Psychologists, mental health professionals, researchers, and public policy makers are becoming increasingly aware that exposure to traumatic events is not a rare occurrence and is related to a number of trauma-related disorders (Gold, 2008). For example, a national study utilizing a large sample of adults residing in the USA found that 89.7% had experienced at least one DSM-5 Criterion A traumatic event and that many had experienced more than one type of trauma (Kilpatrick et al., 2013). Another study found that 69% of a sample of over 4000 US women reported having experienced a traumatic event over the course of their lifetime (Resnick et al., 1993). While prevalence rates in community samples are high, studies of clinical populations have found significantly higher prevalence rates (Mauritz, Goossens, Draijer, & van Achterberg, 2013; Shi, 2013). Given the high prevalence rates of trauma exposure, it is very likely that forensic psychologists will find themselves involved in civil or criminal matters involving the assessment of an individual who has experienced at least one significant traumatic event. Although ethical practice is critical in all aspects of forensic practice, evaluating individuals who have experienced complex trauma can present some unique difficulties that are important for psychologists to understand. This paper will address those ethical considerations that are critical for any forensic evaluation, as well as discuss how repeated trauma can increase the complexity of forensic practice.

Roles of Forensic Psychologists

Forensic psychologists can and frequently do perform varied roles at the point of intersection between psychology and the law, and there is a myriad of ways in which a forensic psychologist can be called upon to provide specialized expertise in the areas of trauma, complex trauma, and dissociation. A forensic evaluator will conduct an independent psychological evaluation in order to obtain information in response to a specific psycho-legal question (Dalenberg et al., 2017). The evaluator may then be asked to prepare a written report and /or to provide testimony about that evaluation and their expert opinions. For example, in civil contexts, they may be asked to evaluate a plaintiff who has alleged compensable injury as a result of a traumatic event or series of events. In this example, the evaluator may be asked to assess the individual’s prior level of functioning, the impact of the traumatic events, and the extent of harm, or damages incurred as a result (Foote & Lareau, 2013). Forensic evaluators may also be asked to determine the time at which an individual reasonably knew or should have known about a connection between a traumatic event or events and any alleged resulting injuries. In criminal cases, forensic evaluators may be called upon to assess an individual’s state of mind at the time of an alleged offense and to opine about the possible impact of traumatic events on that person’s state of mind. At sentencing hearings, forensic psychologists could be asked to evaluate an individual’s history to identify any potential traumatic events that could be used as mitigating factors.

In both civil and criminal matters, psychological experts may also be retained to provide scientific framework testimony about relevant psychological issues without having evaluated an individual client. This is often referred to as providing “general scientific testimony” about topics within an individual’s general area of scientific expertise. For example, an expert witness who has not performed an evaluation of an individual may be asked to assist the trier of fact by presenting scientific data pertaining to issues such as the prevalence of trauma, the psychological and physical consequences of trauma, traumatic memory, dissociation, grooming behavior, or issues related to predictions of risk and/or dangerousness (Brand et al., 2016; Frankel, 2009). They may also provide valuable information about ways in which an individual’s experiences of traumatic events may influence their participation with the legal system or may influence the ways in which they tell their story. The role of the evaluating expert and the expert providing scientific framework testimony is to provide independent scientific information about specific topics to the trier of fact that falls within an area of the witness’s demonstrated area of expertise (American Psychological Association, [APA], 2013; Melton et al., 2018).

In other instances, forensic psychologists are hired as consultants to work with attorneys as part of their legal team, and in those circumstances, there is no expectation that the psychologist will conduct an evaluation or provide expert testimony. Rather, the psychologist works to assist the attorneys with their presentation and execution of their client’s case. (Dalenberg et al., 2017). They may be called upon to assist the attorney with understanding the scientific literature related to trauma exposure or to help the attorney to make sense of a traumatized individual’s behaviors. Irrespective of the role the forensic psychologist has in a particular matter, it is critical that they adhere to ethical principles and standards of practice. They must be prepared to respond professionally to the professional challenges that may arise in the context of a forensic evaluation generally and a forensic evaluation involving trauma, complex trauma, and/or dissociation more specifically.

Ethical and Professional Considerations

When working as forensic psychologists, as in all areas of professional work, psychologists are expected to conform their behavior to the APA Ethics Code, the most recent version of which was developed in 2002 and revised in 2010 and 2017 (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). While the APA Ethics Code applies to all psychology specialty areas, including Forensic Psychology (Bush, Connell, & Denney, 2020), certain sections of the code may be relevant for forensic practice, generally, and forensic assessment involving complex trauma, more specifically. The Code is composed of an Introduction, a Preamble, General Principles A-E, and specific Ethical Standards. The Preamble and General Principles of the Code, in contrast to the Standards, are aspirational in nature. “Their intent is to guide and inspire psychologists toward the very highest ethical ideals of the profession” (APA, 2017, p. 3). The General Principles are not meant to be obligatory in nature but rather provide an overall context for ethical behavior. The second section of the Code consists of specific standards for ethical behavior which are “enforceable rules for conduct as psychologists” (APA, 2017, p. 3).

In addition to the APA Ethics Code, Forensic Psychologists can seek guidance from the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Practice (APA, 2013). These guidelines were originally developed and published in 1991 and have been revised and updated along with continuing developments in the field (APA, 1991, 2013). The Guidelines specifically state “The goals of these Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (‘the Guidelines’) are to improve the quality of forensic psychological services; enhance the practice of forensic psychology; encourage a high level of quality in professional practice; and encourage forensic practitioners to acknowledge and respect the rights of those they serve” (APA, 2013, p. 11). Although the Guidelines are informed by the APA Ethics Code, they are advisory in nature, and are aspirational in intent. They are not meant to be used as standards, nor are they intended to be mandatory or exhaustive.

In addition to the APA Ethics Code and Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, forensic psychologists should also take into account the information, guidelines, and standards that have been developed, adopted, or endorsed by scientific and professional organizations within their areas of specialization (Bush et al., 2020). For example, within the areas of forensic assessment of complex trauma, forensic psychologists should be thoroughly familiar with the relevant guidelines related to complex trauma and PTSD (Cloitre et al., 2012; International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation [ISSTD], 2011).

Many of the ethical issues inherent in a forensic evaluation involving complex trauma and dissociation are common to forensic psychological practice. In the following sections, these ethical challenges and professional considerations and the specific applicable sections of the APA Ethics Code and the corresponding section of the Specialty Guidelines will be reviewed. Wherever appropriate, specific applications to the forensic assessment of complex trauma and dissociation will be highlighted and explored.

