Fluent Essays

Take on the role of a psychologist assigned a case in which the client has a legal concern. Forensic Scenario, Mr. M (Not Guilty Plea): Your client, Mr. M., was referred by the court for an evaluation of his mental condition after his attorney entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf. Review the Case Description: Mr. M—Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal Score Report, and begin with a one-paragraph summary of the test data you deem most significant. Based on the information provided, determine if retesting with the MMPI-3 is recommended at this time and explain your rationale?. Utilize attach readings and any additional scholarly and/or peer-reviewed sources needed to develop a list of assessment instruments and evaluation procedures in addition to the MMPI-2-RF and/or the MMPI-3 to administer to the client?Justify your assessment choices by providing an evaluation of the ethical and professional practice standards and an analysis of the reliability and validity of the instruments? American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: Standard 9: Assessment.Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/ code/index.aspx?item=12 American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology [PDF]. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7-19. doi:10.1037/a0029889 Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2014a). Case description: Mr. M—Forensic, pre-trial criminal score report [PDF]. Retrieved from http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/ Assets/MMPI-2-RF/MMPI-2-RF_Score_ForensicPretrial.pdf Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. • Chapter 12: Legal Issues and the Future of Testing http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=12 http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=12 http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology.pdf http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology.pdf http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/Assets/MMPI-2-RF/MMPI-2-RF_Score_ForensicPretrial.pdf http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/Assets/MMPI-2-RF/MMPI-2-RF_Score_ForensicPretrial.pdf CHAPTER 12 Legal Issues and the Future of Testing TOPIC 12A Psychological Testing and the Law 12.1 The Sources and Nature of Law 12.2 Testing in School Systems and the Law 12.3 Disability Assessment and the Law 12.14 Legal Issues in Employment Testing Case Exhibit 12.1 Unwise Testing Practices in Employee Screening 12.5 Forensic Applications of Assessment In the previous chapters we have outlined the myriad of ways in which tests are used in decision making. Furthermore, we have established that psychological testing is not only pervasive, but it is also consequential. Test results matter. Test findings may warrant a passage to privilege. Conversely, test findings may sanction the denial of opportunity. For many reasons, then, it is appropriate to close the book with two special topics that bear upon the potential repercussions of psychological testing. In Topic 12A, Psychological Testing and the Law, we review critical legal issues pertaining to the use of psychological tests. In this topic, we survey the essential laws that regulate the use of tests in a variety of settings—schools, employment situations, medical settings, to name just a few arenas in which the law constrains psychological testing. We also examine several ways that psychologists interface with the legal system in the field of forensic assessment. In Topic 12B, Computerized Assessment and the Future of Testing, contemporary applications of the computer in psychological assessment are surveyed, and then the professional and social issues raised by this practice are discussed. The book closes with thoughts on the future of testing—which will be forged in large measure by increasingly sophisticated applications of computer technology but also greatly affected by legal standards. 12.1 THE SOURCES AND NATURE OF LAW The law establishes a number of guidelines that define the permissible scope and applications of psychological testing. However, before investigating the key legal guidelines that impact testing, it will be helpful to understand the sources and nature of law. Broadly speaking, there are three sources of law: constitutional provisions, legislative edicts, and judicial opinions. We examine each briefly. Constitutional Sources of Law The United States has a constitutional form of government, meaning that the U.S. Constitution is the final authority for all legal matters in the country. All other forms of law must be consistent with this seminal document. Thus, the Constitution places limits on legislative actions and judicial activity. The United States is also a federation of states, which means that each state retains its own government and system of laws, while ceding some powers to the central government. For example, the power to regulate interstate commerce and the responsibility to provide for the national defense both reside with the federal government. Each state has its own constitution as well, which is another source of laws that affects citizens living in a state. Of course, state constitutions cannot contradict the U.S. Constitution and, in most cases, they are highly similar to the federal document. Three provisions of the U.S. Constitution potentially bear upon the practice of psychological testing: the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution (Melton et al., 1998). The Fifth Amendment provides a privilege against self-incrimination, which impacts the nature of psychological assessment in forensic evaluations. For example, as discussed previously, a forensic practitioner might be asked by the court to evaluate an alleged offender for competency to stand trial. In many states, self-incriminating disclosures made during an evaluation of competency to stand trial cannot be used to determine guilt (i.e., they are inadmissible as evidence during trial). The Sixth Amendment states that every person accused of a crime has the right to counsel (i.e., the right to a lawyer). This is understood to mean both the presence of counsel during legal proceedings and also the right to effective assistance from counsel. Does this mean that counsel must be present during a pretrial assessment, such as a court-ordered evaluation for competency to stand trial? This will depend upon the state and jurisdiction in which the proceedings occur. Although most courts have held that the defendant does not have a right to the presence of counsel during pretrial psychological evaluations, a minority of courts have held that the Sixth Amendment guarantee does apply to such pretrial assessments (Melton et al., 1998). In these jurisdictions, the defendant’s lawyer can be present during any psychological testing or evaluation. This raises difficult questions as to the validity of assessments undertaken in the presence of a third party. For example, what if the client asks his or her lawyer for advice on how to answer certain questions? Surely, this is not standard protocol in psychological assessment and might drastically affect the validity of the results. Fortunately, most courts favor alternative methods for protecting the rights of defendants during pretrial evaluations, such as tape- recording the session, having a defense psychologist observe the evaluation, or providing for an independent evaluation. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall deprive any U.S. citizen of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law.” The amendment also specifies “equal protection of the laws.” The relevant section reads: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It is mainly the “due process” feature of this amendment that has impacted psychological practice. This influence is limited largely to forensic practitioners who deal with competency to stand trial, civil and criminal commitment, or the right to refuse treatment. For example, psychologists who are involved in the civil commitment of an individual who needs treatment typically must show—as a direct consequence of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—that several stringent criteria are fulfilled: • The individual must be reliably diagnosed as suffering from severe mental illness; • In the absence of treatment, the prognosis for the individual is major distress; • The individual is incompetent; that is, the illness substantially impairs the person’s ability to understand or communicate about the possibility of treatment; • Treatment is available; • The risk–benefit ratio of treatment is such that a reasonable person would consent to it. (Melton et al., 1998, p. 310) Whether these conditions are met would be determined at a commitment hearing during which the individual would have full procedural rights such as the presence of counsel. The psychologist’s role would be to offer professional opinions on these guidelines. Of course, the validity of psychological assessment is relevant to these criteria in several ways, including the following: understanding the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis (see Topic 9B, Behavioral and Observational Assessment), choosing appropriate tests for competency (see the topic below, Forensic Applications of Assessment), and comprehending risk–benefit analysis (see Topic 4A, Basic Concepts of Validity). Legislative Sources of Law In addition to constitutional sources, laws also emanate from the actions of state and federal legislative bodies. These laws are called statutes and are codified by subject areas into codes. For example, the laws passed by Congress at the federal level are codified into 50 topics identified as Title 1 through Title 50 with each area devoted to a specific theme. Three examples include Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure; Title 20, Education; and Title 29, Labor. Each titled area is further subdivided. For example, Title 20, Education, is gargantuan. It consists of 77 chapters, a few of them hundreds of pages in length. This includes Chapter 70, Strengthening and Improvement of Elementary and Secondary Schools, in which literally hundreds of specific statutes passed over the last few decades have been collated and cross- referenced. For example, one federal statute mandates that school systems must show adequate yearly progress in order to be eligible for further federal funding. The law further stipulates that “adequate yearly progress” shall be defined by the State in a manner that • (i) applies the same high standards of academic achievement to all public elementary school and secondary school students in the State; • (ii) is statistically valid and reliable; • (iii) results in continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students; • (iv) measures the progress of public elementary schools, secondary schools and local educational agencies and the State based primarily on the academic assessments described in paragraph (3); • (v) includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for each of the following: • (I) The achievement of all public elementary school and secondary school students. • (II) The achievement of • (aa) economically disadvantaged students; • (bb) students from major racial and ethnic groups; • (cc) students with disabilities; and • (dd) students with limited English proficiency; except that disaggregation of data under sub- clause (II) shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. (U.S. Code, Title 20, Chapter 70, http://uscode.house.gov) As can be seen, legal codes are written with such specificity that their intention cannot easily be overlooked or bypassed. The preceding sample is just one small snippet of law—barely discernible in a vast ocean of literally hundreds of pages of edicts that impact educational practices. But it is clear that these legislative rulings influence psychological testing. For example, in the preceding excerpt, an inescapable inference is that school systems must use standardized educational achievement tests with established reliability and validity—or else they risk losing federal funds. Legislatures cannot possibly oversee the implementation of all the statutes they enact. Consequently, it is increasingly common for these bodies to delegate rule-making authority to agencies within the executive branch of http://uscode.house.gov/ government. For example, the U.S. Congress has passed several laws designed to prohibit discrimination in employment. But the enforcement of these laws is left to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The following federal laws bear, at least in part, on job discrimination: • Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin • Equal Pay Act of 1963, which protects women (and men) who perform equal work in the same organization from gender-based wage discrimination • Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in both government and the private sector • Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government • Civil Rights Act of 1991, which authorizes monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination The EEOC is the federal agency in charge of the administrative and judicial enforcement of the civil rights laws listed earlier. We discuss this important regulatory body in further detail later. Judicial Sources of Law Another source of law is the judiciary, specifically, the federal courts and the United States Supreme Court. Indirectly, these bodies make law in several ways. First, they have the authority to review all federal legislative edicts to determine their constitutionality and interpretation. In addition, they can appraise the constitutional validity of any state law, whether constitutional, statutory, or regulatory in origin. In doing so, they have the opportunity to sharpen the focus of laws promulgated by these other sources. For example, in ruling on the constitutionality of state civil commitment laws, federal courts not only have found them unconstitutional, but they have also used this opportunity to publish permissible criteria and procedures for commitment (as discussed previously in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment). The courts also hear lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals or groups. In these cases, court rulings can establish new law. Finally, the courts can make law when the original sources such as constitutional laws or legislative statutes are silent on an important issue: In performing their interpretive function, courts will first look at the plain words of any relevant constitutional provision, statute, or regulation and then review the legislative history of a given law, including statements made by the law’s sponsors or during committee or public hearing sessions. But if neither of these sources is helpful, or if no relevant law exists, the courts themselves must devise principles to govern the case before them. The principles articulated by courts when they create law are collectively known as common law, or judge-made law. (Melton et al., 1998, p. 29) Typically, common law is conservative, based to the extent possible on the precedent of past cases, rather than created at the whim of the judiciary. In sum, there are several sources of law: state and federal constitutions, legislative statutes, regulations enacted by agencies such as the EEOC, and judicial interpretations from federal courts and the Supreme Court. These are the primary sources of law that might intersect with the practice of psychological testing. Other sources of law include presidential executive orders and international law, which we do not discuss here because they rarely impact psychological practice. Now that the reader has an understanding of how, why, and where laws originate, we turn to a review of particular laws that impact the practice of psychological assessment. We partition the discussion into three topics: legal influences on psychological testing in school systems, disability assessment and the law, and legal issues in employment testing. The division is somewhat artificial; for example, the assessment of learning disability—greatly impacted by law—involves both the practice of testing in school systems and the assessment of disability. 12.2 TESTING IN SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND THE LAW The law has impacted school-based testing in two broad ways: (1) Federal legislation has mandated specific practices in the assessment of students, especially those with disabilities; and (2) lawsuits have shaped and reshaped particular testing practices in school systems over the last 60 years. We will discuss legislative influences in the next section on disability assessment and the law. Our goal here is to provide an overview of influential lawsuits that have molded testing practices in the schools. In the main, these lawsuits have assailed the use of tests, especially in special education placement and as a requirement for high school graduation. Attacks on cognitive testing in school systems have been with us for a long time. Beginning in the 1960s, these attacks took a new form: lawsuits filed by minority plaintiffs seeking to curtail or ban the use of school-based cognitive tests, especially intelligence tests. In this section we will review the major court cases, summarized in Table 12.1. Later, we will discuss the implications of court decisions for the contemporary use of cognitive tests in schools. Many of the legal assaults on testing have arisen from the controversial practice of using cognitive test results for purposes of assigning low-functioning students to “vocational” school tracks or to special classes for educable mentally retarded (EMR) persons. Invariably, minority children are assigned to these special tracks and classes in surprising disproportion to their representation in the school population. For example, a typical finding is that minority children are two to three times more likely to be classified as EMR than white children (Agbenyega & Jiggetts, 1999). In a school system comprised of 25 percent minority students, this could translate to EMR classes with about 50 percent minority student representation. Therein lies the crux of the legal grievance, for special education classes are equated by many with inferior education. Written two decades ago, these observations still hold true: TABLE 12.1 Major Legal Landmarks in School-Based Cognitive Testing 1967 Hobson v. Hansen Court ruled against the use of group ability tests to “track” students on the grounds that