Pål Grøndahl

Psychological Treatment of Sexual Offenders Against Children A Meta-Analytic Review of Treatment Outcome Studies

Numerous meta-analyses and reviews have been conducted on the effectiveness of psychological treatment of sexual offenders in reducing recidivism, but no meta-analysis has been done on sexual offenders against children (SOAC) specifically. A moderate treatment effect has been shown in several evaluations of general sexual offenders, while many scholars maintain that the question remains unanswered until an adequate number of effectiveness studies with a strong research design have been carried out. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated 14 studies selected and coded according to Collaborative Outcome Data Committee (CODC) criteria. They included 1,421 adult offenders in psychotherapy and 1,509 nontreated controls, with a minimum average follow-up period of 3 years, published in peer-reviewed journals in 1980 or later. Recidivism was defined as rearrest or reconviction. Study quality was classified into strong, good, weak or rejected. The analysis revealed a treatment effect size of r = .03 for nine studies evaluated as Good or Weak, while all studies yielded an effect size of r = .08, including five studies classified as Rejected. The results show that the available research cannot establish any effect of treatment on SOAC. Despite a large amount of research, only a tiny fraction of studies meet a minimum of scientific standards, and even fewer provide sensible and useful data from which it is possible to draw conclusions.

A Comparative Case Vignette Study of Decision Making in Forensic Psychiatric Cases

We tested whether the judgment of forensic psychiatric experts differed from that of laypersons. We constructed 18 case vignettes that were rated by 21 psychologists, 14 psychiatrists, and 126 laypeople on the following variables: Insanity by Legal Terms, Risk of Repeated Offense, and Need of Treatment. We found significant differences among laypeople and professionals on all three variables (p = .008, p = .024, and p = .009, respectively), although the differences were dependent on the composition of the case vignettes. Case vignettes containing negative descriptions and/or serious crimes were rated high on all variables by laypeople, whereas the professional groups? ratings varied according to the variations given in the information.

A study of forensic psychiatric screening reports and their relationship to full psychiatric reports

Abstract In Norway the prosecuting authorities can request a forensic psychiatric screening report in order to determine whether a full forensic psychiatric report is required. This study explores three research questions. Are such screening reports considered relevant by the prosecution authorities? To what extent are their recommendations followed? What is the concordance of the conclusions of the screening reports and the full reports? This study analysed the screening reports issued on 419 defendants by Oslo Police Districts Office for Forensic Psychiatry in 2002 – 2005, and the 91 (22%) full reports issued on these defendants. All reports were evaluated using a structured rating form. Of the 118 screening reports that recommended a full report, 50% were followed up by the prosecution authorities. In contrast, non-recommendation of a full report was almost always followed, while 16% of open recommendations resulted in a full report. Instigation of a full report was significantly associated with major crimes, and with positive recommendation compared to open recommendation. The concordance between screening and full reports was 46% regarding psychosis, 78% regarding unconsciousness, and 94% regarding mental retardation. Based on these findings, the value of the system of screening reports seems to lie primarily in negative recommendations. Low concordance between screening and full reports, and the limited follow-up of expert recommendations for full reports, indicate that the system has questionable validity.

The truth and nothing but the truth: court-appointed forensic experts’ experience with testifying and their perceptions of legal actors in criminal courts

We examined forensic psychiatric experts’ experiences in providing court testimony and their cooperation with legal professionals, with 147 forensic psychiatric experts (psychologists and psychiatrists) responding to an online survey. Most experts reported that they liked their work, and were satisfied with their cooperation with the court, though their worst fear was that they themselves may commit errors. The experts reported that the most relevant questions in court came from the judges, followed by questions from the prosecutors. Leading and aggressively formulated questions were most often characterized as poor and irrelevant types of questions, particularly when they come from attorneys. Most experts preferred structured and prepared practitioners, while only 35% of the experts used special presentation techniques themselves to deliver their testimonies in court, thereby leaving a clear potential for an improvement in communication.

Sexsomnia – a forensic psychiatric challenge – a case report

Abstract In rare penal cases, a defendant makes a claim that he or she was asleep at the time of an alleged crime. This article discusses a case of alleged sexsomnia where a man claimed that he had been asleep during a sexual encounter (rape) with a woman. The question that often arises during an investigation and in court is how complex a behaviour is someone able to perform and still be asleep? To assist the court in answering this question, forensic psychiatric experts may be appointed. But the experts were not present during the act and must therefore consider each case on the basis of the available information and existing research. This paper provides a brief overview of the research regarding sexsomnia. It will also discuss what kind of information is important to elaborate in these cases in order to clarify the premises for the experts’ conclusions to the court.

Research quality and psychological theory in publications on school shooters with multiple victims - A systematic review of the literature

Abstract School shooting homicide events generate considerable attention. A substantial number of research reports have tried to explain the phenomenon. However, the outcome of these studies has produced a conflicting picture of the issue. Our systematic review explored the quality of research in publications on school shooters. Research quality was assessed concerning description of design, method and interpretation of results according to PRISMA and CRD criteria. We investigated evidence of the impact of psychological theories on how research was designed and interpreted. A total of 10 papers met the criteria for inclusion in the review. With a few exceptions, the research quality was low. Only three studies contained a separate methods section. Two out of ten studies reported from an interview with a school shooter. Secondary sources such as school, hospital and/or psychological evaluations were used in four studies, while the rest had only applied tertiary data sources. There was a void of psychological theoretical analysis to inform the creation of relevant research designs. No study discussed psychological theories to inform inference from empirical data to conclusion. Higher quality of research and enhanced focus on theoretical understanding of psychological factors in school shooting are called upon.

The Magic or Myth of Expertise: A Comparison of Judgment Processes between Forensic Experts and Lay Persons Based on Psychiatric Case Vignettes

As a continuation of a previous study (Grøndahl, Grønnerød, & Sexton, 2009), we examined how 120 laypersons and 35 forensic experts (14 psychiatrists and 21 psychologists) differed in their judgment processes of forensic case vignettes. The vignettes contained descriptions of three components, namely social history, psychiatric history and criminal offense. We found important differences in how the groups used information when they rated insanity, risk and need for treatment. The professional groups emphasized all three case components as opposed to laypersons. As for priming, all the groups rated lower on risk and need for treatment when the case started with a positive description. More professional experience was related to lower insanity and treatment ratings and higher risk ratings. The professionals generally rated less confidence in their judgments compared to the laypersons. Professionals and lay persons thus seem to evaluate forensic material differently.