JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 87(1), 84–94

Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ARCHER, BUFFINGTON-VOLLUM,

FORENSIC TESTS
STREDNY, HANDEL

A Survey of Psychological Test Use Patterns Among

Forensic Psychologists
Robert P. Archer
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Eastern Virginia Medical School

Jacqueline K. Buffington-Vollum
Institute of Law, Psychiatry, & Public Policy
University of Virginia

Rebecca Vauter Stredny

Central State Hospital
Petersburg, Virginia

Richard W. Handel
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Eastern Virginia Medical School

Clinical psychologists are frequently called on to testify in court regarding mental health issues
in civil or criminal cases. One of the legal criteria by which admissibility of testimony is deter-
mined includes whether the testimony is based on methods that have gained “general accep-
tance” in their field. In this study, we sought to evaluate the psychological tests used in forensic
assessments by members of the American Psychology-Law Society Division of the American
Psychological Association, and by diplomates in the American Board of Forensic Psychology.
We present test results from this survey, based on 152 respondents, for forensic evaluations con-
ducted with adults using multiscale inventories, single-scale tests, unstructured personality
tests, cognitive and/or intellectual tests, neuropsychological tests, risk assessment and psy-
chopathy instruments, sex offender risk assessment instruments, competency or sanity-related
instruments, and instruments used to evaluate malingering. In addition, we provide findings for
psychological testing involving child-related forensic issues.