Competence

When initially contacted by an attorney, the forensic psychologist must clarify the referral question to determine if the questions asked fall within the evaluator’s areas of expertise and if an evaluation is likely to be able to determine the answers to the questions posed. When undertaking an examination, it is incumbent upon the evaluator to ensure they have the requisite skills, training, and level of competence to conduct the evaluation and provide answers to the relevant psycho-legal questions. Standard 2.01 (a) of the APA Ethics Code states “Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience” (APA, 2017). Guideline 2.01 of the Specialty Guidelines similarly emphasizes the need for assessing one’s competence:

When determining one’s competence to provide services in a particular matter, forensic practitioners may consider a variety of factors including the relative complexity and specialized nature of the service, relevant training and experience, the preparation and study they are able to devote to the matter, and the opportunity for consultation with a professional of established competence in the subject matter in question. (APA, 2013, p. 9).

Few mental health practitioners have received systematic training in the assessment and treatment of trauma and its effects, and even fewer have received training in the area of complex trauma and dissociation (Brand, 2016). Within the specialized areas of trauma, complex trauma, and dissociation, forensic psychologists should therefore seek out relevant training and supervision in the area of trauma psychology and have expertise in the psychological assessment of complex trauma, dissociation, and its effects as well as training and expertise in the area of forensic psychology more generally (Brand, 2016; Brand, Schielke, & Brams, 2017a; Dalenberg et al., 2017). Minimally, forensic psychologists engaged in this work will need to be well versed in the scientific literature pertaining to matters related to following content areas.

Prevalence and Incidence of Traumatic Stress

Although the incidence of traumatic events is high, the prevalence of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder following a traumatic event is relatively low. For example, Kilpatrick and colleagues found that lifetime, past 12-month, and past 6-month prevalence of PTSD was 8.3%, 4.7%, and 3.8% respectively (2013). In spite of the relatively low incidence of PTSD among trauma survivors, individuals who have experienced traumatic events are likely to be overrepresented within forensic settings. For example, Dalenberg et al. (2017) contacted two large law firms in California in 2016 and found that the attorneys estimated that over 80% of law suits included allegations of trauma. Claims of emotional injury involving pain and suffering can be raised in cases involving harassment, discrimination, rape and sexual assault, personal injury, and disability. In these cases, forensic psychologists are frequently called upon to assess the impact and emotional damage resulting from a specific traumatic event or events and may need to opine about the relative impact and sequelae of a number of traumatic events that have occurred over the course of an individual’s lifetime. It is also important to understand that many of the prevalence studies do not evaluate the frequency with which a particular trauma happened, with many reporting the number of categories rather than how many instances of a particular trauma are present (see Bailey & Brown this issue).

Revictimization

Given that childhood victimization has been found to increase vulnerability for subsequent revictimization (Classen, Palesh, & Aggarwal, 2005; Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2008), forensic psychologists may also be asked to assess the impact of traumatic events that have occurred during adulthood when there is also a prior history of other traumatic events (See Brown, this issue, for further discussion.). They may also need to address the sequelae of traumatic events that have occurred during childhood and draw conclusions about ways in which those traumatic events have impacted the individual’s life trajectory. Within the criminal arena, forensic psychologists may be called upon to assess the impact of traumatic events on an individual’s state of mind at the time a crime occurred or to help to explain their behavior during of following the commission of an alleged criminal act. They may also be asked to elaborate upon the presence of traumatic events as mitigating factors to be taken into account during sentencing. However, it is important to note that much of the research has been completed on single-incident trauma survivors and, therefore, may not well represent individuals with repeated and/or ongoing trauma exposure.

Complex Trauma

Complex trauma is trauma involving harm or abandonment by caregivers that occurs during a developmentally vulnerable time period in an individual’s life, especially during childhood, and that involves repetitive or prolonged exposure to multiple traumatic stressors that is perpetrated by caregivers over a prolonged period (Courtois & Ford, 2013). Exposure to this type of repeated trauma has been shown to increase the likelihood of chronic and complex issues, as well as significantly increased risk for further victimization (Briere, Agee, & Dietrich, 2016; Briere, Kaltman, & Greene, 2008; Cloitre et al., 2011; Courtois & Ford, 2013; Herman, 1992). The proposed clinical syndrome describing the constellation of difficulties experienced by adults who were severely and repeatedly traumatized during childhood is referred to as complex posttraumatic stress disorder (cPTSD) (Courtois, 2008; Herman, 1992). A study of the prevalence of complex PTSD as defined in the ICD-11 found prevalence rates of 0.6% in a representative community sample of US adults and 13% in a sample of US trauma exposed military veterans (Wolf et al., 2015).

Authors have conceptualized cPTSD as “involving pathological dissociation; emotion dysregulation; somatization, and altered core schemas about the self, relationships, and sustaining beliefs (i.e., morality, spirituality) in the aftermath of exposure to traumatic interpersonal victimization” (van Dijke, Ford, Frank, & van der Hart, 2015, p. 429). In their book on the treatment of complex trauma, Courtois and Ford describe the ways that complex trauma can result in major changes in the following “seven key domains of an individual’s development: emotional regulation, memory, attention, and consciousness, self-perception, perceptions of the perpetrator, relationships with others, somatic symptoms and/or medical problems, and sense of meaning in self, others, and the world” (Courtois & Ford, 2013. In a literature review, Bailey and Brand (2017) have further delineated the connections among and between childhood traumatic events and the development of enduring and severe sequalae, including cPTSD and dissociation. It is critical that forensic evaluators are aware of the connection between trauma and dissociation because individuals who have been diagnosed with cPTSD have been found to experience trauma-related dissociation with more severity and frequency than other populations (Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b; Hyland, Shevlin, Fyvie, Cloitre, & Karatzias, 2019).

Dissociation

Dissociation is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed) as “a disruption and/or discontinuity in the normal integration of consciousness, memory, identity, emotion, perception, body representation, motor control, and behavior” (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013, p. 291). It is often conceptualized as an adaptive response designed to assist with coping with trauma when physical escape is not possible (Dalenberg et al., 2012). Although dissociation can be present in a variety of clinical presentations, such as somatic, substance use, and psychotic disorders, it is most commonly related to trauma (Bailey, Boyer, & Brand, 2018; Lyssenko et al., 2018). Dissociative disorders are more prevalent than is commonly realized (See Bailey et al., 2018; Bailey & Brand, 2017; Loewenstein, 2018). In his recent review, Loewenstein (2018) found prevalence rates in the general population ranging from 9.1 to 18.3% and prevalence rates in clinical populations ranging from 4.6 to 48% across diverse samples. Given that dissociation has been associated with a range of functional impairments, as well as poor prognosis and lower quality of life, it is particularly important that forensic evaluators involved in the assessment of trauma also assess for dissociative symptoms (Brand, Schielke, & Brams, 2017a; Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b; Frankel, 2009). Assessment of complex trauma and dissociation in a forensic context is a highly specialized area that requires expertise and training in both forensic psychology and trauma psychology (Brand, 2016; Dalenberg et al., 2017). Unfortunately, there is an overall lack of training and education about trauma and dissociation, and the information is often missing or inaccurate in many psychology textbooks and training programs (Courtois & Gold, 2009).

