Article Figures & Data
Tables
Likert scale ratings of the following: Timeliness of evaluation and report Comprehensiveness of evaluation Evaluator's demeanor with evaluee Use of specific collateral sources Use of specific tests and forensic instruments Factual support for clinical diagnosis in report Organization of report and use of jargon Knowledge of legal criteria Stated psycholegal functional ability, with specific support for opinion Use, or avoidance, of ultimate issue opinions Scientific accuracy of opinions (i.e., course of illness) Bias, objectivity, honesty, fairness, partisanship, humility Stated limitations to evaluation and conclusions Absence of irrelevant opinions Overall quality Likert scale ratings of the following: Were the data in the report accurate? Was the evaluation comprehensive? Was the evaluation adequate? Was the clinical content of the report informative? Was the forensic content of the report informative? Was the report well written and understandable? Were the conclusions and recommendations of the report useful? Was there adequate opportunity to communicate with the evaluator? Was the evaluation and report conducted in a timely manner? What is the overall impression of the evaluation and report? How could the evaluation and report be made more useful? Lack of training and expertise in the psycholegal content area Advocacy, impartiality, lack of objectivity (e.g., therapist evaluator) Other forensic boundary crossing or violation98 Inadequate database of documents Over-reliance on litigant self-report Lack of assessment of litigant response bias Inadequate collateral information96,97,99 Failure to use validated forensic assessment instruments appropriately100,101 Failure to support clinical diagnoses Psychopathology not linked to expert opinions Psychological test results not linked to expert opinions Inadequate support and explanation for expert opinions Failure to state limitations of methods and opinions Forensic service credentialing and certification by law or policy Incentivize quality and quality improvement, with quality bonus Establish quality guidelines and standards99 Define, test, and operationalize quality performance measures and tools99 Collaboration of generalists with forensic specialists Audiotape or videotape forensic interviews105 Use of specific checklists and contracts by referral sources Education of referral sources about evaluation guidelines, and sharpening of referral questions Model excellence of forensic evaluations to attorneys and courts Peer review of evaluations, reports, and testimony Encourage cross-examination regarding participation in QA activities Mandatory forensic continuing medical education on quality of evaluations Maintenance of forensic board certification predicated on quality improvement activity
