bodies. For example, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) submitted a report to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which was considering changes to the Canadian Criminal Code. The report of a special task force of forensic and correctional psychologists summarized research into the determinants of criminal behaviour and “what works” in the treatment of offenders (Canadian Psychological Association, 2011; see also Cook & Roesch, 2012).

Another early historical event was the publication, in the prestigious journal Psychological Bulletin , of a series of articles by Guy Whipple that in part related research on memory to the accounts of observers of events. In an article published in 1909, Whipple set the stage for later laboratory research on witness behaviour. He wrote:

If, then, the work of reporting is difficult even for the trained expert work ing under laboratory conditions and using a carefully refined terminology, how much more difficult must it be for the untrained individual to report with accuracy and completeness the experiences of his daily life, when to the inadequacy of his language there must be added the falsifying influences of misdirected attention, mal-observation, and errors of memory, not to men tion the falsifying influences that may spring from lack of caution, of zeal for accurate statement, or even from deliberate intent to mislead. (p. 153)

INSIGHT 1.1. Brandeis brief materials in Canada

While only the future can reveal the significance of a present event, I feel that [the meeting] in San Francisco will prove to be an event of historic significance It may not prove grandiose to compare the potential impact of the creation of this society in its area with that of the Royal Academy of Science in Britain and the Academie des Sciences in France We can perceive that we have taken on a precious responsibility, for there are few interdisciplinary areas with so much potential [as psychology and law] for improving the human condition and for acquiring and utilizing greater understanding of man. (Ziskin, 1968, p. 1)

1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of the Forensic Psychologist

Learning Objective 1.3

Forensic psychologists may take on many roles. Examination of the student and early career section of the website for the American Psychology-Law Society (www.ap-ls.org) indicates that there is no one particular path to becoming a forensic psychologist, and that forensic psychologists may be employed in a wide variety of settings. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of the forensic psychologist are many and varied. In general, forensic psychologists take on one primary role but may engage in additional roles depending on their interests and training. The various roles include, but are not limited to, trial consultant, expert witness, evaluator, treatment provider, researcher, academic, and correctional psychologist. Of course, it is possible (in fact, common) for an individual to take on more than one of these roles or to take on additional roles not mentioned here.

The Trial Consultant

A trial consultant (or jury consultant) is someone who works with legal professionals, mainly attorneys, to assist in various aspects of case preparation, including development of case strategy and witness preparation. In the United States, they may also be involved in jury selection. As discussed in Chapter 11, the jury system in Canada is such that jury consultants have limited ability to provide useable information for the process of jury selection. Many trial consultants rely on their research training to develop and execute research that will assist attorneys in preparing a case. Research and data collection strategies might include community surveys, focus groups, jury simulations, shadow juries, and mock trials. Trial consultants may be involved in both civil and criminal cases and may assist at any (or all) stage(s) of the proceedings—in preparation for trial, during trial, or after trial. There is no one avenue to becoming a trial consultant; however, trial consultants usually have advanced degrees in one of the behavioural sciences, such as psychology or criminology. There are many trial consulting firms across North America that employ individuals in this role; however, it is also possible to maintain a private practice as a trial consultant without working for a trial consulting firm.

The Expert Witness

An expert witness is someone who testifies in court about opinions based on specialized knowledge that he or she possesses. Forensic psychologists are often called upon to testify regarding matters of mental health (in the case of a clinical forensic psychologist) or general theory and research in psychology and law. Generally, clinical forensic psychologists are involved as expert witnesses after they have evaluated a defendant and thus are called to testify about that defendant’s mental state and how it relates to the legal issue at hand (e.g., insanity, competency, dangerousness, civil commitment). It is possible, however, for forensic psychologists to serve as general expert witnesses, in which case, instead of giving testimony on specialized knowledge about a particular defendant/complainant, they may be called to testify regarding broader psychological principles in which they have specialized knowledge or expertise. This role is usually performed in conjunction with another role, such as that of researcher, academic, or evaluator, and thus is generally not the only (or even the primary) role in which a forensic psychologist engages. Forensic psychologists in the expert witness role may participate in both criminal and civil proceedings and are usually trained either in general psychology or in a particular psychological specialty, such as clinical psychology.

The Evaluator

Many forensic psychologists take the role of evaluators. In general, this refers to the evaluation of criminal defendants or parties to civil litigation with respect to mental health issues that relate to the legal issue at hand; however, this may also refer to the evaluation of service delivery or treatment programs. In the criminal realm, forensic psychologists may be called upon to evaluate defendants with respect to their fitness to stand trial, their mental state at the time of the offence (e.g., insanity), their risk for future dangerousness, or other such issues (but see the discussion later in this chapter, in the section on licensure, on the restricted role of psychologists in Canada with respect to evaluating fitness and criminal responsibility). In the United States, psychologists have been involved in death penalty litigation regarding evaluations of a death row inmate’s competency to participate in appeals or competency to be executed (Brodsky, Zapf, & Boccaccini, 2005). Psychologists do not deal with these issues in Canada, because the death penalty was abolished in 1976. In the civil realm, forensic psychologists may be called upon to evaluate the psychological state of an individual who has been injured in an accident, or they may evaluate families involved in custody and access disputes. The evaluator role usually goes hand in hand with the expert witness role, as many evaluators are called into court to testify about the opinions they formed during their evaluations. Forensic psychologists who take on the role of an evaluator are employed in a wide variety of settings, including forensic hospitals, state psychiatric hospitals, community mental health centres, and private practice. Forensic psychologists who evaluate defendants or parties to civil litigation have usually been trained as clinical psychologists, have some specialization in forensic psychology, and are usually required to be licensed as psychologists. However, licensure is not necessarily required for those psychologists who are involved in research and/or academia.

The Treatment Provider

A treatment providers offer psychological treatment to individuals requiring or desiring these services. Forensic psychologists who take on the role of the treatment provider work in a wide variety of settings, similar to those who take on the evaluator role, including forensic hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, community mental health centres, and private practices. In addition, like evaluators, treatment providers may work with individuals or groups involved in both criminal and civil proceedings. In the criminal realm, treatment providers may be called upon to offer psychological interventions to individuals who the courts have deemed incompetent to stand trial (and who thus require treatment for the restoration of competency), insane at the time of the crime (who require treatment for their mental illness), or at a high risk to commit a violent offence (who require treatment to minimize the likelihood of acting violently in the future), as well as a number of other criminal law-related issues. Within the civil realm, forensic psychologists may be called upon to provide treatment to families who are going through divorce proceedings or individuals who have sustained psychological injuries as a result of some trauma they endured, or for a host of other civil law-related issues. The roles of treatment provider and evaluator may both be performed by the same forensic psychologist, although ethical guidelines (discussed later in this chapter) attempt to limit the chances that both of these roles will be fulfilled with the same client or patient.

The Researcher

Forensic psychologists who take on the role of researcher design and implement research on various issues relevant to forensic psychology or psychology and the law, both criminal and civil. In addition, these professionals may conduct research on mental health law and policy or program evaluation. These professionals may be employed in a number of settings including universities and colleges, but also at research institutes, government or private agencies, and psychiatric hospitals or other mental health agencies.

The Academic

Forensic psychologists who take on the role of the academic are involved in teaching, research, and a host of other education-related activities, such as training and supervision of students. Psychologists who take on this role can be trained either generally in psychology or in one of the specialties such as clinical psychology. In addition, these professionals usually have an advanced degree in psychology, typically a PhD. Academics will often also take on one or more of the aforementioned roles in addition to the role of academic. In general, academics are employed by institutions of higher learning—colleges or universities.

The Correctional Psychologist

A correctional psychologist is a forensic psychologist who works in a correctional setting with inmates and offenders. These psychologists often engage in direct service delivery—both evaluation and treatment—of individuals who have been incarcerated or who are out on probation or parole. Thus, in addition to the roles of evaluator and treatment provider, correctional psychologists may also take on the role of researcher or expert witness.

1.4 Professional Issues

Learning Objective 1.4

Licensure and Registration of Psychologists

Every province has developed statutory provisions for the practice of psychology, and in every province an individual must be licensed or registered as a psychologist in order to practice psychology independently (without supervision). A doctoral-level degree is required to become licensed as a psychologist in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, while the remaining provinces and territories allow psychologists with either a doctoral or master’s degree to practise. However, the role of forensic psychologists may be limited by either statute or practice. For example, although psychologists in other countries, such as the United States, have for some time been admitted as experts in fitness evaluations, the evaluation of fitness to stand trial in Canada has traditionally been the province of physicians, usually psychiatrists (Viljoen, Roesch, Ogloff, & Zapf, 2003). Criminal Code changes in the past decade have resulted in the possibility that psychologists may conduct assessments of fitness as well as criminal responsibility. Section 672.1 of the Criminal Code now states that these assessments may be done “by a medical practitioner or any other person who has been designated by the Attorney General as being qualified to conduct an assessment of the mental condition of the accused” (emphasis added). So under this provision, psychologists may now be allowed to conduct fitness evaluations if they were so designated by the Provincial Attorney General.

An individual need not be licensed to participate in many of the roles described earlier. It is necessary to be licensed to engage in the role of evaluator, treatment provider, or expert witness (unless the testimony is to be general and not specifically in regard to an individual that the psychologist has evaluated or treated); however, it is possible to engage in the role of trial consultant, researcher, academic, correctional psychologist, and expert witness (for general testimony about psychological theory and research) without being licensed to practice as a psychologist. As a general statement, it is necessary to be licensed as a psychologist whenever one engages in the practice of psychology with an individual or a group of people. The one exception to this is when one engages in the practice of psychology within a correctional setting. In this case, it is possible to practice psychology without a license and it is the correctional institution that retains responsibility for its psychological personnel.

Psychology is a self-regulating profession, which means decisions regarding competence to practice psychology and the conduct expected of psychologists are made by members of the profession as well as members of the public who sit on a regulatory board. The primary purpose of the board is the protection of the public. Each province has a regulatory board that controls the profession of psychology. Practitioners apply to this regulatory board to become licensed, which usually requires that the individual has completed a series of specific courses in psychology, has completed a certain number of hours of supervised clinical contact, and has passed a provincial licensing exam. The board is also responsible for implementing and administering the relevant act or statutes pertaining to the practice of psychology. In each province, the regulatory board is usually responsible for protecting the public from incompetent or unethical psychologists, determining the requirements for becoming licensed as a psychologist, periodically reviewing licensed psychologists’ competence to practise psychology, developing and enforcing codes of ethical and professional conduct to be followed by licensed psychologists, educating and informing the public about the regulation of psychology, and developing and enforcing complaint and disciplinary procedures for complaints involving psychologists.

Ethical Issues in the Various Roles of the Forensic Psychologist

There are a number of ethical issues that psychologists and forensic psychologists deal with on a regular basis. Some of the most common issues include taking on multiple roles and confidentiality, privacy, and privilege.

Many of the ethical issues that psychologists deal with cut across the various roles that they take on. For example, when psychologists interact with students, they may take on the role of researcher, academic, or supervisor. When they interact with clients, they may be involved as a treatment provider or evaluator. Each role carries with it ethical issues, and we will discuss the most common role conflicts next.

A specific set of guidelines has been developed to cover the many unique ethical and professional issues that arise in the context of forensic psychology. The Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology were first published in 1991 and were revised in 2011 (a copy can be accessed at www.ap-ls.org/aboutpsychlaw/ SpecialtyGuidelines.php). These guidelines were endorsed by the American Psychology-Law Society and the American Academy of Forensic Psychology. They provide guidance and information to be considered in attempting to determine the most ethical course of action in 12 different areas, including responsibilities; competence; diligence; relationships; fees; notification, assent, consent, and informed consent; conflicts in practice; privacy, confidentiality, and privilege; methods and procedures; assessment; documentation; and professional and other public communications.

Among other ethical issues, such as taking on multiple roles with a patient or client, psychologists acting in the roles of evaluators and treatment providers must often think about matters related to informed consent, confidentiality, and competence (that is, whether the psychologists are practising within the bounds of their competence). When the evaluator or treatment provider is working within the forensic context, he or she must also grapple with the question of who is the client. In many situations, the client or patient is the person being evaluated or receiving treatment services; however, in the forensic context, it is the attorney or the court who is the client, rather than the person being evaluated or treated. Recall also that, in the forensic context, there is often no confidentiality for the person being evaluated or treated. In addition, there is an assumption that the evaluator or treatment provider will be objective and neutral—not favouring one side over the other, and thus not concealing information that may be favourable to one party to the proceedings but not the other (for example, not concealing how the offender’s previous violent history may increase the risk for future violence, even when the psychologist is retained by the defence to present mitigating testimony at a sentencing hearing). Objectivity and neutrality are, similarly, of concern to psychologists taking on the role of the expert witness. In that role, psychologists are expected to maintain their objectivity and to provide information that will assist the court in making a legal decision; thus, it would be unethical for expert witnesses to agree to be paid on a contingency basis (in which the expert would get paid for services only if the desired outcome is reached in a case).