such tests discriminated against 1970 Diana v. State Board Court ruled against traditional testing procedures for educable mentally retarded (EMR) placement of Mexican American children; State Board of Education enacted 1979 Debra P. v. Turlington Court did not rule against the use of a minimum competency test as a condition for high school graduation—a test with excessive failure rate for African American If special education actually worked, which it does not, and minority children assigned to EMR classes in the primary grades eventually reached the same level of reading and math achievements as children in regular classrooms, I doubt whether the plaintiffs in these cases would have 1979 Larry P. v. Riles Court ruled that standardized IQ tests are culturally biased against African American children for EMR evaluation and stipulated that the proportion of African 1980 PASE v. Hannon In complete contradiction to the Larry P. v. Riles decision, the court ruled that standardized IQ tests are not racially or 1984 Georgia NAACP v. Georgia Court ruled that traditional procedures of evaluation do not discriminate against African American children; court also rejected the view that disproportionate 1994 Crawford v. Honig The judge in the Larry P. v. Riles case overruled his earlier ruling so as to allow the use of a standardized IQ test for the 2000 GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency Court ruled that the use of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills as part of a high school graduation requirement was brought suit. A major problem in the educational system is that special education, even with smaller classes and better trained teachers, still does not work to bring such children up to par. Rather, special education classes perpetuate educational disadvantage. (Scarr, 1987) Something is amiss in education when well- intentioned placement policies inadvertently perpetuate a legacy of mistreatment of minorities. The legal challenges to school-based testing are certainly understandable, even though sometimes misplaced. After all, the problem is not so much with the tests—which assess academically relevant skills with reasonable validity—but with educational policies that isolate low-functioning students to inefficient placements. Even experts sympathetic to the lawsuits acknowledge that tests often are quite useful, so it is worth examining why killing the messenger has been a popular response to concerns about discriminatory placements. Hobson v. Hansen (1967) The first major court case to challenge the validity of ability tests was Hobson v. Hansen (1967). In that landmark case, plaintiffs argued that the allocation of financial and educational resources in the Washington, DC, public school system favored white children and, therefore, discriminated against minority children. Among the issues addressed in the trial was the use of standardized group ability tests such as the Metropolitan Readiness and Achievement Test and the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test to “track” students according to ability. Children were placed in honors, regular, or basic tracks according to ability level on the tests. One consequence of this tracking method was that minority children were disproportionately represented in the lowest track, which focused on skills and preparation for blue-collar jobs. Placement in this track virtually ruled out entrance to college and entry to a well-paying profession. Judge Skelly Wright decided the Hobson case in 1967, ruling against the use of a tracking system based on group ability tests. Most commentators view his banishment of ability testing for tracking purposes as justified. However, there is good reason to worry about the further implications of Judge Wright’s decision, which implied that acceptable tests must measure children’s innate capacity to learn. Bersoff (1984) commented on the Hobson decision as follows: Hobson, when read in its entirety, represents the justified condemnation of rigid, poorly conceived classification practices that negatively affected the educational opportunities of minority children and led to permanent stigmatization of blacks as unteachable. But swept within Hobson’s condemnation of harmful classification practices were ability tests used as the sole or primary decision- making devices to justify placement. Not only was ability grouping as then practiced in the District of Columbia abolished, but tests were banned unless they could be shown to measure children’s innate capacity to learn. Not even ardent hereditarians believe that tests solely measure innate ability. No test could ever pass the criterion mandated by this case. The Hobson case concerned group ability tests and had no direct bearing on the use of individual intelligence tests in school systems. However, it did portend an increasing skepticism about the use of any test—whether group or individual—for purposes of educational placement. Diana v. State Board of Education (1970) In Diana v. State Board of Education (1970), plaintiffs questioned the use of individual intelligence tests (the WISC and Stanford-Binet) for purposes of placing Mexican American schoolchildren in classes for educable mentally retarded (EMR) persons. Diana was a class action suit filed on behalf of nine Mexican American elementary school children who had been placed in EMR classes. The placements were based on individual IQ tests administered by a non-Spanish-speaking psychometrist. When retested in English and Spanish, eight of these nine children showed substantial— sometimes huge—increases in IQ and were, therefore, removed from EMR classes. Faced with this evidence, the California State Board of Education decided to enact a series of special provisions for the testing of Mexican American and Chinese American children. These provisions included the testing of minority children in their primary language, elimination of certain vocabulary and information items that minority children could not be expected to know, retesting of minority children previously placed in EMR classes, and development of new tests normed on Mexican American children. These provisions answered the concerns of plaintiffs, eliminating the need for further court action. Debra P. v. Turlington (1979) This was a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all African American students in Florida against Ralph Turlington, the state Commissioner of Education. At issue was the use of the State Student Assessment Test-Part 2 (SSAT-II), a functional literacy test, as one requirement for awarding a high school diploma. In the 1970s, Florida was one of the states at the forefront of the functional literacy movement. Functional literacy has to do with practical knowledge and skills used in everyday life. A test of functional literacy might require students to: • Calculate the balance of a personal checking account when given the starting balance, deposits, withdrawals, and service charges • Follow simple written directions and instructions in printed materials • Complete an application form for employment, driver’s license, or training program • Spell basic and useful words correctly (e.g., address, employer, postage, salary, vehicle) • Comprehend essential abbreviations (e.g., apt., CPU, hwy., M.D., Mr., Rx, SSN) • Know the meanings of vital words (e.g., antidote, bus stop, caution, exit only, one way, zip code) • Write a paragraph that is reasonably grammatical and coherent Currently, about 20 states use a functional literacy test of this genre as one condition of awarding the high school diploma. However, in Florida in the late 1970s, African American students failed the functional literacy test at a substantially higher rate than white students. Plaintiffs argued the SSAT-II was unfair because African American students received inferior education in substantially segregated schools. The purpose of the lawsuit was to void the use of the test as a requirement for graduation. The information in the following discussion was retrieved from the appeals court decision (Debra P. v. Turlington, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, April 27, 1984). With practical finesse, the court decision offered something to both sides, although state officials likely were happier with the outcome than were the plaintiffs. The nature of the ruling also revealed admirable sensitivity to issues of test validity and psychological measurement on the part of the court. Based on the reasonable belief that a high school diploma should signify functional literacy, the state was permitted to use the test as a diploma requirement. However, the court delayed implementation of the new diploma testing program for four years. This delay served two purposes. First, it provided due process to current students (and their parents), alerting them that a new requirement was being set in place. Second, it gave the state time to prove that the SSAT-II was a fair test of that which is taught in Florida’s classrooms. The court wanted proof of what it called “instructional validity.” Put simply, the court wanted assurance that the state was teaching what it was testing. The state undertook a massive evaluation project to prove instructional validity. The Florida Department of Education hired a