Cultural Competence

Within the context of complex trauma and cPTSD, issues pertaining to cultural competency and diversity must be attended to, particularly when the examiner and evaluee are from different ethnic, socioeconomic, and/or racial backgrounds. Principle E of the APA Ethics Code states that:

Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people…. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factor… (APA, 2017, p. 4).

When evaluating a trauma survivor, the evaluator must also attend to the ways in which that individual’s cultural background is impacted by and impacts their experiences of the alleged traumatic events and their interactions with the legal system. As outlined by Brown, “Responding to trauma in a culturally competent manner requires the psychotherapist to understand how those added meanings that derive from context and identity make each instance of trauma unique” (Brown, 2008, p. 4). In addition, various aspects of identity can increase the likelihood of experiencing a traumatic event and developing dissociative symptoms, particularly when an individual identifies with a group that is relatively disempowered within the dominant culture (Bailey et al., 2018). Sensitivity and understanding are similarly required in a forensic context, especially when there is a need to delineate the specific impact and potential harm experienced as a result of a traumatic event. Forensic psychologists must also be aware of the power imbalance inherent in the relationship between psychologist and evaluee and the ways in which that power imbalance may impact the evaluee’s behavior and state of mind throughout the evaluation (Bailey et al., 2018)

Potential Role Conflicts

As described earlier, forensic psychologists can take on a variety of roles when working within the legal system, including evaluators, scientific framework experts providing general scientific testimony, and consultants (Bush et al., 2020; Gottlieb & Coleman 2012). While both types of testifying experts, evaluators and scientific framework experts, speak with attorneys and educate them about trauma and dissociation, their role is to provide independent and scientifically informed information rather than advocacy. They should be free of conflicts, and their opinions should not vary depending upon the retaining party. In contrast, a forensic psychologist hired as a consultant may be retained to work with the legal team to assist with their preparation and execution of their side of the case, and there is no expectation that they will evaluate the individual or provide testimony. In their capacity as forensic consultants, they may work with the legal team to assist them in their understanding of the psycho-legal issues and in evaluating opposing expert depositions and reports. They may also assist with legal strategy such as jury selection and preparation of questions for deposition or direct or cross examination of witnesses. However, in this role, they do not provide expert witness testimony or conduct evaluations. They are considered a member of the legal advocacy team and do not have the same expectations of independence and objectivity as those providing expert testimony.

It is also critical to understand the distinctions between clinical and forensic roles (Greenberg & Shuman, 1997). In their influential article, Greenberg and Shuman enumerate ten specific differences between clinical and forensic roles and outline the numerous ethical difficulties and conflicts that interfere with the ability of a clinician’s ability to offer a forensic opinion about their client. They highlight the necessity of respecting these role differences and argue convincingly that ignoring the role conflict jeopardizes both the therapeutic and forensic endeavors for the patient as well as the rights of all involved parties. Since this article’s publication, there has also been increased awareness of the ethical challenges presented when forensic psychologists are asked to assume a clinical role after the conclusion of the legal matter (Drogin 2019; Melton et al., 2018).

The importance of paying attention to potential role conflicts is similarly emphasized in APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05: “A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist” (APA, 2017, p. 6). Similarly, Guideline 4.02 of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, states that “A multiple relationship occurs when a forensic practitioner is in a professional role with a person and, at the same time or at a subsequent time, is in a different role with the same person” (APA, 2013, p. 11). Guideline 4.02.01 further states that “Providing forensic and therapeutic psychological services to the same individual or closed related individuals involves multiple relationships that may impair objectivity and/or cause exploitation or other harm” (APA, 2013, p. 11).

When conducting any forensic evaluation, it is essential to clarify the forensic psychologist’s role in the case and to determine “who is the client?” Unlike in clinical settings, the person being evaluated in a forensic evaluation is not the client and is not the individual (or agency) to whom the psychologist owes the primary responsibility. One must therefore first ascertain who the individual client is. In most civil evaluations, the client will be an attorney, either for the defense or for the plaintiff. However, the client could also be the court, in cases of a court-ordered evaluation. At the time of the initial contact with the retaining party, the forensic psychologist should also determine who is involved in the case in order to identify any potential conflicts (Foote & Lareau, 2013). Ethics Code Standard 3.06 also clarifies obligations related to conflict of interest and Standard 3.07 deals with third-party requests for services (APA, 2017). Ensuring that the role of the evaluator is clearly explained is even more critical when evaluating a trauma survivor because they frequently present difficulties with establishing trust, particularly when a power differential is present (Courtois and Ford 2009).

The interpersonal nature of complex trauma and the inherent violations of trust and safety involved make it particularly important that forensic psychologists evaluating complex trauma and dissociation maintain clear and consistent boundaries and be wary of potential role conflicts in their work in order to avoid doing further harm (Dalenberg et al., 2017). In addition, the evaluator may need to clarify these critical distinctions between therapist and expert and the problems associated with role conflicts with attorneys; in this writer’s experience, attorneys often mistakenly believe that a therapist is the “best” person to testify on behalf of their clients and benefit from education about why these roles should not be blurred.

Legal and Jurisdictional Issues

In addition to identifying potential conflicts, psychologists need to be certain that they are able to practice in the jurisdiction of the case. Licensure laws vary from state to state, as do the requirements and permissions related to temporary practice and the issue of practicing forensic psychology in states where one is not licensed is controversial (Heilbrun, Grisso, & Goldstein, 2009). While many states do allow for limited temporary practice, a significant minority of states do not (Tucillo, DeFilippis, Denney, & Dsurney, 2002). Standard 2.01(f) of the Ethics Code requires that “When assuming forensic roles, psychologists are or become reasonable familiar with the judicial or administrative rules governing their roles” (APA, 2017, p. 5). Similarly, Specialty Guideline 2.04 states:

Forensic practitioners recognize the importance of obtaining a fundamental and reasonable level of knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional standards, laws, rules and precedents that govern their participation in legal proceedings and that guide the impact of their services on service recipients (APA, 2013, p. 9).

Given the specialized nature of the forensic assessment of trauma and dissociation, and the relative lack of training in this area, psychologists who have that specialization may find themselves contacted by attorneys from multiple jurisdictions. It is therefore imperative that practicing forensic psychologists are aware of the laws that apply in the jurisdictions in which they intend to practice; however, information regarding temporary practice can be vague and difficult to obtain (Shuman, Cunningham, Connell, & Reid, 2003). It is therefore recommended that the forensic evaluator contact the licensing board of the state in which they intend to conduct an evaluation if they are not licensed in that jurisdiction.

Fees and Engagement Agreement

The specific terms of the engagement agreement between the hiring party (generally the attorney) and the psychologist should be clearly delineated, ideally, in writing. Guideline 4.01 of the Specialty Guidelines states that:

At the initiation of any request for service, forensic practitioners seek to clarify the nature of the relationship and the services to be provided including the role of the forensic practitioner… ; which person or entity is the client; the probable uses of the services provided or information obtained; and any limitations to privacy, confidentiality, or privilege (APA, 2013, p. 11).

