Navigating cross-cultural issues in forensic assessment: Recommendations for practice.

Abstract

Immigration trends are rapidly increasing the diversity present in individuals who require psychological evaluation. Forensic psychologists in particular are often faced with evaluatees from diverse backgrounds, about which they may have little or no prior knowledge. Furthermore, the measures commonly used in forensic assessment have rarely been developed for, or validated in, individuals from nonmajority cultural backgrounds, let alone in languages other than English. This article examines a range of topics that impact cross-cultural validity in psychological assessments more generally, with particular attention to the issues most relevant for forensic assessment (e.g., clinical interviewing, diagnostic assessment, and psychological testing). Additionally, recommendations for best practice in forensic assessment with culturally diverse evaluatees are offered.

Plausibility Judgments of Atypical Symptoms Across Cultures: an Explorative Study Among Western and Non-Western Experts

“…Our results in no way imply that cultural differences in symptom presentation can be disregarded. It is important that clinicians inform themselves about such differences (see e.g., Young, 2014 ; Nijdam-Jones, Rivera, Rosenfeld, & Arango-Lasprilla, 2017 ; Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012 ) and incorporate this knowledge in their diagnostic routines.…”

“…Such incentives may involve financial rewards, compensation, or reduced legal responsibility (American Psychiatric Association, 2000 ). However, what is considered to be an atypical symptom may depend on the cultural background of patients and evaluators (e.g., Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012 ). Thus, cultural backgrounds may affect how patients express psychological or medical complaints and how healthcare professionals evaluate the plausibility of these complaints (e.g., Thakker & Ward, 1998 ; Kleinman & Cohen, 1997 ; Hausotter & Schouler-Ocak, 2007 ).…”

Psychological pre‐sentence evaluations for sentencing young offenders in Australia

“…Forensic evaluations require a high level of methodological rigour because the assessment must meet the requirements for expert evidence under the applicable rules of evidence (Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012). Case law and rules of evidence require that expert opinions are based on empirical methods that are rigorously conducted, so the onus is on the practitioner to ensure that he or she uses an appropriate (scientifically rigorous), and effective (of assistance to the court) evaluation methodology (Freckelton & Selby, 2009).…”

Psychological reports for sentencing juveniles in Australian courts

“…Mossman, 2013;Neal & Grisso, 2014); how to address cultural diversity (e.g. Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012); how to prevent making common mistakes (e.g. Grisso, 2010;Martindale & Gould, 2004;Witt, 2010); and the impact of pre-sentence evaluations for juveniles (e.g.…”