Standards of practice and care in forensic mental health assessment: Legal, professional, and principles-based consideration.

Heilbrun, Kirk; DeMatteo, David; Marczyk, Geff; Goldstein, Alan M.

doi:10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.1

Cited by 46 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also ' For a thorough discussion of the relationship between standards of practice and standards of care, see Heilbrun et al (2008). examined whether and how evaluator variables relate to test usage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment.

McLaughlin¹,

Kan²

2014

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Without established standards of care for different types of forensic mental health assessment, practice surveys can provide information about current trends among evaluators and gauge how "typical" practice follows best practices. This study provides an update on the use of assessment tools in evaluations of response style/malingering, competency to stand trial, mental state at time of alleged offense, and nonsexual violence risk. Almost all forensic evaluators (n = 102) indicated that they use assessment tools to some extent when conducting these types of forensic mental health assessment. Of the 4 instrument types-multiscale inventories, forensic assessment/relevant instruments, cognitive/neuropsychological instruments, and projective techniques-evaluators reported using multiscale inventories at higher rates in evaluations of mental state at time of offense and forensic assessment/relevant instruments at higher rates for the other 3 issues. Projeetive techniques were used the least often across all forensic issues. We also considered how evaluator variables relate to differences in test usage. Finally, we compare our results with those of previous practice surveys and discuss the implications of these findings.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment.

McLaughlin¹,

Kan²

2014

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To improve quality and consistency, psychologists need guidelines to be established for each type of forensic mental health assessment (Heilbrun, 2001;Heilbrun & Brooks, 2010;Heilbrun, DeMatteo, Marczyk, & Goldstein, 2008;Shuman & Zervopoulos, 2010). To date Australia has not acted on these recommendations: there are no guidelines for pre-sentence evaluations that have been endorsed by the APS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological pre‐sentence evaluations for sentencing young offenders in Australia

Bycroft

Dear

Drake

2020

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Drawing upon extant Australian and International literature we sought to identify the skills and knowledge psychologists require to competently evaluate Australian young offenders for sentencing. We also sought to identify the key ethical and methodological issues that Australian psychologists should be aware of before commencing a forensic evaluation of a young offender. Method Using search terms “expert witness, pre‐sentence report, pre‐sentence report, forensic mental health assessment, Forensic Mental Health Assessment, forensic assessment, methodology, forensic model, and sentencing juveniles” we searched for peer reviewed articles published between the years 2000–2018 on the PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and ProQuest data bases. Results Drawing upon available literature we identified the knowledge and skills required for evaluations and the ethical standards available to help guide the evaluation. Due to the lack of Australian research in this area, we had to rely on international literature regarding recommended evaluation methods. There is no clear statement on what the psychology profession in Australia believes is an appropriate evaluation methodology and what content is required in a pre‐sentence report. There is no specific data clarifying what Australian judicial officers find helpful in pre‐sentence reports. Conclusions Our article highlights the need for further research into Australian evaluation methodology for pre‐sentence reports, and the need for professional standards and guidelines specific to Australian jurisdictions.

show abstract

“…The ability of practitioners to provide the court with useful reports would be enhanced if there were greater clarity and detailed guidelines on the methods applicable to formulating assessment reports (Heilbrun & Brooks, 2010;Heilbrun, DeMatteo, Marczyk, & Goldstein, 2008;Shuman & Zervopoulos, 2010). Heilbrun et al (2008) suggest that comprehensive practice guidelines in forensic psychology would help to resolve the problem of inconsistency and poor-quality FMHAs while also improving the satisfaction levels of the judicial officers who receive the reports. They suggest that the development of these guidelines should be based on a strong consensus within the profession.…”

Section: Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological reports for sentencing juveniles in Australian courts

Bycroft

Dear

Drake

2019

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychological reports for use in court must be relevant to the legal issues in dispute, meet professional standards, and reflect evidence-based practice. Using the Delphi method, a high degree of consensus was found among Australian experts in the methodology and knowledge required for conducting forensic mental health assessment (FMHAs) and the content needed in pre-sentence reports. Consensus was absent in two areas, if a pre-sentence report should always include a risk-assessment; and the need for a model to guide the FMHA. Without a model it is difficult for practitioners to justify their decision-making process, and judicial officers have no mechanism to determine if the work provided to the court is of an acceptable standard. Future research should focus on developing a model for presentence reports that includes a decision-making process and minimum standards. Researchers also need to determine judicial officers' views on the helpfulness of presentence reports.

show abstract

Standards of practice and care in forensic mental health assessment: Legal, professional, and principles-based consideration.

Cited by 46 publications

References 62 publications

Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment.

Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment.

Psychological pre‐sentence evaluations for sentencing young offenders in Australia

Psychological reports for sentencing juveniles in Australian courts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About