When psychologists take on the role of researcher, they need to adhere to ethical guidelines regarding the design and implementation of research. Issues of concern in this role include reporting data honestly, obtaining informed consent from research participants, being honest about the risk of harm that may occur as a result of research participation (for example, some research designs may require that the participants are initially deceived, which may cause them to feel duped and perhaps mistrustful), ensuring that research participation is voluntary and not coerced, and ensuring that participants are able to withdraw from participation without any undue consequences. In addition, when the research involves treatment for a psychological problem or condition, the psychologist-researcher must also consider the right of everyone to treatment when designing the research. The role of researcher is often inherent in the role of academic, but a few additional ethical issues arise in this role, including being aware of multiple roles with students, respecting the power differential between the academic and the student, and ensuring that proper credit is given to students and other individuals involved in academic work and publication.

In the role of trial consultant, psychologists must be sure to practice within the bounds of their competence, guard against guaranteeing the outcome of a case, ensure that research is performed on sample sizes large enough to demonstrate any desired effects, honestly report research results or data, and be careful not to taint witnesses during preparation.

Finally, psychologists working within the correctional system also deal with numerous ethical issues on a daily basis, such as confidentiality, informed consent, competence, and identity of the client (that is, in a correctional setting, the institution for which the psychologist works is the client, not the inmate). In addition, correctional psychologists are often put in the awkward position of performing multiple roles every day—consider the psychologist who works with inmates but is also expected to be able to discipline an inmate or even turn a firearm on an inmate in a time of institutional crisis (in the United States, psychologists working in the federal correctional system receive firearms training and are expected to bear arms during institutional upheaval).

These are just some of the ethical issues that arise for psychologists in each of the various roles they may assume. Of course, this list is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive. We now turn to a discussion of two of the most common ethical issues for psychologists in almost any role: multiple roles and confidentiality.

Multiple Roles

Although psychologists may take on many different professional roles, it is important that a psychologist use caution when taking on multiple professional roles with the same client/student/patient. For example, although a psychologist may be a researcher, a clinical supervisor, and a treatment provider, it would be important that the psychologist not engage in each of these roles with the same student. Thus, students may act as research assistants as well as clinical supervisees for a psychologist but should not also receive treatment for their own psychological issues from the same psychologist. The responsibility for ensuring that students not engage with the psychologist in too many roles rests on the psychologist, not on the students. Psychologists must maintain an awareness of the power differential that occurs in certain situations and use caution so as not to exert undue power over the actions of others with whom they interact.

Confidentiality and Privilege

One of the main issues that psychologists deal with every day is confidentiality . That is, psychologists are ethically bound to keep information about their clients confidential. But what happens when the client tells the psychologist something that may end up harming someone else? Or what happens when psychologists believe that their clients are going to hurt themselves or someone else? These are not easy issues to deal with. One way to guard against these situations is for psychologists to tell their clients up front what information might require them to break the client’s confidentiality. Psychologists are legally bound to report certain types of information—such as known or suspected child abuse. It is important that the client know ahead of time the limits on confidentiality.

What about the specific case of the forensic psychologist? Is a forensic psychologist who is retained by the courts to evaluate a defendant’s mental state required to keep this information confidential? The short answer is no. In this case, the purpose of the evaluation is to assist the courts in making a decision about a particular legal issue (e.g., competency to stand trial, or mental state at the time of the offence), so the psychologist is unable to maintain confidentiality of the information obtained from the defendant. It is, however, important that the defendant understand that there is no confidentiality in this situation. In addition, simply because confidentiality does not apply in the forensic context, this does not mean that the forensic psychologist is free to divulge the details of the case to other people not involved in the case. The forensic psychologist must still respect the defendant’s right to privacy and must still act ethically by divulging information about the defendant only to those relevant parties—usually the judge, the defence, and the prosecution.

With issues of confidentiality, as well as with any other ethical issue, there are rarely easy answers—the situation is seldom black and white. The ethical guidelines to which psychologists must adhere provide useful information to help psychologists think through these dilemmas; however, the decisions that psychologists make about these dilemmas are often the product of lengthy discussion with colleagues and painstaking weighing of options. In this respect, the ethical guidelines are invaluable, both to psychologists and to the people and groups with whom psychologists work.

Professional Associations and Publications

There are a number of professional groups that represent psychology and law. In North America, the primary group is the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS), which is an interdisciplinary organization devoted to scholarship, practice, and public service in psychology and law (see Grisso, 1991, for a history of AP-LS). AP-LS is both a free-standing organization and Division 41 of the American Psychological Association. It has an active undergraduate and graduate student membership (see the AP-LS website for student information: www.ap-ls.org). The American Board of Forensic Psychology (ABFP) awards a diploma in forensic psychology to those psychologists who satisfactorily complete the requirements for achieving Specialty Board Certification in forensic psychology. In Europe, the European Association of Psychology and Law (EAPL) is the representative association, and in Australia and New Zealand, it is the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law (ANZAPPL). AL-LS, EAPL, and ANZAPPL each have an annual conference; they have also held several joint conferences in order to promote international collaborations and presentation of the latest research findings.

AP-LS Member Statistics

An analysis of membership data from the 2012 AP-LS member database provides an instructive profile of forensic psychologists. As recently as 2006, nearly two thirds of the over 2,100 members and fellows of AP-LS were male, but the 2012 figures show that females now represent about 61 percent of the membership.

The vast majority of members work in applied settings, with less than 20 percent indicating they work in academic institutions. Minorities are underrepresented, as about 10 percent of members are from minority groups. This is in stark contrast to the representation of minorities in the U.S. criminal justice system, where they account for the majority of defendants and prison inmates. Similarly, in Canada, Aboriginal people are overrepresented in the correctional systems of most provinces. While Aboriginal people comprise about 4 percent of Canada’s adult population, approximately 22 percent of offenders serving custodial sentences are of First Nations, Métis, or Inuit ancestry (Office of the Correctional Investigator, 2012). Yet there are only a small number of Aboriginal psychologists in Canada, and few of them work in the correctional system.

There are many journals that are entirely devoted to the subject of forensic psychology. Law and Human Behavior , the official publication of AP-LS, was the first. It began publication in 1977 as a quarterly journal and expanded to six issues per year in 1990. Several new journals reflect the substantial increases in research and practice that psychology and law has enjoyed over the past 40 years. The list is extensive but includes Behavioral Sciences and the Law ; Criminal Behavior and Mental Health ; Legal and Criminological Psychology ; and Psychology, Public Policy, and Law .

1.5 Differences Between Psychology and Law

One of the difficulties faced by those in forensic psychology stems from the fundamentally different ways practitioners of the disciplines of psychology and law approach their respective fields. Psychology is grounded in theory and empirical research, which is used to test those theories. New research can provide evidence to support or invalidate prior research. A substantial amount of psychological research focuses on the differences between groups of individuals. The legal system, on the other hand, is ultimately concerned with the individual case. Court decisions are often based on precedence—that is, what prior courts have decided in similar cases. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, there are two basic models of justice in Western societies. One is an inquisitorial model that is used in a number of European countries (e.g., France, Switzerland, the Netherlands). In this model, a judge or magistrate takes an active role in determining the facts of a case. Canadian and United States law is based on an adversarial model of justice. In this model, a judge is considered to be an impartial referee between two opposing sides, the defence and the prosecution. Each side is given the opportunity to present its version of the case.

Learning Objectives 1.5

 Once both sides present the evidence, the judge or jury acts as an impartial and passive fact finder, reaching a decision based in theory on an objective and unbiased review of the evidence presented in court. As discussed in Chapter 11, the ideal of a dispassionate trier of fact may not always be realized, as values and other factors may influence the decisions of judges or juries.

The adversarial system presents unique difficulties for psychologists. Psychologists are often hired by one side or the other in a criminal case or civil dispute to conduct a psychological evaluation of an individual. These evaluations may focus on such issues as fitness to stand trial, the psychological impact of an assault, or risk for future violence. The individual being evaluated may perceive a psychologist as an opponent rather than an objective evaluator, and this may influence how that individual responds to the evaluator (Bush, Connell, & Denney, 2006). The adversarial nature of the legal system may also place pressure on psychologists because attorneys are primarily focused on being an advocate for their client and may attempt to influence the evaluation report. Psychology’s ethical guidelines mandate that psychologists not take sides but, rather, perform an independent evaluation.

Haney (1980) has discussed many of the conflicts that arise between law and forensic psychology:

• Academic psychology emphasizes creative, novel, and innovative approaches to research questions. As Haney notes, researchers are encouraged to go beyond standard or accepted categories, and to extend them into new areas. The profession highly values the “‘creative aspect’ of its science . . . in hypothesis generating, methodological design, and the interpretation of data” (p. 159). The legal system, on the other hand, is more conservative in nature, and resists innovation. It operates on the principle of stare decisis in which prior court decisions establish precedence for current cases. Prior decisions should not be overturned unless there are strong legal reasons to do so. Haney comments that “a truly unique idea or argument is likely to lose in court” (p. 159) and adds that “the law is explicitly backward looking in its style and method” (p. 160).
• Psychology is primarily an empirical enterprise “whose principles and propositions depend for their confirmation upon the collection of consistent and supporting data” (p. 160). The legal system, in contrast, is based on a hierarchical and authoritative system in which the lower courts are bound by decisions of higher courts.
• Psychology attempts to arrive at “truth” through the application of an experimental model, in which empirical research is designed to test hypotheses. Research methodologies are designed to minimize error or bias. New research can provide evidence to support or disconfirm prior research. The law uses an adversarial system to arrive at “truth.” Each side presents its version of the case, and the ultimate goal is to win a case. As Haney comments, “Bias and self-interest are not only permitted, they are assumed at the outset and thought to be the very strength and motive force of the procedure” (p. 162).
• Psychology is descriptive in nature, with a goal of describing behaviour as it naturally occurs. The law is prescriptive, in that laws are designed to tell people how they should behave, and what punishment will be given if they do not.
• Psychology is nomothetic (i.e., data are obtained through the investigation of groups), “concentrating upon general principles, relationships, and patterns that transcend the single instance. For the most part, it eschews case studies and principles generated from single cases” (p. 164). The law is idiographic (i.e., data are obtained through the investigation of one individual, usually the individual under consideration), focusing on decisions in an individual case, with the facts of each case forming the basis for the decision. This difference often creates a conflict for experts who testify, because the empirical basis for their testimony may lie in group data. For example, laboratory research on the reliability of eyewitnesses report high error rates in certain conditions, but there is considerable individual variation. Some individuals are accurate even if the majority may not be. This presents a problem for court testimony because the court wants to know whether a single individual is accurate. Psychology’s group data cannot be used to reach an opinion that a specific individual is not reliable.
• Research in psychology is based on methods relying on probabilistic models. Psychologists characterize the relationship between cause and effect using statistics and the tools of probability theory. Hypotheses are tested with the express acknowledgment that there is always a chance of reaching the wrong conclusions. For example, choosing a probability level of 95 percent for a particular analysis means that there is a 5 percent chance that the null hypothesis will be rejected when it is actually correct. Thus, psychological research is based on the principle of probability rather than certainty. The law, in contrast, operates on a principle of certainty, in large part because the legal system demands a final definitive outcome. Criminal defendants are either guilty or not guilty. Plaintiffs in civil cases are either negligent or not. Of course, these “certain” decisions can be wrong, as shown in the many cases of convicted defendants who were later exonerated by DNA evidence.
• Psychology is a proactive discipline. Researchers decide what hypotheses to address and then design studies to test those hypotheses. The law is reactive; it waits until issues (or people) are brought to it.
• Psychology is an academic enterprise, at least in terms of its research. As Haney comments, “Its ‘issues’ are commonly determined by the intellectual curiosities of psychologists and the practical reality of having to publish in order to prosper. For this reason, its concerns can and often do get far out of contact with the ‘real world’” (p. 167). The law is operational and applied in nature, so “its concerns are those of the real world and its problem solving is geared to application” (p. 168).

We introduce Haney’s sources of tension because they are described in virtually every introductory text on psychology and law, so students should be familiar with them. However, we argue that many of the points of distinction are more rhetorical than real, and they may serve to exacerbate the divide between the disciplines. For the sake of brevity, we will discuss only a couple of points. We simply do not agree that psychology is creative while law is conservative and resists innovation. The very evolution of law rests, in no small part, on the creative arguments of legal professionals, who frame problems differently or apply new law to old problems. Second, we do not believe that the law is only concerned with idiographic data. Certainly, in particular cases, the law must concern itself with the individuals involved in the case; however, the law uses nomothetic data each time it applies a test of reasonableness (e.g., the “reasonable person” or a “reasonable delay” or a “reasonably prudent professional”). Finally, we do not agree that law is based on certainty; in fact, we argue that law is fundamentally probabilistic. The criminal burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the civil burden is “on a balance of probabilities.” Just as in psychology, when the burden has been met (“beyond a reasonable doubt,” or when we observe a p-value that is less than 0.05), the language changes to expressions of certainty: the accused is guilty or the two groups are different.

