Forensic Personality Assessment: What Tests Can and Cannot Establish
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Forensic personality assessment uses psychological interviews, standardized measures, collateral records, and behavioral evidence to describe aspects of a person's functioning that may be relevant to a specific legal question. A well-supported evaluation can clarify patterns of reported symptoms, emotional functioning, interpersonal style, and the quality of test responses. Whether those observations matter legally depends on the referral question, the strength of the evidence, and the law that governs the proceeding.
Personality testing cannot establish that someone committed an offense, reveal a hidden motive with certainty, prove a witness is lying, or determine criminal responsibility by itself. A score is a measurement result, not a verdict. The American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology require attention to the validity of methods in the particular forensic context, multiple data sources, alternative hypotheses, and limits of inference.
Published October 11, 2026. Editorial author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub. Psychology for the AI Era.
What is forensic personality assessment?
Forensic personality assessment is the use of personality and psychopathology assessment methods as part of a legally oriented psychological evaluation. The evaluator connects a particular psychological question to legally relevant functioning while keeping the psychologist's opinion separate from the decision reserved for a judge, jury, agency, or other authorized decision-maker. Personality assessment can be used in criminal, civil, family, juvenile, disability, and correctional settings; these settings differ in purpose, population, available records, and legal requirements.
In a clinical setting, testing may guide diagnosis and treatment with a therapeutic emphasis. In forensic work, testing typically addresses a defined psycholegal question, often in an adversarial context where perceived consequences can shape disclosure. The evaluator may receive a court order, referral from counsel, or institutional request, and should clarify roles, confidentiality limits, consent or notification, and the intended audience before proceeding. The APA forensic guidelines treat these differences as central to appropriate interpretation.
Personality traits, clinical symptoms, and legal capacities are distinct
A trait describes a relatively enduring tendency, such as emotional reactivity or interpersonal mistrust. A symptom is an experience or sign that may occur for many reasons, including illness, distress, substance effects, trauma, or temporary circumstances. A clinical diagnosis is made by applying defined diagnostic criteria after an appropriate evaluation. A functional capacity concerns what a person can understand or do in a particular situation. A legal finding applies a jurisdiction-specific rule to the evidence. None of these categories automatically supplies the others.
A person may score highly on an impulsivity-related scale without meeting criteria for a personality disorder; someone with a diagnosis may still understand proceedings, communicate effectively with counsel, and act lawfully. Similarly, elevated suspicion or hostility on a questionnaire cannot establish that a past violent act occurred. The evidentiary task is to state the specific psychological proposition supported by each observation and identify the inferential steps still required.
Why courts and attorneys request personality assessment
Forensic personality testing may help evaluate current psychological functioning, consistency of reported symptoms, response style, interpersonal and emotional patterns, or clinically relevant impairment. In some matters, a court may need evidence about the person's ability to participate meaningfully in a legal process or about psychological effects alleged in a civil claim. In others, the assessor may examine needs relevant to treatment planning, supervision, or rehabilitation. Each purpose calls for an assessment strategy matched to that particular legal question.
A legally meaningful evaluation begins with a precise question: What is to be assessed, at what point in time, under what definition, and for whose decision? Asking whether a person 'has a dangerous personality' is too vague to support a defensible test interpretation. Asking whether a specified symptom pattern is present now, whether an assessment record is internally consistent, or which observable functional difficulties might affect a defined legal task permits more focused inquiry.
The evidence base for routine use of several instruments in legal settings has been examined in the Journal of Personality Assessment's 2022 special issue on personality assessment in legal contexts. Its organizing principle is especially useful: the scientific quality of a measure and its legal usefulness must be assessed for the specific inference being proposed, rather than inferred from a test's reputation.
