Assessment Practices and Expert Judgment Methods in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry

An International Snapshot

Tess Neal, Thomas Grisso

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

55 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We conducted an international survey in which forensic examiners who were members of professional associations described their two most recent forensic evaluations (N = 434 experts, 868 cases), focusing on the use of structured assessment tools to aid expert judgment. This study describes (a) the relative frequency of various forensic referrals, (b) what tools are used globally, (c) frequency and type of structured tools used, and (d) practitioners’ rationales for using/not using tools. We provide general descriptive information for various referrals. We found most evaluations used tools (74.2%) and used several (four, on average). We noted the extreme variety in tools used (286 different tools). We discuss the implications of these findings and provide suggestions for improving the reliability and validity of forensic expert judgment methods. We conclude with a call for an assessment approach that seeks structured decision methods to advance greater efficiency in the use and integration of case-relevant information.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1406-1421
Number of pages16
JournalCriminal Justice and Behavior
Volume41
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 26 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

forensic psychology
Forensic Psychiatry
psychiatry
Referral and Consultation
expert
Psychology
Reproducibility of Results
examiner
professional association
evaluation
efficiency

Keywords

  • actuarial
  • decision
  • forensic
  • judgment
  • structure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Psychology(all)
  • Law

Cite this

Assessment Practices and Expert Judgment Methods in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry : An International Snapshot. / Neal, Tess; Grisso, Thomas.

In: Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 41, No. 12, 26.12.2014, p. 1406-1421.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{10a1ca4cbf41439d8c8c562c6ccd3757,
title = "Assessment Practices and Expert Judgment Methods in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry: An International Snapshot",
abstract = "We conducted an international survey in which forensic examiners who were members of professional associations described their two most recent forensic evaluations (N = 434 experts, 868 cases), focusing on the use of structured assessment tools to aid expert judgment. This study describes (a) the relative frequency of various forensic referrals, (b) what tools are used globally, (c) frequency and type of structured tools used, and (d) practitioners’ rationales for using/not using tools. We provide general descriptive information for various referrals. We found most evaluations used tools (74.2{\%}) and used several (four, on average). We noted the extreme variety in tools used (286 different tools). We discuss the implications of these findings and provide suggestions for improving the reliability and validity of forensic expert judgment methods. We conclude with a call for an assessment approach that seeks structured decision methods to advance greater efficiency in the use and integration of case-relevant information.",
keywords = "actuarial, decision, forensic, judgment, structure",
author = "Tess Neal and Thomas Grisso",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1177/0093854814548449",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "1406--1421",
journal = "Criminal Justice and Behavior",
issn = "0093-8548",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment Practices and Expert Judgment Methods in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry

T2 - An International Snapshot

AU - Neal, Tess

AU - Grisso, Thomas

PY - 2014/12/26

Y1 - 2014/12/26

N2 - We conducted an international survey in which forensic examiners who were members of professional associations described their two most recent forensic evaluations (N = 434 experts, 868 cases), focusing on the use of structured assessment tools to aid expert judgment. This study describes (a) the relative frequency of various forensic referrals, (b) what tools are used globally, (c) frequency and type of structured tools used, and (d) practitioners’ rationales for using/not using tools. We provide general descriptive information for various referrals. We found most evaluations used tools (74.2%) and used several (four, on average). We noted the extreme variety in tools used (286 different tools). We discuss the implications of these findings and provide suggestions for improving the reliability and validity of forensic expert judgment methods. We conclude with a call for an assessment approach that seeks structured decision methods to advance greater efficiency in the use and integration of case-relevant information.

AB - We conducted an international survey in which forensic examiners who were members of professional associations described their two most recent forensic evaluations (N = 434 experts, 868 cases), focusing on the use of structured assessment tools to aid expert judgment. This study describes (a) the relative frequency of various forensic referrals, (b) what tools are used globally, (c) frequency and type of structured tools used, and (d) practitioners’ rationales for using/not using tools. We provide general descriptive information for various referrals. We found most evaluations used tools (74.2%) and used several (four, on average). We noted the extreme variety in tools used (286 different tools). We discuss the implications of these findings and provide suggestions for improving the reliability and validity of forensic expert judgment methods. We conclude with a call for an assessment approach that seeks structured decision methods to advance greater efficiency in the use and integration of case-relevant information.

KW - actuarial

KW - decision

KW - forensic

KW - judgment

KW - structure

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84921632519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84921632519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0093854814548449

DO - 10.1177/0093854814548449

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 1406

EP - 1421

JO - Criminal Justice and Behavior

JF - Criminal Justice and Behavior

SN - 0093-8548

IS - 12

ER -