Haney’s Taxonomy

Haney (1980) conceptualized the complexity and diversity of roles for psychologists in the legal system. He has suggested a threefold taxonomy to understand the multiple relationships of psychology and law: psychology in the law, psychology and law, and psychology of law.

Psychology in the law refers to the “explicit and conventional use of psychology by lawyers in the legal process” (p. 153). This relationship accounts for the most common role of psychologists involved in legal issues, since it encompasses the activities of psychologists who conduct court-ordered evaluations or who consult with lawyers on legal issues. Examples include psychological testimony on legal issues such as the insanity defence or competency to stand trial. It might also address questions such as whether a particular offender is at risk for reoffending. For this type of involvement, psychologists must adapt their knowledge and expertise to the legal questions that the courts or law define. To be admissible in court, psychologists must demonstrate that their evidence is relevant to the legal question. Psychology in the law also refers to the roles that psychologists can play as expert consultants in various aspects of legal proceedings. Lawyers employ psychologists to consult about the selection of jurors or to suggest how jurors might react to certain defence strategies. Psychologists have also been employed to conduct studies of the effect that pretrial publicity may have on a particular case. Such research can be used by lawyers in motions arguing for a change of venue to another community. Haney notes that psychology in the law accounts for the most frequent roles of psychologists in the legal system, and he cautions psychologists to “realize that when they are used by the legal system in this way they have little control over the ends to which their expertise is ultimately applied” (p. 154).

Psychology and law involves the use of “psychological principles to analyze and examine the legal system” (p. 154). Unlike psychology in the law , the relationship of the two disciplines of law and psychology involves “coequal and conjoint use of psychological principles to analyze and examine the legal system” (p. 154). Research that follows from this relationship examines the assumptions that the law makes about behaviour. Examples include research on eyewitness accuracy, coerced and/or false confessions, and judicial decision making. This type of involvement can result in changes in the way in which the legal system operates. The extensive research on police lineups in the past two decades, which demonstrated biases in how suspects were identified by witnesses, formed the basis for recommendations by an AP-LS subcommittee for changes in lineup and photo spread procedures, many of which have been adopted by police throughout the United States (Wells et al., 1998). Other examples of psychology and the law include the study of whether adolescents have the capacity to waive their arrest rights, whether personality characteristics affect the decisions of judges or jurors, and whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

Psychology of law involves psychologists studying issues such as why people need the law and why people obey the law. Two major categories fall under this approach to examining psychology’s role: psychologists can study the origins and existence of law, in terms of the psychological functions that law serves, or psychologists can study how laws operate as a determinant of behaviour. Haney recognizes that this approach to law is difficult for psychologists to apply to research, in part because “the unit of analysis—law qua law—is too global and pervasive, and therefore not easily manipulated or systematically varied in ways familiar to psychologists” (p. 156).

Haney notes that the roles and expectations of psychologists are different for each of these three relationships. In the first relationship, psychologists have a more passive role, since the law defines the legal concepts that psychologists are asked to address. The second and third relationships provide more autonomous roles for psychologists in that they can define the legal issues they address. Haney comments that while the majority of psychologists are involved in the law, it is in the other two relationships that psychologists might have the most impact on legal change, through research that examines how the law actually works or studies leading to changes that might improve legal procedures.

Learning Objectives 1.6

Training in Forensic Psychology

When the field of psychology and law began to expand in the 1970s, the majority of psychologists who conducted research or engaged in practice were not specifically trained in psychology and law. This began to change with the creation of the first psychology and law graduate program in the United States at the University of Nebraska in 1973 (Krauss & Sales, 2006). Since then, programs have been established in many other universities in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere in the world.

As noted earlier in this chapter, in many provinces and American states, a PhD or PsyD (doctor of psychology) is required for forensic psychology practice. A doctoral degree in clinical psychology is typically based on a combination of training in research and practice, whereas in other areas of psychology (e.g., social, cognitive) a doctoral degree is primarily research based. A PsyD program places greater emphasis on the practice of psychology and less emphasis on independent research. Master’s degrees allow an individual to practice independently as a psychologist in some provinces, or as a psychological associate working under the supervision of a licensed psychologist.

While there are now many graduate programs in which specialized training in forensic psychology is available, a doctoral degree in forensic psychology is not necessary to engage in work in the field. Many, even a majority, of forensic psychologists have training in the traditional areas of psychology and no formal graduate training in forensic psychology. These psychologists have typically participated in workshops and other continuing education programs to keep up to date with the latest advances in psychology and law. The number of forensic psychologists with formal graduate training in forensic psychology has gradually increased in the past 20 years as more programs have been initiated.

Graduate programs offer a number of options for training in forensic psychology (see www.ap-ls.org/education/GraduatePrograms.php for a list of programs). Some adopt the scientist-practitioner model of clinical training, offering basic research and practical training in clinical psychology but with an emphasis on forensic applications. Others focus training on more traditional fields of psychology, such as social, developmental, or other experimental areas of psychology. A few offer joint degree programs, with students obtaining a PhD and a law degree (see Bersoff et al., 1997, for a discussion of models of graduate training in forensic psychology).

Heilbrun (2001) has summarized the approaches to training in forensic psychology (Table 1.2). He conceptualizes the training in a 2 × 3 model, in which research scholarship and applied activities can be taught within three major interest areas: clinical, experimental, and legal.

The model shows that each interest area includes training and experience in research and scholarship but also in the application of psychology to the legal system. Thus, students in clinical programs learn the basic research on assessment and intervention but also how to conduct forensic assessments and provide treatment in the legal context. Experimental students study basic research in memory, perception, and other areas of experimental psychology, but also learn how to apply that research to consultation activities in the legal system, such as jury selection and expert testimony. Students in law schools who also receive some training in behavioural science learn about mental health law and legal movements, but also learn how to apply that knowledge to develop new law or consult about policy and legislative change.

For example, the graduate program at Simon Fraser University (SFU) provides graduate training in all three of these options. The Law and Forensic Psychology program offers two distinct tracks. Graduate students in the Clinical Forensic track meet all the requirements of the clinical psychology doctoral program and take additional courses to specialize in forensic psychology. Graduate students in the Experimental Psychology and Law track meet all the requirements for the experimental doctoral program and take additional courses to develop research and applied policy skills in law and forensic psychology. Due to the overlap of the two areas, students in both tracks will take many of the same courses and will develop similar research skills; however, students in the Clinical Forensic track further develop their clinical training to include forensic training and practice experience. In cooperation with the University of British Columbia, the SFU program also offers students in Law and Forensic Psychology an opportunity to complete both a PhD and a law degree.

INSIGHT 1.1

Undergraduate students who wish to pursue a career in forensic psychology should be aware that admission to graduate programs in forensic psychology (or psychology more generally) is highly competitive, with most programs admitting fewer than 10 percent of applicants. Students will usually need to major in psychology, have outstanding grades and scores on the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), and have excellent references. Students are advised to obtain as much research experience as possible, working in labs of professors as well as conducting their own research. Volunteer work in forensic psychology settings, such as juvenile detention centres or forensic hospitals, can also be helpful.

Many students inquire about whether a PhD in psychology and a law degree are necessary for engaging in either research or practice in forensic psychology. The short answer is no, but Professor Don Bersoff, one of the founders of joint degree programs, has written eloquently about the potential value of both degrees (see Insight 1.2).

INSIGHT 1.2. The value of joint degree programs

The involvement of psychologists in the legal system dates back to the early part of the last century, but it has only been in the last 40 or 50 years that psychologists have made substantive and consistent contributions. The practice of forensic psychology has grown dramatically during this period, as witnessed by the creation of professional associations and the publication of journals in psychology and law. We defined forensic psychology as encompassing both sides of the justice system (civil and criminal) as well as two broad aspects of psychology (clinical and experimental). Psychologists have made a range of contributions in both research and practice. This chapter provided numerous examples of the ways in which forensic psychologists contribute to the legal system. We noted that the interaction of psychology and law is not without its difficulties, and we provided an overview of Haney’s model for understanding the differences between psychology and law as a way to explain the reasons for the conflicts that often arise between the two disciplines. Finally, we reviewed training models for students wishing to pursue a career in forensic psychology. It is essential that forensic psychologists understand the legal system, and Chapter 2 presents an overview of how the legal system operates in Canada.

One of the most intriguing things about becoming a psychologist is the ability to participate in many different roles and activities. In this chapter, while we have only touched on some of the various roles that psychologists play, one thing is clear: psychologists perform a wide variety of activities and participate in diverse professional roles, sometimes on a daily basis.

The fact that psychology is a self-regulating profession means that it is up to psychologists to ensure that their own behaviour, as well as the behaviour of their colleagues, is ethical and will not lead to harm for those people with whom they interact. Psychologists are guided by a number of core ethical principles, including doing no harm, respecting autonomy, benefiting others, being just, being faithful, according dignity, treating others with care and compassion, pursuing excellence, and accepting accountability.

Professional licensing boards in each province are responsible for regulating the practice of psychology and for protecting the public through the adjudication of any complaints against a practising psychologist. In addition, the Canadian and American Psychological Associations each have an ethics committee that is responsible for hearing complaints against any of its members. For the most part, psychologists are careful and conscientious about their interactions and often painstakingly engage in consultation and deliberation with colleagues regarding ethical issues that they may face.

Discussion Questions

• What are the implications of the lack of diversity among professionals in forensic psychology?
• Why might psychologists working under adversarial models of justice experience difficulty carrying out ethically competent practice?
• List and describe some of the historical underpinnings of the field of forensic psychology. How did the field develop to look as it does today?
• Why was Brown v. Board of Education (1954) a pivotal case in the field of psychology generally? How did it shape the intersection of psychology and the law?
• Select two different roles of a forensic psychologist and describe an ethical issue that could arise in each of these roles.
• Describe some of the difficulties that could arise if a forensic psychologist who has been treating an individual agrees to also perform a forensic evaluation for the courts on that same individual.

confidentiality

expert witness

forensic psychology

trial consultant

Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2006). History of forensic psychology. In

B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 332–363). New York: Wiley.

Bersoff, D. N. (1999). Preparing for two cultures: Education and training in law and psychology. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 375–401). New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum.

Bersoff, D. N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Grisso, J. T., Hans, V. P., Poythress,

N. G., & Roesch, R. (1997). Training in law and psychology: Models from the Villanova conference. American Psychologist , 52 , 1301–1310.

Brigham, J. C. (1999). What is forensic psychology, anyway? Law and Human Behavior , 23 , 273–298.

Brodsky, S. L., Zapf, P. A., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2005). Competency for execution assessments: Ethical continuities and professional tasks. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice , 5 , 65–74.

Brown v. Board of Education, 375 U.S. 483 (1954).

Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006). Ethical practice in forensic psychology: A systematic model for decision making . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Canadian Psychological Association. (2011). Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs . Ottawa: Author.

Cook, A. N., & Roesch, R. (2012). “Tough on crime” reforms: What psychology has to say about the recent and proposed justice policy in Canada. Canadian Psychology , 53 , 217–225.

Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of school desegregation. American Psychologist , 40 , 452–460.

Criminal Code of Canada, Section 293 [2011] B. C. J. No, 2011 (S. C.).

Doyle, J. (2005). True witness: Cops, courts, science, and the battle against misidentifi cation . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goldstein, A. M. (2003). Overview of forensic psychology. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 3–20). New York: Wiley.

Grisso, T. (1991). A developmental history of the American Psychology-Law Society. Law and Human Behavior , 15 , 213–231.

Haney, C. (1980). Psychology and legal change: On the limits of a factual jurisprudence. Law and Human Behavior , 4 , 147–199.

Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment . New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2006). Training in forensic psychology: Training for what goal? In I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psy chology (3rd ed., pp. 851–871). New York: Wiley.

Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).

Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand . Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Office of the Correctional Investigator. (2012). Spirit matters: Aboriginal people and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act . Ottawa: Author.

Pozzulo, J. A., Bennell, C., & Forth, A. (2011). Forensic psychology (3rd ed.).

Toronto: Pearson Canada.

Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, BCSC 1588 (2011).

Roesch, R., Golding, S. L., Hans, V. P., & Reppucci, N. D. (1991). Social science and the courts: The role of amicus curiae briefs. Law and Human Behavior , 15 , 1–11.

Viljoen, J. L., Roesch, R., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Zapf, P. A. (2003). The role of Canadian psychologists in conducting fitness and criminal responsibility evaluations. Canadian Psychology , 44 , 369–381.

Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S. D., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior , 22 , 603–647.

Whipple, G. M. (1909). The observer as reporter: A survey of the psychology of testimony. Psychological Bulletin , 6 , 153–170.

Wigmore, J. H. (1909). Professor Munsterberg and the psychology of evidence.

Illinois Law Review , 3 , 399–445.

