Assessment Guide
Everleigh
Forensicassessment.pdf
Empirically Supported Forensic Assessment
Robert P. Archer, Eastern Virginia Medical School
Elizabeth M. A. Wheeler and Rebecca A. Vauter, Central State Hospital
The field of Forensic Psychology has greatly expanded
over the past several decades, including the use of psy-
chological assessment in addressing forensic issues. A
number of surveys have been conducted regarding the
tests used commonly by forensic psychologists. These
surveys show that while tests specifically designed to
address forensic issues have proliferated, traditional
clinical assessment tests continue to play a crucial role
in many forensic evaluations. The current article identi-
fies some of the most salient characteristics of empiri-
cally supported forensic tests and provides examples of
tests felt to meet each of these five criteria. These crite-
ria include adequate standardization, acceptable relia-
bility and validity, general acceptance within the
community of forensic evaluators, availability of test
data from cross-cultural and cross-ethnic samples, and
comparison data relevant to specific forensic popula-
tions. Although the guidelines provided in this article
provide a helpful framework for evaluating the useful-
ness of forensic tests, the establishment of a national
review panel or workgroup to address this issue would
be highly useful, particularly in the potential controver-
sial task of identifying those tests that meet reasonable
guidelines to be identified as empirically supported
forensic assessment instruments.
Key words: forensic, forensic assessment, survey,
testing. [Clin Psychol Sci Prac 23: 348–364, 2016]
BRIEF REVIEW OF THE HISTORY AND DEFINITION OF
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
The genesis of what would later be termed Forensic Psy-
chology can be traced back to the early 20th century
when psychologists first became involved in the attempt
to understand the limitations of eyewitness testimony
and, in particular, Hugo M€unsterberg’s advocacy for an
increased role for psychologists within the legal system
(Vaccaro & Hogan, 2004). Indeed, the scope of the
psychologist’s role in addressing psycholegal issues both
inside and outside of the courtroom has expanded
greatly as a result of several court rulings. For example,
the landmark 1962 ruling in Jenkins v. United States
helped to facilitate psychologists’ ability to testify inside
the courtroom as expert witnesses, by asserting that psy-
chologists could be qualified to give expert testimony
on issues of mental health. Over the past several dec-
ades, Forensic Psychology has established recognized
training models, board certification requirements, and
an American Psychological Association (APA) division
focused on this area of practice (Division 41, American
Psychology-Law Society).
For many laypeople, the term Forensic Psychology may
invoke dramatic images from CSI (Crime Scene Inves-
tigation). For many psychologists not actively involved
in Forensic Psychology, the idea of testifying in court
may invoke a strong anxiety response. While inaccurate
views of the role of forensic psychologists can easily be
dismissed as a product of the popular media, and the
testimony anxiety of those not actively involved in
Forensic Psychology can be effectively addressed by
Address correspondence to Robert P. Archer, Eastern Vir-
ginia Medical School – Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, 825 Fairfax Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23507. E-mail: robertarcher2@
cox.net.
doi:10.1111/cpsp.12171
© 2016 American Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected]
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
training and experience in the courtroom, there
remains a need for a clear and concise definition of the
term Forensic Psychology (Huss, 2009). In this regard, rel-
atively recent guidelines by the APA have helped to
clarify the term and define when psychologists are
working within the scope of Forensic Psychology.
The most recent edition of the APA’s Specialty
Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APA, 2011) defines
Forensic Psychology as “professional practice by any
psychologist working with any sub-discipline of psy-
chology (e.g., clinical, developmental, social, cognitive)
when applying the scientific, technical, or specialized
knowledge of psychology to the law to assist in
addressing legal, contractual, and administrative mat-
ters” (p. 1). Thus, Forensic Psychology can encompass
not only direct legal issues (e.g., competency and sanity
evaluations) but also administrative/contractual issues
such as fitness for duty and disability evaluations.
The APA Guidelines also helped to define when a
psychologist is serving as a “forensic practitioner” in
the following statement:
Forensic practitioner refers to a psychologist when
engaged in the practice of Forensic Psychology.. . .
Such professional conduct is considered forensic
from the time the practitioner reasonably expects to,
agrees to, or is legally mandated to, provide exper-
tise on an explicitly psycholegal issue. (2011, p. 1)
The APA Guidelines do not rely on individuals’
typical area of practice in order to determine whether
they are providing forensic services, but instead focus
on what they are doing in the specific case. The
Guidelines state that simply being involved in a court-
related matter does not make one a forensic psycholo-
gist (e.g., someone testifying only on his or her treat-
ment of an individual would not be considered
forensic practice). In contrast, a neuropsychologist
retained to assess and subsequently testify regarding a
psycholegal issue (e.g., whether an individual suffered a
brain injury as the result of a car accident for which he
or she was seeking compensation) would be practicing
as a forensic psychologist regardless of her activities in
other areas of her practice (i.e., the rest of her caseload
was not court-involved individuals). Thus, anyone pro-
viding a psycholegal opinion in a legally mandated
matter is providing services as a forensic psychologist,
regardless of the nature of his or her typical practice
area.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBJECTIVES OF CLINICAL
ASSESSMENT AND FORENSIC ASSESSMENT
There are some important differences between assess-
ments undertaken in the forensic context and clinical
assessment. Ackerman (1999), in his book Essentials of
Forensic Psychological Assessment, provided a summary
table that presents some of the salient differences
between clinical and forensic relationships. The key
components from that table will be reviewed here.
The first difference between clinical and forensic
assessments has to do with who is identified as the cli-
ent. In clinical assessment, the individual being assessed
is typically the identified client, whereas in a forensic
setting, an attorney or the court is usually the client of
record. This is a crucial distinction, and one from
which many of the other differences are derived
between the clinical and forensic evaluations.
A second major difference between the two types of
assessment concerns the rules that govern the disclosure
of information. In clinical assessments, patient–therapist privilege and the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) provide the guidelines
that cover disclosures. In forensic assessment, the scope
of disclosures may either be mandated by statute (e.g.,
in competency and sanity evaluations, the state or fed-
eral statutes dictate who has access to the report) or
covered under attorney–client privilege (e.g., in immi- gration cases or privately retained personal injury evalu-
ations in which the psychologist is typically retained by
one side). Overall, it is likely that the report produced
at the conclusion of a forensic evaluation will be more
widely distributed than a clinical assessment report, and
in some cases, the report can become part of a case file
that could be open to the public (e.g., in a sanity case
in a court of record such as a circuit court). Further, a
forensic psychologist may find parts of their report
quoted in case law, or even in the local or national
newspapers, an event much less likely to occur when
practicing clinical assessment.
A third significant difference is the stance the psy-
chologist takes toward the client/examinee in the eval-
uation process. In a clinical assessment, the psychologist
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT � ARCHER ET AL. 349
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
typically assumes an empathetic, supportive, and non-
judgmental stance. In contrast, in forensic assessment,
the evaluator is often advised to present in a more neu-
tral and objective manner. Indeed, presenting oneself as
empathetic or supportive during a forensic evaluation
may be viewed as being potentially misleading and
inappropriate. At the heart of the differences between
clinical and forensic assessment is the adversarial nature
of the legal system. While in clinical assessment, a rela-
tionship with a client would rarely be adversarial, it is
much more frequently the case in forensic assessment
that at least part of the process may be viewed as
adversarial by the examinee.
A fourth area of difference is that forensic psycholo-
gists are often skeptical of the accuracy of the exami-
nee’s self-report. Thus, the forensic psychologist is
more likely to rely on a variety of sources of informa-
tion to confirm the examinee’s self-report, while a
clinical psychologist conducting an assessment is more
likely to rely more heavily on the subject’s self-report.
