Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

criminal responsibilityare confused, and the terms are

used interchangeably. Competency-to-stand-trial evalu-

ations focus on a defendant’s current mental function-

ing, whereas criminal responsibility evaluations focus

on the defendant’s mental state at the time of the

offense. Other types of criminal forensic assessment

include evaluations of competence to waive counsel

and competence to plead guilty.

Tests and Assessment Instruments

Forensic assessment, as mentioned earlier, may involve

the use of psychological tests or assessment instru-

ments. The decision about how and when to use a test

as part of a forensic assessment involves consideration

of the relevance of the test to the legal question or to

the psychological construct that underlies the legal

issue. Whether a given test is relevant should be deter-

mined by the specific issues involved in the psychole-

gal referral question. Only tests or instruments with a

sound theoretical and psychometric base should be

used. Forensic examiners should assess any research

findings concerning correlations between testing results

and legally relevant behaviors. Testing results and gen-

erated hypotheses should be corroborated with archival

or third-party data. Corroboration is crucial in forensic

contexts because examinees may knowingly or unknow-

ingly present themselves in a manner that helps their

legal situation. Third-party data are often more impor-

tant than testing in cases that involve retrospective

inquiries about a person’s prior psychological func-

tioning (i.e., criminal responsibility evaluations).

Finally, examiners should be concerned about how the

selected test will be received by the legal system and

should take pains to ensure that the test and its appli-

cability to the legal question at hand are fully

explained. The volume of tests that may be used in

forensic settings is so vast that it is impossible to men-

tion all types or examples. However, three general

classifications exist, reflecting the degree of direct rel-

evance the test has to a specific legal issue.

The first category includes tests and assessment

techniques that were developed for the assessment,

diagnosis, and/or treatment planning of nonforensic

populations in primarily therapeutic contexts. Research

has shown that in addition to clinical interviewing,

this test category is the one most commonly used

in forensic assessment. However, despite their

widespread use, caution is advised when selecting

these tests to aid in forensic assessment. Conventional

psychological tests have limited use in forensic con-

texts because they were not devised to address psy-

cholegal questions and typically do not use forensic

populations in their development or validation. If such

tests are used, it is essential that the link between the

test and the legal issue at hand be adequately estab-

lished. Examples of this category include tests to mea-

sure achievement, personality, or intellectual ability

(e.g., Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement–Third

Edition, Personality Assessment Inventory, Wechsler

Adult Intelligence Scale–III).

The second category includes tests that were not

specifically developed for addressing legal issues but

are considered to be forensically relevant in that they

address clinical constructs that are often pertinent to

persons involved in legal situations. Perhaps the most

popular of forensically relevant instruments are mea-

sures that assess an examinee’s response style, specif-

ically evaluating minimization or feigning of problems

(e.g., Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–II

or Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms). Other

forensically relevant instruments include tests that may

help in child custody assessments (e.g., Parenting

Stress Index) or measures of psychopathy (e.g., Hare

Psychopathy Checklist–Revised).

Forensic assessment instruments designed to address

specific legal issues comprise the third category. These

tests are directly relevant to the assessment of psy-

cholegal capacities, abilities, or knowledge. Such

instruments can enhance the quality of a forensic

assessment by providing relatively standardized assess-

ment procedures and methods for classifying or quan-

tifying an examinee’s responses. The use of forensic

assessment instruments may serve to reduce examiner

bias and/or error and may allow for meaningful com-

parisons over time or between different examiners.

Forensic assessment instruments range from simple

interview guides that help structure interviews around

the appropriate legal issues to instruments that are con-

structed and validated with a solid research base. In

conjunction with the rise in forensic assessment and

the need for psychological input in legal cases, the

development and validation of specialized forensic

assessment instruments is becoming more critical.

Forensic assessment instruments exist in most

areas of forensic assessment. For example, the Inwald

Personality Inventory was developed to assess police

officer candidates for behavior and maladjustments

that might negatively affect their performance as

police officers. The Jail Screening Assessment Tool

Forensic Assessment——— 331

F-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 331