将文化纳入法医心理健康评估的现行做法:对从业人员的调查

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY International Journal of Forensic Mental Health Pub Date : 2021-09-13 DOI:10.1080/14999013.2021.1952355
Amanda M. Fanniff, Taylor M. York, Alexandra L. Montena, Kenzie Bohnsack
{"title":"将文化纳入法医心理健康评估的现行做法:对从业人员的调查","authors":"Amanda M. Fanniff, Taylor M. York, Alexandra L. Montena, Kenzie Bohnsack","doi":"10.1080/14999013.2021.1952355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Forensic evaluators conduct assessments of individuals with a wide range of sociocultural identities. Although recommendations regarding how to incorporate cultural considerations in forensic evaluations have been published over the past decade, there is no clear consensus on best practices nor is it clear how evaluators interpret and apply the available recommendations. The current survey represents a replication and extension of a previous survey regarding self-reported culturally-informed practices among forensic evaluators. Subjects were forensic mental health professionals (n = 258; 64.7% women, 69.4% PhD or PsyD) recruited through listservs and training events to complete a survey online or by hard copy. Evaluators reported significant challenges in conducting culturally-informed evaluations, including lack of appropriate tests for their examinees, lack of guidelines for their evaluations, lack of colleagues from diverse backgrounds, and lack of relevant research. Evaluators reported engaging in a wide range of culturally-informed practices across all domains, some being nearly universal (e.g., considered cultural context when forming diagnosis). In contrast, other practices were relatively uncommon (e.g., referred the evaluation to another professional with more knowledge/experience regarding examinees with particular identities). Results indicate a need for more research, more practice guidelines, and diversification of the forensic mental health workforce.","PeriodicalId":14052,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health","volume":"21 1","pages":"146 - 163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current Practices in Incorporating Culture into Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Survey of Practitioners\",\"authors\":\"Amanda M. Fanniff, Taylor M. York, Alexandra L. Montena, Kenzie Bohnsack\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14999013.2021.1952355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Forensic evaluators conduct assessments of individuals with a wide range of sociocultural identities. Although recommendations regarding how to incorporate cultural considerations in forensic evaluations have been published over the past decade, there is no clear consensus on best practices nor is it clear how evaluators interpret and apply the available recommendations. The current survey represents a replication and extension of a previous survey regarding self-reported culturally-informed practices among forensic evaluators. Subjects were forensic mental health professionals (n = 258; 64.7% women, 69.4% PhD or PsyD) recruited through listservs and training events to complete a survey online or by hard copy. Evaluators reported significant challenges in conducting culturally-informed evaluations, including lack of appropriate tests for their examinees, lack of guidelines for their evaluations, lack of colleagues from diverse backgrounds, and lack of relevant research. Evaluators reported engaging in a wide range of culturally-informed practices across all domains, some being nearly universal (e.g., considered cultural context when forming diagnosis). In contrast, other practices were relatively uncommon (e.g., referred the evaluation to another professional with more knowledge/experience regarding examinees with particular identities). Results indicate a need for more research, more practice guidelines, and diversification of the forensic mental health workforce.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"146 - 163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2021.1952355\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2021.1952355","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

司法鉴定人员对具有广泛社会文化身份的个体进行评估。虽然在过去十年中发表了关于如何将文化因素纳入法医评估的建议,但对最佳做法没有明确的共识,评估人员如何解释和应用现有建议也不清楚。目前的调查是先前关于法医评估人员自我报告的文化知情做法的调查的复制和扩展。研究对象为法医精神卫生专业人员(n = 258;64.7%的女性,69.4%的博士或心理学博士)通过列表服务和培训活动被招募来完成在线或纸质的调查。评估人员报告说,在进行了解文化的评估方面面临重大挑战,包括缺乏对考生的适当测试、缺乏评估指南、缺乏来自不同背景的同事以及缺乏相关研究。评估人员报告说,他们在所有领域都参与了广泛的文化知情实践,其中一些几乎是普遍的(例如,在形成诊断时考虑文化背景)。相比之下,其他做法相对少见(例如,将具有特定身份的考生的评估转介给具有更多知识/经验的其他专业人员)。结果表明,需要更多的研究,更多的实践指南,以及法医精神卫生工作人员的多样化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Current Practices in Incorporating Culture into Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Survey of Practitioners
Abstract Forensic evaluators conduct assessments of individuals with a wide range of sociocultural identities. Although recommendations regarding how to incorporate cultural considerations in forensic evaluations have been published over the past decade, there is no clear consensus on best practices nor is it clear how evaluators interpret and apply the available recommendations. The current survey represents a replication and extension of a previous survey regarding self-reported culturally-informed practices among forensic evaluators. Subjects were forensic mental health professionals (n = 258; 64.7% women, 69.4% PhD or PsyD) recruited through listservs and training events to complete a survey online or by hard copy. Evaluators reported significant challenges in conducting culturally-informed evaluations, including lack of appropriate tests for their examinees, lack of guidelines for their evaluations, lack of colleagues from diverse backgrounds, and lack of relevant research. Evaluators reported engaging in a wide range of culturally-informed practices across all domains, some being nearly universal (e.g., considered cultural context when forming diagnosis). In contrast, other practices were relatively uncommon (e.g., referred the evaluation to another professional with more knowledge/experience regarding examinees with particular identities). Results indicate a need for more research, more practice guidelines, and diversification of the forensic mental health workforce.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Participant and Facilitator Experiences of Restorative Justice Interventions in the Forensic Secure Estate Exploring Cognitive Functioning among Forensic Mental Health Inpatients Patterns of Mental Health Service Contacts for Young People Deemed Eligible for Court Diversion Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Forensic Mental Health: An Introduction to the Special Issue Caring for Male Prisoners Who Self-Harm: Perceptions, Attitudes and Experiences of Custodial Prison Staff and Male Prisoners in England
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1