There has also been considerable growth in the development of forensically relevant instruments (FRIs) that are intended to address issues that – although not representing legal standards per se – may be germane to legal decision making in a given case, such as whether an examinee is malingering a mental disorder or at risk for violence in the future.ĭespite the burgeoning field of FAIs and FRIs, surveys of forensic mental health evaluators indicate that more general clinical measures and assessment techniques continue to be widely used in the forensic evaluation process (Archer et al., Citation2006 Ryba & Zapf, Citation2011 Sinclair et al., Citation2015), although such instruments were initially developed for and intended to be used in clinical or research (i.e., non-forensic) settings. Over the past few decades, the forensic mental health field has witnessed the development of numerous forensic assessment instruments (FAIs see Otto & Heilbrun, Citation2002) that address relatively narrow legal standards by focusing on specific capacities or abilities that are embodied in the law (e.g., adjudicative competence, parenting capacity). Forensic mental health evaluators rely on various information sources to conduct such examinations, such as a review of available records, structured and unstructured interviews, and various forms of psychological testing. Mental health evaluations conducted for the courts address a wide range of psycholegal questions at issue in criminal and civil cases (Grisso, Citation2003 Melton et al., Citation2018). As such, forensic evaluators must consider how the PAI may inform decision making given examinee characteristics and the psycholegal question. Despite the PAI’s popularity, the utility of the instrument is determined by specific, empirically supported, contexts. The admissibility of the instrument was rarely challenged, although some challenges to the forensic evaluator’s interpretation and conclusions emerged. Forensic evaluators and legal actors primarily consider the results of the PAI as indicators of examinee impression management, psychopathology, and interpersonal functioning, although this varied by psycholegal context. The review indicates the instrument is popular in criminal and civil legal settings, particularly in preadjudication forensic mental health evaluations (e.g., competency to proceed) and cases considering social security disability benefits. case law decisions to ascertain how the PAI has been applied and considered by legal decision makers. This case law review examines a large sample of randomly selected published U.S. The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), a popular measure of personality, psychopathology, and interpersonal functioning, has demonstrated utility to address various psycholegal questions.
0 kommentar(er)
