Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol 29(2), May 2023, 145-153; doi:10.1037/law0000382
One of the most vexing yet rarely discussed problems in forensic assessment is the equivocal result. The typical forensic mental health evaluation involves collecting numerous types of data, including self-report, clinical observation, collateral interviews, records, and/or psychological testing. Ultimately, data often lend themselves strongly to just one conclusion, or sometimes, with multiple evaluators, to competing conclusions. In a smaller number of cases, the data are equivocal; that is, they may be interpreted in several ways or fail to converge to a clear conclusion. Equivocal data can present challenges at all levels of the evaluation process. However, scant research has focused on this issue, at least not directly, and few articles provide professional guidance on how to conceptualize and manage such data. We propose a typology and framework for conceptualizing equivocal data drawing on perspectives from the Federal Rules of Evidence and medical field while considering the incremental usefulness of those data in the decision-making process. We offer five alternate approaches to ethically and effectively navigate equivocal findings, including a discussion of when and how to defer an opinion for further inquiry and considerations for reporting and testifying about equivocal findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)