The Utility of the Trauma Symptom Inventory as a Primary and Secondary Assessment Instrument for Forensic Practice in Legal Settings

This paper examines the utility of the Trauma Symptom Inventory-2 (TSI-2) and its predecessor, the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI) in forensic psychology practice. The instrument's psychometric properties, use with special populations, legal case review and admissibility considerations are discussed. Recommendations regarding the strengths and limitations of the TSI/TSI-2 are suggested for forensic practitioners and lawyers. Considerations related to potential expert witness cross-examination are also presented. Psychological research and legal review suggest that the TSI/TSI-2 is admissible as an instrument under the Daubert Standard, especially as related to civil court disability claims. Still, lingering issues with the ATR validity scale remain and there is limited independent research establishing the predictive and discriminant validity of the TSI-2 across diverse forensic samples. In summary, this suggests the instrument is most effective as part of a comprehensive assessment battery for identifying PTSD symptomology within legal proceedings where a trauma diagnosis is relevant.

Detecting Negative Response Bias Within the Trauma Symptom Inventory–2 (TSI-2): a Review of the Literature

This systematic review was performed to summarize existing research on the symptom validity scales within the Trauma Symptom Inventory–Second Edition (TSI-2), a relatively new self-report measure designed to assess the psychological sequelae of trauma. The TSI-2 has built-in symptom validity scales to monitor response bias and alert the assessor of non-credible symptom profiles. The Atypical Response scale (ATR) was designed to identify symptom exaggeration or fabrication. Proposed cutoffs on the ATR vary from ≥ 7 to ≥ 15, depending on the assessment context. The limited evidence available suggests that ATR has the potential to serve as measure of symptom validity, although its classification accuracy is generally inferior compared to well-established scales. While the ATR seems sufficiently sensitive to symptom over-reporting, significant concerns about its specificity persist. Therefore, it is proposed that the TSI-2 should not be used in isolation to determine the validity of the symptom presentation. More research is needed for development of evidence-based guidelines about the interpretation of ATR scores.

The prevalence of Dissociative Disorders and dissociative experiences in college populations: a meta-analysis of 98 studies

This meta-analysis of 31,905 college students includes 12 studies diagnosing Dissociative Disorders (DD) and 92 studies measuring dissociation with the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES). Prevalence rates were used to separately test the plausibility of the Trauma Model (TM) and the Fantasy Model (FM) of dissociation. Results show 11.4% of students sampled meet criteria for DD, which is consistent with the prevalence of experiencing multiple (types of) trauma during childhood (12%), but is not consistent with the very low prevalence expected from the role of fantasy-proneness proposed in the FM. DES scores varied significantly across the 16 countries and were not higher in North America, but in countries that were comparatively unsafe. The least well-known DD was the most common, which is inconsistent with the FM which holds that the diagnosed person is enacting a familiar social role. There was no evidence that DES scores had decreased over recent decades, which does not support FM assertions that DD were a fad of the 1990s. Three of the five hypotheses tested provided clear support for the TM and a fourth hypothesis provided partial support for the TM. None of the five hypotheses tested supported the FM. The finding that DD were slightly more common in college populations than the general population did not support predictions of either model. The theoretical perspective of the authors moderated DES scores, although this is unlikely due to experimenter bias as studies led by FM theorists had significantly higher DES scores than those led by TM theorists.

Special competencies for psychological assessment of torture survivors

In spite of the absolute prohibition against torture in international law, this grave human rights abuse is still practiced systematically and with impunity in the majority of countries around the world. Mental health professionals can play a positive role in the fight against torture and impunity, by developing competencies to assess the psychological sequelae of torture. High-quality psychological evidence can help to substantiate allegations of torture, thereby increasing the likelihood of success in civil, administrative, and criminal proceedings. This article will orient mental health professionals to issues specific to forensic assessment of torture survivors. It provides a brief introduction to the sociopolitical context of torture, reviews literature on the psychological sequelae of torture, introduces the reader to key competencies, offers information on strategies for producing documentary evidence and expert opinion, highlights ethical considerations, and suggests areas for development in the field.