The forensic interview is a key element of any forensic evaluation. This detailed interview is used to gather information and clinical data required to answer a specific psycholegal referral question. The following sections outline the unique characteristics of forensic interviews, including legal contexts, referral questions, and other important considerations (e.g., use of collateral information, bias and judgment error, safety and ethical considerations).
Characteristics of the Forensic Interview
Forensic interviews differ from typical clinical interviews in multiple ways. The scope of the forensic interview and the role of the examiner vary considerably depending on the context and the referral question. Unlike most clinical interviews, which typically emphasize diagnostic assessment and establishing treatment goals, forensic interviews focus on gathering data to answer a specific psycholegal question. The perspective of the person being examined also holds less importance, as the goal of the evaluation is to develop the most accurate impression possible, based on information from all relevant sources. A typical clinical interview, on the other hand, usually relies solely on the patient’s report of events, experiences, and emotions.
The forensic examiner must also be aware of his or her relationship with the examinee. Although an examinee may decline to participate in a forensic interview, many legal contexts prevent the examinee from limiting the information that is disclosed to other parties. That is, a report may be prepared regardless of whether the examinee participates in the evaluation. Furthermore, while establishing rapport is critical to a successful forensic interview, the potential for negative outcomes for the examinee may limit the extent to which an examiner should encourage a frank disclosure of information. There will also be situations in which an examiner may need to challenge, confront, or probe the examinee in order to resolve real or perceived discrepancies or to clarify ambiguous information.
Forensic interviews are particularly vulnerable to threats to the validity of the information gathered. The results of a forensic examination often impact an examinee’s liberty, creating a strong incentive for distortion, fabrications, or withholding relevant information. The examiner must consider the possible motivations of the examinee and other collateral sources, which may increase the likelihood of distortion (whether minimization or exaggeration).
Lastly, the forensic examiner must be cognizant of the pace and setting of forensic interviews. The examiner may have limited time to conduct an interview and may not have the ability to conduct a follow-up interview, as access to correctional settings may be limited and legal proceedings are often time sensitive. Therefore, it is critical that the examiner collect as much relevant information as possible within the time available.
Legal Contexts
The goals of a forensic evaluation differ depending on the legal context and the corresponding psycholegal referral questions. For example, pretrial and trial evaluations assess an individual’s competency, decision-making abilities, or mental state at the time of an alleged offense, whereas custodial evaluations typically assess an individual’s risk of harm and mental stability in order to inform security and treatment interventions. Lastly, pre- and postrelease evaluations assess an individual’s risk of reoffending violence or mental health needs following an individual’s return to the community.
Pretrial and Trial Evaluations
Both prior to and during legal proceedings, forensic examiners may be asked to evaluate an individual’s competency, decision-making abilities, or mental state at the time of an alleged offense. For example, forensic examiners may be asked to assess an individual’s competency to waive Miranda rights or make a statement to the police or to assess an accused’s competency to stand trial. Other pretrial referral questions include an individual’s competency to represent one’s self (i.e., to waive the right to counsel), to plead guilty (i.e., to waive the right to trial), to be sentenced, or even to be executed. With the exception of competence to confess or waive Miranda rights, examinations of competency focus on the individual’s present mental state and, therefore, require a careful examination of the individual’s current mental functioning.
A forensic examiner may also be asked to assess an accused’s sanity at the time of the offense. Like an evaluation of competency to waive Miranda rights, a mental state evaluation focuses on the individual’s psychological functioning at a previous point in time. Hence, the examiner will typically merge interview data with collateral sources (e.g., medical records, witness statements) to determine an individual’s mental state at a previous point in time.
Because virtually all pretrial evaluations require an assessment of the person’s current mental state, the forensic interview will typically include a review of the examinee’s social, psychiatric, medical, and education history. In addition to a clinical interview and gathering collateral information from available records (e.g., police statements, mental health records, criminal history, witness statements), the examiner may also use psychological assessment tools to assess for cognitive impairment, psychiatric symptoms, or exaggeration (i.e., malingering).
Custodial Evaluations
Custodial forensic evaluations can also occur in a variety of criminal justice contexts. Following admission into a correctional facility, clinicians often assess the inmate’s intelligence, suicide risk, violence risk, and symptoms of a mental illness. These evaluations typically help gauge whether an imminent risk of harm exists, as well as mental stability for, and appropriateness of available treatment programs (e.g., anger management, substance abuse treatment).
Unlike most pretrial forensic evaluations, custodial evaluations are more akin to general clinical evaluations, with the exception of the setting and the incentive to distort symptoms. The examiner often has little information about the examinee’s history and therefore must be prepared for severe symptoms that have not previously been identified. However, evaluations conducted in custodial settings have a greater risk of violence; thus, the examiner should take precautions to ensure his or her safety during the interview (e.g., adequate physical distance from the examinee with access to the exit, awareness of the facility’s safety procedures). Finally, because of the inherently coercive setting, the examiner must be mindful of the potential for deliberate symptom exaggeration or minimization.
