Translation, adaptation, validity and reliability of Multidimensional Emotion Questionnaire for Indonesian forensic psychiatry context.

Objective: Emotion is essential in psychiatrists' clinical decision-making in conducting forensic psychiatric evaluations. However, psychiatrists may not be aware of their own emotions and thus prone to the risk of bias in their evaluations. An English version questionnaire was previously developed to assess emotional response and regulation. This study aims to assess the validity and reliability of the translated and adapted Indonesian version of The Multidimensional Emotion Questionnaire (MEQ) among Indonesian general psychiatrists in forensic psychiatry settings. Method: This is a cross-sectional study that translated and adapted The Multidimensional Emotion Questionnaire (MEQ) designed by Klonsky et al. This study was conducted between August 2020 and February 2021, involving 32 general psychiatrists across the country who represented general psychiatrists from different educational backgrounds, clinical experiences, and workplace settings. The translation process was done by a certified independent translator and tested for validity by Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), Scale-Level Level Content Validity Index (S-CVI), and corrected item-total correlation. Cronbach's alpha values measured reliability aspects. Results: The MEQ was valid and reliable, with an I-CVI score of 0.97-1, an S-CVI score of 0.99, and Cronbach's alpha values of 0.85-0.98 for each emotion. The majority of items had a corrected item-total correlation of higher than 0.30. Conclusion: A proper and available tool to measure general psychiatrists' emotions in evaluating forensic psychiatric cases is essential in enhancing evaluators' awareness of their own emotions to eventually mitigate bias. The Multidimensional Emotion Questionnaire (MEQ) was valid and reliable for Indonesian forensic psychiatry contexts.

Defining the tasks of clinical reasoning in forensic psychiatric evaluation: Psychomedicolegal analysis competency.

Objective: Inconsistency in the quality of forensic psychiatry report has been criticized for several years. Yet, there are limited guidelines to provide minimally satisfactory forensic psychiatry evaluation conducted by psychiatrists. In addition to the impact towards the forensic psychiatry service, this lack of standardized guidelines may impact the relevant competency development and its various teaching methods of forensic psychiatry among general psychiatrists. Therefore, this study aims to identify components of psychomedicolegal analysis competency as a form of clinical reasoning in forensic psychiatry. Methods: A comprehensive literature review and expert panel discussions were conducted simultaneously to formulate an initial list of psychomedicolegal analysis competency. A total of fourteen experts were chosen based on their expertise in different disciplines that have intersections with forensic psychiatry and the general psychiatry curriculum (e.g. general psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrists and psychologist, law practitioner, and medical education director). The expert panel were instructed to score and provide feedbacks on the items of the initial list. Four-point Likert scale were used in order for the experts to express the relevancy of the core competence to forensic psychiatry practice until it reached the consensus. Results: The final 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency were developed after three rounds of Delphi technique and reached a consensus (>70% and medians score of at least 3,25). These competency then categorized into four steps 1) preparing the case (Item 1-11), 2) conducting the evaluation (Item 12-41), 3) writing the report (42-51), and 4) giving expert opinion in court (Item 52-60). Conclusion: We developed 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency that can be used as a standardized guide for psychiatrists to conduct forensic psychiatry evaluation, write the report and provide expert opinion in court. Implementation of this guideline can be used to shape further forensic psychiatry education for general psychiatrist and psychiatry residency.

Translation, validity and reliability of decision style scale in forensic psychiatric setting in Indonesia.