consulting firm to conduct a four-part study that included (1) teacher surveys asking expressly if the skills tested by the SSAT-II were taught; (2) administrator surveys to demonstrate that school districts utilized remedial programs when appropriate; (3) site visits to verify all aspects of the study; and (4) student surveys to discern if students perceived they were being taught the skills required on the functional literacy test. Weighing all the evidence carefully over a period of several years, the court ruled that the State of Florida could deny diplomas to students who had not yet passed the SSAT-II, beginning with the class of 1983. Furthermore, the court concluded that the use of the SSAT-II actually helped to mitigate the impact of vestiges of school segregation by motivating students, teachers, and administrators toward a common goal: The remarkable improvement in the SSAT-II pass rate among black students over the last six years demonstrates that use of the SSAT-II as a diploma sanction will be effective in overcoming the effects of past segregation. Appellants argue that the improvement has nothing to do with diploma sanctions because the test has not yet been used to deny diplomas. However, we think it likely that the threat of diploma sanction that existed throughout the course of this litigation contributed to the improved pass rate, and that actual use of the test as a diploma sanction will be equally, if not more, effective helping black students overcome discriminatory vestiges and pass the SSAT-II. Thus, we affirm the finding that use of the SSAT-II as a diploma sanction will help remedy vestiges of past discrimination. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, April 27, 1984) In sum, the case of Debra P. v. Turlington appears to confirm that functional literacy testing can play a constructive role in secondary education. Larry P. v. Riles (1979) The case of Larry P. v. Riles raised concerns about the use of intelligence tests for assigning African American children to EMR special education classes. In November 1971 attorneys representing several San Francisco families filed for a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit the use of traditional … Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology American Psychological Association In the past 50 years forensic psychological practice has expanded dramatically. The American Psychological As- sociation (APA) has a division devoted to matters of law and psychology (APA Division 41, the American Psy- chology–Law Society), a number of scientific journals de- voted to interactions between psychology and the law exist (e.g., Law and Human Behavior; Psychology, Public Pol- icy, and Law; Behavioral Sciences & the Law), and a number of key texts have been published and undergone multiple revisions (e.g., Grisso, 1986, 2003; Melton, Pe- trila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1987, 1997, 2007; Rogers, 1988, 1997, 2008). In addition, training in forensic psy- chology is available in predoctoral, internship, and post- doctoral settings, and APA recognized forensic psychology as a specialty in 2001, with subsequent recertification in 2008. Because the practice of forensic psychology differs in important ways from more traditional practice areas (Mo- nahan, 1980) the “Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psy- chologists” were developed and published in 1991 (Com- mittee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991). Because of continued developments in the field in the ensuing 20 years, forensic practitioners’ ongoing need for guidance, and policy requirements of APA, the 1991 “Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists” were revised, with the intent of benefiting forensic practitioners and recipients of their services alike. The goals of these Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (“the Guidelines”) are to improve the quality of forensic psychological services; enhance the practice and facilitate the systematic development of forensic psychol- ogy; encourage a high level of quality in professional practice; and encourage forensic practitioners to acknowl- edge and respect the rights of those they serve. These Guidelines are intended for use by psychologists when engaged in the practice of forensic psychology as described below and may also provide guidance on professional conduct to the legal system and other organizations and professions. For the purposes of these Guidelines, forensic psy- chology refers to professional practice by any psychologist working within any subdiscipline of psychology (e.g., clin- ical, developmental, social, cognitive) when applying the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychol- ogy to the law to assist in addressing legal, contractual, and administrative matters. Application of the Guidelines does not depend on the practitioner’s typical areas of practice or expertise, but rather, on the service provided in the case at hand. These Guidelines apply in all matters in which psy- chologists provide expertise to judicial, administrative, and educational systems including, but not limited to, examin- ing or treating persons in anticipation of or subsequent to legal, contractual, or administrative proceedings; offering expert opinion about psychological issues in the form of amicus briefs or testimony to judicial, legislative, or ad- ministrative bodies; acting in an adjudicative capacity; serving as a trial consultant or otherwise offering expertise to attorneys, the courts, or others; conducting research in connection with, or in the anticipation of, litigation; or involvement in educational activities of a forensic nature. Psychological practice is not considered forensic solely because the conduct takes place in, or the product is presented in, a tribunal or other judicial, legislative, or administrative forum. For example, when a party (such as a civilly or criminally detained individual) or another in- dividual (such as a child whose parents are involved in divorce proceedings) is ordered into treatment with a prac- titioner, that treatment is not necessarily the practice of forensic psychology. In addition, psychological testimony that is solely based on the provision of psychotherapy and does not include psycholegal opinions is not ordinarily considered forensic practice. For the purposes of these Guidelines, forensic practi- tioner refers to a psychologist when engaged in the practice of forensic psychology as described above. Such profes- sional conduct is considered forensic from the time the practitioner reasonably expects to, agrees to, or is legally mandated to provide expertise on an explicitly psycholegal issue. The provision of forensic services may include a wide variety of psycholegal roles and functions. For example, as This article was published Online First October 1, 2012. These Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology were developed by the American Psychology–Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association [APA]) and the American Academy of Foren- sic Psychology. They were adopted by the APA Council of Representa- tives on August 3, 2011. The previous version of the Guidelines (“Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists”; Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991) was approved by the American Psychology–Law Society (Division 41 of APA) and the American Academy of Forensic Psychology in 1991. The current revision, now called the “Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology” (referred to as “the Guidelines” throughout this document), replaces the 1991 “Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists.” These guidelines are scheduled to expire August 3, 2021. After this date, users are encouraged to contact the American Psychological Asso- ciation Practice Directorate to confirm that this document remains in effect. Correspondence concerning these guidelines should be addressed to the Practice Directorate, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. 