Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
To cite this article: Carl B. Gacono PhD (2002): Introduction to a Special Series: Forensic Psychodiagnostic Testing, Journal of
Forensic Psychology Practice, 2:3, 1-10
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Introduction to a Special Series:
Forensic Psychodiagnostic Testing
Carl B. Gacono, PhD
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 04:47 18 August 2012
What is it? First and foremost, it does not equal psychological testing!
Viewing the two as synonymous demonstrates a lack of understanding of fo-
rensic work (Gacono, Loving, & Bodholdt, 2001; Gacono & Bodholdt, 2002),
detracts from the unique contribution of forensic psychologists (conducting
assessment), and encourages the current de-emphasis of well balanced and
in-depth clinical training in graduate psychology programs. Although the ar-
ticles in this series provide guidelines for the use of personality tests fre-
quently used in forensic work, assessment is more broadly defined as a
process that . . . integrate[s] the results of several carefully selected tests
with relevant history information and observation . . . enabl[ing] the sophisti-
cated clinician to form an accurate, in-depth understanding of the patient; for-
4 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE
mulate the most appropriate and cost-effective treatment plan; and later,
monitor the course of intervention (Meyer et al., 1998). Or alternately, As-
sessment is a process of deduction, selective inquiry, and also inference . . .
rooted in a knowledge of developmental psychology, personality and individ-
ual differences, statistics and measurement, with knowledge of limits (e.g., in
prediction), in cognitive science, ethics, abnormal psychology including dy-
namics and defenses. . . . Assessment forms the cornerstone of the forensic
mind-setone that is data based, utilizing test data, observation, interviewing,
and multi-sources of substantiated historical information in forming, testing,
and modifying hypotheses. . . . Assessment is a multifaceted, ongoing, interac-
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 04:47 18 August 2012
tive process . . . (Gacono, 2000, pp. 194-195). Forensic psychologists are al-
ways aware that psychological testing is only one component of psychological
assessment and that personality tests are not designed to directly assess psy-
cho-legal issues (see Otto, in press).4
Subsequent to clarifying the psycho-legal issue in question, Monahan and
Steadmans (1994) risk assessment model, although not intended to do so, pro-
vides a useful guide for choosing specific assessment methods (semi-struc-
tured interview, psychological testing, and so forth). Monahan, Steadman,
Silver, Appelbaum, Robbins, Mulvey, Roth, Grisso, and Banks (2001) empha-
sized the need for gathering data using multiple methods from multiple do-
mains:
other semi-structured interviews, are useful for collecting and quantifying cer-
tain dispositional and historical variables, while other methods such as the
MMPI-2 and Rorschach add to understanding certain clinical and dispositional
variables.
The psychologist operates from the assumption that assessment is a multi-
faceted, ongoing, interactive process involving a continuous process of form-
ing, testing, and modifying hypotheses. While the psycho-legal issues guide
the choice of assessment methods, the Federal Rules of Evidence guide the ad-
missibility of psychological testimony. These guidelines require that expert
testimony be relevant to the psycho-legal issue, be of assistance to the fact
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 04:47 18 August 2012
finder, provide information beyond the understanding of a lay person, and not
be overly prejudicial (Otto, in press). Like sound assessment strategy, admissi-
bility guidelines require that assessment methods, including psychological
tests, have relevance to the forensic issue.
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT:
ASSESSING HISTORICAL, DISPOSITIONAL, CLINICAL,
AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
quired through these methods (see Zamble & Quinsey [1997] concerning the
problems of tombstone predictors).
Evaluation of the above assessment domains provides a basis for case con-
ceptualization. In addition, personality testing (like the Rorschach; see Gacono,
Evans, & Viglione, in press) refines our understanding of dispositional or clini-
cal factors such as impulsivity, levels of anger and hostility, presence of thought
disorder, problems with affect regulation, methods of coping with emotions,
and so forth (Gacono & Meloy, 1994, in press; Gacono et al., 2001). Standard-
ized psychological testing aids in teasing out the similarities and differences
among individuals to an extent not possible with risk assessment guides and
instruments such as the PCL-R which provide primarily nomothetic compari-
sons (Gacono, 1998). Combined historical information, risk assessment guide
scores, PCL-R scores, and personality testing data allow the psychologist to
provide opinions highlighting individualized context-person dynamics; that is,
under what circumstances a given patient is more likely to perpetrate a certain
type of violence toward a particular type of victim.