Objective: Clinical reasoning as an essential skill for psychiatrists, especially in forensic psychiatry, relies on their thinking and decision-making skills. However, not all psychiatrists are aware of their decision-making styles. This study examines the validity and reliability of the Indonesian translation of the Decision Style Scale (DSS) instrument among general psychiatrists in the Indonesian forensic psychiatry setting. Method: This is a cross-sectional study involving 32 general psychiatrists from all nine psychiatric residency training centers in Indonesia. The study was conducted between August 2020 and February 2021. The translation process involved certified independent translators. The validity was tested using Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), Scale-Level Level Content Validity Index (S-CVI), and item-total correlation. Internal consistency reliability was measured using Cronbach's alpha. Results: After translation, the instrument was sent back and received feedback from the original authors of DSS. The final version of DSS was valid with an I-CVI score of 0.84-1 and an S-CVI score of 0.99. All but one item had a corrected item-total correlation of more than 0.30. The reliability test of DSS also showed acceptable results with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.43-0.83, and an overall internal consistency score of 0.83 and 0.62 for intuitive and rational scales, respectively. Conclusion: DSS serves as a valid, reliable, and readily-available tool to measure psychiatrists' decision-making styles in forensic psychiatry settings. Enhancing psychiatrists' awareness of their decision-making styles may help in mitigating the risk of bias in forensic psychiatry evaluations.

Self-confidence in conducting forensic psychiatric evaluations among general psychiatrists in Indonesia.

OBJECTIVE: Several general psychiatrists experience lack of confidence when they perform forensic psychiatric evaluations that may be due to limited or insufficient training. This study aimed to determine whether structured forensic psychiatry educational modules are associated with general psychiatrists' self-confidence in conducting forensic psychiatric evaluations in Indonesia. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 246 general psychiatrists. A questionnaire was developed exclusively for this study by a group of experts based on relevant references and it was distributed online. Sample questions included: "How often do you perform forensic psychiatric evaluations?", "As a general psychiatrist, are you confident in conducting forensic psychiatric evaluations?", and "Do you experience any difficulties when conducting forensic psychiatric evaluations?" Data were analyzed through SPSS 20 for Windows; a p-value <0.05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: Compared to general psychiatrists who did not study structured forensic psychiatry educational modules during their residency training, those exposed to such modules reported confidence in conducting forensic psychiatric evaluations in the following cases: insanity defense in cases of violence, insanity defense, fitness to stand trial, malingering, capacity to consent to treatment, risk of recidivism, guardianship, and parenting capacity. Furthermore, those with higher self-confidence were less likely to experience difficulties in conducting forensic psychiatric evaluations. CONCLUSION: Structured forensic psychiatry educational modules during general psychiatry residency training played an important role in the development of psychiatrists' self-confidence.

Clinical Reasoning in Forensic Psychiatry: Concepts, Processes, and Pitfalls.

Forensic psychiatrists are often sought by the court of law to provide professional opinion on specific legal matters that have a major impact on the evaluee and possibly society at large. The quality of that opinion and recommendations rely on the quality of the analysis from the assessment results conducted by the psychiatrist. However, the definition and scope of a forensic psychiatric analysis is not clear. While existing literature on forensic psychiatric analysis generally includes organizing information, identifying relevant details, and formulating a set of forensic psychiatric opinions as components, there is no explicit and unified definition of these terms and process. This lack of clarity and guidelines may hinder forensic psychiatry from achieving its goal of providing objective information to the court or other relevant parties. Forensic psychiatric analysis exhibits numerous parallels to clinical reasoning in other fields of medicine. Therefore, this review aims to elaborate forensic psychiatric analysis through the lens of clinical reasoning, which has been developed by incorporating advances in cognitive sciences. We describe forensic psychiatric analysis through three prominent clinical reasoning theories: hypothetico-deductive model, illness script theory, and dual process theory. We expand those theories to elucidate how forensic psychiatrists use clinical reasoning not only to diagnose mental disorders, but also to determine mental capacities as requested by law. Cognitive biases are also described as potential threat to the accuracy of the assessment and analysis. Additionally, situated cognition theory helps elucidate how contextual factors influence risk of errors. Understanding the processes involved in forensic psychiatric analysis and their pitfalls can assist forensic psychiatrists to be aware of and try to mitigate their bias. Debiasing strategies that have been implemented in other fields of medicine to mitigate errors in clinical reasoning can be adapted for forensic psychiatry. This may also shape the training program of general psychiatrists and forensic psychiatrists alike.