The past several decades have seen a major upswing in the development and use of psychological assessment instruments in forensic and correctional settings. At the same time, legal admissibility standards increasingly have stressed the importance of the reliability and validity of evidence in court proceedings.
Recent research has, however, raised serious concerns about the reliability of forensic science evidence in general, the replicability of psychological research findings in laboratory and in field settings, and the inter-rater reliability and predictive validity of forensic psychological assessment evidence in particular. Clearly, there is a need for ongoing research into the reliability and validity of psychological assessment instruments and procedures when they are taken out of the lab and into legal settings.
The June 2017 special issue of Psychological Assessment presents 19 articles focused on the field utility of forensic assessment instruments and procedures.
In the introductory editorial, Edens and Boccaccini (2017) provide an overview of key issues relevant to field research, focusing on why such studies are critically important to improving the quality of the practice of forensic mental health assessments. They also identify various methodological issues and constraints relevant to conducting research outside of controlled settings and conclude with recommendations for how future field research can improve upon the current state of the discipline in forensic mental health assessment.
The remaining 18 empirical studies address a broad range of forensic mental health assessment topics, settings, populations, and types of instruments. The issue includes studies examining field training, field reliability, field validity, and even studies of the association between field reliability and field validity. The issue also contains meta-analytic reviews, focusing on field research or providing comparisons between field and non-field findings. Importantly, many studies examine the influence of race and ethnicity as a potential moderator variable in their results.
Several of these studies examine the field validity of risk assessment instruments and procedures. Boccaccini, Rice, Helmus, Murrie, and Harris (2017) report on the field utility of the Static-99R in a sample of more than 34,000 offenders in the state of Texas followed for over five years on average. Rettenberger, Rice, Harris, and Eher (2017) provide in-depth analyses concerning the predictive validity of the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide in a large sample of released sex offenders in Austria. Rather than examining a specific risk instrument, Harris, Boccaccini, and Rice (2017) assess whether measures of sexual deviance used in the field can contribute to the prediction of reoffending in a large Texas prison sample.
Several studies examine the predictive validity of risk instruments and procedures developed for youthful offenders. Lawing, Childs, Frick, and Vincent (2017) address the field validity of probation officer ratings on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth in predicting recidivism in a large sample of adjudicated adolescents. Similarly, Perrault, Vincent, and Guy (2017) investigated whether the SAVRY and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory predict recidivism for Black and White youth when completed by probation officers in the field. Skeem, Kennealy, Tatar, Hernandez, and Keith (2017) address whether dynamic risk assessment scales from the California Youth Assessment Inventory that tap specific domains demonstrate appropriate convergent and discriminant validity.
Another group of studies examine important diagnostic, personality, or trauma assessment topics as they relate to legal issues among adult and youth populations. Gowensmith, Sessarego et al. (2017) evaluate diagnostic reliability across a large sample of forensic mental health evaluations conducted in the field. Two studies investigated trauma assessment instruments or procedures used in the field. Filone and DeMatteo (2017) examine Trauma Symptom Inventory-2 profiles among individuals with a history of trauma who were undergoing immigration court evaluations. Marx et al. (2017) evaluate the extent to which the service connection status of a large sample of military veterans was impacted by the race of the veteran and the use of psychometric testing as part of a Veterans Affairs Post Traumatic Stress Disorder disability examination.
Two studies address the utility of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Inventory-Second Version in the field. Russell, Marsee, and Ryals (2017) examined the factor structure of the MAYSI-2, using a large sample of youth entering the juvenile justice system. Eno Louden, Kang, Ricks, and Marquez (2017) also investigate the field utility of the MAYSI-2 in detecting diagnoses among Latino and Latina adolescents in a juvenile justice setting.
In terms of the assessment of other important personality and psychopathology constructs, Colins et al. (2017) examine the field utility of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory in a large sample of detained male adolescents who completed it as part of a clinical protocol. Fine, Cavanagh, Frick, Steinberg, and Cauffman (2017) test whether probation officer ratings of youthful offenders' level of remorse can be predicted by youth's self-reported callous and unemotional interpersonal style, as well as several other potential predictor variables (e.g., arrest for a violent crime). Blais, Forth, and Hare (2017) report important data concerning the effects of a PCL-R training program that is typical of the type of training that field evaluators cite in court as evidence of their expertise in a sample of 280 individuals who completed six practice cases after completing PCL-R training.
Despite the forensic focus of this issue, only a few field studies focus specifically on adjudicative competence and sanity issues. Wood, Anderson, and Glassmire (2017) address the field utility of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool — Criminal Adjudication among forensic patients hospitalized for competence restoration. Rather than focusing on the reliability of a specific instrument, Gowensmith, Murrie, Boccaccini, and McNichols (2017) investigate the field reliability of 175 recommendations for conditional release among 62 sanity acquittees. More broadly, Guarnera and Murrie (2017) report on a systematic review and meta-analysis of expert opinions concerning competence to stand trial and sanity evaluations in the field.
Finally, Hauch, Sporer, Masip, and Blandón-Gitlin (2017) meta-analytically combine research on the inter-rater reliability of Criterion-based Content Analysis, a procedure designed to help differentiate between experienced and fabricated events.
Collectively, the diverse array of studies in this issue demonstrates the importance of field research. Some results indicate that instruments and procedures in the field show similar properties to lab studies, whereas others suggest weakened performance in the field for some instruments and procedures. Overall, the findings are quite nuanced, indicating both the need to review each study carefully as well as the need for more field research in these areas.
Special Issue
Note: This article is in the Forensic Psychology topic area. View more articles in the Forensic Psychology topic area.