Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 1

Validation of Personality Testing in Forensic Assessment

Ali Wijdan Khan

[Link]. Final (Clinical A-2)

Psychological Testing II (Psy:612)

Submitted To: Dr. Anila Amber Malik

Date: 21st – December -2022

 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 2

Abstract

Personality assessment makes explicit theoretical commitments that personality is a holistic,

superordinate, organizing factor in understanding human beings. And describes the way

people perceive, think, feel, and act; it is descriptive, explanatory, phenomenological, and

predictive, encompassing the full range of human behaviour, with a special interest in first

person, subjective experience. A forensic assessment is conducted either at the request of an

attorney or by court order. Either way, the purpose of a forensic assessment is to determine

the facts under question in a legal matter such as a lawsuit or a criminal case. There are

number of tools that are used in forensic assessment to understand the personality traits of a

criminal or accused. In this review report we conclude the importance of strong validation

framework of personality testing with respect to forensic assessment, and the understanding

about the forensic assessment instruments in measurement of constructs that are directly

relevant to specific legal questions.

 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 3

Introduction and Literature Review

Psychological assessment is a process of gathering and integration of psychology -

related data to make a psychological evaluation by using tools such as tests, interviews, case

studies, behavioural observation, and specially designed apparatus and measurement

procedures. In general, the process of assessment begins with a referral for assessment from a

source such as a teacher, a school psychologist, a counsellor, a judge, a clinician, or a

corporate human resources specialist, to answer one or more referral questions, solve a

problem, or arrive at a decision using tools of evaluation (Swerdlick C, 2009). Psychological

assessment can help in understanding psychological and mental health status of individuals

who are caught up in the legal process, assessment can cover depression, substance abuse,

competency, criminal intent, dangerousness, parental fitness, and intelligence, and the

purpose of psychological assessment in forensic setting (e.g., juvenile justice programs,

correctional institutions, and non-correctional settings in which therapy services are provided

to forensic populations such as abuse and crime victims) is to assist legal-decision maker, by

providing him with clinical and scientific data gathered from psychological evaluations that

are performed by mental health professionals such as psychologist or psychiatrist (Utcher JN

2002, O`donohue WT, Beitz K, Levensky ER 2003) .

Unlike therapeutic assessment, which occurs at the request of the patient, forensic

assessment is commonly conducted at the bequest of the legal system. As such, forensic

assessment is often not voluntarily sought by the person being evaluated and has more limited

confidentiality than traditional therapeutic assessment. The person undergoing forensic

assessment may resist the evaluation or may knowingly or unknowingly try to influence the

assessment to further his or her legal situation. Attempts to feign mental illness or present

oneself in a positive light are more common in forensic assessment than in traditional

therapeutic assessment and should always be considered.

 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 4

Traditional assessment is concerned primarily with the examinee’s view of the

problem or events. Although forensic assessment does pay attention to the examinee’s

perspective, it is more concerned with the accuracy of events than is traditional therapeutic

assessment. Unlike therapeutic assessment, which casts the examiner in a supportive or

helping role, the forensic evaluator’s duty is to the legal fact finder, which may or may not

assist the person being evaluated. In other words, the client in traditional therapeutic

assessment is the person being evaluated, whereas in forensic assessment, the client is the

legal fact finder. Forensic assessment can be involved at all levels of criminal proceedings,

starting with evaluations of a defendant’s capacity to waive Miranda rights at the time of

arrest and concluding with evaluations of a defendant’s competency to be sentenced or

competency to be executed. Evaluations of a defendant’s criminal responsibility (insanity

defence evaluations) are probably the second most common question posed in criminal

forensic assessment, although the insanity defence is raised in less than 1% of all felony

cases. Sometimes, competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility are confused, and the

terms are used interchangeably. Competency-to-stand-trial evaluations focus on a defendant’s

current mental functioning, whereas criminal responsibility evaluations focus on the

defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense. Other types of criminal forensic

assessment include evaluations of competence to waive counsel and competence to plead

guilty.

