Psychological assessment practices in legal contexts: A survey to professionals from Latin-America

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v18i1.3652

Keywords:

Psychological assessment, legal field, mental state, risk of violence, simulation, psychological harm, Latin America

Abstract

This study explores practices of psychological assessment within five frequently researched areas in legal contexts: mental state during the offense, risk of general violence, risk of sexual violence, simulation, and psychological harm. A total of 191 psychologists from 10 Latin American countries who practice within legal domains took part in an online survey. Three key findings emerged from their responses and were consistent across all five assessment areas: a) the predominant use of the interview, followed by multi-scale personality inventories, and projective tests; b) a preference for nonspecific assessment techniques, rather than specific approaches tailored to each area; and c) comparing regions, a preference for projective tests and the Rorschach test in Argentina, followed by other South American countries. In contrast, standardized tests, such as multi-scale personality inventories, clinical scales, and cognitive assessment methods, found favor in Central American regions. The findings are discussed from a comparative perspective, with their academic, technical, and ethical implications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., Nichols, C. N., Lampropoulos, G. K., & Walker, B. S. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005285875

American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889

Andrés Pueyo, A., & Arbach, K. (2014). Peligrosidad y valoración del riesgo de violencia en contextos forenses. En E. García-López (Ed.), Psicopatología Forense: Comportamiento Humano y Tribunales de Justicia (pp. 505-525). Manual Moderno.

Asociación de Psicólogos Forenses de la Administración de Justicia. (2018). Evaluación Psicológica Forense de los abusos y maltratos a niños, niñas y adolescentes. Guía de buenas prácticas. https://copmelilla.org/descargas/pdf/guiebuenaspracticasymaltratoinfantil.pdf

Australian Psychological Society. (2014). Ethical guidelines for psychological practice in forensic contexts. http://afccnet.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Handout-5-Ethical-guideline-forensic.pdf

Arbach, K., Bondaruk, A., Carubelli, S., Palma, F., & Singh, J. P. (2017). Evaluación forense de la peligrosidad: Una aproximación a las prácticas profesionales en Latinoamérica. Psiencia: Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencia Psicológica, 9(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5872/psiencia/9.1.23

Arbach, K., & Folino, J. (2021). La valoración del riesgo de reincidencia en imputados por violencia contra la pareja: Un estudio longitudinal con la Guía SARA. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 31, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2021a4

Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A Survey of Psychological Test Use Patterns Among Forensic Psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_07

Arellano, L. A., & Rivera Heredia, M. E. (2021). Dilemas éticos en la práctica psicológica forense: Revisión sistemática y análisis bibliométrico. Psicumex, 11, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.36793/psicumex.v11i2.380

Barboni, L., & Bonilla, N. (2019). Instrumentos de evaluación psicológica en el ámbito jurídico: una aproximación a las prácticas profesionales en Uruguay. Revista Criminalidad, 61(2), 133-144.

Barboni, L., & Bonilla, N. (2022). Estudio de mercado de ofertas de postgrado en Psicología Jurídica y Forense en Latinoamérica. Universidad Católica de Uruguay.

Benito, E. (2009). La formación en Psicología: revisión y perspectivas. PSIENCIA. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencia Psicológica, 1(2), 3-10.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. En Textbooks Collection. University of South Florida.

Bonventre, C. L. (2021). Wrongful convictions and forensic science. WIREs Forensic Science, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1406

Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in criminal forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(5), 465-473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.26.5.465

Combalbert, N., Andronikof, A., Armand, M., Robin, C., & Bazex, H. (2014). Forensic mental health assessment in France: Recommendations for quality improvement. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(6), 628-634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.037

Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Catalunya. (2016). Guía de buenas prácticas para la evaluación psicológica forense y la práctica pericial. https://arxiu.copc.cat/adjuntos/adjunto_68/v/Guia Bones Pràctiques Forenses.pdf?tm=1494424276

Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469.

Dror, I. E. (2016). A hierarchy of expert performance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.03.001

Dror, I. E., & Murrie, D. C. (2018). A hierarchy of expert performance applied to forensic psychological assessments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000140

Duce, M. (2018a). Prueba pericial y su impacto en los errores del sistema de justicia penal: antecedentes comparados y locales para iniciar el debate. Ius et Praxis, 24(2), 223-262.