Similarly, the Ethics Code Standard 3.07 states that “When psychologists agree to provide services to a person or entity at the request of a third party, psychologists attempt to clarify at the outset of the service the nature of the relationship withal individuals or organizations involved” (APA, 2017, p. 6). The engagement agreement should specifically address the components of the evaluation, the fee agreement, and the timeframe. Specialty Guidelines 5.01 and 5.02 specifically deal with determination of fees and the need to clarify with the client the likely cost of services, respectively (APA, 2013, p. 12). The attorney should also be given guidance regarding the anticipated total time required for the evaluation and for writing a report, if needed.

Clients who are severely traumatized and experiencing symptoms of dissociation may require a longer period of time in order to adequately review their histories. In particular, clients who have experienced multiple episodes of trauma beginning in early childhood will likely have more complex and lengthier relevant background information that will need to be reviewed and potentially documented in a report. In addition, given the potentially triggering nature of the information being reviewed, when possible, evaluees may benefit from multiple, shorter appointments rather than one long meeting for the evaluation. The complex nature of these evaluations can therefore add significantly to the time required for an evaluation of complex trauma and dissociation, and this will need to be explicitly discussed with the retaining party prior to the evaluation.

Although the Ethics Code does not specifically refer to the issue of payment on a contingent basis, Specialty Guideline 5.02 specifies that “Because of the threat to impartiality presented by acceptance of contingent fees and associated legal prohibitions, forensic practitioners strive to avoid providing professional services on the basis of contingent fees” (APA, 2013, p. 12).

The specifics of the engagement agreement should also take into account the relevant legal requirements per the laws in the specific jurisdiction, for example, federal law generally requires production of a report, as do evaluations conducted of plaintiffs by forensic examiners retained by defense counsel (Melton et al., 2018).

Multiple Sources of Information

In keeping with Forensic Guideline 9.02 which states that “Forensic practitioners ordinarily avoid relying solely on one source of data, and corroborate important data whenever feasible” (APA, 2013, p. 15), a comprehensive forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) requires multiple sources of information (Heilbrun et al., 2009). The psychologist should make it clear to the retaining party at the outset of the evaluation that they will require access to all documents pertaining to the case and will need to conduct collateral interviews as part of the evaluation. The evaluator should not only take care to thoroughly review all documents provided but will also need to request specific other documents. For example, when evaluating damages following a traumatic event or series of events, the evaluator will need to review independent sources of information regarding the individuals’ prior and current level of functioning (Foote & Lareau, 2013). Such documentation may include, but is not limited to, school records, employment records and performance evaluations, any prior psychological testing, psychotherapy and medical records, arrest and prison records, and possibly records related to involvement with foster care or the state’s department of children, youth, and families.

The evaluator will also need to identify individuals who have potentially useful information with whom to conduct collateral interviews. Specialty Guideline 8.03 states that “Forensic practitioners strive to access information or records from collateral sources with the consent of the relevant attorney or the relevant party…” (APA, 2013, p. 14). In matters involving the assessment of complex trauma, these individuals will typically include those who have known the evaluee over a long period of time, ideally before, during, and after the alleged incidents, as well as individuals who can provide information about the individuals previous and current levels of functioning and performance (Foote & Lareau, 2013). These individuals may include parents, siblings, other family members, friends, coworkers, supervisors, therapists, and mentors, among others. The individuals contacted for collateral interviews should be asked about their observations of the evaluee’s performance, functioning and symptoms, as well as any other relevant information they are able to provide (Foote & Lareau, 2013). However, particularly when interviewing family members, it is also critical to understand that some of these individuals may be perpetrators of past or ongoing trauma, even if the evaluee is not willing to discuss this with the examiner.

Informed Consent and Limits of Confidentiality

Once the evaluator has reviewed relevant documents and discovery materials, upon meeting with the evaluee, it is essential to obtain informed consent. The APA Ethics code 3.10(c) specifies that psychologists must obtain informed consent and that when services are court ordered or otherwise mandated, “psychologists inform the individual of the nature of the anticipated services, including whether the services are court ordered or mandated and any limits of confidentiality, before proceeding.” Standard 3.10(d) further specifies that consent must be appropriately documented (APA, 2017, p. 7). Standard 9.03 clarifies issues pertaining to the informed consent process in assessments (APA, 2017, p. 13). Consent should be obtained in writing and it is essential that the individual being evaluated understand fully the process of the evaluation, the role of the evaluator, the limits of confidentiality, and the differences between a forensic evaluation and treatment. The process should also delineate clearly how the information will be utilized and to whom it will be provided.

Standard 4 of the Ethics Code specifies the obligation of psychologists to “take reasonable precautions to protect confidential information” and to discuss with persons “the relevant limits of confidentiality” and the “foreseeable uses of the information generated” (APA, 2017, p. 7). This informed consent process should also be repeated when conducting any collateral interviews, as it is essential that any person with whom the forensic evaluator interacts understand the purpose of the interview and the limits of confidentiality.

When evaluating individuals who have experienced complex trauma, and who may be exhibiting symptoms of dissociation, it is particularly important to keep in mind that issues related to informed consent may need to be addressed frequently over the course of the evaluation. In addition, forensic psychologists will need to take into account the pacing of the evaluation, and ensure that the individual being evaluated understands the nature of the questions that will be asked, and the information that will be discussed. Further, the evaluee should be prepared for the potential difficulty of the evaluation, given the need to disclose trauma-related information in a time-limited setting (Dalenberg et al., 2017).

Use of Appropriate Assessment Tools

The APA Ethics Code and Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology both include statements emphasizing the importance of using assessment tools that are appropriate for assessing the matter at hand. Standard 9.01 emphasizes the need to base opinions “on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings, and Standard 2.04 states that “Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” (APA, 2017, pp. 12, 09). Specialty Guideline 9.01 states that “Forensic practitioners strive to utilize appropriate methods and procedures in their work” (APA, 2013, p. 14), and Specialty Guideline 10.02 states that “Forensic practitioners use assessment procedures in the manner and for the purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of their usefulness and proper application” (APA, 2013, p. 15).

In the case of the forensic assessment of complex trauma and dissociation, the evaluator generally includes assessment tools that are global measures of personality and potentially cognitive functioning, as well as assessment tools that are trauma specific (Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b; Brown, 2009; Dalenberg et al., 2017). When using general measures of personality, such as the PAI or the MMPI, the psychologist must be well versed in the ways in which trauma survivors respond to these measures, both on validity and on clinical scales (Brand et al., in press; Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b; Brown, 2009; Eakin, Weathers, Benson, Anderson, & Funderburk, 2005; Lange, Sullivan, & Scott, 2010). In accordance with Ethical Standards 9.08 and 9.09, tests utilized should be current, and if test scoring and interpretation services are utilized, the psychologist must ensure that the interpretations are based upon accurate data and norms that have been validated for use with the population being evaluated (APA, 2017).

