10 Keys to Know When You Need a Psychological Report at the Judicial Level

The envelope arrives on a Tuesday, and the letterhead is a law firm’s. Inside, a polite paragraph suggests that “a psychological evaluation may assist the court.” Priyanka, 38, reads it standing in the hallway with her coat still on, and her stomach does the thing it did the week her divorce papers were served. Does this mean someone thinks she’s unfit? Does she need one of these reports, or does the other side? Who even writes it?

These are reasonable questions, and nobody explains the answers kindly. A forensic psychological report (a written expert opinion prepared for a legal purpose) looks a little like a clinical assessment, sounds a little like therapy, and works by completely different rules. Add the fact that the vocabulary itself (referral question, collateral sources, validity scales) sounds like a foreign language, and it’s no wonder people freeze. Mix those up and you can walk into an evaluation with the wrong expectations, say things you assumed were private, or ask your own therapist for a document they shouldn’t write. Legal stakes make every misunderstanding more expensive: custody arrangements, injury compensation, criminal outcomes, immigration decisions.

So here’s the plain version.

This guide gives you the 10 keys to know when you need a psychological report at the judicial level, from who can ask for one to how to judge the finished document.

A quick note before we begin: laws differ by country, state and court, and nothing here is legal advice. Treat it as a map, and check the local terrain with a lawyer.

Key 1: What is a forensic psychological report, and how does it differ from a clinical one?

A forensic psychological report is a written assessment prepared by a psychologist to answer a specific legal question for a court, lawyer or tribunal. A clinical report aims to help you; a forensic report aims to inform a decision-maker.

The difference sounds subtle and turns out to be enormous. In clinical work, the patient is the client, the goal is treatment, and confidentiality is the default. In forensic work, the client is usually the court, an attorney or an agency. The goal is an evidence-based opinion on something the law cares about, and the person being evaluated is a source of information, not the recipient of care.

Psychologist Thomas Grisso drew this line sharply in his well-known book Evaluating Competencies. He argued that forensic assessment deals with functional legal capacities, such as whether a person can understand the proceedings against them, and not merely with diagnoses. A diagnosis can matter, but a label alone rarely answers what a judge needs to know. Someone with depression may be perfectly able to manage their finances; someone with no formal diagnosis may not be.

Several features set forensic reports apart:

• The referral question comes from the legal system, not from the person’s own concerns.
• Limited confidentiality: what you say may appear in a report that others will read.
• Multiple sources: interviews, records, collateral contacts and standardized tests, not a single conversation.
• Neutrality: the evaluator is expected to be impartial and to say what the data do not support.
• Scrutiny: lawyers can challenge methods and conclusions, sometimes through cross-examination.

Think of it as the difference between a family doctor and a coroner. Both are physicians. Their roles, duties and audiences barely overlap.

Also worth separating: a psychological evaluation (the process) and the psychological report (the document). You might sit through eight hours of testing and interviews, and the court will see a twenty-page summary. The report is only as good as the work behind it, but it’s the part that actually travels.

You’ll hear different names for the same idea depending on where you live: forensic evaluation, expert report, psychological assessment for the court, independent psychological evaluation. The label matters less than who asked for it and what question it answers.

So the first key is a mindset shift: this isn’t therapy with a judge watching. It’s something else.

Key 2: When does a court or lawyer actually need a psychological report?

When a legal decision depends on someone’s mental state, abilities or psychological harm, and ordinary evidence can’t settle it. Common examples include custody disputes, injury claims, criminal competence, and guardianship.

Not every case needs one. Judges and lawyers order or commission psychological reports when a question can’t be decided by common sense alone. A parent’s day-to-day parenting may be visible in school records and witness statements; whether a child’s anxiety stems from a specific event may not be.

The textbook Psychological Evaluations for the Courts, led by Gary B. Melton and colleagues, maps the many legal questions that mental health experts address. It remains a standard reference for forensic evaluators. Typical uses, grouped loosely by area of law, include:

• Family law: child custody and parenting time, parental capacity, children’s wishes and adjustment, allegations affecting the child.
• Criminal law: competence to stand trial, criminal responsibility (often called the insanity defense), sentencing mitigation, risk of reoffending.
• Civil and personal injury: psychological harm after accidents, assault, medical error or workplace harassment, and whether symptoms relate to the event.
• Employment law: fitness for duty, disability claims, discrimination or bullying damages.
• Guardianship and capacity: whether an older adult can manage money, health decisions or a will.
• Immigration and asylum: documenting trauma, fear of return and psychological effects of detention.
• Child protection: assessing risk, parental capacity to change, and the effects of removal.