What a forensic personality evaluation actually includes
Referral analysis and records
The evaluator identifies the legal issue, relevant time frame, available evidence, and statutory or case-law definitions provided by counsel or the court. Records may include prior clinical evaluations, treatment records obtained with the appropriate authority, education or employment history, incident reports, relevant communications, medical information, and interviews with people who have direct knowledge. Each source has its own incentives, potential inaccuracies, and context. Disagreement between records and self-report may generate further questions rather than an automatic finding of deception.
Interview and behavioral observations
A structured or semistructured interview places answers in context: symptom onset, frequency, duration, functional effects, consistency over time, stressors, and possible alternatives. Observed behavior can inform a clinical formulation, but eye contact, posture, pauses, speech fluency, or apparent confidence do not function as reliable stand-alone lie detectors. Interview conduct, communication barriers, cultural norms, and the examination setting may affect what the evaluator sees.
Test selection and administration
The examiner chooses instruments for which the available evidence supports the intended use with the person's age, language, reading ability, disability status, cultural background, and relevant population. The test's manual, normative sample, standardization procedures, reliability, and specific validity studies matter. Administration adaptations and departures from standardized instructions should be documented, with their interpretive consequences explained.
Integration, alternative explanations, and report
The final report integrates testing, interviews, observations, collateral information, and relevant empirical research. A strong report distinguishes direct observations from interpretations and legal conclusions; explains material inconsistencies; considers competing explanations; and describes limitations in language a nonpsychologist can understand. A finding such as 'responses suggest marked distress' requires a different evidentiary basis from 'the person had a defined incapacity on the date of the alleged event.'
The most frequently discussed tests in forensic personality assessment
MMPI-3 and earlier MMPI instruments
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory family is designed to assess patterns of psychopathology and response style using standardized self-report items and empirically studied scales. MMPI-3 may provide information about reported psychological symptoms, behavioral tendencies, and the consistency or plausibility of responses. It does not identify the source of every symptom, independently verify every answer, or decide a legal issue. In Ben-Porath, Heilbrun, and Rizzo's review of MMPI-3 in legal settings, appropriate uses are supported, while population-specific validation and extrapolation from earlier MMPI research remain important considerations.
MMPI versions are not interchangeable. The relevant evidence may differ for MMPI-2, MMPI-2-RF, and MMPI-3, and for their English and Spanish-language norms. Experts should identify the exact version used, its normative reference group, any language adaptation, the validity of the obtained protocol, and the empirical basis for an interpretation tied to the referral question.
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI)
The Personality Assessment Inventory assesses a range of clinical symptoms, interpersonal features, treatment-relevant characteristics, and response patterns. Its multiple validity indicators can help evaluate underreporting, exaggerated presentation, and inconsistent answers, although their meaning depends on case circumstances and applicable research. A 2024 comprehensive review of the PAI in forensic and correctional settings describes its broad relevance while also showing why different applications require separate justification.
A survey of PAI use in U.S. case law found the instrument appearing in criminal and civil proceedings, including competency-related matters and disability cases. That history demonstrates courtroom use rather than proving that every PAI inference is accurate, admissible, or legally sufficient. Its probative value is determined by the legal question, the measure's evidence, how it was administered, and the conclusions drawn from the scores.
MCMI-IV and adolescent Millon measures
The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-IV and Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory-II use a theoretical framework focused on clinical personality patterns and related symptoms. Their norming strategies, base-rate scores, and population assumptions require particular care in legal settings. In a 2022 critical review of the MCMI-IV and MACI-II, authors identified substantial limitations in the direct evidence for the newer editions, difficulties transferring research from predecessor versions, and concerns about response-bias indicators. An MCMI score should not be treated as a direct probability of a diagnosis or a finding about culpability.
Rorschach and R-PAS
The Rorschach and Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) generate responses to standardized inkblot stimuli under defined procedures. They differ substantially from ordinary self-report questionnaires. Their evidentiary role remains disputed and depends on the specific variable and intended forensic inference. One 2022 adversarial-collaboration review identified potentially supportable, narrowly defined uses, while an independent critical review of European court applications reached a far more restrictive conclusion. This disagreement belongs in any accurate discussion of the method's legal use.
