Risk evaluations for the courts: Is service quality a function of specialization?

Psychologists are often asked to testify in court. However, concerns have been expressed in both the legal and psychological literatures about the quality of these services. This article presents survey results comparing the practice patterns of generally licensed psychologists with those of specialist forensic diplomates in providing risk evaluations. Results suggest that general clinicians frequently perform these evaluations, but forensic diplomates use more modern risk instruments, are more aware of the scientific literature, and provide the court with more information about the scientific basis of their testimony. The implication of these results for legal professionals, psychologist training, and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Third party presence during criminal forensic evaluations: Psychologists' opinions, attitudes, and practices.

If you are a psychologist who conducts forensic evaluations, how would you respond to an attorney's or family member's request to be present or to videotape the evaluation? Your answer may be impacted by legal, professional, ethical, and practical issues as addressed in legal and mental health publications. However, there is a dearth of empirical attention, and even the opinions and practices of psychologists in this arena are unclear. The present article addresses the need for empirical data on third party presence by surveying forensic clinicians' perspectives on the topic. A total of 160 forensic practitioners (41% response rate) provided information on their attitudes and practices pertaining to third parties in an evaluation. Overall, most clinicians believe third party presence can negatively impact an evaluation, yet most have conducted examinations under such conditions. The article concludes with speculation as to the impact of third party presence, a call for research and professional standards, and specific guidelines for psychologists who may struggle with these complex issues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Informed consent in capital sentencing evaluations: Targets and content.

Far-reaching implications are associated with psychological evaluation procedures in capital cases. The gravity and complexity of evaluations in a death penalty context call for an expanded perspective on informed consent disclosures from psychologists who perform capital sentencing assessments. A rationale is presented for making defense counsel the primary target for these expanded informed consent procedures. Informed consent obligations of prosecution-retained psychologists primarily involve issues of notice, with a proposal for proactive acknowledgement of limitations in the evaluation procedures. Issues for informed consent discussion between defense-contacted psychologists and defense counsel include attitudes, theoretical perspectives, and professional history of the psychologist; logistics of the evaluation; and parameters and procedures of the evaluation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Unresolved controversies concerning psychopathy: Implications for clinical and forensic decision making.

At some point in their careers, clinicians who work or consult in forensic and correctional settings will almost certainly encounter individuals who exhibit psychopathic personality features. Because of the widespread use of this disorder to inform legal and clinical decision making, psychologists should be exceedingly familiar with the relevant research literature on this topic before venturing into these settings. This article reviews the empirical bases of several clinically relevant claims and assertions regarding psychopathy and concludes that many areas of research are decidedly more equivocal in their findings than is commonly perceived. Although there is much to be gained by assessing psychopathy in various contexts, clinicians need to be cautious about drawing overzealous and empirically questionable conclusions about an important disorder that also has great potential for abuse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Confidentiality: Ethical and legal aspects for Canadian psychologists.

Discusses the ethical and legal aspects of confidentiality for Canadian psychologists, with particular emphasis on clinical psychology. The concepts of confidentiality, privileged communication, and privacy are clarified. The law of privileged communication in Canada is presented. Ethical standards, provincial and federal legislation, and case law bearing on confidentiality in clinical practice are discussed. Issues of mandatory child abuse reporting, the duty to protect, informed consent, and 3rd-party and client access to records are explored. Suggestions are made to the psychologist regarding the management of confidentiality. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Standards of practice and care in forensic mental health assessment: Legal, professional, and principles-based consideration.

The specialization of forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) has incorporated important advances during the last two decades. As scientific advances, specialized tools, and relevant ethical guidelines have become core elements of FMHA, however, the question of how to regulate poor practice has assumed increasing importance. One such means of regulation that has been rarely applied to FMHA thus far is malpractice litigation using a clearly defined standard of care. This article focuses on the relationship between standard of practice and standard of care in FMHA. The authors discuss the current absence of a standard of care in FMHA, describing the historical, regulatory, and legal influences that have helped to shape the current state of practice in this specialty area and their relevance to operationalizing a standard of care. The authors address the various sources of authority that the law might consider in defining a standard of care and specify circumstances under which legal regulation using a standard of care would be more useful than would ethical/professional regulation using a standard of practice. Finally, the authors describe the advantages of developing a clearer standard of practice in FMHA, which can then inform the operationalization of a standard of care. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Obituaries: Jack S. Annon (1929-2005).

Presents an obituary for Jack S. Annon, a clinical and forensic practitioner who was deeply respected by many in the legal system, including law enforcement personnel, attorneys (prosecution and defense), and judges alike. Dr. Annon cofounded the Forensic and Behavioral Science Institute, and introduced the first sex offender treatment program in the state of Hawaii with his colleague and lifelong friend Craig Robinson. In addition to being a clinical and forensic psychologist, he was a sought-after trainer and an adjunct faculty member at several institutions. He served on the editorial boards of several journals and on various ethics boards and was also a licensed detective. Dr. Annon died on December 24, 2005, and a memorial celebration of his life, held on January 5, was marked with expression and exchange of true aloha. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The forensic psychology section in a state hospital.

