Psychological Testing in Forensic Evaluations of Battered Women Who Kill

Akl, Stephanie; Temares, Amanda E.; Diaz, Brandi; Walker, Lenore E.

doi:10.1080/10926771.2022.2068391

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Akl et al (2022) found that the highest elevation of their population of BW's DAPS profile was on the scale measuring trauma-specific dissociation (i.e., derealization, depersonalization, and detachment). Within this sample, all scales produced clinically significant elevations with the exception of the positive bias scale, suggesting this sample was experiencing myriad PTSD symptomatology without attempting to portray themselves in an overly positive manner (Akl et al, 2022). Notably, the DAPS has recently been revised and is undergoing psychometric review prior to its release (Petri et al, 2020).…”

Section: Trauma Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Elhai et al (2002) attempted to remedy this type of validity concern with samples of trauma victims by creating an MMPI scale called the Infrequency-Posttraumatic Stress Disorder scale (Fptsd). In conjunction with information obtained from the clinical interview and other psychological testing, it may become evident that there are consistencies in the examinee's reported symptoms that are not unexpected in her given circumstances (Akl et al, 2022).…”

Section: Trauma Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been noted that overreported symptoms may be a “cry for help” (McDevitt-Murphy et al, 2005) or the result of acute psychological distress (Briere, 1997; Briere & Elliott, 1997; Elhai et al, 2001). In a study including the PAI, versions of the MMPI, DAPS, and TSI-2, Akl et al (2022) observed many cases with elevated or invalid validity indexes, also asserting that significant levels of distress in samples of BW (i.e., recent criminal charges, loss of parental rights, contentious court proceedings) contribute to validity concerns. Additionally, while these measures were designed to assess trauma or include a trauma scale, they were not validated with samples of women who have experienced significant and persistent abuse.…”

Section: Evaluation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The highest elevations included dissociation, intrusive experiences, and reduced self-awareness (i.e., lack of self-knowledge and identity; Diaz et al, 2022). Further evaluation of BW’s TSI-2 profiles reveals that all scales and subscales that contribute to the SELF, TRAUMA, and SOMA factors fell within the clinically significant range (Akl et al, 2022). Within the final factor, EXT, Akl et al (2022) found that all subscales were clinically significant with the exception of Anger falling in the problematic range.…”

Section: Evaluation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on prior research, evaluators can expect PAI profiles of BW to produce several elevations. Within the validity scales, there is often evidence of elevated negative impression management (i.e., exaggeration of symptoms, endorsement of infrequent or uncommon symptoms; Akl et al, 2022). Significant clinical scales/subscales include borderline traits, paranoia, schizophrenia (Akl et al, 2022; McDevitt-Murphy et al, 2005), anxiety, depression, traumatic stress (Akl et al, 2022; Cherepon & Prinzhorn, 1994; McDevitt-Murphy et al, 2005), and somatization (Akl et al, 2022).…”

Section: Evaluation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Practitioners conducting interpersonal violence forensic evaluations.

Walker¹,

Diaz²,

Temares³

et al. 2023

Practice Innovations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practitioners are often asked to assess battered women (BW) to form opinions about how their history of victimization may have implications for their mental status. In addition to assessment for treatment plans, opinions can be offered for criminal responsibility, diminished capacity, extreme emotional disturbances, resentencing, affixing the nexus between domestic violence (DV) and personal injury, or impact on access to children during family law disputes among other legal cases. While evaluations of BW and its effects are not uncommon, there is a lack of research and recommended practices for these evaluations, especially when knowledgeable psychotherapists want to perform forensic evaluations. This article aims to provide anecdotal accounts of practices for BW evaluations, specifically related to psychological assessment tools and brief report writing. In BW evaluations for forensic cases, special attention is important in preparing for the evaluation (i.e., agreements with retaining parties, review of collateral documentation) as well as a thorough explanation of informed consent and confidentiality. The mental status examination and behavioral observations are important to integrate with other data points. The authors discuss recommendations and relevant research for specific assessment tools to evaluate personality, emotional, and cognitive functioning, as well as trauma inventories. Finally, brief considerations are noted for report writing that specifically includes comprehensive discussion of interpersonal functioning, writing in a manner that conveys the BW.

show abstract

Section: Trauma Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Trauma Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%