Skip to main content

Eliminating bias in forensic psychology

Vivan Sharma    

When one talks about psychology in the context of aiding justice in the court, several names come to mind. Be it either through the highly sensationalized cases of infamous murderers and sex-offenders like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, or fictional felons in hit TV shows like ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ or ‘Criminal Minds’, forensic psychology has definitely made its mark.

Defined as a “specialty in professional psychology characterized by activities primarily intended to provide professional psychological expertise within the judicial and legal systems” (APA), forensic psychology aims to disseminate the subtleties of the human mind to provide a clearer picture of the case in question. Not only does it shed light on how criminals think and act, the behaviors of witnesses, victims and first responders also fall within its ambit.

However, while the field itself is very well known, lesser so are the tools it uses for psychological assessments. Neal et al. (2019), conducted a study on 364 such tools used by experienced forensic mental health practitioners across 22 surveys in the US. They found two disturbing results. The first was that tools which are either not generally accepted or do not have favorable reviews regarding their technical validity in peer-review journals like the Mental Measurements Yearbook are widely used. While 90% of the surveyed methods had been empirically tested, only 67% were regarded as ‘generally-accepted’, and only 40% received favorable feedback for the scientific basis they used for judging psychometric properties from fellow experts.

Clearly, this is highly problematic. Having this much variation in methods of assessment leaves too much room for individual interpretation. Moreover, if the foundation of these tools isn’t solid to begin with, how accurate could their diagnoses be? Therefore, in order to maximize precision, there should be a uniform set of tools for all forensic psychologists to adhere to.

One might say that there already do exist some standard procedural tools. Therein lies another latent problem. Lees-Haley et al. (1996), found that up to 32 different tests were used in forensic adult personal injury evaluations, from reports of 100 neuropsychological experts. The most frequently used was the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R), while the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) /MMPI-2 came second. Neal and Grisso (2014) also collected data on structured assessment tools used to aid expert judgment. They asked forensic examiners to recall the tools they used in their last two cases (N = 434 experts, 868 cases). Not only did they find an extreme variation in the toolsets used (268), but also that clinical instruments were used very often. MMPI was used most frequently for personality assessment, Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) for violence risk assessments, and so on.

Using clinical psychological tools here may not be optimal. Even though they are psychometrically sound and are backed by research, they are not meant for forensic settings. One cannot use tools indiscriminately; they were made for specific contexts and have to be adapted accordingly. “Forensic psychiatrists applying the results of such measures in forensic settings are making a big assumption: that the scores mean the same thing that they mean in the clinic” (Archer and Wheeler, 2015). In order to use these tools, they must first be validated in the legal context.  

The second part of Neal et al.’s (2019) study found that evidence given by forensic psychologists is rarely challenged. Only 5.1% of the cases in the sample set had had some form of doubt cast on the same. Out of that, only one-third of the challenges succeeded. If psychological evidence is given so much weight, the greater the responsibility of the expert in making sure they do not err. In order to reduce the role of the psychologist in determining the result and to add an element of accountability to the mix, we must develop a set of psychological assessment tools specifically for the context of the courts, ensure its technical validity as well as test it empirically. Only through this process can a uniform procedure emerge, and justice be unencumbered by the bias of the psychologist. 


References:

1.     Neal, Tess, Slobogin, Christopher, Saks, Michael, Faigman, David, Geisinger, Kurt. (2019). Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping “Junk Science” Out of the Courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339294508_Psychological_Assessments_in_Legal_Contexts_Are_Courts_Keeping_Junk_Science_Out_of_the_Courtroom

2.     Lees-Haley, Paul R., Smith, Harold H., Williams, Christopher W., Dunn, John T., (1996) Forensic neuropsychological test usage: An empirical survey, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 45-51, ISSN 0887-6177, https://doi.org/10.1016/0887-6177(95)00011-9.

3.     Neal, M.S. Tess & Grisso, Thomas (2014), “Assessment Practices and Expert Judgment Methods in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry: An International Snapshot”, Sage Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449

4.    Archer, Robert R. & Wheeler, Elizabeth M.A. (2015), “Forensic Uses of Clinical Assessment Instruments”, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Volume 43, Number 2. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1017.4704&rep=rep1&type=pdf


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PTSD and its relationship with defense mechanisms and empathy: Character analysis of Levi Ackerman (SnK)

|Indira Bulhan Blog post: 1 “Manga is for kids” (My ignorant friend, 2018). Manga is often treated by people as something which is not so serious. However, it holds within itself some dark aspects of humanity. One such example is Shingeki no Kyojin (Attack on Titan). In it, the character of Levi Ackerman has been through a series of events which sets him apart from the people around him. Through this blog post, I will look upon the nature of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and its relationship with defense mechanisms and empathy.     Levi’s past is filled with events which can act as strong stressors for the development of trauma: the death of his mother at an early age, abandonment by father, raised by his uncle in the underworld in a highly unhygienic and malnourished state (who later abandons him again), death of his two closest friends and lover. Post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD can be defined as a mental disorder which can happen to peopl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is Patrick Jane a psychopath?

Under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Psychopathy was never recognized, until the revised DSM-5 categorized it under Anti-Social Personality Disorder. “He will choose you, disarm you with his words, and control you with his presence” (Hare)  Psychopaths can replicate the behavior which the person they are interacting with thinks they want from them, without feeling a thing, which contributes greatly to their ability to manipulate. Psychopaths charm and lie their way seamlessly to the top, and while they lack empathy, they are well-liked because they know what to say and when to say it. Psychopaths occupy most of the positions of power in our society and corporations and thus often end up being glorified. This glorification of psychopaths is most evident in the portrayal of psychopathy in TV shows. Some of the most notable characters which the screen has ever seen, like Marlo Stanfield from ‘The Wire’, James Moriarty from ‘Sherlock’, Hanni...
Post a Comment
Read more

Patrick Bateman: A Successful Psychopath

Abigail D'Souza Personality disorders are psychological disorders characterised by rigid and pervasive patterns of behaviour that persist over time. These must be maladaptive, or cause clinically significant distress to the individual, and are typically recognizable by late adolescence, or early adulthood. The most commonly known personality disorder is Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), or rather Psychopathy, since people often assume the two are synonymous. They aren’t.   ASPD belongs to the Cluster B group of personality disorders, along with Histrionic, Narcissistic, and Borderline personality disorders. Individuals with these tend to be dramatic, emotional, and erratic (Hooley et al., 2021). ASPD is characterised by a lack of moral or ethical development; inability to follow approved models of behaviour; deceitfulness; manipulation of others; history of conduct problems as a child, etc. (Hooley et al., 2021). Psychopathy however, is more a set of traits, like superfi...
Post a Comment
Read more