Forensic psychological assessment is the application of personality assessment to

legal and administrative contexts, assessment of criminal and civil competencies, mental state

at the time of the offense examinations, competency to stand trial, fitness for duty, extreme

hardship, or violence risk assessment (APA, 2013). Otto and Heilbrun (2002) document the

explosive emergence of forensic psychology as a discipline reflected in training, practice

standards, instrument development (including forensic assessment instruments and

 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 5

forensically relevant instruments), credentialing and certification, publications, and the

migration of clinical assessment psychologists to forensic psychology (Otto, 1998). Forensic

psychology is nomothetical preoccupied, with heightened concerns about accuracy of

classification and relevantly addressing legal standards, according to standards of proof (e.g.,

reasonable degree of psychological certainty), with a focus on individualized, dispositional

decision-making (e.g., Grove & Barden, 1999).

Personality traits and characteristics sums up an individual’s persona, behaviour, and

other internal temperament mechanisms. As many terminologies, the concept of what

constitutes one’s personality has various meanings. For example, Aiken and Groth Marnat

(2006) defines personality as the measurability of differences that can be compared to other

individuals’ characteristics. Personality tests are widely used in many different settings,

including psychological research, employment screening, diagnostic and clinical purposes;

and even in criminal legal proceedings and forensic settings (Funder, 2013; Kramer, 2007).

Focusing on personality characteristics that are “expressed in a wide number of situations,”

this perspective is based on forensic psychology and the appropriate testing tools for

psychologists to utilize for assessment and evaluation for a competency trial hearing.

Personality tests can be used to determine the defendant’s competence to stand trial, and

make predictions about the possibility of re-offending and response to rehabilitation

(Carrasco, Barker, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2006; Cooke & Thorwarth, 1978; Gendreau, Goggin,

& Law, 1997). There are a number of ways in which personality may be tested and in

psychological literature most measures are classified as either projective or objective (K. R.

Black, 1994). Projective tests typically use a person’s response to an ambiguous stimulus to

discern personality characteristics, based on the assumption that such responses reflect

unconscious desires and motives (K. R. Black, 1994). In contrast, objective tests usually
 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 6

require the person to answer a questionnaire with the responses compared against an

established standard (K. R. Black, 1994).

A wide variety of assessment instruments and procedures are used in forensic

assessments. These may include three major categories: Forensic Assessment Instruments

(FAIs), Forensically Relevant Instruments (FRIs), and Clinical Assessment Instruments

(CAIs). Other tests may be designed in a number of different ways, although each is built on

a theoretical framework or set of assumptions (K. R. Black, 1994). For example, the NEO

PI-R is based on the Big Five model of personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992), while the

MMPI and MMPI-2 are not based on a trait model of personality as such, rather these tests

are based on the assumption that people with similar personality characteristics tend to

answer certain questions in similar ways (Colligan, 1985). Several survey studies have been

conducted on psychological tests utilization in different forensic settings, and they have

indicated consistently that psychological testing is an important component of most forensic

evaluations, and the specific nature of the tests utilized varies by setting or evaluation focus

(Archer RP [Link], 2006). And the most commonly used instruments in forensic assessment are

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) for personality assessment and

the Wechsler scales for intellectual measurement. But these instruments were developed for

clinical purposes such as, diagnosis, and treatment planning not for forensic application

(Stuart A Greenberg , Randy K Otto, Anna C Long, 2002). Melton et al 2007, indicated that

most psychological tests have neither been developed nor validated for legal utilization. The

MMPI-2 for example, was developed for diagnostic purpose not for legal issues or standards;

it has no scale to measure the competency to stand a trial.

Personality tests face a huge number of potential limitations and so design is a crucial

factor in the success of a test (K. R. Black, 1994). One of the first such hurdles that must be

cleared when designing a test is ensuring construct validity; that is, a test must be measuring
 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 7

what it is intended and assumed to measure, and the theory or assumption on which that test

is based must hold true (Reis & Judd, 2000). A test must also have content validity, meaning

that items on the test are relevant to and cover all aspects of the measures the test was

designed to assess (Reis & Judd, 2000). Criterion (particularly predictive) validity – the

extent to which the test results can be used to make predictions about a person – is also of

great importance in personality testing because arguably without criterion validity,

personality tests would have no purpose (Reis & Judd, 2000). The extent to which a test

satisfies these requirements will determine the extent to which results obtained from the test

are meaningful, and in practice there are limits to how well a test can satisfy such

requirements. Many criticisms of personality testing are levelled at how well the test actually

measures personality and whether personality measures are even indicative of criminal

responsibility among others (Morgeson et al., 2007).

