The Problem No One is Talking About: Forensic Evaluators' Lack of Familiarity with Dimensional Approaches to Personality and Psychopathology.

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Abby L Mulay, Emily D Gottfried, Jared R Ruchensky, Tiffany Russell, Adam P Natoli, Christopher J Hopwood
{"title":"The Problem No One is Talking About: Forensic Evaluators' Lack of Familiarity with Dimensional Approaches to Personality and Psychopathology.","authors":"Abby L Mulay, Emily D Gottfried, Jared R Ruchensky, Tiffany Russell, Adam P Natoli, Christopher J Hopwood","doi":"10.1080/00223891.2024.2420172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Historically, forensic evaluators have relied heavily upon various editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders when rendering psycholegal opinions. The field of mental health is increasing moving toward dimensional models of personality and psychopathology in lieu of traditional DSM categorical models, though the domains of forensic psychology and psychiatry have been slow to make this transition. The current study therefore sought to examine forensic evaluators' familiarity with dimensional approaches to personality and psychopathology, namely the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists (<i>N</i> = 54) completed an online survey designed to assess their familiarity with these models, as well as to determine if forensics practitioners are using these models in clinical practice. Participants endorsed greater familiarity with the AMPD, with a large majority of participants indicating they were unfamiliar with the HiTOP model. Few participants endorsed using these models in their clinical forensic practice. Implications for making the transition to dimensional models within forensic evaluation are discussed, as are paths forward for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":16707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2024.2420172","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historically, forensic evaluators have relied heavily upon various editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders when rendering psycholegal opinions. The field of mental health is increasing moving toward dimensional models of personality and psychopathology in lieu of traditional DSM categorical models, though the domains of forensic psychology and psychiatry have been slow to make this transition. The current study therefore sought to examine forensic evaluators' familiarity with dimensional approaches to personality and psychopathology, namely the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists (N = 54) completed an online survey designed to assess their familiarity with these models, as well as to determine if forensics practitioners are using these models in clinical practice. Participants endorsed greater familiarity with the AMPD, with a large majority of participants indicating they were unfamiliar with the HiTOP model. Few participants endorsed using these models in their clinical forensic practice. Implications for making the transition to dimensional models within forensic evaluation are discussed, as are paths forward for future research.

无人问津的问题:法医评估人员对人格和精神病理学的维度方法缺乏了解。
一直以来,法医评估人员在提供精神法律意见时,都非常依赖于不同版本的《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》。尽管法医心理学和精神病学领域的转型进展缓慢,但心理健康领域正逐渐转向人格和精神病理学的维度模型,以取代传统的《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》分类模型。因此,本研究试图考察法医评估人员对人格和精神病理学维度方法的熟悉程度,即《DSM-5 人格障碍替代模型》(AMPD)和《精神病理学层次分类法》(HiTOP)。法医心理学家和精神病学家(N = 54)完成了一项在线调查,旨在评估他们对这些模型的熟悉程度,并确定法医从业人员是否在临床实践中使用了这些模型。参与者表示对 AMPD 比较熟悉,而大多数参与者表示不熟悉 HiTOP 模型。很少有参与者认可在临床法医实践中使用这些模型。本文讨论了在法医评估中过渡到维度模型的意义,以及未来研究的发展方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA) primarily publishes articles dealing with the development, evaluation, refinement, and application of personality assessment methods. Desirable articles address empirical, theoretical, instructional, or professional aspects of using psychological tests, interview data, or the applied clinical assessment process. They also advance the measurement, description, or understanding of personality, psychopathology, and human behavior. JPA is broadly concerned with developing and using personality assessment methods in clinical, counseling, forensic, and health psychology settings; with the assessment process in applied clinical practice; with the assessment of people of all ages and cultures; and with both normal and abnormal personality functioning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信