Wigmore, J. H. (1940). Evidence (3rd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.

Wrightsman, L. S., & Fulero, S. M. (2005). Forensic psychology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Ziskin, J. (1968). Editorial. American Psychology-Law Society Newsletter , 1 , 1.

Suggested Readings and Websites

Heilbrun, K., & Brooks, S. (2010). Forensic psychology and forensic science: A proposed agenda for the next decade. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 16 , 219–253.

American Board of Forensic Psychology: www.abfp.com. American Psychological Association: www.apa.org.

American Psychology-Law Society: www.ap-ls.org. Canadian Psychological Association: www.cpa.ca.

International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services: www.iafmhs.org.

Forensic Psychology and Law: A Canadian Perspective Copyright © by The authors is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Forensic Psychology
• Contemporary perspectives in forensic practice from Practice Innovations January 16, 2024
• A step toward culturally informed forensic mental health assessments: Improving justice and equity for legal-system-involved people from Law and Human Behavior September 26, 2023
• Just how powerful is false confession evidence? from Law and Human Behavior February 8, 2023
• After having a few alcoholic beverages, are you able to comprehend your Miranda rights? from Law and Human Behavior September 13 2022
• Cognitive biases can affect experts’ judgments: A broad descriptive model and systematic review in one domain from Law and Human Behavior May 4, 2022
• What helps immigrants deal with deportation proceedings? from Law and Human Behavior August 26, 2021
• Does COVID-19 affect the fairness of the plea process for defendants? from Law and Human Behavior May 3, 2021
• Get out of jail free? Achieving racial equity in pretrial reform from Law and Human Behavior February 5, 2021
• Is this apartment still available? Maybe not for exonerees from Law and Human Behavior August 17, 2020
• Should Seeing Be Believing? Evidence-Based Recommendations by Psychologists May Reduce Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications from Law and Human Behavior January 27, 2020
• How Should We Decide Whom to Imprison? The Use of Risk Assessment Instruments in Sentencing Decisions from Law and Human Behavior October 23, 2019
• Are Two Heads Better Than One? The Effects of Interviewer Familiarity and Supportiveness on Children’s Testimony In Repeated Interviews from Law and Human Behavior October 9, 2019
• Connecting the Dots: Identifying Suspected Serial Sexual Offenders Through Forensic DNA Evidence from Psychology of Violence September 18, 2019
• Drawing Legal Age Boundaries: A Tale of Two Maturities from Law and Human Behavior July 3, 2019
• Does Video Recording Interrogations Inhibit Crime Suspects? Answers From a Fully Randomized Field Experiment from Law and Human Behavior May 1, 2019
• The Kids are Alright (Mostly): An Empirical Examination of Title IX Knowledge in Institutions of Higher Education from Psychology of Violence August 9, 2018
• Who Deserves Civil Rights? Many Say Suspected Terrorists Do Not from Law and Human Behavior May 11, 2018
• Special Issue on the Field Utility of Forensic Assessment Instruments and Procedures from Psychological Assessment June 13, 2017
• Campus Threat Management from Journal of Threat Assessment and Management May 5, 2017
• The Perfect Match: Criminal Stereotypes Bias Forensic Fingerprint Analysis from Law and Human Behavior October 19, 2016
• Do Juvenile Murderers Deserve Life Without Parole? from Psychology, Public Policy, and Law August 23, 2016
• The DNA Evidence May Not Save You: When False Confessions Trump Exculpatory DNA from Psychology, Public Policy, and Law June 14, 2016
• Evaluators, Not Just Those They Evaluate, Influence Personality Test Results from Law and Human Behavior December 2, 2015

View more journals in the Forensic Psychology subject area.

APA Journals Article Spotlight ®

APA Journals Article Spotlight is a free summary of recently published articles in an APA Journal .

Browse Article Spotlight topics

• Basic/Experimental Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Core of Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology, School Psychology, and Training
• Health Psychology and Medicine
• Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Management
• Neuroscience and Cognition
• Social Psychology and Social Processes

Contact APA Publications

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
• > Investigative Psychology

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• Forensic Psychology
• Part I Psychological Underpinnings
• 1.1 Cognitive Theories of Crime
• 1.2 Child and Adolescent Offending
• 1.3 Investigative Psychology
• 1.4 Neurological Theories
• 1.5 Personality
• 1.6 Theories of Sexual Offending
• 1.7 The Psychology of Violent Behavior
• 1.8 Investigative Decision-Making
• Part II Psychology and Criminal Behaviour
• Part III Assessment
• Part IV Interventions
• Part V Civil Proceedings
• Part VI Professional Practices

1.3 - Investigative Psychology

from Part I - Psychological Underpinnings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2021

Investigative Psychology (IP) as an empirical field of study that focusses on the psychological input to the full range of issues that relate to the investigation of crime. IP focusses on three overall processes present in any investigation that can be improved by psychological study; 1) Retrieving information from the crime scene for the purpose of analysis and research; 2) Making decisions during criminal investigations; and 3) Analysing criminal behaviour. For this last component, three general interlinked areas have been the focus of research: individual differentiation which aims to establish differences between the behavioral actions of offenders and identify subgroups of crime scene types; behavioural consistency which aims to understand an offender’s behavioural consistency across a series of crimes; and inferences about offender characteristics, which aims to establish the nature of the consistency between the most likely characteristics of an offender based on the way an offender acts at the time of the crime, and is at the core of offender profiling.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Investigative Psychology
• By C. Gabrielle Salfati
• Edited by Jennifer M. Brown , London School of Economics and Political Science , Miranda A. H. Horvath
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
• Online publication: 02 December 2021
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108848916.006

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

• Psychology General
• Clinical Psychology
• Forensic Psychology

Research Methods in Forensic Psychology

ISBN: 978-0-470-24982-6

Barry Rosenfeld , Steven D. Penrod

With specific advice on topics of particular importance to forensic specialists, Research Methods in Forensic Psychology presents state-of-the-discipline summaries of the issues that relate to psychology and law research.

Edited by renowned experts in the field, this resource features contributions by leading scholars in forensic psychology and law, with discussion of relevant topics such as:

• Meta-analysis
• Jury decision making
• Internet-based data collection
• Legal research techniques for the social scientist
• Offender treatment
• Competence to stand trial
• Criminal profiling
• False confessions and interrogations
• Trial-related psycho-legal issues
• Accuracy of eyewitnesses and children
• Violence risk assessment

BARRY ROSENFELD, P H D, ABPP, is a Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at??Fordham??University. He has more than 100 publications on a wide range of clinical-forensic topics. In addition, he has authored or coauthored several articles and book chapters on research methodology in forensic psychology. He serves on the editorial board of several prominent journals.

STEVEN D. PENROD, JD, P H D, is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. A researcher with twenty-five years of nearly continuous research support from the National Science Foundation, he has written over 120 publications on the psychology of legal decision making, focused especially on juries and eyewitness evidence.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Forensic psychology research topics.

Criminal Competencies Research Topics

Adjudicative Competence of Youth Capacity to Waive Rights Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights Checklist for Competency for Execution Evaluations Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants With Mental Retardation (CAST*MR) Competency, Foundational and Decisional Competency Restoration Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI) Competency for Execution Competency Screening Test (CST) Competency to Be Sentenced Competency to Confess Competency to Stand Trial Competency to Waive Appeals Competency to Waive Counsel (Proceed Pro Se) Delusions Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST–R) Fitness Interview Test–Revised (FIT–R) Georgia Court Competence Test (GCCT) Grisso’s Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales Hallucinations Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI) MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT–CA) Psychotic Disorders

Criminal Responsibility Research Topics

Evaluation of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Cases American Bar Association Resolution on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty Automatism Battered Woman Syndrome Battered Woman Syndrome Testimony Criminal Responsibility Assessment Criminal Responsibility Defenses and Standards Delusions Diminished Capacity Dissociative Identity Disorder Extreme Emotional Disturbance Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict Hallucinations Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) Mens Rea and Actus Reus Mental Illness and the Death Penalty Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty M’Naghten Standard Psychotic Disorders Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R–CRAS)

Death Penalty Research Topics

Evaluation of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Cases Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Effects of on Jurors in Capital Trials American Bar Association Resolution on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty Capital Mitigation Checklist for Competency for Execution Evaluations Competency for Execution Death Penalty Death Qualification of Juries Jury Understanding of Judges’ Instructions in Capital Cases Juvenile Death Penalty Mental Illness and the Death Penalty Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty Moral Disengagement and Execution Religion and the Death Penalty Victim Impact Statements

Divorce and Child Custody Research Topics

Ackerman-Schoendorf Parent Evaluation of Custody Test (ASPECT) Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory Child Custody Evaluations Child Maltreatment Child Sexual Abuse Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) Divorce and Child Custody Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) Parenting Satisfaction Scale (PSS) Parenting Stress Index (PSI) Tender Years Doctrine Termination of Parental Rights Uniform Child Custody Evaluation System (UCCES)

Education and Professional Development Research Topics

Diplomates in Forensic Psychology Doctoral Programs in Forensic Psychology Ethical Guidelines and Principles Master’s Programs in Forensic Psychology Postdoctoral Residencies in Forensic Psychology Trial Consultant Training

Eyewitness Memory Research Topics

Alcohol Intoxication Impact on Eyewitness Memory Appearance-Change Instruction in Lineups Clothing Bias in Identification Procedures Cognitive Interview Computer-Assisted Lineups Confidence in Identifications Confidence in Identifications Malleability Conformity in Eyewitness Reports Cross-Race Effect in Eyewitness Identification Double-Blind Lineups Elderly Eyewitnesses Estimator and System Variables in Eyewitness Identification Expert Psychological Testimony on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy of Eyewitness Descriptions Eyewitness Identification: Effect of Disguises and Appearance Changes Eyewitness Identification: Field Studies Eyewitness Identification: General Acceptance in the Scientific Community Eyewitness Memory Lay Beliefs About Eyewitness Memory Facial Composites False Memories Forced Confabulation Hypnosis and Eyewitness Memory Best Practices in Identification Tests Instructions to the Witness Juries and Eyewitnesses Lineup Fillers Lineup Size and Bias Motions to Suppress Eyewitness Identification Mug Shots Neil v. Biggers Criteria for Evaluating Eyewitness Identification Optimality Hypothesis in Eyewitness Identification Police Eyewitnesses Popout Effect in Eyewitness Identification Postevent Information and Eyewitness Memory Presence of Counsel Safeguard and Eyewitness Identification Reconstructive Memory Repeated Recall Repressed and Recovered Memories Response Latency in Eyewitness Identification Retention Interval and Eyewitness Memory Showups Simultaneous and Sequential Lineup Presentations Source Monitoring and Eyewitness Memory Stress and Eyewitness Memory Training of Eyewitnesses Unconscious Transference Verbal Overshadowing Voice Recognition Weapon Focus Effect

Forensic Assessment Research Topics

Ackerman-Schoendorf Parent Evaluation of Custody Test (ASPECT) Adjudicative Competence of Youth Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) Evaluation of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances  in Capital Cases American Bar Association Resolution on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Antisocial Personality Disorder Automatism Battered Woman Syndrome Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument (CCTI) Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights Capacity to Waive Rights Checklist for Competency for Execution Evaluations Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory Child Custody Evaluations Child Maltreatment Child Sexual Abuse Civil Commitment Classification of Violence Risk (COVR) Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants With Mental Retardation (CAST*MR) Competency Foundational and Decisional Competency Restoration Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI) Competency for Execution Competency Screening Test (CST) Competency to Be Sentenced Competency to Confess Competency to Stand Trial Competency to Waive Appeals Competency to Waive Counsel (Proceed Pro Se) Conduct Disorder Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) Consent to Clinical Research Criminal Responsibility Assessment Criminal Responsibility, Defenses and Standards Danger Assessment Instrument (DA) Delusions Diminished Capacity Assessment of Disability and Workers’ Compensation Claims Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Evaluations Dissociative Identity Disorder Divorce and Child Custody Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI) Ethical Guidelines and Principles Ethnic Differences in Psychopathy Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST–R) Extreme Emotional Disturbance Financial Capacity Financial Capacity Instrument (FCI) Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations Fitness Interview Test–Revised (FIT–R) Forensic Assessment Georgia Court Competence Test (GCCT) Grisso’s Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict Hallucinations Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd edition) (PCL–R) Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) HCR–20 for Violence Risk Assessment Hopkins Competency Assessment Test (HCAT) Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI) Jail Screening Assessment Tool (JSAT) Litigation Stress MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT–CA) MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT–T) MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study Malingering Probability Scale Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Version 2 (MAYSI–2) Mens Rea and Actus Reus Mental Illness and the Death Penalty Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Assessment Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M–FAST) Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (MCMI–III) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2) Validity Scales Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (MnSOST–R) M’Naghten Standard Mood Disorders Novaco Anger Scale Parens Patriae Doctrine Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) Parenting Satisfaction Scale (PSS) Parenting Stress Index (PSI) Pedophilia Personal Injury and Emotional Distress Personality Disorders Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Presentence Evaluations Psychological Autopsies Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) Psychopathy Psychopathy Treatment Psychotic Disorders Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR) Return-to-Work Evaluations Risk Assessment Approaches Risk-Sophistication-Treatment Inventory (RSTI) Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R–CRAS) Sex Offender Assessment Sex Offender Civil Commitment Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating (SONAR) Sex Offender Recidivism Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) Sexual Harassment Sexual Violence Risk–20 (SVR–20) Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) STABLE–2007 and ACUTE–2007 Instruments STATIC–99 and STATIC–2002 Instruments Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) Substance Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence Substance Use Disorder Suicide Assessment and Prevention in Prisons Suicide Assessment Manual for Inmates (SAMI) Testamentary Capacity Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Uniform Child Custody Evaluation System (UCCES) Validity Indicator Profile (VIP) Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) Violence Risk Assessment Waiver to Criminal Court