Neither the popularity of an instrument nor its presence in past court opinions settles a scientific dispute. Examiners should identify which scores have adequate reliability and validity, whether findings add information beyond other records, and whether the proposed use moves beyond the research. Personality profiling of an unknown offender from such a test is a particularly problematic leap.
Adolescent instruments and developmental context
Adolescent assessment requires age-appropriate norms, sensitivity to development, and evidence specifically relevant to youth. The PAI-A review for legal settings describes useful features of the inventory and limited forensic-specific research, particularly for justice-involved adolescents. Adult cutoffs, adult diagnostic interpretations, and adult risk associations cannot simply be imported into a youth evaluation. Developmental transitions also make stable trait claims more difficult.
What forensic personality tests can establish
When administration is appropriate and the response protocol is interpretable, a standardized test can describe where a person's answers fall relative to a relevant comparison group. It can quantify endorsed symptoms or characteristics and generate hypotheses about psychological functioning. Properly validated scales may help identify response patterns that warrant further inquiry. Agreement among multiple independent forms of evidence can strengthen a carefully delimited formulation.
Testing can also document uncertainty. A protocol may be uninterpretable because of inconsistent responding, severe cognitive or language barriers, misunderstanding, or an unsuitable normative comparison. A defensible report can state that the available evidence does not support a requested conclusion. This is an important result in its own right, especially where liberty, child placement, compensation, or public safety is at stake.
The authority of personality testing is conditional. Neal and colleagues' review of psychological assessments in legal contexts found substantial variation in the scientific quality of techniques presented in court and urged stronger scrutiny of methods and their legal use. The appropriate question is which specific conclusion this particular test can support in this particular case.
What personality tests cannot establish
They do not prove guilt, innocence, or truthfulness
Personality inventories assess patterns of responses rather than the external truth of an allegation. A person with elevated anger, antisocial features, or sensation seeking may never have committed a crime; a person with low scores may have committed an offense. Neither pattern identifies the perpetrator of a particular act. A validity-scale elevation does not prove that a witness, defendant, or claimant is intentionally lying about a specific event.
They do not automatically establish a clinical diagnosis
A high scale score can indicate a reason to examine a diagnostic possibility. A diagnosis requires appropriate clinical criteria, duration and impairment assessment, differential diagnosis, and consideration of medical, substance-related, developmental, situational, and cultural explanations. In forensic settings the evaluator must also separate current symptoms from retrospective claims about a legally significant past period.
They do not decide competency or criminal responsibility
Competency to stand trial concerns legally defined capacities in the present context, such as understanding proceedings and assisting counsel, with jurisdictional distinctions. Criminal responsibility and insanity defenses concern different rules and frequently a past time point. Personality findings may contribute evidence about functioning, but no global profile substitutes for a task-specific assessment or a legal determination. The applicable legal standards vary among U.S. jurisdictions and internationally.
They do not provide a precise personal forecast of violence
Associations between traits and outcomes can inform research and, under appropriate conditions, structured risk formulations. A general personality inventory is not automatically a validated violence-risk instrument. Future behavior depends on context, opportunity, protective factors, circumstances that can change, and the outcome being predicted. Risk instruments must be judged by their evidence for a defined population, setting, time horizon, and outcome; a forensic personality score by itself supplies no precise individual probability.
Validity scales, response styles, and the problem of malingering
The term response validity concerns whether a set of test responses is sufficiently interpretable for the proposed use. Inconsistent responding, random answers, unusual symptom endorsement, and overly favorable self-presentation may each affect interpretation in different ways. Symptom validity and performance validity are related but distinct domains; cognitive performance tests should not be confused with personality validity scales. Malingering is a separate inference about intentional fabrication or gross exaggeration for an external incentive and requires much more than one elevated score.