CONCLUSION
forming opinions. One must understand how psychological tests work. This is
essential to interpreting apparent discrepancies among tests. Particularly rel-
evant to the forensic context is the fact that results from self-report measures
such as the MMPI-2 and MCMI-III (McCann, in press) measure self-percep-
tion, that is either how people see themselves or how they would like to ap-
pear. Subsequently, a given profile may not be an accurate measure of the
existent psychopathology. In this regard, forensic psychologists consider the
potential impact of the response style to the assessment process (Bannatyne,
Gacono, & Greene, 1999). This is best assessed through a battery of tests,
which access different aspects of personality. In this manner the Rorschach
contributes uniquely to forensic practice (Gacono et al., in press).
In this series, the authors provide criteria for understanding how several as-
sessment methods (PCL-R, Rorschach, MMPI-2, MCMI-III, & PAI) contrib-
ute to forensic psychological assessment. Sophistication and applied (rather
than exclusively textbook or academic) knowledge of psychological assess-
ment and psychological testing, an understanding of psycho-legal issues and
the rules of evidence, and experience with forensic populations, are essential
to understanding the role of psychological testing to forensic practice and of-
fering informed commentary on its efficacy. These articles will aid readers in
critically evaluating various pro and con statements concerning the use of fo-
rensic psychological testing, will educate concerning the strengths and weak-
nesses of personality tests, and will inform a standard of care for forensic
psychodiagnostic personality testing.
NOTES
1. I say disturbing because unqualified individuals, often academics, are elevated to
the expert role through their association with legitimate experts in psychological as-
sessment. As Weiner (2001a) stated concerning certain Rorschach detractors, Weve
got some people who have come along and are raising criticisms, and these are people
who have never published any Rorschach research of their own and know very little
8 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE
about how to use the Rorschach in practice. They seem to be on some kind of crusade to
bad-mouth the instrument (p. 7).
2. Concerning the arm chair quality Gacono and Bodholdt (2001) noted, . . . we
would extend by drawing attention to the occasional recourse to rhetorical devices, in-
cluding the straw man, and selective abstraction of a backwater of supposed conclu-
sions, which on careful reading, run counter to the prevailing tone, substance or
conclusion of the source-proper (p. 65-79).
3. Some thoughts on how psychologists can handle challenges: Voir dire should be
utilized to challenge the qualifications of these people related to their licensing status,
their actual practice of psychological assessment (do they see and assess people), their
knowledge of forensic practice and guidelines, their advanced standing in any recog-
nized professional personality assessment group (i.e., fellow status in the Society for
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 04:47 18 August 2012
REFERENCES
Bannatyne, L., Gacono, C., & Greene, R. (1999). Differential patterns of responding
among three groups of chronic, psychotic, forensic outpatients. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 55(12), 1553-1565.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 516 US 869 (1995).
Carl B. Gacono 9
Gacono, C. (1998). The use of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) and Ror-
schach in treatment planning with Antisocial Personality Disordered patients. Inter-
national Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 42(1), 49-64.
Gacono, C. (2000a). Suggestions for the implementation and use of the Psychopathy
Checklists in forensic and clinical practice. In C.B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and
forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioners guide (pp. 175-202).
Mahwah: New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Gacono, C., & Bodholdt, R. (2001). The Role of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
(PCL-R) in Violence Risk and Threat Assessment. Journal of Threat Assessment,
1(4), 65-79.
Gacono, C., Loving, J., & Bodholdt, R. (2001). The Rorschach and psychopathy: To-
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 04:47 18 August 2012
Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P., Mulvey, E., Roth,
L., Grisso, T., & Banks, S. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur
study of mental disorder and violence. New York: Oxford.
Otto, R. (2002). Use of the MMPI-2 in Forensic Settings. Journal of Forensic Psychol-
ogy Practice, 2(3).
Quinsey, V., Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising
and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Weiner, I. (2001). Assessment advocacyreport of the SPA coordinator. SPA Ex-
change, 12:1, 7.
Zamble, E., & Quinsey, V. (1997). The criminal recidivism process. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 04:47 18 August 2012
RECEIVED: 02/01/02
REVISED: 02/01/02
ACCEPTED: 02/01/02
I will show this journal to our institutional or agency library for a possible subscription.
Institution/Agency Library: ______________________________________________
Name: _____________________________________________________________
Institution: __________________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________
City: ____________________ State: __________ Zip: ____________________
Return to: Sample Copy Department, The Haworth Press, Inc.,
10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580