Classification accuracy of the rare symptoms and symptom combinations scales of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology in three archival samples.

OBJECTIVE: The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Widows & Smith, 2005) is a 75-item self-report measure intended to screen for potentially feigned symptoms of mental illness and/or cognitive impairment. We investigated the classification accuracy of 2 new detection scales (Rare Symptoms [RS] and Symptom Combinations [SC]) developed by Rogers, Robinson, and Gillard (2014) that appeared useful in identifying simulated mental disorder in their derivation sample of psychiatric inpatients. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that the rates of classification accuracy Rogers et al. reported for these 2 scales would generalize to other samples in which the utility of the SIMS previously has been investigated. METHOD: We computed RS and SC scores from archival SIMS data collected as part of 3 research projects investigating malingering detection methods: (a) general population prison inmates and inmates in a prison psychiatric unit receiving treatment for mental disorder (N = 115), (b) college students (N = 196), and (3) community-dwelling adults (N = 48). RESULTS: Results supported the global classification accuracy of RS and SC but the suggested cut-score for both scales (>6) produced poor sensitivity. Lower potential cut-offs did, however, improve sensitivity to feigning somewhat while not excessively diminishing specificity. CONCLUSION: These results emphasize the importance of generalizability research when investigating the clinical utility of forensic mental health assessment methods, particularly specific decision rules used to classify individuals into discrete categories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Reliability of risk assessment measures used in sexually violent predator proceedings.

The field interrater reliability of three assessment tools frequently used by mental health professionals when evaluating sex offenders' risk for reoffending--the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) and the Static-99-was examined within the context of sexually violent predator program proceedings. Rater agreement was highest for the Static--99 (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC1] = .78) and lowest for the PCL-R (ICC1 = .60; MnSOST-R ICC1 = .74), although all instruments demonstrated lower field reliability than that reported in their test manuals. Findings raise concerns about the reliability of risk assessment tools that are used to inform judgments of risk in high-stake sexually violent predator proceedings. Implications for future research and suggestions for improving evaluator training to increase accuracy when informing legal decision making are discussed.

Convergent validity of a screening measure designed to identify defendants feigning knowledge deficits related to competence to stand trial.

Because some defendants undergoing evaluation of their competence to stand trial may feign limitations in their ability to understand and participate in the legal process, assessment of their response style is critical. Preliminary research indicates that the Inventory of Legal Knowledge (ILK) has some potential to identify persons feigning competence related impairments. This study examined the convergent validity of the ILK using a sample of criminal defendants who, while undergoing competency evaluations, were administered the ILK and other response style measures. Moderate correlations between the ILK and these other tools provided some support for the ILK as a measure of response style.

Factors affecting jail detention of defendants adjudicated incompetent to proceed.

The movement of defendants through the legal process who have been adjudicated incompetent to proceed is little studied, yet it is important. The purpose of this study was to provide empirical data regarding factors that affected the amount of time defendants adjudicated incompetent to proceed and ordered to undergo hospitalization remained in jail while awaiting transfer to a state hospital. Statewide data collected in Florida between July 2005 and June 2008 were used to determine the lengths of time incompetent defendants spent at certain stages in the legal process. The addition of forensic bed capacity following media attention and litigation resulted in a significant decrease in the amount of time defendants adjudicated incompetent to proceed waited in jail for transfer to a state hospital for treatment. The amount of time it took for completed commitment orders to be submitted to the state mental health authority by the Clerks of Court of each county accounted for a meaningful portion of days defendants spent in jail awaiting transfer to a state hospital, with considerable variation across counties with respect to waiting times. These findings reflect how various stakeholders can affect the amount of time defendants spend in jail while awaiting hospitalization. These issues are discussed in the context of controversy related to Florida's forensic mental health system, as well as issues related to the political process and funding of the state's mental health authority.

Competence to proceed in SVP commitment hearings: Irrelevant or fundamental due process right?

Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) civil commitment, intended to incapacitate offenders and protect the public, has been implemented in 21 jurisdictions. While respondents in traditional civil commitment proceedings need not be competent to proceed, SVP commitment may present a greater deprivation of liberty and therefore greater procedural protections may be merited. Statutes and case law regarding competence in this context address two issues: competence to challenge unproven sexual offense allegations and competence to participate in the SVP commitment process. Of the 14 states that have addressed the issue, one concluded that respondents must be competent to challenge unproven allegations and one concluded that all SVP respondents must be competent to participate in the commitment process. Differences between SVP and traditional civil commitment, the rationale underlying the competence requirement, and decisions regarding competence in SVP commitment are reviewed to inform debate regarding whether SVP respondents must be competent to proceed with the commitment process.

Identifying persons feigning limitations in their competence to proceed in the legal process.

Accurate assessment of the response styles criminal defendants adopt when undergoing evaluations of their competence to proceed with the legal process is critical because some feign limitations in their abilities in an attempt to delay or avoid prosecution. This study examined the utility of the Inventory of Legal Knowledge (ILK) to identify persons motivated to feign competence related limitations. That the ILK has good potential as a screening tool is indicated by findings that the measure (1) has adequate test-retest reliability and (2) classified correctly the large majority of participants in two samples (i.e., college students and psychiatric patients) who completed the measure under "honest" or "fake bad" conditions.

Contemplating the presence of third party observers and facilitators in psychological evaluations.

