Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessment

An update and expansion on the role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical Clinical Risk Management‐20 in United States case law

“…On the one hand, California law allows the parole board a significant amount of discretion when determining an offender's appropriateness for parole. On the other hand, a forensic mental health evaluator would probably balk at emphasizing a single factor; Heilbrun et al's () best practices in forensic mental health assessment encourage evaluators to obtain comprehensive data and assess a wide range of relevant variables when making a risk determination. A cynic may argue that confirmation bias is at play in these situations, and parole boards are simply looking for data to support their pre‐existing belief (that the offender will be dangerous in the future).…”

“…Indeed, in a survey of 152 practicing forensic psychologists, Archer, Buffington‐Vollum, Vauter Stredny, and Handel () found violence risk assessment to be one of the most frequently cited areas of expertise. And researchers are continually seeking ways of improving both the ability to assess the likelihood an individual will exhibit future violence and the ability to devise contingency‐based strategies that will reduce the likelihood of future risk (Hart, , ; Heilbrun, Grisso, & Goldstein, ).…”

Clinical Psychological Evaluations for Pre-Employment Selection

“…Given the low likelihood of available criterion-related validation data, each predictor in the battery must also demonstrate acceptable construct validation evidence surrounding the constructs and risk factors they are purported to measure. These data should be publicly available in a test manual to allow for a direct assessment of the instrument's properties (Heilbrun et al 2009). Each test should also have supporting research indicating its appropriateness for interpretation within the normal population (Butcher 1999b, cited in Butcher et al 2006Gallo and Halgin 2011).…”

“…b. Detailed list of all information sources used, including the assessment instrument and interview questions c. Psychologist's overall conclusion and evaluation In line with best-practice recommendations for general forensic mental health assessment, which suggest evaluators frame their reports and opinions in terms of functional capacities and related impairment in reference to the specific legal question (Heilbrun, Grisso, and Goldstein, 2009), we agree with Corey and Borum's (2013) and the IACP-PPSS' recommendations that the evaluators write their recommendations in terms of degree of fit between the applicant's KSAOs and the KSAOs required for successful job performance. Here, the mental health professional should provide evidence-based linkages between the predictors used and risk factors measured with the job-relevant KSAOs and tasks.…”

Erratum to: Trends in Psychological/Psychiatric Injury and Law: Continuing Education, Practice Comments, Recommendations

“…Sellbom and Bagby (2008) advised against using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III Manual (MCMI III;Millon 1997;Millon et al 2006) in this context. Heilbrun et al (2009) listed the foundational principles that should guide forensic mental health assessment. They emphasized the need to adopt a scientific approach, both in conducting the evaluation and in arriving at conclusions.…”