IA Psych Juris cheat sheet

Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993) factors: testability, peer review/publication, known error rate, general acceptance; applied to expert testimony in federal courts under FRE 702.

Frye v. United States (1923) 'general acceptance' standard remains governing in some state courts; Daubert superseded Frye in federal courts.

Mens rea levels in Model Penal Code: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently; criminal responsibility assessments must link mental disorder to the specific mens rea element.

M'Naghten test: defendant did not know the nature/quality of the act or did not know it was wrong due to mental disease/defect; used in a majority of U.S. states.

Competency to stand trial (Dusky v. United States, 1960): 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 proceedings.

Insanity acquittee disposition: typically civil commitment proceedings; burden of proof for continued confinement often on the acquittee (e.g., Jones v. United States).

Expert testimony ultimate issue rule: FRE 704(b) prohibits experts in criminal cases from stating whether defendant had the mental state constituting an element of the crime.

Forensic role distinction: therapeutic versus forensic; forensic evaluator's primary obligation is to the court/legal fact-finder, not the evaluee's treatment.

APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2013) apply to forensic activities; APA Ethics Code (2017) applies to all professional activities.

Informed consent for forensic evaluation must disclose purpose, nature, fees, third-party access to results, and limits of confidentiality; not treatment consent.

Multiple relationships: forensic evaluators should avoid providing therapy to evaluees; treating psychologist should not later serve as forensic evaluator for the same person.

Test data disclosure: APA Ethics Standard 9.04 requires release of test data to clients/authorized recipients unless substantial harm; HIPAA may preempt in some contexts.

Competence: forensic practitioners must obtain specialized training, supervision, and continuing education for each forensic area (e.g., child custody, risk assessment).

Record keeping: retain forensic records per legal/ethical requirements; release only with proper authorization or court order; document all contacts.

Fees and billing: avoid contingent fees in forensic work; fee arrangements must not influence opinions; disclose fee structure in consent.

Cultural competence: consider language, acculturation, and cultural factors in assessment; use interpreters appropriately and document limitations.

Dusky standard (1960): present ability to consult with lawyer with reasonable degree of rational understanding and rational/factual understanding of proceedings.

Competency is a legal determination, not a clinical one; evaluator provides data and opinion, court decides.

Competency evaluation components: interview, collateral information, psychological testing (e.g., MacCAT-CA, ECST-R), legal knowledge assessment.

Restoration to competency: typically treatment (medication, education) in inpatient setting; Sell v. United States (2003) limits involuntary medication for competency restoration to serious crimes.

Jackson v. Indiana (1972): cannot hold incompetent defendant indefinitely; must have reasonable progress toward competency or release/commitment proceedings.

Insanity defense: M'Naghten (knowing wrongfulness), ALI/Model Penal Code (lacks substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or conform conduct), Durham (product test, few jurisdictions).

Criminal responsibility evaluation must address specific mental state at time of offense, not just diagnosis; use structured guides (e.g., R-CRAS).

Diminished capacity: some states allow evidence of mental disorder to negate specific intent; not a full insanity defense.

MacCAT-CA (MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication): 22-item structured interview measuring understanding, appreciation, reasoning for competency.

ECST-R (Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised): assesses competency-related abilities and feigning; includes Atypical Presentation scale.

R-CRAS (Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales): 30 items across five scales (patient reliability, organicity, psychopathology, cognitive control, behavioral control) for insanity evaluations.

MMPI-2-RF/MMPI-3: used in forensic settings; validity scales (e.g., L, K, F, Fp, Fs) assess response bias; not diagnostic alone.

PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised): 20-item clinician-rated measure; factor 1 interpersonal/affective, factor 2 lifestyle/antisocial; used in risk assessment, not diagnosis.

SIRS-2 (Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms): assesses feigning; primary and secondary strategies; classification of feigning, probable feigning, indeterminate, genuine.

TOMM (Test of Memory Malingering): forced-choice visual recognition test; scores below cutoff suggest invalid performance; used in personal injury and criminal contexts.

Test selection: match instrument to forensic question, population, and setting; use multiple methods; consider cultural/language validity; document limitations.

HCR-20V3: 20 items across Historical (10), Clinical (5), Risk Management (5); structured professional judgment; final risk rating low/moderate/high.

VRAG (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide): 12-item actuarial instrument; yields probability of violent recidivism over 10 years; derived from Canadian forensic sample.

Static-99R: 10-item actuarial measure for sexual offense recidivism risk in adult males; revised version; scores map to risk categories.

Structured professional judgment (SPJ) combines empirical risk factors with clinical judgment; not purely actuarial; HCR-20, SVR-20, SARA are examples.

