Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:26:57.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Decision-Making by Forensic Mental Health Evaluators

from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Marcus T. Boccaccini  and
Daniel C. Murrie
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

In any legal case, there is a pool of possible forensic evaluators whom a court might order, or an attorney might retain, to conduct a forensic mental health evaluation. There is a growing body of research showing that these evaluators are not interchangeable. They differ somewhat in their attitudes, personality traits, opinions about how to conduct evaluations, and thresholds for reaching conclusions. These differences, coupled with the subjectivity inherent to psycholegal questions and the pull of adversarial allegiance to retaining parties, can lead to biased decision-making. Although there is some support for specialized training as a mechanism for reducing these biases, even increased training will never eliminate the subjective clinical judgment necessary for some aspects of forensic assessment. The goal is to work toward reducing the impact of hidden biases on case outcomes, which should lead to better decisions by both evaluators and consumers of their work.

Keywords

forensic assessmentforensic evaluationevaluator biasevaluator differencesadversarial allegianceevaluator empathyevaluator decision-making
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 211 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blais, J. (2015). Preventative detention decisions: Reliance on expert assessments and evidence of partisan allegiance within the Canadian context. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 33(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2155.Google Scholar
Boccaccini, M. T., Chevalier, C. S., Murrie, D. C., & Varela, J. G. (2017). Psychopathy Checklist use and reporting practices in sexually violent predator evaluations. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(5), 592–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215612443.Google Scholar
Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Rufino, K. A., & Gardner, B. O. (2014). Evaluator differences in PCL-R factor and facet level scoring. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000069.Google Scholar
Boccaccini, M. T., Rice, A. K., Helmus, L. M., Murrie, D. C., & Harris, P. B. (2017). Field validity of Static-99/R scores in a statewide sample of 34,687 convicted sexual offenders. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000377.Google Scholar
Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., & Murrie, D. C. (2008). Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower PCL-R scores than others? Findings from a statewide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 262–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014523.Google Scholar
Brodsky, S. L. (2013). Testifying in court: Guidelines and maxims for the expert witnesses (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Chevalier, C., Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., & Varela, J. G. (2015). Static-99 R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance? Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000114.Google Scholar
Chorn, J. A., & Kovera, M. B. (2019). Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 43(6), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000345.Google Scholar
Cruise, K. R., & Rogers, R. (1998). An analysis of competency to stand trial: an integration of case law and clinical knowledge. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 16(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199824)16:1<35::aid-bsl292>3.0.co;2-4.Google Scholar
DeClue, G., & Rice, A. R. (2016). Florida’s released “sexually violent predators” are not “high risk.” Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8(1), 22–51.Google Scholar
Deitchman, M. A., Kennedy, W. A., & Beckham, J. C. (1991). Self-selection in the participation of mental health professionals in competence for execution evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 15(3), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061714.Google Scholar
Edens, J. F., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2017). 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. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 710–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000475.Google Scholar
Elwood, R. W. (2019). Agreement between courts and SVP evaluators in the state of Wisconsin. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(6), 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819839746.Google Scholar
Freckleton, I. (1996). Rationality and flexibility in assessment of fitness to stand trial. International Journey of Law and Psychiatry, 19(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(95)00026-7.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. O., Murrie, D. C., & Torres, A. (2018). Insanity findings and evaluation practices: A state-wide review of court-ordered reports. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2344.Google Scholar
Glasman, L. R., & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, W. N., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2012). Field reliability of competency to stand trial evaluations: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree? Law and Human Behavior, 36(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093958.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, W., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2013). How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity? Law and Human Behavior, 37(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000001.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, W., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2017). Field reliability influences field validity: Risk assessments of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000376.Google Scholar
Gowensmith, W. N., Pinals, D. A., & Karas, A. C. (2015) States’ standards for training and certifying evaluators of competency to stand trial. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 15(4), 295–317, https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1046798.Google Scholar
Guarnera, L., & Murrie, D. C. (2017). Field reliability of competence and sanity opinions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 795–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000388.Google Scholar
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
Harris, P. B., Boccaccini, M. T., & Schrantz, K. (2016, March). Evaluator differences in behavioral abnormality conclusions and paraphilia diagnoses in sexually violent predator cases. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Hill, S. J., Homsy, S., Woofter, C., & McDermott, B. E. (2021). Persistent, poor quality competence to stand trial reports: Does training matter? Psychological Services, 19(2), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000512.Google Scholar
Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1987). Subjective factors in clinicians’ judgments of insanity: Comparison of a hypothetical case and an actual case. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(5), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.5.439.Google Scholar
