Search

Copyright of GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine is the property of German Medical Science Publishing House gGmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: This study deals with the frequency with which expert psychiatrists and psychologists make structural or nosographic diagnoses within the context of expert assessment. Thus, the rates of concordance between psychiatrists and psychologists in both types of diagnoses will be assessed. To do so, the level of inter-observer agreement on diagnoses between 1990 and 2003 was studied retrospectively in France through psychiatric and psychological assessments of 505 male offenders. The assessment of the correlation rates was carried out using the Kappa coefficient. The results show a range of 0.55 to 0.71 in inter-observer (psychiatrists vs psychologists) agreement for structural diagnoses, and 0.51 to 0.89 for nosographic diagnoses. In addition, a marked correlation between psychiatrists and psychologists may be noted regarding abstention in both structural (k=66) and nosographic (k=73) diagnoses. In fact, recommendations are made for improvement in the consistency of offender assessment in the psycho-legal French context. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The quality of forensic mental health assessment has been a growing concern in various countries on both sides of the Atlantic, but the legal systems are not always comparable and some aspects of forensic assessment are specific to a given country. This paper describes the legal context of forensic psychological assessment in France (i.e. pre-trial investigation phase entrusted to a judge, with mental health assessment performed by preselected professionals called "experts" in French), its advantages and its pitfalls. Forensic psychiatric or psychological assessment is often an essential and decisive element in criminal cases, but since a judiciary scandal which was made public in 2005 (the Outreau case) there has been increasing criticism from the public and the legal profession regarding the reliability of clinical conclusions. Several academic studies and a parliamentary report have highlighted various faulty aspects in both the judiciary process and the mental health assessments. The heterogeneity of expert practices in France appears to be mainly related to a lack of consensus on several core notions such as mental health diagnosis or assessment methods, poor working conditions, lack of specialized training, and insufficient familiarity with the Code of Ethics. In this article we describe and analyze the French practice of forensic psychologists and psychiatrists in criminal cases and propose steps that could be taken to improve its quality, such as setting up specialized training courses, enforcing the Code of Ethics for psychologists, and calling for consensus on diagnostic and assessment methods., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)