MMPI-2 profiles of NGRI and civil patients

Moskowitz, Jonina L.; Lewis, Robin J.; Ito, Michael S.; Ehrmentraut, John

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199905)55:5<659::aid-jclp12>3.0.co;2-6

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, individuals with no criminal history were more often classified insane. Although Moskowitz et al () reached a contrary finding, their comparison group was civil inpatients, who are less likely to have criminal histories than justice‐involved subsamples. Moderate heterogeneity was revealed, which could be explained by variability across studies in the definition of this defendant characteristic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…There was high heterogeneity and inconsistency [ Q (8) = 112.05, p < 0.001, I 2 = 92.86] across studies. Non‐psycholegal groups (Linhorst & Turner, ; Moskowitz et al, ) appeared to influence the overall result. The effect was no longer significant after removing non‐psycholegal cases (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.76, 1.67, p = 0.553), and heterogeneity and inconsistency were still significant [ Q (4) = 63.05, p < 0.001, I 2 = 93.66].…”

Section: Meta‐analytic Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That defendants diagnosed with psychotic disorders were more often opined insane was a robust finding. Only two studies did not demonstrate this relationship (Linhorst & Turner, ; Moskowitz et al, ). Given that these studies used civil psychiatric samples as their “sane” comparison groups, significant differences in diagnoses across “sane” and “insane” subgroups would not be anticipated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Criminal responsibility: Meta‐analysis and study space

Kois

Chauhan

2018

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While some correlates of criminal responsibility (CR) outcomes are consistent, others are not. Study-level characteristics, such as sample selection, variability in the operational definition of insanity, or other unknown influences may explain discrepant findings. It is critical to systematically consolidate and assess the literature in order to guide future work. We conducted the first meta-analysis and study space analysis (see Malpass et al., ) in this area. 15 studies met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, which encompassed 19,500 cases. Summary effects for psycholegal cases indicated that older age, female sex, educational attainment, and unemployment were associated with insanity. Those classified insane more often had psychiatric histories and psychotic disorders. Finally, individuals opined or found insane were less likely to have criminal histories but more likely to have been opined incompetent to stand trial in the past. Importantly, virtually all summary effects were impacted by study design. Study space analyses (N = 7) revealed a dearth of literature that thoroughly addressed theoretically important variables. Taken together, the project provides a comprehensive, empirical analysis of CR correlates and a systematic call for future research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Meta‐analytic Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Criminal responsibility: Meta‐analysis and study space

Kois

Chauhan

2018

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Potential for Bias in MMPI-2 Assessments Using the Fake Bad Scale (FBS)

Butcher

Gass

Cumella³

et al. 2008

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Fake Bad Scale (FBS), developed to identify malingering of emotional distress among claimants seeking compensation for personal injuries, was recently added to the MMPI-2 scoring materials, resulting in its widespread dissemination across the various clinical settings that use the MMPI-2 in psychological evaluations. We examine: (1) questions of item bias in the FBS; (2) how malingering and nonmalingering groups are identified in FBS studies, including whether the research has been broadly inclusive and fully represents the populations assessed by the MMPI-2; (3) the reliability and validity of the FBS; (4) the highly variable recommendations for raw score cut-offs and how they relate to T scores; (5) two inpatient groups [men in a tertiary care Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VA) unit and women in an eating disorders program] who may be inappropriately labeled as malingering by the FBS; (6) the publisher's statement on use of the FBS; and (7) a Frye hearing in Florida where the FBS was excluded from expert testimony, one of three so far. We raise questions about its potential bias against people with disabilities and physical illnesses, women, individuals exposed to highly traumatic situations, and those motivated to present themselves in a favorable light. Psychologists using the FBS for making decisions about clients' motivations need to be aware of the serious problems with the scale's use and the cases of its inadmissibility in court.

show abstract

The criminogenic, clinical, and social problems of forensic and civil psychiatric patients.

Seto¹,

Harris²,

Rice³

2004

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic psychiatric patients consume an increasing proportion of mental health resources in Canada and the United States. To inform mental health policy and practice, we compared the criminogenic, clinical, and social problems of forensic patients to those of civilly committed psychiatric patients in two Canadian studies. We predicted that forensic patients would score higher on criminogenic problems and lower on clinical and social problems than civil patients in two studies: one comparing 83 forensic and 189 civil inpatients on a clinician-completed form, the Resident Assessment Instrument-Mental Health, at an urban mental health center, and the second comparing 423 forensic and 178 civil patients assessed at different times using the Patient Problem Survey. The two studies were quite similar in their findings, despite differences in their samples, measures, and data collection methods. In both studies, forensic patients were similar to or lower than civil psychiatric patients in all criminogenic, clinical, and social problems. We conclude that forensic mental health services would benefit greatly by drawing from knowledge accumulated in the general psychiatric literature. This finding also supports the idea that many forensic patients can be appropriately diverted to nonforensic mental health services.

show abstract

MMPI-2 profiles of NGRI and civil patients

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Criminal responsibility: Meta‐analysis and study space

Criminal responsibility: Meta‐analysis and study space

Potential for Bias in MMPI-2 Assessments Using the Fake Bad Scale (FBS)

The criminogenic, clinical, and social problems of forensic and civil psychiatric patients.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About