Pre- and Postrelease Evaluations
Forensic examiners are often asked to complete pre- or postrelease evaluations in order to inform a judge, parole board, or probation officer about the examinee’s risk to the community. The specific focus of these evaluations depends on the referral question, though three overarching questions are most common: general risk of reoffending (e.g., for parole evaluations), specific questions regarding violence risk, and mental health treatment needs. Violence risk assessments may focus on a specific type of risk, such as sexual violence in jurisdictions where involuntary commitment of sex offenders is possible. In evaluations of risk of violence or re-offense, forensic examiners often utilize some form of structured risk assessment instrument in order to evaluate the relevant risk and protective factors. The forensic examiner may also be expected to make recommendations for risk management, such as identifying treatment needs or suggesting interventions that could facilitate community reintegration and reduce risk.
During pre- and postrelease evaluations, the examiner often elicits information about the examinee’s criminal history, attitudes toward violence, and plans for the future. Collateral sources may also help identify resources available to the individual in the community (e.g., social support, employment opportunities). Lastly, although examinees are rarely motivated to exaggerate psychiatric symptoms during pre- and postrelease evaluations, assessment tools may aid in the detection of minimization.
Other Considerations
In addition to collecting clinical data from forensic interviews, forensic examiners must also consider several other important factors during the interview and evaluation process that will aid in objectively answering psycholegal questions. These include the incorporation of collateral information, assessment of false or distorted information, and recognition of potential bias or judgment error. Finally, the examiner must also be aware of safety and ethical considerations that may be unique to the interview’s forensic context.
Collateral Information
As noted earlier, forensic interviews are often bolstered by collateral sources in order to corroborate information provided by the examinee. Collateral informants can include those who are, or have been, in frequent contact with the offender (e.g., relatives, friends, employers) or have observed the individual (e.g., victims of or witnesses to the offense). Medical and criminal justice records can also provide useful information. Of course, the availability and utility of collateral information will vary across cases and settings. For example, medical records may not exist and it may be difficult to contact family members or friends. Resolving conflicts between self-report and collateral information can often require the evaluator to determine which source seems most credible. When collateral information is unavailable, the examiner is forced to rely more heavily on self-report and should be appropriately cautious in rendering conclusions.
False or Distorted Information
As mentioned earlier, providing false information during a psychological evaluation, whether due to resistance, embarrassment, or limited trust, is common in forensic interviews. To help compensate for the problems posed by distorted responding, evaluators often rely on psychological tests that explicitly assess defensiveness and/or symptom exaggeration.
Bias and Judgment Error
Another issue that should be considered in forensic interviewing is the potential for bias or judgment errors on the part of the examiner. Forensic evaluators are often provided with information about the examinee and his or her alleged (or known) criminal history or records of prior psychiatric diagnoses or evaluations. These sources of data, while important, may lead to preconceived beliefs or expectations about the examinee. Hence, the potential for a confirmatory bias, whereby the examiner poses questions intended to confirm these preexisting beliefs about the examinee and may fail to ask questions that do not, can impact the accuracy of the evaluation. To minimize the possibility of bias, it is important that the forensic evaluator identifies these potential threats and explicitly searches for information that could disconfirm expectations.
Safety Considerations
As noted earlier, the potential for aggression in forensic settings often requires safety precautions during the forensic interview. Before starting an interview, the examiner should inquire as to the examinee’s current state or the presence of any agitation. Precautions should also be taken in order to ensure both the examiner’s and the examinee’s safety during the evaluation. For example, the examiner should be aware of the facility’s safety procedures and avoid bringing (or permitting access to) items that could be used as a weapon. Seating arrangements should be established that positions the examiner closest to the exit, while maintaining a safe distance from the examinee. Some interview rooms have a panic button or even require that institutional personnel be present during the interview (ideally far enough away to minimize confidentiality concerns). Although not ideal, some form or physical restraints may even be necessary in order to provide adequate security for the examiner. During the interview, the examiner should be alert to indications of aggression (e.g., changes in the examinee’s behavior, raised voice or hostile tone). If the examinee becomes agitated or upset, the examiner should attempt to de-escalate the situation and/or discontinue the interview.
Ethical Considerations
There are several resources that help examiners navigate the forensic interview, including the American Psychology–Law Society’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists and the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Two of the most complicated ethical issues that a forensic interviewer must consider are informed consent and confidentiality. The forensic evaluator must recognize that the client is not necessarily the individual being interviewed. Rather, the examiner is often retained (or employed) by a third party such as an attorney, judge, or government agency. Therefore, it is imperative that the examiner informs the examinee of the nature of the interview (e.g., procedures, who the examiner works for), risks and potential benefits of participating in the evaluation, and the consequence of declining to participate. Although in many settings an examinee’s refusal to participate does not prevent the evaluation from taking place, this disclosure is required for informed consent. Furthermore, while the examinee’s right of privacy should be respected, forensic interviews are often conducted in jails or prisons, where privacy is not guaranteed or even possible. Interviews may need to be conducted in open settings, where other people can overhear the evaluation. The examiner may be able to impact these circumstances but often cannot. Lastly, the examiner should explain the limits of confidentiality in the context of the forensic interview, including who will receive copies of the reports and whether other individuals will be informed of information disclosed (e.g., threats of harm to self or others). These disclosures will usually enhance not detract from establishing rapport, as examinees typically appreciate candor and honesty, and are unlikely to expect confidentiality.
Final Thoughts
The forensic interview is a cornerstone of all forensic assessments. Developing the skills necessary for a competent forensic interview is challenging and requires a multifaceted approach to the process. Only with vigilance to the unique characteristics of the forensic interview can the evaluator maximize accuracy and objectivity.
References:
- American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. doi:10.1037/a0029889
- Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum.
- Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.