Description
Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) continues to develop and expand as a specialization. Since the publication of the First Edition of Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Casebook over a decade ago, there have been a number of significant changes in the applicable law, ethics, science, and practice that have shaped the conceptual and empirical underpinnings of FMHA.The Second Edition of Forensic Mental Health Assessment is thoroughly updated in light of the developments and changes in the field, while still keeping the unique structure of presenting cases, detailed reports, and specific teaching points on a wide range of topics. Unlike anything else in the literature, it provides genuine (although disguised) case material, so trainees as well as legal and mental health professionals can review how high-quality forensic evaluation reports are written; it features contributions from leading experts in forensic psychology and psychiatry, providing samples of work in their particular areas of specialization; and it discusses case material in the larger context of broad foundational principles and specific teaching points, making it a valuable resource for teaching, training, and continuing education. Now featuring 50 real-world cases, this new edition covers topics including criminal responsibility, sexual offending risk evaluation, federal sentencing, capital sentencing, capacity to consent to treatment, personal injury, harassment and discrimination, guardianship, juvenile commitment, transfer and decertification, response style, expert testimony, evaluations in a military context, and many more. It will be invaluable for anyone involved in assessments for the courts, including psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and attorneys, as well as for FMHA courses.
Table of Contents
PrefaceAbout the EditorsContributors1 Introduction and Overview2 Miranda Waiver CapacityCase 1Principle: Use nomothetic evidence in assessing clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connectioncase contributed by I. Bruce FrumkinTeaching Point: What is the value of specialized forensic assessment instruments in forensic mental health assessmentcontributed by I. Bruce FrumkinCase 2Principle: Use case-specific (idiographic) evidence in assessing clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connectioncase contributed by Alan M. GoldsteinTeaching Point: What are the limits of specialized Forensic Assessment Instruments? contributed by Alan M. Goldstein3 Competence to Stand TrialCase 1Principle: Use testing when indicated in assessing response stylecase contributed by Richard RogersTeaching Point: Integrating different sources of response style datacontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Select the most appropriate model to guide in data gathering, interpretation, and communication case contributed by Patricia A. ZapfTeaching Point: How can you use a model to structure the way you write the report?contributed by Patricia A. ZapfCase 3Principle: Attribute information to sources case contributed by Samuel Hawes and Mary Alice ConroyTeaching Point: Separating and integrating data from different sources through source attribution in analyzing, reasoning about, and communicating FMHA results contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke4 Criminal ResponsibilityCase 1Principle: Be familiar with the relevant legal, ethical, scientific, and practice literatures pertaining to FMHAcase contributed by Robert M. WettsteinTeaching Point: Sources of particularly relevant information from the literature contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Attribute information to sources case contributed by Kathleen Kemp and Daniel MurrieTeaching Point: Line-by-line versus paragraph-level attribution contributed by Daniel MurrieCase 3Principle: Decline the referral when evaluator impartiality is unlikely case contributed by Ira K. PackerTeaching Point: Remaining impartial in high visibility cases contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke5 Sexual Offending Risk EvaluationCase 1Principle: Provide appropriate notification of purpose and obtain appropriate authorization before beginning case contributed by Philip H. WittTeaching Point: Obtaining informed consent in Sexually Violent Predator casescontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke6 Federal SentencingCase 1Principle: Describe findings so that they need change little under cross-examinationcase contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Stephanie Brooks HollidayTeaching Point: Communicating findings to accurately reflect their strength and the evaluator's confidence in them contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use scientific reasoning in assessing the causal connection between clinical condition and functional abilitiescase contributed by David DeMatteoTeaching Point: Risk-assessment in sentencing contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke7 Capital SentencingCase 1Principle: Use multiple sources of information for each area being assessed. Review the available background information and actively seek important missing elements case contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Jacey EricksonTeaching Point: How much is enough? Diminishing returns from information sourcescontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Obtain relevant historical information case contributed by Mark CunninghamTeaching Point: Evaluating the accuracy of different sources of third-party information contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke8 Capital Sentencing, Atkins-type EvaluationsCase 1Principle: Accept referrals only within area of expertise case contributed by J. Gregory OlleyTeaching Point: Gauging the training and experience in forensic