Take Walter, 61, an illustrative case: he’s injured in a road collision and develops ongoing pain, poor sleep and a fear of driving. His lawyer wants to claim damages for psychological harm, but the insurer argues his distress predates the accident. A forensic psychologist can review his records, interview him, test for current symptoms and offer an opinion about causation and severity, always with the stated limits of that opinion.

A rule of thumb helps: a report becomes useful when the legal question contains a psychological concept. Words like capacity, harm, risk, best interests, credibility of a child’s account, malingering, fitness or diminished responsibility are signs.

It might also be unnecessary. Judges sometimes decline reports as too costly or too intrusive, and lawyers sometimes realize that the existing treatment records, school reports or witness testimony already do the work. A good attorney will say so honestly.

Ask this before you commit: what exactly would this report prove, and could cheaper evidence prove it as well?

Key 3: Who can request one, and who is the evaluator’s client?

A judge, a prosecutor, a defense lawyer, a civil attorney, a government agency or, in some systems, the parties jointly. The person who requests the report is usually the evaluator’s client, and that determines who sees the results.

There are two broad routes. In a court-appointed evaluation, the judge orders it and the evaluator reports to the court, often available to both sides. In a party-retained evaluation, one side’s lawyer hires the psychologist, and the report goes to that lawyer first. The attorney then decides whether to use it. That’s not corruption; it’s how the adversarial system is designed. But it does mean you should know who retained the evaluator before the first appointment.

Neutrality is the evaluator’s ethical duty either way. A properly trained forensic psychologist is retained for their opinion, not for a conclusion. The American Psychological Association‘s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2013) say as much: evaluators should strive for impartiality and fairness, base opinions on sufficient information, and be clear about the limits of their conclusions. The guidelines are voluntary professional standards in the United States, but they’re widely used as a benchmark elsewhere.

What about you, as the person being evaluated? You deserve a clear notification at the start, covering who requested the evaluation, what it’s for, what the limits of confidentiality are, and who will receive the report. If that doesn’t happen, ask. It’s your right to understand it, and it’s good professional practice for the evaluator to explain it.

An illustrative example: Elena, 29, has filed a workplace harassment claim. Her lawyer arranges for her to see a psychologist who will assess emotional harm. In the first session the psychologist explains that the report will go to her lawyer and may be shared with the other side and the court if the case continues. Elena realizes she shouldn’t treat the session as private counseling, and she doesn’t. That small moment of clarity saves her from an awkward surprise later.

Independent evaluators exist in many systems, and some jurisdictions have registered expert lists. Others rely on lawyers’ networks. In either case, ask how the evaluator was selected and whether they’ve worked mainly for one side.

Courts differ on whether parties can obtain their own evaluation, whether the other side can demand access to your records, and whether you can refuse. Your lawyer should explain these rules for your jurisdiction.

One more detail: the person being evaluated isn’t always a litigant. Children, witnesses and relatives are sometimes evaluated too, which brings extra consent and protection questions.

Key 4: Why can’t your own therapist write it?

Because the roles clash. A therapist’s job is to support you, while a forensic evaluator’s job is to be neutral and test the facts, including facts that might hurt your case. Mixing them harms both the therapy and the evidence.

The classic paper on this is by Stuart A. Greenberg and Daniel Shuman, published in 1997 under the title “Irreconcilable Conflict Between Therapeutic and Forensic Roles.” They argued that being both treating clinician and forensic expert for the same person creates conflicts in goals, in objectivity, in the kind of information collected, and in confidentiality. A therapist hears one side, builds an alliance and accepts the client’s account as the working truth. An evaluator checks that account against other evidence.

Imagine Maya, 34, who has seen her therapist for a year during a custody battle. Her lawyer says, “Ask her to write a letter saying you’re a good mother.” What’s wrong with that? The therapist has never seen Maya with her children, hasn’t spoken to the father, school or pediatrician, and has a relationship to protect. A letter that overreaches could be torn apart by the other side and damage trust in the therapy itself.