Significant controversy surrounds how psychologists should balance competing interests when considering whether and under what conditions third parties should be permitted to be present during psychological evaluations. This is especially true in forensic contexts where much is often at stake for those being assessed. Unfortunately, existing professional statements on this issue provide limited guidance to practitioners on how to think about this issue. In this article, the authors (a) distinguish between different types of third party participants, (b) highlight the competing interests that underlie third party presence decisions, and (c) offer a framework for psychologists to employ when considering third party presence.

A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System.

-Most parents who live apart negotiate custody arrangements on their own or with the help of lawyers, mediators, or other professionals. However, psychologists and other mental health professionals increasingly have become involved in evaluating children and families in custody disputes, because of the large number of separated, divorced, and never-married parents and the substantial conflict that often accompanies the breakup of a family. Theoretically, the law guides and controls child custody evaluations, but the prevailing custody standard (the "best interests of the child" test) is a vague rule that directs judges to make decisions unique to individual cases according to what will be in children's future (and undefined) best interests. Furthermore, state statutes typically offer only vague guidelines as to how judges (and evaluators) are to assess parents and the merits of their cases, and how they should ultimately decide what custody arrangements will be in a child's best interests. In this vacuum, custody evaluators typically administer to parents and children an array of tests and assess them through less formal means including interviews and observation. Sadly, we find that (a) tests specifically developed to assess questions relevant to custody are completely inadequate on scientific grounds; (b) the claims of some anointed experts about their favorite constructs (e.g., "parent alienation syndrome") are equally hollow when subjected to scientific scrutiny; (c) evaluators should question the use even of well-established psychological measures (e.g., measures of intelligence, personality, psychopathology, and academic achievement) because of their often limited relevance to the questions before the court; and (d) little empirical data exist regarding other important and controversial issues (e.g., whether evaluators should solicit children's wishes about custody; whether infants and toddlers are harmed or helped by overnight visits), suggesting a need for further scientific investigation. We see the system for resolving custody disputes as deeply flawed, for reasons that go beyond the problem of limited science. The coupling of the vague "best interests of the child" test with the American adversary system of justice puts judges in the position of trying to perform an impossible task, and it exacerbates parental conflict and problems in parenting and coparenting, which psychological science clearly shows to be key factors predicting children's psychological difficulties in response to their parents' separation and divorce. Our analysis of the flawed system, together with our desire to sharply limit custody disputes and custody evaluations, leads us to propose three reforms. First, we urge continued efforts to encourage parents to reach custody agreements on their own-in divorce mediation, through collaborative law, in good-faith attorney negotiations, in therapy, and in other forums. Some such efforts have been demonstrated to improve parent-parent and parent-child relationships long after divorce, and they embrace the philosophical position that, in the absence of abuse or neglect, parents themselves should determine their children's best interests after separation, just as they do in marriage. Second, we urge state legislatures to move toward adopting more clear and determinative custody rules, a step that would greatly clarify the terms of the marriage contract, limit the need for custody evaluations, and sharply narrow the scope of the evaluation process. We find particular merit in the proposed "approximation rule" (recently embraced by the American Law Institute), in which postdivorce parenting arrangements would approximate parenting involvement in marriage. Third and finally, we recommend that custody evaluators follow the law and only offer opinions for which there is an adequate scientific basis. Related to this, we urge professional bodies to enact more specific standards of practice on this and related issues.

The utility of psychological testing in assessing emotional damages in personal injury litigation.

Psychological testing and assessment instruments frequently play a small but important role when psychologists assist the courts as emotional damage experts in personal injury matters. However, examiners frequently, if sometimes inadvertently, mislead the court with test interpretations that are based on clinical rather than forensic populations and that fail to appreciate the lack of robustness of clinical measures in this forensic context. Whereas published computerized interpretations repeatedly remind experts that personality test results should only be used as a method to generate hypotheses about the examinee that are to be subjected to further investigation and consideration, experts all too often inform the courts of test interpretations as if the test results were measures of clinical constructs rather than plaintiffs' self-reports of symptoms.

The practice of forensic psychology. A look toward the future in light of the past.

In a 1987 American Psychologist article, Tom Grisso summarized the state of forensic psychological assessment, noted its limitations and potential, and offered suggestions for researchers and practitioners interested in contributing to its future. Since that time, there have been many important developments in the field of forensic psychology, as well as in clinical psychology more generally, some of which were anticipated and recommended by Grisso, and some of which were not. Forensic psychology is now at a crossroads, and the specialty must make an effort to respond to current challenges if it is to aid in the administration of justice by assisting legal decision makers. The need to distinguish between and identify levels of forensic knowledge and practice, establish guidelines for practice, educate legal consumers, and devote more attention to treatment issues in forensic contexts is highlighted.

Are research participants truly informed? Readability of informed consent forms used in research.

Researchers typically attempt to fulfill disclosure and informed consent requirements by having participants read and sign consent forms. The present study evaluated the reading levels of informed consent forms used in psychology research and other fields (medical research; social science and education research; and health, physical education, and recreation research). Two standardized measures of readability were employed to analyze a randomly selected sample (N = 108) of informed consent forms used in Institutional Review Board-approved research projects at a midwestern university during the 1987-1988 academic year. Results indicate that informed consent forms are typically written at a higher reading level than is appropriate for the intended population and that there are no consistently significant differences in readability among areas of research or between college student and noncollege student participants. Due to the unacceptably high reading level of the consent forms, one must question whether participants can comprehend the information contained in the consent form.