A meta-analysis comparing MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales reviewed extensive feigning research and found useful discrimination at the group level under studied conditions. That finding does not make an instrument an infallible classifier for a particular examinee. Research designs involving instructed simulators may differ from real court cases in motivation, psychological complexity, symptom severity, and consequences.
An apparent overreporting pattern can coexist with genuine disorder, acute crisis, misunderstanding, limited literacy, uncommon symptoms, or cultural differences. Underreporting can arise from shame, mistrust, fear of legal consequences, social desirability, or restricted understanding of questions. A 2024 forensic review of cultural and racial-ethnic influences on malingering assessment highlights how language and culturally shaped expression can influence interpretations. Validity findings must be interpreted alongside all relevant evidence.
False positives, false negatives, and base rates
Sensitivity is the proportion of actual target cases a rule correctly flags; specificity is the proportion of noncases it correctly clears. False positives are individuals incorrectly classified as meeting the target condition; false negatives are missed cases. The positive predictive value also depends on how common the target condition is in the relevant population. Classification metrics reported from selected forensic samples may change markedly when used in a different population.
Consider a purely hypothetical example, not a measured accuracy claim about any test: in 1,000 evaluations, suppose 10% of people actually meet a precisely defined target criterion, a screen has 80% sensitivity, and its specificity is 70%. It would flag 80 of 100 actual cases and 270 of 900 noncases. Only 80 of 350 positive screens—approximately 23%—would identify actual cases. This is why neither a promising sensitivity figure nor an elevated test score should be treated as proof of malingering, dangerousness, or disorder.
Calibration and transportability
Discrimination concerns the ability to separate groups with different outcomes; calibration concerns whether estimated probabilities agree with observed rates. A tool can rank people better than chance and still misstate their absolute risk. Even where a tool has a reported area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, that statistic does not supply a case-specific probability, nor does it demonstrate validity in every subgroup. Population base rates, sampling, local practice, and changes over time determine how the prediction performs in practice.
Reliability, validity, and the test's intended purpose
Reliability concerns the consistency of scores under defined conditions. Validity concerns the evidence supporting a particular interpretation and use of scores. A questionnaire can be internally consistent while a proposed legal conclusion based on it remains invalid. Normative comparisons can be statistically precise while being poorly matched to the person tested. Published validity evidence for general clinical symptom measurement cannot automatically justify inferences about historical intent, parental fitness, violence, criminal recidivism, or testimonial accuracy.
Responsible evaluators ask whether the instrument measures the construct claimed, whether results generalize to the relevant population, and whether there is incremental value beyond interviews and records. They also examine measurement error, interrater reliability where judgment-based ratings are involved, cutoff performance, confidence intervals, and alternative explanations. The APA's forensic specialty guidelines specifically direct practitioners to describe extrapolation where methods have not been validated for the exact forensic context.
Cultural fairness, disability, and language
A test's comparison group may differ from an examinee in language proficiency, education, migration experience, cultural expression, age, disability, or justice-system exposure. These differences matter because questions can be interpreted differently, symptoms may be expressed through different idioms, and response tendencies can be shaped by institutional distrust or stigma. An English-language inventory administered to someone who struggles to understand its wording may measure comprehension problems along with whatever constructs the instrument was intended to capture.
An interpreter, translated instrument, or modified administration may be necessary, but each accommodation requires attention to whether the measure remains standardized and what conclusions can still be drawn. A 2026 academic review of language and culture in malingering and response-style assessment emphasizes the possibility of elevated classification errors in diverse populations. Fairness therefore requires examining differential functioning and relevant validation evidence, documenting accommodations, and limiting conclusions when appropriate evidence is unavailable.
Fairness also includes avoiding stereotypes in case formulation. Demographic characteristics do not determine criminality, deception, credibility, parenting capacity, or risk. When subgroup performance is unknown, the limitation should appear explicitly in the report rather than being hidden behind a population-average estimate.
