Clinical Reasoning in Forensic Psychiatry: Concepts, Processes, and Pitfalls

Translation, adaptation, validity and reliability of Multidimensional Emotion Questionnaire for Indonesian forensic psychiatry context

Objective

Emotion is essential in psychiatrists' clinical decision-making in conducting forensic psychiatric evaluations. However, psychiatrists may not be aware of their own emotions and thus prone to the risk of bias in their evaluations. An English version questionnaire was previously developed to assess emotional response and regulation. This study aims to assess the validity and reliability of the translated and adapted Indonesian version of The Multidimensional Emotion Questionnaire (MEQ) among Indonesian general psychiatrists in forensic psychiatry settings.

Method

This is a cross-sectional study that translated and adapted The Multidimensional Emotion Questionnaire (MEQ) designed by Klonsky et al. This study was conducted between August 2020 and February 2021, involving 32 general psychiatrists across the country who represented general psychiatrists from different educational backgrounds, clinical experiences, and workplace settings. The translation process was done by a certified independent translator and tested for validity by Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), Scale-Level Level Content Validity Index (S-CVI), and corrected item-total correlation. Cronbach's alpha values measured reliability aspects.

Results

The MEQ was valid and reliable, with an I-CVI score of 0.97-1, an S-CVI score of 0.99, and Cronbach's alpha values of 0.85-0.98 for each emotion. The majority of items had a corrected item-total correlation of higher than 0.30.

Conclusion

A proper and available tool to measure general psychiatrists' emotions in evaluating forensic psychiatric cases is essential in enhancing evaluators' awareness of their own emotions to eventually mitigate bias. The Multidimensional Emotion Questionnaire (MEQ) was valid and reliable for Indonesian forensic psychiatry contexts.

Decision-Making Within Forensic Psychiatric Investigations: The Use of Various Information Sources by Different Expert Groups to Reach Conclusions on Legal Insanity

BACKGROUND

Which type of information experts use to make decisions regarding legal insanity within forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is relatively unknown, both in general and when considering variations due to case context. It is important to explore this area to be able to counteract the effects of various kinds of cognitive bias.

METHOD

The aim was to explore whether FPI expert groups differed regarding case-specific as well as general use of information types required to make decisions on severe mental disorder (SMD). Three FPI case vignettes were presented to three professional groups involved in FPIs in Sweden (n = 41): forensic psychiatrists (n = 15), psychologists (n = 15), and social workers (n = 11). The participants reported which types of information they required to reach conclusions regarding SMD in each case. They also reported which types of information they had used within general FPI praxis during the previous year and the information types' perceived usefulness.

RESULTS

The expert groups differed somewhat regarding what type of information they required for the cases (e.g., results from cognitive testing), but some information was required in all cases (e.g., client's self-report). Regarding the preliminary assessment of SMD in the three cases, minor differences were found. Within the general FPI praxis, experts reported using several information types, while the general perceived usefulness of these sources varied.

DISCUSSION

The professional groups relied partly on a "core" of information sources, but some case-specific adaptations were found. The professional groups' inclination to suspect SMD also varied somewhat. This indicates a need to explore the potential consequences of these similarities and differences.