Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol 31(2), May 2025, 147-164; doi:10.1037/law0000450
Exposure to task-irrelevant contextual information may prevent forensic mental health evaluators from reaching appropriate decisions in competency to stand trial (CST) evaluations. Context management strategies like linear sequential unmasking–expanded (LSU-E) may help reduce exposure, but little published data regarding evaluators’ considerations of information sources preclude their widespread implementation. Thus, the present study examined the extent to which evaluators agreed regarding information sources’ perceived usefulness, importance, and the LSU-E criteria of biasing power, objectivity, and relevance in a CST context. Utilizing a stimulus sampling design, licensed forensic mental health evaluators (n = 66) indicated their selection of 22 potential information sources within the context of a CST case vignette. Participants then sequenced the information sources to indicate the order in which they would view the data and rated each information source on its degree of biasing power, objectivity, and relevance. Participants generally selected collateral and CST interview information sources more frequently than clinical assessment instruments or competency assessment tools. They shared some agreement on how to sequence the sources but less agreement in their perceptions of LSU-E criteria. These findings suggest forensic mental health evaluators’ personal judgments may significantly impact the reliability of CST opinions and utility of context management strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)