This difference is related to the level of scrutiny and
collaboration applied to the self-report of the exami-
nee. Individuals participating in forensic evaluations
may have a wide variety of reasons to provide inaccu-
rate information during the evaluation. For example,
examinees may over-report their psychological stability
and parenting skills in order to obtain custody of their
children, while other examinees may exaggerate or
malinger mental health problems in order to avoid
criminal responsibility or to obtain monetary gain in
personal injury cases. Further, threats to validity in
forensic assessment may also come from a lack of client
self-awareness rather than a conscious intent to be dis-
honest or malinger. Thus, psychologists in forensic
assessments often rely on collateral sources of informa-
tion, including medical records; police reports; victim
statements; reports from employers, family members, or
friends; and even taped phone calls, e-mails, or text
messages to confirm or disconfirm the self-report infor-
mation provided by the examinee.
Finally, the goals of the clinical and forensic assess-
ments are typically quite different, and may even be in
conflict. Specifically, the goal of clinical assessment is
to assist the client (patient). This is typically done by
answering broader diagnostic questions to assist clients
in understanding more about themselves and to
facilitate treatment planning. In contrast, the goal of
the forensic assessment is to assist the court, or retain-
ing party such as an attorney, in providing opinions
regarding a psycholegal question. Thus, forensic assess-
ment may or may not be helpful to the individual
being assessed, and may not even provide a diagnosis
(e.g., it may not be necessary to provide a diagnosis in
a competency evaluation if it does not impact the
defendant’s abilities in court). Indeed, it is possible that
the outcome of a forensic assessment could be harmful
to an individual’s case (e.g., an individual wants to
plead not guilty by reason of insanity, but the evaluator
does not find that there is evidence to support such a
plea).
BROADNESS OF THE FIELD OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT
As previously noted, Forensic Psychology encompasses
a large practice area. Huss (2009) reviewed the major
areas of Forensic Psychology and included various
topics, such as risk assessment at the time of sentencing,
insanity (criminal responsibility), competency to stand
trial, sex offender evaluations, juvenile transfers to adult
court, child custody, civil commitment, personal injury
cases, worker’s compensation, and competency to make
medical decisions. We would also add to this list the
additional practice areas of fitness for duty evaluations,
capital sentencing mitigation, immigration evaluations,
jury selection consultation, guardianship/conservator-
ship evaluations, and juvenile evaluations conducted at
the court’s request, although it is important to note
that this is not an all-inclusive list. It is quite clear that
two psychologists may report that they both practice
Forensic Psychology without engaging in similar evalu-
ations (e.g., one might conduct child custody and par-
enting evaluations while another might build a practice
on competency and sanity evaluations). Further, being
competent in one area of forensic practice does not
make a practitioner competent in other forensic prac-
tice areas.
Most practice areas in Forensic Psychology fall
under two broad categories: civil and criminal. Civil
areas of practice typically involve the relationship
between members of the community, and the goal is
not to punish a wrongdoer but to prevent or compen-
sate for a wrong. Examples of civil cases would be
evaluations of custody evaluations and personal injury
350 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V23 N4, DECEMBER 2016
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
evaluations. In contrast, criminal practice typically
involves cases in which it is alleged that criminal laws
have been broken, and the goal is to appropriately
punish the wrongdoer. Examples of Forensic Psychol-
ogy involvement in criminal law would include com-
petency to stand trial evaluations and sanity evaluations,
as well as capital sentencing mitigation.
APA GUIDELINES (DIVISION 41 GUIDELINES)
Because Forensic Psychology encompasses such a vast
array of practice areas, there are a variety of specific
pathways through which psychologists can become
competent and proficient in their specialty area. The
Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APA, 2011)
provide some general guidance regarding the relevant
issue in conducting forensic assessments. The following
is a brief summary of these guidelines:
• Forensic psychologists seek to focus on the legally relevant factors (i.e., they understand and are guided
by relevant legal statutes and case law).
• Forensic practitioners seek the appropriate use of assessment procedures (i.e., they understand the
strengths and limitations of the tests they select as
applied to the relevant forensic issues/populations).
These guidelines state that forensic practitioners also
seek to consider the strengths and limitations of
employing traditional assessment procedures in
forensic examinations.
• Given the stakes involved in forensic contexts, forensic practitioners recognize the need to take spe-
cial care to ensure the integrity and security of test
materials and results.
The guidelines also state that when test score valid-
ity has not been firmly established in a forensic con-
text, the petitioner should seek to describe test score
strengths and limitations and to explain these issues in
the forensic context. This explanation may include the
observation that the context in which the assessments
have been given may warrant adjustments in test score
interpretation.
The guidelines also suggest that forensic psycholo-
gists should
• take into account individual examinee differences, including “situational, personal, linguistic, and
cultural differences that might affect their judge-
ments or reduce the accuracy of their interpreta-
tions” (APA, 2011, p.15);
• take reasonable steps to explain, in an understandable manner, the results of the test to either the examinee
or his or her representative. If this feedback is not pos-
sible, this restriction should be explained in advance;
• document all the data sources they considered as part of the evaluation. Further, this documentation
should be made available based on proper subpoenas
or legal consent; and
• maintain careful and detailed records of the evalua- tion process.
IMPACT OF THE DAUBERT SUPREME COURT DECISION
Psychologists’ involvement in court-related matters has
long been governed, at least in part, by rules regarding
the admissibility of evidence. For over 50 years, this
involvement in federal courts and in many state courts
was governed primarily by the Supreme Court stan-
dard, which was developed out of the Frye v. United
States (1923) ruling. This ruling established that evi-
dence could be admissible if it were based on a tech-
nique or method generally accepted in the field. Thus,
for example, psychologists’ testimony may be found to
be admissible if based on a practice, test, or technique
generally accepted by other psychologists within that
field. For obvious reasons, however, determining what
method is “generally accepted” may be difficult when
applied to a specific test used within a specific context.
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court modified the
admissibility standard in its ruling in the case of Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The Daubert case
involved the admissibility of testimony based on tech-
nical or scientific data. The Supreme Court heard the
case because it felt that there were differences regarding
how lower courts had been determining the proper
standard for admitting expert testimony. The Court
noted that the Frye standard had been superseded by
the Federal Rules of Evidence. Indeed, the Federal
Rules of Evidence have one section for the “ordinary
witness” (701) and one for expert witnesses (702). The
Court noted that the additional requirements in 702
were not surprising given that “an expert is permitted
wide latitude in offering opinions, including those that
are not based on firsthand knowledge or observation.”
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT � ARCHER ET AL. 351
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
They observed that this relaxation of the requirement
for firsthand knowledge, a central part of common law,
is “premised on an assumption that the expert’s opin-
ion will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and
experience of his discipline.” Thus, the Court then
outlined the following guidelines for Rule 702 expert
witness testimony:
. . .If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowl-
edge will assist the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issues, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experi-
ence, training, or education, may testify thereto in
the form of an opinion or otherwise.
The Court also noted that nothing in this rule
specifically required “general acceptance” for admissi-
bility. Therefore, the Court stated, “That austere stan-
dard [Frye], absent from and incompatible with the
Federal Rules of Evidence, should not be applied in
federal trials.” The Court went on to outline the limits
which were put into place by the Rules of Evidence,
including that “any and all scientific testimony or evi-
dence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.”
The justices noted that many factors could benefi-
cially influence a judge’s decision-making process, and
therefore, they were not attempting to create a rigidly
defined checklist or test, but they did provide the fol-
lowing considerations in evaluating admissibility issues:
• Is the evidence/opinion based on a technique or method that has been tested and has established stan-
dards controlling its use and operation?
• Has the theory or technique undergone peer review and publication?
• Does the technique have a known and established error rate?
• Finally, “the general acceptance of a technique” still has a bearing on admissibility of testing, but no
longer serves as the sole or exclusive criterion.
Functionally, the Court developed a flexible stan-
dard to determine admissibility of expert testimony and
opinions. Two crucial Supreme Court cases followed
Daubert. In the 1997 ruling in General Electric Company
v. Joiner and the 1999 ruling in Kumho Tire Company v.