In addition to the use of general measures, a competent and ethical forensic evaluation of trauma and dissociation will need to include measures that specifically evaluate these traumatic experiences and symptoms (Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b; Brown, 2009; Dalenberg et al., 2017; Foote & Lareau, 2013; Frankel, 2009). Careful selection of these trauma-specific measures will assist the evaluator in using measures appropriately normed and validated and those that have demonstrated efficacy in evaluating trauma-related symptomatology. Several of these, such as the TSI-2, also contain validity measures. All instruments utilized should of course be carefully and properly scored using appropriate norms.

In any forensic evaluation, where there may be external motivation to either exaggerate or minimize symptoms and psychopathology, it is essential that the possibility of malingering and overall response style both be carefully evaluated (Heilbrun et al., 2009; Melton et al., 2018). There have been many articles written about the assessment of malingering in trauma survivors, and it is essential that the evaluator ensure that they are using measures that have been appropriately normed and validated in traumatized populations (Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b; Brand, Tursich, Tzall, & Loewenstein, 2014; Brown, 2009; Rogers, Payne, Correa, Gillard, & Ross, 2009). In addition, it is critical that forensic evaluators be aware of ways in which the responses of complex trauma survivors can appear to be exaggerated or feigned (Brown, 2009).

Record Keeping

Over the course of the evaluation, the evaluator should take care to keep careful and accurate records. They will need to make note of both what is observed throughout the evaluation and what is reported by the evaluee, and these behavioral observations should be accurately labelled as such (Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b; Dalenberg et al., 2017; Foote & Lareau, 2013; Heilbrun et al., 2009; Melton et al., 2018). In addition, it is critical that the evaluator retain a copy of the engagement agreement with the attorney, carefully and thoroughly document everything reviewed as part of the evaluation, and maintain a complete record of all testing and notes taken during the evaluation.

Brand and colleagues (Brand, Schielke, & Brams, 2017a) and Brown (2009) provide guidance on the importance of recording observations, particularly when assessing an individual who has experienced complex trauma and dissociation. This recommendation is consistent with the Ethics Code Standard 6.01 regarding documentation of professional work and records maintenance (APA, 2017, p. 9), and with Specialty Guideline 10.06 which states that “Forensic practitioners are encouraged to recognize the importance of documenting all data they consider with enough detail and quality to allow for reasonable judicial scrutiny and adequate discover by all parties” (APA, 2013, p. 16). The evaluator will also likely be required to provide a copy of their entire file to the court and to the opposing attorneys.

Finally, when preparing and copying the record, attention should be given to the maintenance of test security in accordance with Ethics Code Standard 9.11 which specifies the need for maintaining test security (APA, 2017), as well as any copyright regulations pertaining to the test materials being replicated.

Impact of Trauma Exposure on the Individual Being Evaluated and the Evaluator

Additional areas for consideration that are specific to a forensic evaluation involving the assessment of complex trauma and dissociation include awareness of ways in which the evaluee’s individual history and experiences may impact them throughout the course of the evaluation (Brand, Schielke, & Brams, 2017a; Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b; Dalenberg et al., 2017). For example, victims of complex trauma may have significant difficulties with trust and with feelings of shame, and may rely upon coping strategies such as minimization, denial, or avoidance, that could significantly impact their responses during the evaluation (Dalenberg et al., 2017).

The very nature of a forensic evaluation requires review of a great deal of potentially traumatic information over a very brief period, often only 1–2 days. This type of intense exposure can be potentially overwhelming for the individual being evaluated. As a result, the evaluator needs to pay attention to the pacing of the evaluation and may need to offer frequent breaks. In addition, the evaluator needs to pay attention to the ways in which the individual being evaluated in responding to questions and to the degree to which they are present and grounded. They will need to work to help the individual being evaluated remain within a window of affect tolerance, in order to maximize the quality and accuracy of the data being gathered (Brand, Schielke, & Brams, 2017a; Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b). This may seemingly put the forensic evaluator at odds with the role of the forensic evaluator as an objective investigator, and the evaluator must take care not to blur their role between forensic evaluator and treating clinician. However, a competent forensic assessment will require use of both clinical and assessment skills, particularly when evaluating a survivor of complex trauma. In many circumstances, the evaluee may be in therapy, and it is prudent to request that the therapist be “on call” and available to the individual to assist them with issues related to safety, stabilization, and distress tolerance during and following the evaluation. In those circumstances where the evaluee is incarcerated, it is helpful to consider that overt distress can make someone a target and ensure that there is sufficient time to help the individual regulate before returning to their cell.

It is also important to be aware of and to communicate with the retaining attorney the ways that the trauma survivor’s experiences may impact their interactions with the legal system as well as their response to the demands of the evaluation and to testifying. For example, individuals with cPTSD may be very hesitant to discuss or even to disclose their experiences to their attorneys, and their use psychological defenses such as minimization, compartmentalization, or denial may make it more difficult for their attorneys to successfully advocate on their behalf. In addition, difficulties with emotional regulation and management of impulses, as well as engagement in high-risk behaviors such as self-injury or substance use, may also interfere with their interactions with the legal system (Brand, Schielke, & Brams, 2017a; Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b). Judges and juries may have difficulty understanding the apparent lack of emotional response of an individual who is testifying about their experiences, and the testifying forensic expert will need to clearly explain the individual’s behavior in a way that helps the triers of fact make sense of what they are seeing.

In addition to attending to the impact of the evaluation on the individual being evaluated, a significant component of competency for the forensic evaluation of complex trauma involves an awareness of how the demands and content of the evaluation will impact the evaluator. Standard 2.06(a) and 2.06(b) of the Ethics Code state that psychologists should not initiate professional activities when they know or should know that their personal problems will interfere with performance and that when experiencing personal problems with the potential to interfere with competency, they “take appropriate measures such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance and determine whether they should limit , suspend, or terminate their work-related duties” (APA, 2017, p. 5).

The nature of a forensic assessment of complex trauma and its effects is such that the evaluator will be exposed to explicit details about traumatic events and their effects in a relatively brief period of time. In addition, the evaluator will not have the benefits of eliciting the information in the context of a therapeutic relationship that occurs over time, which may increase vulnerability to vicarious traumatization. Vicarious traumatization, which is distinct from burnout and compassion fatigue, can produce in the evaluator (or therapist) the same symptoms experienced by the trauma survivor (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995; Saakvitne & Pearlman, 1996). Similarly, Dalenberg (2000) addresses the impact of countertransference on the therapist’s ability to hear and understand what the trauma survivor is trying to communicate. Considering the risks of vicarious traumatization and their potential negative impact on the psychologist and on the forensic evaluation, it is imperative that the forensic evaluator engage in self-care. Clinician self-care can include things such as diet, exercise, sleep, and time off, as well as consultation and personal therapy (Frankel, 2017; Saakvitne & Pearlman, 1996).