Scientific assessment and legal admissibility
Scientific validity, clinical usefulness, admissibility, and the weight a decision-maker gives evidence are related but different questions. In U.S. federal proceedings, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs expert opinion. Its 2023 amendment clarifies that the proponent must demonstrate that applicable admissibility conditions are met by a preponderance of the evidence, including sufficient facts, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application of those methods. State courts may operate under different rules, interpretations, or standards, and other countries use their own law.
Under a Daubert-type inquiry, the court may examine matters such as testability, peer review, error rates, standards, and acceptance in the relevant field. These are considerations in assessing an expert's method, not a universal checklist that converts an accepted test into an accepted conclusion. Kurtz and Pintarelli's 2024 discussion of PAI evidence under Daubert makes a case for its frequent admissibility, but admissibility ultimately depends on the testimony offered and governing jurisdiction.
An expert should explain the distance between data and opinion: test response, scale interpretation, possible clinical construct, functional implication, and claimed connection to a legal element. Each step needs support. A claim may exceed the evidence even when the instrument itself has a strong research record. Courts decide admissibility and the legal issues; psychologists explain psychological evidence within their competence.
Different forensic contexts require different inferences
Criminal proceedings
In a criminal case, personality testing might assist with a focused evaluation of psychological functioning, symptom presentation, response style, or a capacity relevant to a specified proceeding. It cannot reconstruct a person's mental state at the precise moment of an alleged offense without additional evidence. Criminal responsibility, competence to stand trial, the reliability of a confession, and sentencing are distinct questions requiring different methods and legal standards.
Civil psychological injury and disability
Civil evaluations may ask whether there is reliable evidence of reported psychological symptoms, impairment, or change over time. Symptoms may precede a disputed event; records may be incomplete; and causation requires considering alternative contributors. A test profile does not establish that a particular event caused an individual's difficulties merely because the distress is genuine. Reports should distinguish the presence of symptoms from attribution, impairment, prognosis, and any statutory disability definition.
Family and child-related proceedings
In family court, a personality test may describe an adult's psychological functioning, but parenting ability and a child's needs require direct contextual evidence. No personality inventory identifies the 'better parent' by itself. Test use must consider underreporting incentives, language and culture, the person's role and history, and the relevant family-law question. A diagnosis or unusual score is not sufficient to determine custody or child safety.
Correctional and supervision settings
Within correctional settings, measures can contribute to understanding treatment needs, distress, interpersonal functioning, or barriers to engagement. Risk management requires careful distinction between identified needs and validated predictions of specific outcomes. The legal and institutional use of a test must be explained to the examinee where possible, because it may affect candor, data access, and interpretation.
Why personality scores do not equal psychopathy or dangerousness
Psychopathy is a psychological construct with its own assessment literature, distinct from the general personality inventories discussed here. Some questionnaire scales may correlate with psychopathy-related traits, but they are not interchangeable with a specialized psychopathy evaluation. The presence of traits associated with antagonism, callousness, or disinhibition does not establish violent conduct or inevitable criminal behavior. Assessment of psychopathy requires a clear operational definition, a validated method appropriate to the examinee, and careful interpretation of all information.
Ordinary personality traits are also often misunderstood. Low negative emotionality, social confidence, or limited expressed anxiety do not by themselves amount to psychopathy. For the general-trait distinction, see the existing English Hub article Low Neuroticism and Psychopathy: Why Low Negative Emotionality Is Not Psychopathy. This broader trait discussion should not replace forensic, case-specific assessment.
A worked example: how a responsible conclusion is written
Suppose a civil litigant reports severe psychological symptoms following a disputed incident. A standardized inventory shows elevated distress, and the profile also has a response-style indicator warranting caution. A careful evaluator could report the observed elevations, describe the indicator's validated meaning and limits, compare results with medical records and symptom chronology, and consider whether communication difficulties, severe genuine distress, or incentives could explain the response pattern.