The potential admissibility of the conclusions offered by fo-
rensic psychologists in the courtroom is related to the scien-
tific basis of their testimony established, at least in part, by the
general acceptance of the techniques used by the psychologist
in deriving an opinion. The 1993 United States Supreme Court
case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expanded
the federal standard for the admissibility of scientific testi-
mony by assigning the judge the role of a “gatekeeper” to en-
sure that expert evidence is related to criteria including
whether the scientific theory and technique is testable, has
been subject to peer review and publication, has an established
error rate, and is generally accepted in the relevant scientific
field. The Daubert standard is now used in all federal courts
and has been refined in subsequent circuit court and Supreme
Court decisions. In particular, the 1999 Kumho Tire v.
Carmichael Supreme Court decision expanded the applicabil-
ity of the Daubert ruling to include expert testimony derived
from “other specialized knowledge” or technical knowledge,
the former generally serving as the basis of psychologists’ ex-
pert testimony. Although many states have elected to employ
the Daubert standard, other states continue to use the earlier
federal standard, that is, the Frye v. United States (1923) stan-
dard, which primarily emphasizes general acceptance of a
technique in a given scientific field as the necessary basis for
the admissibility of testimony. Therefore, forensic psycholo-
gists’ knowledge of the accepted practices of their peers is of-
ten an essential part of ensuring that useful and admissible in-
formation is provided to the legal system.
 FORENSIC TESTS
Traditional clinical assessment instruments such as the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2;
Butcher et al., 2001) and Rorschach (Rorschach, 1921/1942)
as well as more specialized forensic instruments often play a
crucial role in forensic evaluations (e.g., Archer, 2006). Al-
though there have been some concerns regarding the use of
traditional clinical measures in forensic assessment (e.g.,
Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997), such tests
have nonetheless become widely accepted for use in forensic
evaluations (e.g., Borum & Grisso, 1995; Gould & Stahl,
2000; Greenberg, Otto, & Long, 2003; Otto, Edens, &
Barcus, 2000). Furthermore, survey results have indicated
that forensic psychology experts consider formal assessment
tools to be highly desirable for use in forensic evaluations. In
a survey of American Board of Forensic Psychologists
diplomates regarding criminal evaluations, Lally (2003)
found that a wide range of clinical and forensic assessment
instruments were rated as being either “Recommended” or
“Acceptable” by significant numbers of these professionals
for evaluations of mental state at the time of the offense, risk
for violence, risk for sexual violence, competency to stand
trial, competency to waive Miranda Rights, and evaluations
of malingering.
Other surveys have reported on psychological test usage
in varying types of forensic evaluations. Borum and Grisso
(1995) conducted the first survey of highly experienced fo-
rensic psychologists and psychiatrists regarding their use of
psychological tests in competence to stand trial and criminal
responsibility evaluations. Ryba, Cooper, and Zapf (2003)
reported on the use of psychological tests in evaluating juve-
niles’ competence to stand trial. In general, these surveys
have shown a mix of traditional clinical assessment instru-
ments with more specifically focused forensic instruments in
these settings. In the civil forensic realm, test usage in child
custody evaluations has received particular attention, with
surveys that have been conducted by Ackerman and
Ackerman (1997); Ackerman, Ackerman, Steffen, and
Kelley-Poulas (2004); Bow and Quinnell (2001); Hagen and
Castagna (2001); Keilin and Bloom (1986); and Quinnell
and Bow (2001). These surveys have found generally similar
patterns of test usage among custody evaluators, with broad-
band, self-report personality inventories; intelligence tests;
and the unstructured personality tests being most commonly
used. Several surveys have also focused on personal injury
evaluations both in relation to emotional damage (e.g.,
Boccaccini & Brodsky, 1999) and neuropsychological injury
(e.g., Lees-Haley, 1992; Lees-Haley, Smith, Williams, &
Dunn, 1996). Most recently, Slick, Tan, Strauss, and Hultsch
(2004) surveyed forensic neuropsychologists specifically re-
garding their practices in the assessment of malingering and
found that most routinely included formal tests of malinger-
ing in their test batteries.
Although survey findings have indicated consistently that
psychological testing is an important component of most fo-
rensic evaluations, the specific nature of the tests utilized
85
varies by setting or evaluation focus. Apart from surveys of
child custody evaluators and neuropsychologists, the litera-
ture base is not sufficient to identify a clear consensus re-
garding test usage patterns, with the exception of the
MMPI–2 (Butcher et al., 2001) and the Wechsler Intelli-
gence scales (Wechsler, 1991, 1997a), which appear popular
across a wide variety of evaluations. Furthermore, the rap-
idly changing area of psychological assessment, with the in-
troduction of new tests and new revisions or editions of
established instruments, necessitates regular updates of
knowledge regarding what is utilized in the field. This is es-
pecially true for forensic evaluators, given the many new fo-
rensic instruments that have been introduced over the past
decade. Indeed, Otto and Heilbrun (2002) characterized the
current state as an “explosion” in the development and publi-
cation of forensic and forensically relevant assessment in-
struments. For these reasons, in this research, we sought to
update knowledge regarding psychological test usage among
psychologists who perform forensic evaluations in terms of
their use of specific categories or types of psychological as-
sessment instruments.
METHOD
Participants
The survey sample consisted of doctoral-level psychologists
who were members of the American Psychological Associa-
tion Division 41 (American Psychology–Law Society;
AP–LS) and/or diplomates of the American Academy of Fo-
rensic Psychology (AAFP). We excluded graduate students,
experimental psychologists, and nonpsychologist mental
health professionals from the study. To contact potential par-
ticipants in American Psychological Association Division
41, we sent a recruitment email message to a subset of 149
members of the AP–LS list with permission of the list admin-
istrator. Email addresses for the AAFP were obtained from
the diplomate directory on the AAFP Web site with permis-
sion from the Web site administrator. Of 213 diplomates
listed in the AAFP directory, email addresses were not avail-
able for 52 (24.4%), and an additional 38 (17.8%) addresses
were returned as “undeliverable,” yielding an adjusted
subsample n of 123.
The combined overall number of potential respondents
from Division 41 and the AAFP at the time of this survey was
272. We collected usable survey responses from 92 men
(60.5%) and 60 women (39.5%), for an overall response rate
of 55.9%. Of the respondents, 139 (91.4%) were White, 3
(2%) were African American, 3 (2%) were Hispanic, and 7
(4.6%) fell into other ethnic backgrounds or groupings. Of
the respondents, 122 (80.3%) held PhD degrees, 21 (13.8%)
held a PsyD degree, 8 (5.3%) jointly held doctoral and JD de-
grees, and 1 (0.7%) held an EdD degree. The primary occu-
pational setting for the participants in this survey were as
86 ARCHER, BUFFINGTON-VOLLUM, STREDNY, HANDEL
follows: private practice = 69 (45.4%), university/college RESULTS
setting = 16 (10.5%), correctional facility = 12 (7.9%), medi-
cal center/hospital = 10 (6.6%), residential/inpatient facility Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the forensic
= 10 (6.6%), medical school = 6 (3.9%), court clinic = 6 survey respondents. The mean age of survey respondents was
(3.9%), psychiatric outpatient facility = 4 (2.6%), other set- 49.2 years (range 25 to 75), and the mean number of years
tings = 10 (6.6%), and unknown = 9 (5.9%). Of the respon- postdegree at the time of the survey was 17.7. The respon-
dents, 88 (57.9%) reported that they were not board certified, dents reported that a mean of 56.2% of their time was spent in
58 (38.2%) reported board diplomates in one or more areas, forensic practice, with a mean of 14.7 years spent in forensic
and 6 respondents (3.9%) did not indicate their board status. practice. We also requested respondents to indicate their ar-
Of the 58 individuals reporting diplomates, 37 (63.8%) re- eas of expertise, by selecting “all that apply.” The most fre-
ported board certification in forensic psychology by the quent endorsements of forensic expertise involved perform-
American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP), 9 re- ing competency to stand trial evaluations, child custody
ported ABPP board certification in clinical psychology evaluations, criminal responsibility evaluations, violence
(15.5%), 3 reported ABPP board certification in neuro- risk assessment, sexual offender assessment, and personal in-
psychology (5.2%), 2 psychologists reported board certifica- jury evaluations. Finally, participants in this survey reported
tion in other ABPP specialty areas (3.4%), and 7 respondents that approximately 30% of their time in forensic practice was
(12.1%) listed diplomates by other boards such as the Ameri- spent in psychological testing.
can Board of Assessment Psychology. Of the survey partici- Table 2 provides information on the most frequently used
pants, 121 identified themselves as forensic psychologists multiscale inventories reported by survey respondents. For
(79.6%), 22 (14.5%) did not identify themselves as forensic this and all later tables, we utilized the WS to rank order the
psychologists, and 9 (5.9%) of the respondents did not report popularity of the instruments, and tests were listed in tables if
their self-identification in terms of forensic psychology. at least 5% of respondents within a category reported utiliza-
tion of that test. The data shown in Tables 2 through 11 re-
Survey Instrument and Procedure
TABLE 1
We emailed potential participants a recruitment message re- Characteristics of Forensic Survey
questing their participation in a Web-based survey. We pro- Respondents
vided a link to the Web address of the survey in the email. We
Variable M SD
instructed potential participants to activate the link to com-
plete the survey. Age (years) 49.19 11.95
The online survey included three sections. Section 1 cov- % of time spenta
Clinical practiceb 20.38 25.42
ered respondents’ background information and was divided Forensic practicec 49.27 31.85
into two subsections. Subsection 1A requested demograph- Administrative dutiesd 6.92 11.51
ics and data related to the practitioners’ professional back- Consultatione 4.03 7.75
Teachingf 7.05 13.56
ground and general practice characteristics; Subsection 1B Researchg 7.78 16.09
included questions relating to participants’ background in No. of years postdegree 17.68 11.43
and practice of forensic psychology. Section 2 presented 10 No. of years in forensic practice 14.70 9.23
% of time in forensic practice 56.22 33.34
sets or classes of tests including the following: multiscale % of respondents’ reporting expertisea
personality inventories, clinical scales, unstructured (also Competency to stand trial 17.36 20.01
commonly classified as projective) personality tests, cogni- Other criminal competencies 2.57 6.92
Criminal responsibility 11.67 14.78
tive and achievement tests, neuropsychological tests, mea- Violence risk assessment 8.95 15.64
sures of psychopathy and risk assessment, sexual offender Sexual offender assessment 8.75 19.51
risk tests, tests of competency and sanity, malingering tests, Capital sentencing/mitigation 2.84 9.92
and child-related forensic instruments. We asked respon- Civil commitment 2.36 6.36
Preemployment screening 3.23 12.80
dents to indicate their frequency of use of each instrument on Personal injury 8.48 17.64
a scale ranging from 0 (never), 1 (infrequently), 2 (occasion- Employment discrimination/harassment 0.98 3.16
ally), 3 (about 50% of the time), 4 (frequently), to 6 (always). Americans with disabilities cases 0.50 3.27
Standard of practice cases 0.77 2.65
Space was provided for the respondent to include up to five Sexual harassment 0.61 2.29
additional tests not listed in the survey for each class of tests. Child custody 13.36 26.67
We calculated a total mention (TM) score for each test by Child abuse/neglect 2.97 10.01
Juvenile delinquency 4.28 14.08
summing the usage ratings for the total sample. We also de- Malingering evaluation 5.94 16.96
rived a weighted score (WS) by summing the number of re- Other 4.37 12.37
spondents who checked each frequency of use category % of forensic practice spent in testing 29.41 25.40
multiplied by the numerical weights assigned for that inten- aTotal percentages may vary from 100%. bn = 102. cn = 141. dn = 74. en = 69.

