Impact of Stringent Certification Standards on Forensic Evaluator Reliability

Gowensmith, W. Neil; Sledd, Monique; Sessarego, Stephanie N.

doi:10.1037/e550162014-001

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the court's only option may be a general clinician without specialized training in forensic assessment. standards in 2014 (Gowensmith, Sledd, & Sessarego, 2014). These new standards included a mandatory 3-day training, written test, submission of a mock report, peer review process, and continuing education.…”

Section: Limited Training and Certification For Forensic Evaluatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This training gap is important because empirical research suggests that evaluators with greater training produce more reliable forensic opinions. A compelling recent study conducted in Hawaii examined interrater reliability rates for three types of common forensic opinions (adjudicative competency, legal sanity, and violence risk assessment) both before and after the state adopted more stringent certification standards in 2014 (Gowensmith, Sledd, & Sessarego, 2014). These new standards included a mandatory 3-day training, written test, submission of a mock report, peer review process, and continuing education.…”

Section: Unknown or Insufficient Field Reliability Of Forensic Opinionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why do forensic experts disagree? Sources of unreliability and bias in forensic psychology evaluations.

Guarnera

Murrie

Boccaccini

2017

Translational Issues in Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

concerns about unreliability and bias in the forensic sciences. Two broad categories of problems also appear applicable to forensic psychology: (1) unknown or insufficient field reliability of forensic procedures, and (2) experts' lack of independence from those requesting their services. We overview and integrate research documenting sources of disagreement and bias in forensic psychology evaluations, including limited training and certification for forensic evaluators, unstandardized methods, individual evaluator differences, and adversarial allegiance. Unreliable opinions can result in arbitrary or unjust legal outcomes for forensic examinees, as well as diminish confidence in psychological expertise within the legal system. We present recommendations for translating these research findings into policy and practice reforms intended to improve reliability and reduce bias in forensic psychology. We also recommend avenues for future research to continue to monitor progress and suggest new reforms. What is the significance of this article for the general public?This review summarizes and integrates research on sources of disagreement and bias in forensic psychology evaluations, including limited training and certification, unstandardized methods, individual evaluator differences, and allegiance to the retaining party. Disagreement can result in arbitrary or unjust legal outcomes for forensic examinees, as well as diminish confidence in psychological expertise. Thus, policy and practice changes are needed to improve the reliability of forensic opinions.

show abstract

Section: Limited Training and Certification For Forensic Evaluatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Unknown or Insufficient Field Reliability Of Forensic Opinionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do forensic experts disagree? Sources of unreliability and bias in forensic psychology evaluations.

Guarnera

Murrie

Boccaccini

2017

Translational Issues in Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…40 In Hawaii, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists who attended a three-day certification training subsequently showed improvement in the quality and reliability of their CST evaluations. 14,55 However, much more research examining the outcomes of these training is needed to truly assess effectiveness. 9 The use of a peer-reviewed evaluation report system can also be used to identify evaluation areas or specific evaluators that need improvement.…”

Section: Ensuring High-quality Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approximately half of the states in the US have implemented formal certification processes for psychologists to conduct CST evaluations 40 . In Hawaii, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists who attended a three-day certification training subsequently showed improvement in the quality and reliability of their CST evaluations 14 , 55 . However, much more research examining the outcomes of these training is needed to truly assess effectiveness 9 .…”

Section: Corrective Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tipping the scales of justice: the role of forensic evaluations in the criminalization of mental illness

McCallum

Gowensmith

2019

CNS Spectr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An unprecedented number of individuals with mental illness are represented in the criminal justice system. The unending growth of mentally ill populations in the justice system has led to jails and court dockets being increasingly overwhelmed with cases involving mental illness, state hospitals devoting far more beds and resources to forensic cases, and people without a criminal commitment left waiting for mental health services as forensic cases are prioritized. Although a forensic mental health evaluation is only one component of this larger system, common problems with forensic mental health evaluations can exacerbate the criminalization of persons with mental illness in many ways. This article reviews the current literature regarding issues of quality, reliability, and validity of forensic mental health evaluations, discusses the broader impact of these issues, and offers potential solutions for the field.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, of those states that do require evaluators to complete a certification process, only a handful require ongoing training after the initial training has been completed. However, research is compelling that training is effective-forensic evaluators who attend forensic mental health trainings show significant increases in report quality and report reliability (Fuger, Acklin, Nguyen, Ignacio, & Gowensmith, 2014;Gowensmith, Sledd, & Sessarego, 2015;Robinson & Acklin, 2010).…”

Section: Other Possible Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fitness to stand trial evaluation challenges in the United States: Some comparisons with South Africa

Gowensmith

Robinson

2016

South African Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like the Republic of South Africa, the United States faces serious challenges regarding fitness to stand trial evaluations, including long waitlists for individuals awaiting such evaluations. Some similarities exist between the RSA and US evaluation systems, including an increasing number of referrals for fitness to stand trial evaluations, limited evaluator resources, and concerns about the significant restrictions on civil liberties for those awaiting evaluation. Recently, the United States has implemented several different solutions to address these issues. These have included broadening the eligibility requirements for fitness to stand trial evaluators, utilizing localized and short-term settings for fitness to stand trial evaluations, and a host of other ideas. This article examines these different solutions, discusses their relevance and potential effectiveness for the RSA evaluation system, and makes recommendations for consideration by policy makers and mental health professionals.

show abstract

Impact of Stringent Certification Standards on Forensic Evaluator Reliability

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Why do forensic experts disagree? Sources of unreliability and bias in forensic psychology evaluations.

Why do forensic experts disagree? Sources of unreliability and bias in forensic psychology evaluations.

Tipping the scales of justice: the role of forensic evaluations in the criminalization of mental illness

Fitness to stand trial evaluation challenges in the United States: Some comparisons with South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About