7January 2013 ● American Psychologist © 2012 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/12/$12.00 Vol. 68, No. 1, 7–19 DOI: 10.1037/a0029889 researchers, forensic practitioners may participate in the collection and dissemination of data that are relevant to various legal issues. As advisors, forensic practitioners may provide an attorney with an informed understanding of the role that psychology can play in the case at hand. As consultants, forensic practitioners may explain the practical implications of relevant research, examination findings, and the opinions of other psycholegal experts. As examin- ers, forensic practitioners may assess an individual’s func- tioning and report findings and opinions to the attorney, a legal tribunal, an employer, an insurer, or others (APA, 2010b, 2011a). As treatment providers, forensic practitio- ners may provide therapeutic services tailored to the issues and context of a legal proceeding. As mediators or nego- tiators, forensic practitioners may serve in a third-party neutral role and assist parties in resolving disputes. As arbiters, special masters, or case managers with decision- making authority, forensic practitioners may serve parties, attorneys, and the courts (APA, 2011b). These Guidelines are informed by APA’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (herein- after referred to as the EPPCC; APA, 2010a). The term guidelines refers to statements that suggest or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavors, or conduct for psychologists. Guidelines differ from standards in that standards are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. Guidelines are aspirational in in- tent. They are intended to facilitate the continued system- atic development of the profession and facilitate a high level of practice by psychologists. Guidelines are not in- tended to be mandatory or exhaustive and may not be applicable to every professional situation. They are not definitive, and they are not intended to take precedence over the judgment of psychologists. As such, the Guidelines are advisory in areas in which the forensic practitioner has discretion to exercise profes- sional judgment that is not prohibited or mandated by the EPPCC or applicable law, rules, or regulations. The Guide- lines neither add obligations to nor eliminate obligations from the EPPCC but provide additional guidance for psy- chologists. The modifiers used in the Guidelines (e.g., reasonably, appropriate, potentially) are included in rec- ognition of the need for professional judgment on the part of forensic practitioners; ensure applicability across the broad range of activities conducted by forensic practitio- ners; and reduce the likelihood of enacting an inflexible set of guidelines that might be inapplicable as forensic practice evolves. The use of these modifiers, and the recognition of the role of professional discretion and judgment, also re- flects that forensic practitioners are likely to encounter facts and circumstances not anticipated by the Guidelines and they may have to act upon uncertain or incomplete evi- dence. The Guidelines may provide general or conceptual guidance in such circumstances. The Guidelines do not, however, exhaust the legal, professional, moral, and ethical considerations that inform forensic practitioners, for no complex activity can be completely defined by legal rules, codes of conduct, and aspirational guidelines. The Guidelines are not intended to serve as a basis for disciplinary action or civil or criminal liability. The stan- dard of care is established by a competent authority, not by the Guidelines. No ethical, licensure, or other administra- tive action or remedy, nor any other cause of action, should be taken solely on the basis of a forensic practitioner acting in a manner consistent or inconsistent with these Guide- lines. In cases in which a competent authority references the Guidelines when formulating standards, the authority should consider that the Guidelines attempt to identify a high level of quality in forensic practice. Competent prac- tice is defined as the conduct of a reasonably prudent forensic practitioner engaged in similar activities in similar circumstances. Professional conduct evolves and may be viewed along a continuum of adequacy, and “minimally competent” and “best possible” are usually different points along that continuum. The Guidelines are designed to be national in scope and are intended to be consistent with state and federal law. In cases in which a conflict between legal and professional obligations occurs, forensic practitioners make known their commitment to the EPPCC and the Guidelines and take steps to achieve an appropriate resolution consistent with the EPPCC and the Guidelines. The format of the Guidelines is different from most other practice guidelines developed under the auspices of APA. This reflects the history of the Guidelines as well as the fact that the Guidelines are considerably broader in scope than any other APA-developed guidelines. Indeed, these are the only APA-approved guidelines that address a complete specialty practice area. Despite this difference in format, the Guidelines function as all other APA guideline documents. This document replaces the 1991 “Specialty Guide- lines for Forensic Psychologists,” which were approved by the American Psychology–Law Society (Division 41 of APA) and the American Board of Forensic Psychology. The current revision has also been approved by the Council of Representatives of APA. Appendix A includes a discus- sion of the revision process, enactment, and current status of these Guidelines. Appendix B includes definitions and terminology as used for the purposes of these Guidelines. 1. Responsibilities Guideline 1.01: Integrity Forensic practitioners strive for accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the science, teaching, and practice of foren- sic psychology and they strive to resist partisan pressures to provide services in any ways that might tend to be mis- leading or inaccurate. Guideline 1.02: Impartiality and Fairness When offering expert opinion to be relied upon by a deci- sion maker, providing forensic therapeutic services, or teaching or conducting research, forensic practitioners strive for accuracy, impartiality, fairness, and indepen- dence (EPPCC Standard 2.01). Forensic practitioners rec- 8 January 2013 ● American Psychologist ognize the adversarial nature of the legal system and strive to treat all participants and weigh all data, opinions, and rival hypotheses impartially. When conducting forensic examinations, forensic practitioners strive to be unbiased and impartial, and avoid partisan presentation of unrepresentative, incomplete, or inaccurate evidence that might mislead finders of fact. This guideline does not preclude forceful presentation of the data and reasoning upon which a conclusion or professional product is based. When providing educational services, forensic practi- tioners seek to represent alternative perspectives, including data, studies, or evidence on both sides of the question, in an accurate, fair and professional manner, and strive to weigh and present all views, facts, or opinions impartially. When conducting research, forensic practitioners seek to represent results in a fair and impartial manner. Forensic practitioners strive to utilize research designs and scientific methods that adequately and fairly test the questions at hand, and they attempt to resist partisan pressures to de- velop designs or report results in ways that might be misleading or unfairly bias the results of a test, study, or evaluation. Guideline 1.03: Avoiding Conflicts of Interest Forensic practitioners refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be ex- pected to impair their impartiality, competence, or effec- tiveness, or expose others with whom a professional rela- tionship exists to harm (EPPCC Standard 3.06). Forensic practitioners are encouraged to identify, make known, and address real or apparent conflicts of interest in an attempt to maintain the public confidence and trust, discharge professional obligations, and maintain re- sponsibility, impartiality, and accountability (EPPCC Stan- dard 3.06). Whenever possible, such conflicts are revealed to all parties as soon as they become known to the psy- chologist. Forensic practitioners consider whether a pru- dent and competent forensic practitioner engaged in similar circumstances would determine that the ability to make a proper decision is likely to become impaired under the immediate circumstances. When a conflict of interest is determined to be man- ageable, continuing services are provided and documented in a way to manage the conflict, maintain accountability, and preserve the trust of relevant others (also see Guideline 4.02 below). 2. Competence Guideline 2.01: Scope of Competence When determining one’s competence to provide services in a particular matter, forensic practitioners may consider a variety of factors including the relative complexity and specialized nature of the service, relevant training and experience, the preparation and study they are able to devote to the matter, and the opportunity for consultation with a professional of established competence in the sub- ject matter in question. Even with regard to subjects in which they are expert, forensic practitioners may choose to consult with colleagues. Guideline 2.02: Gaining and Maintaining Competence Competence can be acquired through various combinations of education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, and professional experience. Forensic practitioners planning to provide services, teach, or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques, or technologies that are new to them are encouraged to undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation, or study. Forensic practitioners make ongoing efforts to de- velop and maintain their competencies (EPPCC Standard 2.03). To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, fo- rensic practitioners keep abreast of developments in the fields of psychology and the law. Guideline 2.03: Representing Competencies Consistent with the EPPCC, forensic practitioners ade- quately and accurately inform all recipients of their services (e.g., attorneys, tribunals) about relevant as- pects of the nature and extent of their experience, train- ing, credentials, and qualifications, and how they were obtained (EPPCC Standard 5.01). Guideline 2.04: Knowledge of