Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conducting Disability Evaluations with a Forensic Perspective: the Application of Criminal Responsibility Evaluation Guidelines

  • Published:
Psychological Injury and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the goals of disability and criminal responsibility evaluations differ greatly, both evaluations require determining whether an individual evidences genuine impairment that aligns with a legal definition and the extent to which mental health symptoms impact the individual’s functioning. Recommendations for how to conduct criminal responsibility evaluations often include a multi-step process for completing an objective evaluation that thoroughly addresses the clinical and legal issues at hand. Forensic recommendations also emphasize the need to evaluate the extent to which reported symptoms are genuine and how to determine whether the clinical presentation aligns with the legal standard at issue. This paper will illustrate how recommendations for conducting criminal responsibility evaluations can be applied to disability evaluations done to determine whether someone should receive accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) to ensure a thorough assessment that addresses relevant clinical issues and legal standards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Unless otherwise noted, forensic evaluators will be used to refer to evaluators conducting criminal responsibility evaluations and disability evaluators will be used to refer to those conducting diagnostic evaluations that could be utilized by a third-party to determine whether someone meets the ADA definition of disability.

References

  • American Law Institute. (1985). Model penal code and annotations. Washington DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U. S. C. §§12101 et seq.

  • American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1996). Establishing standards for criminal forensic reports: an empirical analysis. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 24, 297–317.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chafetz, M., & Underhill, J. (2013). Estimated costs of malingered disability. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28, 633–639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks-Linhorst, P. A., & Kondrat, D. (2012). Tough on crime or beating the system: an evaluation of Missouri Department of Mental Health’s not guilty by reason of insanity murder acquittees. Homicide Studies, 16, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767912438711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dvorsky, M. R., Langberg, J. M., Molitor, S. J., & Bourchtein, E. (2016). Clinical utility and predictive validity of parent and college student symptom ratings in predicting an ADHD diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72, 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, M., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2011). Criminal responsibility evaluations: role of psychologists in assessment. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 18, 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2010.482952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, L. H. (2013). Mental health disability: a model for assessment. In L. H. Gold & D. L. Vanderpool (Eds.), Clinical guide to mental disability evaluations (pp. 3–35). New York: Springer Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfried, E. D., Schenk, A. M., & Vitacco, M. J. (2016). Retrospectively assessing for feigning in criminal responsibility evaluations: recommendations for clinical practice. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 16, 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1154713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowensmith, W. N., Sessarego, S. N., McKee, M. K., Horkott, S., MacLean, N., & McCallum, K. E. (2017). Diagnostic field reliability in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 29, 692–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gutheil, T. G. (2002). Assessment of mental state at the time of the criminal offense. In R. I. Simon & D. W. Shuman (Eds.), Retrospective assessment of mental states in litigation (pp. 73–99). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., Lovett, B. J., & Gordon, M. (2013). Documenting disabilities in postsecondary settings: diagnosticians’ understanding of legal regulations and diagnostic standards. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 28, 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573513508527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilbrun, K., NeMoyer, A., King, C., & Galloway, M. (2015). Using third-party information in forensic mental-health assessment: a critical review. Court Review, 51, 16–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, C. M. (2017). Forensic assessment II: conducting the evaluation. In G. Pirelli, R. A. Beattey, & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), The ethical practice of forensic psychology (pp. 189–228). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Langberg, J. M., Epstein, J. N., Simon, J. O., Loren, R. E. A., Arnold, L. E. Hechtman, L.,. . Wigal, T. (2010). Parent agreement on ratings of children’s attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and broadband externalizing behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426608330792.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L. O. (2018). Psychological evaluation for the courts: a handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalopoulos, L. M., & Aparicio, E. (2012). Vicarious trauma in social workers: the role of trauma history, social support, and years of experience. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 21, 6464–6664. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2012.689422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E. M., & Condit, D. C. (2002). Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 1094–1102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. M., & Harwood, H. R. (2011). A meta-analysis of parent and teacher reports of depression among students with learning disabilities: evidence for the importance of multi-informant assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, I. K. (2009). Evaluation of criminal responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, I. K. (2013). Evaluation of criminal responsibility. In R. Roesch & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), Forensic assessment in criminal and civil law: a handbook for lawyers (pp. 32–46). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Physical or Mental Disease, Disorder, or Defect Excluding Penal Responsibility. HI Rev Stat § 704–400 (2013).

  • Piechowski, L. D. (2013). Evaluation of workplace disability. In R. Roesch & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), Forensic assessment in criminal and civil law: a handbook for lawyers (pp. 191–204). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, W. H. (2006). Sanity evaluations and criminal responsibility. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2, 114–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P. J., West, S., & Payne, J. W. (2008). Malingering of posttraumatic disorders. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (5th ed., pp. 109–127). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roesch, R., Viljoen, J. L., & Hui, I. (2004). Assessing intent in criminal responsibility. In W. T. O’Donohue & E. R. Levensky (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology: resource for mental health and legal professionals (pp. 157–174). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (1987). APA’s position on the insanity defense: empiricism versus emotionalism. American Psychologist, 42, 840–848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Seman, W., & Clark, C. C. (1986). Assessment of criminal responsibility: initial validation of the R-CRAS with the M’Naghten and GMBI standards. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 67–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1999). The R-CRAS and sanity evaluations: a re-examination of construct validity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 181–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Gillard, N. D. (2010). Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS), 2nd Edition, professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

  • Sadoff, R. L., & Dattilio, F. M. (2011). Criminal responsibility. In E. Y. Drogin, F. M. Dattiliio, R. L. Sadoff, & T. G. Gutheil (Eds.), Handbook of forensic assessment: psychological and psychiatric perspectives (pp. 121–144). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. L., & McDermott, B. (2013). Malingering and mental health disability evaluations. In L. H. Gold & D. L. Vanderpool (Eds.), Clinical guide to mental disability evaluations (pp. 155–182). New York: Springer Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, P. J., Simmelink-McCleary, J., Im, H., Becher, E., & Crook-Lyon, R. E. (2014). Exploring the experiences of survivor students in a course on trauma treatment. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 6, 5107–5115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. I. (2002). Retrospective assessment of mental states in criminal and civil litigation. In R. I. Simon & D. W. Shuman (Eds.), Retrospective assessment of mental states in litigation (pp. 1–20). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Security Administration. (n.d.). Disability benefits. Retrieved from: https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/

  • Sodeke-Gregson, E. A., Holttum, S., & Billings, J. (2013). Compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress in UK therapists who work with adult trauma clients. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 4, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gorp, W. G., & McMullen, W. J. (1997). Potential sources of bias in forensic neuropsychological evaluations. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 180–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, J. I., Murrie, D. C., Chauhan, P., Dietz, P. E., & Morris, J. (2004). Opinion formation in evaluating sanity at the time of the offense: an examination of 5175 pre-trial evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zosky, D. L. (2013). Wounded healers: graduate students with histories of trauma in a family violence course. Journal of Teaching and Social Work, 33, 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2013.795923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, State University of New York College at Cortland, P. O. Box 2000, Cortland, NY, 13045, USA

    Karen M. Davis

  2. Oakdale Psychology Associates, 423 E. Main St., Endicott, NY, 13760, USA

    Michael B. Lister

Authors
  1. Karen M. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael B. Lister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen M. Davis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

No original empirical data were collected for this article.

Animal Rights

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davis, K.M., Lister, M.B. Conducting Disability Evaluations with a Forensic Perspective: the Application of Criminal Responsibility Evaluation Guidelines. Psychol. Inj. and Law 12, 52–63 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09343-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09343-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation