Empirically supported forensic assessment.

Abstract

The field of Forensic Psychology has greatly expanded over the past several decades, including the use of psychological assessment in addressing forensic issues. A number of surveys have been conducted regarding the tests used commonly by forensic psychologists. These surveys show that while tests specifically designed to address forensic issues have proliferated, traditional clinical assessment tests continue to play a crucial role in many forensic evaluations. The current article identifies some of the most salient characteristics of empirically supported forensic tests and provides examples of tests felt to meet each of these five criteria. These criteria include adequate standardization, acceptable reliability and validity, general acceptance within the community of forensic evaluators, availability of test data from cross-cultural and cross-ethnic samples, and comparison data relevant to specific forensic populations. Although the guidelines provided in this article provide a helpful framework for evaluating the usefulness of forensic tests, the establishment of a national review panel or workgroup to address this issue wouldbe highly useful, particularly in the potential controversial task of identifying those tests that meet reasonable guidelines to be identified as empirically supported forensic assessment instruments.

Contextualized evidence and empirically based testing and assessment.

“…This is an untenable assumption until proven otherwise. Youngstrom and Van Meter (2016) and Archer et al (2016) discuss curating measures and choosing tests wisely. Bias is notoriously difficult to determine, and an entire set of statistical methods has evolved for detection of systematic bias (e.g., Reynolds & Carson, 2005).…”

“…All of the pillars of Archer et al (2016) ultimately interact to get us to the ultimate issue of the appropriateness of the interpretations given to the test scores obtained in any setting, but especially in a forensic setting, and it is the appropriateness of the interpretations of performance on a test that are at issue and are the subject of validation (Reynolds & Livingston, 2012). But, in keeping with the theme of their article, they emphasize the choice of tests under Daubert as opposed to the reliability and validity of the opinions given.…”

“…But, in keeping with the theme of their article, they emphasize the choice of tests under Daubert as opposed to the reliability and validity of the opinions given. Archer et al (2016) raise some of these issues, but not all, but their importance seems to require further emphasis by example. Once the methods have been verified under Daubert, the opinions themselves must be vetted, as most rules of evidence require that a credible link be established between the data and the reasoning and conclusions of the expert, and then judicial inquiry changes from one of admissibility to the weight the trier of fact should accord to the conclusion (i.e., credibility).…”

“…Youngstrom and Van Meter (2016) and Archer, Wheeler, and Vauter (2016) are the most explicit in their discussion of curating tests for application as empirically based, but the decision-making process used in the interpretation of test data also requires curation. Here, we find reference not only to challenges to sound testing and assessment but also to partial solutions of these key issues.…”

“…Here, we find reference not only to challenges to sound testing and assessment but also to partial solutions of these key issues. Each seeks to promote evidence-based practice, Youngstrom and Van Meter (2016) via emphasis on the decision-making process inherent in the use of psychological tests and Archer et al (2016) via emphasis on the tests used and their selection. Following the logic and recommendations of Youngstrom and Van Meter (2016) and Archer et al (2016) will unquestionably improve the state of practice in testing and assessment, despite the somewhat disparate approaches taken.…”