The evaluator should not leap from the response-style indicator to 'the claimant is fraudulent' or from reported distress to 'the defendant caused the condition.' Those are separate propositions that require evidence of intentionality or causation, and the ultimate findings may be for the legal decision-maker. If data remain incomplete, the appropriate conclusion identifies the unresolved issue and the limits of the available evidence.
How to evaluate the quality of a forensic personality report
A report earns confidence through traceable reasoning. Readers should be able to identify the actual referral question, legal time frame, version of each instrument, person-specific conditions of testing, relevant validation research, reasons for selecting each measure, results from response-style indicators, use of collateral records, plausible competing explanations, and the exact limits of each conclusion. Where possible, the evaluator should explain uncertainty in plain language rather than relying on authoritative-sounding labels.
Potential warning signs include treating a scale label as a diagnosis; treating a validity cutoff as evidence of dishonesty; making a prediction without a defined outcome, horizon, reference population, or accuracy data; inferring that a diagnosis entails violence; making culturally loaded assumptions; and presenting a legal standard as if it were a psychological test score. A report should also identify the evaluator's relevant competence, any conflicts of interest, and the distinction between facts obtained from records and independent professional inferences.
Ethical safeguards and limits of confidentiality
Forensic evaluations can have significant consequences for employment, parental rights, compensation, hospitalization, or liberty. The evaluator should disclose the nature and purpose of the evaluation, who requested it, who may receive the report, and relevant limitations on confidentiality consistent with law and court orders. Competence includes familiarity with the test, jurisdiction, population, and specific issue. Fairness requires an impartial approach even when one side has retained the expert.
Test security must be balanced with legally authorized disclosure and the examinee's rights. Protected test items, raw responses, scoring materials, and copyrighted instruments may require controlled handling. Broad release of secure test content can undermine future testing. The APA forensic guidelines discuss test material integrity, impartiality, consent and notification, and accurate communication of limitations.
Common myths about forensic personality tests
Myth: A forensic psychologist can read a person's true character from one questionnaire. Reality: every test is a sample of responses under specific conditions, interpreted with measurement error and context. Myth: An elevated psychopathy-related or aggression scale proves criminal propensity. Reality: a measure of a construct does not identify a crime or provide a deterministic future forecast. Myth: A validity scale is a lie detector. Reality: it flags defined response patterns with imperfect accuracy and multiple possible explanations.
Myth: A test accepted in court is scientifically valid for every purpose. Reality: admissibility depends on applicable law and the actual inference proposed. Myth: Computer-generated interpretations are objective facts. Reality: automated narratives depend on the scale's empirical support and the software's assumptions; their conclusions must still be evaluated by a competent examiner.
Frequently asked questions
What is the purpose of a forensic personality assessment?
Its purpose is to describe psychological functioning in a way that helps answer a specific legal or psycholegal question. The relevant question might concern current symptoms, response style, impairment, or functional capacities. Test scores are supporting evidence within a broader evaluation.
Which personality test is most accurate in court?
No single instrument is the most accurate for every forensic purpose. MMPI-3, PAI, Millon measures, and R-PAS assess different characteristics with differing evidentiary strengths. Appropriate selection depends on the population, construct, legal question, standardized administration, response validity, and available research.
Can an MMPI or PAI result diagnose a personality disorder?
The result may raise or support a diagnostic hypothesis. Diagnosis requires a full clinical assessment applying appropriate criteria, considering context and alternatives. A score on its own is not a clinical or legal determination.
Can personality testing prove someone is malingering?
Validity indicators may signal unusual or potentially distorted responses. A conclusion that someone intentionally feigned symptoms for an external incentive requires comprehensive evaluation and corroborating evidence. Genuine disorder and response distortion can coexist, and a false-positive classification is possible.
Can a forensic personality assessment predict who will commit a crime?
No test reliably identifies an individual as a future offender with certainty. Relevant traits may contribute to a multi-source risk formulation under validated conditions, but prediction quality depends on the outcome, time horizon, base rate, context, and population. Legal decisions should not treat a personality score as proof of future wrongdoing.