By understanding the above literature, in the following study, we will be focusing on

understanding the validation of personality test in forensic assessment and the extent to which

they can be meaningful.

Research Question

Question No 1: To what extent the assessment of personality in forensic psychology is

credible and meaningful?

Question No 2: What are the problems Psychological clinical instruments have

regarding its use in forensic settings?

Rationale

Testing and the whole notion of individual difference is something that psychology

has embraced, investigated, and well developed. Clinical measures and assessments are

psychological tests developed for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment planning with clinical
 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 8

populations in therapeutic contexts, such as tools used to assess personality, intelligence, and

psychopathology. These measures may help evaluate a person in the context of a legal issue

by assessing clinical constructs like depression, anxiety, and personality features, but the

clinical constructs do not relate directly to a legal issue. Forensically relevant instruments

also measure clinical constructs, but with high relevance to legal issues, such as risk of

violence, psychopathy, and the validity of response styles such as overreporting.

The primary purpose of this review study is to grasp the importance of strong

validation framework of personality testing with respect to forensic assessment, and another

is to understand if the forensic assessment instruments measure constructs that are directly

relevant to specific legal questions.

Methodology

Sample

Sample for this study was collected from different source. Different article and

research were reviewed online. Some of them are mentioned below:

Triumph of the Nomothetic: Personality Assessment and Forensic Psychology by

Marvin W. Acklin, Ph.D.

Personality Assessment in Legal Contexts: Introduction to the Special Issue by

Tess M.S. Neal.

Perceptions of the Validity and Utility of Criminal Profiling Among Forensic

Psychologists and Psychiatrists by Angela N. Torres, Marcus T. Bocconcini, and Holly A.

Miller

Procedure
 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 9

The following review report is based on close and deep research analysis about

the Validation of personality testing in forensic assessment. Several research articles were

taken into understanding, and all were then analysed carefully. Different review reports were

also analysed for the better understanding. Content analysis and systematic examination of

research article was done to understand the importance of construct validity and get answers

according to it. This review report was also supported by some books and articles, and online

browsing and different journals. Previous research was studied through Google scholars and

other means of browsing.

Analysis and Discussion

In this review report, we deeply analyse the data from various sources about

validation of personality test in forensic assessment and addressing with the reference of

literature by providing comprehensive, credible reviews of the psychometric evidence for and

legal status of some of the most used psychological and personality assessment measures

used in forensic evaluations. Most of psychological tests are depended on self-reports. And

self-report’s results only reveal what people want to disclose about themselves. In addition,

people are not always accurate about themselves. Self-report measures may result in

inaccurate results in different forensic settings. Personality testing is used in forensic

assessments with the goal of determining important issues such as a defendant’s competence

to stand trial, need for psychiatric rehabilitation; or likelihood of reoffending (Cooke &

Thorwarth, 1978; Gendreau et al., 1997).

Personality tests in forensic assessments should have a desirable degree of

standardization. Standardization concerns with standardization group or normative sample,

the basis on which the individual test score will be compared. Standardization group should

be representative and large enough to make such comparison. The more dissimilar the person
 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 10

is from this standardization group, the less useful the test is for evaluation. Standardization

also concerns with administration procedures, scoring, and interpretation of the results. The

Wechsler intelligence scales and the various forms of the MMPI (MMPI-2, MMPI-2-RF, and

MMPI-A) are examples of the standardized tests. As Archer et al., indicated The Wechsler

Intelligence Scales for example, represent a highly adequate standardized test for utilization

in forensic evaluations.

