Psychological diagnosis is in most cases used in ways that are not appropriate, misinterpreted or in other cases over interpreted in court and forensic settings (Chadda, 2013). The misuse causes harm to the individual being evaluated. In addition, misuse of psychological diagnosis affects implementation of justice. It also negatively affects the reputation of the psychology field. In forensic, a decision made regarding an individual can significantly impact the life of the person involved. Misuse of psychological tests can lead to severe outcomes such as being jailed or imprisoned (Hollida & Ralph, n.d). If a decision made by a psychologist is not founded on reliable sources of data, issues to do with incompetence and ethics arise. There are many existing reports that indicate misuse of psychological diagnosis in both forensic and court settings.
Misuse of psychological diagnosis can be done intentionally or unintentionally. When misused unintentionally, it involves absence of knowledge on the measurement aspects of the test, lack of the skills required in conducting the diagnosis and failure in areas such as confirming from other information sources. On the other hand, misusing psychological diagnosis intentionally involves deliberate interference of diagnosis results in order to match the bias of the psychologist involved in carrying out the diagnosis.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Drawings such as Kinetic Family Drawings are in most cases misused in court/forensic settings. Drawings are not reliable and valid as assessment tools in forensic settings. There exists very minimal proof in using drawings to determine the character traits of an individual. Drawings made by children vary from one another and features of one drawing should not be used to make conclusions. Making conclusion from drawings in forensic evaluations is not supported by any scientific evidence (Hollida & Ralph, n.d). To prevent misuse of drawings in psychological diagnosis, their interpretation ought to be done with a lot of caution and proper understanding of the fact that they are not reliable and valid (Chadda, 2013). They should be used as a way of developing hypothesis that should be studied further only and not making conclusions.
Rorschach is another psychological diagnosis that is often misused in court or forensic settings. If it is to be used in forensic contexts, the limitations involved should be acknowledged. The only time that Rorschach cab be considered valid is when Exner system is implemented (Pozzulo et al., 2018). However in most cases, the diagnosis is misused to make conclusions and give proposals that may negatively affect the lives of the individuals involved. The use of interpretation from Rorschach is determining a person’s legal condition and custody of children is a misuse of the diagnosis and unethical. The interpretations are in most cases misused because it leads to people being judged because of invalid evaluation of their thoughts and feelings.
MMPI-2 is not structured for specific forensic assessments such as those involving legal problems. The test is meant for carrying out general diagnosis. It is founded on test findings collected from people who already have established psychiatric diagnosis and a person’s personality aspects (Pozzulo et al., 2018). This is aimed at helping a psychologist test the individual involved and help in making a diagnosis. Lack of an appropriate and fair clinical assessment can lead to severe legal impact (Ludici et al., 2015).
The tool is not made to evaluate people in the context of assessing the risk involved in parental custody, parole, or determining if a person will succeed in doing an invigilated release program in the community (Hollida & Ralph, n.d). In addition, the diagnosis should not be used to establish if an individual will be involved in criminal activities after being released. Individuals being assessed in the court may not respond to questions in the same way as a person in the general public would. Inmates undergoing an MMPI-2 diagnosis are probably conscious that they are being assessed for likely release from jail. Furthermore, a parent or guardian who may be required to take an MMPI-2 assessment might know that the custody of a child might rely on how he/she answers questions and the outcomes of the assessment. In a forensic evaluation, the individual involved might twist answers in order to show a picture that reduces or hides any existing flaws.
The MMPI-2 is also misused by attorneys when dealing with the real responses provided from the questions provided. In cases where an attorney may have access to the responses provided by the client, he/she can use the responses to fight the credibility of the individual involved. In addition, the responses can be used to dispute the presence of pathology. In a situation where a person accepts flaws and accepts to questions that propose pathology, the responses can be picked out of context and used in a cross assessment.
The use of diagnosis results from the MMPI-2 requires respect, protection and beneficial use of enhancing the welfare of the person taking the test. However, the aim of the diagnosis is in most cases not realized in a forensic environment. In a forensic context, the assessment incorporates a legal evaluation and to some extent moral judgment related to a person’s ability to parent, carries out a parole or other legal outcomes (Hollida & Ralph, n.d). In a forensic setting, the MMPI-2 diagnosis test is not used for the purpose of benefiting or enhancing the welfare of the client involved and in most cases the client is aware of that fact. As a result, the individual may make efforts to adjust in order to achieve what he/she wants. As a result, the best setting in which the test should be used is in treatment facilities.
The MSI diagnosis is also constantly misused in forensic and court contexts. The questionnaire gives information about sexual activities, issues and encounters. The inventory has scales that determine the openness about questionable sexual conduct. The tool is useful in evaluating sexual offenders with the aim of planning treatment. However, the diagnosis is today used in assessing people who deny sexual abuse in order to establish if they are actually involved in the abuse (Hollida & Ralph, n.d). The diagnosis is not meant for determining sexual abuse in legal settings. It is inappropriate to use it in legal contexts to establish if a person is guilty or innocent. It should be used on individuals who accept culpability only. However in court and forensic contexts, it is misused because it is used on people who deny being involved in sexual abuse (Hollida & Ralph, n.d). This is the same case with penile plethysmograph diagnosis test. It is designed for treatment programs. However, it is misused because it is used to carry out diagnosis for court and forensic purposes. It should not be used on individuals who deny committing a sexual crime.
In conclusion, psychological diagnosis is misused in forensic/court contexts. Diagnosis meant for treatment purposes is inappropriately used in making legal decisions. This may cause severe legal consequences that may adversely affect the individuals involved. Such consequences include being jailed and denial of child custody. In addition, misuse of psychological diagnosis may deny the course of justice due to misguided and uninformed decisions made. In addition, it is recommended that forensic psychologists use appropriate diagnosis tests and with caution in order to avoid adverse outcomes. Furthermore, conclusions should be made guided by empirical research.
References
Chadda, R. (2013). Forensic evaluations in psychiatry. Indian Journal of Psychiatry , 55 (4), 393. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.120558
Hollida W. and Ralph U. (n.d). Misuse of psychological tests in forensic settings: Some horrible examples. Ipt. Retrieved from http://www.ipt forensics.com/library/misuse.htm.
Ludici, A., Salvini, A., Faccio, E., & Castelnuovo, G. (2015). The clinical assessment in the legal field: An empirical study of bias and limitations in forensic expertise. Frontiers in Psychology , 6 . doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01831
Pozzulo, J., Bennell, C., & Forth, A. E. (2018). Forensic psychology . Don Mills, Ontario: Pearson.
