Outline for Forensic Psychology/page 8
PSYC 6520 (Section 1)
Forensic Psychology: Theory and Practice
2015
Richard Rogers, Ph.D., ABPP
Contact:
Office: Terrill 365
Office hours: Monday 12-1 PM and by appointment
Class: 1:00 to 3:50 Mondays
Why forensic psychology as an elective?
Many professional psychologists do not envision themselves in forensic practice, but find themselves drawn to this speciality on a part-time basis because of work opportunities, challenging cases, and above-average compensation. Forensic skills and training also provide an excellent background for other complex assessments, such as found in disability contexts (e.g., VA) and cross-disciplinary settings (e.g., medical schools and hospitals).
Doctoral training in psychology emphasizes the development of clinical proficiencies and a professional identity. Forensic practice teaches students how to (1) think critically and incisively, (2) thoroughly understand the underpinnings of psychological assessment, and (3) defend without being defensive their clinical and forensic conclusions. The goal is to build both their forensic expertise and their professional confidence.
What are the learning objectives?
1. Doctoral students need to learn basics of legal work as it applies to the practice of forensic psychology. Part of their understandable apprehension stems from not understanding how attorneys think and work.
2. Students will learn how to operationalize legal standards (e.g., what makes a defendant “legally insane?”) and to apply specialized measures to complicated cases.
3. Students will learn how to integrate legal and clinical data in writing forensic reports for the court. They are given an opportunity to resubmit reports, which serves two purposes, increasing skill development and reducing students’ worries about success.
4. Students will be given at least one opportunity for mock testimony; it is very gratifying to see their development of skills.
What about the readings?
· Rationale? Students only learn when they are exposed to very different perspectives and given an opportunity to compare and to integrate the information. When feasible, I provide pdf files.
· Why not a textbook? First, they are very expensive (e.g., Otto’s [2013] Forensic psychology). Plus I can provide several chapters from Rogers and Shuman (2005). Fundamentals of forensic practice.
· Amount? It averages 3-5 readings per week.
How can I conduct forensic evaluations?
One semester is simply too short to develop skills and work on forensic cases at the same time. In addition, most forensic cases require the expert to have a Ph.D. and be licensed. We have a useful alternative. I have carefully assembled case files on three types of cases. I have emphasized criminal cases because most psychologists begin their consultations with criminal issues and then may move to civil cases.
What kind of forensic cases?
1. Competency to Stand Trial. The first case is charged with a capital offense involving the sexual touching of a minor. The examinee is a decorated veteran, who may or may not be psychotic.
2. Insanity. My plan is to sanitize data from 2014 insanity case from Arkansas that includes past clinical records, police investigative reports, defendant and collateral interviews, plus selected testing.
3. Personal Injury. Personal injury is the most challenging of the disability cases. Students will be using extensive clinical data in determining the cause of his impairment.
What about a specialized consultation?
Forensic psychologists can develop specialty areas on which they have highly-regarded expertise. Although students are not yet ready to develop their own niches, exposure to this type of forensic consultation can be invaluable.
1. Malingering and response styles. Students will be provided with two forensic reports on the same examinee and asked to address response styles. Instead of writing a formal report, they will be asked to generate direct and cross examination questions.
Course Requirements and Grading
1. Three forensic reports: (each 10): 30
a. For full credit, reports must be timely.
b. Needs improvement? You will have an opportunity to resubmit the report until you have full credit.
2. Preparation of direct and cross questions: 5
a. Comprehensiveness and flow will be emphasized rather than the specific structure of the questions.
Requirements continued:
3. Midterm (2 hours): 20
4. Active class participation: 10 (not simply attendance, but active and constructive involvement).
a. With its small number, the class will function more like a team with everyone playing an active role
5. Mock testimony
a. Cross-examination: 5
i. Students will receive full credit if their answers show good preparation. In other words, testimony is a learning process; everyone will mess up a few questions.
b. Bonus testimony: 5
i. Students have the opportunity to volunteer for direct or cross; this is a great way to learn as well as earn additional points.
