No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Introduction to a Special Series: Psychological Testing in Forensic Settings
In this article we examine the current status of Rorschach assessment. School psychologists are provided with an introduction to the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM), the types of information that the test provides, and guidelines for evaluating the RIM. We also address criticisms that have served to discourage the use of the RIM. When administered, coded, and interpreted within guidelines provided by Exner's Comprehensive System, the Rorschach clearly meets ethical and professional standards for psychological test usage. The RIM can provide unique and important information concerning the emotional and social functioning of children and adolescents that aids in developing individualized educational programming including behavior intervention plans. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 44: 281–291, 2007.
Self-report instruments can provide useful information as part of a thorough clinical assessment. However, their use in forensic settings can be problematic. The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) has recently been proposed as an effective instrument for screening and outcome measurement in anger management programs. This study evaluated the effectiveness of this instrument in a sample of both voluntary and court-ordered anger-management clients, all of whom were determined through diagnostic interviews to have significant anger problems. Contrary to findings in nonforensic samples, the STAXI Trait Anger scale identified only about half of the participants as having anger-management problems severe enough to require intervention. Supplemental analysis with two additional scales did not significantly improve sensitivity. In addition to thorough diagnostic interviewing, forensic use of the STAXI (like similar assessment methods) may require additional validity scales to detect denial or socially desirable response patterns.
This study employed the Basic Personality Inventory (BPI) to differentiate various types of dis-simulation, including malingered psychopathology and faking good, by inmates. In particular, the role of intelligence in utilizing symptom information to successfully malinger was examined. On admission to a correctional facility, 161 inmates completed the BPI under standard instructions and then again under instructions to fake good (n = 55) or to malinger psychotic (n = 35), posttraumatic stress disorder (n = 36), or somatoform (n = 35) psychopathology. Unlike symptom information, intelligence evidenced some support for increasing inmates’ effectiveness in malingering, although there was no relationship between higher intelligence and using symptom information to successfully evade detection. Overall, the BPI was more effective in detecting malingered psychopathology than faking good. Implications for the detection of dissimulation in correctional and forensic settings are discussed.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.