Psychological Tests and Forensic Assessment Instruments in the Courtroom 129psychologists must take in choosing, interpreting, and corroborating psychological
tests with other relevant archival or third-party information. Forensic psycholo-
gists must address the issue of which assessment tools are appropriate in forensic
settings. Conclusions reached by forensic psychologists can be challenged during
cross-examination and are subject to close scrutiny in the legal arena (Wakefield &
Underwager, 1993). Therefore the primary focus of forensic assessment is on accu-
racy as opposed to a "therapeutic" focus in clinical settings (Heilbrun, 1992). Tra-
ditional psychological tests have seen widespread use in forensic contexts. However,
their utility is being challenged. Currently, specialized forensic assessment instru-
ments (FAls) are being developed to address specific legal questions. The rigor by
which these instruments have been validated has also come under fire. Forensic psy-
chologists are questioning how to more effectively answer legal referral questions
with the available assessment tools.
According to Heilbrun (1992), "the primary legal criterion for the aclmissibility
of psychological testing is relevance to the immediate legal issue or to some under-
lying psychological construct" (p. 257). He states that the courts typically will not
limit the use of psychological tests or forensic instruments if their relevance to the
legal standard is shown. Heilbrun explains that relevancy can be demonstrated either
by directly measuring a legal construct included in the forensic referral question or
by measuring a psychological construct that is considered to make up part of a legal
standard. For example, intelligence testing could be used to measure an individual's
ability to understand the charges against him or her. He concludes that this rela-
tionship could be demonstrated through a written report or testimony (Heilbrun,
1992).
The broad range of legal issues requiring the assessment of a forensic psychologist
are subject to a standard that is determined from either statutes or case law^7. Fed-
eral Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997)
considers the admissibility of expert opinions, stating that the primary criterion is
whether the opinion will assist the factfinder (judge or jury). Rule 703 indicates
that evidence presented by mental health professionals in the legal setting must be
"reasonably relied upon" by professionals in the field (Melton ef al., 1997, p. 59).
In the past, the majority of courts required that evidence follow the Frye test or
that the evidence be based on procedures that have achieved "general acceptance"
within that particular profession (Frye v. United States, 1923, p. 1013). Critics charge
that under the Frye test evidence that is novel yet reliable is excluded while unreliable
evidence that has gained general acceptance is allowed (Melton et al, 1997). In
1993 the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v, Merrell shifted the standard for
the admissibility of evidence to focus on scientific validity, methodology, and the
application of the expert opinion to the facts at issue. Melton and his colleagues
(1997) warn that if Daubert v. Merrell (1993) were strictly followed, a considerable
amount of clinical testimony would not meet this threshold. They maintain that it
would prevent the use of novel ways of thinking about human behavior that have
relevance to the legal proceeding.