Juvenile Offenders Research Topics

Adjudicative Competence of Youth Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Offenders Risk Factors Juvenile Psychopathy Juvenile Death Penalty Legal Socialization Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Version 2 (MAYSI–2) Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders Risk-Sophistication-Treatment Inventory (RSTI) Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) Victim-Offender Mediation Waiver to Criminal Court

Mental Health Law Research Topics

Capacity to Consent to Treatment Civil Commitment Consent to Clinical Research End-of-Life Issues Forcible Medication Guardianship Institutionalization and Deinstitutionalization Mandated Community Treatment Mental Health Courts Mental Health Law Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders Involuntary Outpatient Commitment Patient’s Rights Proxy Decision Making Psychiatric Advance Directives Substance Abuse Treatment Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Psychological Assessment Instruments Research Topics

Ackerman-Schoendorf Parent Evaluation of Custody Test (ASPECT) Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument (CCTI) Checklist for Competency for Execution Evaluations Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory Classification of Violence Risk (COVR) Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI) Competency Screening Test (CST) Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) Danger Assessment Instrument (DA) Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI) Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST–R) Financial Capacity Instrument (FCI) Fitness Interview Test–Revised (FIT–R) Georgia Court Competence Test (GCCT) Grisso’s Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd edition) (PCL–R) Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) HCR–20 for Violence Risk Assessment Hopkins Competency Assessment Test (HCAT) Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI) Jail Screening Assessment Tool (JSAT) MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT–CR) MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT–CA) MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCat–T) Malingering Probability Scale Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Version 2 (MAYSI–2) Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M–FAST) Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (MCMI–III) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2) Validity Scales Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (MnSOST–R) Novaco Anger Scale Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) Parenting Satisfaction Scale (PSS) Parenting Stress Index (PSI) Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR) Risk-Sophistication-Treatment Inventory (RSTI) Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R–CRAS) Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating (SONAR) Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) Sexual Violence Risk–20 (SVR–20) Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) STABLE–2007 and ACUTE–2007 Instruments STATIC–99 and STATIC–2002 Instruments Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) Suicide Assessment Manual for Inmates (SAMI) Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Uniform Child Custody Evaluation System (UCCES) Validity Indicator Profile (VIP) Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG)

Psychology of Crime Research Topics

AMBER Alert System Battered Woman Syndrome Battered Woman Syndrome, Testimony on Bias Crimes Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory Child Maltreatment Child Sexual Abuse Classification of Violence Risk (COVR) Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) Criminal Behavior, Theories of Criminal Responsibility, Assessment of Criminal Responsibility, Defenses and Standards Cybercrime Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI) Elder Abuse Elderly Defendants Homicide, Psychology of Intimate Partner Violence MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study Media Violence and Behavior Obscenity Pedophilia Pornography, Effects of Exposure to Psychological Autopsies Public Opinion About Crime Serial Killers Sex Offender Civil Commitment Sex Offender Community Notification (Megan’s Laws) Sex Offender Treatment Sex Offender Typologies Stalking Substance Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence Suicide by Cop Terrorism Therapeutic Communities for Treatment of Substance Abuse Treatment and Release of Insanity Acquittees Victim-Offender Mediation With Juvenile Offenders

Psychology of Policing Research Topics

Behavior Analysis Interview Competency to Confess Confession Evidence Crisis and Hostage Negotiation Critical Incidents Detection of Deception: Cognitive Load Detection of Deception: Event-Related Potentials Detection of Deception: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Detection of Deception: Nonverbal Cues Detection of Deception: Reality Monitoring Detection of Deception: Use of Evidence in Detection of Deception by Detection “Wizards” Detection of Deception in Adults Detection of Deception in Children Detection of Deception in High-Stakes Liars False Confessions Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales Interrogation of Suspects Police as Eyewitnesses Police Decision Making Police Decision Making and Domestic Violence Police Interaction With Mentally Ill Individuals Police Occupational Socialization Police Psychologists Police Psychology Police Selection Police Stress Police Training and Evaluation Police Use of Force Polygraph and Polygraph Techniques Profiling Public Opinion About the Polygraph Reid Technique for Interrogations Return-to-Work Evaluations Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) Suicide by Cop Videotaping Confessions

Sentencing and Incarceration Research Topics

Community Corrections Competency to Be Sentenced Conditional Release Programs Death Penalty Domestic Violence Courts Drug Courts Juvenile Boot Camps Parole Decisions Presentence Evaluations Prison Overcrowding Probation Decisions Public Opinion About Sentencing and Incarceration Sentencing Decisions Sentencing Diversion Programs Stanford Prison Experiment Substance Abuse Treatment Suicide Assessment and Prevention in Prisons Suicide Assessment Manual for Inmates (SAMI) Supermax Prisons Therapeutic Communities for Treatment of Substance Abuse Treatment and Release of Insanity Acquittees

Symptoms and Disorders Research Topics

Antisocial Personality Disorder Automatism Battered Woman Syndrome Child Maltreatment Child Sexual Abuse Conduct Disorder Delusions Dissociative Identity Disorder Hallucinations Malingering Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Assessment of Mood Disorders Pedophilia Personality Disorders Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Psychopathy Psychotic Disorders Substance Use Disorders

Trial Processes Research Topics

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials, Effects on Jurors Alibi Witnesses Alternative Dispute Resolution Amicus Curiae Briefs Bail-Setting Decisions Battered Woman Syndrome, Testimony on Chicago Jury Project Children’s Testimony Children’s Testimony, Evaluation by Juries Complex Evidence in Litigation Confession Evidence CSI Effect Damage Awards Death Qualification of Juries Domestic Violence Courts Drug Courts “Dynamite Charge” Elderly Defendants Expert Psychological Testimony Expert Psychological Testimony, Admissibility Standards Expert Psychological Testimony, Forms of Expert Psychological Testimony on Eyewitness Identification Expert Testimony, Qualifications of Experts Fingerprint Evidence, Evaluation of Hearsay Testimony Inadmissible Evidence, Impact on Juries Insanity Defense, Juries and Judges’ Nonverbal Behavior Juries and Eyewitnesses Juries and Joined Trials Juries and Judges’ Instructions Jury Administration Reforms Jury Competence Jury Decisions Versus Judges’ Decisions Jury Deliberation Jury Nullification Jury Questionnaires Jury Reforms Jury Selection Jury Size and Decision Rule Jury Understanding of Judges’ Instructions in Capital Cases Legal Authoritarianism Legal Negotiation Legal Socialization Leniency Bias Litigation Stress Mental Health Courts Parole Decisions Plea Bargaining Pretrial Publicity, Impact on Juries Probation Decisions Procedural Justice Prosecutorial Misconduct Public Opinion About Crime Public Opinion About the Courts Public Opinion About the Polygraph Race, Impact on Juries Racial Bias and the Death Penalty Religion and the Death Penalty Scientific Jury Selection Sexual Harassment, Jury Evaluation of Statistical Information, Impact on Juries “Stealing Thunder” Story Model for Juror Decision Making Translated Testimony Trial Consulting U.S. Supreme Court Victim Impact Statements Voir Dire Witness Preparation Wrongful Conviction

Victim Reactions to Crime Research Topics

Battered Woman Syndrome Child Maltreatment Child Sexual Abuse Coping Strategies of Adult Sexual Assault Victims Danger Assessment Instrument (DA) Elder Abuse Intimate Partner Violence Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Rape Trauma Syndrome Reporting Crimes and Victimization Sexual Harassment Stalking Victimization Victim-Offender Mediation With Juvenile Offenders Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System

Violence Risk Assessment Research Topics

Classification of Violence Risk (COVR) Danger Assessment Instrument (DA) Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI) Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd edition) (PCL–R) Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) HCR–20 for Violence Risk Assessment Jail Screening Assessment Tool (JSAT) MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Version 2 (MAYSI–2) Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (MnSOST–R) Novaco Anger Scale Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) Psychopathy Psychopathy, Treatment of Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR) Risk Assessment Approaches Sex Offender Assessment Sex Offender Civil Commitment Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating (SONAR) Sex Offender Recidivism Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) Sexual Violence Risk–20 (SVR–20) Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) STABLE–2007 and ACUTE–2007 Instruments STATIC–99 and STATIC–2002 Instruments Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) Substance Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence Substance Use Disorders Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) Violence Risk Assessment

Psychology and law play a significant role in postgraduate education and professional development. Forensic psychology courses are increasingly common in undergraduate psychology programs, and many such offerings are filled to capacity with undergraduate students weaned on justice- and crime-themed media and literature. Attracted by the compelling application of psychology to real-world criminal investigations and trials, undergraduate students frequently volunteer as research assistants in forensic psychology laboratories. Master’s and doctoral programs focusing on various aspects of forensic psychology have been developed and provide the research and service industries with additional intellectual capital. Postdoctoral training and professional certification options in forensic psychology support the development of a profession that is uniquely qualified to address mental health issues in a wide variety of legal contexts.

Read more about Forensic Psychology:

• Forensic Psychology (Main article)
• Psychology and Law
• What is Forensic Psychology?
• History of Forensic Psychology
• Clinical Forensic Psychology
• Forensic Psychology Ethics
• Forensic Psychology Education

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

• A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
• It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
• A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
• Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
• For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
• Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

• Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.

• Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
• However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

• Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
• Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
• Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
• Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
• Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

• The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
• The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

• Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
• Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
• Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
• Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
• Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
• Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
• Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
• Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

The Cognitive and Social Psychological Bases of Bias in Forensic Mental Health Judgments

• First Online: 12 June 2018

Cite this chapter

• Tess M. S. Neal 5 ,
• Morgan Hight 5 ,
• Brian C. Howatt 5 &
• Cassandra Hamza 5  

Part of the book series: Advances in Psychology and Law ((APL,volume 3))

1431 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

This chapter integrates the basic science of bias in human judgment from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology as relevant to judgments and decisions by forensic mental health professionals. Forensic mental health professionals help courts make decisions in cases when some question of psychology pertains to the legal issue, such as in insanity cases, child custody hearings, and psychological injuries in civil suits. The legal system itself and many people involved, such as jurors, assume mental health experts are “objective” and untainted by bias. However, basic psychological science from several branches of the discipline suggests that this assumption about experts’ immunity against bias is wrong. Indeed, several empirical studies now show clear evidence of (unintentional) bias in forensic mental health experts’ judgments and decisions. In this chapter, we explain the science of how and why human judgments are susceptible to various kinds of bias. We describe dual-process theories from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology that can help explain these biases. We review the empirical evidence to date specifically about cognitive and social psychological biases in forensic mental health judgments, weaving in related literature about biases in other types of expert judgment, with hypotheses about how forensic experts are likely affected by these biases. We close with a discussion of directions for future research and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Is Forensic Evidence Impartial? Cognitive Biases in Forensic Analysis

The Dirty Dozen: 12 Sources of Bias in Forensic Neuropsychology with Ways to Mitigate

Cognitive Biases in Criminal Case Evaluation: A Review of the Research

Arkes, H. R., Wortmann, R. L., Saville, P. D., & Harkness, A. R. (1981). Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 , 252–254.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2 , 43–63.

Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11 , 109–126.

Bandura, A. (2015). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves . New York: Worth Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2002). Why good accountants do bad audits. Harvard Business Review, 80 , 96–103.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Beltrani, A., Reed, A., Zapf, P. A., Dror, I. E., & Otto, R. K. (2017, March). Is hindsight really 20/20? The impact of outcomes on the decision making process. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.

Braman, E., & Nelson, T. E. (2007). Mechanism of motivated reasoning? Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 51 , 940–956. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00290.x

Boy Scouts of the United States of American v. Dale , 530 US 640 (2000).

Caplan, R. A., Posner, K. L., & Cheney, F. W. (1991). Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 265 , 1957–1960.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 , 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752

Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology . New York: Guilford.

Cole, D. (1999). No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice system (Vol. 1). New York: New Press.

Commons, M. L., Miller, P. M., & Gutheil, T. G. (2004). Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32 (1), 70–75.

