The quality of forensic psychological assessments, reports, and testimony: Acknowledging the gap between promise and practice.

Sanity evaluations are high-stake undertakings that explicitly examine the defendant's culpability for a crime and implicitly explore clinical information that might inform a plea agreement. Despite the gravity of such evaluations, relatively little research has investigated the process by which evaluators form their psycholegal opinions. In the current study, we explore this process by examining 5175 sanity evaluations conducted by a cohort of forensic evaluators in Virginia over a ten-year period. Our analyses focus on (i) the clinical, criminal, and demographic attributes of the defendant correlated with opinions indicative of insanity; (ii) the clinical content of the evaluations and the legal criteria referenced as the basis for the psycholegal opinion; (iii) the process and outcome differences in the sanity evaluations conducted by psychologists versus psychiatrists; and (iv) the consistency in these opinions over a ten year period. Analyses predicting an opinion of insanity indicate a positive relationship with psychotic, organic, and affective diagnoses and previous psychiatric treatment. Analyses also indicate a negative relationship with prior criminal history, drug charges, personality disorder diagnosis, and intoxication at the time of the offense. Modest racial disparities were observed with evaluators offering opinions that the defendant was insane more often for white than for minority defendants despite comparable psychiatric and criminal characteristics.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinion formation in evaluating sanity at the time of the offense: an examination of 5175 pre‐trial evaluations

Warren

Murrie

Chauhan

et al. 2003

“…Not surprisingly, psychotic Heilbrun (2002) observed after reviewing the 50-year history of forensic psychology, there remain ''significant flaws'' within the ''wide-scale practice of forensic psychology' ' (p. 15). Similarly, Nicholson and Norwood (2000) concluded, ''the practice of forensic assessment falls far short of its promise' ' (p. 40). Researchers interested in promoting the quality of the field may do well to conduct broad reviews of the process and products of forensic work in order to note strengths and recommend areas for improvement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinion formation in evaluating the adjudicative competence and restorability of criminal defendants: a review of 8,000 evaluations

Warren¹,

Murrie²,

Stejskal³

et al. 2006

103

Evaluations of competence to stand trial (CST) are the most common type of criminal forensic evaluation conducted, and courts tend to defer to clinician opinions regarding a defendant's competence. Thus, it is important to study the ways in which clinicians arrive at opinions regarding adjudicative competence and the data they consider in forming their opinions. We reviewed 8,416 evaluations conducted by forensic evaluators in Virginia over a 12 year period, and examined (a) the clinical, demographic, and criminal characteristics of a defendant as related to opinions regarding competence, predicted restorability, and impairment on "prongs" of the Dusky standard, (b) process and outcome differences in evaluations conducted by psychiatrists versus psychologists and inpatient versus outpatient evaluators, and (c) the consistency of incompetence base rates over a 10 year period. Overall, clinicians opined that 19% of defendants were incompetent and considered 23% of these unlikely to be restored to competence. Not surprisingly, psychotic and organic/intellectual disorders were most strongly associated with findings of incompetence. However, there were some notable differences between evaluations by psychologists versus psychiatrists and between evaluations conducted in inpatient versus outpatient settings.

“…One of the most useful publications to emerge in this period was the review by Nicholson and Norwood (2000) of this body of new information regarding AC evaluations (and child custody evaluations as well). The article provided a comprehensive review of the findings of recent surveys of mental health professionals regarding their AC evaluation practices, as well as studies of the content of their AC reports.…”

Section: Quality Of Ac Evaluations and Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Summarizing the studies in this area, Nicholson and Norwood (2000) concluded that they provide evidence for improvement in AC evaluations in certain areas (compared with complaints in the literature about their quality in the 1980s). For example, the recent studies above did not find evidence that examiners confused the AC standard with other legal issues such as criminal responsibility, and they seem generally to have improved in their focus on relevant functional abilities.…”

Section: Quality Of Ac Evaluations and Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an important recent review of the state of the art in this area, Nicholson and Norwood (2000) substituted the term ''adjudicative competence'' (abbreviated AC) for the more traditional ''competence to stand trial'' (abbreviated CST). The first two five-year updates in this series used the traditional term, but the present update follows Nicholson and Norwood's lead.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Five year research update (1996–2000): evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence)

Fogel

Schiffman

Mumley

et al. 2003

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 1996-2000 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial (also known as adjudicative competence). The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) the systemic context of evaluations of adjudicative competence (AC); (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations; (iii) research on AC assessment methods; (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities; (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports; (vi) interpretation of AC evaluation data; (vii) issues in AC assessment of special populations (e.g., juveniles, persons with mental retardation, and women); and (viii) treatment to restore competence. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.