Can a therapist offer anything? Yes, within limits. A treatment summary describing attendance, diagnosis, treatment and progress is generally reasonable if you consent. A fact witness can testify about what they observed. What a treating clinician should usually avoid is giving opinions on matters beyond their direct knowledge, such as who should have custody or whether the other parent is dangerous.

Think about the practical risks to you, too. If your therapist is pulled into the case, your records may be requested, your sessions may feel less safe, and you might start editing yourself in the room. Therapy works best when people can say unflattering things.

Some therapists decline to provide any court-related documents, and that’s a legitimate professional boundary, not a lack of support. Others will write a brief factual letter. Ask early, before a crisis, and ask your lawyer to approach the request properly.

This is where people feel hurt: “My therapist knows me best, why won’t they help?” They are helping, in the role they’re equipped for. The report you need comes from someone who can look at the whole picture without being your ally.

It also protects your therapist from an impossible task.

Key 5: What question is the report supposed to answer?

Every forensic report should begin with a clearly stated referral question, such as “Is the defendant competent to stand trial?” or “What psychological harm, if any, resulted from the accident?” If the question is fuzzy, the report will be too.

Psychologist Kirk Heilbrun set out principles for forensic mental health assessment in his 2001 book of the same name, stressing that the evaluator should identify the relevant legal issue first, then select methods and data that actually bear on it. Diagnosing someone may be part of the picture, but he cautioned against treating diagnosis as the answer. A forensic opinion should connect clinical findings to the legal standard, whatever it is in that court.

Here’s why this matters. Courts don’t ask “Is this person depressed?” They ask whether a person can follow proceedings, whether a parent can meet a child’s needs, whether symptoms were caused by an event. A report that lists symptoms and test scores without linking them to the question gives the judge a lot of data and no help.

Good referral questions are specific, answerable by psychological methods and tied to legal criteria. Weak ones are vague (“assess the family”), demand certainty psychology can’t provide (“prove the abuse happened”), or ask the evaluator to decide the legal outcome. Lawyers and evaluators often refine the question together. If you’re a litigant, ask your lawyer what question has been put to the expert.

It’s also worth knowing that different questions need different methods. Competence may involve interviews and specialized instruments. Personal injury may need symptom measures, record review and a timeline. Custody may need interviews with each parent, observation of parent-child interaction, and collateral sources like teachers. Risk assessments draw on structured tools, though no tool predicts future behavior with certainty.

A subtle trap: evaluators sometimes drift beyond their expertise. A psychologist can describe how a child’s anxiety presents and what may maintain it. They can’t determine who is lying, whether a crime occurred, or what the “right” legal result is. A good report says so openly.

When you read a report, find the sentence stating the referral question. Then check that each section helps answer it. If whole pages wander off into unrelated background, ask why.

Without that anchor, even a beautifully written report is just a very long essay about a person.

Key 6: What actually happens during a forensic psychological evaluation?

You’ll typically attend one or more appointments involving interviews, questionnaires and sometimes standardized tests, while the evaluator also reviews records and may contact other people. The whole process usually spans several hours across days or weeks.

The details vary by case, though many evaluations follow a similar sequence:

1. Informed notification or consent. The evaluator explains who requested the evaluation, the purpose, the limits of confidentiality and who will receive the report. In a court-ordered evaluation you may not be able to refuse, but you can usually decline specific questions, with possible consequences your lawyer can explain.
2. Record review. Medical files, school or employment records, police reports, earlier assessments and legal documents.
3. Clinical interview. A detailed history covering development, family, work, health, substance use, current symptoms and the events in dispute.
4. Psychological testing. Personality inventories, cognitive tests, symptom checklists or specialized forensic instruments, chosen to fit the question.
5. Collateral information. Conversations with family members, teachers, physicians or other informants, usually with permission or authorization.
6. Analysis and report. The evaluator integrates the information, tests hypotheses, and writes the report, noting limitations.

Practical tips: bring identification, any documents requested, glasses and a list of medications. Sleep, eat and take your medication as usual; being exhausted or hungry doesn’t help anyone. Arrive early. Be honest about what you don’t remember.