sity of use (i.e., never = 0, always = 6). fn = 71. gn = 60.

 FORENSIC TESTS 87
TABLE 2
Test Usage Ratings for Multiscale Inventories in Forensic Evaluations of Adults

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Butcher et al., 2001) 2 10 30 10 19 44 16 129 492

Personality Assessment Inventory (Morey, 1991) 61 10 16 5 15 21 3 70 240
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (3rd ed.; Millon, 1994) 59 29 18 6 11 6 2 72 169
Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire (Cattel, Cattel, & Cattel, 1993) 106 11 7 1 3 3 0 25 55
Revised NEO–Personality Inventory (Costa & McRae, 1992) 118 6 4 1 1 1 0 13 26
California Personality Inventory (Gough, 1996) 125 2 1 0 2 1 0 6 17

Note. N = 131. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6).

flect the actual numerical frequencies of survey respondents
in each response category, with the TM and WS columns re-
flecting score summations. Table 2 shows that the most fre-
quently utilized multiscale instrument in the evaluation of
adults is the MMPI–2, followed by the Personality Assess-
ment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991)) and the Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory (3rd ed. [MCMI–III]; Millon, 1994).
Although the MCMI–III was utilized by 72 respondents in
contrast to the 70 respondents reporting use of the PAI, the
PAI tended to be utilized more frequently or intensely by sur-
vey responders and therefore produced a higher WS. The re-
maining three tests identified by survey respondents in order
of their WS and TM scores were the Sixteen Personality Fac-
tor questionnaire (Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993), the Re-
vised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992),
and the California Personality Inventory (Gough, 1996).
Table 3 shows the test usage ratings for the six most fre-
quently used clinical scales. As shown in Table 3, the Beck De-
pression Inventory–II (BDI–II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996)
is the most frequently and intensely used instrument in this cat-
egory followed by the Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer,
1990), the Spielberger State–Trait Anger Expression Inven-
tory (Spielberger, 1999), the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory
(Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), the
Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (Beck, Kovacs, & Weissman,
1979), and the Beck Hopelessness Scale (Beck & Steer, 1988).
Table 4 presents the four unstructured test instruments
most frequently used in adult forensic evaluations by the 54
survey respondents who reported unstructured test use. As
shown in this table, the most frequently used instrument is
the Rorschach, followed by all forms of sentence completion
tests, the Thematic Apperception Test (Murray, 1943), and
figure drawings.
Table 5 shows the six most frequently employed cogni-
tive/intellectual and achievement tests used in forensic eval-
uation of adults. For classification purposes in this study, the
Wechsler Memory Scale (Wechsler, 1997b) was grouped
with cognitive/intellectual tests rather than included with
neuropsychological tests. As shown in Table 5, various
forms of the Wechsler Intelligence scales (Wechsler, 1991,
1992, 1997a) are the most widely used instruments followed
by the Wide Range Achievement Test–3 (Wilkinson, 1993),
the Shipley Institute of Living Scale (Zachary, 1991), the
Vineland Adaptive Behavior scales (Sparrow, Balla, &
Cicchetti, 1984), and two widely used achievement tests.
Table 6 reflects the most frequently used neuro-
psychological test instruments by the 77 respondents report-
ing experience with adult neuropsychological evaluations.
As shown in Table 6, the most widely used individual test
components of the Halstead–Reitan Battery (Halstead, 1947;
Reitan, 1979) are the Trail Making Tests (Reitan &
Davidson, 1974), followed by the Wisconsin Card Sorting
Test (Berg, 1948), and the Categories Test (Halstead, 1947).
The Bender Visual–Motor Gestalt Test (Pascal & Suttell,
1951) is the most frequently used single test in
neuropsychological evaluations. The Halstead–Reitan Bat-
tery was more frequently utilized than the Luria-Nebraska
Neuropsychological Battery (Luria, 1965), the latter round-
ing out the testing reported in this category.
Table 7 shows test use as reported by 97 respondents in
evaluating violence risk assessment and psychopathy. The
revised form and screening version of the Psychopathy
Checklist (PCL–Revised; Hare, 2003; PCL–Screening Ver-
sion; Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995) are the most frequently used
tests in this category followed by the Historical Clinical
Risk–20 (HCR–20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997),
the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, &
Quinsey, 1993), and the Level of Service Inventory (LSI–R;
Andrews & Bonta, 1995).
Table 8 provides information concerning the most fre-
quently used instruments in adult sex offender risk assess-
ments for the 62 respondents with experience in this area.
The Static–99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999) was the most fre-
quently and most intensely employed instrument in this cate-
gory followed by the Sexual Violence Risk–20 (Boer, Hart,
Kropp, & Webster, 1997), the Minnesota Sex Offender
Screening Tool–Revised (Epperson, Kaul, & Hesselton,
1998), the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recid-
ivism (Hanson, 1997), and finally the Sex Offender Risk Ap-
praisal Guide (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998).
Table 9 provides the most frequently used instruments in
competency or sanity evaluations. The most frequently and
88 ARCHER, BUFFINGTON-VOLLUM, STREDNY, HANDEL
TABLE 3
Test Usage Ratings for Clinical Scales in Forensic Evaluations of Adults