and mental health areas needed for this kind of evaluation contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use relevance and reliability (validity) as guides for seeking information and selecting data sources case contributed by Karen L. SalekinTeaching Point: Selecting tools for use in FMHA contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke9 Competence for ExecutionCase 1Principle: Identify relevant forensic issuescase contributed by Patricia A. ZapfTeaching Point: Identify assessment targets when legal standards are broad or non-specific contributed by Patricia A. Zapf10 Capacity to Consent to TreatmentCase 1Principle: Use third party information in assessing response style case contributed by David DeMatteoTeaching Point: Balancing results from interview, testing, and third party sources as they relate to response style contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: Communicating complex scientific material to legal professionals and lay audiences contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke11 Testamentary CapacityCase 1Principle: Determine whether the individual understands the purpose of the evaluation and associated limits on confidentialitycase contributed by Eric DroginTeaching Point: Advantages of written versus spoken notification in determining whether the notification is understood contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke12 Personal InjuryCase 1Principle: Carefully consider whether to answer the ultimate legal question. If answered, it should be in the context of a thorough evaluation clearly describing data and reasoning, and with the clear recognition that this question is in the domain of the legal decision maker case contributed by Bill FooteTeaching Point: Answering the ultimate legal question directly contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Decline the referral when evaluator impartiality is unlikely case contributed by Alan M. GoldsteinTeaching Point: Declining the case when impartiality would be too difficult contributed by Alan M. Goldstein13 Civil CommitmentCase 1Principle: Use relevance and reliability (validity) as guides for seeking information and selecting data sourcescase contributed by Tadeus Edward Kowalski and Douglas MossmanTeaching Point: The strengths and weaknesses of classification systems contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke14 Harassment and DiscriminationCase 1Principle: Do not become adversarial, but present and defend your opinions effectivelyPrinciple: Write report in sections, according to model and procedurescase contributed by Bill FooteTeaching Point: Communicating firmly but fairly contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: The value of sequential communication of FMHA resultscontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke15 Workplace DisabilityCase 1Principle: Assess legally relevant behavior case contributed by Lisa Drago PiechowskiTeaching Point: The relationship between symptoms and disability in capacity to work contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Assess clinical characteristics in relevant, reliable, and valid wayscase contributed by Robert L. SadoffTeaching Point: Useful approaches to assessing clinical characteristics in FMHA contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke16 GuardianshipCase 1Principle: Be aware of the important differences between clinical and forensic domainsPrinciple: Be familiar with the relevant legal, ethical, scientific, and practice literatures pertaining to FMHAcase contributed by Randy K. OttoTeaching Point: Guardianship and the revised Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology contributed by Randy K. Otto17 Child CustodyCase 1Principle: Determine the particular role to be played if the referral is accepted case contributed by Marsha HedrickTeaching Point: Can one ever play more than one role in a single FMHA case? contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use multiple sources of information for each area being assessedcase contributed by Jonathan W. GouldTeaching Point: The role of the forensic clinician in collecting third party information contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke18 Child ProtectionCase 1Principle: Assess legally relevant behavior case contributed by Jennifer Clark and Karen BuddTeaching Point: Identifying forensic capacities when the legal standard is vague or unelaborated contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Be guided by honesty and striving for impartiality, actively disclosing the limitations on as well as the support for one's opinions case contributed by Kathryn Kuehnle and H. D. KirkpatrickTeaching Point: Specific strategies for promoting impartiality in a particular evaluation contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: Mental health professionals' role in assisting the court in determining the veracity of allegations of child sexual abuse contributed by Kathryn Kuehnle and H. D. Kirkpatrick19 Juvenile Miranda Waiver CapacityCase 1Principle: Use nomothetic evidence in assessing causal connection between clinical condition and functional abilities case contributed by I. Bruce FrumkinTeaching Point: Applying group-based evidence supporting a specialized forensic assessment measure in a single case contributed by I. Bruce FrumkinCase 2Principle: Do not become adversarial, but present and defend your opinions effectively case contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Megan MurphyTeaching Point: Whether and how to criticize material from the records contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke20 Juvenile Competence to Stand TrialCase 1Principle: Use relevance and reliability (validity) as guides for seeking information and selecting data sources case contributed by David DeMatteoTeaching