Iudici, A., Salvini, A., Faccio, E., & Castelnuovo, G. (2015). The clinical assessment in the legal field: An empirical study of bias and limitations in forensic expertise. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(11), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01831.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. L., Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2004). The adequacy and accuracy of sexually violent predator evaluations: Contextualized risk assessment in clinical practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 3(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2004.10471201.Google Scholar
Jeon, H., Boccaccini, M. T., Jo, E., Jang, H., & Murrie, D. C. (2020). Rater experience and the predictive validity of Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version scores. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(5), 912–923. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1751330.Google Scholar
Levenson, J. S. (2004). Reliability of sexually violent predator civil commitment criteria in Florida. Law and Human Behavior, 28(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:lahu.0000039330.22347.ad.Google Scholar
Lubit, R. (2021). Recognizing and avoiding bias to improve child custody evaluations: Convergent data are not sufficient for scientific assessment. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development, 18(3), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2021.1901635.Google Scholar
Miller, C. S., Kimmonis, E. R., Otto, R. K., Kline, S. M., & Wasserman, A. L. (2012). Reliability of risk assessment measures used in sexually violent predator proceedings. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028411.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., Rufino, K. A., Boccaccini, M. T., Jackson, R. L., & Murrie, D. C. (2011). On individual differences in person perception: Raters’ personality traits relate to their Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scoring tendencies. Assessment, 18(2), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111402460.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2015). Adversarial allegiance among forensic experts. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2023). How reliable and objective are forensic mental health evaluators? In DeMatteo, D. & Scherr, K. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and law (pp. 343–362). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Caperton, J. D., & Rufino, K. A. (2012). Field validity of the psychopathy checklist-revised in sex offender risk assessment. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 524–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026015.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., et al. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(1), 19–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014897.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Zapf, P. A., Warren, J. I., & Henderson, C. E. (2008). Clinician variation in findings of competence to stand trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013578.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., Gardner, B. O., & Torres, A. N. (2020). Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state-wide review of court-ordered reports. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 38(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2436.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., & Warren, J. I. (2005). Clinician variation in rates of legal sanity opinions: Implications for self-monitoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(5), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.519.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S. (2016) Are forensic experts already biased before adversarial legal parties hire them? PLoS ONE 11(4), e0154434. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154434.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potenial correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000077.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035824.Google Scholar
O’Donohue, W. T., Cirlugea, O., & Vechiu, C. (2019). The evaluation of sexually violent predator evaluations. In O’Donohue, W. T. & Bromberg, D. (Eds.), Sexually violent predators: A clinical science handbook (pp. 217–224). Springer.Google Scholar
Palker-Corell, A. M. (2007). Mental health professionals decision-making in competence for execution evaluations. PhD dissertation, Sam Houston State University.Google Scholar
Perillo, A. D., Spada, A. H., Calkins, C., & Jeglic, E. (2014). Examining the scope of questionable diagnostic reliability in Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) evaluations. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.11.005.Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008.Google Scholar
Ricardo, M. M., Boccaccini, M. T., Gardner, B. O., Murrie, D. C., & Torres, A. N. (2021, March). Association between formal forensic training and adherence to governing laws and professional guidelines in sanity reports. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, virtual.Google Scholar
Rice, A. K., Boccaccini, M. T., Harris, P. B., & Hawes, S. W. (2014). Does field reliability for Static-99 scores decrease as scores increase? Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1085–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000009.Google Scholar
Rufino, K., Boccaccini, M. T., & Guy, L. (2011). Scoring subjectivity and item performance on measures used to assess violence risk: The PCL-R and HCR-20 as exemplars. Assessment, 18(4), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110378482.Google Scholar
Scott, K., Boccaccini, M. T., Trupp, G., Murrie, D. C., & Hawes, S. (2022). Evaluator empathy in risk assessment interviews. Law and Human Behavior, 46(5), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000492.Google Scholar
Tansey, A. (2021). Assessing judges’ perceptions of the quality of competence to stand trial reports. Master’s thesis, Drexel University.Google Scholar
Teo, A. R., Holley, S. R., Leary, M., & McNeil, D. E. (2012). The relationship between level of training and accuracy of violence risk assessment. Psychiatric Services, 63(11), 1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201200019.Google Scholar
Vera, L. M., Boccaccini, M. T., Laxton, K., et al. (2019). How does evaluator empathy impact a forensic interview? Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000310.Google Scholar
Zapf, P. A., Hubbard, K. L., Cooper, V. G., Wheeles, M. C., & Ronan, K. A. (2004). Have the courts abdicated their responsibility for determination of competency to stand trial to clinicians? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v04n01_02.Google Scholar
Zappala, M., Reed, A. L., Beltrani, A., Zapf, P. A., & Otto, R. (2018). Anything you can do, I can do better: Bias awareness in forensic evaluators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 18(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2017.1413532.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×