What about emotions? Many people feel anxious, resentful or exposed. That’s normal. You can ask for a break, water or a pause. If a question feels unclear, ask for it to be repeated.

Should you rehearse? Preparing in the sense of thinking through your timeline and gathering documents is smart. Scripting answers or coaching yourself to look a certain way tends to backfire, since evaluators are trained to notice inconsistency, and rigid performance can look more suspicious than natural uncertainty.

Watch for professional conduct. The evaluator should be courteous, explain procedures, avoid making promises about the outcome, and not offer treatment advice during an assessment. Evaluators shouldn’t also act as your therapist, and they usually won’t give you conclusions on the spot.

After the evaluation, expect a wait. Report writing, record gathering and scoring take time, and courts often set deadlines. If you’re not told when to expect the report, ask your lawyer.

Key 7: Can people fake or exaggerate symptoms, and how do evaluators check?

Yes, and evaluators know it. When money, custody or freedom depends on the result, some people exaggerate, some minimize and some feign symptoms, so forensic psychologists build checks into their methods.

Don’t take this as an accusation aimed at you. Most people evaluated in legal contexts are honest. But forensic work assumes response style is something to measure, not assume. The reference work on this subject, Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception, edited by Richard Rogers, describes how clinicians distinguish malingering (deliberately feigning or exaggerating for external gain) from other response patterns, including defensiveness (minimizing problems), unintentional exaggeration and genuine but unusual symptom reporting.

Evaluators use several tools. Validity scales built into personality inventories flag unusual response patterns. Stand-alone symptom validity tests check whether a person’s performance on memory or cognitive tasks is consistent with genuine impairment. Record comparison looks at whether complaints match earlier documentation. Interview consistency checks whether the story holds across sessions and sources.

No single indicator proves faking. Rogers and others stress that evaluators should use multiple methods, consider alternatives, and avoid treating one odd score as a verdict. Cultural background, language, trauma, pain, low education or confusion can all produce unusual test results without any intent to deceive. A bad score on a test is not proof of lying.

Consider Tyrone, 24, an illustrative case: during testing he scores poorly on a memory measure designed to detect poor effort, but the evaluator also notes that he’s sleeping three hours a night, has a documented head injury and is anxious about the process. A careful evaluator reports the result, discusses other explanations, and doesn’t call him a fake.

Why does this matter to you? Because honesty is your best strategy and also the practical one. If your account is accurate, consistent and supported by records, it will usually look credible. If you embellish, the checks may catch inconsistencies that damage your credibility far more than the truth would.

The reverse problem exists too. People who are ashamed or afraid sometimes minimize difficulties, such as a parent who says everything is perfect or a trauma survivor who doesn’t want to say anything. Evaluators look for that as well.

The safest approach is to describe your experience as accurately as you can, including what you don’t know, and let the methods do their job.

Key 8: What should a good report contain, and how do you tell a strong one from a weak one?

A strong report states the referral question, lists every source of information, explains its methods, separates facts from interpretation, reaches opinions that follow from the data and openly states limitations. A weak one jumps to conclusions.

The American Psychological Association guidelines of 2013, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, emphasize that opinions should rest on sufficient information, that methods should be appropriate to the question, and that evaluators should document their work and be honest about uncertainty. The following table puts these ideas into practice.

Clear writing matters too. Judges and lawyers aren’t psychologists, so plain language beats jargon. A report stuffed with technical terms that nobody can explain isn’t more scientific; it’s harder to use.

What you should not expect: a verdict. A good psychologist offers an opinion about psychological matters, not about guilt or the best legal outcome. In many jurisdictions the “ultimate issue” is for the judge or jury alone, and evaluators avoid or carefully frame statements that cross into it.

Look at test usage as well. Reports should say which instruments were used, why, and what the scores mean for this person, not simply paste numbers. Scores need context, such as how well the measure applies to your age, language and background.

Checking quality is something your lawyer can do with you. Ask: Does the report answer the question? Were opposing views considered? Were important records missed? Are conclusions stronger than the data? If you spot factual errors, tell your lawyer promptly, since many systems allow clarification or rebuttal.