Cook, M. B., & Smallman, H. S. (2008). Human factors of the confirmation bias in intelligence analysis: Decision support from graphical evidence landscapes. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50 , 745–754.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 , 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5

Devine, P. G., Hamilton, D. L. E., & Ostrom, T. M. (Eds.). (1994). Social cognition: Impact on social psychology . Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

Drew, T., Võ, M. L. H., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). The invisible gorilla strikes again sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychological Science, 24 , 1848–1853.

Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156 , 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Goldman, R., Hout, S., Hesselton, D., & Alexander, W. (1998). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool—Revised (MnSOST-R) . St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections. Available online at. http://www.psychology.iastate.edu

Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629

Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1 , 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 , 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732

Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: beyond “heuristics and biases”. European Review of Social Psychology, 2 , 83–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000033

Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, 103 , 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.592

Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 , 20–29.

Girvan, E. J. (2016). Wise restraints?: Learning legal rules, not standards, reduces the effects of stereotypes in legal decision-making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22 , 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000068

Girvan, E. J., Deason, G., & Borgida, E. (2015). The generalizability of gender bias: Testing the effects of contextual, explicit, and implicit sexism on labor arbitration decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 39 , 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000139

Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Raymond, K. L., Iezzoni, L. I., et al. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22 , 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0258-5

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102 , 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 , 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86 , 777–778.

Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static-99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders (User Report 99–02) . Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Haselton, M., Bryant, G. A., Wilke, A., Frederick, D., & Galperin, A. (2009). Adaptive rationality: An evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias. Social Cognition, 27 , 733–763.

Hastdorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49 , 129–134.

Helm, R. K., Wistrich, A. J., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2016). Are arbitrators human? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13 , 666–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12129

Hoffrage, U., & Gigerenzer, G. (2004). How to improve the diagnostic inferences of medical experts. In E. Kurz-Milcke & G. Gigerenzer (Eds.), Experts in science and society (pp. 249–268). Heidelberg: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D., Evans, D., Devins, N., Lucci, E., & Cheng, K. (2016). 'Ideology' or 'situation sense'? An experimental investigation of motivated reasoning and professional judgment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2 , 394.

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice—Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58 , 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64 , 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3 , 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3

Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Zapf, P. A. (2017, March). Cognitive bias: A survey of forensic examiners . Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108 , 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

LaBine, S. J., & LaBine, G. (1996). Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 20 , 501–516.

LeBourgeois, H. W., III, Pinals, D. A., Williams, V., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2007). Hindsight bias among psychiatrists. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35 , 67–73.

MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49 , 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259

McAuliff, B. D., & Arter, J. L. (2016). Adversarial allegiance: The devil is in the evidence details, not just on the witness stand. Law and Human Behavior, 40 , 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000198

Moore, D. A., Loewenstein, G., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2003). Auditor independence, conflict of interest, and the unconscious intrusion of bias. Harvard Business School Working Paper No 03-116. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.2829&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24 , 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812

Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M., Johnson, J., & Janke, C. (2008). Does interrater (dis)agreement on psychopathy checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluation? Law and Human Behavior, 32 , 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9097-5

Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., Meeks, M., Woods, C., & Tussey, C. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15 , 19–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014897

Nakhaeizadeh, S., Dror, I. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: Visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. Science and Justice, 54 , 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003

Neal, T. M. S. (2016). Are forensic experts already biased before adversarial legal parties hire them? PLoS ONE, 11 (4), e0154434. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154434

Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22 , 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000077

Neal, T. M. S. & Cramer, R. J. (in press). Moral disengagement in legal judgments. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20 , 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035824

Neal, T. M. S., MacLean, N., Morgan, R. D., & Murrie, D. C. (2017, March). Robust evidence of confirmation bias in forensic psychologists’ diagnostic reasoning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.

Neal, T. M. S. & Saks, M.J. (in preparation). Context effects in forensic mental health science: A review and application of the science of science to the practice of forensic mental health evaluations.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2 , 175–220.

O’Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10 , 443–470.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19 , 123–205.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery . London: Hutchinson.

Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111 , 781–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.781

Pronin, E., Lin, D. L., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus other. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 , 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008

Rachlinski, J. J., Johnson, S. L., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2009). Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges? Notre Dame Law Review, 84 , 1195–1246.

Robbennolt, J. K. (2000). Outcome severity and judgments of “responsibility”: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30 , 2575–2609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02451.x

Sacchi, S., & Cherubini, P. (2004). The effect of outcome information on doctors’ evaluations of their own diagnostic decisions. Medical Education, 38 , 1025–1027.

Scopelliti, I., Morewedge, C. K., McCormick, E., Min, L. H., Lebrecht, S., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Bias blind spot: Structure, measurement, and consequences. Management Science, 61 , 2468–2486.

Segal, J. A., & Spaetch, H. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119 , 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177 , 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23 , 645–726. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435

Thompson, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretation of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51 , 176–197.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5 , 207–232.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185 , 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20 , 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640746808400161

Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153 , 1251–1345.

Zapf, P. A., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Dror, I. E. (2017, March). Cognitive bias: A survey of forensic evaluators. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, New College of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ, USA

Tess M. S. Neal, Morgan Hight, Brian C. Howatt & Cassandra Hamza

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tess M. S. Neal .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Criminal Justice, Interdisciplinary Social Psychology PhD Program, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA

Monica K. Miller

Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Neal, T.M.S., Hight, M., Howatt, B.C., Hamza, C. (2018). The Cognitive and Social Psychological Bases of Bias in Forensic Mental Health Judgments. In: Miller, M., Bornstein, B. (eds) Advances in Psychology and Law. Advances in Psychology and Law, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75859-6_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75859-6_5

Published : 12 June 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-75858-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-75859-6

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• How it works

Useful Links

How much will your dissertation cost?

Have an expert academic write your dissertation paper!

Dissertation Services

Get unlimited topic ideas and a dissertation plan for just £45.00

Order topics and plan

Get 1 free topic in your area of study with aim and justification

Yes I want the free topic

30+ Forensic Psychology Dissertation Topics

Published by Owen Ingram at January 2nd, 2023 , Revised On May 3, 2024

As the field of forensic psychology is still relatively new, there are numerous research issues to address. if you want to write a strong paper on forensic psychology, first, you have to look for convincing and well-researched forensic psychology dissertation topics and choose one of them.

Here’s a list of some fascinating areas of study in forensic psychology and some forensic psychology dissertation topics for you:

Forensic Psychology Dissertation Topics & ideas

• How forensic psychologists influence decisions about child custody
• Adolescent Antisocial Behavior and Childhood Trauma
• The Consequences of Being a Juvenile Offender in the Future
• Interviewing Children as Eyewitnesses: Ethical Challenges
• Instances of Child Abuse, Mental Illness, and the Death Penalty: Forensic Psychology
• Schizophrenia and Criminal Behavior Are Associated
• Are criminal acts more likely to be committed by those with particular mental illnesses?
• How do forensic assessments alter when considering conjecture and bias?
• Can forensic psychologists anticipate potential danger in the future?
• What guidelines should psychologists adhere to when speaking with criminals in court?
• Explain why the testimony of a mentally ill eyewitness is credible
• How trustworthy and legitimate is an eyewitness’ memory?
• What standards of conduct should forensic psychologists adhere to when testifying in court?
• Discuss how a person’s upbringing can prevent them from becoming a serial killer
• Define internet policing and discuss some effective tactics for it
• What part do video games, movies, and the internet play in encouraging criminal copycats?
• Explain why domestic violence against men is often overlooked by society
• What causes mass murder, and why is it so common in the United States?
• Are there enough safeguards in place to lessen the chances that students in special education may wind up in jail or prison?
• What effects does a job in law enforcement have on a person’s personal life?
• Murders of minors: List the elements that affect regions with high child murders
• Are the criminal justice system and prisons effective at rehabilitation?
• Describe the elements that led to the formation of domestic terrorism
• The rise in vulnerability has made more domestic terrorists appear
• The efficiency of rehabilitation within the criminal justice system and in prisons
• What influences regions where there are more child killings by children? Juvenile murder
• Is enough being done to reduce the likelihood that special education students will end up in jail or prison?
• What leads to mass murders in the United States?
• Is domestic violence directed against men being overlooked by society?
• The Impact of Childhood Trauma on Criminal Behavior
• The Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Programs in Reducing Recidivism Rates
• A Forensic Perspective on the Relationship Between Mental Illness and Criminality
• The Role of Forensic Psychology in Investigating and Prosecuting Cybercrimes
• Understanding the Psychological Profiles of Serial Killers: Case Studies and Analysis
• Investigating the Influence of Media on Jury Decision Making in High-Profile Criminal Cases
• The Use of Forensic Psychology in Child Custody Evaluations and Family Court Proceedings
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of Risk Assessment Tools in Predicting Future Violence
• Forensic Psychological Analysis of Hate Crimes
• The Role of Forensic Psychology in Investigating White-Collar Crimes and Corporate Misconduct
• Investigating the Role of Psychopathy in Violent and Nonviolent Offending Behaviors
• The Use of Forensic Psychology in Child Abuse Investigations and Legal Proceedings
• Psychological Factors Influencing Criminal Rehabilitation and Reintegration into Society
• Investigating the Relationship Between Mental Health Disorders and Fire Setting Behavior
• Forensic Assessment of Malingering and Exaggeration in Personal Injury Cases
• The Role of Forensic Psychology in Preventing and Responding to Domestic Violence
• Assessing the Impact of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Bias and Decision Making
• Investigating the Role of Forensic Psychology in Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Cases
• The Use of Forensic Psychology in Evaluating Witness Credibility and Reliability
• The Effectiveness of Sex Offender Treatment Programs in Reducing Recidivism
• The Use of Forensic Psychology in Identifying and Rehabilitating Psychopathic Offenders

How Can ResearchProspect Help?

ResearchProspect writers can send several custom topic ideas to your email address. Once you have chosen a topic that suits your needs and interests, you can order for our dissertation outline service which will include a brief introduction to the topic, research questions , literature review , methodology , expected results , and conclusion . The dissertation outline will enable you to review the quality of our work before placing the order for our full dissertation writing service!

Further Subject-Related Topics: Business Psychology Dissertation Topics , Cognitive Psychology Topics , Development Psychology Dissertation Topics

Your ability to conduct in-depth research may limit the subject matter you can explore in a forensic psychology dissertation. Having a qualified writer assist you as you complete your dissertation can alleviate some stress. Hopefully, these forensic psychology dissertation topics will help you with the dissertation writing process .

Or you may want to read about our dissertation writing services in London if you want to hire an expert to work on your thesis paper from the beginning until the end.

Free Dissertation Topic

Phone Number

Academic Level Select Academic Level Undergraduate Graduate PHD

Academic Subject

Area of Research

Frequently Asked Questions

How to find forensic psychology dissertation topics.

To find forensic psychology dissertation topics:

• Explore crime and psychology intersections.
• Research recent legal cases.
• Examine forensic assessment methods.
• Investigate offender behaviors.
• Consider ethical dilemmas.
• Choose a niche that captivates your interest.

You May Also Like

A good real estate dissertation requires a catchy research topic. Here is a list of 65 latest real estate dissertation topic ideas.

Need interesting and manageable international relations and geopolitics dissertation topics or thesis? Here are the trending international relations and geopolitics dissertation titles so you can choose the most suitable one.

Look at some of the potential healthcare dissertation topics mentioned below to take an idea for starting your dissertation.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Forensic Psychology

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Forensic psychology is a subset of applied psychology broadly defined as psychology pertaining to the legal system. Because the legal system and criminal motivation are both complex, forensic psychologists can be found across a wide set of activities, from analyzing crime scenes to administering treatment to incarcerated offenders.

• Understanding Forensic Psychology
• Forensic Psychology Careers
• Understanding the Criminal Mind

Forensic psychology is a broad term and forensic psychologists take on a wide variety of roles. Some forensic psychologists, for instance, may engage in criminal profiling, in which they try to identify likely suspects using information collected from crime scenes. Others try to assess the possibility of a known or alleged offender committing additional crimes in the future. In addition, many forensic psychologists act as advisors and consultants to law enforcement throughout an investigation.

Perhaps the most significant role of forensic psychologists is what's known as forensic therapy . In this discipline, a psychologist may be called upon to try to ascertain whether or not an alleged offender suffers from a psychological disorder; such experts often testify in court for either the defense or the prosecution. After a conviction, forensic psychologists may also participate in the assessment and rehabilitation of offenders, determining what type of treatment can be recommended, and often supervising or performing it as well.

A career in forensic psychology can manifest in many different ways, including: researching social science topics related to law and crime; conducting examinations of criminal defendants; assisting with jury selection; consulting with police departments and other law enforcement agencies; assessing the risk of violence in a community; and more.

Forensic psychologists can play a significant role in almost any level of the legal system. They may consult with legal professionals on mental health, criminal motivation , or risk assessment; they may assess or treat accused criminals or prison inmates for mental health disorders. They may also work in jury selection, legal research, or crisis management .

