Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Melton 3: Method of Forensic Assessment (Distinction between forensic and…
Melton 3: Method of Forensic Assessment
Distinction between forensic and therapeutic assesment
examiner's perspective
Voluntariness & autonomy
forensic evaluees are "forced" into the evaluation
Threats to validity
Relationship dynamics
Pace & Setting
Forensic evaluations are a finite, or limited, experience.
Scope
Forensic referral is a "narrow question"
Forensic evaluees are not "patients"
Testing & Assessment Procedure
Relevance to specific legal inquiry?
Primary or secondary importance
Functional terms (grisso model) or clinical terms
Norm reference tests provide information about groups producing specific profiles
Individuals obtaining certain scores are hypothesized to have similar traits to reference or criterion group
Additional information corroborates
Should never hang a clinical inference on 1 test result
Limitation of Reconstructive Contexts
Length of time between "event" and evaluation (MST evals)
Confounded by potential treatment (stabilization) & forgetting
Can be likely mitigated with use of archival records
Standard Part of a forensic assessment
If an attorney fails to provide data, records, make note in the report about limitations of data
Use testing discriminately
Face Validity Considerations
Types of Tests
Conventional / therapeutic instruments
Forensic Relevant Instruments
ie: MMPI-2, PAI, SIRS-2, Violence Risk Instruments
Forensic Specific Instruments
ILK, CAST-MR,
Hypnosis & Narcoanalysis
First, determine if Amnesia is "true"
Can be easily feigned
Think about how "true" amnesia manifests
Registration amnesia- memories were never permanently stored
Recall amnesia- inability to recall stored memories
Important to distinct these are not "truth serums"
One's memory influenced by many factors, including...
situational factors
Personal factors?
No guarantee one's memory will full and accurate
specific guidelines and procedures
use trained clinicians familiar w/both elements
use non-leading questions
maintain careful records of the procedure
briefing procedure prior to start
videotape
Rock v. arkansas
SC held a rigid prohibition on hypnotically induced statements is unconstitutional where statements are the defendants
Sheffer?
State v. Hurd
Assessment of Response style
Rogers identified 5 types: honest/candid, exaggerated/fabricated, denying, minimizing, irrelevant, & hybrid
"HYBRID" is probably most common
General strategies for detection of malingering
Clinical interview
Review of onset, course, symptoms of various mental disorders
Structured Interview (SIRS)
Conservative use of psych instruments
3rd party interview
1: Assessment of feigned thought disorder
Rogers 5 potential indicators
"overplayed" or dramatic presentaiton
deliberateness & carefulness?
inconsistency between psychiatric diagnosis & clinical presentation
inconsistency of self-report & endorsement of obvious symptoms
2:Assessment of Feigned intellectual impairment
Possible signs
insufficient effort on CAIs
insufficient effort on FRIs
nonsensical or rare unique responses
inconsistent responding
inconsistency between test performance & "real-life" adaptive behaviors
Instruments
TOMM
Victoria Symptom Validity TEst
VIP
Computerized Assessment of Response Bias
Word Memory Test
3: Assessment of feigned depression/anxiety
Tests have not been successful in this realm
Complicated by an evaluee calling on prior experiences when responding
Challenges to the Basis of Expert Testimony
FRE 703
Hearsay
not hearsay if collected from medical record
Generally allowed by clinicians
some arguments this should be narrowly governed
What about the 6th amendment and the right to confrontation?
NY Court has held this concept applies to 3rd party forensic interviews (INTERESTING)