Evaluator Agreement in Placement Recommendations for Insanity Acquittees

• Published in: Behavioral sciences & the law Vol. 30; no. 3; pp. 297 - 307
• Main Authors: Stredny, Rebecca V., Parker, Amber L. S., Dibble, Ashley Engels
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.05.2012; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Commitment of Mentally Ill - statistics & numerical data; Concordance; Criminal responsibility; Criminals - psychology; Decision Making; Discipline; Expert witness testimony; Female; Forensic Psychiatry - methods; Humans; Insanity; Insanity Defense; Insanity pleas; Male; Mental Disorders; Observer Variation; Psychiatrists; Psychiatry; Psychologists; Psychology; Risk assessment; Risk Assessment - methods
• ISSN: 0735-3936; 1099-0798; 1099-0798
• DOI: 10.1002/bsl.1995

Research has examined differences between psychologists and psychiatrists in opinions on trial competency and criminal responsibility, but there is little research on such differences in risk assessment. This study examined the impact of disciplinary affiliation on opinions regarding whether new insanity acquittees should be hospitalized or released, and the risk factors given the most weight by each discipline. There was no significant difference between disciplines in the frequency of recommendations for hospitalization versus release. However, the concordance rate at the individual case level was only moderate when controlling for chance, which raises questions about the reliability and validity of forensic risk assessments in real‐world settings. A number of variables emerged as significant in the decision‐making of each discipline, with some differences noted. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.