Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:03:31.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the Standard Forensic Procedure for the Evaluation of Psychological Injury in Intimate-Partner Violence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2014

Francisca Fariña ,
Ramón Arce ,
Manuel Vilariño  and
Mercedes Novo
Francisca Fariña*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Vigo (Spain)
Ramón Arce
Affiliation:
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (Spain)
Manuel Vilariño
Affiliation:
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (Spain)
Mercedes Novo
Affiliation:
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Francisca Fariña. Facultade de Ciencias da Educación e do Deporte. Campus A Xunqueira, s/n. 36005. Pontevedra (Spain). E-mail: francisca@uvigo.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In judicial terms, a victim refers to any person who has suffered injury arising from an action or omission of an action that constitutes an offence, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. A review of Spanish judicial judgements underscored that the lack of evidence of psychological injury in cases of intimate-partner violence (IPV) accounted for approximately 40% of acquittals. Thus, the Spanish standard of proof for the forensic evaluation of psychological injury i.e., the MMPI-2 and the unstructured interview were assessed in order to determine if they met the statutory requirement for the assessment of psychological injury and the differential diagnosis of feigning. The results of the comparison of 51 women victims of IPV with firm convictions against their aggressors, and 54 women mock victims of IPV showed that the F, K, Fb, Fp and Ds scales, and the F-K index discriminated significantly and with medium and large effect sizes, between adjudicated and mock victims. However, the results did not provide a valid decision criterion for forensic settings i.e., false negatives (identifying feigner as honest protocols) were not classified correctly. In conclusion, the standard forensic procedure for the evaluation of psychological injury in cases of IPV did not constitute valid proof for judges who acquitted defendants on the grounds of not proven due to the lack of evidence of psychological injury.

Keywords

intimate-partner violencepsychological injuryjudicial prooffeigningMMPI-2
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 17 , 2014 , E32
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2014 