Carmichael, the Supreme Court clarified aspects of the
Daubert ruling regarding the admission of expert wit-
ness and testimony. Generally, criteria for admissibility
under this series of cases support the view that testi-
mony based on psychometrically reliable and valid
instruments, with test conclusions based on empirical
support, is more likely to meet admissibility guidelines
in federal courts and in the numerous states that follow
Daubert criteria.
Goodman-Delahunty (1997) argued that the effects
of Daubert have been to cause forensic psychologists
“to be more explicit about the scientific foundations of
their opinions” (p. 121), and Underwager and Wake-
field (1993) discussed the influence of the Daubert deci-
sion on psychological testimony in an article entitled
“A Paradigm Shift for Expert Witnesses.” A growing
number of articles have reviewed specific psychological
tests such as the MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath, 2012; Sell-
bom, 2012) and MCMI (Rogers, Salekin, & Sewell,
1999) in terms of their ability to meet Daubert criteria,
and there seems little doubt that any test used to form
the basis of an expert’s opinion in court is potentially
subject to review based on Daubert factors.
Many states have adopted the Daubert standard, but
several continue to use Frye or other admissibility crite-
ria. It is incumbent on forensic practitioners to know
which standard their state uses and how it might
impact admissibility of psychological evidence. For pur-
poses of the current article, however, it is most impor-
tant to note that various psychological tests, or
components of tests, have been submitted to a “Daubert
Challenge” or “Daubert Motion,” that is, a hearing
conducted before a judge where validity and admissi-
bility of expert testimony (in this case based on a speci-
fic test or tests) are challenged by opposing counsel as
failing to meet Daubert standards of methodology, relia-
bility, validity, and general acceptance.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE “GENERAL ACCEPTANCE”
OF TESTS USED IN FORENSIC EVALUATIONS?
A growing body of research literature has addressed the
issue of the types of assessment instruments typically
used in a variety of forensic settings. This research is an
important aspect of determining those psychological
tests that are generally accepted by practitioners to
address varied forensic issues, in turn contributing to
identifying tests that are generally accepted within the
352 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V23 N4, DECEMBER 2016
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
field of psychology. We shall review some of the more
prominent of these studies that have focused on the
tests used across a variety of forensic settings, and then
briefly review some of the surveys of assessment instru-
ments used for specific forensic purposes, such as cus-
tody evaluations, violence risk assessment, and criminal
forensic evaluations.
SURVEYS OF TEST USAGE IN GENERAL FORENSIC SETTINGS
Boccaccini and Brodsky (1999) noted that psychologists
have become increasingly involved in forensic assess-
ments. The authors conducted a survey among 80
members of APA Divisions 12 (Clinical) and 40 (Neu-
ropsychology) to evaluate what instruments these prac-
titioners used in emotional injury assessments and to
see whether practitioners used these tests in a manner
consistent with the Daubert (1993) Supreme Court rul-
ing on the admissibility of expert witness testimony.
The 80 psychologists who completed surveys in this
study had conducted over 10,500 emotional injury
evaluations during their career, and listed a total of 67
different assessment instruments they had employed in
emotional injury evaluations during the past year.
However, only 11 of these tests were used by five or
more survey respondents, and no practitioners used
exactly the same combination of tests in their standard
battery for injury evaluations. The five most frequently
employed tests reported in this study included the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
or MMPI-2 (94%), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale–Revised (WAIS-R) or WAIS-III (54%), the Mil- lon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (MCMI-II) or
MCMI-III (Millon, 1994; 50%), the Rorschach Inkblot
Technique (41%), and the Beck Depression Inventory
(31%). The authors noted that respondents indicated
that Daubert-related criteria such as general acceptance
of the test within the field and the presence of inde-
pendent research validation played an important role in
their selection of instruments. However, Boccaccini
and Brodsky (1999) reported that respondents also cited
test selection factors unrelated to the Daubert standard,
such as their personal clinical experience with a partic-
ular test, as popular reasons for test selection. Thus, in
response to the question concerning whether psycholo-
gists selected tests in forensic evaluations based on cri-
teria outlined in the Daubert decision, the authors
concluded, “Our findings indicate that the answer is
yes and no” (p. 257).
Since the survey by Boccaccini and Brodsky (1999),
several other surveys have been conducted on test
usage by psychologists in forensic settings. Table 1 pro-
vides a summary of the results from these studies.
Lally (2003), for example, surveyed 64 diplomates in
Forensic Psychology concerning the frequency with
which they used various tests, and their opinions con-
cerning the acceptability of a wide variety of specific
psychological tests, in six areas of forensic practice,
including mental state at the time of an offense, risk for
future violence, risk for future sexual violence,
Table 1. Result summary of test usage in general forensic settings
Study Sample
Most Frequently Used/Recommended Tests
Boccaccini and Brodsky (1999)
80 APA Division 12 or Division 40 members
MMPI/MMPI-2 (94%) WAIS-R/WAIS-III (54%) MCMI-II/MCMI-III (50%) Rorschach (41%) Beck Depression Inventory (31%)
Lally (2003) 64 Forensic psychology diplomates
MMPI-2 WAIS-III PCL-R Luria-Nebraska Halstead-Reitan
Archer et al. (2006)
152 APA Division 41 members or AAFP diplomates
Cognitive Assessment Wechsler Intelligence Scales
Single-Scale Tests Beck Depression Inventory Beck Anxiety Inventory
Multiscale Tests MMPI-2
Children/Adolescents MMPI-A
Projective Tests Rorschach
Viljoen et al. (2010) 215 psychologists who perform forensic evaluations of adults or children
Wechsler Intelligence Scales (75.3%) MMPI-2/MMPI-A (66%) Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) (Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2003; 35.1%)
MCMI-III or MACI (31.2%) PCL-R or PCL:YV (24.7%)
Austin and Wygant (2012)
284 psychologists conducting forensic evaluations
MMPI-2 (59%) PAI (38%) MMPI-2-RF (29%) MCMI-III (26%) Rorschach (22%)
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT � ARCHER ET AL. 353
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
competency to stand trial, competency to waive Mir-
anda rights, and evaluation of malingering. Archer,
Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, and Handel (2006) evalu-
ated the survey responses of 152 doctoral-level psychol-
ogists who were members of Division 41 (The
American Psychology-Law Society) of the American
Psychological Association or diplomates of the Ameri-
can Academy of Forensic Psychology or both. These
respondents identified themselves as forensic psycholo-
gists, and a majority typically spent over 50% of their
time in forensic practice. Survey respondents were
asked to report their test usage within specific cate-
gories, such as competency to stand trial, custody eval-
uations, and sex offender risk assessments. Further,
survey results were also gathered for specific types of
testing, such as cognitive/intellectual tests, multiscale
inventories, neuropsychological tests, and single-scale
tests. Viljoen, McLachan, and Vincent (2010) con-
ducted a survey of psychologists involved in violence
risk assessments and psychopathy evaluations among
juveniles and adults. Their results were based on 85
psychologists who completed the survey related to
child assessments, and an additional 130 respondents
who had completed the survey related to their evalua-
tions of adults. Austin and Wygant (2012) utilized a
web-based survey of clinicians, including members of
the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS), the
Society for Personality Assessment (SPA), and a Foren-
sic Psychology email listserv. Four hundred seventy-
nine respondents completed the survey, of which 284
reported practicing in one or more forensic areas,
including the categories of competency/sanity evalua-
tions, criminal risk assessment evaluations, and medi-
cal–legal (non-neuropsychological) evaluations.
