Multi-Trait/Multi-Method Matrix

Forensic evaluators should look to assess numerous characteristics to answer the referral questions posed in the court order and they should use multiple methods to make the assessment of the same characteristics.  These can include history taking, interviewing in a variety of styles, psychological testing, psychological experimentations, data collection during the interviews, observations under multiple circumstances, forensic experimentation and any other techniques that will bring data to the evaluation in a unique way.  The evaluator is looking for a convergence of this data from the multiple characteristics and the multiple methods to make their recommendation.

Internal and External Consistency

Science is best maintained when there is as little variation as possible so the attribution is clearer and more certain.  When a forensic clinician is setting up an evaluation, they should strive for consistency within the evaluation to insure that both litigants (or a single litigant) have the same opportunities and the same level of scrutiny as others he tested.  This strengthens the process of making inferences.  Also the clinician should make the evaluations as similar as across total experience of the clinician so that they can rely on data sets and experiences gained through many evaluations.  By establishing similarity in patterns, it makes for stronger attributions, inferences and recommendations.     

Reduction of Negative Bias

Bias affects all evaluations.  There should be an attempt to reduce the negative effects of bias by setting up procedures that foster data collection or reporting without evaluation.  This could be as simple as setting up a proper order in the collection of data, or an order in the writing of the report.  It could involve limiting contact at times during the evaluation, particularly after session and before report writing.  It definitely involves having no multiple relationships with the litigant(s).

Data Collection of Extreme Behavior

During face to face contact, litigants or children possibly may exhibit unusual or extreme behavior or verbalizations.  This should not only be observed but there should be an attempt to quantify it.  For example, an evaluator might count the number of times a person uses a certain unusual word or phrase, or count the times a person moves in their seat if it is seen as a behavior beyond the norm.  If possible, this behavior should be compared to the frequency in a normative sample.

Predictive Experimentation

Forensic custody evaluations are explorative and investigative.  They strive to predict behavior for the benefit of the court.  Psychological and Medical Sciences are also basically experimental sciences by nature, meaning they rely on experimentation to determine the probability of something working.  A physician may try numerous medications in series to see which one has the strongest desired effect on a patient.  The forensic evaluator may experiment with trying to cause an emotion, behavior or make a suggestion to see the reaction of the individual while in the process of the evaluation.  These mini-experiments can strengthen the ability to predict behavior and lead to certain recommendations or conclusions.

External Statistical Databases

When using any evaluation instrument, it is important that the person is compared to logical normative groups for their population.  This should derive a statistical analysis including probability levels.  In scientific evaluations, the use of tests that do not have data is greatly discouraged and has gives little ability to draw inferences and/or recommendations.

Internal Statistical Databases

Forensic clinicians who are doing evaluations on a regular basis should save their data and compare any individual to persons in their internal database.  If they are using certain tests that yield scores, these scores should be stored for comparison.  External databases have strong statistical analyses over a wide range of population, but internal databases compare people to local norms and more exacting to the referral question.  The combination allows more powerful inferences with a greater degree of certainty.   

Reduce Adverse Impact

The process of the forensic can have lasting detrimental effects on some persons or families.  Evaluators should work to leave the situation with minimal adverse impact so that the recommendations have the highest degree of opportunity to work.  Contacts with collateral sources should be minimized to only those that are needed or would alter a decision.  Information given to the litigants should be minimized, or only given in a helping fashion at the end of the forensic evaluation.  Invasive techniques should only be utilized if needed to make a decision.  Reports should not include negative historical information that does not impact the development of the character, morality or thinking of the litigant or child.

Report of All Data in Report

A forensic evaluator’s job is not to limit data reporting to only the information that supports his/her conclusions.  Particularly when reporting the information on the litigants, it is important to provide all strengths and weakness in the history, interviews, observations and psychological testing data.  It is never appropriate to write a report that hides data, or appears to be written to lead the reader as if the evaluator was advocating for the recommendations of the report.  

Report Probabilities

Psychology is a probability science meaning that it is not 100% predictive.  When at all possible in the report or on the witness stand the psychologist should provide the probabilities of the data so that judgments can be made as to its usefulness by the judge or referee.   Probability data should be put into a language that the attorney can understand.  If doing a forensic on only one side, the probabilities should still be presented even if the findings are not in the favor of your client.

Dr. Aumiller is the executive director of the   Society for Police and Criminal Psychology, an international network of police and forensic scientists, therapist and researchers.  He consults in the court systems of Long Island and lectures throughout America and Europe.