Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) is a form of evaluation performed by a mental health professional to provide relevant clinical and scientific data to a legal decision maker or the litigants involved in civil or criminal proceedings. Such FMHA evaluations can be further specialized when the clinical and scientific data are primarily neuropsychological. This paper provides an adaptation of 29 recently derived principles of FMHA (Heilbrun, 2001) that have been described in two forms: general guidelines for application in FMHA, and guidelines for application to neuropsychological assessment in forensic contexts. Each principle is described, and the general guideline is compared with the highly specialized neuropsychological guideline. In this way, the applicability of such FMHA principles to forensic neuropsychological assessment is described.

No abstract

No abstract

The field of forensic psychology has experienced remarkable growth over the past three decades. Perhaps the best evidence of this growth is the number of forensic psychology training programs currently enrolling students. Those interested in forensic psychology can choose from several types of programs aimed at different educational outcomes. In addition, opportunities for postdoctoral fellowships, continuing education, and respecialization have become increasingly more available. Despite the increased availability of forensic psychology training programs, there is little consensus regarding the core substantive components of these programs. This article will summarize the existing educational and training models in forensic psychology programs and then identify a core set of competencies that should be considered for inclusion in doctoral-level forensic psychology training curricula to adequately prepare students for the increasingly varied roles assumed by forensic psychologists.

In Atkins v. Virginia 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing offenders who are mentally retarded. Rather than adopting a uniform definition of mental retardation, the court charged each state with defining mental retardation in a manner that enforces the constitutional restriction. An unanswered question is how states define mental retardation after Atkins, which has implications for capital defendants and forensic evaluators who conduct capital mitigation evaluations. This project identified the statutory definitions of mental retardation in each state, and grouped the definitions based on consistency with accepted clinical criteria for mental retardation. Results show that definitions of mental retardation vary considerably by state. The large majority of states, both overall and specifically among death penalty states, use criteria for mental retardation that are not entirely consistent with accepted clinical standards. As such, it is not clear whether the majority of states are effectuating the intent of Atkins. The implications of these findings for both policy and practice are discussed.

This study examined the construct of psychopathy using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in 54 participants from the general population. To obtain a sample of community participants with psychopathic characteristics, participants were recruited using advertisements for a "personality study" that incorporated the characteristics of psychopathy in a nonpejorative manner. The methodology successfully recruited community participants with moderately elevated PCL-R scores. Participants exhibited the personality features of psychopathy (Factor 1) to a greater extent than the behavioral features (Factor 2), which is consistent with the results obtained with the PCL-R normative samples. Roughly 40% of the sample reported no history of involvement with the criminal justice system, yet these participants exhibited moderately elevated PCL-R scores. Moreover, a sizeable portion of the noncriminal participants reported a substantial history of violent behavior. Comparisons of PCL-R scores between participants with and without a criminal history suggest that these two groups differ in ways unrelated to criminal justice system involvement.

No abstract

The present study explored the Early Maladaptive Schemas (EMS) of individuals who engage in self-mutilation. One hundred five participants (34 males and 71 females) from a community site and from two clinical sites participated in the study. Four EMS differentiated self-mutilators from nonmutilators: Mistrust/Abuse, Emotional Deprivation, Social Isolation/ Alienation, and Insufficient Self-Control/Self-Discipline. The following schemas were also found to differentiate repetitive self-mutilators from nonmutilators and from self-mutilators who had engaged in only one episode of self-mutilation: Emotional Deprivation, Social Isolation/Alienation, Defectiveness/Shame, and Insufficient Self-Control/Self-Discipline. Finally, the Social Isolation/Alienation schema was found to be endorsed more strongly as the number of self-mutilative episodes increased. The results are largely in accord with the theoretical suppositions of schema theory. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed in the context of schema therapy.