SURVEYS IN SPECIFIC FORENSIC AREAS
Surveys of tests used in forensic settings have also been
conducted in relation to specific types of evaluations or
areas of practice. For example, in a widely cited survey
of tests used in forensic neuropsychological evaluations,
Lees-Haley, Smith, Williams, and Dunn (1996)
reported that the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales
and the MMPI or MMPI-2 were found to be the two
most popular tests among neuropsychologists, followed
by the Wechsler Memory Scale (Wechsler, 1997), Trail
Making Tests A and B (Army Individual Test Battery,
1944), the Finger Oscillation Test (Halstead, 1947), the
Bender-Gestalt Visual-Motor Test (Bender, 1946), the
Category Test (Halstead, 1947), and the Wisconsin
Card Sorting Test (Berg, 1948). More recent surveys
of forensic neuropsychological test selection have been
provided by Rabin, Barr, and Burton (2005) and
others.
A number of surveys have been conducted regarding
the psychological test instruments used by psychologists
performing parenting capacity evaluations or custody
evaluations (e.g., Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997; Bow
& Quinnell, 2001, 2002). In particular, Bow, Gould,
Flens, and Greenhut (2006) conducted a survey based
on the responses of 87 psychologists regarding their test
selection, usage frequency, and opinions concerning
which psychological tests did, and did not, meet Dau-
bert criteria. The top factors influencing psychologists’
selection of test instruments included the availability of
adequate reliability and validity research, an adequate
normative sample, and the acceptability of the test
within the child custody evaluation field. Specifically,
75% of all respondents rated these factors as being
“highly” important or “extremely” important. The
MMPI-2 received the highest clinician ratings in terms
of being recommended as a test meeting Daubert stan-
dards (95.2%), followed by the Wechsler Adult Intelli-
gence Scale–Third Edition (WAIS-III; 86.1%), the MMPI-A (87.3%), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children-III/IV (Wechsler, 2003; 86.1%), and the Mil-
lon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III;
77.6%). Of these tests, only the MMPI-2 and the
MCMI-III were recommended as meeting Daubert
standards and also reported to be used by the majority
of respondents in custody evaluations. The Personality
Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 2007), the Psy-
chopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991), and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck,
Steer, & Brown, 1996) were all endorsed as meeting
the Daubert standard, but were also more infrequently
used. Notably, the Rorschach technique, administered,
scored, and interpreted with the Exner (1993) Com-
prehensive System, was the only projective personality
measure seen to meet the Daubert standard, although it
received relatively infrequent use in evaluations. The
authors concluded that their findings provided some
preliminary guidance for psychologists in the selection
354 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V23 N4, DECEMBER 2016
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
and usage of psychological testing in child custody
evaluations.
FORENSIC-SPECIFIC TESTS AND CLINICAL ASSESSMENT
INSTRUMENTS
As seen in the survey research reviewed earlier, forensic
evaluators routinely employ standardized assessment
measures. These can include both traditional clinical
assessment measures applied to answer forensic ques-
tions and test instruments specifically designed for use
in forensic evaluations to address a specific psycholegal
issue within a particular population. As noted by Otto
and Heilbrun (2002), there has been a proliferation of
instruments designed specifically to assess psycholegal
capacities, abilities, or knowledge. Such instruments
can enhance the quality of a forensic assessment by
providing standardized assessment procedures and
methods. These tests may serve to reduce examiner
bias or error, and may allow for meaningful compar-
isons over time or between evaluators. These instru-
ments can range from simple, structured, but
nonstandardized interviews regarding the legal issue at
hand, to instruments that are empirically constructed
and validated and have an extensive associated research
base. Forensic assessment instruments are available for
many types of forensic assessment; however, as cau-
tioned by Melton, Petrilla, Poythress, and Slobogin
(2007), valid instruments are not available for many of
the psycholegal questions forensic evaluators are com-
monly asked to address. Therefore, it is necessary for
evaluators to remain well informed on the literature
and psychometric properties of any test they are con-
sidering using in a forensic context.
One example of an instrument designed specifically
for use in forensic evaluations is the MacArthur Com-
petency Assessment Tool for Criminal Adjudication
(MacCAT-CA; Poythress et al., 1999), which is com-
posed of three scales: Understanding, Reasoning, and
Appreciation. The MacCAT-CA uses a hypothetical
case about two men (Fred and Reggie) and their
involvement in a serious assault. Examinees respond to
questions about Fred and Reggie’s case after being pre-
sented with the vignette, and these responses are
scored. Those deemed to have minimal or no impair-
ment show assessed deficits within one standard devia-
tion of a competent normative group. Mild and
clinically significant impairment levels for Understand-
ing and Reasoning are defined by further degrees of
standard deviation. For the Appreciation scale, cutoff
scores were assigned based on clinical reasoning regard-
ing delusional thinking. While it was derived from an
earlier test that assessed decisional competence in treat-
ment, the MacCAT-CA was specifically designed for
individuals involved in the criminal justice system
whose competence to stand trial has been questioned.
The Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment
Scale (R-CRAS; Rogers, 1984) is another example of
an instrument designed solely to address a specific
forensic construct. The R-CRAS is a structured deci-
sion model for quantifying psychological variables rele-
vant to the retrospective evaluation of insanity. It was
specifically validated to address the American Law
Institute (ALI) insanity standard, which requires an
assessment of a defendant’s cognitive and volitional
impairment at the time of the alleged offense. In addi-
tion, the R-CRAS provides clinical data relevant to
the M’Naghten insanity standard. The R-CRAS com-
bines an evaluation of general diagnostic categories
with an assessment of cognitive and volitional abilities
at the time of the offense. Thirty items are scored in
gradated severity against an anchor construct, and three
rationally constructed scales evaluate Patient Reliability,
Organicity, and Psychiatric Disorders. Finally, two
scales assess Cognitive Control and Behavioral Control.
The R-CRAS was designed to standardize clinical
judgments made regarding a legal construct that does
not readily link to traditional bodies of knowledge on
human behavior such as psychiatric diagnoses.
The array of available forensic assessment instru-
ments is wide-ranging. For example, the Inwald Per-
sonality Inventory (Inwald, 1992) was developed to
assess police officer candidates for behaviors and emo-
tional issues that might negatively affect their perfor-
mance as police officers. Instruments also include
measures of parenting capacity, daily decision making,
and competency to manage health-care decisions (e.g.,
MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treat-
ment; Grisso, 1998). Forensic assessment instruments
are perhaps most commonly seen in adult criminal
court settings and are more prevalent in the area of
competency to stand trial (e.g., Fitness Interview Test– Revised, Roesch, Zapf, & Eaves, 2006; and Evaluation
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT � ARCHER ET AL. 355
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
of Competence to Stand Trial–Revised, Rogers, Till- brook, & Sewell, 2004), although measures also exist
for other areas of criminal forensic assessment (e.g.,
Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments; Gold-
stein, Zelle, & Grisso, 2011).
There are both advantages and disadvantages to the
use of forensic assessment instruments. One clear
advantage is the ability to assess a circumscribed area of
legal concern. This allows the evaluator, if necessary,
to attend to the issue of interest to the court in a more
focused manner. In addition, most such tests have nor-
mative data available from forensic populations, which
allows for individual comparison with appropriate nor-
mative groups. Some tests have also developed an inde-
pendent body of research that allows a forensic
evaluator to testify with increased confidence regarding
the strengths and limitations of test findings. As noted
by Melton et al. (2007), many forensic assessment
instruments are also more likely than clinical assessment
instruments to be face valid in reference to the legal
issue at hand, which may cause them to be viewed as
more comprehensible by examinees.
However, many specialized forensic tests have a very
limited research literature, and their reliability and valid-
ity are therefore not always well understood. As Otto
and Heilbrun (2002) have noted, numerous instruments
have been marketed without adequate research and
development. Some tests have been published after con-
ducting only minimal research, and occasionally pub-
lished in the absence of a comprehensive test manual.
Even some of the more popular instruments, for exam-
ple, those designed to assess competence to stand trial,
have demonstrated mixed research findings, in particular
regarding their construct validity. Many of the less com-
monly used instruments have little independent research
associated with them, thus severely limiting the confi-
dence with which hypotheses can be established and test
inferences can be drawn. Another potential disadvantage
is the temptation to substitute a single narrowly focused
instrument (such as one that measures constructs rele-
vant to competence to stand trial) for a multimethod
approach that also includes nonquantitative methods.
