Evaluations of a defendant's competence to stand trial (CST) are probably the most frequently performed forensic evaluations, with estimates in the United States ranging from 60,000 to 70,000 annually. In order for CST evaluations to be considered thorough and accurate, examiners must assess for possible lack of cooperation, feigning, or malingering - the intentional production or gross exaggeration of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychiatric symptoms, motivated by external incentives. Yet, there are accounts that CST examiners often do not assess for negative response bias, and even if they do nevertheless fail to identify a considerable number of examinees that do feign. Assessing Negative Response Bias in Competency to Stand Trial Evaluations provides readers with a comprehensive guide to assessing whether a defendant has feigned mental impairment during a competency to stand trial evaluation, or simply did not put forth his/her best effort. This book reviews the literature on assessing feigning and negative response bias, with particular focus on issues, tests, and data relevant to CST evaluations, and examines proposed criteria and statistical methods of determining and classifying assessment results. It introduces readers to aspects of the vibrant neuropsychological response style literature, an area many forensic psychologists appear to have overlooked. Additionally, it offers recommendations for research and policy regarding the parameters of CST assessment.

Detecting Malingering and Deception: Forensic Distortion Analysis (FDA-5), Third Edition maintains the tradition of the prior two editions, following the Forensic Distortion Analysis (FDA) model. Fully updated since the last edition nearly 20 years ago, the book continues to serve as a comprehensive volume on deception and distortion in forensic, clinical and several specialized contexts. As with the previous editions, the book presents a model of deception intended to be utilized and applied by the qualified evaluator. The proposed model covers targets of the faker, response styles shown, and methods to detect the deception. The goal is to summarize the historical and latest information on distortion detection, to present guidelines for detecting deception that include variable accuracy rates based on different detection techniques, and to stimulate further research of effective methods of deception detection. Recommendations and guidelines for the practicing clinician are offered throughout the book, including real-world cases to inform and enlighten, particularly in unique cases or those in which the certain outcomes are unexpected. Key Features: Outlines the role of the forensic professional in applying and integrating methods assessment in deception and distortion Provides base-rates for deception-related behavior and events, especially useful in report writing or courtroom testimony as an expert witness Presents the latest advances in methodology and technology to assist in the search for ground truth in applied settings and situations Applies forensic distortion analysis to evaluate the deception-related findings and statements of other professionals involved in a particular case New coverage includes sections on deception analysis for collectivities, including media groups, contemporary politics, cross-national corporations, conflict, and terrorism Detecting Malingering and Deception incorporates the latest research, providing practical application to utilize information and evaluative methods as they pertain to deception-related settings and situations. Sample reports and extensive graphs, tables, charts, and histograms are provided, and every chapter has been updated with new studies and investigations. The Third Edition boasts several new chapters and updated working appendices of coverage to expand the exploration of deception addressing advances in the field, and our current understanding of the phenomenon.

Clear and accessible in style, this book offers a comprehensive introduction to criminal justice and forensic mental health and the ways in which they intersect. Assuming no prior exposure to the field of criminal forensic psychology, the book reviews ten areas where mental health professionals contribute regularly to the due process of law: comprehension of rights, competency to stand trial, transfer of juveniles to adult court, risk assessment, mitigation, sentencing, sexually violent predators, insanity, and capital punishment of persons with mental illness and with intellectual disability. The book also explores the major categories of mental disorders, how they contribute to criminal behavior, and what problems they present in courts and corrections. Landmark cases from the United States and United Kingdom are also reviewed in detail to develop a thorough understanding of the court’s decision-making process. Bridging the gap between abstraction and practice through its narrative presentation of case material, emphasis on controversy, and illumination of the historical roots of problems and ideas, the book helps the forensic practitioner transition from novice to knowledgeable professional in the courtroom. Drawing on the author’s extensive experience in forensic psychology, this book is the ideal resource for the early-career forensic mental health practitioner, as well as graduate students in forensic mental health and forensic psychology, and mental health professionals seeking to enter the field of forensics.

Analyzing the American presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush

Competence to stand trial evaluations (CST) are the most commonly conducted forensic mental health assessment (FMHA). Thus, it is crucial to examine components of CST evaluations under the guidelines of best practices. CST evaluations typically result in a written report, and prior research has indicated that these reports are highly influential to judges presiding over CST hearings. After Heilbrun (2001) published 29 principles of FMHA, Heilbrun et al. (2009) published an expanded list of 38 principles of FMHA that are meant to steer forensic evaluators through the process of FMHA and provide best practice guidelines. This study aims examined the impact that Heilbrun's principles of FMHA have on judges' perceptions of CST reports. The participants were split into three groups, one group receiving a high principle adherence report, one group receiving a moderate principle adherence report, and one receiving a low principle adherence report. The judges then rated the quality of the reports. The results demonstrated that there was no significant relationship between the level of adherence to the principles of FMHA and judges' perceptions of the quality of the report. Findings indicate that judicial decision makers do not hold forensic mental health reports to the same standards that psychologists do.

This study contributes to the psychometric validity of the psychological tests most frequently used to determine competency to stand trial for people with intellectual disabilities. First, the relationship between The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCAT-CA) and the Competence Assessment to Stand Trial for Defendants with Intellectual Disabilities (CAST-MR) was analyzed, including their respective determination of competency for currently adjudicated adults with intellectual disabilities. Second, the relationship between performance on the Malingered Incompetence Legal Knowledge test (MILK), a new measure designed to evaluate malingering by people with intellectual disabilities in a legal context, and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) was explored. Additionally, this study contributes to the development of norms for both the MacCAT-CA and the MILK in a population with intellectual disabilities. Results demonstrate that was not significant agreement between the MacCAT-CA and the CAST-MR in determining adjudicative competency in the study population. The lack of convergent validity between these two commonly used measures raises questions about test validity and whether individuals with intellectual disabilities are held to a lower standard for adjudicative competence. Further, a significant correlation between the TOMM and the MILK suggests that evidence of exaggerated cognitive impairments does suggest feigned ignorance of legal knowledge. The evidence from this study suggests that CST evaluations with an ID population results in different findings based on the measure that the examiner chooses. Consequently, adherence to appropriate and standardized measures is needed in forensic psychology to ensure the quality of the evaluation.