SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Journal Article 6.1
Citation: Arce, R., Fariña, F., Seijo, D., & Novo, M. (2014). Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Assessment, 22, 769–777.
Abstract: Forensic psychological evaluation of parents in child custody litigation is primarily focused on evaluating parenting capacity and underreporting. The biased responses of underreporting have been classified as Impression Management (IM) or as Self-Deceptive Positivity (S-DP), which are regarded to be conscious or unconscious in nature, respectively. A field study was undertaken to assess impression management on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2) in child custody cases, the accuracy of the MMPI-2 scales in classifying IM, and what parents in child custody litigation actually manipulate in terms of IM. A total of 244 parents in child custody litigation and 244 parents under standard instructions were administered the MMPI-2. The results revealed that the L, Mp, Wsd, and Od scales discriminated between both samples of parents; the rate of satisfactory classification (i.e., odds ratio ranged from 5.7 for Wsd to 23.3 for Od) and an incremental validity of Od over Mp and Wsd. As for the effects of IM, the results show IM effects in the Basic Clinical Scales, the Restructured Clinical Scales, the Personality Psychopathology Five Scales, the Content Scales, and the Supplementary Scales. The implications of the results are discussed in relation to the forensic evaluation of parents in child custody litigation.
Journal Article 6.2
Citation: Azores-Gococo, N. M., Brook, M., Teralandur, S. P., & Hanlon, R. E. (2017). Killing a child: Neuropsychological profiles of murderers of children. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 946–962.
Abstract: This study examined neuropsychological characteristics of offenders who killed children. Although prior studies have focused on filicide and neonaticide, children are killed in a variety of contexts. This study used a diverse sample of individuals (N = 33) accused of killing one or more children, referred for forensic neuropsychological evaluation. Across all cognitive domains (intellectual functioning, attention/working memory/processing speed, memory, reasoning/executive functioning, language), mean scores fell in the low average to average range. Offenders who solely killed children were less likely to do so in a premeditated fashion, were more likely to use manual means (e.g., drowning or beating), and scored lower on measures of language and verbal memory, compared with those who also killed adults as part of the offense. Contrary to prior findings, few gender differences were evident in this group of offenders. Findings highlight meaningful heterogeneity in offenders who kill children, which may inform prevention, treatment, and risk assessment.
Journal Article 6.3
Citation: Swartz, M. S., Bhattacharya, S., Robertson, A. G., & Swanson, J. W. (2016). Involuntary outpatient commitment and the elusive pursuit of violence prevention. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 62, 102–108.
Involuntary outpatient commitment (OPC)—also referred to as ‘assisted outpatient treatment’ or ‘community treatment orders’—are civil court orders whereby persons with serious mental illness and repeated hospitalisations are ordered to adhere to community-based treatment. Increasingly, in the United States, OPC is promoted to policy makers as a means to prevent violence committed by persons with mental illness. This article reviews the background and context for promotion of OPC for violence prevention and the empirical evidence for the use of OPC for this goal.
Relevant publications were identified for review in PubMed, Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, personal communications, and relevant Internet searches of advocacy and policy-related publications.
Most research on OPC has focused on outcomes such as community functioning and hospital recidivism and not on interpersonal violence. As a result, research on violence towards others has been limited but suggests that low-level acts of interpersonal violence such as minor, noninjurious altercations without weapon use and arrests can be reduced by OPC, but there is no evidence that OPC can reduce major acts of violence resulting in injury or weapon use. The impact of OPC on major violence, including mass shootings, is difficult to assess because of their low base rates.
Effective implementation of OPC, when combined with intensive community services and applied for an adequate duration to take effect, can improve treatment adherence and related outcomes, but its promise as an effective means to reduce serious acts of violence is unknown.