Dynamic risk factors (e.g., substance abuse, impulsivity, antisocial attitudes) are modifiable targets for risk management; static factors are historical and unchangeable.

Risk management strategies: supervision, treatment (e.g., CBT for substance abuse), monitoring, safety planning, victim safety measures.

Base rates: low base rate of violence in general population affects predictive accuracy; positive predictive value decreases as base rate decreases.

Communication of risk: use probabilistic language, specify time frame, context, and confidence; avoid definitive predictions.

Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) civil commitment: Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) upheld indefinite civil commitment of dangerous sexual offenders with mental abnormality.

SVP statutes require: mental abnormality/personality disorder, likelihood of future sexual violence, and often a recent overt act; burden of proof varies by state.

Static-99R and Static-2002R are actuarial tools for sexual recidivism; STABLE-2007 and ACUTE-2007 assess dynamic risk factors.

Penile plethysmography (PPG) and viewing time measures assess sexual arousal; controversial, not diagnostic; used in some evaluations.

Risk assessment for SVP: combine actuarial, dynamic, and protective factors; consider base rates and setting; use SPJ frameworks (e.g., SVR-20).

Treatment: cognitive-behavioral and relapse prevention programs; effectiveness debated; mandated treatment common in civil commitment.

Civil commitment proceedings are civil, not criminal; protections include counsel, expert evaluation, periodic review; standard often 'likely to engage' or 'more likely than not'.

Registration and community notification laws (e.g., Megan's Law, SORNA) are distinct from civil commitment; research on effectiveness mixed.

Best interests of the child standard governs custody; factors include child's needs, parental capacity, stability, domestic violence, child's preference (if mature).

Custody evaluation should use multiple methods: interviews, observations, collateral contacts, psychological testing, record review; avoid reliance on single source.

Parenting capacity assessments evaluate parenting skills, knowledge of child development, and ability to meet child's needs; often include structured observations.

Psychological testing in custody: MMPI-2/MMPI-3, MCMI-IV, Parenting Stress Index; interpret cautiously; no single test determines custody.

Allegations of child sexual abuse: use forensic interview protocols (e.g., NICHD); avoid suggestive questioning; evaluator should not determine truth of abuse without proper investigation.

Domestic violence: assess for coercive control, history, impact on child; consider protective factors and safety planning.

Parental alienation: controversial construct; not in DSM-5; evaluators should assess specific behaviors and dynamics rather than apply label.

Report writing: address each referral question, provide data-based opinions, acknowledge limitations, avoid legal conclusions (e.g., ultimate custody recommendation may be allowed in some jurisdictions but must be clearly supported).

Personal injury evaluation: assess psychological injury (e.g., PTSD, depression) causally linked to incident; differentiate pre-existing conditions; use validity testing.

Malingering assessment: use multiple validity measures (e.g., TOMM, MMPI-2-RF validity scales, SIMS); consider base rates and incentives; do not rely on single test.

Disability evaluation: assess functional capacity for work; use standardized measures, record review, and collateral information; consider ADA and SSA criteria.

Workers' compensation: evaluate causation, disability, and need for treatment; understand jurisdictional rules and reporting requirements.

Chronic pain and psychological factors: assess biopsychosocial model; use pain questionnaires (e.g., MMPI-2-RF, Pain Patient Profile) and clinical interview.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI): neuropsychological testing; assess effort and validity; consider premorbid functioning and emotional factors.

Fitness for duty: evaluate whether employee can perform essential job functions; use job analysis and psychological assessment; consider safety-sensitive positions.

Civil forensic report: clearly state referral question, methods, findings, opinions with basis, and limitations; avoid advocacy; maintain objectivity.

Police selection: use cognitive ability, personality (e.g., MMPI-2, CPI), integrity tests, structured interviews, and background checks; validate against job performance.

Fitness for duty evaluations: assess officer's psychological capacity to perform duties; triggered by behavioral concerns; focus on job-related functions and safety.

Critical incident stress: police officers exposed to trauma; assess for PTSD, depression; provide peer support and EAP; confidentiality limits.

Correctional psychology: assess suicide risk, mental health needs, and violence risk; provide treatment and crisis intervention; manage segregation effects.

Risk assessment in prisons: use tools like HCR-20, VRAG; consider institutional behavior, gang affiliation, and mental health.

Police interrogation: false confessions risk factors include youth, intellectual disability, mental illness, lengthy interrogation, coercive tactics; expert testimony on false confessions admissible in some courts.

Hostage negotiation: behavioral change stairway model (active listening, empathy, rapport, influence); used by crisis negotiators.

Organizational consultation: assess climate, stress, and performance; implement interventions; maintain confidentiality and role clarity.