Communiquer l’évaluation psychométrique dans les rapports d’expertise : quels challenges selon les experts psychiatres et psychologues ?

Abstract

ObjectivesFor more than a century, psychiatrists and psychologists have seen their field of activity expand and their role become more important in the courts, particularly in criminal matters. Indeed, their solicitation by magistrates increases to realize forensic reports. In Belgium, the new law on psychiatric placements of criminals (May 5, 2014) has increased the value of expertise in criminal justice. This law stipulates that when an individual has committed a criminal offence and there is reason to consider that he was suffering from a mental disorder at the moment of the offense, it is possible to resort to his placement within a secure psychiatric hospital, provided that a psychiatric expertise is performed. Through a Royal Decree (2018) of this law, psychiatric expert must now write his findings according to an established standard model: a psychiatric expertise framework. A body of research has highlighted the significant influence of the mere presence of the expert report, according to its form and content. Moreover, the expert's speech can have a significant influence on the perception of the magistrates and their decisions. However, few empirical studies have investigated what experts said or should say in their reports in Belgium. As a result of these findings, this research studies the communication of psychometric assessments in expert reports. MethodsThrough semi-structured interviews, we gathered the opinions of seven psychiatrics’ or psychologists’ expert about the writing of their expert reports. These professionals all had significant professional experience in the field of expertise. Their discourses were analyzed through a thematic content analysis with a mixed approach (deductive and inductive). ResultsThe experts highlighted a lack of use of the compulsory psychiatric expertise framework, explaining not to be aware of the existence of the framework and its obligation to apply. However, they emphasize the advantage to use it in order to obtain a better homogeneity. Majority of them use structured diagnostic's assessment instruments to bring more objectivity to their findings. They also emphasize their efforts to make their reports as easy to understand as possible. In this respect, they prefer as much as possible a clinical type of communication, free of statistical data. Regarding the recidivism risk's assessment, it seems to be more systematized and generally carried out by means of structured instruments. Finally, most of the experts in the sample preferred to communicate the risk of recidivism in the form of verbal labels (low, moderate, high), as this seemed to them to be more understandable. Moreover, results show an overestimation of the risk when it is communicated in the form of probability (e.g. 80%) or frequency (e.g. 8/10). ConclusionsThis research explored, in the Belgian criminal field, the perception of psychiatric experts and psychologists concerning the writing of psychiatric expertise. This study is an applied research with an innovative character and the objective of confronting the reality in the field. Despite the observation of a systematization of the use of structured evaluation instruments, it remains essential to make the judicial actors aware of the obligation to respect the current psychiatric expertise framework. In addition, the popularization and use of a clinical type of writing is to be recommended.