According to the American Psychology Association (2010) forensic psychology has specialty guidelines published in 1991 so that forensic psychological services could be improved. These Guidelines aim to raise the standard of professional practice, facilitate the methodical advancement of forensic psychology, improve the quality of forensic psychological services, and encourage forensic practitioners to recognize and uphold the rights of the people they assist. Specialty guidelines for assessments that could be deemed as rather difficult would be (i) consideration of assessment settings, (ii) appreciation of individual differences, and (iii) selection and use of assessment procedures.

Consideration of assessment settings entail that forensic practitioners conduct evaluations in settings that provide adequate comfort, safety, and privacy. This guideline can be challenging because anyone who needs a forensic assessment conducted is likely not in the best mental state. Although there a standard of privacy and comfort, it may not be the same for everyone. As a forensic practitioner, I’d overcome this challenge by assessing a person thoroughly, knowing their threshold of vulnerability and tolerance. Also, making sure that the setting itself is safe. For example, if it was a child it should be done at a private office or therapeutic community in which has a setting created with a child in mind.

Appreciation of individual differences can be challenging as well. It also entails personal bias. When a person does an assessment, it’s  many determining test taking factors in which  can influence the results. This could be cultural, linguistic, situational, or personal differences. These factors alone can result in implications due to personal bias. For example, if an African American man is assessed for a crime that he may have committed, investigators may follow a line of enquiry based on an incorrect finding; simply because he an African American man and there are stereotypes attached. According to Neal and Brodsky (2016) to ensure that bias is reduced in forensic science, it is important to generate alternative conclusions, use relevant base rates, and minimize the role of memory. That extremely important.

Lastly, selection and use of assessment procedures. Forensic practitioners should use assessments that are appropriate for the task at hand. This includes assessment techniques, interviews, tests, instrumentation, and scoring. This can be challenging because there are a variety of assessment techniques and finding one keen to a person needs may be hard based on the complexity of their problem. To overcome this challenge,  it imperative that a forensic practitioner identifies the strengths and weaknesses of assessment techniques and align which are important based on the complexity of a person problem.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. (2011). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologyLinks to an external site.. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychologyLinks to an external site.

Neal, T., & Brodsky, S. (2016). What works and what doesn’t – bias awareness and correction strategies among forensic evaluators. CONCEPT at Palo Alto University. https://concept.paloaltou.edu/resources/translating-research-into-practice-blog/works-doesnt-bias-awareness-correction-strategies-among-forensic-evaluators/#:~:text=A%20few%20suggestions%20exist%20for,most%20valid%20sources%20of%20data.

• Expand discussion thread from Kesethia Collins3 Replies, 3 Unread3 Replies, 3 Unread
• Reply to post from Kesethia CollinsReply
• Mark as UnreadMark as Unread