6. Final
a. Option A: Comprehensive final: 30%
b. Option B: An “original” theoretical paper: 30%
The paper is approximately 20-25 pages including references. "Original" is defined as something you wrote expressly for this class; an adaptation of previously written paper or thesis does not meet this standard. The topic and outline must be pre-approved, which is intended as a benefit so that you do not go astray.
Class Outline
0. Jan. 20 No classes this week, but one reading will be distributed, as a way of getting the class started.
1. Jan. 26 Outline of the course; primer on forensic psychology; introduction to Miranda issues
2. Feb. 2 Overview of forensic evaluations. Comparative analysis of the MRCI and SAMA, SAMA interpretation Introduction to competency to stand trial.
3. Feb. 9 Conducting competency evaluations and other pretrial competencies.
Comparative analyses of the MacCAT-CA, ECST-R and CAST-MR.
4. Feb. 16 Introduction to insanity
5. Feb. 23 Insanity evaluations and the R-CRAS; mock cross-examination on competency reports.
Competency Report is due***
6. Mar. 2 Sex offenders and sentencing
7. Mar. 9 Midterm exam (2 hours)
Insanity Report is due by Wednesday, March 4 ***
Mar. 16 Spring Break!
8. Mar. 23 Death penalty issues and post-conviction; mock cross-examinations on insanity.
Option B: Paper Outline Due
9. Mar. 30 Malingering and response styles; review of the MMPI-2, PAI, SIRS-2, and cognitive measures
10. Apr. 6 Disability determinations
11. Apr. 13 Personal injury and worker's compensation
12. Apr. 20 Child custody and competency to parent
Personal Injury Report is due***
13. Apr. 27 Introduction to risk assessments; fitness for duty evaluations Detailed outline of direct and cross questions***
14. May 4 Discussion of testimony and courtroom strategies; practicum in expert testimony (class will be assigned roles as attorneys and forensic psychologists)
Final Date for Any Revisions
15. May 11 Option A: Comprehensive final
Option B: Original theoretical paper (also due Monday at 1 PM)
***If you are scheduled for cross-examination, you are expected to get me a copy of your report by Wednesday prior to the scheduled date. The report should be in good, but not necessarily perfect shape at this time.
Important Details
1. Incompletes: It is expected that doctoral students will complete the assigned work during the semester. Rarely are incompletes given except when medical or other exigencies arise. Based on university policies, any incompletes must be finished within 12 months or the entire course retaken.
2. Attendance policy: Students are expected to attend each class. Failure to attend will be penalized in the class participation (1 point per absence from the course average).
3. Policy for make-up exams and late work policies: No make-up exams without medical documentation; late work is penalized 5% per week.
4. Policy on electronics: Cell phones and other electronic devices are not allowed during class. During lecture/discussion components of the class, laptops and tablets are permissible.
5. Policy on cheating and plagiarism: They constitute serious violations of the code of student conduct and professional ethics. They typically result in a failure of this course.
6. This syllabus does not constitute a contract. The plans for this course may be modified during the semester.
Academic Integrity statement
Identification of academic dishonesty in this class can result in penalties including: additional work, a failing grade for the assignment or class, a grade being reduced or changed, and referral to the Dean of Students. The APA publication manual and material on the UNT Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities webpage (www.unt.edu/csrr) can help you understand and avoid plagiarism.
ODA statement
The University of North Texas makes reasonable academic accommodation for students with disabilities. Students seeking accommodation must first register with the Office of Disability Accommodation (ODA) to verify their eligibility. If a disability is verified, the ODA will provide you with an accommodation letter to be delivered to faculty to begin a private discussion regarding your specific needs in a course. You may request accommodations at any time, however, ODA notices of accommodation should be provided as early as possible in the semester to avoid any delay in implementation. Note that students must obtain a new letter of accommodation for every semester and must meet with each faculty member prior to implementation in each class. Students are strongly encouraged to deliver letters of accommodation during faculty office hours or by appointment. Faculty members have the authority to ask students to discuss such letters during their designated office hours to protect the privacy of the student. For additional information see the Office of Disability Accommodation website at http://www.unt.edu/oda. You may also contact them by phone at 940.565.4323.