Report Writing and Testimony

Following the completion of the evaluation, the forensic psychologist will typically provide feedback to the retaining party and may then be required or asked to prepare a written report. The report should carefully describe the assessment process and the bases for the conclusions made. As highlighted by Brand and colleagues (Brand, Schielke, & Brams, 2017a; Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017b), in the context of the forensic assessment of complex trauma and dissociation, it is particularly important that the forensic psychologist be prepared to present accurate information in a manner that is both readily comprehensible and evidence-based. The psychologist should also be prepared to dispel myths and correct mis-information, and to present all information in a scientifically informed manner.

In accordance with Ethical Standard 9.01(a) “Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings” (APA, 2017, pp. 12–13). The evaluator should be certain to limit their conclusions to those results supported by the evaluation, and not go beyond the data when explaining assessment results. As specified in Specialty Guideline 11.02, care should also be taken to carefully “distinguish observations, inferences, and conclusions. Forensic practitioners are encouraged to explain the relationship between their expert opinions and the legal issues and facts of the case at hand” (APA, 2013, p. 16).

The evaluator may also experience pressure from the retaining attorney to add or to withhold statements that the attorney sees as potentially damaging or disadvantageous to their client. This is especially true when the plaintiff has a long and extensive history of complex trauma, and the attorney is concerned that discussion of the individual’s past trauma could be harmful to the case. It is critical that the forensic psychologist make it clear to the attorney that all relevant history will need to be explored and disclosed, and that the psychologist’s role is to provide an independent evaluation, not an advocacy report. The psychologist should be guided by the Ethical principle B of Fidelity and Responsibility as well as Principle C: Integrity in adhering to the standard 5.01 regarding the avoidance of false or deceptive statements (APA, 2017). In addition, Specialty Guidelines 11.01 and 11.04 provide guidance regarding accuracy, fairness and avoidance of deception and comprehensive and accurate presentation of opinions in reports respectively (American Psychological Association, 2013).

Conclusions

This article has highlighted key ethical and professional considerations in a forensic psychological evaluation generally and more specifically in the assessment of complex trauma and dissociation. In particular, the recognition of trauma psychology and forensic psychology as specialized areas of practice has been emphasized. Therefore, forensic practitioners who wish to evaluate victims of complex trauma and trauma specialists who wish to become involved with forensic practice both will require specialized training, education, and professional consultation, as well as ongoing continuing education in order to maintain the requisite competencies. Forensic practitioners need to remain aware of the relevant laws and regulations governing the jurisdictions in which they intend to practice and remain aware of potential role conflicts. In addition, the need for cultural competency as well as an ongoing awareness of ways that exposure to trauma will impact the individual being evaluated and their participation in the legal system as well as the forensic psychologist are essential. Forensic psychologists should rely upon evidence-based and trauma-informed assessment tools and make use of multiple data sources when conducting evaluations. Knowledge and comfort with the appropriate use of measures specific to trauma and dissociation as well as awareness of the ways in which complex trauma survivors that respond to broad-based measures are also essential. An evaluator who attends to these ethical and professional considerations can contribute greatly to the field of forensic psychology. As concluded by Dalenberg et al., “Taking into account the devastating consequences that trauma can produce, as well as the resilience of the human spirit, the forensic evaluator can help the court come to a just and balanced solution in civil and criminal matters” (2017, p. 556).

Professionals in psychology, mental health, research, and public policy increasingly recognize that traumatic experiences are common and often linked to various trauma-related disorders. Studies show that a high percentage of adults have experienced at least one traumatic event, with many experiencing multiple types of trauma. While these rates are significant in the general population, they are even higher among clinical patients. Given how often people encounter trauma, forensic psychologists will likely work on civil or criminal cases where individuals have experienced significant traumatic events. Ethical practice is always important in forensic work, but evaluating individuals with complex trauma presents specific challenges that psychologists must understand. This document explores these ethical points crucial for forensic evaluations and discusses how repeated trauma adds to the complexity of forensic practice.

Roles of Forensic Psychologists

Forensic psychologists often serve in many roles where psychology and law meet. They are frequently asked to provide expert knowledge in areas such as trauma, complex trauma, and dissociation. A forensic evaluator conducts an independent psychological assessment to gather information for specific legal questions. This may involve preparing a written report or giving expert testimony about the evaluation findings. For instance, in civil cases, evaluators might assess a person claiming injury due to a traumatic event. This assessment would cover the individual's functioning before the trauma, the impact of the events, and the extent of harm suffered. Evaluators might also determine when a person should have known about the link between a traumatic event and alleged injuries. In criminal cases, forensic evaluators may assess a person's mental state at the time of a crime and offer opinions on how traumatic events might have influenced that state. During sentencing, forensic psychologists might review an individual's history to identify traumatic events that could be considered as factors reducing responsibility.

In both civil and criminal matters, psychological experts may also be hired to provide general scientific information about relevant psychological issues without evaluating a specific person. This is often called "general scientific testimony" and covers topics within the expert's field. For example, an expert witness who has not evaluated an individual might help those making legal decisions by presenting scientific data on issues such as how common trauma is, its psychological and physical effects, traumatic memory, dissociation, manipulative behavior, or predicting risk and dangerousness. These experts can also provide valuable information about how a person's traumatic experiences might affect their participation in the legal system or their ability to tell their story. The role of an evaluating expert and one providing general scientific testimony is to offer independent scientific information on specific topics within their proven expertise to those making legal decisions.

In other situations, forensic psychologists work as consultants with attorneys as part of their legal team. In these cases, the psychologist is not expected to conduct an evaluation or provide expert testimony. Instead, the psychologist helps attorneys present and execute their client's case. They may assist the attorney in understanding scientific literature related to trauma exposure or help them make sense of a traumatized person's behaviors. Regardless of the role, it is crucial for forensic psychologists to follow ethical principles and standards of practice. They must be prepared to respond professionally to challenges that arise in forensic evaluations generally, and more specifically, in evaluations involving trauma, complex trauma, and dissociation.

Ethical and Professional Considerations

When working as forensic psychologists, as in all professional fields, practitioners are expected to follow the APA Ethics Code. While this code applies to all areas of psychology, including forensic psychology, certain sections are particularly relevant for general forensic practice and for forensic assessments involving complex trauma. The Code includes an Introduction, Preamble, five General Principles, and specific Ethical Standards. The Preamble and General Principles are meant to inspire psychologists towards the highest ethical ideals of the profession; they are not mandatory rules but provide a framework for ethical behavior. The second part of the Code consists of specific, enforceable rules for psychologists' conduct.