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

Beck Depression Inventory–II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) 25 16 23 1 7 2 1 50 109

Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1990) 47 11 12 1 3 1 0 28 55
State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Spielberger, 1999) 64 2 6 1 2 0 0 11 25
State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) 63 5 6 0 1 0 0 12 21
Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (Beck, Kovacs, & Weissman, 1979) 65 4 5 0 0 0 1 10 20
Beck Hopelessness Scale (Beck & Steer, 1988) 66 4 2 1 1 1 0 9 20

Note. N = 75. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6).

TABLE 4
Test Usage Ratings for Unstructured Personality Tests in Forensic Evaluations of Adults

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

Rorschach (Rorschach, 1921/1942) 9 18 9 4 7 5 2 45 113

Sentence completion 22 10 11 4 2 5 0 32 77
Thematic Apperception Test (Murray, 1943) 25 13 7 3 2 3 1 29 65
Projective drawings 29 5 11 3 3 3 0 25 63

Note. N = 54. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6).

TABLE 5
Test Usage Ratings for Cognitive and Achievement Tests in Forensic Evaluations of Adults

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

Wechsler Intelligence scales (WAIS–R, WAIS–III, WASI, WMS; Wechsler, 1981,

1997a, 1997b, 1999) 6 19 53 8 15 15 9 119 338
Wide Range Achievement Test–3 (Wilkinson, 1993) 42 26 30 5 12 6 4 83 203
Shipley Institute of Living Scale (Zachary, 1991) 80 19 13 1 9 3 0 45 99
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow, Balla, & CIcchetti, 1984) 68 36 18 1 2 0 0 57 83
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (Wechsler, 1992) 96 13 11 0 3 0 2 29 59
Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery–Revised (and 3rd ed.; Woodcock
& Johnson, 1989; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) 103 14 7 0 1 0 0 22 32

Note. N = 125. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6); WAIS–R = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised;
WAIS–III = Wechsler Adult Intellisgnce (3rd ed.); WASI = Wechsler Adult Sentence Inventory; WMS = Wechsler Memory Scale.

TABLE 6
Test Usage Ratings for Neuropsychology Tests in Forensic Evaluations of Adults

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Battery (Halstead, 1947; Reitan, 1979) 55 7 8 0 2 2 3 22 59

Trail Making Tests A and B (Reitan & Davidson, 1974) 12 13 29 1 9 7 6 65 181
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (Berg, 1948) 39 15 13 1 2 5 2 38 89
Categories Test (Halstead, 1947) 50 6 11 1 2 4 3 27 77
Bender Visual–Motor Gestalt Test (Pascal & Suttell, 1951) 43 9 17 3 2 0 3 34 78
Luria–Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (Luria, 1965) 64 9 4 0 0 0 0 13 17

Note. N = 77. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6).
 FORENSIC TESTS 89
TABLE 7
Test Usage Ratings for Evaluations of Risk Assessment/Psychopathy in Forensic Evaluations of Adults

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

Psychopathy Checklists (PCL; PCL–R: Hare, 2003; PCL–Screening Version: Hart,

Cox, & Hare, 1995) 4 16 43 3 16 6 9 93 259
Historical Clinical Risk–20 (Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997) 32 17 23 3 10 8 4 65 176
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993) 40 24 21 1 9 2 0 57 115
Level of Service Inventory (Andrews & Bonta, 1995) 79 7 5 1 4 1 0 18 41

Note. N = 97. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6).

TABLE 8
Test Usage Ratings for Sex Offender Risk Assessment Instruments in Forensic Evaluations of Adults

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

Static 99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999) 14 10 11 2 13 5 7 48 157

Sexual Violence Risk–20 (Boer, Hart, Kropp, & Webster, 1997) 21 14 16 1 5 5 0 41 94
Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (Epperson, Kaul, & Hesselton, 1998) 38 7 7 1 4 1 4 24 69
Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Recidivism (Hanson, 1997) 29 15 11 2 3 1 1 33 66
Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cornier, 1998) 33 12 14 0 2 1 0 29 53

Note. N = 62. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6).

TABLE 9
Test Usage Ratings for Forensic Evaluations of Competency or Sanity in Adults

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCat)–Criminal Adjudication (Poythress

et al., 1999) 20 17 31 2 9 6 1 66 157
Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants With Mental Retardation
(Everington & Luckasson, 1992) 36 20 25 2 3 0 0 50 88
Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial–Revised (Rogers, Tillbrook, & Sewell, 2004) 55 8 13 1 3 5 1 31 80
Grisso’s Miranda Rights (Grisso, 1998) 52 11 16 2 1 3 1 34 74
Rogers’ Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (Rogers, 1984) 57 11 9 2 4 3 0 29 66
Georgia Court Competency Test (Wildman et al., 1980) 66 7 5 1 4 2 1 20 52
MacCAT–Treatment (Grisso & Appelbaum, 1998) 65 9 9 1 2 0 0 21 38
Competency Screening Test (Lipsitt, Lelos, & McGarry, 1971) 68 9 5 0 4 0 0 18 35
Interdisciplinary Fitness Review Interview (IFI, IFI–Revised; Golding, 1993) 78 4 2 0 1 0 1 8 18
Fitness Interview Test (FIT, FIT–Revised; Roesch, Zapf, Eaves, & Webster, 1998) 81 3 1 0 0 1 0 5 10

