Forensic Psychology Assessments Research Assignment (Essay Sample)

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY ASSESSMENTS
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Introduction
The relevance of evaluating mental state in the criminal justice system functions with the purpose of ascertaining whether individuals have a sense of moral urgency (the capacity to recognize and determine one's actions). The system exempts individuals who have been declared to have an irrational mental state from receiving punishment for their wrongful acts. They lack their sense of moral urgency. Forensic psychology is used to determine the competency of suspects to stand trial. When the court is at crossroads about a defendant’s competency, a forensic evaluation is then requested. Forensic assessments usually differ from the traditional psychological tests. More so in criminal forensic issues, the application of judicial psychological tests has no limits so long as their significance to the legal standard is demonstrated. These demonstrations are presented in either a report format or in the onset of direct testimony. The relevance of the test to be carried out is determined by the issues revolving around the psycholegal referral question (Grisso, 2003). Forensic psychology is limited to tests with a theoretical and psychometric base background.
High validity tests
The first category includes tests that were designed to address legal issues specifically. They are essential in improving the quality of forensic evaluations as they provide standardized assessment processes for categorizing the examinee’s feedback (Heiss, 2006). Additionally, they help to reduce examiner bias.
1. MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA)
It was not originally designed to be a measure of competence to stand trial. It was initially known as the MacArthur Structured Assessment of the Competencies of Criminal Defendants. However, with it evolved with time hence is now used in assessing competency. It mainly evaluates the following personal abilities: comprehension, reasoning, and appreciation. It is a 22-item interview. The interview involves acquiring an answer from the defendant in response to a short story. The story is about two men who get into a fight, and it ends with one being charged with a criminal offense. The first phase, which has eight items entails evaluating whether the individuals understand the legal procedure. These items consist of two sections.
The first involves evaluating the defendant’s capacity to understand, and if the results appear questionable or are unsatisfactory this information is disclosed to the individual, and the person is again assessed. This enables the evaluator to ascertain whether or not the defendant is capable of learning the disclosed information. The following eight items evaluate the defendant’s reasoning skills by inquiring which of the two revealed facts will be the most beneficial to the case. Finally, the last six questions assess the defendant’s appreciation of his or her situation. Unlike other competency tests, it gives a clear distinction between an individual’s present knowledge and his or her ability to obtain such knowledge.
This assessment technique is a bit strange because the evaluators may confer with published national norms. Additionally, the main issue with this tool is that it cannot be used as a measure of legal incompetence in itself, although it is used to assess criminal defendants of questioned competence. Due to the fact that the assessment is based on a hypothetical story, the examinee may be less or more reasonable when consequences affect him directly.
2. Competence for Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR)
It was designed for people who were already considered as mentally retarded in assisting them with their legal issues. It is the only competency-screening tool that is designed for the mentally disabled. It is used in quasi-criminal cases especially for juveniles. It is widely used in the United States. Based on the format of U. S. Supreme Court case of Dusky v. United States, it contains a series of 50 questions that are divided into three sections (Melton et al., 1997). The first part has 25 multiple choice questions that assess the defendant’s comprehension of basic legal terms. The second section has 25 written multiple choice questions determine the defendant’s capacity to assist in their defense. These two parts are 4th-grade reading level. Finally, the last section comprises of 10 open-ended questions concerning the individual’s case questioned orally by the evaluator.
There is limited research on CAST-MR, and this little literature present suggests that the tool is of high validity. Additionally, because the test is used on individuals already diagnosed as mentally retarded, this technique is capable of further analyzing the minds of these defendants, unlike other tests. According to (Everington, 1990), the tool successfully distinguished between groups of defendants, and it had a satisfactory classification rate. Furthermore, it yielded acceptable results for test-retest reliability and internal consistency.
The critical issue is that because the questions are designed for the 4th-grade level, it would be a massive problem if the examinee fails below that level.
3. Fitness Interview Test-Revised (FIT-R)
It is mainly used in adult settings. It was initially developed to evaluate the fitness of defendants to stand trial in Canada. It has undergone reviewing and revision such that it is now known as the Fitness Interview Test-Revised Edition. The test centers on the psycholegal abilities of an individual. It has a scoring system of up to a 3–point scale whereby a score of 2 suggests definite or severe impairment, 1 suggests possible impairment and 0 suggests no impairment. The items were aligned to the standards of section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The test requires about 30 minutes to administer. The questions are divided into three parts that aim to determine ability to understand the factual knowledge of the legal procedure. Two, to comprehend possible repercussions of the proceedings. Three is the capability to defend oneself. Research illustrates that the test serves as a superb screening tool and has sufficient psychometric properties (Irving, 2006). Studies carried out in the first sample compared the FTR data to the data obtained from institutional-based judgments, and it found a false negative error of 2% (Irving, 2006). The results from the second sample proved that the referred defendants demonstrated impairment.
4. Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R at PAR)
The method was designed to assess the Dusky prongs that apply to competency assessments in the United States (Rogers, 2004). Some states have enhanced the Dusky standard with additional tools. In this scenario, forensic psychiatrists utilize ECST-R in evaluating the vital issues that are able to be augmented by interview-based techniques and collateral sources. Conclusions obtain from the test are derived from normative data and case-specific deficits. The normative data is a comparison of the defendant’s ECST-R score to that of 356 impaired but sincere pre-trial defendants. Since most courts required analysis for error rates, the ECST-R developed to be among the first forensic measures to estimate error rates in the framework of standard error the of measurement.
It is used in adult settings. It is designed to measure competency. It consists of procedural screenings for failed incompetency, both on the psychotic and non-psychotic realms. It also has two detection approaches for feigned incompetency such as atypical presentation and symptom severity. The tests use three core items which include the three competency scales. These items were assessed by trial judges and forensic psychiatrists. To add onto the competency scales, the test embraces several detection strategies for authenticating its Atypical Presentation scales: psychotic (ATP-P), Non-psychotic (ATP-N), both (ATP-B and impairment (ATP-I) (Rogers, 2004).
Additionally, it can be used on people with various cognitive abilities. It is useful on defendants with an Intelligence Quotient of 60-69. The strengths of this test are that it has high internal consistencies for both the overall and individual competency scales. Second, it possesses exceptional interrater reliabilities. In relation to validity, ECST-R test indicated an alignment of the independent opinions of experts with that of legal outcomes (Rogers, 2004). Unlike other forensic tools, ECST-R can directly screen for possible malingering. When the malingering is identified by other measures such as the Structured Interview for Reported Symptoms (SIRS), ECST-R gives guidelines for evaluating the relationship between feigned impairment and competency to stand trial.
Low validity tests
The second category comprises of tests that were not designed to address legal matters but can be considered to be forensically relevant (Heiss, 2006). These forensic tests evaluate an individual’s response style, especially assessing minimization or feigning of the issues at hand. The tests include Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, Rorschach Comprehensive System and Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
1. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 2 (MMPI-2)
MMPI-2 was not designed for individual forensic assessments. It is referred to as a “broadband test". Hence it is used for general diagnosis. It was not intended to be a diagnostic measure though it was designed to assess thoughts, emotions and behavioral characteristics of adults. Therefore, the test serves as a reflection of an individual’s personality, that is, the strength and weaknesses. Forensic experts use the tool...