SETE statement
The Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (SETE) is a requirement for all organized classes at UNT. This short survey will be made available to you at the end of the semester, providing you a chance to comment on how this class is taught. I am very interested in the feedback I get from students, as I work to continually improve my teaching. I consider the SETE to be an important part of your participation in this class.
Readings
After Week 1, please complete readings prior to the scheduled seminar.
Week / Readings0 (1-20) / Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Fundamentals of forensic practice. New York: Springer. Chapter 1, pp. 3-19
1 / Overview of forensic psychology
Haney, C. (1980). [pp. 158- 168] Psychology and legal change: On the limits of factual jurisprudence. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 147-200.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. Chapter 1, pp. 3-25.
Introduction to Miranda
Goldstein, N. E. S., & Goldstein, A. M., Zelle, H., Condie, L. O. (2013) Capacity to waive Miranda rights and the assessment of the susceptibility to police coercion. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 381-411). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 / Forensic assessments and Miranda
Murrie, D. C., & Zelle, H. (2015). Criminal competencies. In B. L. Cutler, P. A. Zapf (Eds.) , APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 1: Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 115-157). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14461-005
Miranda measures
Goldstein, N.E., Zelle, H., & Grisso, T. (2014). Part V: Statistic properties (pp. 41-55). The Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments: Manual for juvenile and adult evaluations. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Drogin, E. Y., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2012). Validation of SAMA measures (pp. 79-108). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
3 / Overview of criminal competencies
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. Chapter 7 (Other competencies), pp. 165-200. Read only 173-179.
Competency measures
Rogers, R., Tillbrook, C. E., & Sewell, K. W. (2004). Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial (ECST-R): A professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Chapter 6 (pp. 121-146)
Poythress, N., G., Nicholson, R., Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F., Bonnie, R. J., Monahan, J., & Hoge, S. K. (1999). Professional manual for the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Chapter 4, Psychometric properties (pp. 25-29).
Rogers, R., & Johansson-Love, J. (2009). Evaluating competency to stand trial with evidence-based practice. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 37, 450-460.
4 / Introduction to insanity
Packer, I. K. (2015). Legal insanity and mens rea defenses. In B. L. Cutler, P. A. Zapf (Eds.) , APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 1: Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 87-114). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14461-005
Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Fundamentals of forensic practice. New York: Springer. Chapter 7, pp. 181-214.
5 / Conducting insanity evaluations
Rogers, R. (2008). Insanity evaluations. In R. Jackson (Ed.) Learning forensic assessment (pp. 109-128). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [New edition, 2015, if available.]
Rogers, R. (1984). Rogers criminal responsibility assessment scales (R-CRAS) and test manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Test development (pp. 9-21).
6 / Sex offenders
Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(1), 117-146. doi:10.1007/s11292-004-6466-7
Seto, M. C., Kingston, D. A., & Stephens, S. (2015). Sexual offending. In B. L. Cutler, P. A. Zapf (Eds.) , APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 1: Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 351-379). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sentencing
Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Fundamentals of forensic practice. New York: Springer. Chapter 9, pp. 259-308.
7 / Midterm: no readings
8 / Death penalty issues and post-conviction
DeMatteo, D., Keesler, M., Murphy, M., & Strohmaier, H. (2015). Capital case considerations. In B. L. Cutler, P. A. Zapf (Eds.) , APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 1: Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 191-215). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14461-007
Cunningham, M. D. (2008). Forensic psychological evaluations at capital sentencing. In R. Jackson (Ed.), Learning forensic assessment (pp. 211-238). New York: Routledge.