In addition to the APA Ethics Code, forensic psychologists can refer to the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Practice. These guidelines aim to improve the quality and practice of forensic psychological services, encourage high standards, and remind practitioners to respect the rights of those they serve. Although these guidelines are based on the APA Ethics Code, they are advisory and aspirational, not mandatory or comprehensive.

Forensic psychologists should also consider information, guidelines, and standards developed or supported by scientific and professional organizations within their areas of specialization. For example, in the forensic assessment of complex trauma, practitioners should be very familiar with guidelines related to complex trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Many ethical issues in a forensic evaluation involving complex trauma and dissociation are common to general forensic psychological practice. The following sections will review these ethical challenges and professional considerations, along with relevant sections of the APA Ethics Code and Specialty Guidelines. Specific applications to the forensic assessment of complex trauma and dissociation will be highlighted.

Competence

When an attorney first contacts a forensic psychologist, the psychologist must clarify the reason for the referral. This helps determine if the questions asked fall within the evaluator's areas of expertise and if an evaluation can likely answer them. When undertaking an assessment, the evaluator must ensure they possess the necessary skills, training, and competence to conduct the evaluation and provide answers to the relevant legal questions. The APA Ethics Code states that psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience. The Specialty Guidelines similarly emphasize the need for assessing one's competence, considering factors like the complexity of the service, relevant training, time for study, and opportunity for consultation with an expert.

Few mental health practitioners have received systematic training in assessing and treating trauma and its effects, and even fewer have training in complex trauma and dissociation. Therefore, in these specialized areas, forensic psychologists should seek relevant training and supervision in trauma psychology. They also need expertise in the psychological assessment of complex trauma, dissociation, and its effects, as well as general training and expertise in forensic psychology. At a minimum, forensic psychologists doing this work must be well-versed in the scientific literature related to the following areas.

Prevalence and Incidence of Traumatic Stress

Although traumatic events are common, the occurrence of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after such an event is relatively low. For example, one study found lifetime, past 12-month, and past 6-month rates of PTSD to be 8.3%, 4.7%, and 3.8% respectively. Despite the relatively low rate of PTSD among trauma survivors, individuals who have experienced traumatic events are often overrepresented in forensic settings. For instance, attorneys in one study estimated that over 80% of lawsuits included allegations of trauma. Claims of emotional injury, pain, and suffering can arise in cases involving harassment, discrimination, rape, sexual assault, personal injury, and disability. In these situations, forensic psychologists are frequently asked to assess the impact and emotional damage resulting from specific traumatic events. They may also need to offer opinions on the relative impact and effects of multiple traumatic events over a person's lifetime. It is also important to understand that many studies on prevalence focus on categories of trauma rather than the number of times a specific trauma occurred.

Revictimization

Childhood victimization increases the likelihood of experiencing further trauma later in life. Therefore, forensic psychologists may need to assess the impact of traumatic events that occurred in adulthood when there is also a history of earlier traumatic events. They may also need to address the effects of traumatic events from childhood and draw conclusions about how these events have shaped an individual's life path. In criminal cases, forensic psychologists might assess how traumatic events affected a person's mental state when a crime occurred, or help explain their behavior during or after an alleged criminal act. They may also be asked to discuss traumatic events as factors that could reduce a sentence. However, it is important to note that much of the research focuses on single-incident trauma survivors, which may not accurately represent individuals with repeated or ongoing trauma exposure.

Complex Trauma

Complex trauma involves harm or abandonment by caregivers during a vulnerable developmental period, especially childhood. It refers to repetitive or prolonged exposure to multiple traumatic stressors perpetrated by caregivers over an extended time. This type of repeated trauma is known to increase the likelihood of chronic and complex issues, as well as a significantly higher risk for further victimization. The clinical syndrome describing the difficulties faced by adults severely and repeatedly traumatized during childhood is known as complex posttraumatic stress disorder (cPTSD). Studies have found cPTSD in both general community samples and samples of trauma-exposed military veterans.

Some experts describe cPTSD as involving unhealthy dissociation, difficulty regulating emotions, physical symptoms, and changed core beliefs about oneself, relationships, and fundamental values (like morality and spirituality) after experiencing traumatic interpersonal victimization. Experts also describe how complex trauma can lead to major changes in seven key areas of an individual's development: emotional regulation, memory, attention, and consciousness, self-perception, perceptions of the person who caused harm, relationships with others, physical symptoms and/or medical problems, and a sense of meaning in self, others, and the world. It is crucial for forensic evaluators to understand the link between trauma and dissociation because individuals diagnosed with cPTSD often experience trauma-related dissociation with greater severity and frequency than other populations.

Dissociation

Dissociation is defined as a disruption or break in the normal integration of consciousness, memory, identity, emotion, perception, body representation, motor control, and behavior. It is often seen as an adaptive way to cope with trauma when physical escape is not possible. Although dissociation can appear in various clinical conditions, such as somatic, substance use, and psychotic disorders, it is most commonly linked to trauma. Dissociative disorders are more common than generally understood, with prevalence rates ranging from 9.1% to 18.3% in the general population and from 4.6% to 48% in clinical populations. Since dissociation is linked to various functional impairments, poor outcomes, and lower quality of life, it is especially important for forensic evaluators assessing trauma to also assess for dissociative symptoms. Assessing complex trauma and dissociation in a forensic context is a highly specialized area requiring expertise and training in both forensic psychology and trauma psychology. Unfortunately, there is a general lack of training and education about trauma and dissociation, and information is often missing or inaccurate in many psychology textbooks and training programs.

Cultural Competence

Within the context of complex trauma and cPTSD, issues of cultural competency and diversity must be considered, especially when the examiner and the person being evaluated come from different ethnic, socioeconomic, or racial backgrounds. Principle E of the APA Ethics Code states that psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status. They consider these factors when working with members of such groups and strive to eliminate biases based on these factors from their work.

When evaluating a trauma survivor, the evaluator must also consider how the individual’s cultural background affects and is affected by their experiences of the alleged traumatic events and their interactions with the legal system. Responding to trauma in a culturally competent manner requires the psychotherapist to understand how added meanings from context and identity make each instance of trauma unique. Furthermore, various aspects of identity can increase the likelihood of experiencing a traumatic event and developing dissociative symptoms, especially when an individual belongs to a group that is less powerful within the dominant culture. Sensitivity and understanding are equally important in a forensic context, particularly when needing to describe the specific impact and potential harm resulting from a traumatic event. Forensic psychologists must also be aware of the inherent power imbalance in the relationship between psychologist and the person being evaluated, and how this imbalance might affect the individual's behavior and mental state during the evaluation.

