ABPP Forensic Psychology cheat sheet

Competence to stand trial is evaluated with the Dusky standard: defendant must have sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings.

The MacCAT-CA assesses three constructs: understanding, appreciation, and reasoning; it is not a test of malingering.

Malingering is suspected when there is a clear external incentive, and the evaluation should include both symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs).

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) uses forced-choice recognition; scores below 45/50 on Trial 2 or Retention are suggestive of invalid performance.

In insanity evaluations, the M'Naghten rule requires a mental disease or defect causing the defendant not to know the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong.

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) has two factors: Factor 1 (interpersonal/affective) and Factor 2 (social deviance/lifestyle); total scores range 0–40.

Risk assessment instruments such as the HCR-20 and Static-99R are actuarial or structured professional judgment tools; they estimate probabilities, not certainties.

The competence standard for waiving Miranda rights is whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent, considering the totality of the circumstances.

Forensic assessment reports should separate behavioral observations, test data, and clinical inferences, and should address the ultimate legal question cautiously.

Incompetent defendants may be ordered to undergo treatment to restore competence; medication can be involuntary only if it is medically appropriate, substantially unlikely to have side effects that undermine fairness, and necessary to further important governmental trial-related interests (Sell v. United States).

The prevalence of malingering in forensic settings is estimated at 15–20%, higher than in general clinical settings.

Sex offender treatment often uses risk-need-responsivity (RNR) principles; the most effective interventions target criminogenic needs and use cognitive-behavioral approaches.

The Good Lives Model is a strengths-based rehabilitation approach for offenders that focuses on primary human goods and reducing risk through building capabilities.

Therapeutic jurisprudence examines the role of law as a therapeutic agent, considering how legal rules and procedures affect psychological well-being.

In treating justice-involved individuals, confidentiality is limited by duty-to-warn/protect statutes, mandatory reporting, and court orders.

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) is an evidence-based treatment for borderline personality disorder and has been adapted for forensic populations with emotion dysregulation.

Competence restoration programs typically include psychoeducation about the legal process, courtroom procedures, and practice in consulting with counsel.

The Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APA, 2013) emphasize impartiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, and maintaining objectivity.

Informed consent in forensic evaluations must disclose the purpose of the evaluation, who will receive the report, and limits of confidentiality.

The Tarasoff duty to protect arises when a therapist determines a client poses a serious danger to an identifiable victim; actions may include warning the victim, notifying police, or taking other reasonable steps.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule permits disclosure of protected health information for judicial proceedings only with a court order or patient authorization, unless otherwise permitted by law.

The insanity defense burden of proof varies by jurisdiction; in federal courts, the defendant must prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to testimonial communication; in forensic evaluations, defendants may assert the privilege, but adverse inferences may follow in some contexts.

The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) Ethics Guidelines require honesty, avoiding conflicts of interest, and respecting confidentiality within legal limits.

The Frye standard for expert testimony requires that the scientific technique be generally accepted in the relevant field; Daubert requires reliability and relevance, considering testability, error rate, peer review, and general acceptance.

Expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness must have reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts (Daubert factors).

The ultimate issue rule: experts may testify about ultimate issues in some jurisdictions, but may not state legal conclusions in others.

When preparing for testimony, review all case materials, anticipate cross-examination on test selection, administration, and interpretation, and distinguish clinical vs. forensic roles.

The forensic expert should avoid dual roles (e.g., therapist and evaluator) because they create conflicting obligations and compromise objectivity.

Consultation to courts or attorneys may involve case review, second-opinion evaluations, or testimony; the consultant should clarify the referral question and maintain role boundaries.

Testimony should be understandable to the jury: avoid jargon, explain base rates and error rates, and present findings with appropriate confidence intervals.

Professional practice includes maintaining records, billing ethically, and avoiding contingent fees, which can create bias.

Peer review and supervision are important for quality assurance; forensic psychologists should seek consultation when faced with ethical dilemmas.