Thus, the potential benefits of forensic assessment
instruments (especially their overt relevance to psy-
cholegal constructs) can also contribute to results being
misused or misconstrued.
Although forensic assessment instruments have pro-
liferated rapidly, traditional clinical assessment instru-
ments continue to play an integral role in forensic
evaluations. The surveys we reviewed earlier have
demonstrated that instruments such as the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al., 2001), the Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory–Third Edition (MCMI-III; Millon, Millon, Davis, & Grossman, 1997), and the Wechsler Intelli-
gence Scales are all frequently used in forensic evalua-
tions, while more and more research has provided
support for the appropriate use of these instruments in
forensic contexts. As this literature cautions, however,
these tests were developed for clinical rather than
forensic purposes, and thus applying them in a different
context requires careful consideration of contextual
variables, and awareness of the guidance provided by
research findings. In contrast to forensic assessment
instruments, the traditional clinical tests most com-
monly used in forensic evaluations tend to have better-
established reliability and validity based on a more
extensive body of research. For example, there is very
extensive research on forensic applications of the
MMPI-2 (e.g., Pope, Butcher, & Seelen, 2006), as well
as many neuropsychological tests and, to a lesser
degree, instruments such as the MCMI-III (e.g.,
McCann & Dyer, 1996) and the Rorschach (e.g.,
Gacono & Evans, 2008).
Traditional clinical assessment tools may be of bene-
fit in forensic assessment due in part to features such as
validity indicators, which can be particularly helpful for
evaluating response style and defensiveness. Clinical
measures can also provide a broad understanding of
multiple areas of functioning, for evaluations in which
an overall assessment of functioning in multiple
domains may be helpful. In addition, a particular
advantage to the use of traditional clinical assessment
instruments is the well-established reliability and valid-
ity data available for these tests.
Despite the ever-deepening research support for
forensic applications of traditional clinical assessment
instruments, there are inherent challenges associated
with using them for this purpose. First, these tests were
not designed for forensic purposes but rather for diag-
nostic and treatment planning purposes in therapeutic
settings, and relatively few of them have appropriate
356 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V23 N4, DECEMBER 2016
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
forensic norms or comparison groups. The most rele-
vant question in many forensic evaluations may not be
the extent to which an individual’s scores differ from
the normative population, but rather the extent to
which an individual’s responses differ from a specific
comparison population. For example, to what extent
does this police officer applicant’s test results differ
from those typically found in this population, or to
what extent does this parent’s test scores differ from
those produced by other parents in custody evalua-
tions? In addition, the available research addressing
forensic applications of traditional clinical assessment
instruments varies significantly depending on the indi-
vidual test.
As noted by Melton et al. (2007), another challenge
associated with traditional clinical tests is that the results
are best viewed as hypotheses, with refinement and
confirmation to occur over time and with additional
data. In forensic contexts, where examinee contact may
be limited, hypothesis evaluation may require extensive
third-party or archival information. In addition, the
typical computer-generated reports associated with
many such tests are ripe for misuse in the courtroom
setting, where results can easily be taken out of con-
text. On the other hand, this challenge related to the
brief examinee contact that often occurs in forensic
assessment may also be viewed as an advantage in that
forensic evaluators obtain much more extensive inde-
pendent data concerning their examinee from sources
such as medical and legal records and collateral inter-
views. These sources of information can often prove
more useful in testing hypotheses than the data gener-
ated from the more extensive self-report information
provided by the examinee across repeated contacts in
typical clinical settings.
WHAT EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED CHARACTERISTICS ARE
IMPORTANT IN EVALUATING FORENSIC TESTS?
In this section, we will discuss the broad characteristics
of empirically supported forensic assessment instru-
ments, noting at the onset that the features sought in
tests used in evaluation are generally similar to those
required for any clinical assessment test, for example,
evidence of adequate standardization, reliability, and
validity. However, the specific standards used for estab-
lishing these characteristics in forensic testing may, at
points, differ from those required of general clinical
assessment instruments. We will, therefore, propose
five criteria that we believe to be particularly useful in
evaluating the empirical support of forensic tests:
• The first characteristic required of an empirically supported forensic test is that the test has adequate
standardization. By this term, we mean a clear speci-
fication of the conditions under which the test is to
be administered, scored, and interpreted, typically
provided in a comprehensive test manual. The test-
ing manual should also clarify the required test user
qualifications, test administration instructions, and
available scoring methods. The goal of this type of
standardization is to ensure, as much as possible, that
individual scores on the instrument actually reflect
differences on the traits or characteristics being mea-
sured, and are unrelated to the particular examiner
characteristics or geographic circumstances of the
evaluation. While this goal is, of course, an ideal that
is not entirely achievable, adequate standardization
does minimize the extent to which the test scores
produced by an instrument reflect characteristics
such as error variation due to differences in adminis-
tration, scoring, or interpretation procedures.
• A second characteristic important in the evaluation of tests used in a forensic context is established evi-
dence in peer-reviewed journals of acceptable levels
of reliability and validity in test scores when the test
is used for forensic purposes. This criterion includes
data relevant to establishing the error rate of the
instrument, which may be expressed as a standard
error of measurement and/or in terms of sensitivity
and specificity in predicting an individual’s member-
ship in forensically relevant groups, for example,
correctly identifying individuals who do and do not
have a high risk of sexual offense recidivism. Evi-
dence of reliability, of course, would also include
indices of situational stability across time for tests
measuring trait characteristics (e.g., test–retest relia- bility) as well as internal consistency measures such
as alpha coefficient reliability estimates for tests
focused on more homogeneous constructs. In this
latter regard, a forensic test would be considered
reliable if the coefficient measures demonstrate that
items are measuring a single or homogeneous
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT � ARCHER ET AL. 357
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
variable. Further, factors influencing this type of
internal reliability include the test length, homo-
geneity of the target population, and the standard
error of measurement of test scores. Validity, on the
other hand, refers to the extent to which a test use-
fully measures the construct or trait it was designed
to evaluate. There are several kinds of test validity,
including face validity (the extent to which test
items appear appropriate to the individual taking the
test), content validity (the extent to which items in
the test sample the relevant domain of interest), and
criteria-related validity (the extent to which the test
score produces evidence of concurrent and predic-
tive validity). Concurrent validity estimates are pro-
duced when test scores and external criteria
measures are evaluated at the same time and may be
divided into convergent and discriminant validity,
that is, the degree to which test scores are strongly
related to other measures of the same construct, and
the degree that test scores differ substantially from
scores obtained on measures of unrelated constructs,
respectively. The concept of discriminant validity is
often of particular importance in forensic testing.
For example, test scores that are elevated in the
presence of PTSD-related symptoms, but also ele-
vated as a result of symptoms related to many other
disorders, are of little etiological or diagnostic value
in diagnosing PTSD. The concept of predictive
validity is based on circumstances in which test
scores are obtained, and the individual’s performance
on relevant criteria is evaluated at some later date.
All of these measures of reliability and validity may
be seen as establishing a known error rate for a test,
that is, the degree to which the accumulated body
of research on the test establishes the scores is use-
fully measuring the target trait or characteristic ver-
sus the extent to which test scores reflect variance
due to sources of error unrelated to the trait or con-
struct of interest.
• A third characteristic of particular importance in evaluating forensic tests involves the “general accep-
tance within the field” criterion retained within the
Daubert Supreme Court decision. In this regard, the
results of the numerous surveys that have been con-
ducted concerning tests used for forensic purposes,
as well as surveys that have specifically solicited the
opinions of forensic psychologists regarding instru-
ments that meet Daubert standards (e.g., Bow et al.,
2006), are particularly relevant in addressing this cri-
terion.