Duce, M. (2018b). Una aproximación empírica al uso y prácticas de la prueba pericial en el proceso penal Chileno a la luz de su impacto en los errores del sistema. Política Criminal, 13(25), 42-103.

Echeburúa, E., Muñoz, J. M., & Loinaz, I. (2011). La evaluación psicológica forense frente a la evaluación clínica: Propuestas y retos de futuro. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11(1), 141-159.

Eysenbach, G. (2004). Improving the quality of web surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3), e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34

Fariña, F., Arce, R., & Seijo, D. (2005). Historia de la Psicología Jurídica en América y Europa. En R. Arce, F. Fariña, & M. Novo (Eds.), Psicología Jurídica. Consellería de Xustiza, Interior e Administración Local.

Folino, E., & Arbach, K. (2021). Valoración del riesgo de violencia en pacientes forenses con el HCR-20V3: Análisis de fiabilidad interevaluador y validez concurrente. Vertex Revista Argentina de Psiquiatría, 32(151), 32-44. https://doi.org/10.53680/vertex.v32i151.23

Folino, J. (2015). Predictive efficacy of violence risk assessment instruments in Latin-America. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7(2), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.006

Frye vs. U.S. (1923). 293 F. 1013. (D.C. Cir. 1923).

Garrett, B. L., & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1-97.

Garrido Gaitán, E., Lovelle Iglesias, M. I., Mora Montserrat, S., & Pina Ríos, R. (2023). Guía ética y de buenas prácticas en Psicología Forense aplicada al ámbito penal. Collegi Oficial de Psicologia de Catalunya.

Goldstein, N. E. S., Houck, M. J., & Folino, J. (2015). Tópicos actuales de la investigación internacional sobre riesgo de violencia. Revista Criminalidad, 57(1), 27-43.

Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.28.1.50

Grisso, T. (2010). Guidance for improving forensic reports: A review of common errors. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 102-115.

Hare, R. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised Manual (2a ed.). Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Hathaway, S. R. (1982). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. University of Minnesota.

Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 16(3), 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044769

Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., Marczyk, G., & Goldstein, A. M. (2008). Standards of practice and care in forensic mental health assessment: Legal, Professional, and Principles-Based Considerations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.1

Heilbrun, K., Grisso, T., & Goldstein, A. (2008). Foundations of forensic mental health assessment. Oxford University Press.

Hill, D., & Demetrioff, S. (2019). Clinical-forensic psychology in Canada: A survey of practitioner characteristics, attitudes, and psychological assessment practices. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 60(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000152

Instituto de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses. (2016). Guía de evaluación psicológica forense en casos de violencia contra las mujeres y los integrantes del grupo familiar, y en otros casos de violencia. Ministerio Público. Fiscalía de la Nación. Lima, Perú. https://img.legis.pe/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/«Guía-de-Evaluación-Psicológica-Forense-en-caso-de-violencia-contra-las-mujeres-y-los-integrantes-del-grupo-familiar-y-en-otros-casos-de-violencia»-Legis.pe_.pdf

Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses. (2010). Guía para la realización de pericias psiquiátricas y psicológicas forenses mediante autopsia psicológica en la determinación de la manera de muerte (suicida, homicida o accidental). www.medicinalegal.gov.co/%0Adocuments/20143/40473/Guía+para+la+rea%0Alización+de+pericias+psiquiátricas%0A+o+psicológicas+forenses+mediante+autops%0Aia+psicológica+en+la+determinació%0An+de+la+manera+de+muerte+suicida%2C+homida+.%0Apdf/3e166326-5933-7734-

Ireland, J. (2012). Evaluating expert witness psychological reports: Exploring quality. Summary report (February). University of Central Lancashire. www.ccats.org.uk/images/Expert%2520Witness.pdf

Juárez, J. R., & Lira Mendiguren, G. (2020). Buenas prácticas, tensiones y desafíos ético-deontológicos en la evaluación psicológica forense del maltrato y abuso sexual infantil. Revista de Bioética y Derecho: Perspectivas Bioéticas, 49, 41-58.

