Taking forensic mental health assessment “out of the lab” and into “the real world”: Introduction to the special issue on the field utility of forensic assessment instruments and procedures.

Abstract

The last several decades have seen a major upswing in the development and use of psychological assessment instruments in forensic and correctional settings. At the same time, admissibility standards increasingly have stressed the importance of the reliability and validity of evidence in legal proceedings. Recent research has, however, raised serious concerns about (a) the reliability of forensic science evidence in general, (b) the replicability of psychological research findings in general and in field settings especially, and (c) the interrater reliability and predictive validity of forensic psychological assessment evidence in particular. In this introduction to the special issue of on the field utility of forensic assessment instruments and procedures, we provide an overview of key issues bearing on field studies, focusing on why such research is critically important to improving the quality of the practice of forensic mental health assessments. We also identify various methodological issues and constraints relevant to conducting research outside of controlled settings. We conclude with recommendations for how future field research can improve upon the current state of the discipline in forensic mental health assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record

Dangerous, depraved, and death‐worthy: A meta‐analysis of the correlates of perceived psychopathy in jury simulation studies

“…Despite this widespread use of the PCL‐R, there are reasons to be concerned about its introduction into clinical and legal decision‐making. Perhaps foremost, a growing body of field literature (see Edens & Boccaccini, ) suggests that scores from this instrument are not particularly reliable in applied contexts in which mental health experts are introducing them. Although the professional manual (Hare, ) provides intraclass correlation (ICC) statistics across various offender samples in the 0.85 and above range, numerous field studies have suggested that it may be closer to 0.60 (or even lower) in adversarial forensic settings (e.g., Edens, Cox, Smith, DeMatteo, & Sörman, ; Miller, Kimonis, Otto, Kline, & Wasserman, ).…”

Self‐ and informant perceptions of psychopathic traits in relation to the triarchic model

“…Psychopathic respondents appear willing and able to disclose socially undesirable features of their personality, at least when assured confidentiality in the context of research participation. Furthermore, potential underreporting of psychopathy among offenders only minimally affects the criterion‐related validity of scores from these self‐report measures (Watts et al, ), although, again, findings may not necessarily generalize from research conditions to those settings involving “real‐world” consequences (Edens & Boccaccini, ).…”

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

“…The use of field data is a second strength in the methodology of this research; field studies have high ecological validity, meaning that results can be generalized to real-life settings. Two limitations that need to be acknowledged in light of these strengths are (1) implementation fidelity was not formally assessed and (2) the utility of assessment tools is often lower in field studies compared to lab studies (Edens & Boccaccini, 2017).…”

“…Field research in the context of Edens and Boccaccini's (2017) review is defined as the collection of assessment data for "the purpose of informing clinical, forensic, or correctional decision-making in regards to the examinee" (p. 600). This could include decisions like release from incarceration or-a primary case management strategy that DRAOR assessments are used for-screening offenders into/out of treatment services (Edens & Boccaccini, 2017). In lab studies, on the other hand, data is collected solely for research purposes and is not used to inform real-world decisions (Edens & Boccaccini, 2017).…”