Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Casebook

Hardcover | May 21, 2014

EditorKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday

not yet rated|write a review
Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) continues to develop and expand as a specialization. Since the publication of the First Edition of Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Casebook over a decade ago, there have been a number of significant changes in the applicable law, ethics, science,and practice that have shaped the conceptual and empirical underpinnings of FMHA. The Second Edition of Forensic Mental Health Assessment is thoroughly updated in light of the developments and changes in the field, while still keeping the unique structure of presenting cases, detailed reports, and specific teaching points on a wide range of topics. Unlike anything else in theliterature, it provides genuine (although disguised) case material, so trainees as well as legal and mental health professionals can review how high-quality forensic evaluation reports are written; it features contributions from leading experts in forensic psychology and psychiatry, providingsamples of work in their particular areas of specialization; and it discusses case material in the larger context of broad foundational principles and specific teaching points, making it a valuable resource for teaching, training, and continuing education. Now featuring 50 real-world cases, this new edition covers topics including criminal responsibility, sexual offending risk evaluation, federal sentencing, capital sentencing, capacity to consent to treatment, personal injury, harassment and discrimination, guardianship, juvenile commitment, transferand decertification, response style, expert testimony, evaluations in a military context, and many more. It will be invaluable for anyone involved in assessments for the courts, including psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and attorneys, as well as for FMHA courses.

Pricing and Purchase Info

$118.00 online
$129.50 list price (save 8%)
Ships within 1-3 weeks
Ships free on orders over $25

From the Publisher

Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) continues to develop and expand as a specialization. Since the publication of the First Edition of Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Casebook over a decade ago, there have been a number of significant changes in the applicable law, ethics, science,and practice that have shaped the conceptual ...

Kirk Heilbrun, PhD, is Professor, Department of Psychology, Drexel University. His current research focuses on juvenile and adult offenders, legal decision-making, forensic evaluation associated with such decision-making, and diversion. He is the author of a number of articles and books in the area of forensic assessment. David DeMa...

other books by Kirk Heilbrun

Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessment
Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessment

Kobo ebook|Sep 4 2008

$30.79 online$39.99list price(save 23%)
see all books by Kirk Heilbrun
Format:HardcoverDimensions:624 pages, 10 × 7 × 0.98 inPublished:May 21, 2014Publisher:Oxford University PressLanguage:English

The following ISBNs are associated with this title:

ISBN - 10:0199941556

ISBN - 13:9780199941551

Look for similar items by category:

