Decision-Making Within Forensic Psychiatric Investigations: The Use of Various Information Sources by Different Expert Groups to Reach Conclusions on Legal Insanity.
court order
decision-making
expert evaluation
forensic psychiatric investigation
legal insanity
psychiatric assessment
Journal
Frontiers in psychiatry
ISSN: 1664-0640
Titre abrégé: Front Psychiatry
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101545006
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
25
11
2021
accepted:
07
02
2022
entrez:
2
5
2022
pubmed:
3
5
2022
medline:
3
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Which type of information experts use to make decisions regarding legal insanity within forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is relatively unknown, both in general and when considering variations due to case context. It is important to explore this area to be able to counteract the effects of various kinds of cognitive bias. The aim was to explore whether FPI expert groups differed regarding case-specific as well as general use of information types required to make decisions on severe mental disorder (SMD). Three FPI case vignettes were presented to three professional groups involved in FPIs in Sweden ( The expert groups differed somewhat regarding what type of information they required for the cases (e.g., results from cognitive testing), but some information was required in all cases (e.g., client's self-report). Regarding the preliminary assessment of SMD in the three cases, minor differences were found. Within the general FPI praxis, experts reported using several information types, while the general perceived usefulness of these sources varied. The professional groups relied partly on a "core" of information sources, but some case-specific adaptations were found. The professional groups' inclination to suspect SMD also varied somewhat. This indicates a need to explore the potential consequences of these similarities and differences.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Which type of information experts use to make decisions regarding legal insanity within forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is relatively unknown, both in general and when considering variations due to case context. It is important to explore this area to be able to counteract the effects of various kinds of cognitive bias.
Method
UNASSIGNED
The aim was to explore whether FPI expert groups differed regarding case-specific as well as general use of information types required to make decisions on severe mental disorder (SMD). Three FPI case vignettes were presented to three professional groups involved in FPIs in Sweden (
Results
UNASSIGNED
The expert groups differed somewhat regarding what type of information they required for the cases (e.g., results from cognitive testing), but some information was required in all cases (e.g., client's self-report). Regarding the preliminary assessment of SMD in the three cases, minor differences were found. Within the general FPI praxis, experts reported using several information types, while the general perceived usefulness of these sources varied.
Discussion
UNASSIGNED
The professional groups relied partly on a "core" of information sources, but some case-specific adaptations were found. The professional groups' inclination to suspect SMD also varied somewhat. This indicates a need to explore the potential consequences of these similarities and differences.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35492686
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.822519
pmc: PMC9046691
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
822519Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Göranson, Svensson, Andiné, Bromander, Bagge and Karlén.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Aug 05;12:691377
pubmed: 34421677
Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:255-78
pubmed: 18154502
Forensic Sci Int. 2021 Feb;319:110652
pubmed: 33360246
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2:ii65-ii72
pubmed: 23996094
Behav Sci Law. 2018 May;36(3):325-338
pubmed: 29672912
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2004;32(1):70-5
pubmed: 15497632
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2017 Dec;45(4):460-463
pubmed: 29282237
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006 Oct;114(4):282-9
pubmed: 16968366
Science. 1977 Apr 8;196(4286):129-36
pubmed: 847460
Nord J Psychiatry. 2005;59(2):92-102
pubmed: 16195105
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019 Sep - Oct;66:101473
pubmed: 31706393
J Pers Assess. 2017 Jul-Aug;99(4):435-445
pubmed: 27808560
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2022 Jan-Feb;80:101709
pubmed: 34924110
Anal Chem. 2020 Jun 16;92(12):7998-8004
pubmed: 32508089
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2017 Apr;27(2):124-135
pubmed: 26648167
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):223-41
pubmed: 26172965