What if someone refuses to take a court-ordered personality test?
Consequences depend on the jurisdiction, purpose of the evaluation, specific court order, and applicable procedural safeguards. The evaluator should document the limits of cooperation and available information rather than treating refusal as a scientific finding about personality or guilt. Legal advice about a particular order should come from qualified local counsel.
Can a forensic evaluator use test results from a different language or culture?
Only with appropriate consideration of linguistic competence, translation quality, comparison norms, measurement fairness, accommodations, and the limits of evidence for the particular population. Some conclusions may remain supportable while others require qualification or cannot be reached.
Are forensic personality assessments confidential?
Confidentiality differs from ordinary psychotherapy. Courts, referring agencies, and other authorized recipients may have access under applicable rules. The evaluator should explain confidentiality and disclosure limits at the outset, subject to legal requirements.
Can a personality test determine whether a parent should have custody?
A test may supply information about psychological functioning, but custody decisions require evidence about parenting behavior, child needs, safety, relationships, and the governing family-law standard. No personality profile alone decides custody.
Conclusion
Forensic personality assessment is strongest when it answers a bounded psychological question with validated methods, interpretable responses, multiple relevant sources, and transparent reasoning. Its conclusions become useful to legal decision-makers when the report explains exactly what the data support, what alternative explanations remain, and where psychological expertise ends and legal judgment begins. The question is always what this instrument establishes for this person, purpose, population, and time frame.
Related articles
For a general discussion of how a broad personality trait differs from psychopathy, read Low Neuroticism and Psychopathy: Why Low Negative Emotionality Is Not Psychopathy. The EN-58 forensic assessment hub, the psychopathy assessment article, the Miranda competence article, and the violence risk assessment article will be linked here when their English canonical pages are published.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist. Official guideline.
Aparcero, M., Picard, E. H., Nijdam-Jones, A., & Rosenfeld, B. (2023). Comparing the ability of MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales to detect feigning: A meta-analysis. Assessment, 30(3), 744–760. DOI: 10.1177/10731911211067535.
Areh, I., Verkampt, F., & Allan, A. (2022). Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 29(2), 183–205. DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2021.1894260.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., Heilbrun, K., & Rizzo, M. (2022). Using the MMPI-3 in legal settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(2), 162–178. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2021.2006672.
Federal Rules of Evidence. (2023 amendment). Rule 702: Testimony by expert witnesses. Current rule and committee notes.
Kurtz, J. E., & Pintarelli, E. M. (2024). The Daubert standards for admissibility of evidence based on the Personality Assessment Inventory. Psychological Injury and Law, 17, 105–116. DOI: 10.1007/s12207-024-09508-5.
Neal, T. M. S., Sellbom, M., & de Ruiter, C. (2022). Personality assessment in legal contexts: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(2), 127–136. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2022.2033248.
Neal, T. M. S., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping junk science out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135–164. DOI: 10.1177/1529100619888860.
Nijdam-Jones, A. (2026). Assessment of malingering and defensiveness. In Cultural and Linguistic Considerations in Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Guide for Clinicians. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/9780190900991.003.0003.
Rogers, R., Correa, A. A., & Ryan-Jones, L. D. (2024). Forensic assessments of racial-ethnic differences in genuine and malingered psychotic presentations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 52(2), 216–224. DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.240007-24.
Sellbom, M., Flens, J., Gould, J., Ramnath, R., Tringone, R., & Grossman, S. (2022). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-IV (MCMI-IV) and Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory-II (MACI-II) in legal settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(2), 203–220. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2021.2013248.
Viglione, D. J., de Ruiter, C., King, C. M., Meyer, G. J., Kivisto, A. J., Rubin, B. A., & Hunsley, J. (2022). Legal admissibility of the Rorschach and R-PAS: A review of research, practice, and case law. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(2), 137–161. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2022.2028795.