OBJECTIVES: Elevated rates of mental health concerns have been identified during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study, we sought to evaluate whether youth reported a greater frequency of suicide-related behaviors during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic as compared with 2019. We hypothesized that rates of suicide-related behaviors would be elevated between the months of March and July 2020 as compared with 2019, corresponding to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Routine suicide-risk screening was completed with youth aged 11 to 21 in a pediatric emergency department. Electronic health records data for suicide-risk screens completed between January and July 2019 and January and July 2020 were evaluated. A total of 9092 completed screens were examined (mean age 14.72 years, 47.7% Hispanic and/or Latinx, 26.7% non-Hispanic white, 18.7% non-Hispanic Black). RESULTS: Rates of positive suicide-risk screen results from January to July 2020 were compared with corresponding rates from January to July 2019. Results indicated a significantly higher rate of suicide ideation in March and July 2020 and higher rates of suicide attempts in February, March, April, and July 2020 as compared with the same months in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of suicide ideation and attempts were higher during some months of 2020 as compared with 2019 but were not universally higher across this period. Months with significantly higher rates of suicide-related behaviors appear to correspond to times when COVID-19–related stressors and community responses were heightened, indicating that youth experienced elevated distress during these periods.

How objective are forensic experts when they are retained by one of the opposing sides in an adversarial legal proceeding? Despite long-standing concerns from within the legal system, little is known about whether experts can provide opinions unbiased by the side that retained them. In this experiment, we paid 108 forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to review the same offender case files, but deceived some to believe that they were consulting for the defense and some to believe that they were consulting for the prosecution. Participants scored each offender on two commonly used, well-researched risk-assessment instruments. Those who believed they were working for the prosecution tended to assign higher risk scores to offenders, whereas those who believed they were working for the defense tended to assign lower risk scores to the same offenders; the effect sizes (d) ranged up to 0.85. The results provide strong evidence of an allegiance effect among some forensic experts in adversarial legal proceedings.

Recent research suggests that the reliability of some measures used in forensic assessments--such as Hare's (2003) Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)--tends to be weaker when applied in the field, as compared with formal research studies. Specifically, some of the score variability in the field is attributable to evaluators themselves, rather than the offenders they evaluate. We studied evaluator differences in PCL-R scoring among 558 offenders (14 evaluators) and found evidence of large evaluator differences in scoring for each PCL-R factor and facet, even after controlling for offenders' self-reported antisocial traits. There was less evidence of evaluator differences when we limited analyses to the 11 evaluators who reported having completed a PCL-R training workshop. Findings provide indirect but positive support for the benefits of PCL-R training, but also suggest that evaluator differences may be evident to some extent in many field settings, even among trained evaluators.

Several studies have concluded that scores from Hare's (2003) Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) predict reoffense among sexual offenders, but most of those studies examined the predictive validity of scores from trained research staff, not clinicians in the field scoring the measure as part of actual forensic assessments. Therefore, we examined the field validity of PCL-R scores that forensic evaluators assigned to 333 male sexual offenders who underwent evaluations during a civil commitment selection process. Overall, no PCL-R score was a significant predictor of sexually violent recidivism. Facet 4 was the only PCL-R score with an area under the curve (AUC) greater than .50 (AUC = .53, p = .85) and the only PCL-R score that approached statistical significance for predicting the combined category of violent or sexually violent offending (AUC = .63, p = .08). However, scores from a subset of evaluators revealed stronger predictive effects, indicating that predictive validity was higher for scores from some evaluators than others. Overall, these results suggest that the stronger predictive validity values in controlled research studies may not apply to all evaluators when the PCL-R is administered in the field.