A final practical point: reports can be damaging as well as helpful. Retained evaluators often give a preliminary view to the lawyer before writing, so the lawyer can decide whether to proceed. That’s normal.

Key 9: Can a psychologist decide custody, guilt or credibility?

No. Psychologists provide information and opinions on psychological questions; judges and juries decide the legal outcome. Some evaluators overstep, which is why you should know where the science ends.

Family courts are where this tension shows most. In a widely discussed 2005 review, Robert E. Emery, Randy Otto and William O’Donohue argued that custody evaluations often go further than the science supports. They questioned the evidence behind recommending a specific custody arrangement, and the use of psychological tests to say which parent is “better.” Their view was that evaluators can responsibly describe parenting capacities, a child’s needs and the family’s circumstances, but that predicting which arrangement is best rests on thin research. Other experts disagree on how far to go, and practice varies by court and country. Still, the critique has influenced how many evaluators frame their conclusions.

The same caution applies elsewhere. A psychologist can describe how common certain symptoms are after trauma; they can’t say whether a particular traumatic event happened. They can explain how memory works and how suggestibility affects children; they can’t pronounce whether a witness is telling the truth. They can assess risk factors for violence; they can’t promise someone won’t reoffend.

Why do these limits get blurred? Because courts want answers, and confident answers are tempting. A decisive report is easier to use than a careful one. But overconfidence carries a cost: wrongful decisions, appeals and loss of trust in expert evidence.

In some legal systems, expert testimony must also meet admissibility standards, such as the Daubert standard in US federal courts, which asks judges to consider whether methods are tested, peer reviewed, have known error rates and are generally accepted. Other countries have their own tests. Courts can exclude opinions that go beyond sound science.

Picture Priyanka again. The evaluator’s report describes both parents’ strengths and difficulties, notes the children’s close attachment to both, and outlines factors that could make transitions smoother. It doesn’t announce a winner. Some clients are disappointed by that. It’s actually the more defensible report.

If the evaluator does give a recommendation, check how it’s reasoned. Does it follow from the data? Does it acknowledge uncertainty and alternatives? A recommendation without a clear rationale deserves questions.

It’s a humbling reality of this field that the most honest sentence in a report is often “the data are insufficient to conclude.”

Key 10: How do you choose an evaluator, prepare and respond to the result?

Choose someone with forensic training and experience in your type of case, ask how they work, prepare calmly and read the finished report with your lawyer. Treat the report as evidence you can question, not a final judgment on you.

Start with qualifications. In most systems, the evaluator should be a licensed psychologist (or equivalent), with specific training or experience in forensic assessment. General clinical experience isn’t the same thing. A study by Tess M. S. Neal and Thomas Grisso in 2014, surveying forensic clinicians internationally, found that assessment practices vary considerably between professionals, which is a reminder that you can’t assume every evaluator works the same way. It’s reasonable to ask what methods they plan to use and why.

Questions worth asking before you hire or accept an evaluator:

• What training and experience do you have with cases like mine?
• Which methods and sources will you use, and why?
• Who is the client, and who will receive the report?
• How long will it take, and what will it cost? (Fees vary widely, so get this in writing.)
• Have you worked mostly for one side, and how do you handle disagreement with the referring lawyer?

Preparation is practical. Gather records and dates, write a short timeline, think through your concerns calmly, and arrange childcare or transport so you aren’t rushed. Sleep, eat and bring any glasses or medications. Tell your lawyer anything that might affect the evaluation, such as a recent illness or a known memory problem.

Afterward, read the report slowly with your lawyer. Mark factual errors, missing information and anything that surprises you. Don’t contact the evaluator directly to argue unless your lawyer says to; communications in legal cases are often managed through counsel. Don’t post about it online either.

Also expect emotion. Seeing yourself described in a clinical document, particularly one that includes criticism or uncertainty, can sting. That reaction is human. A trusted therapist, outside the legal case, can help you process it, which is a good use of the therapeutic role discussed earlier.

If the report is unfavorable, you may have options: asking for clarification, providing additional records, commissioning a second opinion or a critique by another expert, or challenging the methods. These choices belong to you and your lawyer, and they depend on the rules in your jurisdiction and the stage of the case.

Keep perspective. A report is one piece of evidence among several, and a good lawyer will place it in context. It describes you at a moment, through certain methods, for a certain question.