the Legal System and the Legal Rights of Individuals Forensic practitioners recognize the importance of obtain- ing a fundamental and reasonable level of knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional standards, laws, rules, and precedents that govern their participation in legal proceedings and that guide the impact of their services on service recipients (EPPCC Standard 2.01). Forensic practitioners aspire to manage their profes- sional conduct in a manner that does not threaten or impair the rights of affected individuals. They may consult with, and refer others to, legal counsel on matters of law. Al- though they do not provide formal legal advice or opinions, forensic practitioners may provide information about the legal process to others based on their knowledge and ex- perience. They strive to distinguish this from legal opin- ions, however, and encourage consultation with attorneys as appropriate. Guideline 2.05: Knowledge of the Scientific Foundation for Opinions and Testimony Forensic practitioners seek to provide opinions and testi- mony that are sufficiently based upon adequate scientific foundation, and reliable and valid principles and methods that have been applied appropriately to the facts of the case. When providing opinions and testimony that are based on novel or emerging principles and methods, forensic practitioners seek to make known the status and limitations of these principles and methods. 9January 2013 ● American Psychologist Guideline 2.06: Knowledge of the Scientific Foundation for Teaching and Research Forensic practitioners engage in teaching and research ac- tivities in which they have adequate knowledge, experi- ence, and education (EPPCC Standard 2.01), and they acknowledge relevant limitations and caveats inherent in procedures and conclusions (EPPCC Standard 5.01). Guideline 2.07: Considering the Impact of Personal Beliefs and Experience Forensic practitioners recognize that their own cultures, attitudes, values, beliefs, opinions, or biases may affect their ability to practice in a competent and impartial man- ner. When such factors may diminish their ability to prac- tice in a competent and impartial manner, forensic practi- tioners may take steps to correct or limit such effects, decline participation in the matter, or limit their participa- tion in a manner that is consistent with professional obli- gations. Guideline 2.08: Appreciation of Individual and Group Differences When scientific or professional knowledge in the disci- pline of psychology establishes that an understanding of factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, socioeconomic status, or other relevant individual and cultural differences af- fects implementation or use of their services or research, forensic practitioners consider the boundaries of their expertise, make an appropriate referral if indicated, or gain the necessary training, experience, consultation, or supervision (EPPCC Standard 2.01; APA, 2003, 2004, 2011c, 2011d, 2011e). Forensic practitioners strive to understand how factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnic- ity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, socioeconomic status, or other rele- vant individual and cultural differences may affect and be related to the basis for people’s contact and involvement with the legal system. Forensic practitioners do not engage in unfair discrim- ination based on such factors or on any basis proscribed by law (EPPCC Standard 3.01). They strive to take steps to correct or limit the effects of such factors on their work, decline participation in the matter, or limit their participa- tion in a manner that is consistent with professional obli- gations. Guideline 2.09: Appropriate Use of Services and Products Forensic practitioners are encouraged to make reasonable efforts to guard against misuse of their services and exer- cise professional discretion in addressing such misuses. 3. Diligence Guideline 3.01: Provision of Services Forensic practitioners are encouraged to seek explicit agreements that define the scope of, time-frame of, and compensation for their services. In the event that a client breaches the contract or acts in a way that would require the practitioner to violate ethical, legal or professional obliga- tions, the forensic practitioner may terminate the relation- ship. Forensic practitioners strive to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in providing agreed-upon and reasonably anticipated services. Forensic practitioners are not bound, however, to provide services not reasonably anticipated when retained, nor to provide every possible aspect or variation of service. Instead, forensic practitioners may exercise professional discretion in determining the extent and means by which services are provided and agreements are fulfilled. Guideline 3.02: Responsiveness Forensic practitioners seek to manage their workloads so that services can be provided thoroughly, competently, and promptly. They recognize that acting with reasonable promptness, however, does not require the forensic practi- tioner to acquiesce to service demands not reasonably anticipated at the time the service was requested, nor does it require the forensic practitioner to provide services if the client has not acted in a manner consistent with existing agreements, including payment of fees. Guideline 3.03: Communication Forensic practitioners strive to keep their clients reasonably informed about the status of their services, comply with their clients’ reasonable requests for information, and con- sult with their clients about any substantial limitation on their conduct or performance that may arise when they reasonably believe that their clients expect a service that is not consistent with their professional obligations. Forensic practitioners attempt to keep their clients reasonably in- formed regarding new facts, opinions, or other potential evidence that may be relevant and applicable. Guideline 3.04: Termination of Services The forensic practitioner seeks to carry through to conclu- sion all matters undertaken for a client unless the forensic practitioner– client relationship is terminated. When a fo- rensic practitioner’s employment is limited to a specific matter, the relationship may terminate when the matter has been resolved, anticipated services have been completed, or the agreement has been violated. 4. Relationships Whether a forensic practitioner– client relationship exists depends on the circumstances and is determined by a number of factors which may include the information ex- changed between the potential client and the forensic prac- titioner prior to, or at the initiation of, any contact or service, the nature of the interaction, and the purpose of the interaction. In their work, forensic practitioners recognize that relationships are established with those who retain their services (e.g., retaining parties, employers, insurers, the 10 January 2013 ● American Psychologist court) and those with whom they interact (e.g., examinees, collateral contacts, research participants, students). Foren- sic practitioners recognize that associated obligations and duties vary as a function of the nature of the relationship. Guideline 4.01: Responsibilities to Retaining Parties Most responsibilities to the retaining party attach only after the retaining party has requested and the forensic practi- tioner has agreed to render professional services and an agreement regarding compensation has been reached. Fo- rensic practitioners are aware that there are some respon- sibilities, such as privacy, confidentiality, and privilege, that may attach when the forensic practitioner agrees to consider whether a forensic practitioner–retaining party relationship shall be established. Forensic practitioners, prior to entering into a contract, may direct the potential retaining party not to reveal any confidential or privileged information as a way of protecting the retaining party’s interest in case a conflict exists as a result of pre-existing relationships. At the initiation of any request for service, forensic practitioners seek to clarify the nature of the relationship and the services to be provided including the role of the forensic practitioner (e.g., trial consultant, forensic exam- iner, treatment provider, expert witness, research consul- tant); which person or entity is the client; the probable uses of the services provided or information obtained; and any limitations to privacy, confidentiality, or privilege. Guideline 4.02: Multiple Relationships A multiple relationship occurs when a forensic practitioner is in a professional role with a person and, at the same time or at a subsequent time, is in a different role with the same person; is involved in a personal, fiscal, or other relation- ship with an adverse party; at the same time is in a rela- tionship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the forensic practitioner has the professional relationship; or offers or agrees to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person (EPPCC Standard 3.05). Forensic practitioners strive to recognize the potential conflicts of interest and threats to objectivity inherent in multiple relationships. Forensic practitioners are encour- aged to recognize that