A psychology section functioning in a forensic services center is described. The legal questions that must be dealt with in such a setting are explained, and psychology's role in answering these questions is explored. The goals of treatment in a forensic unit, which focus on educating a defendant to competency for trial, are discussed, and an example of a treatment program is presented. The functions of a psychologist in a forensic setting are compared and contrasted with those of a psychologist in the general mental health field. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When worlds collide: Therapeutic and forensic roles.

The goal of the article "Irreconcilable Conflict Between Therapeutic and Forensic Roles" (S. A. Greenberg & D. W. Shuman, 1997; see record 1997-02162-009) was to help chart a course for the profession that would raise the quality of assistance provided by psychologists both to courts and to patient-litigants, without compromising the quality of either forensic examinations or therapeutic relationships. One solution was conceptually simple: Do not attempt to fulfill both roles for the same person. Although an individual psychologist might be competent in both the provision of therapy and conduct of forensic examination, this does not justify a psychologist providing both services to the same patient-litigant. Knowledge is necessary to provide both types of service. Wisdom is necessary to choose not to provide both services to the same person. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The ethical confrontation of the unethical forensic colleague.

In the course of clinical and forensic work, psychologists sometimes discover serious weaknesses in knowledge, performance, or ethics in other psychologists' work. The ethical code of the American Psychological Association mandates confronting such a psychologist prior to making a professional complaint. This mandatory confrontation typically is omitted because of a sense of awkwardness or a fear of insulting the other psychologist. Education and training in psychology does not cover this sensitive and important area. In this article, sample templates of letters are provided to meet that ethical requirement and to begin to resolve problem behaviors by colleagues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Clinician Variation in Rates of Legal Sanity Opinions: Implications for Self-Monitoring.

How often do forensic psychologists find that a defendant meets criteria for legal sanity? Do clinicians vary in terms of how frequently they offer opinions supportive of insanity? If so, how might a conscientious clinician determine whether unusually high or low rates of insanity opinions reflect bias? The authors present the first available data regarding how individual clinicians vary in rates of insanity opinions, drawing from 59 clinicians who conducted 4,498 evaluations. Most clinicians found 5%-25% of defendants met criteria for legal insanity. However, some clinicians opined that no defendants met criteria for legal insanity, whereas others opined that as many as 50% of defendants did. The authors (a) provide suggestions to help practicing clinical-forensic psychologists monitor their patterns of psycho-legal opinions and (b) examine carefully whether unusual rates may reflect clinician bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts.

When conducting a forensic evaluation, what psychological tests do experts consider acceptable to use? The answer is useful to psychologists making practice decisions but also to the courts, who rely on others' opinions to base one of the criteria for determining the admissibility of testimony. The author surveyed diplomates in forensic psychology (N=64) regarding both the frequency with which they use and their opinions about the acceptability of a variety of psychological tests in 6 areas of forensic practice. The 6 areas were mental state at the offense, risk for violence, risk for sexual violence, competency to stand trial, competency to waive Miranda rights, and malingering. Results are presented for each practice area, and the implications of these results for the courts, future research, and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Specialized practice in forensic psychology: Opportunities and obstacles.

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of the need for psychology practitioners to provide expertise to the legal system on a wide variety of topics. One of the difficulties for psychologists has been that the demand for such services has at times outstripped the capacity of the field to train practitioners to provide these services in a competent and ethical manner. Furthermore, many psychologists are not aware of the types of knowledge and training required to perform these services. This article describes the knowledge base and skills that distinguish the specialty of forensic psychology and the types of training required to practice in this field. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A response to Shealy, Cramer, and Pirelli's "Third party presence during criminal forensic evaluations: Psychologists' opinions, attitudes, and practices".

I provide my position on third-party observation in criminal forensic assessments studied by C. Shealy, R. Cramer, and G. Pirelli (see record 2008-17522-001), comment on the traditional authority reflected by the study, note the statements on the issue by the Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (2007) and the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (2001) and the proposed third draft of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology by the Committee on the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2008), and offer a rationale for allowing observation. The study by Shealy, Cramer, and Pirelli documented traditional authority on observation in forensic assessment, not evidence-based practice. Because there is scant data of the effects of observation on outcomes, in order to define evidence-based practice and inform the reality of assessments that are observed, psychologists should research the effects of third-party observation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past.

