The Law Meets Psychological Expertise: Eight Best Practices to Improve Forensic Psychological Assessment

Neal, T. M., Martire, K. A.,  et al. (2022).

Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 

18(1), 169–192.

The article is here.

Abstract

 

We review the state of forensic mental health assessment. The field is in much better shape than in the past; however, significant problems of quality remain, with much room for improvement. We provide an overview of forensic psychology's history and discuss its possible future, with multiple audiences in mind. We distill decades of scholarship from and about fundamental basic science and forensic science, clinical and forensic psychology, and the law of expert evidence into eight best practices for the validity of a forensic psychological assessment. We argue these best practices should apply when a psychological assessment relies on the norms, values, and esteem of science to inform legal processes. The eight key considerations include (a) foundational validity of the assessment; (b) validity of the assessment as applied; (c) management and mitigation of bias; (d) attention to quality assurance; (e) appropriate communication of data, results, and opinions; (f) explicit consideration of limitations and assumptions; (g) weighing of alternative views or disagreements; and (h) adherence with ethical obligations, professional guidelines, codes of conduct, and rules of evidence.

Here are some thoughts:

This article outlines eight best practices designed to enhance the quality and validity of forensic psychological assessments. It provides a historical context for forensic psychology, discussing its evolution and future directions. Drawing on extensive research from basic science, forensic science, clinical and forensic psychology, and the law of expert evidence, the authors present key considerations for psychologists conducting assessments in legal settings. These practices include ensuring foundational and applied validity, managing biases, implementing quality assurance, communicating data and opinions appropriately, explicitly considering limitations, weighing alternative perspectives, and adhering to ethical guidelines. The article underscores the importance of these best practices to improve the reliability and scientific rigor of psychological expertise within the legal system.

Moral Challenges for Psychologists Working in Psychology and Law

Allan A. (2018).

Psychiatry, psychology, and law:

an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and 

New Zealand Association of Psychiatry,

Psychology and Law, 25(3), 485–499.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1473173

Abstract

States have an obligation to protect themselves and their citizens from harm, and they use the coercive powers of law to investigate threats, enforce rules and arbitrate disputes, thereby impacting on people's well-being and legal rights and privileges. Psychologists as a collective have a responsibility to use their abilities, knowledge, skill and experience to enhance law's effectiveness, efficiency, and reliability in preventing harm, but their professional behaviour in this collaboration must be moral. They could, however, find their personal values to be inappropriate or there to be insufficient moral guides and could find it difficult to obtain definitive moral guidance from law. The profession's ethical principles do, however, provide well-articulated, generally accepted and profession-appropriate guidance, but practitioners might encounter moral issues that can only be solved by the profession as a whole or society.

Here are some thoughts:

While psychologists play a crucial role in assisting the law to protect society through assessments, risk evaluations, and expert opinions, their work often intersects with coercive practices that can impact individual rights and well-being.  Psychologists must navigate the tension between societal protection and respect for human dignity, especially when involved in involuntary detention, forensic interviews, and risk assessments.  They are guided by core ethical principles such as non-maleficence, justice, fidelity, and respect, but these principles can conflict, requiring careful ethical decision-making.  Challenges are particularly pronounced in areas like risk assessment, where tools may be flawed or culturally biased, and where psychologists might face pressure to align with legal expectations, potentially compromising their objectivity and professional integrity.

The article emphasizes the need for psychologists in legal settings to maintain public trust, uphold human rights principles, and utilize structured, evidence-based, and culturally sensitive methods in their practice.  Beyond individual ethical conduct, psychologists have a responsibility to advocate for systemic improvements, including better assessment tools for diverse populations and robust ethical guidelines. Ultimately, the article underscores that psychologists in law must continually engage in moral reflection, striving for a just and effective legal system while minimizing harm and ensuring their practice remains ethically sound and socially responsible, guided by both professional ethics and universal human rights frameworks.

The relevancy-focused report: An alternative model format for forensic psychological reports

Kukor, T. J., Otto, R. K., & Veltri, M. M. (2024). 

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.

Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000563

Abstract

Traditional report formats commonly employed to summarize forensic mental health evaluations pose several limitations, including that they implicitly encourage inclusion of irrelevant data and only data that are consistent with one’s opinions and discourage writers from explicitly distinguishing between case data, their inferences, and their reasoning. To remedy these issues, we propose a relevancy-focused (RF) report format, which is a findings-based report style developed specifically for use when summarizing results of forensic psychological evaluations. We describe a practical guide to the critical thinking and rhetorical writing embodied in the RF.

Impact Statement

Forensic psychological evaluations play a key role in civil and criminal litigation, as do the reports that summarize them. Reports must accurately and efficiently communicate the assessment process, the data gathered, and the examiner’s opinions and underlying reasoning. Described in this article is a structure for forensic report writing that was designed specifically with these important obligations in mind.

Here are some thoughts:

Traditional forensic mental health reports often suffer from including irrelevant information, failing to clearly distinguish between facts and interpretations, and neglecting to consider alternative explanations.

The article proposes a Relevancy-Focused (RF) report format:

1. This format prioritizes information directly relevant to the legal question.
2. It clearly separates evidence from inferences.
3. It requires explicit consideration of countervailing data.
4. It aims for concise and focused reports.

Benefits of the RF format:

1. Improves clarity and focus for readers (judges, attorneys).
2. Reduces the risk of including irrelevant or harmful information.
3. Enhances the perception of objectivity.
4. May lead to fewer court appearances due to clearer reports and less contested findings.