Possibly mad? Marital murder in the early twentieth century: a matched-case gender analysis of forensic psychiatric investigations in Sweden.

This study illustrates the impact on forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) of time-specific scientific theories and moral normative considerations. A comparative historical perspective illustrates historical FPI procedures (i.e. methodology and focus), based on two matched FPI case reports from the 1930s: a man and a woman who had shot their respective spouses. First, in the analysis, a comparison was made between the two cases regarding assessment procedure and focus, applying a gender perspective, and second, stability and change in FPI praxis between the 1930s and the 2020s were identified. Similarities and differences were discussed based on changes in FPI praxis and influence of explanatory models within psychiatry. This can aid understanding of historical bias and indicate current bias and its risks to FPI reliability.

Exploring the psychometric properties of the externalizing spectrum inventory-brief form in a Swedish forensic psychiatric inpatient sample.

BACKGROUND: The Externalizing Spectrum Inventory-Brief Form (ESI-BF) [1] is a 160-item self-report instrument designed for the assessment of externalizing psychopathology, yet few studies to date have evaluated its psychometric properties, structural fit, and criterion validity in forensic psychiatric settings. METHODS: Here, we investigated these aspects in a sample of forensic psychiatric inpatients (n = 77) from a maximum-security forensic psychiatric hospital in Sweden. We firstly investigated the reliability. Secondly, using confirmatory factor analysis, the structure of the ESI-BF. And thirdly, using a Bayesian approach, assessed how the three ESI-BF subfactors relate to criterion measures of antisocial behaviors, substance use, and lifetime externalizing spectrum diagnoses. RESULTS: The ESI-BF demonstrated good to adequate reliability and internal consistency, with all but four facet scales exhibiting α and ω values ≥ 0.80. Average inter-item correlations for the facet scales ranged from 0.31 to 0.74. However, all structural models exhibited poor to mediocre fit, with model fit values for the CFI being 0.66, 0.79 and 0.87 and RMSEA values of 0.14, 0.12 and 0.09. for the unidimensional correlated factors and bifactor model, respectively. Regarding criterion validity, all subscales of the item-based ESI-BF three-factor model exhibited robust correlations with the Life History of Aggression total, aggression and antisocial/consequences subscales, with correlations ranging from 0.29 to 0.55. All ESI-BF subfactors demonstrated robust associations, yet with different externalizing outcomes, lending tentative support to its criterion validity. CONCLUSION: Despite remaining ambiguities regarding its structural fit, the ESI-BF may be promising for assessing externalizing psychopathology in forensic psychiatric populations. However, further investigation of the ESI-BF is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn about its appropriateness in forensic psychiatric settings.

Decision-Making Within Forensic Psychiatric Investigations: The Use of Various Information Sources by Different Expert Groups to Reach Conclusions on Legal Insanity.

Background: Which type of information experts use to make decisions regarding legal insanity within forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is relatively unknown, both in general and when considering variations due to case context. It is important to explore this area to be able to counteract the effects of various kinds of cognitive bias. Method: The aim was to explore whether FPI expert groups differed regarding case-specific as well as general use of information types required to make decisions on severe mental disorder (SMD). Three FPI case vignettes were presented to three professional groups involved in FPIs in Sweden (n = 41): forensic psychiatrists (n = 15), psychologists (n = 15), and social workers (n = 11). The participants reported which types of information they required to reach conclusions regarding SMD in each case. They also reported which types of information they had used within general FPI praxis during the previous year and the information types' perceived usefulness. Results: The expert groups differed somewhat regarding what type of information they required for the cases (e.g., results from cognitive testing), but some information was required in all cases (e.g., client's self-report). Regarding the preliminary assessment of SMD in the three cases, minor differences were found. Within the general FPI praxis, experts reported using several information types, while the general perceived usefulness of these sources varied. Discussion: The professional groups relied partly on a "core" of information sources, but some case-specific adaptations were found. The professional groups' inclination to suspect SMD also varied somewhat. This indicates a need to explore the potential consequences of these similarities and differences.