In a 1987 American Psychologist article, Tom Grisso summarized the state of forensic psychological assessment, noted its limitations and potential, and offered suggestions for researchers and practitioners interested in contributing to its future. Since that time, there have been many important developments in the field of forensic psychology, as well as in clinical psychology more generally, some of which were anticipated and recommended by Grisso, and some of which were not. Forensic psychology is now at a crossroads, and the specialty must make an effort to respond to current challenges if it is to aid in the administration of justice by assisting legal decision makers. The need to distinguish between and identify levels of forensic knowledge and practice, establish guidelines for practice, educate legal consumers, and devote more attention to treatment issues in forensic contexts is highlighted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Award for Distinguished Contribution to Research in Public Policy: Marnie E. Rice.

The Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest confers the Award for Distinguished Contribution to Research in Public Policy upon a psychologist who has made a distinguished empirical and/or theoretical contribution to research in public policy, either through a single extraordinary achievement or a lifetime of work. This article recognizes Marnie E. Rice as the 1995 award recipient. Rice was cited for pioneering the rigorous empirical evaluation of risk assessment and risk reduction methods in difficult forensic populations. Her studies of skill deficits among mentally disordered offenders have transformed the ways in which clinical treatment is provided. The innovative procedures she developed for preventing institutional violence have become international models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Panel discussion: problems of the specialist's duty to inform the patient (author's transl)

The obligation of the physician to inform the patient--which he has to prove in case of a suit--is based on the patient's right of self-determination. This self-decision information was subject of the panel discussion. Not discussed in detail were the information concerning diagnosis and prognosis, and the instruction of the patient regarding his conduct postoperatively and during medical treatment. Not considered was the so-called malpractice and negligence respectively. Medical liability suits are increasing for various reasons and are frequently directed at a failure to inform the patient becuase the patient is often unable to prove a negligence of the physician ("surrogate liability"). The dimension of the duty of disclosure (complete information--no information at all) is discussed in general and with special regard to the Ear-Nose- and Throat field. Special questions are answered regarding otoplasty, middle ear surgery, transplantations, extension of laryngeal surgery without prior informed consent, paranasal sinus and rhino-basis operations as well as surgery in minors and foreigners. In cases of non-vital indication and particularly in plastic-cosmetic procedures and outsider methods the requirements for informed consent are particularly important. The so-called rate of complications has perhaps a relative, but never an absolute meaning, and even this only in connection with the other circumstances of an individual case. The evidence of an adequate informed consent which must be included in a physician--patient-dialogue is most convincing by means of a written consent and the additional signature of a witness, perhaps also of the patient. The value, the problems and even the risks of an information based only on forms or brochures is discussed in detail. The panel discussion from the four points of view of the organizers should be no means confuse the otorhinolaryngologist. It should inform him about the medicolegal aspects of his activity and protect him from avoidable burdens.     

The role and relevance of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in court: A case law survey of U.S. courts (1991-2004).

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 1991, 2003) is the most empirically validated instrument for measuring psychopathy in correctional and forensic psychiatric populations. The PCL-R's predictive utility with criminal justice populations has led to its frequent use by clinicians conducting forensic assessments in criminal and sexually violent predator (SVP) cases. Despite its apparent wide acceptance in U.S. courts, little is known about how often the PCL-R is being introduced, the types of cases in which it is being used, and whether claims made in court regarding psychopathy are empirically defensible and/or relevant to the question at hand. This project documents some uses of the PCL-R in U.S. courts from 1991 through 2004 by year, jurisdiction, type of evaluation, and party. The results suggest that the PCL-R is being used by expert witnesses with increasing regularity across U.S. jurisdictions, primarily to assess risk of future violence. A review of 3 recent cases is also provided that illustrates concerns about the validity of the PCL-R for certain types of legal questions that may arise in criminal and SVP trials. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Theodore Hertzl Blau (1928-2003).

Memorializes Theodore H. "Ted" Blau, one of America's foremost advocates for the clinical application of psychological knowledge. Although private practice remained his primary passion and work until his death, Ted served as consultant to various organizations, was a leading forensic psychologist, was an adjunct professor, and provided many years of service in the governance of the American Psychological Association (APA). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases.

The authors critically evaluate the roles of forensic practitioners and psychological researchers in determinations of the best-interest-of-the-child standard (BICS) in child custody disputes. The authors examine (a) the existing empirical research on the adjustment of children of divorce, (b) the current forensic practice of mental health practitioners, (c) the standardized forensic assessment instruments available, and (d) the ethical dilemmas faced by mental health practitioners who work in this area. On the basis of their analysis, the authors argue that current evidence does not support most of the "expert testimony" proffered by mental health practitioners to the court. As a consequence, they posit that the BICS does not reflect either the needs of the legal system or the expertise of the psychological profession, and that the least detrimental alternative to the child standard more accurately meets the needs of both fields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)