Third party presence during criminal forensic evaluations: Psychologists' opinions, attitudes, and practices.

Abstract

If you are a psychologist who conducts forensic evaluations, how would you respond to an attorney's or family member's request to be present or to videotape the evaluation? Your answer may be impacted by legal, professional, ethical, and practical issues as addressed in legal and mental health publications. However, there is a dearth of empirical attention, and even the opinions and practices of psychologists in this arena are unclear. The present article addresses the need for empirical data on third party presence by surveying forensic clinicians' perspectives on the topic. A total of 160 forensic practitioners (41% response rate) provided information on their attitudes and practices pertaining to third parties in an evaluation. Overall, most clinicians believe third party presence can negatively impact an evaluation, yet most have conducted examinations under such conditions. The article concludes with speculation as to the impact of third party presence, a call for research and professional standards, and specific guidelines for psychologists who may struggle with these complex issues.

Discourses regarding ethical challenges in assessments - Insights through a novel approach

“…Consensus could not be reached in the focus group regarding who the client may be: is it the person being assessed or is it the organisation requesting the results? Shealy, Cramer and Pirelli (2008) argue that legal, professional, ethical and practical issues may impact the answer. Contractually it may be the organisation; however, ethically, there is an obligation to both the organisation and those being tested.…”

Contemplating the Presence of Third Party Observers and Facilitators in Psychological Evaluations

“…Interestingly, the audiotap ing or videotaping of criminal forensic evaluations appears to be relatively uncommon. More than 75% of 160 forensic practitioners reported never having had their criminal forensic evaluations documented in such a manner (Shealy et al, 2008).…”

“…Psychologists also appear to be par ticularly perplexed about the appropriateness of allowing third parties to be present during psycho logical evaluations conducted in the context of legal proceedings. In a recent survey of 160 forensic prac titioners, approximately 75% reported having con ducted a criminal forensic psychological evaluation with a third party present, but the majority of respon dents (59%) expressed concerns that a third party's presence might affect the evaluation process in a negative way (Shealy, Cramer, & Pirelli, 2008).…”

A response to Shealy, Cramer, and Pirelli's "Third party presence during criminal forensic evaluations: Psychologists' opinions, attitudes, and practices".

“…

I provide my position on third-party observation in criminal forensic assessments studied by C. Shealy, R. Cramer, and G. Pirelli (2008), comment on the traditional authority reflected by the study, note the statements on the issue by the Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment ( 2007) and the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology ( 2001) and the proposed third draft of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology by the Committee on the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology ( 2008), and offer a rationale for allowing observation. The study by Shealy, Cramer, and Pirelli documented traditional authority on observation in forensic assessment, not evidence-based practice.

…”

“…From the perspective of faculty, despite the differences in education and background of our students, they are generally subject to the same scrutiny and are responsive to third-party observation. In this response, I address the research by Shealy, Cramer, and Pirelli (2008), and reference the positions of the Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (2007) and the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (2001) on third-party observation and the draft forensic specialty guidelines of the Committee for the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2008).…”