Note. N = 86. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6).

intensely used instrument in this category is the MacArthur
Competence Assessment Tool–Criminal Adjudication
(MacCAT–CA; Poythress et al., 1999). The Evaluation of
Competency to Stand Trial–Revised (Rogers, Tillbrook, &
Sewell, 2004) and the Competence Assessment for Standing
Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST–MR;
Everington & Luckasson, 1992) were the next most com-
monly used. The results for this category also included the
family of instruments by Grisso (1998) to evaluate compe-
tency to waive Miranda Rights and an instrument by Rogers
(1984) to assess criminal responsibility (i.e., The Rogers’
Criminal Responsibility Assessment scales).
Table 10 provides information concerning the use of spe-
cialized malingering instruments among the 109 respondents
involved in the use of these measures. The most frequently
used instrument in this category is the Structured Interview
of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens,
1992), closely followed by the Test of Memory and Malin-
90 ARCHER, BUFFINGTON-VOLLUM, STREDNY, HANDEL
gering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996). The remaining tests in
this category, in order of their TMs, are the Validity Indicator
Profile (Frederick, 1997), the Rey–15 (Rey, 1964), the Miller
Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (Miller, 2001), the
Paulhus Deception scales (Paulhus, 1984), and the Portland
Digit Recognition Test (Binder, 1993).
Finally, Table 11 presents the instruments most frequently
used by 76 respondents in their evaluation of children and ad-
olescents including child custody assessments. The most fre-
quently used test in this category is the MMPI–Adolescent
(MMPI–A) developed by Butcher et al. (1992). The Millon
Adolescent Clinical Inventory (Millon, 1993), another self-
report measure, ranked fourth as evaluated by the WS index.
Several instruments designed for parents’ reports or ratings,
including the Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 1995), the
Child Abuse Potential Inventory (Milner, 1986), and the
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991), ranked
in the top five most frequently and intensely used instru-
ments. The PCL: Youth Version (Forth, Kosen, & Hare,
2003), a clinician rating scale of psychopathy among adoles-
cents, was ranked seventh. Standardized methods of collect-
ing custody evaluation data such as the Ackerman–
Schoendorf Parent Evaluation of Custody Test (ASPECT;
Ackerman & Schoendorf, 1994) and the Uniform Child Cus-
tody Evaluations System (UCCES; Munsinger & Karlson,
1994) were also frequently utilized in this category.
DISCUSSION
It is important to note some salient methodological aspects of
Web-based surveys prior to interpreting these results. Be-
cause forensic psychologists constitute a professional group
expected to maintain high levels of Internet access, a Web-
based survey was deemed to be an appropriate methodology
for this sample (Solomon, 2001). Some findings suggest that
despite the widespread convenience and use of the Internet,
Web-based surveys may yield significantly lower response
rates than comparable mailed surveys (Cook, Heath, &
Thompson, 2000; Couper, Blair, & Triplett, 1999; Solomon,
2001). Indeed, Baruch (1999) reported the average response
rate for paper-and-pencil surveys at 56%, but a meta-analysis
of Internet-based surveys yielded a lower mean response rate
of between 35% and 40% (Cook et al., 2000). The response

TABLE 10
Test Usage Ratings for Instruments Used to Asses Malingering in Forensic Evaluations of Adults

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992) 15 15 45 4 21 8 1 94 247
Test of Memory Malingering (Tombaugh, 1996) 27 11 43 6 13 4 5 82 217
Validity Indicator Profile (Frederick, 1997) 50 15 23 6 6 7 2 59 150
Rey–15 (Rey, 1964) 58 18 19 1 9 3 1 51 116
Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (Miller, 2001) 63 13 23 2 6 1 1 46 100
Paulhus Deception scales (Paulhus, 1984) 100 3 2 0 1 2 1 9 27
Portland Digit Recognition Test (Binder, 1993) 104 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 6

Note. N = 109. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6).

TABLE 11
Test Usage Ratings for Psychological Tests in Child-Related Forensic Issues

Usage Rating Totals

Instrument a b c d e f g TM WS

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent (Butcher et al., 1992) 17 10 24 9 10 5 1 59 156

Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, 1995) 37 8 10 5 7 6 3 39 119
Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991) 42 4 13 6 5 5 1 34 99
Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (Millon, 1993) 39 11 12 3 8 2 1 37 92
Child Abuse Potential Inventory (Milner, 1986) 48 7 11 2 4 2 2 28 73
Parent–Child Relationship Inventory (Gerard, 1994) 51 6 7 5 4 2 1 25 67
Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (Forth, Kosen, & Hare, 2003) 54 6 13 2 0 1 0 22 43
Personality Inventory for Children (Lachar & Gruber, 2001) 60 9 2 2 2 0 1 16 33
Bricklin Perceptual Scales (Bricklin, 1984) 63 7 1 1 3 1 0 13 29
Stress Index for Parents of Adolescence (Sheras, Abidin, & Konold, 1998) 68 1 3 0 1 2 1 8 27
Ackerman–Schoendorf Parent Evaluation of Custody Test (Ackerman & Schoendorf, 1994) 67 3 3 1 0 1 1 9 23
Uniform Child Custody Evaluation System (Munsinger & Karlson, 1994) 70 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 21

