Responsibility and risk of re-offense in violent

PSY 622 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
The purpose of the final project for this course is to establish an in-depth proficiency in the area of assessment within multiple domains of forensic psychology.
The final project focuses on victimology, which examines the symptoms of trauma-related victims, such as survivors of child, domestic, or sexual abuse. It also
looks at correctional psychology, which evaluates criminal responsibility and risk of re-offense in violent (e.g., those with assault charges) and non-violent
offenders (e.g., those with substance abuse charges).
The final project for this course is a collection of six separate forensic psychological reports based on provided scenarios. Each report is based on data from a
distinct test and serves a distinct purpose within the court system. These reports are specific to risk assessment, and most of the reports will be reviewed by
parties other than the forensic assessor’s client. These reports are considered consultative work.
The project is divided into six milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final
submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight. The final submission will occur in Module Nine.
In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:
ï‚· Assess the extent to which case study data sets meet the Daubert standard
ï‚· Develop reports based on forensic assessment standards and guidelines for informing decision making in criminal and civil proceedings
ï‚· Assess sources of collateral information for their credibility and appropriateness for informing decisions in criminal and civil proceedings
ï‚· Evaluate structured and semi-structured interviews for their impact on decision making in criminal and civil proceedings
ï‚· Promote ethical behavior in practice by employing ethical guidelines of a professional psychology organization in making recommendations
Prompt
Imagine you have been hired as a consultant to conduct risk assessment in six separate domains of forensic psychology: mental health/diminished capacity,
offender risk assessment, substance abuse potential, trauma symptoms among children, child abuse potential, and violence risk assessment. For each domain,
you will be required to develop reports based on their associated scenarios (scenarios are located in each module that contains a milestone). You will need to
assess the data sets from the objective tests used in each domain, as well as review the interview information and collateral information for each case, and create
a subsequent recommendations report specific to each domain. You will be required to incorporate appropriate ethical guidelines in each of your
recommendations reports. Ensure you save instructor feedback from this assignment as it will be used in future courses.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
I. Mental Health/Diminished Capacity Assessment (Case Scenario 1)
a) Assess the extent to which the case study data set meets the Daubert standard (psychometrics). In other words, what is the known or potential
error rate? Has the data been derived using reliable methods? Is the data valid and reliable with regard to the scientific method?
b) Evaluate the interview information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
c) Evaluate the collateral information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
d) Create a recommendations report for risk management based on the above elements. Justify your position with specific scholarly research.
e) Be sure your recommendations report aligns with the ethical guidelines of a professional psychology association. Note: You do not need to
belong to an organization, but rather may view the ethical guidelines on the website of the organization of your choice.
II. Offender Risk Assessment (Case Scenario 2)
a) Assess the extent to which the case study data set meets the Daubert standard (psychometrics). In other words, what is the known or potential
error rate? Has the data been derived using reliable methods? Is the data valid and reliable with regard to the scientific method?
b) Evaluate the interview information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
c) Evaluate the collateral information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
d) Create a recommendations report for risk management based on the above elements. Justify your position with specific scholarly research.
e) Be sure your recommendations report aligns with the ethical guidelines of a professional psychology association. Note: You do not need to
belong to an organization, but rather may view the ethical guidelines on the website of the organization of your choice.
III. Substance Abuse Potential (Case Scenario 3)
a) Assess the extent to which the case study data set meets the Daubert standard (psychometrics). In other words, what is the known or potential
error rate? Has the data been derived using reliable methods? Is the data valid and reliable with regard to the scientific method?
b) Evaluate the interview information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
c) Evaluate the collateral information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
d) Create a recommendations report for risk management based on the above elements. Justify your position with specific scholarly research.
e) Be sure your recommendations report aligns with the ethical guidelines of a professional psychology association. Note: You do not need to
belong to an organization, but rather may view the ethical guidelines on the website of the organization of your choice.
IV. Trauma Symptoms Among Children (Case Scenario 4)
a) Assess the extent to which the case study data set meets the Daubert standard (psychometrics). In other words, what is the known or potential
error rate? Has the data been derived using reliable methods? Is the data valid and reliable with regard to the scientific method?
b) Evaluate the interview information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
c) Evaluate the collateral information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
d) Create a recommendations report for risk management based on the above elements. Justify your position with specific scholarly research.
e) Be sure your recommendations report aligns with the ethical guidelines of a professional psychology association. Note: You do not need to
belong to an organization, but rather may view the ethical guidelines on the website of the organization of your choice.