What would you most want the court to understand about you, and have you given the evaluator the information to see it?

FAQs about Psychological Reports at the Judicial Level

What is a forensic psychological report used for?

It’s used to give a court, tribunal or lawyer an expert opinion on a psychological question that affects a legal decision. Common uses include custody and parenting disputes, competence to stand trial, criminal responsibility, personal injury and workplace harassment claims, guardianship and capacity, and immigration cases involving trauma. The report links clinical findings, such as symptoms, abilities or risks, to what the law asks. It isn’t a diagnosis-only document and it doesn’t decide the case. Judges and juries weigh it alongside other evidence, and its influence depends on how clearly the methods and reasoning are explained.

Who pays for a psychological report in court proceedings?

It depends on the system, the type of case and who requested it. Court-appointed evaluators may be paid by the court, by one or both parties, or by a public agency. Party-retained experts are usually paid by the side that hired them. Some jurisdictions have legal aid or public programs that help in certain cases, though availability varies and you should confirm it locally. Fees can be substantial because the work includes interviews, testing, record review and report writing. Ask for a written fee agreement before work begins, and ask your lawyer about who bears the cost.

Can my therapist write a report for my court case?

Sometimes a limited version, but not a full forensic opinion. Therapists can often provide a treatment summary with dates of attendance, diagnosis, treatment and progress, if you consent. They generally shouldn’t offer opinions on matters outside their direct knowledge, such as who should have custody or whether someone else is dangerous, because their role is supportive and they’ve heard only one side. Many therapists decline court involvement to protect the therapy. An independent forensic evaluator is usually the better route for an opinion on a legal question.

Do I have to take part if the court orders an evaluation?

Generally you should, because refusing can have legal consequences, such as a court drawing negative conclusions or proceeding without your perspective. But rules differ by country and by type of case, and in some situations you may have rights regarding what you answer or how information is used. Talk to your lawyer before the first appointment. Ask what happens if you decline specific questions, and whether any part of the evaluation is recorded or observed. Attending, being honest and staying respectful is usually the sensible approach, while still asking for clarification whenever something is unclear.

How long does a forensic psychological evaluation take?

Anywhere from a few hours to several weeks, depending on the question and how many sources are involved. A focused evaluation might be a single long session plus record review; a custody evaluation can involve several meetings with each parent, observations with children and interviews with outside informants. After the appointments, the evaluator needs time to score tests, review documents and write the report, and courts often set deadlines. Delays happen when records arrive late. Ask the evaluator or your lawyer for an expected timeline at the outset.

What if I disagree with the report’s conclusions?

Talk with your lawyer first. Depending on the system, options may include pointing out factual errors, submitting additional records, asking the evaluator to clarify, obtaining a second opinion or a review by another expert, and questioning the methods in court. Disagreeing with a conclusion isn’t the same as proving it wrong, so specific, documented concerns carry more weight than general unhappiness. Avoid confronting the evaluator or posting about the case, because that can hurt your credibility. Keep your criticism focused on the methods, the missing data and the logic.

Can a psychological report be used against me?

Yes, it can, which is why you need to know who requested it and who will see it. In an evaluation requested by the other side or ordered by the court, the findings can be shared with the court and the parties. Even a report you commissioned may be disclosed if your lawyer decides to use it, and in some places the other side can ask for it. Information you disclose in a forensic evaluation isn’t confidential the way therapy is. That’s why the evaluator should explain the limits of confidentiality at the start, and why you should be honest, careful and well advised.

How do I find a qualified forensic psychologist?

Start with your lawyer, who may know evaluators with experience in your type of case. You can also check professional associations, licensing boards and university or hospital forensic services. Look for a licensed psychologist with specific forensic training, experience testifying and a record of working for both sides, or for courts. Ask about their methods, fees, timelines and the limits of what they’ll opine on. Be cautious about anyone who guarantees an outcome, offers to “support your side” or claims they can diagnose from a single short meeting. Check credentials directly with the licensing authority.

Bibliography

• American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7-19.
• Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: Limited science and a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(1), 1-29.
• Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1), 50-57.
• Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
• Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
• Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L. O. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
• Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1406-1421.
• Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (Eds.). (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed.). Guilford Press.