Forensic psychopathology is a sub-discipline of forensic psychology that examines psychopathology’s relationship to the legal system. Forensic psychopathologists psychologically assess, diagnose, and treat those accused of committing a crime and relay pertinent information to the court. They determine whether an individual should be held criminally liable for their actions or whether they can be declared incompetent.

Forensic psychology is a broad term that encompasses a wide variety of disciplines related to the legal system, including some that are not crime-related. Criminal psychology , by contrast, focuses specifically on criminal behavior. A criminal psychologist may research why crimes happen, help police assess crime scenes, or gauge the probability that specific crimes will occur.

“Insanity” is a legal term, not a psychological one, and depends where the crime took place. Some jurisdictions, for example, require that defendants be unaware that a crime was “wrong.” Others simply require that it be a product of mental illness. Forensic psychologists, therefore, evaluate defendants based on the laws of their jurisdiction.

There are multiple paths to becoming a practicing forensic psychologist. An individual likely needs to obtain a Ph.D. or Psy.D, most often with a clinical focus. Some individuals concurrently pursue a legal degree. Coursework may focus on criminology, abnormal psychology, the legal system, and related areas. After obtaining a doctoral degree, additional postdoctoral training will likely be required to obtain a license to practice independently.

Interest in the field has grown significantly in recent years, a development sometimes credited to the popularity of TV shows spotlighting the disparate ways in which forensic psychologists work within the legal system. While these programs don’t always portray the field accurately, they underscore the important role forensic psychologists play, as well as the wide variety of career paths available to aspiring forensic experts.

The majority of forensic psychologists have doctorate degrees—either a Ph.D. or a Psy.D.—and most experts continue to recommend such degrees for aspiring students. However, there are some Master’s programs that purport to train students for a career in criminal psychology , though the programs’ efficacy has been questioned by some in the field.

Forensic psychologists are, above all, scientists—thus, they should be skilled at gathering and interpreting data, designing experiments, and/or researching complexities in the law. Because forensic psychologists regularly deal with law enforcement and criminals, however, they should also be strong clinicians, excel at public speaking , and have the ability to maintain composure under stress .

Most forensic psychology doctoral programs take at least 6 years to complete. Master’s programs may take less time—one to two years, generally—but many career paths in forensic psychology continue to require a doctoral degree.

Someone considering a career in forensic psychology should determine whether its unique combination of clinical work, public speaking, and research syncs with their personality and skill set. They should also assess whether pursuing years of graduate education is feasible, as well as whether they will need to relocate to find work in the field.

Some forensic psychologists spend their careers researching various aspects of criminal behavior. Areas of interest include: why some people are motivated to commit crimes while others aren’t; whether criminals—particularly violent or chronic criminals—have diagnosable mental illnesses or personality disorders ; and whether it is possible to accurately identify suspects based on behavioral patterns or clues left at crime scenes.

Many laypeople are themselves fascinated with the psychology of criminal behavior—indeed, hundreds of books, television shows, and podcasts examine horrific crimes and try to understand why they occurred. Because of this media attention , many people assume that all forensic psychologists assess criminal behavior; however, while criminal psychology is an important area of the field, it is not the only career path a forensic psychologist can take.

Rage , fear , or a sense of entitlement can all motivate criminal behavior. Some criminals are under the influence of drugs and thus behave irrationally; others have mental illnesses that distort their worldview, triggering illegal acts. Some violent, serial criminals may be driven by a lack of empathy, trauma or abandonment, and/or a thirst for revenge .

Criminal profiling relies on a combination of crime scene analysis and behavioral psychology. Using physical clues from a crime scene, interviews with victims or witnesses, and information about psychopathology, similar past crimes, and human behavioral patterns, profilers offer an educated guess on who may have committed the crime and where they may be located.

The vast majority of people with mental illnesses do not commit crimes. However, the mentally ill make up 40 percent of the prison population. Untreated mental illness can motivate some individuals to commit crimes or create life circumstances that push them toward illegal behavior. Many experts argue that treatment, rather than incarceration, could improve both public safety and quality of life for the mentally ill.

Interest in crime is similar to the inability to look away from a car crash—the brutal, often inexplicable behavior can trigger, for some, intense curiosity and a desire to understand aberrant behavior. Serial killers, in particular, may draw fascination because they kill seemingly randomly; studying them may provide a sense of psychological safety and the hope that such knowledge may help someone avoid being victimized.

Can we distinguish between romantic love, obsession, limerance and erotomania? Here I describe how intense and delusional "love" leads to stalking and dangerous states of mind.

Holding parents responsible for their child involved in mass murder is a form of gun control. Experts cannot specify characteristics of mass murderers. How can parents?

When an individual poses a threat due to a delusion, obsession or shared ideology, proper categorization allows the examiner to determine precision care.

Research into eating disorders and mass shooters reveals a common thread—overvalued ideas that are relished, amplified, and nurtured online.

The systematic use of both feature-intensive and gestalt cognitive processing can be very useful in forensic psychology and in understanding antisocial behavior.

We all can acquire odd, wacky, or weird beliefs from online interaction. How does that happen? Gestalt psychology helps us understand internet cognitive isoforms.

Psychology research shows that your clothes shape first impressions, and first impressions matter. Dressing appropriately for court will help you get your desired outcome.

Extreme overvalued beliefs (EOBs) are a key warning behavior of school and mass shooters.

Recent cases of predatory violence from young females highlight the lack of research on this population, and the need for it.

False confessions continue to be a significant factor in wrongful convictions. We're getting better at preventing them. But what can be done when it's already happened?

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Forensic psychology - implications, structure and proces, additional details, no download available, availability, related topics.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Ethical issues across different fields of forensic science

Praveen kumar yadav.

Department of Forensic Science, Punjabi University, Patiala, 147002 India

Many commentators have acknowledged the fact that the usual courtroom maxim to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is not so easy to apply in practicality. In any given situation, what does the whole truth include? In case, the whole truth includes all the possible alternatives for a given situation, what should a forensic expert witness do when an important question is not asked by the prosecutor? Does the obligation to tell the whole truth mean that all possible, all probable, all reasonably probable, all highly probable, or only the most probable alternatives must be given in response to a question? In this paper, an attempt has been made to review the various ethical issues in different fields of forensic science, forensic psychology, and forensic DNA databases. Some of the ethical issues are common to all fields whereas some are field specific. These ethical issues are mandatory for ensuring high levels of reliability and credibility of forensic scientists.

The difference between a trade and a profession is that the latter possesses a self-imposed code of conduct to which its members agree to submit. Such codes are usually ethical based and not imposed by outside legislations and hence members of each profession voluntarily adhere to such codes the members of a profession adhere to such codes. It is need-of-the-hour that each profession should create its set of codes that is a system of self-regulation. In absence of such self-regulatory codes, governments fill the gaps by imposing legal rules which are far less appropriate and suffer from serious shortcomings. The number of professionals working in the field of forensic science is relatively low in comparison to those working in other fields such as medicine and law. Since the interface between science and criminal justice system is filled by forensic scientists, therefore, many owe allegiance to other professional bodies. (Knight 1989 ; Murdock and Holmes 1991 ).

Forensic scientists help law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges, and juries in delivering justice by providing results and conclusion; hence they work in forensic science laboratories associated with law enforcement or other governmental agencies that have ethical codes developed specifically for their organizations. These codes address those areas of professional behavior that are important to the bulk of the people within that agency. Be it a police or prosecutor agency, ethical codes will be designed for police officers and prosecutors respectively. Since ethical codes are organization-specific and are applied partly to forensic scientists, then there is a need to establish codes that are specific to forensic scientists. Such codes will guide them in a situation where ethical issues arise from the type of work the criminalist does. What is ethical to one forensic scientist may be unethical to another and yet to another, therefore, in such situations; these codes may help to guide them to them to the most appropriate course of action. Moreover, such ethical codes stand for the hallmark of the professional status (Barnett 2001 ).

Many commentators have acknowledged the fact that the usual courtroom maxim that is “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is not so easy to apply in practicality. In any given situation, what does the whole truth includes? In case the whole truth includes all the possible alternatives for a given situation, what should a forensic expert witness do when an important question is not asked by the prosecutor? Does the obligation to tell the whole truth mean that all possible, all probable, all reasonably probable, all highly probable, or only the most probable alternatives must be given in response to a question? (Barnett 2001 ).

Due to the absence of any regulatory organization, forensic science has no official recognition or registration that should provide certain rights and responsibilities to forensic scientists. In forensic science, individuals from various fields with adequate qualifications are employed without any statutory certification or registration. The only possible restraint upon professional misconduct of a forensic scientist is through membership of such a craft organization (Knight 1989 ). Therefore, there is an immense need to establish these codes, but this doesn’t mean that they can never be changed; on the contrary, they should be revised regularly from time to time to meet the growing demands of maintaining standards of forensic laboratories.

Laboratory results together with the expert’s opinion that interprets them must never be falsified, trimmed, tailored or otherwise modified to suit a third party, be the motive political, military, racial, financial or any other. Forensic scientists may work under threat of financial or career penalty or of physical violence to themselves or their families. Introducing a strong and widely publicized code of conduct helps to strengthen the resolve of the threatened scientist, especially if he knows that a strong body of internationally reputable colleagues are willing to expose any oppression or malpractice.

Improper conduct in the field of forensic science includes continued abuse of alcohol or drugs, criminal convictions for dishonesty or violence, defamation of professional colleagues etc. and is incompatible with those dealing with law enforcement on daily basis. In private, unfair practices to obtain clients, unacceptable means of advertising and false claims of expertise are present which must be discouraged.

Professional Vs personal ethics

Forensic science is the interface of science and law where principles of science are used for legal purposes. Hence, the ethics of forensic science are the ethics pertaining to the application of science to law. Forensic science has many controversial ethical facets and forensic scientists are often surrounded by baffling ethical disputes. There persists an arbitrary distinction between ethics and morals which enables them to avoid many ethical dilemmas. Personal ethics or morals in the field of forensic science refer to ‘the concerns a forensic scientist has, that are based on personal ethics (morals) or religious considerations which are not derived from professional and/or scientific roles. On the contrary, the professional ethics refer to the codes or guidelines that regulate the professional and scientific conduct which are more fundamental compared to personal ethics or morals. (Weinstock et al. 2013 ).

Ethical dilemmas in forensic science

Siegal ( 2012 ) has classified ethical dilemmas broadly into six categories.

Professional credentials

These include misrepresentation of the credentials before the court of law. Misrepresentations include educational degree attainment (e.g. claiming an unearned Ph.D. or a degree was earned from a particular institution when, in fact, it was not), professional licensures or certifications (e.g. falsely claiming certification as a forensic Pathologist from the American Board of Pathology or a common tactic of equating having attained actual certification with being board “eligible”), employment history and data about previous testimonies such as number of times, locations, etc. Most often this is done to impress the client, the judge or jury to ward off the challenges such as cross-examination by exaggerating the qualifications. Due to lack of resources and fact-checking methods, such exaggerations are seldom caught, and such acts are unethical and must be dissuaded.

Laboratory analytical procedures

Most laboratories have validated and well-established protocols to be followed during tests of analysis as well as recording these tests and their results. Laboratories place priority in the implementation of such protocols but, less than often, such protocols are not followed by the forensic scientist which is unethical. Unethical issues include making insufficient or indiscriminate analysis, and analysis to fit the written law. Sometimes forensic scientists report the results without even opening the containers; a practice known as ‘dry-labbing’. Results and conclusions offered by forensic scientists must be explicit and clear.

Interpretation of analytical data and presentation of testimony in a court of law

In the courtroom, forensic scientists face many ethical dilemmas while providing their testimonies. Ethical dilemmas associated with the interpretation of analytical data and presentation of testimony in a court of law may include bias on the part of forensic scientists, use of scientific jargons, use of confusing or deceptive testimonies, excessive equivocacy, and advocacy. Another issue with forensic laboratories is the way results and conclusions are reported. Some laboratories report minimal results without any useful or appropriate explanations. Also, many a time, the forensic scientist who performed the analysis is not even required to be present in the court for the testimony.

Privately employed forensic scientists

An increasing number of private consultant practices posed a serious likelihood to the ethics in the field of forensic science. No disciplinary code can be applied to such private consultants. The professional integrity of a member is perhaps less of a problem in forensic science than in other professions, as we possess or perhaps suffer the most stringent form of quality control in the form of cross-examination in courts, where any malpractice, omissions or fudging is very likely to be revealed. The private consultancy offers the greatest risk of malpractice as there are less supervision, less peer review, and more financial incentive.

Publicly employed forensic scientists

In the case of public forensic laboratories, it must be noted that they are neither a part of nor administered by the local governments or local law enforcement agencies. This leads to the development of a usual perception that these laboratories are part of a local law enforcement agency. In such case, it is very necessary to maintain the autonomy of these laboratories to maintain a high ethical ground.

Obligations to the forensic science profession and professional skill maintenance

As a scientist, researcher and practitioner, all forensic scientists have the innate responsibility and obligation towards the forensic science profession to maintain the higher ethical values and standards. Ethical dilemmas include three categories that are a failure to keep up to date with recent advancements and updated knowledge, improper use of proficiency tests, continuing the improper educational practice.

