ABPN Forensic Psychiatry flashcards
ABPN Forensic Psychiatry · Build recall with a focused review session.
32 cards. Read the term and the definition here. The deck at the top of this page is optional.
- Dusky standard
- Legal test for competency to stand trial requiring factual and rational understanding of proceedings and ability to consult with counsel; functional, present-state inquiry.
- Jackson v. Indiana
- Holding that indefinite commitment solely because a defendant is incompetent violates due process; commitment must be justified by progress toward competence or other lawful grounds.
- McNaughten rule
- Insanity standard requiring a defect of reason from disease of mind causing inability to know the nature or quality of the act or that it was wrong.
- ALI/MPC insanity test
- Model Penal Code standard combining a cognitive prong (inability to appreciate wrongfulness) with a volitional prong (inability to conform conduct to law).
- Competency versus insanity
- Competency is a present-state functional inquiry about trial participation; insanity is a retrospective inquiry about mental state at the time of the offense.
- Addington standard
- Civil commitment requires at least clear and convincing evidence; standard reflects the significant liberty interest at stake.
- Risk assessment instruments
- Structured tools (e.g., HCR-20, PCL-R) that inform but do not replace individualized clinical judgment; base rates and population matter.
- Fitness-for-duty evaluation
- Assessment of whether an individual can safely and reliably perform essential job functions; evaluator owes duty to retaining party, not evaluee.
- Forensic report structure
- Report includes referral question, sources reviewed, confidentiality limits, methods, findings, and opinions tied to the legal standard.
- Forensic informed consent
- Warning that the evaluation is not confidential, may be disclosed to court or retaining party, and is not a treatment relationship.
- Duty to protect
- Jurisdiction-specific duty (Tarasoff) to warn or protect identifiable third parties from a patient's serious threat of violence.
- Dual agency
- Conflict arising when a clinician serves both treating and forensic evaluator roles; separation preserves objectivity and clarity of role.
- Collateral sources
- Records, police reports, prior evaluations, and interviews used to corroborate self-report; reliance on self-report alone is inadequate.
- Estelle v. Gamble
- Establishes that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners violates the Eighth Amendment; basis for correctional mental health standards.
- Daubert standard
- Admissibility framework assessing expert testimony for relevance, reliability, testability, error rate, peer review, and general acceptance.
- Frye standard
- Admissibility rule requiring that scientific evidence be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
- Juvenile competency
- Developmental considerations affect understanding and reasoning; juvenile competency standards may differ from adult standards.
- Jail suicide screening
- Intake screening and monitoring for suicide risk are core correctional obligations; risk is highest early in custody.
- Forensic evaluator role
- Evaluator serves the retaining party and court, not the evaluee; truth-seeking and objectivity take precedence over therapeutic alliance.
- Beneficence and nonmaleficence
- Ethical principles of acting for the patient's benefit and avoiding harm; in forensic work balanced against truth-seeking and legal duties.
- Autonomy
- Respect for the individual's right to make informed decisions; in forensic contexts limited by legal authority and evaluation purpose.
- Justice principle
- Fair distribution of resources and fair treatment; relevant to access to care, evaluation, and legal process.
- Fidelity
- Ethical obligation of loyalty and trustworthiness; in forensic work clarified by disclosing the evaluator's actual role and duties.
- Confidentiality limits
- Forensic evaluations are not confidential; explain potential disclosure, testimony, and use of information to the evaluee.
- Boundary issues
- Avoid dual relationships, financial conflicts, and advocacy that compromise objectivity; disclose conflicts of interest.
- Scope of expertise
- Opinions should stay within the evaluator's competence and the available data; distinguish clinical opinion from legal conclusion.
- Voluntariness
- Evaluee should understand purpose, potential uses, and consequences of the evaluation before participating; coercion must be avoided.
- Honesty in testimony
- Experts must not misstate credentials, data, or instrument limits; correcting error is an ethical obligation.
- Cultural competence
- Use qualified interpreters and consider cultural and linguistic factors in assessment, diagnosis, and risk formulation.
- Conflict of interest
- Any financial or personal interest that could bias an evaluation or opinion; must be disclosed and managed.
- Therapeutic misconception
- Evaluee's mistaken belief that the forensic evaluation is treatment or that the evaluator is their doctor; must be corrected.
- Record review
- Systematic examination of collateral records to corroborate history and inform opinions; standard component of forensic evaluation.