Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Assessment Practices and Expert Judgment Methods in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry

Assessment Practices and Expert Judgment Methods in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry We conducted an international survey in which forensic examiners who were members of professional associations described their two most recent forensic evaluations (N = 434 experts, 868 cases), focusing on the use of structured assessment tools to aid expert judgment. This study describes (a) the relative frequency of various forensic referrals, (b) what tools are used globally, (c) frequency and type of structured tools used, and (d) practitioners’ rationales for using/not using tools. We provide general descriptive information for various referrals. We found most evaluations used tools (74.2%) and used several (four, on average). We noted the extreme variety in tools used (286 different tools). We discuss the implications of these findings and provide suggestions for improving the reliability and validity of forensic expert judgment methods. We conclude with a call for an assessment approach that seeks structured decision methods to advance greater efficiency in the use and integration of case-relevant information. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Criminal Justice and Behavior SAGE

Assessment Practices and Expert Judgment Methods in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry

Criminal Justice and Behavior , Volume 41 (12): 16 – Dec 1, 2014

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/assessment-practices-and-expert-judgment-methods-in-forensic-a2oKRRxQ0K

References (57)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© 2014 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
ISSN
0093-8548
eISSN
1552-3594
DOI
10.1177/0093854814548449
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We conducted an international survey in which forensic examiners who were members of professional associations described their two most recent forensic evaluations (N = 434 experts, 868 cases), focusing on the use of structured assessment tools to aid expert judgment. This study describes (a) the relative frequency of various forensic referrals, (b) what tools are used globally, (c) frequency and type of structured tools used, and (d) practitioners’ rationales for using/not using tools. We provide general descriptive information for various referrals. We found most evaluations used tools (74.2%) and used several (four, on average). We noted the extreme variety in tools used (286 different tools). We discuss the implications of these findings and provide suggestions for improving the reliability and validity of forensic expert judgment methods. We conclude with a call for an assessment approach that seeks structured decision methods to advance greater efficiency in the use and integration of case-relevant information.

Journal

Criminal Justice and BehaviorSAGE

Published: Dec 1, 2014

There are no references for this article.