Screening for malingering in a criminal-forensic sample with the personality assessment inventory

In this study, the authors examined how overreporting of psychopathology indices on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; L. C. Morey, 1991) performed as screening measures for malingering in a sample of 166 defendants undergoing pretrial court-ordered evaluations in the federal criminal justice system. Using results from the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; R. Rogers, R. M. Bagby, & S. E. Dickens, 1992) as the criterion measure of malingering, the authors found that the Negative Impression scale (NIM) was the most effective PAI screening measure (cut score > or = 81 T). NIM performed as well as an established comparison measure from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--2 (J. N. Butcher, W. G. Dahlstrom, J. R. Graham, A. Tellegen, & B. Kaemmer, 1989; Infrequency [F] cut score > or = 95 T), supporting the use of either of these indices as reasonable screening measures to identify potential malingerers for subsequent evaluation.     

Detecting over- and underreporting of psychopathology with the Spanish-language Personality Assessment Inventory: findings from a simulation study with bilingual speakers

Existing research on the Spanish-language translation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; L. C. Morey, 1991) suggests that the validity scales from the English- and Spanish-language versions may not be equivalent measures. In the current study, 72 bilingual participants completed both the English- and Spanish-language versions of the PAI under the instructions to respond honestly, to overreport psychopathology for an insanity case, or to underreport psychopathology for an employment evaluation. Overall, the English- and Spanish-language validity scales performed similarly, and scores from the Negative Impression Management and the Positive Impression Management scales demonstrated the highest levels of equivalence and accuracy for the identification of simulators across language versions.     

Self-report measures of child and adolescent psychopathy as predictors of offending in four samples of justice-involved youth

The authors examined the relation between self-report psychopathy measures and official records of offending in four samples of justice-involved youth (total N = 447). Psychopathy measures included the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD) and a modified version of the Childhood Psychopathy Scale (mCPS). Measures of offending included the total number of preadmission arrest charges for three samples (n = 392) and the total number of offenses in the year following release for two samples (n = 138). Neither measure was a strong correlate of preadmission offenses. Although mCPS scores were associated with postrelease offending in one sample, effects for the APSD were observed only when reoffending was conceptualized as a dichotomous variable, indicating a lack of robustness in this association. The findings suggest caution in the use of self-report measures of psychopathic features for decision making with respect to issues of delinquency risk among justice-involved youth.     

Witness preparation training with real and simulated criminal defendants

Two studies examined the impact of witness preparation training with criminal defendants. In the first study, mock criminal defendants testified twice on videotape about minor crimes they were accused of but had not committed. Approximately half underwent witness preparation between their first and second testimony simulations. In the second study, eight public defender clients were videotaped during testimony simulations both before and after being prepared to testify. In both studies, ratings by trained evaluators indicated that witness preparation was associated with increases in the use of several testimony delivery skills, improvements in overall testimony quality, and reductions in apparent guilt. Training was also associated in both studies with an unintended decrease in expressiveness. Ratings from the mock defendant study further suggested that prepared defendants were seen as more credible than unprepared defendants because they used more effective testimony delivery skills, and as less likely to be guilty than unprepared defendants because they were perceived as being more credible.     

A Proposed Psychological Assessment Protocol for Applicants to Religious Life in the Roman Catholic Church

This paper proposes a psychological assessment protocol for applicants to religious life in the Roman Catholic church. While most Catholic religious orders, seminaries, and dioceses require applicants to complete some type of psychological evaluation prior to entrance into seminary, there is no established standard or protocol suggested for conducting these evaluations. The current proposed assessment protocol provides those conducting or receiving these evaluations with a comprehensive foundation from which they can add or delete components to meet their specific needs. Furthermore, the utilization of a standard clergy assessment protocol creates the opportunity for the establishment of a national database useful for conducting research concerning clergy applicants.     

What do we really know about witness preparation?

Witnesses often meet with an attorney or witness preparation specialist before trial to review, discuss, and sometimes modify the substance and delivery of their anticipated testimony. This process is commonly referred to as witness preparation. During witness preparation, witnesses are taught to use effective testimony delivery skills (e.g., verbal and nonverbal communication skills) so that they will be perceived as being credible and persuasive in the courtroom. Although social scientists know much about communication skills, credibility, and persuasion, few published studies have attempted to determine whether or not these factors can be modified through witness preparation training. The present article reviews the psychological literature pertaining to witness preparation and makes recommendations for needed witness preparation research.     

Reliability and validity of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire

This study investigates the reliability and validity of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (SCSORF). The SCSORF and religiosity measures (i.e., Age Universal Religious Orientation Survey, Religious Life Inventory, and the God Control measure from the Belief in Personal Control Scale) were administered to three samples. Results suggest that the SCSORF is both reliable and valid.     

Attorney-client trust among convicted criminal defendants: preliminary examination of the attorney-client trust scale

The current study describes the development of the Attorney-Client Trust Scale (ACTS), a measure designed to assess a client's trust in his or her attorney. A sample of 307 male inmates completed the ACTS and provided information about their most recent case and attorney. Low ACTS scores were associated with having a court-appointed attorney, going to trial, and receiving a lengthy prison sentence. High ACTS scores were related to satisfaction with sentences and attorneys. In addition, findings suggest that perceptions about attorneys' interpersonal skills were as important as perceptions about legal skills in forming opinions about overall lawyering ability. It is recommended that attorneys employ a well rounded assortment of interpersonal skills to foster their clients' trust and to make better use of the limited amount of time they have to spend with clients.     

Field validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in sex offender risk assessment

Several studies have concluded that scores from Hare's (2003) Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) predict reoffense among sexual offenders, but most of those studies examined the predictive validity of scores from trained research staff, not clinicians in the field scoring the measure as part of actual forensic assessments. Therefore, we examined the field validity of PCL-R scores that forensic evaluators assigned to 333 male sexual offenders who underwent evaluations during a civil commitment selection process. Overall, no PCL-R score was a significant predictor of sexually violent recidivism. Facet 4 was the only PCL-R score with an area under the curve (AUC) greater than .50 (AUC = .53, p = .85) and the only PCL-R score that approached statistical significance for predicting the combined category of violent or sexually violent offending (AUC = .63, p = .08). However, scores from a subset of evaluators revealed stronger predictive effects, indicating that predictive validity was higher for scores from some evaluators than others. Overall, these results suggest that the stronger predictive validity values in controlled research studies may not apply to all evaluators when the PCL-R is administered in the field.     

Jurors' Views on the Value and Objectivity of Mental Health Experts Testifying in Sexually Violent Predator Trials

Although psychologists and psychiatrists often testify in court, we know relatively little about the extent to which jurors value the testimony they hear from these experts. We surveyed 161 jurors who rendered opinions in 14 sex offender civil commitment trials after hearing testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses. Most jurors reported that the experts they heard testify were honest, and they tended to attribute disagreements among experts to case complexity, as opposed to adversarial allegiance or bias. Most reported that hearing from the experts helped them make better decisions and that experts using risk assessment instruments could make more accurate predictions than those who did not. Jurors were, however, more skeptical about the ability of experts to accurately predict recidivism when they heard testimony from both prosecution and defense experts. Findings suggest that jurors value risk assessment testimony from experts, but that experts must think carefully about how to best make risk assessment instrument results accessible to jurors. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.