Forensic assessment with Hispanic and limited English-proficient Hispanic evaluees: A survey of practice.

Objective: This systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of translated versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in detecting response distortion (i.e., symptom exaggeration and minimization), a central concern in forensic assessment. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that translated versions of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF would generate significantly weaker effect sizes in detecting response distortion than those observed with English-language studies. Method: We identified 26 studies, representing seven language translations of the MMPI-2 (k = 20) and two of the MMPI-2-RF (k = 6). We calculated effect sizes (Cohen’s ds) based on the mean score difference between honest and nongenuine responders for each study on each symptom exaggeration (e.g., F/F-r, Fp/Fp-r) and minimization (e.g., L/L-r, K/K-r) scale examined, along with mean effect size estimates (Hedges’ g) for the Spanish and Italian translations (no other translation had more than two published studies). Results: Spanish-language studies generally produced large (d ≥ 1.25) to very large (d ≥ 1.75) effect sizes when detecting both symptom exaggeration and minimization. Italian-language studies generally produced small to moderate effect sizes when detecting symptom exaggeration and predominately moderate (d ≤ 1.25) effect sizes when detecting minimization. Significant variability within and across scales was observed in both Spanish-language and Italian-language studies. Most studies utilizing a translated version of the MMPI-2 other than Spanish or Italian produced very large (d ≥ 1.75) effect sizes when detecting symptom exaggeration and weaker (d ≤ 1.00) effect sizes when detecting minimization. Conclusions: This systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis demonstrated effect sizes that overlapped with those observed in English-language studies. Although clearly preliminary, given the limited published research to date, these data suggest that the MMPI instruments retain some utility in detecting response distortion when translated.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting symptom exaggeration and minimization using translated versions of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF: A systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis.

Bopp¹,

Aparcero²,

Rosenfeld³

2022

“…This review focused on published recommendations that were intended to cover a range of FMHA contexts and examinee identities. This initial review focused on APA’s ethics code (APA, 2017a), APA’s Multicultural Guidelines (APA, 2017b), and a guide to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ’ cultural formulation guidelines (Mezzich et al, 2009) as well as several influential articles regarding culturally informed forensic assessment and formulation (Barber Rioja & Rosenfeld, 2018; Canales et al, 2017; Kois & Chauhan, 2016; Peery et al, 2017; Riggs Romaine & Kavanaugh, 2019; Shepherd & Lewis-Fernandez, 2016; Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012). Some additional recommendations were drawn from other articles or from our own conversations and reflections.…”

Section: Existing Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing consensus for culturally informed forensic mental health assessment: Experts' opinions on best practices.

Fanniff¹,

York²,

Gutierrez³

2023

Objective: Individuals with minoritized identities are overrepresented in legal system contexts; thus, forensic mental health professionals conduct evaluations of examinees with a diversity of identities. Professional and ethical guidelines direct that these evaluations be completed in a culturally informed manner, yet many professionals still identify a need for specific guidance on how to do so. In the present study, we sought to establish consensus regarding best practices in incorporating culture into forensic mental health evaluations. Hypotheses: Given the exploratory nature of this research, no formal hypotheses were tested. We expected that participants would concur that some practices are important to completing culturally informed forensic evaluations. Method: We recruited two samples. Nine people with joint expertise in cultural considerations and forensic evaluations participated in a Delphi-type poll. More than half reported a minoritized racial/ethnic identity, and all identified as a man (56%) or woman (44%). Experts were surveyed regarding importance (two rounds) and relevance (one round) of recommended practices. They contributed seven additional relevant practices. Twenty-one board-certified forensic psychologists completed a one-time survey of their perceptions of best practices. These psychologists primarily identified as White (90%), and most did not identify as Hispanic or Latine (80%). They all identified as men (45%) or women (55%). This sample was asked to rate the importance of a list of practices refined during the Delphi-type poll. Results: The majority of practices were considered important or very important by experts and board-certified psychologists. Consensus is most clear for 28 practices with means, medians, and modes all in the "important" to "very important" range at all time points. Conclusions: There is wide agreement on the importance of particular methods for incorporating cultural considerations in each phase of the forensic evaluation process. Forensic psychologists can use this information to self-evaluate and improve their practice and to inform training. Public Significance StatementForensic psychologists conduct evaluations of examinees with a diverse range of sociocultural identities. The present study identified 28 practices that experts largely agreed are important for incorporating cultural considerations in forensic evaluations and a number of other relevant practices to consider implementing. Forensic evaluators and supervisors can use these practices to more effectively answer psycholegal questions for examinees with a range of marginalized or minoritized identities.

“…Forensic psychologists can contribute by developing culturally sensitive risk instruments, validating them with racial and ethnic minority group samples, and, most importantly, conducting holistic evaluations that factor cultural considerations into assessments of future dangerousness and recidivism likelihood as well as various legal competencies and legal sanity (Hart, 2016; Monahan & Skeem, 2016; Perlin & McClain, 2009; Riggs Romaine & Kavanaugh, 2019; Shepherd & Lewis-Fernandez, 2016; Shepherd & Willis-Esqueda, 2018; Vincent & Viljoen, 2020). Further, researchers should administer instruments and assessments in a language in which the evaluee is proficient or with the support of professional interpreters, which studies suggest is not always done (Canales et al, 2017). Enacting these recommendations would enable legal decision makers to appreciate the perspective and full humanity of offenders of color and more accurately evaluate their cases.…”

Section: Evidence-based Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A call to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems.

Najdowski¹,

Stevenson²

2022

Objectives: In October 2021, the American Psychological Association (APA) passed a resolution addressing ways psychologists could work to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems. In the present report, developed to inform APA’s policy resolution, we detail the scope of the problem and offer recommendations for policy makers and psychologists to address the issue by advancing related science and practice. Specifically, we acknowledge the roots of modern-day racial and ethnic disparities in rates of criminalization and punishment for people of color compared with White people. Next, we review existing theory and research that helps explain the underlying psychological mechanisms driving racial and ethnic disparities in criminal legal systems (e.g., endorsement of negative stereotypes, explicit and implicit bias). We also elucidate how racially disparate treatment generates downstream negative mental health consequences for people of color. Conclusions: Evidence-based recommendations to work toward eliminating systemic racism in the criminal legal systems include (a) rigorous measurement and analysis of disparities; (b) targeted changes in policy, practice, and law; (c) increased access to culturally aware and competent services and interventions; (d) design and promotion of education and training programs regarding racial bias; (e) increased attention to issues of intersectionality; and (f) promotion of diversity and fair-mindedness among criminal legal actors.