Objectivity in forensic science

Applebaum ( 1997 ) pointed in his paper on ethics in forensic psychiatry that the basic principle of ethics is telling the truth and distinguishes between subjective and objective truth telling. Subjective truth telling is to state what we believe is true whereas the objective is to recognize the limitations of methods used to reach conclusions. It includes recognizing the limitations of our scientific and professional knowledge which has led to deduction of conclusions. It is objective to include literature in reports which support, as well as contradicts our conclusions in order to use the explanatory framework that is widely accepted by the scientific community. In his treatise on general psychotherapy, Jasper ( 1997 ) differentiated between the objective and subjective phenomena; he identified the objective as ay trained observer where they are perceived by our senses whereas the subjective cannot be perceived by sense organs. Norko ( 2005 ) stated that the subjective element of truth telling involves the expert’s honesty whereas the objective element relates to his knowledge and testimony.

Similarly, forensic scientists must remain objective while reaching conclusions that can be attained through training and following a standard ethical code. The ethical forensic scientist is a scientist who strives to reach conclusions based on examinations performed without any bias or extending themselves beyond their capabilities or talents (Murdock and Holmes 1991 ). They must not forget that objectivity is their main attribute and that they must examine all the angles before reaching conclusion. They have responsibilities towards the public, therefore, their examinations and analyses must be accountable and objective (Murdock and Holmes 1991 ).

Ethical dilemmas in forensic psychology

Shapiro ( 2016 ) underlined the following ethical issues after reviewing various ethical codes present across the world.

Misuse of work

All over the world, available ethical codes made attempts to make it unambiguous that the psychology profession must not be misused by psychologists and other organizations alike. Under no circumstances, the use of the profession must involve a deprivation of basic human rights (American Psychological Association 2010 ). In cases where any violation of ethical codes is discovered, one must try to either resolve the issue or minimize its effect. Psychologists need to avoid or refuse to participate in practices contrary to the legal, civil or moral rights of others as well as refuse to assist anyone who might use a psychologist’s knowledge to advise, train or supply information to anyone to violate human rights (Canadian Psychological Association 2000 ).

It is stated that psychologists must work as per and to the best of their competence boundaries, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study or professional experience (American Psychological Association 2010 ). They either are or become reasonably familiar with the judicial or administrative rules governing the roles they play. To determine the competence, we must take into consideration the relative complexity and nature of the service to be provided, relevant training and experience, preparation and study they were able to devote to the matter, and the opportunity for consultation in a particular subject matter area (American Psychological Association 2010 ). It is the ethical duty of forensic psychologists to inform the referral source as to whether there is a known basis in either research or practice to answer the particular question being asked. They must avoid misrepresentation of research in any way. Awareness of legal and professional standards, law, rules and procedures involved must not lead to threatening or impairment of the rights of the affected individual as well as being sensitive to and knowledgeable about individuals (Canadian Psychological Association 2000 ).

The basis for scientific and professional judgments

These must be based on established scientific and professional knowledge, up to date research, with relevant literature and continuing education (American Psychological Association 2010 ; Canadian Psychological Association 2000 ).

Delegating work to others

Legally known as Vicarious Liability, is the concept of supervision, where the supervisor is responsible for the work of those under his supervision. He must take reasonable steps to avoid delegating the work to people who have some sort of multiple relationships with those being served, that would lead to exploitation or lack of objectivity. (American Psychological Association 2010 ; Canadian Psychological Association 2000 ).

Avoiding harm

Although it is rare for a psychologist to use this professional excellence to harm someone deliberately, sometimes the situation arises where harm is delivered unintentionally. Forensic psychologists must consider long-term harms before giving any evaluation. One such example of unintentional harm is a case where a forensic psychologist has to review execution of a criminal. If the culprit is found competent to be executed, he then will be causing harm to a life. In a counter argument, many will believe that if the culprit is not found competent to be executed, he is saving a life as well (Shapiro 2016 ).

Multiple relationships

It is defined as being in a professional role with a person and at the same time in another with the same person or a closely associated person or promising to enter into another relationship with a person or a closely related person (Shapiro 2016 ). If the psychologist is required by law, institutional policy or unusual circumstances, to serve multiple roles in legal proceedings, they must clarify their role expectations and the extent of confidentiality at the outset and as circumstances change (American Psychological Association 2010 ). In addition, forensic psychologists must not assume a professional role if they have any other interest that could possibly impair their competency, objectivity or effectiveness in doing psychological work (American Psychological Association 2010 ).

Shapiro ( 2016 ) presented a case that illustrated the dilemma of multiple relationships in a vivid manner. The psychologist in question was ordered by the court to provide treatment to a child who was sexually abused and to provide periodic reports to the court regarding the same case. She, at all times, regarded her role as a therapist, not a forensic examiner. Later, a complaint was filed by the alleged abuser regarding the incompetency of the psychologist on the grounds that she didn’t follow the ethical guidelines. The psychologist stated that her role, was not forensic, it was therapeutic, and for that reason, she did not need to follow the guidelines. However, she had not made this issue clear until the complaint was filed. In other words, at the time she accepted the child under her supervision, she failed to make herself clear that she was only providing the therapeutic services and that her reports were not to be considered for forensic evaluation.

Exploitation

A forensic psychologist must not exploit those whom one supervises or in which an authority role exists, such as clients, patients, students, supervisees, research participants and employees to further political or business interests, or the best interests of the research participants, students or employees. This exploitation may include soliciting of clients, sexual relationships or frightening individuals into receiving services.

Informed consent

One must seek the consent of both the person involved and the representing council. An attorney must be obtained if the person is legally incapable of providing the consent himself. The forensic psychologist must inform the individual about the different parameters related to the anticipated services such as the limits of confidentiality. Oral consent can be taken in cases where the written consent cannot be obtained. However, in this case, the intervention of examination must be clearly stated and explained to the individual (Shapiro 2016 ).

There is an intense obligation on the part of the psychologist to find out whether the client is represented by a council or not. The fees, previous personal or professional relationships or any such parameters which can affect the relationship in later stages must be sorted out at the beginning (American Psychological Association 2013 ). The forensic psychologist must take into consideration what might cause a possible bias such as conflict of interest, examiner’s competence, and the scientific basis or limitations. The informed consent also extends to collateral sources of information that might affect their decision to participate (American Psychological Association 2010 ).

Confidentiality

It is the prime obligation of a forensic psychologist to take reasonable precautions to protect the client’s confidentiality and must make it clear as or its limits. The disclosure must be made only with the client’s consent or consent of the legally authorized individual; it can also be made without the client’s consent only if mandated by law or when the psychologist uses the information for consultation or protection of the client (American Psychological Association 2010 ).

Forensic methodology

It is the duty of the forensic practitioner that he must not withhold, distort or modify any relevant information, misinterpret the available evidence, and attempt to avoid or deny the contrary evidence. The forensic psychologist must not make any premature conclusions. Once the conclusion is reached, the psychologist must advocate his opinions forcefully and with appropriate vigor (American Psychological Association 2013 ). He must accurately represent his credentials, avoiding misrepresentation and maintaining competence in areas of practice and specialty (Canadian Psychological Association 2000 ). Information reporting must be as accurate not to lead to any alternative hypothesis (Meta code of Ethics 2005 ).

Documentation

Proper records must be maintained to facilitate the provision of research, institutional requirements, accuracy in billing and compliance with the law. Obviously, confidentiality must still be maintained even while maintaining their records. However, these records can be used in emergency circumstances when required (American Psychological Association 2010 ). Records must be enough to support the continuity and appropriate coordination of activities with those of others (Canadian Psychological Association 2000 ).

It must be based on sufficient data including a personal examination unless it is not practical. Tests used for the assessment must be reliable and validated. Also, the strengths and limitations of the test data must be discussed.

Ethical dilemmas in forensic genetics

Wallace ( 2014 ) and Cordner ( 2001 ) outlined the ethical issues related to the forensic database.

Collection and storage of DNA samples

Obtaining samples for DNA database is one of the biggest and most debated upon issues. The first issue is who will be providing samples in respect to the criminal investigation? The second issue is who will be required to provide a sample, the profile from which will be stored in DNA database (Cordner 2001 )?

The UK National DNA database was first forensic DNA database established in 1995. Its expansion to include DNA profiles of millions of innocent citizens into the database was widely criticized for it was considered as a breach of personal space. In 2008, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Marper vs. the UK reached a unanimous judgment that the indefinite retention of innocent people’s DNA profiles, fingerprints and samples breached privacy (Wallace et al. 2014 ). Different countries have different criteria to whose DNA sample must be obtained. For instance, in Australia, samples of those who are suspected of having committed crimes for which the penalty is more than 5 years are taken. Samples and profile must be destroyed within 12 months if the charge sheets are not filed, the prosecution is abandoned, or the accused is acquitted. On the other hand, if the accused has been convicted, his profile is retained in the database. In the UK, the profiles of all the accused of recordable crimes that include offenses for which there is a jail term if convicted, are recorded in the database. In France, the database is reserved only for those accused of sexual crimes (Cordner 2001 ). An audit system to monitor and prevent the unethical use of such databases is also vital.

Testing the samples/ using the results

Correct sample collection, security, transport, storage along with processing and analysis are important conditions required for the high-quality database management. Meeting these conditions results in high level of confidence which in turn results in high reliability and high credibility. Contamination problems are a severe predicament and strong reason for doubtful credibility. Contamination can occur at various steps of analytical procedures such as sample collection, securing, transport, storage, and analysis. Although contaminations can never be prevented, it is imperative that they must be minimized and estimation errors are calculated (Cordner 2001 ).

Access and retention of DNA samples

DNA profiles are stored in databases. Many authors claim the correlation of DNA markers with the physical characteristics. Moreover, DNA might reveal illness history. In pursuit of establishing such correlations and investigating them, researcher tends to overuse these databases. This will further put pressure on other databases to provide information for researcher’s assistance (Cordner 2001 ).

Misuse of genetic research in application of genetics to forensic sciences

One of the discussed topics relate to the ethnic and racial labels to the genetic samples. Often forensic scientists try to use results from genetic research to put ethnic and racial labels on the samples encountered on the crime scene. However, many authors believe that the ethnic and racial differences are cultural in nature rather than biological or genetic. Many have raised questions on the scientific utility of racial classifications.

Scientists and researchers are always baffled by the role of ethics. In multiple situations, ethics and research cross the path. Ethics are the soul of any profession and without it, the meaning of profession is vague and ambiguous. Ethics also help in establishing quality, validity, and authenticity of the profession. Although what is ethical to one person may be unethical to another, principles of ethics must be followed. Forensic science deals with the legal aspects and may help in establishing the guilt or exonerating the accused. Therefore, it is mandatory for every forensic organization to have an ethical code which guides forensic scientists to perform their duty with honesty and passion. Definition and limits of following ethical guidelines may vary from person to person but the minimum set of ethics must be made mandatory to be followed especially in the field of forensic science.

Acknowledgement

Authors’ information.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, competing interests.

The author declares that he/she has no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• American Psychological Association (2010) Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Am Psychol 65
• American Psychological Association Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Am Psychol. 2013; 68 :7–19. doi: 10.1037/a0029889. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Appelbaum PS. A theory of ethics for forensic psychiatry. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1997; 25 :233–247. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett PD (2001) Ethics in forensic science: Professional standards for the practice of criminalistics. CRC press
• Canadian Psychological Association (2000) Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. Can Psychol. doi:10.1037/h0086812
• Cordner S (2001) Ethics of Forensic Applications and Databanks. In: Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine 2. Elsevier Ltd.
• Jasper K (1997) General Psychopathology. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
• Knight B. Ethics and discipline in forensic science. Soc news - Prof Aff. 1989; 29 :53–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meta code of Ethics (2005). European Federation of Psychologists. http://ethics.efpa.eu/meta-code . Accessed 24 Feb 2017.
• Murdock JE, Holmes KJ. The conflicts between managerial responsibilities and the ethics of forensic science. J forensic Sci Soc. 1991; 31 :151–161. doi: 10.1016/S0015-7368(91)73130-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norko M, Commentary A. Compassion at the Core of forensic ethics. J Am Acad psychiatry. 2005; 33 :386–389. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapiro DL (2016) Ethical issues in forensic psychology and psychiatry. Ethics Med Public Heal 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2016.01.015
• Siegal JA (2012) Ethics in Forensic Science (Downs JCU, Swienton AR eds). Elsevier Ireland Ltd., pp 59–79 doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385019-5.00003-8
• Wallace HM, Jackson AR, Gruber J, Thibedeau AD. Forensic DNA databases-ethical and legal standards: a global review. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2014; 4 :57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ejfs.2014.04.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstock R, Leong GB, Silva JA (2013). Ethics. Encycl Forensic Sci 175–180. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-382165-2.00291-9