Textbook Notes (369,137)
Canada (162,407)
Psychology (9,699)
PSYC37H3 (159)
Chapter 11

chapter 11 notes.docx

7 Pages
51 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC37H3
Professor
Hollis Moore

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 7 pages of the document.
Description
A multitude of forensic applications! -evaluation of suspected malingering -assessment of mental state for the insanity plea -competency to stand trial -prediction of violence and assessment of risk -evaluation of child custody in divorse -personal injury and related testimony -specialized personality assessment in forensic settings American psychological association’s ethical principles -contains principles specific to assessment and related areas such as human relations Standards for the Expert Witness -federal rules of evidence Witness must be a qualified expert based on judge’s assessment of education, training, experience Expert must present info beyond the knowledge and exxp of the avg juror Evidence presented must not confuse the issue at hand or prejudice the members of the jury Expert’s testimony should be in accordance w/ a generally accepted explanatory theory w/ guidance provided by Fyre v. US -Fryr v. US Expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted Counsel for murder defendant attempted to introduce results of a systolic blood pressure deceptiontest Court concluded that this test had not gained acceptance among physiological and psychological authorities and , therefore, refused to allow the testimony of the expert witness How does this affect psychological assessments? -a test inventory or assessment technique must have a history of general acceptance -experts should choose well established, extensively researched instruments as the basis for testimony Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals -factors used to establish validity of a test Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable Subjected to peer review and publication Known or potential error rate The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation Degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community Guidelines for practice of forensic psychological assessment -Heilbrun recommended the following: Tests should be commercially available and well documented Relevant to legal issue Standard administration w/ ideal testing conditions Validated in a relevant population Objective tests w/ actuarial formulas Include symptom validity tests The nature of forensic assessment -molded by prerequisites of the legal sys -narrow focus -client has little choice compare to traditional assessment -malingering -traditional assessment= audience typically is other professionals who are familiar w/ jargaon, and treatment/ forensic assessment= audience is legal personnel who care mainly abt the referral Qs Malingering in DSM 4 Intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms, motivated by external incentives such as avoiding military, avoiding work… Evaluation of suspected Malingering -Structured interview of reported symptoms (SIRS) Rare symptoms, improbable symptom combinations, and absurd symptoms -clients want to tell their stories and they want to get things right @ worst, they overstate symptoms slightly so as to impress the clinician Tend to look crazy or diabled Structured interview of reported symptoms (SIRS) -rare symptoms -symptom combinations -improbable or absurd symptoms(symptoms that reveal a fantastic quality) -blatant symptoms -subtle symptoms (overendorsement of every day prob) =severity of symptoms -selectivity of symptoms -reported vs observed symptoms Evaluation of suspected malingering -test of memory malingering Cut off score of 45/50 on trial 2 and/or the retention trial 2 learning trials & optional retention trial 1 stlearning trial (50 line drawings- individual asked to pick each item shown previously) nd 2 (follows) -mmpi2 validity scales Especially the F (infrequency) scale: 60 t/f Qs Indicate random responding (faking bad) Compared validity scale of these 4 groups: Patients w/o financial incentive Nonmalingered patients w/ financial incentive Patients definitively determined to be malingering College students asked to simulate pain related disability Assessment of mental state -mental state @ time of the offense -not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) Invoked fewer than 1
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit