Abby L Mulay, Emily D Gottfried, Jared R Ruchensky, Tiffany Russell, Adam P Natoli, Christopher J Hopwood
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
The Problem No One is Talking About: Forensic Evaluators' Lack of Familiarity with Dimensional Approaches to Personality and Psychopathology.
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.
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.