Klappenbach, H. (2015). La formación universitaria en psicología en Argentina: Perspectivas actuales y desafíos a la luz de la historia. Universitas Psychologica, 14(3), 937-960. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy14-3.fupa

Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(5), 491-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.5.491

Montero, I., & León, O. O. G. (2007). A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 847-862.

Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Muñoz Vicente, J. M., & López Ossorio, J. J. (2016). Valoración psicológica del riesgo de violencia: Alcance y limitaciones para su uso en el contexto forense. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 26(1), 130-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apj.2016.04.005

National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12589

Navarro, J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2008). Chilean psychologists as expert witnesses: The challenges of a new criminal justice system. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 19(2), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789940701692324

Neal, T., & Grisso, T. (2014a). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1406-1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449

Neal, T., & Grisso, T. (2014b). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035824

Neal, T. M. S., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860

Neal, T., Martire, K. A., Johan, J. L., Mathers, E. M., & Otto, R. K. (2022). The law meets psychological expertise: Eight best practices to improve forensic psychological assessment. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 18, 169-192.

Otto, R. K., DeMier, R., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2014). Forensic reports and testimony: A guide to effective communication for psychologists and psychiatrists. Wiley.

Paulhus, D. (1998). Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS): The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding-7: User’s Manual. Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2016). Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf

Quijada, D. (2011). Aportes al debido proceso penal en evaluación pericial psicológica y psiquiátrica a imputados en delitos sexuales: ¿Existe relación de coherencia entre solicitud y respuesta pericial? [Trabajo de maestría, Universidad Diego Portales]. https://cejamericas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DQUIJADA_existerelaciondecoherenciaentresolicitudyrespuestapericial.pdf

Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E. M. E., Cormier, C. A., Quinsey, V. L., & Cormier, C. A. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (3a ed.). American Psychological Association.

Quintero, L. M., García-López, E., & Mercurio, E. (2020). Training in Legal and Forensic Psychology in Hispan-America. En J. Rich, A. Padilla López, L. Ebersöhn, J. Taylor, & S. Morrissey (Eds.), Teaching Psychology around the World: Volume 5 (pp. 19-33). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Sánchez Fernández, J., Muñoz Leiva, F., & Montoro Ríos, F. (2009). ¿Cómo mejorar la tasa de respuesta en encuestas on line? Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Segunda Época, 1, 45-62.

Singh, J. P., Condemarín, C., & Folino, J. (2013). El uso de instrumentos de riesgo de violencia en Argentina y Chile. Revista Criminalidad, 55(3), 279-290.

Singh, J. P., Desmarais, S. L., Hurducas, C., Arbach, K., Condemarín, C., Dean, K., Doyle, M., Folino, J. O., Godoy-Cervera, V., Grann, M., Ho, R. M. Y., Large, M. M., Nielsen, L. H., Pham, T. H., Rebocho, M. F., Reeves, K. a., Rettenberger, M., de Ruiter, C., Seewald, K., & Otto, R. K. (2014). International Perspectives on the Practical Application of Violence Risk Assessment: A Global Survey of 44 Countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(3), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.922141

Tombaugh, T. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Multi-Health Systems.

Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. D. (1997). HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence, version 2. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.

Wechsler, D. (1981). WAIS-R: Wechsler adult intelligence scale-revised. Psychological Corporation.

Younan, M., & Martire, K. A. (2021). Likeability and expert persuasion: Dislikeability reduces the perceived persuasiveness of expert evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(December), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.785677

Young, G. (2016). Psychiatric/ psychological forensic report writing. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49, 214-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.10.008

Zapf, P. A., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Dror, I. E. (2018). Cognitive bias in forensic mental health assessment: Evaluator beliefs about its nature and scope. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000153

Published

2024-05-10

How to Cite

Arbach, K., Barboni, L., & Mercurio, E. (2024). Psychological assessment practices in legal contexts: A survey to professionals from Latin-America. Ciencias Psicológicas, 18(1), e-3652. https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v18i1.3652

Issue

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

<< < > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.