Another aspect that is understand for personality tests in forensic evaluation is that it

has to do with test reliability and validity. In forensic assessment it should consider the test is

reliable before using it in the evaluation process. The acceptable range of reliability depends

partially on the variable being measured. In general, stable traits or abilities have higher

reliabilities than changeable states. However, although a test can be reliable without being

valid, the opposite is not true. The point is that the test must have achieved an adequate level

of reliability (Groth, Marnat G, 2003). The lower the reliability of a given test, the lower the

limit on the validity of the construct being measured (Heilbrun K, 1992). Thus, valid tests are

those assess the constructs they are designed to assess. Nevertheless, high levels of test

validity during its construction are not guaranteed its validity in specific situation because in

practice, numerous variables might affect the test results. Validity in evaluation practice also

depends on the extent to which tests can work together to improve each other’s accuracy.

Some tests have incremental validity (tests` ability to produce information above what is

already known) in that they improve accuracy in additional information as increasing

numbers of data sources are used.

The MMPI-2 and similar objective tests are the most commonly used for these

purposes, while projective testing is used to a much lesser extent (Borum & Grisso, 1995).

Gendreau, Goggin, and Law (1997) performed a meta-analysis of 39 studies between 1940

and 1995 to determine which factors significantly predicted inmate misconduct during
 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 11

incarceration. The analysis was severely limited by the studies on which it was based: Few

had reported important methodological and demographic information or characteristics of the

prisons. The outcomes of the study showed that MMPI (and MMPI-2) scores were

significant at predicting misconduct, however the correlation was small (0.11) compared to

institutional factors (0.26). The MMPI has also been used to determine the probability that a

mentally ill offender will escape from a psychiatric hospital, and in one study of 60

participants yielded correct predictions 68% of the time, 18% higher than the chance rate of

50% (Cooke & Thorwarth, 1978). Such results are important for judges and hospitals to

consider when determining how much security is required for patients, however it is

questionable whether an error rate of 32% is acceptable in such settings.

Determination of potential for rehabilitation is also a consideration for judges during

sentencing, and for this reason Edwards (1963) investigated the relationship between MMPI

scores and success of rehabilitation. Seventy-two inmates provided data for this study, and

they were grouped according to how successful the outcomes of rehabilitation were. Results

were presented in a poor fashion; however, it was reported that MMPI scores were able to

predict outcomes significantly. Patient demographics and the accuracy and reliability of the

predictions were not reported.

One of the most important questions that must be raised when discussing personality

testing is how strong correlations and criterion validity must be for the test to be considered a

useful measure (Morgeson et al., 2007). In research settings, correlations of 0.2 to 0.3 might

be sufficient for the researcher to develop testable theories, especially when large quantities

of data are being collected and random effects diminish in accordance with probability

theory. However this sort of correlation may not be high enough to provide meaningful

predictions in recruitment or legal settings when the sample size is one person, and so

statistical uncertainties are much higher (Morgeson et al., 2007). This is an important
 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 12

consideration because the consequences of over relying on personality tests could include test

results overriding other highly informative data made about criminal and defendants

(Morgeson et al., 2007). As such it is important that there continues to be scepticism towards

the results of personality tests when used in any setting.

Another part of discussion is that personality tests are of limited utility in directly

answering psycho-legal questions and has less value in reconstructive evaluations reconstruct

an individual mental state at a prior point in time than in assessments that focus on individual

current mental state. The point is that some psychological functions are relatively stable over

time (e.g., intelligence), while other aspects of personality and symptomatology such as

anxiety and depression are less stable. The greater time length between time of assessment

and time of interest, the greater likelihood that the test results can be influenced by natural or

situational factors, therefore the forensic evaluator should use archival information (Melton

GB et al, 2007). Therefore, forensic evaluator should use the psychological test that is

relevant to the legal issue. As Heilbrun indicated that relevancy can be demonstrated either

by directly measuring the legal constructs underlying a given forensic issue or by measuring a

psychological construct that is assumed to be part of legal standard (Heilbrun K, 1992). For

example, intelligence scales could be used to assess the examinee ability to understand the

charges against him. Related to this, Greenberg et al. (2002), recommended that forensic

evaluators should consider the standard psychological tests they employ as generating

conceptual hypotheses regarding the legal issues that can be accepted or rejected (Greenberg

SA, Otto RK, Long AC (2003).