Note. N = 76. a = never; b = infrequently; c = occasionally; d = about 50% of the time; e = frequently; f = almost always; g = always; TM = total mentions; WS =
weighted scores (sum of n × numerical weight of ratings: a = 0, b = 1, c = 2, d = 3, e = 4, f = 5, g = 6).
 FORENSIC TESTS
rate of 56.2% in this study is similar to the mean response
rate for traditional paper-and-pencil survey response formats
as reported by Baruch (1999). However, two limitations in
our sampling procedure should be explicated. The reliance
on AAFP and AP–LS memberships may have biased our sur-
vey to more highly trained and credentialed forensic psy-
chologists. Furthermore, use of the AP–LS Listserve mem-
bership might have also restricted our sample to respondents
that may have varied in potentially important ways from the
“typical” forensic psychologist. Therefore, the general-
izability of these findings awaits evaluation in terms of the
results from future surveys completed on forensic psycholo-
gists in other settings and organizations.
The 152 respondents who participated in this study pro-
vide a “snapshot” of a group of forensic psychologists who
appear, similar to the respondents in the Borum and Grisso
(1995) study, to be predominantly in mid-career. The typical
respondent was a White, 49-year-old male PhD in a private
practice setting. Although analyses of gender differences
across time is not possible from these data, the observation
that Borum and Grisso’s survey reflected 15% female re-
spondents in 1995, whereas 40% of respondents were
women in our 2005 survey, indicate future investigation of
the gender distribution among forensic psychologists is war-
ranted. The typical respondent had nearly 18 years of
postdegree experience, with roughly 15 years of experience
in the forensic area. A large majority of the respondents iden-
tified themselves as forensic psychologists, but most were
not board certified in this specialty area. At the time of their
completion of the survey, the typical respondent spent over
50% of his or her time in forensic practice, with nearly 30%
of this forensic practice involving testing. The areas of exper-
tise of these forensic psychologists varied widely across
criminal, family, and civil issues, with the five top areas as
follows: competency to stand trial, child custody evaluation,
criminal responsibility, violence risk assessment, and per-
sonal injury litigation.
Survey respondents were asked to report their test usage in
relation to specific test categories. In this regard, our survey
differed from prior surveys that typically asked psycholo-
gists to report what test instruments they utilized to evaluate
specific issues such as custody evaluations or competency to
stand trial. Therefore, the data from our survey tells us more
about test usage generally and less about tests used to evalu-
ate specific forensic questions. Moreover, this survey also
differs from that conducted by Lally (2003) that assessed
opinions about acceptability rather than actual test usage by
forensic psychologists. The overall response rate produced
within various categories of testing shows that multiscale in-
ventories such as the MMPI–2 were utilized by the largest
proportion of respondents, with 131 (86% of all respondents)
having reported use of one or more instruments in this cate-
gory and 125 respondents (82.2%) having reported use of in-
tellectual or achievement tests such as the Wechlser
Intelligence scales. Furthermore, 109 respondents (72%) re-
91
ported use of specialized tests to assess malingering, 97
(64%) reported use of measures to assess risk, 86 (57%) re-
ported the use of tests to evaluate competency or sanity, 77
(51%) reported use of neuropsychological assessment instru-
ments, 76 (50%) reported use of instruments to evaluate chil-
dren’s functioning, and 75 (49%) reported the use of single-
scale inventories such as measures of depression, anger, or
anxiety. Only 62 respondents (41%) reported use of special-
ized sex offender risk assessment instruments in evaluations
of sexual offenders. Finally, use of performance-based per-
sonality assessment instruments such as the Rorschach (used
with any coding system) was limited to 54 (36%) partici-
pants, a percentage roughly equivalent to the 30% to 32% of
psychologists in the Borum and Grisso (1995) survey who
reported use of the Rorschach in competency to stand trial
and sanity evaluations.
Findings within broad test categories show some general
consistencies in survey findings across time. For example,
the predominant popularity of the MMPI–2 among
multiscale inventories in this study is consistent with prior
reports by Keilin and Bloom (1986), Ackerman and
Ackerman (1997), and Hagen and Castagna (2001) who
found the MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) to be the
most widely used test in child custody evaluations and the
findings by Borum and Grisso (1995) that the MMPI and
MMPI–2 were the dominant instrument in their survey used
to evaluate competence to stand trial. Furthermore,
Boccaccini and Brodsky (1999) also reported that the
MMPI/MMPI–2 is the most widely used instrument among
forensic psychologists performing personal injury evalua-
tions. The Wechsler Intelligence scales were predominant
among clinicians reporting test use in the cognitive and
achievement test category of our survey. This finding is con-
sistent with results found by Lees-Haley et al. (1996) who re-
ported that the Wechsler Intelligence scales were the most
widely used assessment instruments in their survey of foren-
sic psychologists performing personal injury evaluations
(predominantly in neuropsychological evaluations). Further-
more, the relative popularity of the BDI–II among psycholo-
gists reporting use of single-scale tests is also consistent with
the relatively high utilization found for this instrument in the
Boccaccini and Brodsky and Lees-Haley et al. personal in-
jury evaluation surveys. Although the use of unstructured
measures was not reported by most of the respondents in our
survey, among those psychologists using these instruments,
the dominance of the Rorschach Ink Blot Technique is also
consistent with findings reported by Borum and Grisso in
their survey of criminal responsibility instruments and by
Boccaccini and Brodsky and Lees-Haley et al. in their per-
sonal injury surveys.
In addition to replicating previously reported findings,
this survey also provided some new insights into less well-
established test utilization practices. For example, the
MMPI–A emerged as the most widely used self-report in-
strument in evaluating children’s functioning in forensic
92 ARCHER, BUFFINGTON-VOLLUM, STREDNY, HANDEL
evaluations, and parental report forms were also popular in
the evaluation of children’s functioning including the PSI,
the CBCL, and the Personality Inventory for Children (PIC;
Lachar & Gruber, 2001). Furthermore, two of the “tests” that
emerged as popular in this survey are not psychometric in-
struments in a formal sense but rather standardized systems
for organizing data in child custody evaluations, that is, the
ASPECT and the UCCES. The PAI, a multiscale self-report
test, was used by nearly half of our survey respondents (i.e.,
46%) versus only 6% to 29% of the respondents in the Borum
and Grisso (1995) study. Among users of specialized instru-
ments to evaluate malingering in forensic assessments, the
SIRS and the TOMM were the two most popular instru-
ments. In particular, compared to the roughly 12% of respon-
dents who reported use of the SIRS in 1995 (Borum &
Grisso, 1995), our study’s utilization of 62% shows substan-
tial and dramatic growth for this instrument. Finally, despite
