Field Reliability of Forensic Mental Health Evaluations of Offenders for Post-Prison Civil Commitment

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study examined the field reliability of forensic mental health examiners’ opinions in pre-parole evaluations. The California Offenders with Mental Health Disorders (OMD) statute allows for the post-incarceration commitment to a state hospital for treatment as a condition of parole. Reliability is critical in these evaluations because the triers of fact rely on them for their determinations. We expect to find variability among opinions, not only on the final opinions but also on each criterion. We compared three expert opinions on 98 cases to determine the level of interrater agreement. Agreement rates varied by agency, evaluator, and the forensic question posed. We found higher reliability for criteria that were more reliant on past factors and lower reliability for those criteria based on factors present at the time of the assessment. Imprecisely defined legal constructs, unknown individual evaluator characteristics, contextual factors, and passage of time between the evaluations impede reliability.