Citation

Young G. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2017; 52: 81-102.

Affiliation

Glendon Campus, York University, Canada. Electronic address: gyoung@glendon.yorku.ca.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.03.001

PMID

28366496

Abstract

This journal's third article on PTSD in Court focuses especially on the topic's "court" component. It first considers the topic of malingering, including in terms of its definition, certainties, and uncertainties. As with other areas of the study of psychological injury and law, generally, and PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder), specifically, malingering is a contentious area not only definitionally but also empirically, in terms of establishing its base rate in the index populations assessed in the field. Both current research and re-analysis of past research indicates that the malingering prevalence rate at issue is more like 15±15% as opposed to 40±10%. As for psychological tests used to assess PTSD, some of the better ones include the TSI-2 (Trauma Symptom Inventory, Second Edition; Briere, 2011), the MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition, Restructured Form; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011), and the CAPS-5 (The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5; Weathers, Blake, Schnurr, Kaloupek, Marx, & Keane, 2013b). Assessors need to know their own possible biases, the applicable laws (e.g., the Daubert trilogy), and how to write court-admissible reports. Overall conclusions reflect a moderate approach that navigates the territory between the extreme plaintiff or defense allegiances one frequently encounters in this area of forensic practice.

Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Language: en

Keywords

Assessment; Court; Law; Malingering; PTSD; Tests