the science-based criteria for admissibility imposed by
Daubert and Kumho court decisions, unstructured measures
lacking a solid scientific foundation—such as some sentence
completion forms and figure drawing indexes—continue to
be used by roughly 16% to 21% of the forensic psychologists
in our survey. These latter findings suggest that change in test
use practices occurs relatively gradually, and some tradi-
tional assessment practices are retained in the absence of em-
pirical support.
In conclusion, this survey demonstrates the marked and
continuing popularity of traditional clinical assessment in-
struments in forensic evaluations including the MMPI–2 and
the Wechsler Intelligence scales. Findings also indicate that a
number of more recently developed assessment measures,
such as the PAI, are gaining widespread acceptance among
multiscale inventories and that relatively recent parent self-
report measures (e.g., the PSI) are being used in the child
evaluation arena along with more established instruments
such as the CBCL and the PIC. Finally, our survey results
also indicate the increasing popularity of specialized assess-
ment forensic instruments such as the HCR–20, VRAG, and
LSI–R in the risk assessment category; the STATIC–99 in
sex offender risk evaluations; and the MacCAT–CA and the
CAST–MR in competency evaluations.
REFERENCES
Abidin, R. R. (1995). Manual for the Parenting Stress Index (3rd ed.).
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18
Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Press.
Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. C. (1997). Custody evaluations prac-
tices: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psy-
chology: Research and Practice, 28, 137–145.
Ackerman, M. J., Ackerman, M. C., Steffen, L. J., & Kelley-Poulos, S.
(2004). Psychologists’ practices compared to the expectations of family
law judges and attorneys in child custody cases. Journal of Child Custody,
l, 41–60.
Ackerman, M. J., & Schoendorf, K. (1994). ASPECT: Ackerman–
Schoendorf scales for parent evaluation of custody. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1995). The LSI–R: The Level of Service Inven-
tory–Revised. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Archer, R. P. (Ed.). (2006). Forensic uses of clinical assessment instruments.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rates in academic studies—A comparative
analysis. Human Relations, 52, 421–434.
Beck, A. T., Kovacs, M., & Weissman, A. (1979). Assessment of suicidal
ideation: The Scale for Suicide Ideation. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
cal Psychology, 47, 343–352.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1988). Manual for the Beck Hopelessness Scale.
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1990). Beck Anxiety Inventory manual. San An-
tonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory
manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective treatment for measuring flexibility in
thinking. Journal of General Psychology, 39, 15–22.
Binder, L. M. (1993). Portland Digit Recognition Test manual (2nd ed.).
Portland, Oregon: Author.
Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Diagnostic test use by forensic
psychologists in emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology: Re-
search and Practice, 30, 253–259.
Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for
the Sexual Violence Risk–20: Professional guidelines for assessing risk of
sexual violence. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Institute Against
Family Violence.
Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in criminal forensic eval-
uations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 465–473.
Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2001). Psychologists’ current practices and
procedures in child custody evaluations: Five years after the American
Psychological Association Guidelines. Professional Psychology: Re-
search and Practice, 30, 261–268.
Bricklin, B. (1984). Bricklin Perceptual scales. Furlong, PA: Village.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W.
G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven-
tory–2 (MMPI–2): Manual for administration, scoring, and
interpretation (Rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P., Tellegen, A.,
Ben-Porath, Y. S., et al. (1992). MMPI–A (Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality Inventory–Adolescent): Manual for administration, scoring, and
interpretation. Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press.
Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1993). Sixteen Personality
Factor Questionnaire (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality
and Ability Testing.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response
rates in Web or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60, 821–836.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Couper, M. P., Blair, J., & Triplett, T. (1999). A comparison of mail and e-
mail for a survey of employees in U.S. statistical agencies. Journal of Offi-
cial Statistics, 15, 39–56.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., & Hesselton, D. (1998). Final report on the de-
velopment of the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised
(MnSOST–R). Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the As-
sociation for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Vancouver, British Colum-
bia, Canada.
Everington, C. T., & Luckasson, R. (1992). Competence assessment for
standing trial for defendants with mental retardation: CAST–MR.
Worthington, OH: International Diagnostic Services.
 FORENSIC TESTS
Forth, A., Kosen, D., & Hare, R. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist:
Youth Version. New York: Multi-Health Systems.
Frederick, R. I. (1997). Validity Indicator Profile test manual. Minneapolis,
MN: Pearson Assessment.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Gerard, A. B. (1994). Parent–Child Relationship Inventory manual. Los An-
geles: Western Psychological Services.
Golding, S. L. (1993). Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview–Revised. (Avail-
able from the author at the University of Utah, Department of Psychology,
Salt Lake City, UT 84112).
Gough, H. (1996). California Psychological Inventory manual. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Gould, J. W., & Stahl, P. M. (2000). The art and science of child custody
evaluations: Integrating clinical and forensic mental health models. Fam-
ily and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 392–414.
Greenberg, S. A., Otto, R. K., & Long, A. C. (2003). The utility of psycho-
logical testing in assessing emotional damages in personal injury litiga-
tion. Assessment, 10, 411–419.
Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing, understanding, and apprecia-
tion of Miranda Rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources.
Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1998). MacArthur Competence Assessment
Tool for Treatment (MacCAT–T). Sarasota, FL: Professional Re-
sources.
Hagen, M. A., & Castagna, N. (2001). The real numbers: Psychological test-
ing in custody evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
tice, 32, 269–271.
Halstead, W. C. (1947). Brain and intelligence. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for
sexual offense recidivism (User Rep. No. 1997–04). Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static–99: Improving actuarial risk
assessments for sex offenders (User Rep. No. 1999–02). Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Hare, R. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R): Technical