Customer Reviews of Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Casebook

Reviews

Extra Content

Table of Contents

PrefaceAbout the EditorsContributors1. Introduction and Overview2. Miranda Waiver CapacityCase 1I. Bruce Frumkin: Principle: Use nomothetic evidence in assessing clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connectionI. Bruce Frumkin: Teaching Point: What is the value of specialized forensic assessment instruments in forensic mental health assessmentCase 2Alan M. Goldstein: Principle: Use case-specific (idiographic) evidence in assessing clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connectionAlan M. Goldstein: Teaching Point: What are the limits of specialized Forensic Assessment Instruments?3. Competence to Stand TrialCase 1Richard Rogers: Principle: Use testing when indicated in assessing response styleKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Integrating different sources of response style dataCase 2Patricia A. Zapf: Principle: Select the most appropriate model to guide in data gathering, interpretation, and communicationPatricia A. Zapf: Teaching Point: How can you use a model to structure the way you write the report?Case 3Samuel Hawes and Mary Alice Conroy: Principle: Attribute information to sourcesKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Separating and integrating data from different sources through source attribution in analyzing, reasoning about, and communicating FMHA results4. Criminal ResponsibilityCase 1Robert M. Wettstein: Principle: Be familiar with the relevant legal, ethical, scientific, and practice literatures pertaining to FMHAKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Sources of particularly relevant information from the literatureCase 2Kathleen Kemp and Daniel Murrie: Principle: Attribute information to sourcesDaniel Murrie: Teaching Point: Line-by-line versus paragraph-level attributionCase 3Ira K. Packer: Principle: Decline the referral when evaluator impartiality is unlikelyKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Remaining impartial in high visibility cases5. Sexual Offending Risk EvaluationCase 1Philip H. Witt: Principle: Provide appropriate notification of purpose and obtain appropriate authorization before beginningKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Obtaining informed consent in Sexually Violent Predator cases6. Federal SentencingCase 1Kirk Heilbrun and Stephanie Brooks Holliday: Principle: Describe findings so that they need change little under cross-examinationKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Communicating findings to accurately reflect their strength and the evaluator's confidence in themCase 2David DeMatteo: Principle: Use scientific reasoning in assessing the causal connection between clinical condition and functional abilitiesKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Risk-assessment in sentencing7. Capital SentencingCase 1Kirk Heilbrun and Jacey Erickson: Principle: Use multiple sources of information for each area being assessed. Review the available background information and actively seek important missing elementsKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: How much is enough? Diminishing returns from information sourcesCase 2Mark Cunningham: Principle: Obtain relevant historical informationKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Evaluating the accuracy of different sources of third-party information8. Capital Sentencing, Atkins-type EvaluationsCase 1J. Gregory Olley: Principle: Accept referrals only within area of expertiseKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Gauging the training and experience in forensic and mental health areas needed for this kind of evaluationCase 2Karen L. Salekin: Principle: Use relevance and reliability (validity) as guides for seeking information and selecting data sourcesKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Selecting tools for use in FMHA9. Competence for ExecutionCase 1Patricia A. Zapf: Principle: Identify relevant forensic issuesPatricia A. Zapf: Teaching Point: Identify assessment targets when legal standards are broad or non-specific10. Capacity to Consent to TreatmentCase 1David DeMatteo: Principle: Use third party information in assessing response styleKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Balancing results from interview, testing, and third party sources as they relate to response styleKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Communicating complex scientific material to legal professionals and lay audiences11. Testamentary CapacityCase 1Eric Drogin: Principle: Determine whether the individual understands the purpose of the evaluation and associated limits on confidentialityKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Advantages of written versus spoken notification in determining whether the notification is understood12. Personal InjuryCase 1Bill Foote: Principle: Carefully consider whether to answer the ultimate legal question. If answered, it should be in the context of a thorough evaluation clearly describing data and reasoning, and with the clear recognition that this question is in the domain of the legal decision makerKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Answering the ultimate legal question directlyCase 2Alan M. Goldstein: Principle: Decline the referral when evaluator impartiality is unlikelyAlan M. Goldstein: Teaching Point: Declining the case when impartiality would be too difficult13. Civil CommitmentCase 1Tadeus Edward Kowalski and Douglas Mossman: Principle: Use relevance and reliability (validity) as guides for seeking information and selecting data sourcesKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: The strengths and weaknesses of classification systems14. Harassment and DiscriminationCase 1Principle: Do not become adversarial, but present and defend your opinions effectivelyBill Foote: Principle: Write report in sections, according to model and proceduresKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Communicating firmly but fairlyKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: The value of sequential communication of FMHA results15. Workplace DisabilityCase 1Lisa Drago Piechowski: Principle: Assess legally relevant behaviorKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: The relationship between symptoms and disability in capacity to workCase 2Robert L. Sadoff: Principle: Assess clinical characteristics in relevant, reliable, and valid waysKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Useful approaches to assessing clinical characteristics in FMHA16. GuardianshipCase 1Principle: Be aware of the important differences between clinical and forensic domainsRandy K. Otto: Principle: Be familiar with the relevant legal, ethical, scientific, and practice literatures pertaining to FMHARandy K. Otto: Teaching Point: Guardianship and the revised Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology17. Child CustodyCase 