• The fourth characteristic of empirically supported forensic testing relates to the importance of cross-
cultural or cross-ethnic evaluations of the forensic
test to provide evidence concerning the extent to
which test scores might be expected to vary as a
result of cultural or ethnic differences. Perhaps more
importantly, this issue also includes the extent to
which test results require a different interpretation
approach because test correlates have been shown to
vary as a function of cultural or ethnic factors. For
example, do the test scores of individuals evaluated
within a criminal context, including such issues as
competency to stand trial and sanity evaluations,
show evidence of systemic bias related to the racial,
ethnic, or cultural background of the examinee?
Further, evidence about cross-cultural stability is also
critically important in forensic instruments that may
be used in noncriminal evaluations such as personal
injury litigation, parenting capacity, or custody
evaluations. To what extent, for example, is an
MMPI-2 or MCMI-III evaluation of a Chinese-
born immigrant mother in a U.S.-based custody
evaluation likely to be influenced by cultural factors
in that individual’s background? The size of the
research literatures on this topic shows enormous
variability across test instruments, with a relatively
massive research literature spanning 50 years on
cross-cultural and cross-national influences on
MMPI and MMPI-2 test scores, to much more lim-
ited data available for more recent test instruments
and more specialized test instruments.
• The fifth and final factor proposed as a criterion for evaluating the empirical support for forensic tests
relates to the extent to which comparison or norma-
tive data are available to help interpret test scores in
the forensic population for which the test is being
employed. For example, if a self-report multiscale
inventory is being used to evaluate an individual in
a custody litigation context, are there comparison
data available through which to establish the typical
or mean performance of other individuals in this
context (beyond the data generated from the
358 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V23 N4, DECEMBER 2016
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
nonclinical normative sample)? Further, what do we
know about the typical or mean profile characteris-
tics of personal injury litigants for a given multiscale
inventory? For many forensic tests, particularly those
designed for a specific forensic purpose, comparison
data are readily available for forensic populations of
interest. In contrast, many clinical assessment instru-
ments that have been extended for use in forensic
populations vary widely in terms of the availability
of adequate comparison group data. Among the bet-
ter instruments in this latter regard, the MMPI-2-RF
Technical Manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008)
provides comparison data from large samples of men
and women in various forensic settings, including
criminal defendants, prison inmates, personal injury
and disability claimants, and child custody litigants.
EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED TESTS USED IN FORENSIC
ASSESSMENT SETTINGS
A key characteristic required of empirically supported
forensic tests is adequate standardization. Based on this
criterion alone, it is possible to eliminate a number of
popularly used assessment techniques, including a vari-
ety of sentence completion tests, projective drawings
tests, and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). In
contrast, tests that exemplify a desirable degree of stan-
dardization include the various forms of the MMPI
(MMPI-2, MMPI-2-RF, and MMPI-A) and the
Wechsler Intelligence Scales. The Wechsler Intelligence
Scales, for example, present standardization samples for
these instruments that are large and diverse. The test
manuals for both the adult and child versions of the
Wechsler Intelligence Scales clearly specify the condi-
tions under which tests are to be administered, scored,
and interpreted, and the specific methods for doing so.
The testing manual provides clear administration and
scoring instructions that ensure a highly standardized
testing experience and scoring process for all exami-
nees. The required test user qualifications are also
clearly described. In addition, there are clear standards
of measurement error to assist the forensic evaluator in
appropriately framing results. The test does have appli-
cability limits with the forensic population (as it does
with any population), and the forensic evaluator should
be acutely aware, for example, of its limitations with
color-blind individuals, those with vision or hearing
impairments, or those with a history of traumatic brain
injury. On the whole, however, the Wechsler scales
provide a highly standardized approach to assessing the
intelligence construct in a diverse range of children and
adults.
A second desirable characteristic in the evaluation of
forensic tests is evidence of acceptable levels of reliabil-
ity and validity as established in research studies pub-
lished in peer-reviewed journals. While numerous
instruments could be used to illustrate acceptable levels
of reliability and validity, the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory–Adolescent (MMPI-A) was selected for purposes of this article because of the dom-
inance of this test among self-report instruments used
with adolescents. Baum, Archer, Forbey, and Handel
(2009) reviewed the literature on the MMPI-A and
identified 277 articles, books, chapters, dissertations,
and monographs published on this test between the
time of its release in 1992 until 2007. As a point of
comparison, the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory
(MACI), the second most frequently investigated
objective self-report measure for adolescents, produced
84 publications or dissertations across the same 15-year
time frame. The information provided in this body of
literature has clearly established the test–retest reliabil- ity, internal consistency, and factor structure of the
MMPI-A, in addition to providing extensive correlate
information for MMPI-A scales in normal settings, as
well as in clinical and forensic settings. The standard
error measurements for the MMPI-A clinical scales
have been well documented to typically fall within a
range of 2–3 raw score points or 5 T-score points. While Hathaway and McKinley (1943) did not develop
the original form of the MMPI with the specific inten-
tion of utilizing this test in forensic evaluations, there
have been extensive studies conducted with the
MMPI-2 and MMPI-A in forensic settings sufficient to
establish the usefulness of the extension of these tests
for forensic evaluations. Indeed, the first study of the
MMPI in a juvenile offender population was con-
ducted by Capwell (1945a, 1945b), who examined the
effectiveness of scale Pd in accurately identifying delin-
quent and nondelinquent adolescents. The extensive
literature on the use of the MMPI-A in forensic set-
tings has been summarized in Archer (2005), who
noted that the MMPI-A has been used with
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT � ARCHER ET AL. 359
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
adolescents in the assessment of emotional damages
related to personal injury litigation, child custody eval-
uations, evaluations of sexually abused adolescents, and
presentencing and postsentencing evaluations of adoles-
cents in the juvenile justice system.
Baum et al. (2009) noted that of the 277 publica-
tions and dissertations on the MMPI-A between 1992
and 2007, 28 publications and 26 dissertations were in
the forensic area. These studies, for example, have
established the validity of the MMPI-A in predicting
external correlates among male juvenile delinquents
(Archer, Bolinskey, Morton, & Farris, 2003), boys and
girls referred for court-ordered predispositional evalua-
tions (Handel, Archer, Elkins, Mason, & Simonds-Bis-
bee, 2011), male adolescent sex offenders (Freeman,
Dexter-Mazza, & Hoffman, 2005), and incarcerated
adolescent substance abusers (Stein & Graham, 2005).
The mean and standard deviations typically found for
the MMPI-A in juvenile justice samples, as reflected
from the findings of 14 studies, were also reported in
Baum et al. (2009). These latter authors concluded that
testimony based on the MMPI-A is likely to meet the
guidelines established under Daubert for the admissibil-
ity of evidence.
As previously noted, a third characteristic of particu-
lar importance in evaluating forensic tests involves the
“general acceptance within the field” criterion as origi-
nally established in Frye, and subsequently retained
within the expanded guidelines in the Daubert Supreme
Court decision. Numerous instruments would clearly
meet this standard, such as the Psychopathy Checklist– Revised (PCL-R) in the measurement of psychopathy,
the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-
III) in the assessment of personality disorders, the Test
of Malingered Memory (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996),
and the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms
(SIR-S; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992) in the
assessment of malingering. It is our belief that the Per-
sonality Assessment Inventory (PAI) offers an interest-
ing example of a relatively new self-report inventory
that has become increasingly popular in forensic evalu-
ations. Much of the earlier survey research regarding
the most commonly used tests in forensic evaluations
was conducted when the PAI was still quite new, and
it was therefore not commonly cited among the most
popular tests for forensic work. However, the PAI has
quickly become popular in forensic and correctional
settings, perhaps in part due to its shorter length in
comparison with other instruments such as the MMPI-
2 (e.g., Piotrowski, 2007). This gave rise to a great deal
of independent research on the validity of the PAI with
forensic populations, with generally favorable results
(e.g., Douglas, Hart, & Kropp, 2001; Edens, Cruise, &
Buffington-Vollum, 2001). Its continued popularity,
combined with strong research support from highly
esteemed members of the forensic research community,
lends it the credibility to now be viewed as generally
accepted in the field.
The fourth characteristic of empirically supported
forensic tests relates to the availability of empirical
data supporting the cross-cultural or cross-ethnic use
of a forensic instrument. While several widely used
tests have an extensive literature in this regard, it is
doubtful that any assessment measure can currently
rival the extensive research literature that has been
developed on cross-cultural, cross-ethnic, and cross-
national characteristics of the MMPI and MMPI-2.
The MMPI and MMPI-2 have been extensively stud-
ied among American minority populations, with sub-
stantial data available regarding African American (e.g.,
Arbisi, Ben-Porath, & McNulty, 2002), Asian Ameri-
can (e.g., Dong & Church, 2003), and Hispanic
American (e.g., Butcher, Cabiya, Lucio, & Garrido,
2007) respondents. Indeed, Zapata, Kreuch, Landers,
Hoyt, and Butcher (2009) state that “strong support
for the use of American norms to assess Latino clients
living in the United States has been provided by a
number of studies.” Further, several studies have
addressed the issue of response patterns found among
American Indians (e.g., Greene, Robin, Albaugh,
Caldwell, & Goldman, 2003; Tinius & Ben-Porath,
1993). Several books have been dedicated to the pro-
cess of developing international adaptations of the
MMPI-2 and the research in that area (e.g., Butcher,
1996). Butcher (2011) reviewed some of the high-
lights in the cross-cultural research on the MMPI and
MMPI-2, which goes back as far as the 1940s, when
the items began being translated for use in other
countries (e.g., Italy, Cuba, Germany, and Norway, to
name a few of the early translations). Indeed, in 1957,
Nencini and Banissoni published an official version of
the MMPI, along with norms, for use in Italy.
360 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V23 N4, DECEMBER 2016
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Further, by the late 1950s, translations were also being
developed for Asian countries (e.g., Japan in 1959 and
Korea in 1963). Today, the MMPI-2 has been translated
into 32 foreign languages, and many of the MMPI-2 test
translations have been carefully evaluated in terms of test
equivalency with the English-language form of the
MMPI-2.
The fifth and final criterion proposed for establish-
ing a forensic test as empirically supported involves the
availability of comparison data to evaluate test scores in
relation to a specific forensic population for which the
test is employed. For example, as previously noted, the
MMPI-2-RF, a broad-gauge measure of psychopathol-
ogy normed on a sample of normal individuals, has a
variety of comparison groups to support its use in pop-
ulations of personal injury claimants, custody evaluation
litigants, and prison populations. Among tests designed
to address a specific forensic issue, the STATIC-99
(and STATIC-99R, the more recent revision of this
test) is an actuarial instrument designed to assess the
probability that a male sex offender will commit
another sex offense following his release. The STA-
TIC-99, developed by Hanson and Thorton (1999), is
the most widely used sex offender risk assessment
instrument in the world. Their database used in pre-
dicting risk of recidivism incorporated large samples of
male sex offenders from North America, Europe, New
Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Another outstand-
ing example of forensic-specific norms is the Mas-
sachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Version 2 (MAYSI-2) by Grisso and Barnum (2000), which is a
52-item self-report questionnaire used to screen for
emerging mental health disorders in youth (ages 12– 17 years) at intake into the juvenile justice system.
Normative data are available for the MAYSI-2 based
on a combined sample of 70,695 youths from juvenile
justice systems in 19 states, representing over 200 agen-
cies, including detention, corrections, and intake pro-
bation agencies.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The area of forensic assessment is a quickly growing
and crucial area of Forensic Psychology. The practice
of Forensic Psychology is guided by several sources,
including the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psy-
chology (2011) and the legal standards that provide
practice guidelines in relevant federal and state statutes
and case law. One of these legal standards is the Dau-
bert (1993) decision by the Supreme Court, which
helped to provide guidance to judges regarding what
types of testimony (and by extension, assessment mea-
sures) may be admissible in court.
One of the main ways of establishing whether a test
meets the standard of general acceptance within the
field may be based on the results of practitioner sur-
veys regarding test usage. Research from a variety of
studies has indicated that there is a core group of tests
that are commonly used and recommended by psy-
chologists in forensic settings. However, while these
surveys may establish that a test is commonly used for
a particular evaluation purpose, this does not, by itself,
necessarily indicate that those tests meet other criteria
that might be established for empirically supported
tests. In terms of these criteria, the authors have rec-
ommended five key guidelines or criteria that they
consider when determining whether a test meets the
criteria necessary for designation as an empirically sup-
ported test used in forensic evaluations. Numerous tests
appear on the cusp of being empirically supported, and
additional focused research could help to clarify and
aid practitioners in making informed choices regarding
the composition of their assessment batteries.
While the guidelines in this article may provide a
helpful framework for evaluating the usefulness of these
new measures, the establishment of a national review
panel or workgroup to review research findings and
offer well-documented recommendations concerning
which tests do, and do not, provide sufficient evidence
to be classified as empirically supported forensic tests
could be very useful to practitioners in the field. This
type of approach would be similar to the evidence-
based treatment panels that have been established in
medicine, psychotherapy, and numerous other fields to
review the empirical research literature on treatment
effectiveness and offer conclusions and recommenda-
tions. Given the potentially contentious nature of eval-
uating test instruments for this purpose, it would be
essential to the credibility of such a group that it be
composed of a membership representative of Forensic
Psychology and assessment psychology professional
groups and organizations, and independent of the influ-
ence of commercial interests.
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT � ARCHER ET AL. 361
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
REFERENCES
Ackerman, J. M. (1999). Essentials of forensic psychological
assessment. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. C. (1997). Custody
evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals
(revisited). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28,
137–145. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.28.2.137 American Psychological Association. (2011). Specialty
guidelines for forensic psychology. Retrieved from http://
www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology.pdf
Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath, Y., & McNulty, J. (2002). A
comparison of MMPI-2 validity in African American and
Caucasian psychiatric inpatients. Psychological Assessment.,
14(1), 3–15. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.3 Archer, R. P. (2005). MMPI-A: Assessing adolescent
psychopathology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Archer, R. P., Bolinskey, P. K., Morton, T. L., & Farris, K.
L. (2003). MMPI-A characteristics of male adolescents in
juvenile justice and clinical treatment settings. Assessment,
10, 400–410. doi:10.1177/1073191103256128 Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., &
Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test
use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 87(1), 84–94. doi:10.1207/ s15327752jpa8701_07
Army Individual Test Battery. (1944). Manual of directions
and scoring. Washington, DC: War Department, Adjutant
General’s Office.
Austin, K., & Wygant, D. B. (2012). A survey of adult
personality and psychopathology test usage. Poster presented at
the Kentucky Psychological Association Spring Academic
Conference, Lexington, KY.
Baum, L. J., Archer, R. P., Forbey, J. D., & Handel, R. W.
(2009). A review of the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory–Adolescent (MMPI-A) and the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI) with an
emphasis on juvenile justice samples. Assessment, 16,
384–400. doi:10.1177/1073191109338264 Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual
for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Bender, L. (1946). Instructions for the use of visual motor
Gestalt test: Cards and manual of instructions. Denver,
CO: American Orthopsychiatric Association.
Ben-Porath, Y. (2012). Addressing challenges to MMPI-2-RF-
based testimony: Questions and answers. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 27, 691–705. doi:10.1093/arclin/acs083 Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for
measuring flexibility in thinking. Journal of General
Psychology, 39, 15–22. doi:10.1080/00221309.1948. 9918159
Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Diagnostic test
usage by forensic psychologists in emotional injury cases.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 253–259. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.30.3.253
Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2003). Manual for the
Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY).
Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
Bow, J. N., Gould, J. W., Flens, J. R., & Greenhut, D.
