{3:25 minutes to read} In this article, we continue our discussion of the issues involved with psychological testing in forensic evaluation. 

First, the evaluator must be certain that the measures have enough specificity, that is, that they directly tap into the construct of interest. In custody, for example, the construct of interest is parenting, and ideally, whatever instruments the evaluators choose to administer should bear on the parenting construct. 

In 2007, Melton and his colleagues pointed out a number of questions they recommend to be asked when considering the use of psychological testing in forensic assessments: 

1. What construct of interest is to be assessed?
2. How exactly does the instrument assess the construct?
3. Are there more direct ways to assess the construct of interest?
4. Have adequate levels of reliability and validity been demonstrated?
5. Has the instrument been subjected to peer review? 

Grisso coined the term “Forensic Assessment Instrument” to describe instruments that have been developed and designed to breach the gap between a set of legal and psychological constructs. Such instruments are increasingly used by mental health professionals in forensic evaluations. One example of a Forensic Assessment Instrument is the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI), an instrument designed to assess the potential for physical abuse by a parent, and thus designed to assess a key concept in child protective proceedings.   

When using psychological measures such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)—evaluators should keep in mind that such measures generally yield multiple and varied interpretations. The evaluator must be careful not to cherry-pick only the interpretation that fits best with the data he/she has gathered and be open to reconciling the data that has been gathered with testing results that may not be consistent with it.  

Also, evaluators need to be mindful not to assume that the person being assessed has the necessary reading level. The MMPI-2, for example, requires, at least, a 6th-grade reading level, and it cannot be assumed that the person being evaluated will have the requisite reading level. Rather, such a step would need to be empirically established through the administration of a formal, standardized measure such as the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-4). 

Dr. Alberto Yohananoff
NYC Forensics
dryohananoff@nycforensics.com
P: (646) 284-5600
F: (212) 706-9136

Posted in Forensic Evaluations