V. Child Abuse Potential (Case Scenario 5)
a) Assess the extent to which the case study data set meets the Daubert standard (psychometrics). In other words, what is the known or potential
error rate? Has the data been derived using reliable methods? Is the data valid and reliable with regard to the scientific method?
b) Evaluate the interview information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
c) Evaluate the collateral information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
d) Create a recommendations report for risk management based on the above elements. Justify your position with specific scholarly research.
e) Be sure your recommendations report aligns with the ethical guidelines of a professional psychology association. Note: You do not need to
belong to an organization, but rather may view the ethical guidelines on the website of the organization of your choice.
VI. Violence Risk Assessment (Case Scenario 6)
a) Assess the extent to which the case study data set meets the Daubert standard (psychometrics). In other words, what is the known or potential
error rate? Has the data been derived using reliable methods? Is the data valid and reliable with regard to the scientific method?
b) Evaluate the interview information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
c) Evaluate the collateral information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process.
Substantiate your claims with specific research.
d) Create a recommendations report for risk management based on the above elements. Justify your position with specific scholarly research.
e) Be sure your recommendations report aligns with the ethical guidelines of a professional psychology association. Note: You do not need to
belong to an organization, but rather may view the ethical guidelines on the website of the organization of your choice.
Milestones
Milestone One: Case Scenario 1
In Module Three, you will submit Case Scenario 1: Mental Health/Diminished Capacity Assessment. Review Case Scenario 1. In the Assessment Data section,
review the raw data of the MMPI-2. Appropriately interpret the scores. Based on your review of Therapeutic Risk Typologies, provide a one to two page
recommendations report for child protective services. This milestone is graded with the Milestone One Rubric.
Milestone Two: Case Scenario 2
In Module Four, you will submit Case Scenario 2: Offender Risk Assessment. Review Case Scenario 2. In the Assessment Data section, review the raw data of the
IORNS. Appropriately interpret the scores. Based on your review of Therapeutic Risk Typologies, provide a one to two page recommendations report for parole.
This milestone is graded with the Milestone Two Rubric.
Milestone Three: Case Scenario 3
In Module Five, you will submit Case Scenario 3: Substance Abuse Potential. Review Case Scenario 3. In the Assessment Data section, review the raw data of the
SASSI-3. Appropriately interpret the scores. Based on your review of Therapeutic Risk Typologies, provide a one to two page recommendations report for child
protective services and probation. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Three Rubric.
Milestone Four: Case Scenario 4
In Module Six, you will submit Case Scenario 4: Trauma Symptoms Among Children. Review Case Scenario 4. In the Assessment Data section, review the raw
data of the TSCYC. Appropriately interpret the scores. Based on your review of Therapeutic Risk Typologies, provide a one to two page recommendations report
for child protective services. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Four Rubric.
Milestone Five: Case Scenario 5
In Module Seven, you will submit Case Scenario 5: Child Abuse Potential. Review Case Scenario 5. In the Assessment Data section, review the raw data of the
CAPI. Appropriately interpret the scores. Based on your review of Therapeutic Risk Typologies, provide a one to two page recommendations report for child
protective services. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Five Rubric.
Milestone Six: Case Scenario 6
In Module Eight, you will submit Case Scenario 6: Violence Risk Assessment. Review Case Scenario 6. In the Assessment Data section, review the raw data of the
SARA. Appropriately interpret the scores. Based on your review of Therapeutic Risk Typologies, provide a one to two page recommendations report for
probation. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Six Rubric.
Final Submission: Summative Forensic Case Report (Cases 1-6)
In Module Nine, you will submit the final project, containing all six completed case scenarios. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the
critical elements of the final project. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded using the Final
Project Rubric.
Deliverables
Milestone Deliverables Module Due Grading
1 Case Scenario 1 Three Graded separately; Milestone One Rubric
2 Case Scenario 2 Four Graded separately; Milestone Two Rubric
3 Case Scenario 3 Five Graded separately; Milestone Three Rubric
4 Case Scenario 4 Six Graded separately; Milestone Four Rubric
5 Case Scenario 5 Seven Graded separately; Milestone Five Rubric
6 Case Scenario 6 Eight Graded separately; Milestone Six Rubric
Final Submission: Summative Forensic
Case Report (Cases 1-6)
Nine Graded separately; Final Project Rubric
Final Project Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Submit all six completed case scenarios. Your submission should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical
elements of the final project. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course and be formatted with one-inch margins, 12-point
Times New Roman font, and appropriate APA format.
Ensure you save instructor feedback from this assignment as it will be used in future courses.
Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Mental
Health/Diminished
Capacity: Daubert
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
connects the assessment to
specific components of the
Daubert standard
Comprehensively assesses the
extent to which the case study
data set meets the Daubert
standard
Assesses the extent to which the
case study data set meets the
Daubert standard but with gaps
in accuracy or detail
Does not assess the extent to
which the case study data set
meets the Daubert standard
2.5
Mental
Health/Diminished
Capacity: Interview
Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates interview information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment process
and substantiates claims with
specific research
Evaluates information but
evaluation is not appropriate to
the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate interview
information
2.5
Mental
Health/Diminished
Capacity: Collateral
Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates collateral information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment and
recommendations process and
substantiates claims with specific
research
Evaluates collateral information
but evaluation is not appropriate
to the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate collateral
information
2.5
Mental
Health/Diminished
Capacity:
Recommendations
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
proposed recommendations
provide suggestions for optimal
performance
Proposes appropriate
recommendations and justifies
with research
Proposes recommendations that
are not appropriate to the
situation, or does not justify with
research
Does not propose
recommendations
4.5
Mental
Health/Diminished
Capacity: Ethical
Guidelines
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
demonstrates professionalism in
promoting the welfare of the
client and the legal system
Employs appropriate ethical
guidelines of a professional
organization in making
recommendations
Employs ethical guidelines but
guidelines are not appropriate to
the situation or are not
supported by a professional
organization
Does not employ ethical
guidelines
4.5
Offender Risk
Assessment:
Daubert
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
connects the assessment to
specific components of the
Daubert standard
Comprehensively assesses the
extent to which the case study
data set meets the Daubert
standard
Assesses the extent to which the
case study data set meets the
Daubert standard but with gaps
in accuracy or detail
Does not assess the extent to
which the case study data set
meets the Daubert standard
2.5
Offender Risk
Assessment:
Interview Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates interview information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment process
and substantiates claims with
specific research
Evaluates information but
evaluation is not appropriate to
the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate interview
information
2.5
Offender Risk
Assessment:
Collateral Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates collateral information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment and
recommendations process and
substantiates claims with specific
research
Evaluates collateral information
but evaluation is not appropriate
to the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate collateral
information
2.5
Offender Risk
Assessment:
Recommendations
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
proposed recommendations
provide suggestions for optimal
performance
Proposes appropriate
recommendations and justifies
with research
Proposes recommendations that
are not appropriate to the
situation, or does not justify with
research
Does not propose
recommendations
4.5
Offender Risk
Assessment:
Ethical Guidelines
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
demonstrates professionalism in
promoting the welfare of the
client and the legal system
Employs appropriate ethical
guidelines of a professional
organization in making
recommendations
Employs ethical guidelines but
guidelines are not appropriate to
the situation or are not
supported by a professional
organization
Does not employ ethical
guidelines
4.5
Substance Abuse
Potential: Daubert
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
connects the assessment to
specific components of the
Daubert standard
Comprehensively assesses the
extent to which the case study
data set meets the Daubert
standard
Assesses the extent to which the
case study data set meets the
Daubert standard but with gaps
in accuracy or detail
Does not assess the extent to
which the case study data set
meets the Daubert standard
2.5
Substance Abuse
Potential: Interview
Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates interview information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment process
and substantiates claims with
specific research
Evaluates information but
evaluation is not appropriate to
the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate interview
information
2.5
Substance Abuse
Potential: Collateral
Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates collateral information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment and
recommendations process and
substantiates claims with specific
research
Evaluates collateral information
but evaluation is not appropriate
to the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate collateral
information
2.5
Substance Abuse
Potential:
Recommendations
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
proposed recommendations
provide suggestions for optimal
performance
Proposes appropriate
recommendations and justifies
with research
Proposes recommendations that
are not appropriate to the
situation, or does not justify with
research
Does not propose
recommendations
4.5
Substance Abuse
Potential: Ethical
Guidelines
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
demonstrates professionalism in
promoting the welfare of the
client and the legal system
Employs appropriate ethical
guidelines of a professional
organization in making
recommendations
Employs ethical guidelines but
guidelines are not appropriate to
the situation or are not
supported by a professional
organization
Does not employ ethical
guidelines
4.5
Trauma Symptoms
Among Children:
Daubert
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
connects the assessment to
specific components of the
Daubert standard
Comprehensively assesses the
extent to which the case study
data set meets the Daubert
standard
Assesses the extent to which the
case study data set meets the
Daubert standard but with gaps
in accuracy or detail
Does not assess the extent to
which the case study data set
meets the Daubert standard
2.5
Trauma Symptoms
Among Children:
Interview Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates interview information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment process
and substantiates claims with
specific research
Evaluates information but
evaluation is not appropriate to
the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate interview
information
2.5
Trauma Symptoms
Among Children:
Collateral Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates collateral information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment and
recommendations process and
substantiates claims with specific
research
Evaluates collateral information
but evaluation is not appropriate
to the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate collateral
information
2.5
Trauma Symptoms
Among Children:
Recommendations
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
proposed recommendations
provide suggestions for optimal
performance
Proposes appropriate
recommendations and justifies
with research
Proposes recommendations that
are not appropriate to the
situation, or does not justify with
research
Does not propose
recommendations
4.5
Trauma Symptoms
Among Children: Ethical
Guidelines
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
demonstrates professionalism in
promoting the welfare of the
client and the legal system
Employs appropriate ethical
guidelines of a professional
organization in making
recommendations
Employs ethical guidelines but
guidelines are not appropriate to
the situation or are not
supported by a professional
organization
Does not employ ethical
guidelines
4.5
Child Abuse Potential:
Daubert
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
connects the assessment to
specific components of the
Daubert standard
Comprehensively assesses the
extent to which the case study
data set meets the Daubert
standard
Assesses the extent to which
case study data set meets the
Daubert standard but with gaps
in accuracy or detail
Does not assess the extent to
which the case study data set
meets the Daubert standard
2.5
Child Abuse Potential:
Interview Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates interview information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment process
and substantiates claims with
specific research
Evaluates information but
evaluation is not appropriate to
the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate interview
information
2.5
Child Abuse Potential:
Collateral Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates collateral information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment and
recommendations process and
substantiates claims with specific
research
Evaluates collateral information
but evaluation is not appropriate
to the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate collateral
information
2.5
Child Abuse Potential:
Recommendations
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
proposed recommendations
provide suggestions for optimal
performance
Proposes appropriate
recommendations and justifies
with research
Proposes recommendations that
are not appropriate to the
situation, or does not justify with
research
Does not propose
recommendations
4.5
Child Abuse Potential:
Ethical Guidelines
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
demonstrates professionalism in
promoting the welfare of the
client and the legal system
Employs appropriate ethical
guidelines of a professional
organization in making
recommendations
Employs ethical guidelines but
guidelines are not appropriate to
the situation or are not
supported by a professional
organization
Does not employ ethical
guidelines
4.5
Criminal Risk
Assessment: Daubert
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
connects the assessment to
specific components of the
Daubert standard
Comprehensively assesses the
extent to which the case study
data set meets the Daubert
standard
Assesses the extent to which the
case study data set meets the
Daubert standard but with gaps
in accuracy or detail
Does not assess the extent to
which the case study data set
meets the Daubert standard
2.5
Criminal Risk
Assessment: Interview
Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates interview information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment process
and substantiates claims with
specific research
Evaluates information but
evaluation is not appropriate to
the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate interview
information
2.5
Criminal Risk
Assessment: Collateral
Information
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses industry-specific language
to exhibit expertise
Evaluates collateral information
appropriately for its implications
in the risk assessment and
recommendations process and
substantiates claims with specific
research
Evaluates collateral information
but evaluation is not appropriate
to the situation, or does not
substantiate claims with research
Does not evaluate collateral
information
2.5
Criminal Risk
Assessment:
Recommendations
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
proposed recommendations
provide suggestions for optimal
performance
Proposes appropriate
recommendations and justifies
with research
Proposes recommendations that
are not appropriate to the
situation, or does not justify with
research
Does not propose
recommendations
4.5
Criminal Risk
Assessment: Ethical
Guidelines
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
demonstrates professionalism in
promoting the welfare of the
client and the legal system
Employs appropriate ethical
guidelines of a professional
organization in making
recommendations
Employs ethical guidelines but
guidelines are not appropriate to
the situation or are not
supported by a professional
organization
Does not employ ethical
guidelines
4.5
Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, and organization
and is presented in a professional
and easy to read format
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact
readability and articulation of
main ideas
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
1
Earned Total 100%