some personal and professional relationships may interfere with their ability to practice in a competent and impartial manner and they seek to mini- mize any detrimental effects by avoiding involvement in such matters whenever feasible or limiting their assistance in a manner that is consistent with professional obligations. Guideline 4.02.01: Therapeutic–Forensic Role Conflicts Providing forensic and therapeutic psychological services to the same individual or closely related individuals in- volves multiple relationships that may impair objectivity and/or cause exploitation or other harm. Therefore, when requested or ordered to provide either concurrent or se- quential forensic and therapeutic services, forensic practi- tioners are encouraged to disclose the potential risk and make reasonable efforts to refer the request to another qualified provider. If referral is not possible, the forensic practitioner is encouraged to consider the risks and benefits to all parties and to the legal system or entity likely to be impacted, the possibility of separating each service widely in time, seeking judicial review and direction, and consult- ing with knowledgeable colleagues. When providing both forensic and therapeutic services, forensic practitioners seek to minimize the potential negative effects of this circumstance (EPPCC Standard 3.05). Guideline 4.02.02: Expert Testimony by Practitioners Providing Therapeutic Services Providing expert testimony about a patient who is a par- ticipant in a legal matter does not necessarily involve the practice of forensic psychology even when that testimony is relevant to a psycholegal issue before the decision maker. For example, providing testimony on matters such as a patient’s reported history or other statements, mental status, diagnosis, progress, prognosis, and treatment would not ordinarily be considered forensic practice even when the testimony is related to a psycholegal issue before the decision maker. In contrast, rendering opinions and pro- viding testimony about a person on psycholegal issues (e.g., criminal responsibility, legal causation, proximate cause, trial competence, testamentary capacity, the relative merits of parenting arrangements) would ordinarily be con- sidered the practice of forensic psychology. Consistent with their ethical obligations to base their opinions on information and techniques sufficient to sub- stantiate their findings (EPPCC Standards 2.04, 9.01), fo- rensic practitioners are encouraged to provide testimony only on those issues for which they have adequate founda- tion and only when a reasonable forensic practitioner en- gaged in similar circumstances would determine that the ability to make a proper decision is unlikely to be impaired. As with testimony regarding forensic examinees, the fo- rensic practitioner strives to identify any substantive limi- tations that may affect the reliability and validity of the facts or opinions offered, and communicates these to the decision maker. Guideline 4.02.03: Provision of Forensic Therapeutic Services Although some therapeutic services can be considered fo- rensic in nature, the fact that therapeutic services are or- dered by the court does not necessarily make them forensic. In determining whether a therapeutic service should be considered the practice of forensic psychology, psychol- ogists are encouraged to consider the potential impact of the legal context on treatment, the potential for treatment to impact the psycholegal issues involved in the case, and whether another … SAMPLE REPORT Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-2-RF reports, but are provided here as background information. The following report was generated from Q-global™, Pearson’s web-based scoring and reporting application, using Mr. M.’s responses to the MMPI-2-RF. Additional MMPI-2-RF sample reports, product offerings, training opportunities, and resources can be found at PearsonClinical.com/mmpi2rf. Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved. Q-global, Always Learning, Pearson, design for Psi, and PsychCorp are atrademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form and MMPI-2-RF are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 8795-A 01/14 Case Description: Mr. M — Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal Score Report Mr. M, a 21-year-old, single male, was evaluated pursuant to a court order in connection with a not-guilty- by-reason-of-insanity plea. A patrol officer had observed Mr. M driving erratically, weaving in and out of traffic on a county highway. The officer followed the defendant in a marked police cruiser and eventually activated the vehicle’s lights and siren. Rather than pull over, Mr. M accelerated his driving speed and a several-mile chase ensued. Other cruisers were called in, and Mr. M, who had pulled off the highway and was driving on back roads, was surrounded. He then drove straight at the patrol officer’s vehicle and rammed it several times, managing to escape, and continued driving until his vehicle ran out of fuel. At that point he was apprehended, arrested, and charged with aggravated assault of a police officer. He was taken to a hospital to clean up minor wounds and from there Mr. M was transported to the county jail. In his report, the arresting officer wrote that Mr. M appeared to be terrified, repeatedly shouting “Don’t shoot me, don’t kill me” even after he was handcuffed and sitting in the back of a cruiser. Records forwarded by the hospital where Mr. M was treated for his wounds described him as initially agitated, paranoid, and incoherent. Hospital staff suspected that Mr. M may have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. However, the results of a toxicology screen were negative. Mr. M was given a sedative and eventually calmed down and was transported to the jail where he was assessed by a mental health worker. The worker’s notes indicated that Mr. M claimed that he had been chased by a gang that was hired to kill him. He was placed in the jail’s mental health unit and evaluated later that day by a psychiatrist who diagnosed Mr. M with “Atypical Psychosis” and recommended that he be observed for a few days to help determine an appropriate diagnosis and course of treatment. At his arraignment, a court-appointed attorney entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity on behalf of Mr. M, who was referred by the Court for an evaluation of his mental condition at the time of the alleged offense. Interviews were conducted with Mr. M’s parents who reported that the he had graduated from high school two years prior to his arrest and had continued to reside with them. He was employed at a local grocery store and had been functioning normally until approximately four months prior http://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000631/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-2-rf-mmpi-2-rf.html SAMPLE REPORT Case Description (continued): Mr. M — Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal Score Report to his arrest. His parents reported that Mr. M, an amature musician, became “obsessed” with the idea that a nationally known musical group had stolen his material. He wrote to members of the group, posted about the “theft” on-line, and called local radio stations to “out the thieves.” He began to isolate socially, broke up with his girlfriend, refusing to tell her or his family why he did so, and spent most of the time he was not at work playing guitar in the basement of his parents’ home. His parents described him as being increasingly preoccupied, frequently looking out at the street and telling them that the musical group had hired a local gang to “take him out.” When interviewed at the jail, Mr. M. told a similar story, explaining that he was driving home from work when he noticed that he was being followed. He believed that the vehicle following him was driven by gang members who had been hired to kill him and tried to “outrun them”. When he saw the lights and heard the siren he concluded that the gang had stolen a police cruiser and he continued to try to escape. He explained that he was trying to drive home, which was indeed the direction he was heading when he ran out of fuel. When surrounded by several cruisers he rammed the one that had been following him Interviews with Mr. M’s manager at work and documents forwarded by his attorney corroborated information provided by Mr. M and his parents. Score Report MMPI-2-RF® Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form® Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD, & Auke Tellegen, PhD ID Number: Mr. M Age: 21 Gender: Male Marital Status: Not reported Years of Education: Not reported Date Assessed: 1/13/14 Copyright © 2008, 2011, 2012 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusively under license from the University of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc. Portions reproduced from the MMPI-2-RF test booklet. Copyright © 2008 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Copyright © 2008, 2011 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press. MMPI-2-RF, the MMPI-2-RF logo, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota. Pearson, the PSI logo, and PsychCorp are trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s). TRADE SECRET INFORMATION Not for release under HIPAA or other data disclosure laws that exempt trade secrets from disclosure. [ 2.2 / 1 / QG ] SA MP LE MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 K-rL-rFBS-rFsFp-rF-rTRIN-rVRIN-r Raw Score: Response \%: VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r Variable Response Inconsistency True Response Inconsistency Infrequent Responses Infrequent Psychopathology Responses 7 68 100 Fs FBS-r RBS Infrequent Somatic Responses Symptom Validity Response Bias Scale 3 66 100 3 68 100 7 74 100 12 57 100 18 83 100 10 86 100 14 88 100 120 110 Cannot Say (Raw): 1 T Score: T 41Percent True (of items answered): \% 645975 T T 54 52 60 5563 10 20152810 16 1219 T Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ 93 70826174 9989Percent scoring at or below test taker: L-r K-r Uncommon Virtues Adjustment Validity RBS 8 52 100 46 11 7392 The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered. ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 2 SA MP LE MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC3RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: EID THD BXD Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction Thought Dysfunction Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction 20 64 100 RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 Demoralization Somatic Complaints Low Positive Emotions Cynicism Antisocial Behavior RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9 Ideas of Persecution Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Aberrant Experiences Hypomanic Activation 6 59 100 12 64 100 3 43 100 6 67 100 8 65 100 5 52 100 4 46 100 4 70 100 6 66 100 11 60 100 6 40 100 120 110 Higher-Order Restructured Clinical 59 60606162 58 6456 66 6056 52 15 15141218 14 1312 18 1614 11 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: 61 5661971 75 2125 70 7269 14 The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered. ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 3 SA MP LE MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and Internalizing Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 NFC ANPAXYSTW MSFBRFNUCGIC HPC HLPCOG SFD Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: MLS GIC HPC NUC COG Malaise Gastrointestinal Complaints Head Pain Complaints Neurological Complaints Cognitive Complaints 5 69 100 AXY ANP BRF MSF Anxiety Anger Proneness Behavior-Restricting Fears Multiple Specific Fears SUI HLP SFD NFC STW Suicidal/Death Ideation Helplessness/Hopelessness Self-Doubt Inefficacy Stress/Worry 7 80 100 1 53 100 2 59 100 2 72 100 1 100 3 65 100 3 69 100 2 48 100 3 80 100 5 65 1 47 100 2 46 100 1 56 100 Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing 120 110 59 60615657 63 5755 55 6056 54 4853 14 16161316 24 1314 12 1712 13 912 Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MLS 86 66 SUI 78 88427084 72 7686 37 8984 40 4774 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered. ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 4 SA MP LE MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 SAV MECAESACTAGGSUBJCP FML DSFIPP SHY Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: FML IPP SAV SHY DSF Family Problems Interpersonal Passivity Social Avoidance Shyness Disaffiliativeness 2 57 100 JCP SUB AGG ACT Juvenile Conduct Problems Substance Abuse Aggression Activation AES MEC Aesthetic-Literary Interests Mechanical-Physical Interests 2 49 100 4 53 100 0 37 100 0 41 100 7 62 100 4 52 100 5 55 100 0 44 100 3 52 100 2 45 100 InterpersonalExternalizing Interest 120 110 62 54525562 49 5154 55 5745 14 14131315 11 1112 14 1010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 46 50671617 90 6965 52 3868 Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered. ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 5 SA MP LE MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 Scales 20 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 INTR-rNEGE-rDISC-rPSYC-rAGGR-r Raw Score: T Score: Response \%: AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r Aggressiveness-Revised Psychoticism-Revised Disconstraint-Revised Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised 4 39 100 11 64 100 9 56 100 4 44 100 5 63 100 120 110 53 55586061 11 12131118 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551 Standard Dev Mean Score 1 SD+( ): ( ): _ Percent scoring at or below test taker: 9 7755865 The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a ---; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered. ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 6 SA MP LE MMPI-2-RF T SCORES (BY DOMAIN) PROTOCOL VALIDITY SUBSTANTIVE SCALES *The test taker provided scorable responses to less than 90\% of the items scored on this scale. See the relevant profile page for the specific percentage. Note. This information is provided to facilitate interpretation following the recommended structure for MMPI-2-RF interpretation in Chapter 5 of the MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1. Content Non-Responsiveness 1 68 57 T CNS VRIN-r TRIN-r Over-Reporting 74 68 66 83 88 F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS Under-Reporting 86 52 L-r K-r Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 59 69 72 59 53 80 RC1 MLS GIC HPC NUC COG Emotional Dysfunction 64 64 66 69 65 48 EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC 65 64 RC2 INTR-r 60 65* 80 47 56 46 56 RC7 STW AXY ANP BRF MSF NEGE-r Thought Dysfunction 67 70 THD RC6 66 RC8 63 PSYC-r Behavioral Dysfunction 43 52 57 41 BXD RC4 JCP SUB 40 37 53 39 44 RC9 AGG ACT AGGR-r DISC-r Interpersonal Functioning 49 46 62 55 52 44 FML RC3 IPP SAV SHY DSF Interests 45 52 AES MEC ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 7 SA MP LE ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION Unscorable Responses Following is a list of items to which the test taker did not provide scorable responses. Unanswered or double answered (both True and False) items are unscorable. The scales on which the items appear are in parentheses following the item content. 224. Item Content Omitted. (STW) Critical Responses Seven MMPI-2-RF scales--Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety (AXY), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Aberrant Experiences (RC8), Substance Abuse (SUB), and Aggression (AGG)--have been designated by the test authors as having critical item content that may require immediate attention and follow-up. Items answered by the individual in the keyed direction (True or False) on a critical scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is 65 or higher. The percentage of the MMPI-2-RF normative sample (NS) and of the Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men) comparison group (CG) that answered each item in the keyed direction are provided in parentheses following the item content. Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI, T Score = 66) 334. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 13.5\%, CG 26.1\%) Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP, T Score = 69) 169. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 4.3\%, CG 26.0\%) 214. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 10.4\%, CG 24.3\%) 336. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 38.0\%, CG 27.4\%) Anxiety (AXY, T Score = 80) 228. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 17.3\%, CG 31.8\%) 275. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 5.0\%, CG 28.1\%) 289. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.7\%, CG 26.1\%) Ideas of Persecution (RC6, T Score = 70) 110. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 9.9\%, CG 36.3\%) 168. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 2.8\%, CG 7.6\%) 287. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 3.1\%, CG 16.7\%) 310. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 3.0\%, CG 18.3\%) ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 8 Special Note: The content of the test items is included in the actual reports. To protect the integrity of the test, the item content does not appear in this sample report. ITEMS NOT SHOWN SA MP LE Aberrant Experiences (RC8, T Score = 66) 32. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 21.1\%, CG 57.4\%) 159. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 6.0\%, CG 33.8\%) 179. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.6\%, CG 26.9\%) 199. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.1\%, CG 23.8\%) 257. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.4\%, CG 32.1\%) 311. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 32.4\%, CG 32.3\%) End of Report This and previous pages of this report contain trade secrets and are not to be released in response to requests under HIPAA (or any other data disclosure law that exempts trade secret information from release). Further, release in response to litigation discovery demands should be made only in accordance with your professions ethical guidelines and under an appropriate protective order. ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 9 Special Note: The content of the test items is included in the actual reports. To protect the integrity of the test, the item content does not appear in this sample report. ITEMS NOT SHOWN SA MP LE