Decision-Making by Forensic Mental Health Evaluators

doi:10.1017/9781009119375.014

14 - Decision-Making by Forensic Mental Health Evaluators

from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024

Marcus T. Boccaccini and

Edited by

Matthew T. Huss and

Monica K. Miller: Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman: Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss: Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone: Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In any legal case, there is a pool of possible forensic evaluators whom a court might order, or an attorney might retain, to conduct a forensic mental health evaluation. There is a growing body of research showing that these evaluators are not interchangeable. They differ somewhat in their attitudes, personality traits, opinions about how to conduct evaluations, and thresholds for reaching conclusions. These differences, coupled with the subjectivity inherent to psycholegal questions and the pull of adversarial allegiance to retaining parties, can lead to biased decision-making. Although there is some support for specialized training as a mechanism for reducing these biases, even increased training will never eliminate the subjective clinical judgment necessary for some aspects of forensic assessment. The goal is to work toward reducing the impact of hidden biases on case outcomes, which should lead to better decisions by both evaluators and consumers of their work.

Keywords

forensic assessment forensic evaluation evaluator bias evaluator differences adversarial allegiance evaluator empathy evaluator decision-making

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 211 - 224

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009119375.014 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blais, J. (2015). Preventative detention decisions: Reliance on expert assessments and evidence of partisan allegiance within the Canadian context. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 33(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2155.Google Scholar

Boccaccini, M. T., Chevalier, C. S., Murrie, D. C., & Varela, J. G. (2017). Psychopathy Checklist use and reporting practices in sexually violent predator evaluations. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(5), 592–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215612443.Google Scholar

Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Rufino, K. A., & Gardner, B. O. (2014). Evaluator differences in PCL-R factor and facet level scoring. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000069.Google Scholar

Boccaccini, M. T., Rice, A. K., Helmus, L. M., Murrie, D. C., & Harris, P. B. (2017). Field validity of Static-99/R scores in a statewide sample of 34,687 convicted sexual offenders. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000377.Google Scholar

Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., & Murrie, D. C. (2008). Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower PCL-R scores than others? Findings from a statewide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 262–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014523.Google Scholar

Brodsky, S. L. (2013). Testifying in court: Guidelines and maxims for the expert witnesses (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Chevalier, C., Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., & Varela, J. G. (2015). Static-99 R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance? Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000114.Google Scholar

Chorn, J. A., & Kovera, M. B. (2019). Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 43(6), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000345.Google Scholar

Cruise, K. R., & Rogers, R. (1998). An analysis of competency to stand trial: an integration of case law and clinical knowledge. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 16(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199824)16:1<35::aid-bsl292>3.0.co;2-4.Google Scholar

DeClue, G., & Rice, A. R. (2016). Florida’s released “sexually violent predators” are not “high risk.” Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8(1), 22–51.Google Scholar

Deitchman, M. A., Kennedy, W. A., & Beckham, J. C. (1991). Self-selection in the participation of mental health professionals in competence for execution evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 15(3), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061714.Google Scholar

Edens, J. F., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2017). Taking forensic mental health assessment “out of the lab” and into “the real world”: Introduction to the special issue on the field utility of forensic assessment instruments and procedures. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 710–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000475.Google Scholar

Elwood, R. W. (2019). Agreement between courts and SVP evaluators in the state of Wisconsin. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(6), 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819839746.Google Scholar

Freckleton, I. (1996). Rationality and flexibility in assessment of fitness to stand trial. International Journey of Law and Psychiatry, 19(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(95)00026-7.Google Scholar

Gardner, B. O., Murrie, D. C., & Torres, A. (2018). Insanity findings and evaluation practices: A state-wide review of court-ordered reports. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2344.Google Scholar

Glasman, L. R., & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778.Google Scholar

Gowensmith, W. N., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2012). Field reliability of competency to stand trial evaluations: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree? Law and Human Behavior, 36(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093958.Google Scholar

Gowensmith, W., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2013). How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity? Law and Human Behavior, 37(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000001.Google Scholar

Gowensmith, W., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2017). Field reliability influences field validity: Risk assessments of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000376.Google Scholar

Gowensmith, W. N., Pinals, D. A., & Karas, A. C. (2015) States’ standards for training and certifying evaluators of competency to stand trial. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 15(4), 295–317, https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1046798.Google Scholar

Guarnera, L., & Murrie, D. C. (2017). Field reliability of competence and sanity opinions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 795–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000388.Google Scholar

Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar

Harris, P. B., Boccaccini, M. T., & Schrantz, K. (2016, March). Evaluator differences in behavioral abnormality conclusions and paraphilia diagnoses in sexually violent predator cases. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Hill, S. J., Homsy, S., Woofter, C., & McDermott, B. E. (2021). Persistent, poor quality competence to stand trial reports: Does training matter? Psychological Services, 19(2), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000512.Google Scholar

Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1987). Subjective factors in clinicians’ judgments of insanity: Comparison of a hypothetical case and an actual case. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(5), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.5.439.Google Scholar

