was developed to identify inmates during intake who
may require a more formal mental health assessment.
In addition to their usefulness in law enforcement and
correctional settings, forensic assessment instruments
are especially prevalent in civil, quasi-criminal, and
criminal settings. Instruments in civil settings include
measures of parenting capacity, daily decision mak-
ing, and competency to consent to research or manage
health care decisions (e.g., MacArthur Competence
Assessment Tool for Treatment). Quasi-criminal set-
tings that use forensic assessment instruments are pri-
marily juvenile justice proceedings. The majority of
forensic assessment instruments used with juveniles
were designed primarily for use with adults (e.g.,
Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defen-
dants with Mental Retardation), although instruments
created specifically for addressing forensic issues
with juveniles are on the rise (e.g., Juvenile Adjudica-
tive Competence Interview). Forensic assessment
instruments are most well-known for their use in adult
criminal court settings and are especially prevalent
in the area of competency to stand trial (e.g., Fitness
Interview Test–Revised, MacArthur Competence
Assessment Tool–Criminal Adjudication, and Evalu-
ation of Competence to Stand Trial–Revised),
although measures exist for other areas of criminal
forensic assessment (e.g., Grisso’s Instruments for
Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda
Rights and Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment
Scales).
A marked increase in commercially available foren-
sically relevant and forensic assessment instruments
has occurred in recent years, with this trend showing
no signs of slowing down. Measures have been devel-
oped and published in two ways. The first is more
methodical and scientific in that a test is made com-
mercially available only after it has been researched,
peer-reviewed, and refined with the normative data
collected. The second, and more questionable, method
involves publication of an instrument after only pre-
liminary research has been conducted. Prevailing test-
ing standards and the SGFP caution against the use of
tests that have not undergone adequate research and
development.
In addition to these cautions, each state has varying
requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony.
Until recently, the standard employed by all states was
that established in Frye v. United States (1923),
whereby the tests used in reaching expert opinions
must have “general acceptance” in the field. In manystates, the Frye standard was supplemented by the
standards established in three, more recent cases,
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993),
General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), and Kumho Tire
Company v. Carmichael(1999). These three cases
increased the number of challenges made by attorneys
regarding the instruments used by clinicians in reach-
ing their expert opinions. Admissibility standards
associated with these cases include increased scrutiny
of the development, reliability, validity, peer review,
and general acceptance of the tests or instruments
used in forming expert opinions.Virginia G. CooperSee alsoAdjudicative Competence of Youth; Capacity to
Waive Rights; Child Custody Evaluations; Civil
Commitment; Competency, Foundational and Decisional;
Criminal Responsibility, Assessment of; Ethical
Guidelines and Principles; Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations;
Juvenile Offenders; Malingering; Risk Assessment
ApproachesFurther Readings
American Association for Correctional Psychology. (2000).
Standards for psychology services in jails, prisons,
correctional facilities, and agencies. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 27,433–493.
American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council on
Measurement in Education. (1999).Standards for
educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical
principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
American Psychologist, 57,1060–1073.
Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., &
Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use
patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 87,84–94.
Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists.
(1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists.
Law and Human Behavior, 15,441–448.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579
(1993).
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Ct. 512
(1997).
Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota,
FL: Professional Resource Press.332 ———Forensic AssessmentF-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 332