128 3 Court and the Legal System—Adult Forensicsindividuals intelligence, personality, psychopathology, or ability. Traditionally, these
tests were nonned on clinical or psychiatric populations and were used primarily
for diagnosis and treatment. However, with the increasing presence of forensic
psychologists in the courtroom, these tests are being used to help determine legal
questions or legal constructs. As a result, there is a growing debate over the utility
of these tests in the courtroom. Currently, a limited number of forensic assessment
tools have been developed specifically for forensic evaluations such as competency
to stand trial or criminal responsibility (insanity). Critics argue that the reliability
and validity of these instruments have not been sufficiently tested, indicating that
future research is needed before these instruments can be used with confidence
(Borum & Grisso, 1995).
According to Wakefield and Underwager (1993), the consequences of a forensic
evaluation regarding criminal issues such as competency to execute or civil issues
such as child custody are potentially immediate arid severe. These researchers argue
that in a clinical setting if a test is misused or if an inaccurate interpretation of a
test is made, the most likely result is a correctable misdiagnosis or an ineffective
treatment plan. The controversy over the careful selection and interpretation of
assessment tools as well as their legal limits is at the forefront of the debate over
the role of forensic psychologists in the courtroom. The following case illustration
demonstrates the impact of psychological tests and the responsibility held by forensic
psychologists in their administration and interpretation.A father in a divorce and custody dispute was accused of tying up his 3-year-old son
with a bicycle chain and then sexually abusing him. Both parents were evaluated by a
psychologist. The father was tested and interviewed by the psychologist, who left the
office, leaving him to finish his drawings. He took them home, finished them with the
use of drafting instruments, and brought them to her office the next day.
The psychologist stated that the response style to the projective drawings suggested
"obsessive—compulsive tendencies, high defensiveness and an intense need to control...
[and] his rigidly defensive posture does not adequately bind the underlying anxiety and
trepidation of doing poorly" (Wakefield & Underwager, 1W3, p. 59). However, his
Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test results were completely normal. His House-Tree-
Person (HIP) drawings were careful and detailed. He clearly attempted to do as good a
|ob as possible. Given that his understanding was that these draw ings would be interpreted
to indicate whether he was an abuser, his choice to carefully complete them at home
demonstrates an understandable effort to comply with the instructions and do the best
job he could. None of this was noted in the report. There are no scientific data to support
the interpretive comment quoted above. It is meaningless jargon with no connection to
an empirical base.Literature Review
Cases like the one presented by Wakefield and Underwager (1993) illustrate the
potential for misuse or misinterpretation of psychological tests or other foren-
sic assessment tools. This case illustration demonstrates the great care forensic