Iudici, A., Salvini, A., Faccio, E., & Castelnuovo, G. (2015). The clinical assessment in the legal field: An empirical study of bias and limitations in forensic expertise. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(11), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01831.Google Scholar

Jackson, R. L., Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2004). The adequacy and accuracy of sexually violent predator evaluations: Contextualized risk assessment in clinical practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 3(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2004.10471201.Google Scholar

Jeon, H., Boccaccini, M. T., Jo, E., Jang, H., & Murrie, D. C. (2020). Rater experience and the predictive validity of Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version scores. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(5), 912–923. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1751330.Google Scholar

Levenson, J. S. (2004). Reliability of sexually violent predator civil commitment criteria in Florida. Law and Human Behavior, 28(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:lahu.0000039330.22347.ad.Google Scholar

Lubit, R. (2021). Recognizing and avoiding bias to improve child custody evaluations: Convergent data are not sufficient for scientific assessment. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development, 18(3), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2021.1901635.Google Scholar

Miller, C. S., Kimmonis, E. R., Otto, R. K., Kline, S. M., & Wasserman, A. L. (2012). Reliability of risk assessment measures used in sexually violent predator proceedings. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028411.Google Scholar

Miller, A. K., Rufino, K. A., Boccaccini, M. T., Jackson, R. L., & Murrie, D. C. (2011). On individual differences in person perception: Raters’ personality traits relate to their Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scoring tendencies. Assessment, 18(2), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111402460.Google Scholar

Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2015). Adversarial allegiance among forensic experts. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714.Google Scholar

Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2023). How reliable and objective are forensic mental health evaluators? In DeMatteo, D. & Scherr, K. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and law (pp. 343–362). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Caperton, J. D., & Rufino, K. A. (2012). Field validity of the psychopathy checklist-revised in sex offender risk assessment. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 524–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026015.Google Scholar

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(10), 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812.Google Scholar

Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., et al. (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(1), 19–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014897.Google Scholar

Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Zapf, P. A., Warren, J. I., & Henderson, C. E. (2008). Clinician variation in findings of competence to stand trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013578.Google Scholar

Murrie, D. C., Gardner, B. O., & Torres, A. N. (2020). Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state-wide review of court-ordered reports. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 38(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2436.Google Scholar

Murrie, D. C., & Warren, J. I. (2005). Clinician variation in rates of legal sanity opinions: Implications for self-monitoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(5), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.519.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potenial correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000077.Google Scholar

Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035824.Google Scholar

O’Donohue, W. T., Cirlugea, O., & Vechiu, C. (2019). The evaluation of sexually violent predator evaluations. In O’Donohue, W. T. & Bromberg, D. (Eds.), Sexually violent predators: A clinical science handbook (pp. 217–224). Springer.Google Scholar

Palker-Corell, A. M. (2007). Mental health professionals decision-making in competence for execution evaluations. PhD dissertation, Sam Houston State University.Google Scholar

Perillo, A. D., Spada, A. H., Calkins, C., & Jeglic, E. (2014). Examining the scope of questionable diagnostic reliability in Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) evaluations. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.11.005.Google Scholar

Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008.Google Scholar

Ricardo, M. M., Boccaccini, M. T., Gardner, B. O., Murrie, D. C., & Torres, A. N. (2021, March). Association between formal forensic training and adherence to governing laws and professional guidelines in sanity reports. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, virtual.Google Scholar

Rice, A. K., Boccaccini, M. T., Harris, P. B., & Hawes, S. W. (2014). Does field reliability for Static-99 scores decrease as scores increase? Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1085–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000009.Google Scholar

Rufino, K., Boccaccini, M. T., & Guy, L. (2011). Scoring subjectivity and item performance on measures used to assess violence risk: The PCL-R and HCR-20 as exemplars. Assessment, 18(4), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110378482.Google Scholar

Scott, K., Boccaccini, M. T., Trupp, G., Murrie, D. C., & Hawes, S. (2022). Evaluator empathy in risk assessment interviews. Law and Human Behavior, 46(5), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000492.Google Scholar

Tansey, A. (2021). Assessing judges’ perceptions of the quality of competence to stand trial reports. Master’s thesis, Drexel University.Google Scholar

Teo, A. R., Holley, S. R., Leary, M., & McNeil, D. E. (2012). The relationship between level of training and accuracy of violence risk assessment. Psychiatric Services, 63(11), 1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201200019.Google Scholar

Vera, L. M., Boccaccini, M. T., Laxton, K., et al. (2019). How does evaluator empathy impact a forensic interview? Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000310.Google Scholar

Zapf, P. A., Hubbard, K. L., Cooper, V. G., Wheeles, M. C., & Ronan, K. A. (2004). Have the courts abdicated their responsibility for determination of competency to stand trial to clinicians? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v04n01_02.Google Scholar

Zappala, M., Reed, A. L., Beltrani, A., Zapf, P. A., & Otto, R. (2018). Anything you can do, I can do better: Bias awareness in forensic evaluators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 18(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2017.1413532.Google Scholar

Book contents

14 - Decision-Making by Forensic Mental Health Evaluators

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive