Objective

Identify factors related to bias in forensic psychiatric assessments in criminal matters.

Method

Based on the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the following keywords with Boolean operators: (criminal responsibility OR legal responsibility OR neurolaw OR insanity defense) AND (forensic psychiatry OR assessment OR evaluation OR bias OR decision-making OR capacity OR psychometric). The search included publications from January 1998 to December 2019 in the English language, published in PubMed, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis, and Scopus databases.

Results

The final sample consisted of 30 articles separated into three groups: (1) legal elements and the wording of expert reports, (2) psychometric tools applied to criminal inquiries, and (3) expert forensic technique and inter-examiner agreement.

Discussion

Multiple factors for biases were identified: difficulties in equivalence between legal and psychiatric terminologies, elements of countertransference between the expert and the examinee, absence of standardization of expert evaluations, low quality of expert reports, differences in the training of professionals involved in the evaluations, use of psychometric tools, number of professionals working on the same case, and the methodology adopted. Psychometric tools developed specifically for forensic psychiatric evaluations allowed the introduction of objective parameters in expert evaluations. Special attention was found in psychometric tools structured as vignettes that allowed the detailed evaluation of legal capacities, present in the legal texts. Psychometric tools in checklist format appeared to be more susceptible to interviewer biases.

Conclusion

The control of inherent biases in forensic psychiatry assessments on criminal matters remains a current challenge, difficult to control in forensic practice. The identification, control and avoidance of them may improve the quality the forensic psychiatric expertise in criminal matters.

中文翻译：

---

刑事案件法医精神病学评估中与偏见相关的因素：系统评价

客观的

确定与刑事案件法医精神病学评估中的偏见相关的因素。

方法

根据 PRISMA 指南，我们使用布尔运算符搜索了以下关键字：（刑事责任或法律责任或神经法或精神错乱辩护）和（法医精神病学或评估或评估或偏见或决策或能力或心理测量）。搜索包括 1998 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月在 PubMed、Web of Science、Taylor & Francis 和 Scopus 数据库中发表的英文出版物。

结果

最终样本由 30 篇文章组成，分为三组：（1）法律要素和专家报告的措辞，（2）应用于刑事调查的心理测量工具，以及（3）专家法医技术和审查员间协议。

讨论

确定了导致偏见的多个因素：法律和精神病学术语之间的等价性困难、专家和考生之间的反移情要素、专家评估缺乏标准化、专家报告质量低、参与评估的专业人员的培训差异、心理测量工具的使用、处理同一案例的专业人员的数量以及采用的方法。专门为法医精神病学评估开发的心理测量工具允许在专家评估中引入客观参数。特别注意结构为小插曲的心理测量工具，这些工具允许对法律文本中存在的法律能力进行详细评估。检查表格式的心理测量工具似乎更容易受到采访者偏见的影响。

结论

对刑事案件法医精神病学评估中固有偏见的控制仍然是当前的挑战，在法医实践中难以控制。识别、控制和避免它们可以提高刑事案件法医精神病学专业知识的质量。