Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Forensic Report Checklist - Coggle Diagram
Forensic Report Checklist
10 faults most frequently found by the practice sample reviewers
Noted in parentheses after the checklist item is the percent of non-passed forensic diplomate practice samples in which the particular fault underlying that checklist item was found
Forensic Referral Question stated Clearly
53%
In over half the non-passed reports submitted, the forensic question was not clearly articulated
Forensic reports have a specific psycholegal question to be addressed
This question is defined by relevant regulations, case law, or statute within the jurisdiction where the report is written or bring used
If the evaluation strays too far from the forensic question, it risks being considered irrelevant
Forensic question should guide the entire evaluation
Report Organised Coherently
36%
Forensic report serves to communicate technical psychological information to a non-technical audience
Courts, lawyers, and quasi-legal agencies such as probation or child-protection agencies
Forensic evaluator should organize the report to guide the reader in understanding
what forensic question was considered
what information the evaluator used
how the evaluator reasoned from this information to reach his or her forensic conclusion
The report is typically from the concrete to the abstract
Abstract = Inferences and conclusions
Concrete = sources of information or observations
Jargon Eliminated
19%
Presence of jargon is still one of the top 10 faults found in forensic reports submitted by forensic psychology diplomate candidates
Every authority on forensic psychology resport writing recommends removing jargon from one's report
Jargon simply stands in the way of clear communication in a forensic report
Failing to explain to the lay reader what a particular medication is used for, or expecting everyone to know what 'oriented times three' means
Only data relevant to forensic opinion included
31%
Traditional clinical reports sometimes stray widely from the inital referral question
Need to limit themselves to answering the forensic question
There are due process and self-incrimination issues relevant in forensic reports that do not apply to clinical reports
Only data relevant to forensic opinion included
31%
Traditional clinical reports sometimes stray widely from the initial referral question
Forensic reports need to limit themselves to answering the forensic question
There are due process and self-incrimination issues relevant in forensic reports that do not apply to clinical reports
Multiple sources of data considered, if possible
22%
Use of multiple sources of information allows the evaluator to corroborate (or not) information from another source
For example: The clinical interview with another source of information from another source such as a file
In some cases, multiple sources of information may not be available
In some criminal cases, discovery materials are not available to the defense (or defense expert) until after indictment; in sexually violent predator civil-commitment evaluations, the individual is likely to have been incarcerated for many years, making witness and family member accounts less accessible
Psychological tests used appropriately
15%
General psychological tests were not developed with specific forensic questions in mind, there is always an inferential leap involved in interpreting general psychological tests to answer forensic questions
Evaluator needs to be carefully consider what information cab be drawn from psychological test results and how this information applies to the specific forensic question at hand
Alternate hypotheses considered
30%
Alternative hypotheses are always possible in forensic evaluations
There is always the contrary hypothesis with regard to the answer to the forensic question
If the question, is 'Is this defendant competent to proceed to trial' then the two obvious hypotheses are that he either is or is not competent.
Systematic consideration of competing hypotheses, and the evidence for and against both, makes the evaluator's reasoning clear
Connection between data and opinions made clear
56%
At present there is broad consensus among forensic psychology authorities that forensic psychology reports should clearly describe the reasoning that leads the evaluator to his or her conclusion
Lack of clarity reguarding the reasoning that connects the data to the forensic opinion was present in over half those work samples not passed
Providing the reasoning can serve to make the report more understandable and persuasive to its reader
Opinions supported by data
28%
Over one-quarter of forensic psychology diplomate candidates provided reports in which, in the dipomate examiners' opinions, their findings were not supported by the underlying data
Evaluators need to ensure that their findings are firmly grounded in the data; otherwise, the reports will be unpersuasive
Forensic Report Checklist
Forensic referral question stated clearly
Report organised coherently
Jargon eliminated
Only data relevant to forensic opinion included
Observations seperated from inferences
Observations separated from inferences
multiple sources of data considered, if possible
Psychological tests used appropriately
Alternate hypotheses considered
Opinions supported by data
Connection between data and opinions made clear