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

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4 th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Arbisi, P. A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). On the MMPI-2 infrequent response scale for use with psychopathological populations: The Infrequency Psychopathology Scale F(p). Psychological Assessment, 7, 424–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.7.4.424 Google Scholar
Arce, R., Alonso, M. A., & Novo, M. (2010). Estudio de sentencias de violencia de género con menores implicados: Carga de la prueba y decisiones sobre los menores [A study of judicial judgments on gender violence with children involved: The standard of proof and decision on children]. In Fariña, F., Arce, R., Novo, M., & Seijo, D. (Eds.), Separación y divorcio: Interferencias parentales [Separation and divorce: Parental interference] (pp. 241–252). Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Nino.Google Scholar
Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Buela-Casal, G. (2008). Assessing and detecting the ability to faking psychological injury as a consequence of a motor vehicle accident on the MMPI-2 using mock victims. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 40, 485–496.Google Scholar
Arce, R., Fariña, F., Carballal, A., & Novo, M. (2006). Evaluación del daño moral en accidentes de tráfico: Desarrollo y validación de un protocolo para la detección de la simulación [Evaluating psychological injury in motor vehicle accidents (MVA): Development and validation of a protocol for detecting simulation]. Psicothema, 18, 278–283.Google Scholar
Arce, R., Fariña, F., Carballal, A., & Novo, M. (2009). Creación y validación de un protocolo de evaluación forense de las secuelas psicológicas de la violencia de género [Creation and validation of a forensic protocol to assess psychological harm in battered women]. Psicothema, 21, 241–247.Google Scholar
Arce, R., Seijo, A., & Novo, M. (2010). Testimony validity: A comparative study of legal and empirical criteria. Psychology in Spain, 14, 1–7.Google Scholar
Arch, M., Jarne, J., Peró, M., & Guàrdia, J. (2011). Child custody assessment: A field survey of Spanish forensic psychologists’ practices. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 3, 107–128.Google Scholar
Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_07 Google Scholar
Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T. Radovanovic, H., & Fidler, B. J. (1999). Defensive responding on the MMPI-2 in family custody and access evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11, 24–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.1.24 Google Scholar
Bargai, N., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Shalev, A. Y. (2007). Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in battered women: The mediating role of learned helplessness. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 267–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9078-y Google Scholar
Berry, D. T. R., Baer, R. A., & Harris, M. J. (1991). Detection of malingering on the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 585–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(91)90005-F Google Scholar
Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2001). Psychologists’ current practices and procedures in child custody evaluations: Five years after American Psychological Association Guidelines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 261–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0735-7028.32.3.261 Google Scholar
Bowler, R. M., Hartney, C., & Ngo, L. H. (1998). Amnestic disturbance and posttraumatic stress disorder in the aftermath of a chemical release. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 13, 455–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/arclin/13.5.455 Google Scholar
Brown, T. A., Campbell, L. A., Lehman, C. L., Grisham, J. R., & Mancill, R. B. (2001). Current and lifetime comorbidity of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders in a large clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 585–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.110.4.585 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2. Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation, revised edition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786 125 L.E.2d 469 (1993).Google Scholar
Fariña, F., Arce, R., & Real, S. (1994). Ruedas de identificación: De la simulación y la realidad [Line-ups: A comparison of high fidelity research and research in a real context]. Psicothema, 7, 395–402.Google Scholar
Fariña, F., Arce, R., & Sotelo, A. (2010). Es efectivo el estudio psicométrico estándar del peritaje del estado clínico y de la disimulación en progenitores en litigio por la guarda y custodia de menores? [Is effective the standard psychometric forensic evaluation of the mental health and faking good of the partners litigating by the child custody?]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 1, 65–79.Google Scholar
Friedman, A. F., Lewak, R., Nichols, D. S., & Webb, J. T. (2001). Psychological assessment with the MMPI-2. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Graham, J. R. (2006). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (4 th Ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, R. L. (1997). Assessment of malingering and defensiveness by multiscale inventories. In Rogers, R. (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 169–207). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Greene, R. L. (2008). Malingering and defensiveness on the MMPI-2. In Rogers, R. (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3 rd Ed., pp. 159–181). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1999). Inventario Multifásico de Personalidad de Minnesota-2. Manual. [The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Manual]. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones.Google Scholar
Jiménez, F., & Sánchez, G. (2003). Evaluación psicológica forense. Contribución de las técnicas de Minnesota y Millon [Forensic psychological evaluation. Contributions of the Minnesota and Millon’s techniques]. Salamanca, Spain: Amarú Ediciones.Google Scholar
Jiménez, F., Sánchez, G., & Tobón, C. (2009). A social desirability scale for the MMPI-2. Which of the two: Wiggins (WSD) or Edwards (ESD)? The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 1, 147–163.Google Scholar
Keane, T. M., Malloy, P. F., & Fairbank, J. A. (1984). Empirical development of an MMPI subscale for the assessment of combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 888–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.52.5.888 Google Scholar
Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A., Hughes, M., & Nelson, C. B. (1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the national comorbidity survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048–1060. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950240066012 Google Scholar
Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1992). Methodological issues on legal decision-making, with special reference to experimental simulations. In Lösel, F., Bender, D., & Bliesener, T. (Eds.), Psychology and law. International perspectives (pp. 413–423). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ley Orgánica 3/2007, de 22 de marzo, para la Igualdad Efectiva de Mujeres y Hombres. (2007). Boletín Oficial del Estado, 71, 12611–12645. Retrieved from http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/03/23/pdfs/A12611-12645.pdf Google Scholar
Lyons, J. A., & Wheeler-Cox, T. (1999). MMPI, MMPI-2, and PTSD: Overview of scores, scales, and profiles. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 175–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024710803042 Google Scholar
Observatorio contra la Violencia Doméstica y de Género. (2011). Datos de denuncias, procedimientos penales y civiles registrados, órdenes de protección solicitadas en los Juzgados de Violencia sobre la Mujer (JVM) y sentencias dictadas por los órganos jurisdiccionales en esta materia en el año 2011 [Data of complaints registered in criminal and civil proceedings, protective orders ordered by the of Violence against Women Courts (JVM) and judgments of the courts in this area in 2011]. Madrid, Spain: Author. Retrieved from http://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Temas/Estadistica_Judicial/Informes_estadisticos/Informes_periodicos/La_violencia_sobre_la_mujer_en_la_estadistica_judicial__Datos_anuales_de_2011 Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. L., Creamer, M., Bryant, R. A., Schnyder, U., & Shalev, A. (2006). Posttraumatic disorders following injury: Assessment and other methodological considerations. In Young, G., Kane, A. W., & Nicholson, K. (Eds.), Psychological knowledge in courts. PTSD, pain and TBI (pp. 70–84). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Pérez-Pareja, J., Sesé, A., González-Ordi, H., & Palmer, A. (2010). Fibromyalgia and chronic pain: Are there discriminating patterns by using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)? International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 10, 41–56.Google Scholar
Resnick, P. J., West, S., & Payne, J. W. (2008). Malingering of posttraumatic disorders. In Rogers, R. (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3 rd Ed., pp. 109–127). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. (2008a). Structured interview and dissimulation. In Rogers, R. (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3 rd Ed., pp. 301–322). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. (2008b). An introduction to response styles. In Rogers, R. (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3 rd Ed., pp. 3–13). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. (2008c). Researching response styles. In Rogers, R. (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3 rd Ed., pp. 411–434). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Dickens, S. E. (1992). Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Martin, M. A., & Vitacco, M. J. (2003). Detection of feigned mental disorders: A meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 and malingering. Assessment, 10, 160–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191103010002007 Google Scholar
Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Salekin, R. T. (1994). A meta-analysis of malingering on the MMPI-2. Assessment, 1, 227–237.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., Gibbon, M., & First, M. B. (1995). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
United Nations. (1988). Committee on crime prevention and control. Report on the tenth session. Vienna, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar
Vilariño, M., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2013). Forensic-clinical interview: Reliability and validity for the evaluation of psychological injury. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 5, 1–21.Google Scholar
Vilariño, M., Fariña, F., & Arce, R. (2009). Discriminating real victims from feigners of psychological injury in gender violence: Validating a protocol for forensic settings. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 1, 221–243.Google Scholar