Point: Selecting a specialized measure on juvenile CST contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Ensure that conditions for evaluation are quiet, private, and distraction-free case contributed by Janet I. WarrenTeaching Point: Identifying and implementing strategies for improving inadequate conditions contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke21 Juvenile CommitmentCase 1Principle: Accept referrals only within area of expertise case contributed by David DeMatteo and Heidi StrohmaierTeaching Point: What training and experience in forensic, developmental, and mental health areas are needed for juvenile forensic expertise? contributed by Dewey G. CornellCase 2Principle: Provide appropriate notification of purpose and obtain appropriate authorization before beginning case contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Lindsey PetersonTeaching Point: Obtaining authorization for evaluating minors who cannot yet legally consent contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke22 Transfer and DecertificationCase 1Principle: Assess legally relevant behavior case contributed by Amy L. Wevodau and Mary Alice ConroyTeaching Point: Translating legal criteria into forensic capacities contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use third party information in assessing response style case contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: Addressing conflicting information from the interview, testing, and third party sources contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke23 MilitaryCase 1Principle: Identify relevant forensic issues case contributed by Michael Sweda and Samantha M. BeneshTeaching Point: Forensic issues in this kind of evaluation that is conducted in a military context, and comparability with and distinctions from civilian law contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Obtain appropriate authorization case contributed by Paul MontalbanoTeaching Point: How does the evaluator address the question of "severe mental disease or defect?" contributed by Paul MontalbanoTeaching Point: Obtaining appropriate authorization in military FMHA, and similarities with and differences from civilian parameters contributed by Paul MontalbanoCase 3Principle: Use nomothetic evidence of clinical condition, functional abilities, andcausal connection case contributed by Eric B. ElbogenTeaching Point: Combining nomothetic data with case-specific idiographic information contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke24 Release Decision-MakingCase 1Principle: Obtain relevant historical information case contributed by Chad Brinkley and David MradTeaching Point: Integrating information from hospitalization and pre-hospitalization in release decision-making contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use multiple sources of information for each area being assessed case contributed by Craig R. LareauTeaching Point: Using multiple sources for relevant hospitalization and pre-hospitalization information contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 3Principle: Describe findings and limits so that they need change little under cross-examination case contributed by Terrance J. KukorTeaching Point: Achieving balance and facilitating accuracy in reporting findings contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke25 Threat/Risk AssessmentCase 1Principle: Identify relevant forensic issues case contributed by Stephen D. Hart and Kelly A. WattTeaching Point: The role of RNR in contemporary threat/risk assessment contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Ensure that conditions for evaluation are quiet, private, and distraction-free case contributed by Dewey G. CornellTeaching Point: How can threat assessment be distinguished as a form of risk assessment? contributed by Dewey G. CornellCase 3Principle: Use nomothetic evidence in assessing clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connection case contributed by Randy K. Otto and Jay Singh Teaching Point: Combining nomothetic data with case-specific, idiographic information contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: How can different approaches to risk assessment be used to inform the evaluation and the case outcome? contributed by Randy K. OttoCase 4Principle: Obtain relevant historical information case contributed by Joel A. DvoskinTeaching Point: When specialized measures cannot be used contributed by Joel A. Dvoskin26 Response StyleCase 1Principle: Use testing when indicated in assessing response style case contributed by Ashley Kirk Burgett and Richard FrederickTeaching Point: Assessing malingering of cognitive deficits using testing contributed by Richard Frederick and Ashley Kirk BurgettCase 2Principle: Use third party information in assessing response style case contributed by Phillip J. ResnickTeaching Point: Using records and collateral interviews in assessing response style contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke27 Expert TestimonyCommentary throughout contributed by Stanley BrodskyCase 1Principle: Communicate effectivelyTeaching Point: Moving from "adequate" to "effective" in presenting expert testimony contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukePrinciple: Base testimony on the results of the properly performed forensic mental health assessmentTeaching Point: Using the report to facilitate expert testimony contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukePrinciple: Control the message. Strive to obtain, retain, and regain control over the meaning and impact of what is presented in expert testimonyTeaching Point: Strategies for maintaining some control over the message contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke case contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Jacey EricksonReferencesIndex