1Marsha Hedrick: Principle: Determine the particular role to be played if the referral is acceptedKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Can one ever play more than one role in a single FMHA case?Case 2Jonathan W. Gould: Principle: Use multiple sources of information for each area being assessedKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: The role of the forensic clinician in collecting third party information18. Child ProtectionCase 1Jennifer Clark and Karen Budd: Principle: Assess legally relevant behaviorKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Identifying forensic capacities when the legal standard is vague or unelaboratedCase 2Kathryn Kuehnle and H. D. Kirkpatrick: Principle: Be guided by honesty and striving for impartiality, actively disclosing the limitations on as well as the support for one's opinionsKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Specific strategies for promoting impartiality in a particular evaluationKathryn Kuehnle and H. D. Kirkpatrick: Teaching Point: Mental health professionals' role in assisting the court in determining the veracity of allegations of child sexual abuse19. Juvenile Miranda Waiver CapacityCase 1I. Bruce Frumkin: Principle: Use nomothetic evidence in assessing causal connection between clinical condition and functional abilitiesI. Bruce Frumkin: Teaching Point: Applying group-based evidence supporting a specialized forensic assessment measure in a single caseCase 2Kirk Heilbrun and Megan Murphy: Principle: Do not become adversarial, but present and defend your opinions effectivelyKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Whether and how to criticize material from the records20. Juvenile Competence to Stand TrialCase 1David DeMatteo: Principle: Use relevance and reliability (validity) as guides for seeking information and selecting data sourcesKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Selecting a specialized measure on juvenile CSTCase 2Janet I. Warren: Ensure that conditions for evaluation are quiet, private, and distraction-freeKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Identifying and implementing strategies for improving inadequate conditions21. Juvenile CommitmentCase 1David DeMatteo and Heidi Strohmaier: Principle: Accept referrals only within area of expertiseDewey G. Cornell: Teaching Point: What training and experience in forensic, developmental, and mental health areas are needed for juvenile forensic expertise?Case 2Kirk Heilbrun and Lindsey Peterson: Principle: Provide appropriate notification of purpose and obtain appropriate authorization before beginningKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Obtaining authorization for evaluating minors who cannot yet legally consent22. Transfer and DecertificationCase 1Amy L. Wevodau and Mary Alice Conroy: Principle: Assess legally relevant behaviorKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Translating legal criteria into forensic capacitiesCase 2Kirk Heilbrun and Casey LaDuke: Principle: Use third party information in assessing response styleKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Addressing conflicting information from the interview, testing, and third party sources23. MilitaryCase 1Michael Sweda and Samantha M. Benesh: Principle: Identify relevant forensic issuesKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Forensic issues in this kind of evaluation that is conducted in a military context, and comparability with and distinctions from civilian lawCase 2Paul Montalbano: Principle: Obtain appropriate authorizationPaul Montalbano: Teaching Point: How does the evaluator address the question of "severe mental disease or defect?"Paul Montalbano: Teaching Point: Obtaining appropriate authorization in military FMHA, and similarities with and differences from civilian parametersCase 3Eric B. Elbogen: Principle: Use nomothetic evidence of clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connectionKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Combining nomothetic data with case-specific idiographic information24. Release Decision-MakingCase 1Chad Brinkley and David Mrad: Principle: Obtain relevant historical informationKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Integrating information from hospitalization and pre-hospitalization in release decision-makingCase 2Craig R. Lareau: Principle: Use multiple sources of information for each area being assessedKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Using multiple sources for relevant hospitalization and pre-hospitalization informationCase 3Terrance J. Kukor: Principle: Describe findings and limits so that they need change little under cross-examinationKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Achieving balance and facilitating accuracy in reporting findings25. Threat/Risk AssessmentCase 1Stephen D. Hart and Kelly A. Watt: Principle: Identify relevant forensic issuesKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: The role of RNR in contemporary threat/risk assessmentCase 2Dewey J. Cornell: Principle: Ensure that conditions for evaluation are quiet, private, and distraction-freeDewey J. Cornell: Teaching Point: How can threat assessment be distinguished as a form of risk assessment?Case 3Randy K. Otto and Jay Singh: Principle: Use nomothetic evidence in assessing clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connectionKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Combining nomothetic data with case-specific, idiographic informationRandy K. Otto: Teaching Point: How can different approaches to risk assessment be used to inform the evaluation and the case outcome?Case 4Joel A. Dvoskin: Principle: Obtain relevant historical information26. Response StyleCase 1Ashley Kirk Burgett and Richard Frederick: Principle: Use testing when indicated in assessing response styleRichard Frederick and Ashley Kirk Burgett: Teaching Point: Assessing malingering of cognitive deficits using testingCase 2Phillip J. Resnick: Principle: Use third party information in assessing response styleKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Using records and collateral interviews in assessing response style27. Expert TestimonyCase 1Stanley Brodsky: Principle: Communicate effectivelyKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Moving from "adequate" to "effective" in presenting expert testimonyStanley Brodsky: Principle: Base testimony on the results of the properly performed forensic mental health assessmentKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Using the report to facilitate expert testimonyStanley Brodsky: Principle: Control the message. Strive to obtain, retain, and regain control over the meaning and impact of what is presented in expert testimonyKirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke: Teaching Point: Strategies for maintaining some control over the messagecase contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Jacey EricksonReferencesIndex