Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation?

Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Turner, Darrel B.; Meeks, Meredith; Woods, Carol; Tussey, Chriscelyn M.

doi:10.1037/a0014897

Cited by 183 publications

(261 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

234

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the 15 trials in which experts from both sides reported scores (d ¼ 0.58). As a result, rater agreement for these cases was lower (ICC A,1 ¼ .67) than the values reported in the PCL-R manual, although not as low as the values reported by Murrie et al (2008Murrie et al ( , 2009.…”

contrasting

confidence: 73%

“…Recently, Murrie et al (2009) expanded their initial sample of 23 cases to 35 (as well as examining the reliability of other risk instruments used in SVP cases) and reported virtually identical results (ICC 1 for absolute agreement ¼ .42). Agreement for PCL-R total scores was also low (ICC A,1 ¼ .47) for 22 offenders who were evaluated twice by evaluators working for the same side (i.e., petitioner; Boccaccini et al, 2008).…”

supporting

confidence: 51%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inter‐rater reliability of the PCL‐R total and factor scores among psychopathic sex offenders: are personality features more prone to disagreement than behavioral features?

Edens

Boccaccini

Johnson

2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite considerable support for the inter-rater reliability of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) in research contexts, there is increasing concern that scores from this instrument may be considerably less stable across examiners in applied contexts, particularly when scoring is based on separate interviews. The present study examines archival data from a sample of imprisoned sex offenders (n = 20) who obtained relatively high PCL-R total scores (> or =25) and were administered this instrument on a second occasion by a different examiner. Intraclass correlations for the total and Factor 2 score were lower than those generally reported in research studies. Of greater concern, Factor 1 scores were only negligibly related to each other (ICC(A,1) = .16). Correcting for potential range restriction among these high scoring individuals resulted in total and Factor 2 score measures of agreement that were somewhat more consistent with published research, but Factor 1 continued to display exceedingly poor agreement across examiners.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 73%

supporting

confidence: 51%

Inter‐rater reliability of the PCL‐R total and factor scores among psychopathic sex offenders: are personality features more prone to disagreement than behavioral features?

Edens

Boccaccini

Johnson

2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(e.g., DeMatteo, et al, 2014;Murrie et al, 2008;Murrie, Boccaccini, Turner, Meeks, Woods, & Tussey, 2009) and in Canada (Lloyd, Clark, & Forth, 2010). Beyond these studies, surveys of judges and attorneys consistently reveal their concern about bias among experts as well (e.g., Krafka, Dunn, Johnson, Cecil, & Miletich, 2002;Shuman, Whitaker, & Champagne, 1994).…”

Section: Bias In Forensic Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations.

Neal¹,

Brodsky²

2016

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A qualitative study with 20 board-certified forensic psychologists was followed up by a mail survey of 351 forensic psychologists in this mixed-methods investigation of examiner bias awareness and strategies used to debias forensic judgments. Rich qualitative data emerged about awareness of bias, specific biasing situations that recur in forensic evaluations, and potential debiasing strategies. The continuum of bias awareness in forensic evaluators mapped cogently onto the "stages of change" model. Evaluators perceived themselves as less vulnerable to bias than their colleagues, consistent with the phenomenon called the "bias blind spot." Recurring situations that posed challenges for forensic clinicians included disliking or feeling sympathy for the defendant, disgust or anger toward the offense, limited cultural competency, preexisting values, colleagues' influences, and protecting referral streams. Twenty-five debiasing strategies emerged in the qualitative study, all but one of which rated as highly useful in the quantitative survey. Some of those strategies are consistent with empirical evidence about their effectiveness, but others have been shown to be ineffective. We identified which strategies do not help, focused on promising strategies with empirical support, discussed additional promising strategies not mentioned by participants, and described new strategies generated by these participants that have not yet been subjected to empirical examination.Finally, debiasing strategies were considered with respect to future directions for research and forensic practice.

show abstract

“…The forensic identification finding by mental health professionals in adversarial forensic settings has been observed by other investigators as well, including in several recent field studies -despite the ethical guidelines about striving to be unbiased and impartial (e.g., DeMatteo, Edens, Galloway, Cox, Toney Smith, & Formon, 2014;Lloyd, Clark, & Forth, 2010;Murrie, Boccaccini, Johnson, & Janke, 2008;Murrie, Boccaccini, Turner, Meeks, Woods, & Tussey, 2009;Otto, 1989). …”

Section: Forensic Identification (Aka Adversarial Allegiance) and mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the Forensic Psychologist Role

Neal¹

2017

The Ethical Practice of Forensic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its debut over a century ago, forensic psychology has matured into a formally recognized specialty area of psychology with its own set of ethical guidelines; however, a consensual definition of forensic psychology remains elusive. After describing the field's historical and current struggles to define itself, two ethical issues are discussed that are especially applicable to psychology in legal contexts. The first is the critical differences between serving in therapeutic versus forensic roles and the associated ethical obligation to refrain from serving in both roles in the same case. Despite the terminology used in the literature, treatment in forensic contexts can be ethically appropriate. This chapter considers the current state of the literature regarding treatment in forensic contexts and suggests that this is likely to be an area of future growth for the field. The second ethical issue discussed in this chapter is the insidious effect of the adversarial process on psychologists' objectivity in forensic contexts, termed "forensic identification" or "adversarial allegiance." The forensic ethical guidelines affirm the primacy of this issue in forensic contexts, as evidenced by addressing it in the first two published guidelines.

show abstract

Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation?

Cited by 183 publications

References 62 publications

Inter‐rater reliability of the PCL‐R total and factor scores among psychopathic sex offenders: are personality features more prone to disagreement than behavioral features?

Inter‐rater reliability of the PCL‐R total and factor scores among psychopathic sex offenders: are personality features more prone to disagreement than behavioral features?

Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations.

Identifying the Forensic Psychologist Role

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About