manual (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Harris, G., Rice, M., & Quinsey, V. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally
disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instru-
ment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 3–15.
Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Hare Psychop-
athy Checklist–Revised–Screening Version (PCL–SV). Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality Inventory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Keilin, W. G., & Bloom, L. J. (1986). Child custody evaluation practices: A
survey of experienced professionals. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 17, 338–346.
Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 525 U.S. 137, 152 (1999).
Lachar, D., & Gruber, C. P. (2001). Personality Inventory for Children (2nd
ed.). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations?
A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34,
491–498.
Lees-Haley, P. (1992). Psychodiagnostic test usage by forensic psycholo-
gists. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10, 25–30.
Lees-Haley, P. R., Smith, H. H., Williams, C. W., & Dunn, J. T. (1996). Fo-
rensic neuropsychological test usage: An empirical survey. Archives of
Clinical Neuropsychology, 11, 45–51.
Lipsitt, P., Lelos, D., & McGarry, A. L. (1971). Competency for trial: A
screening instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 105–109.
Luria, A. R. (1965). Neuropsychological analysis of focal brain lesion. In B.
B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology (pp. 689–754). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psycho-
logical evaluations for the courts. New York: Guilford.
93
Miller, H. A. (2001). Miller–Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test
(M–FAST): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Millon, T. (1993). Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory: Manual. Minneap-
olis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Millon, T. (1994). Manual for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory
(MCMI–III). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Milner, J. S. (1986). The Child Abuse Potential Inventory manual (2nd ed.).
Webster, NC: Psytec.
Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional man-
ual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Munsinger, H. L., & Karlson, K. W. (1994). Uniform Child Custody Evalua-
tion System. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test manual. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F., & Barcus, E. H. (2000). The use of psychological
testing in child custody evaluations. Family and Conciliation Courts Re-
view, 38, 312–340.
Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A
look toward the future in the light of the past. American Psychologist, 57,
5–18.
Pascal, G. R., & Suttell, B. J. (1951). The Bender–Gestalt Test. New York:
Grune & Stratton.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable re-
sponding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
Poythress, N., Nicholson, R., Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F., Bonnie, R. J.,
Monahan, J., et al. (1999). The MacArthur Competence Assessment
Tool–Criminal Adjudication: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-
logical Assessment Resources.
Quinnell, F. A., & Bow, J. N. (2001). Psychological tests used in child cus-
tody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 491–501.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent
offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Reitan, R. M. (1979). Manual for administration of neuropsychological test
batteries for adults and children. Tuscon, AZ: Author.
Reitan, R. M., & Davidson, L. A. (1974). Clinical neuropsychology: Current
status and applications. Washington, DC: Winston.
Rey, A. (1964). L’examen clinique en psychologie. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Roesch, R. T., Zapf, P. A., Eaves, D., & Webster, C. D. (1998). The Fitness
Interview Test (Rev. ed.). Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Mental
Health, Law & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
Rogers, R. (1984). Rogers’ Criminal Responsibility Assessment scales
(R–nCRAS) and test manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Dickens, S. E. (1992). Structural Interview of
Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psy-
chological Assessment Resources.
Rogers, R., Tillbrook, C. E., & Sewell, K. W. (2004). Evaluation of Compe-
tency to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST–R): Professional manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Rorschach, H. (1942). Psychodiagnostics: A diagnostic test based on per-
ception (P. Lemkau & B. Kronenberg, Trans.). Berne, Switzerland: Huber.
(Originial work published 1921)
Ryba, N. L., Cooper, V. G., & Zapf, P. A. (2003). Juvenile competence to
stand trial evaluations: A survey of current practices and test usage among
psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34,
499–507.
Sheras, P. L., Abidin, R. R., & Konold, T. R. (1998). SIPA: Stress Index for
Parents of Adolescents. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Slick, D. J., Tan, J. E., Strauss, E. H., & Hultsch, D. F. (2004). Detecting ma-
lingering: A survey of experts’ practices. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 19, 465–473.
94 ARCHER, BUFFINGTON-VOLLUM, STREDNY, HANDEL
Solomon, D. J. (2001). Conducting web-based surveys. Practical Assess-
ment, Research, & Evaluation, 7. Retrieved September 8, 2005, from
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=19
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive
Behavior scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory–2: Pro-
fessional manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A.
(1983). Manual for the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory–2. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists.
Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). New York:
Multi-Health Systems.
Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. D. (1997). HCR–20: As-
sessing risk for violence (Version 2). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada:
Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised. San Anto-
nio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.). San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test manual. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed.). San Anto-
nio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997b). Wechsler Memory Scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Anto-
nio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wildman, R., Batchelor, E., Thompson, L., Nelson, F., Moore, J., Patterson,
M., & Delrosa, M. (1980). The Georgia Court Competency Test: An at-
tempt to develop a rapit quantitative measure for fitness for trial. Unpub-
lished manuscript, Forensic Services Division, Central State Hospital,
Milledgeville, GA.
Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL:
Riverside.
Woodcock, R., & Johnson, M. (1989). Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-
Educational Battery—Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson Bat-
tery (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Zachary, R. A. (1991). The manual of the Shipley Institute of Living Scale.
Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Robert P. Archer
Eastern Virginia Medical School
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Hofheimer Hall
825 Fairfax Avenue
Norfolk, VA 23507–1972
Email: archerrp@evms.edu
Received October 28, 2005
Revised February 8, 2006