(2006). Testing in child custody evaluations—Selection, usage, and Daubert admissibility: A survey of
psychologists. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6,
17–38. doi:10.1300/J158v06n02_02 Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2001). Psychologists’ current
practices and procedures in child custody evaluations: Five
years post American Psychological Association guidelines.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 261–268. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.32.3.261
Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2002). A critical review of
child custody evaluation reports. Family Court Review, 40,
164–176. doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.2002.tb00827.x Butcher, J. N. (1996). International adaptations of the MMPI-2:
Research and clinical applications. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N. (2011). A beginner’s guide to the MMPI-2 (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Butcher, J. N., Cabiya, J., Lucio, E. M., & Garrido, M.
(2007). Assessing Hispanic clients using the MMPI-2 and
MMPI-A. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/11585-000
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen,
A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation (rev. ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Capwell, D. F. (1945a). Personality patterns of adolescent
girls: I. Girls who show improvement in IQ. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 29, 212–228. doi:10.1037/h0062853 Capwell, D. F. (1945b). Personality patterns of adolescent
girls: II. Delinquents and non-delinquents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 29, 284–297. doi:10.1037/h0054701 Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786
(1993).
Dong, Y. L. T., & Church, A. T. (2003). Cross-cultural
equivalence and validity of the Vietnamese MMPI-2:
Assessing psychological adjustment of Vietnamese
refugees. Psychological Assessment, 15, 370–377. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.370
362 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V23 N4, DECEMBER 2016
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Douglas, K. A., Hart, S. D., & Kropp, P. R. (2001). Validity
of the Personality Assessment Inventory for forensic
assessments. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 45, 183–197. doi:10.1177/ 0306624X01452005
Edens, J. F., Cruise, K. R., & Buffington-Vollum, J. K.
(2001). Forensic and correctional applications of the
Personality Assessment Inventory. Behavioral Sciences and
the Law, 19, 519–543. doi:10.1002/bsl.457 Exner, J. E. (1993). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system:
Vol. 1. Basic foundations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Freeman, K. A., Dexter-Mazza, E. T., & Hoffman, K. C.
(2005). Comparing personality characteristics of juvenile
sex offenders and non-sex offending delinquent peers: A
preliminary investigation. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research
and Treatment, 17, 3–12. doi:10.1177/1524838006292519 Frye v. United States, 392 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Gacono, C. L., & Evans, L. A. (2008). The handbook of
forensic Rorschach assessment. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
General Electric Company v. Joiner, 118 S. Ct. 512 (1997).
Goldstein, N. E., Zelle, H., & Grisso, T. (2011). The Miranda
Rights Comprehension Instruments-II. Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Press.
Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1997). Forensic psychological
expertise in the wake of Daubert. Law and Human Behavior,
21, 121–140. doi:10.1023/A:1024874228425 Greene, R. L., Robin, R. W., Albaugh, B., Caldwell, A., &
Goldman, D. (2003). Use of the MMPI-2 in American
Indians: II. Empirical correlates. Psychological Assessment,
15, 360–369. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.360 Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluations of juveniles. Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Exchange.
Grisso, T., & Barnum, R. (2000). Massachusetts Youth
Screening Instrument-2nd version. Worcester, MA: University
of Massachusetts Medical School.
Halstead, W. C. (1947). Brain and intelligence: A quantitative
study of the frontal lobes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Handel, R. W., Archer, R. P., Elkins, D. E., Mason, J. A.,
& Simonds-Bisbee, E. C. (2011). Psychometric properties
of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-
Adolescent (MMPI-A) clinical, content, and
supplementary scales in a forensic sample. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 93, 566–581. doi:10.1080/ 00223891.2011.608752
Hanson, R. K., & Thorton, D. (1999). Static-99: Improving
actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders. Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathology Checklist-
Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (rev ed.). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Huss, M. (2009). Forensic psychology: Research, clinical practice,
and applications. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Inwald, R. E. (1992). Inwald Personality Inventory technical
manual (revised). New York, NY: Hilton Research.
Jenkins v. United States, 307 F. 2d 637 (1962).
Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in
forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491–498. doi:10.1037/ 0735-7028.34.5.491
Lees-Haley, P. R., Smith, H. H., Williams, C. W., & Dunn,
J. T. (1996). Forensic neuropsychological test usage: An
empirical survey. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11(1),
45–51. doi:10.1016/0887-6177(95)00011-9 McCann, J., & Dyer, F. J. (1996). Forensic assessment with the
Millon inventories. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Melton, G. B., Petrilla, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C.
(2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for
mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Millon, T. (1994). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III:
manual. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessment.
Millon, T., Millon, C., Davis, R., & Grossman, S. (1997).
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III manual (4th ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessment.
Morey, L. C. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory
professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Nencini, R., & Banissoni, P. (1957). MMPI (former ridotta):
Edizona Italiana [MMPI short form: Italian edition].
Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Otto, R., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic
psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past.
American Psychologist, 57, 5–18. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.1.5 Piotrowski, C. (2007). Forensic psychological testing as a
function of affiliation and organizational setting.
Organization Development Journal, 25, 94–98. Pope, H. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (2006). The MMPI,
MMPI-2, and MMPI-A in court: A practical guide for expert
witnesses and attorneys (3rd ed.). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Poythress, N., Nicholson, R., Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F.,
Bonnie, R. J., Monahan, J., & Hoge, S. K. (1999). The
MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal
Adjudication: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT � ARCHER ET AL. 363
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Rabin, L. A., Barr, W. B., & Burton, L. A. (2005).
Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the
United States and Canada: A survey of INS, NAN, and
APA Division 40 members. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 20, 33–65. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2004.02.005 Roesch, R., Zapf, P. A., & Eaves, D. (2006). Fitness Interview
Test-Revised: A structural interview for assessing competency to
stand trial. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Rogers, R. (1984). Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment
Scales (R-CRAS). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Dickens, S. E. (1992).
Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and
professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Rogers, R., Salekin, R. T., & Sewell, K. W. (1999).
Validation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory for
Axis II disorders: Does it meet the Daubert standard? Law
and Human Behavior, 23, 425–443. doi:10.1023/ A:1022360031491
Rogers, R., Tillbrook, C. E., & Sewell, K. W. (2004).
ECST-R: Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial–Revised: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Sellbom, M. (2012). The MMPI-2-RF is ready for the
Daubert challenge: Evidence, implications, and
recommendations for use in court testimony. Journal of
Psychological Practice, 17, 151–179. Stein, L. A. R., & Graham, J. R. (2005). Ability of substance
abusers to escape detection on the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A) in a juvenile
correctional facility. Assessment, 12, 28–39. doi:10.1177/ 1073191104270838
Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Restructured Form
(MMPI-2-RF) technical manual. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Tinius, T., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1993). A comparative study of
Native and Caucasian Americans undergoing substance abuse
treatment. Twenty-Eighth Annual Symposium on Recent
Developments in the MMPI-2/MMPI-A, St. Petersburg, FL.
Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). The test of memory malingering.
Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Underwager, R., & Wakefield, H. (1993). A paradigm shift
for expert witnesses. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 5(3),
156–167. Vaccaro, T. P., & Hogan, J. D. (2004). The origins of
forensic psychology in America: Hugo M€unsterberg on
the witness stand. New York State Psychologist, 16, 14–17. Viljoen, J. L., McLachan, K., & Vincent, G. M. (2010).
Assessing violence risk and psychopathy in juvenile and
adult offenders: A survey of clinical practices. Assessment,
17, 377–395. doi:10.1177/1073191109359587 Wechsler, D. (1997). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. (3rd
ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. (4th
ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Zapata, A., Kreuch, T., Landers, R. N., Hoyt, T., &
Butcher, J. N. (2009). Personality assessment in personnel
settings using the MMPI-2: A cross-cultural comparison.
International Journal of Clinical Health and Psychology, 9,
287–298. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/ articulo.oa?id=33712028007
Received January 12, 2016; revised May 3, 2016; accepted
May 3, 2016.
364 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V23 N4, DECEMBER 2016
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
