The Forensic Minute November 2025 Issue: Testing Strengthens Court Decisions

---

The Role and Challenges of Psychological Testing

Psychological testing, including standardized cognitive, personality, neuropsychological, or malingering assessments, is widely endorsed in theory as a key component of court ordered forensic evaluations. Such tests are valued because they can provide norm referenced, empirically grounded data that help answer legal questions, e.g. about a person’s competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, psychological impairment, or risk. Forensic assessment guidelines typically recommend a multi method approach: combining test data, clinical interview, collateral records, and contextual/legal history. Yet empirical research reveals that actual practice is much more variable. In criminal responsibility or competency to stand trial cases, use of test instruments has sometimes been reported as low as ~16–25%. Moreover, critics argue that when tests are used, their selection, administration, and interpretation often lack standardization; sometimes the link between test findings, diagnosis, and legal relevant functional conclusions is weak or poorly explained.

---

Justice Fails Without Mental Health

At the same time, there is a significant shortage of mental‑health professionals: psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, social workers, and psychiatric nurse practitioners, in rural and low‑income areas. As of March 2023, 4,040 rural areas were designated “mental health professional shortage areas,” needing 2,141 more practitioners. Many rural counties have no psychiatrists; in 2019, nonmetropolitan areas had only 3.5 psychiatrists per 100,000 residents versus 13.0 in metropolitan areas. This shortage forces people, including those with serious mental illness or involved in the criminal justice system, to face long travel distances, wait times, or no access to care. Reductions in institutional inpatient care have not been matched by sufficient community support, such as outpatient clinics, stable housing, crisis services, or forensic evaluation, leading many individuals with serious mental illness to interact with law enforcement instead of receiving treatment, contributing to criminalization. Incorporating psychological testing and forensic psychologists in dispositional planning can help allocate limited resources efficiently, guiding treatment and placement decisions, reducing unnecessary institutionalization, and improving care in underserved areas.

---

How Psychological Science Strengthens Court-Ordered Evaluations

Psychological testing is sometimes criticized, but it is actually a very valuable tool in court-ordered evaluations. These tests give experts a structured and fair way to understand a person’s thinking, behavior, and needs. Instead of guessing or relying too heavily on past experience, evaluators use standardized and research-supported methods that make their conclusions more accurate. When used properly, psychological testing helps the court make safer, clearer, and more informed decisions. Some people point out that tests have limits, and that is true. However, well-trained experts know how to explain those limits in a meaningful way. They can describe how a person’s culture, language, emotional state, or immediate circumstances might influence the results. They also know how to select the most appropriate tools for each unique case. By identifying the strengths and weaknesses of every measure they use, evaluators help attorneys and judges understand what the results actually show—and what they cannot prove. It is important to note that generally, only psychologists can administer objective psychological tests. Attorneys and judges also encounter challenges that are not always obvious to the public. They may have difficulty connecting a client’s needs with the court’s rules or dispositional guidelines. They must also consider which services and community resources are realistically available. Because of these pressures, forensic psychologists play an important role in helping everyone piece together the full picture. When attorneys, judges, and evaluators collaborate effectively, the court receives clearer information, decisions become more fair, and community resources can be used much more efficiently.

---

References:

Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 16(3), 257–272. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/role-psychological-testing-forensic-assessment

Løvgren, P. J., Laake, P., Reitan, S. K., & Narud, K. (2022). Use of assessment instruments in forensic evaluations of criminal responsibility in Norway. BMC Psychiatry, 22(1), Article 235. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-03831-4

Rosencrans, J. (2023, August). Rural behavioral health workforce. Rural Health Research Gateway. https://www.ruralhealthresearch.org/recaps/20

Rural Health Information Hub. (2025, November 7). Rural healthcare workforce overview. https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/health-care-workforce

Wettstein, R. M. (2005). Quality and quality improvement in forensic mental health evaluations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33(2), 158–175. https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/33/2/158.full.pdf