Conclusion

The information provided by the personality test, coupled with the interview and the

other psychometric tests including aptitude tests, helps the evaluator to put the pieces together
 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 13

and get an overall impression of the applicant. Thus, personality testing irrespective of it

being used in forensic field or employment field or any other field, is used to gather

information to allow psychologists to describe what a person is like, how the person functions

or is likely to function with others, whether there is significant psychopathology, extent to

which a person is open and transparent in self presentation or guarded or even deceptive and

prognosis for improvement with treatment for mental health problems.

Despite all the developments in Forensic Psychology, it is still a new area of

psychology. The application of psychology in criminal proceedings involves various risks.

Forensic Psychologists are therefore required to consider effective tools in identifying known

and hidden behavioural characteristics. Personality testing has a huge potential in the fields of

forensic psychology. New tests designed for specific purposes are likely to prove more

useful and valid predictors of forensic assessment, than existing (and more general) tests such

as the MMPI. Furthermore, situational effects might be better accounted for by utilising

interactionist models of personality and so could have much higher criterion validity.

Continued research in personality psychology will undoubtedly result in better personality

tests being developed and so those using the tests can be more confident that the results are

valid and reliable.

 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 14

References

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.

Beutler, L. E., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Integrative assessment of adult personality.

Guilford Press.

Black, K. R. (1994). Personality screening in employment. Am. Bus. LJ, 32, 69.

Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in criminal forensic evaluations.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(5), 465.

Carrasco, M., Barker, E. D., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2006). Eysenck’s personality

dimensions as predictors of male adolescent trajectories of physical aggression, theft

and vandalism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(7), 1309-1320.

Colligan, R. C. (1985). History and development of the MMPI. Psychiatric Annals, 15(9),

524-533.

Cooke, G., & Thorwarth, C. (1978). Prediction of elopement of mentally ill offenders using

the MMPI. Correctional Psychologist, 5(2), 151-157.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The

NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological assessment, 4(1), 5.

Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for

psychological research. Psychological review, 70(3), 193.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. E., & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal

Justice and behavior, 24(4), 414-431.

 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 15

Greenberg, B., & Kunich, J. C. (2002). Entomology and the law: flies as forensic indicators.

Cambridge University Press.

Greenberg, S. A., Otto, R. K., & Long, A. C. (2003). The utility of psychological testing in

assessing emotional damages in personal injury litigation. Assessment, 10(4), 411-

419.

Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. John Wiley & Sons.

Grove, W. M., & Barden, R. C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The

admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho

analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 224.

Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and

Human Behavior, 16(3), 257-272.

Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., & Kramer, M. D. (2007).

Linking antisocial behavior, substance use, and personality: an integrative quantitative

model of the adult externalizing spectrum. Journal of abnormal psychology, 116(4),

645.

Melton, T., & Holland, C. (2007). Routine forensic use of the mitochondrial 12S ribosomal

RNA gene for species identification. Journal of forensic sciences, 52(6), 1305-1307.

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt,

N. (2007). Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use

of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 1029-1049.

O`donohue WT, Beitz K, Levensky ER (2003) An introduction to psychology for attorneys.

In: O`donohue WT, Levensky ER (eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology:

 Personality Testing and Forensic Assessment 16

Resources for mental health and legal professionals. Elsevier Academic Press, New

York, USA. Pg no: 27-44.

Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the

future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57(1), 5.

Reis, H. T., Reis, H. T., & Judd, C. M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of research methods in

social and personality psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2013). Situational construal is related to

personality and gender. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 1-14.

Snir, M., Gropp, W., Otto, S., Huss-Lederman, S., Dongarra, J., & Walker, D. (1998). MPI--

the Complete Reference: the MPI core (Vol. 1). MIT press.

Swerdlick C (2009) Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and

Measurement (7thedn). McGraw-Hill’s Primis Custom Publishing, New York, USA.

Utcher JN (2002) Assessment in Forensic Practice: An Objective Approach. In: Van Dorsten

B (ed.). Forensic Psychology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, Boston,

London, Moscow. Pg no: 65-81.