We surveyed practicing forensic psychologists (N = 176) in the United States after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to obtain their opinions about using videoconferencing for competence to stand trial evaluations. The survey included a broad range of questions to identify perceived concerns about, and benefits of, videoconferencing. Many of the evaluators who reported having conducted a competence evaluation using videoconferencing had done so only after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (79.7%). Evaluators expressed concerns that the results of videoconferencing evaluations were slightly less reliable (M = 73.6% agreement) than in-person evaluations (M = 79.2%, d = .57 [.43, .70]), but agreed that videoconferencing has the potential to make the evaluation process more efficient for evaluators (77.2%) and to reduce evaluation wait times for defendants (83.8%). The most common concerns were about the ability to assess general mental health symptoms (42.7%) and feigning (68.1%), as opposed to specific psycholegal abilities (10% to 30%). Overall, those who had used videoconferencing for a competence evaluation or had received training related to videoconferencing were less likely to endorse concerns about its use. Findings represent a first step in providing data to inform ongoing discussions about professional standards for using videoconferencing for competence evaluations.

No abstract

Objective: Should forensic evaluators convey empathy during forensic assessments? Opponents contend that empathy causes harm by leading evaluees to disclose potentially incriminating information, but proponents hold that empathy is crucial for establishing rapport and conveying respect. This study provides a comprehensive examination of experienced forensic evaluators' use of empathy in forensic assessment. Hypotheses: The study was exploratory and not hypothesis-driven, but we expected to find identifiable subgroups of evaluators who differed in their use of empathy in the context of a risk assessment interview. We also expected that evaluator subgroups would differ in their attitudes and practices regarding empathy and that higher levels of empathy may be associated with more favorable views of evaluees. Method: Experienced forensic evaluators (N = 200) assumed the role of interviewer in a written parole risk assessment interview and chose questions (high or low empathy) they would ask the evaluee if they were conducting the interview. Evaluators also provided ratings of their perceptions of the evaluee and responded to questions regarding their attitudes toward, and use of, empathy in forensic assessment. Results: Latent class analysis results indicated that most evaluators fell into low-(46.0%) or moderate-(43.0%) empathy subgroups, with few falling into a high-empathy subgroup (11.0%). Higher levels of empathy in the interview were associated with attitudes and practices supporting empathy use and higher self-reported understanding of the evaluee, but not with opinions of the evaluee's risk or suitability for parole. Conclusions: These findings of clear differences in evaluator empathy add to the growing body of research documenting the extent to which forensic evaluators differ in their evaluation styles and tendencies. Although there was support for both very low and very high levels of empathy, support for very high levels of empathy was uncommon. Most evaluators opted for low to moderate empathy. Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that there are distinct subgroups of forensic evaluators as defined by their support for the use of expressions of empathy in forensic assessment interviews. Although most evaluators prefer low to moderate empathy, those who use higher levels of empathy do not appear to view evaluees differently than other evaluators do.

Despite being well-researched, the conceptualization of psychopathy incites much debate within the field. Results from network analysis can inform these debates by graphically and quantitatively depicting the core characteristics of the construct of psychopathy. Existing network studies with Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R) scores suggest the affective traits are most central to the construct of psychopathy, but more studies are needed. The current study examined network models developed using data from risk assessments of individuals convicted of a sex offense ( N = 615). Findings corroborate some aspects of previous network studies in that affective features were most central to the construct and antisocial traits were least central, but there were instances of traits with notably higher centrality (e.g., Pathological Lying, Need for Stimulation, and Impulsivity) or lower centrality (e.g., Shallow Affect) than in prior research, suggesting that trait centrality may vary depending on the sample and evaluation context.

No abstract