Alan M. Goldstein

Explanatory Models of Malingering A Prototypical Analysis

Rogers (1990a, 1990b) proposed three models to explain why certain persons malinger mental illness: pathogenic, criminological, and adaptational. Highly experinced forensic experts (N=320) performed prototypical ratings on attributes associated with each model: the highest ratings were given to the adaptational model. In addition, a principal components analysis provided initial empirical support for these three explanatory models. The relevance of these findings to theory and clinical practice is discussed.

A Comparison of Forensic and Nonforensic Malingerers: A Prototypical Analysis of Explanatory Models

Explanatory models of malingering strive to understand the primary motivation underlying attempts to feign. Rogers, Sewell, and Goldstein (1994) provided empirical support for the conceptualization of pathogenic, criminological, and adaptational models. In the current study, a prototypical analysis of 221 forensic experts results in a slightly refined formulation: the adaptational model was decomposed into its two broad dimensions (cost–benefit analysis and adversarial setting). An important finding is that the factor structure for the explanatory models remained stable when applied to both forensic and nonforensic cases. As a first investigation, significant differences were observed in prototypical cases of malingering by the category of referral (forensic or nonforensic) and by type of feigning (mental disorders, cognitive impairment, and medical syndromes). Surprisingly, the feigning of medical syndromes appeared to play a relatively prominent role in both forensic and nonforensic cases and to be influenced by the apparent adversarial context of the assessment. Finally, important gender differences were observed, especially with nonforensic prototypical cases of malingering.

Standards of practice and care in forensic mental health assessment: Legal, professional, and principles-based consideration.

The specialization of forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) has incorporated important advances during the last two decades. As scientific advances, specialized tools, and relevant ethical guidelines have become core elements of FMHA, however, the question of how to regulate poor practice has assumed increasing importance. One such means of regulation that has been rarely applied to FMHA thus far is malpractice litigation using a clearly defined standard of care. This article focuses on the relationship between standard of practice and standard of care in FMHA. The authors discuss the current absence of a standard of care in FMHA, describing the historical, regulatory, and legal influences that have helped to shape the current state of practice in this specialty area and their relevance to operationalizing a standard of care. The authors address the various sources of authority that the law might consider in defining a standard of care and specify circumstances under which legal regulation using a standard of care would be more useful than would ethical/ professional regulation using a standard of practice. Finally, the authors describe the advantages of developing a clearer standard of practice in FMHA, which can then inform the operationalization of a standard of care.

Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights

Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) has grown into a specialization informed by research and professional guidelines. This series presents up-to-date information on the most important and frequently conducted forms of FMHA. The 19 topical volumes address best approaches to practice for particular types of evaluation in the criminal, civil, and juvenile/family areas. Each volume contains a thorough discussion of the relevant legal and psychological concepts, followed by a step-by-step description of the assessment process from preparing for the evaluation to writing the report and testifying in court. Volumes include the following helpful features: - Boxes that zero in on important information for use in evaluations - Tips for best practice and cautions against common pitfalls - Highlighting of relevant case law and statutes - Separate list of assessment tools for easy reference - Helpful glossary of key terms for the particular topic In making recommendations for best practice, authors consider empirical support, legal relevance, and consistency with ethical and professional standards. These volumes offer invaluable guidance for anyone involved in conducting or using forensic evaluations. This book considers those legal, ethical and assessment issues that arise when forensic mental health professionals are asked to evaluate an individuals capacity to waive his or her Miranda rights, and the subsequent validity of the confession.

Accuracy of vocal emotional communications among children and adults and the power of negative emotions

Two tapes of six emotions (anger, fear, sadness, contentment, happiness, love) recorded by child and adult speakers were played to child and adult listeners to determine whether (a) each group of listeners responds more accurately to positive or negative emotions; (b) each group of speakers communicates positive or negative emotions more accurately; (c-g) there were specific ways in which children adn adults differ in accuracy of perceiving and communicating the six emotions studied. Two hundred and ten white, male, middle-class Ss were used. It was found that (a) all listener groups perceived negative emotions more accurately; (b) all speaker groups communicated negative emotions more accurately; (c) there was a developmental trend in the ability to accurately perceive vocal communication; (d) children and adults did not differ significantly in the ability to express emotions; (e) adults perceived fear more accurately; (f) children communicated fear more accurately; (g) adults communicated sadness more accurately than children.

Overview of Forensic Psychology

The specialty of forensic psychology can trace its roots to the beginning of the 20th century, when Professor Hugo Munsterberg implored judges and lawyers to seek the assistance of psychologists when wrestling with a variety of issues they were faced with, and psychologists began assessing youth who were involved in legal proceedings in newly established juvenile courts. The landscape of forensic psychology—has changed dramatically in the ensuing century. The American Psychological Association has formally recognized forensic psychology as a specialty, training opportunities are available at all levels (graduate, internship, fellowship, continuing education) for psychologists and aspiring psychologists interested in the area, focused professional organizations and publications are thriving, and practitioners can demonstrate their competence via a certification process offered by the American Board of Forensic Psychology. Munsterberg would be happy to know that, consistent with his hopes, current-day forensic psychologists engage in a variety of pursuits and activities that impact the legal system, including research, teaching, consultation, treatment, and evaluation. It is this latter activity that is the focus of this volume, which provides a contemporary overview of the field. After a review of issues that are relevant to all forensic psychology practice, a variety of civil, criminal, and special forensic evaluation activities are addressed by chapter authors, followed by presentation of a number of chapters devoted to important and challenging non-assessment pursuits. Keywords: forensic; history; Munsterberg; specialty; certification; training; competence

The Role of Research in Forensic Psychological Testimony: Do Judges Listen?

ABSTRACT This article presents a case in which two experts proffered forensic testimony in a criminal hearing in which the defendant was charged with multiple serious felonies, including murder. The prosecution expert would testify that he had diagnosed the defendant as having antisocial personality disorder, which precluded a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and that the defendant was malingering schizophrenic symptoms, which was further evidence that he was not schizophrenic. In contrast, the defense expert would testify that schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder can and do coexist, and that even schizophrenics can malinger symptoms. While the defense expert based his testimony on a review of the professional and scientific literature, the prosecution expert provided no such evidence in support of his opinions. Yet despite empirically based evidence on these issues, the judge ruled that the testimony of both experts could be admitted and merely represented two differing opinions of qualified experts. After briefly discussing the research supporting the defense experts opinions, the article focuses on the problem of why judges fail to listen to relevant scientific evidence, and the steps experts and litigants may take to persuade courts of the value of scientifically based professional opinion as compared to clinical testimony lacking such foundation.