Potential Role Conflicts

As mentioned earlier, forensic psychologists can take on various roles within the legal system, including evaluators, scientific framework experts providing general scientific testimony, and consultants. Both types of testifying experts (evaluators and scientific framework experts) speak with attorneys and educate them about trauma and dissociation. Their role is to provide independent and scientifically informed information, not to advocate. They should be free of conflicts, and their opinions should not change based on who hired them. In contrast, a forensic psychologist hired as a consultant may work with the legal team to help them prepare and execute their side of the case, with no expectation of evaluating an individual or providing testimony. In this consulting role, they might help the legal team understand legal-psychological issues and evaluate opposing expert depositions and reports. They may also assist with legal strategy, such as jury selection and preparing questions for witnesses. However, in this role, they do not provide expert witness testimony or conduct evaluations. They are considered part of the legal advocacy team and do not have the same expectations of independence and objectivity as those providing expert testimony.

It is also crucial to understand the differences between clinical and forensic roles. Experts highlight the numerous ethical difficulties and conflicts that prevent a clinician from offering a forensic opinion about their own client. They emphasize the need to respect these role differences, arguing that ignoring this conflict jeopardizes both the therapeutic and forensic efforts for the patient, as well as the rights of all involved parties. Since this issue was first discussed, there has been increased awareness of the ethical challenges when forensic psychologists are asked to take on a clinical role after a legal matter concludes.

The importance of addressing potential role conflicts is also stressed in the APA Ethics Code, which states that a psychologist should avoid entering into a multiple relationship if it could reasonably impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness. Similarly, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists define a multiple relationship as occurring when a forensic practitioner is in a professional role with a person and, at the same time or later, is in a different role with the same person. The Guidelines further state that providing both forensic and therapeutic psychological services to the same individual or closely related individuals involves multiple relationships that may impair objectivity or cause exploitation or other harm.

When conducting any forensic evaluation, it is essential to clarify the forensic psychologist's role in the case and to determine "who is the client?" Unlike clinical settings, the person being evaluated in a forensic evaluation is not the primary client, and the psychologist does not owe them the main responsibility. Therefore, one must first identify who the actual client is. In most civil evaluations, the client will be an attorney, either for the defense or for the plaintiff. However, the court could also be the client in court-ordered evaluations. At the initial contact with the hiring party, the forensic psychologist should also determine who else is involved in the case to identify any potential conflicts. The Ethics Code also clarifies obligations related to conflicts of interest and requests for services from third parties. Ensuring the evaluator's role is clearly explained is even more critical when evaluating a trauma survivor because they often struggle with building trust, especially when a power difference is present.

The interpersonal nature of complex trauma and the inherent violations of trust and safety make it especially important that forensic psychologists evaluating complex trauma and dissociation maintain clear and consistent boundaries. They must be wary of potential role conflicts in their work to avoid causing further harm. Additionally, the evaluator may need to explain these critical distinctions between a therapist and an expert, and the problems associated with blurred roles, to attorneys. In the experience of some, attorneys often mistakenly believe that a therapist is the "best" person to testify on behalf of their clients and would benefit from education about why these roles should not be merged.

Legal and Jurisdictional Issues

In addition to identifying potential conflicts, psychologists need to be sure they can practice in the specific legal jurisdiction of the case. Licensing laws vary from state to state, as do the requirements for temporary practice. Practicing forensic psychology in states where one is not licensed can be a controversial issue. While many states allow for limited temporary practice, a significant number do not. The Ethics Code requires that when taking on forensic roles, psychologists become reasonably familiar with the judicial or administrative rules governing their roles. Similarly, the Specialty Guidelines state that forensic practitioners recognize the importance of having a fundamental and reasonable understanding of the legal and professional standards, laws, rules, and precedents that govern their participation in legal proceedings and guide the impact of their services on those receiving services.

Given the specialized nature of forensic assessment of trauma and dissociation, and the relative lack of training in this area, psychologists with this specialization may be contacted by attorneys from various jurisdictions. Therefore, it is essential for practicing forensic psychologists to be aware of the laws that apply in the jurisdictions where they intend to practice. However, information regarding temporary practice can be unclear and difficult to obtain. It is recommended that forensic evaluators contact the licensing board of the state where they intend to conduct an evaluation if they are not licensed in that jurisdiction.

Fees and Engagement Agreement

The specific terms of the agreement between the hiring party (usually the attorney) and the psychologist should be clearly defined, ideally in writing. The Specialty Guidelines state that at the start of any request for service, forensic practitioners seek to clarify the nature of the relationship and the services to be provided, including the role of the forensic practitioner, who the client is, the probable uses of the services or information obtained, and any limits to privacy, confidentiality, or privilege. Similarly, the Ethics Code states that when psychologists agree to provide services at the request of a third party, they should try to clarify the nature of the relationship with all individuals or organizations involved at the outset. The engagement agreement should specifically cover the components of the evaluation, the fee structure, and the timeframe. Specialty Guidelines also deal with determining fees and clarifying the likely cost of services with the client. The attorney should also be informed about the anticipated total time needed for the evaluation and for writing a report, if required.

Clients who have experienced severe trauma and are showing symptoms of dissociation may require more time to adequately review their histories. Specifically, clients who have experienced multiple traumatic events starting in early childhood will likely have more complex and extensive background information that needs to be reviewed and possibly documented in a report. Additionally, given the potentially triggering nature of the information being reviewed, if possible, individuals being evaluated may benefit from multiple, shorter appointments rather than one long meeting for the evaluation. The complex nature of these evaluations can therefore significantly increase the time required for an evaluation of complex trauma and dissociation, and this must be explicitly discussed with the hiring party before the evaluation begins.

Although the Ethics Code does not specifically mention payment on a contingent basis, the Specialty Guidelines specify that forensic practitioners should strive to avoid providing professional services based on contingent fees because of the threat to impartiality this presents and related legal prohibitions.

The specifics of the engagement agreement should also consider relevant legal requirements according to the laws in the specific jurisdiction. For example, federal law generally requires the production of a report, as do evaluations of plaintiffs conducted by forensic examiners hired by defense counsel.

Multiple Sources of Information

In line with the Forensic Guideline that states forensic practitioners typically avoid relying solely on one source of data and corroborate important data whenever possible, a comprehensive forensic mental health assessment requires multiple sources of information. The psychologist should make it clear to the hiring party at the beginning of the evaluation that they will need access to all documents related to the case and will need to conduct interviews with other relevant individuals as part of the evaluation. The evaluator should not only thoroughly review all provided documents but also request specific other documents. For example, when assessing damages following a traumatic event or series of events, the evaluator will need to review independent sources of information regarding the individual's past and current level of functioning. Such documentation may include, but is not limited to, school records, employment records and performance evaluations, any prior psychological testing, psychotherapy and medical records, arrest and prison records, and possibly records related to involvement with foster care or child protective services.

The evaluator will also need to identify individuals who have potentially useful information for collateral interviews. The Specialty Guideline states that forensic practitioners strive to access information or records from collateral sources with the consent of the relevant attorney or party. In matters involving the assessment of complex trauma, these individuals will typically include those who have known the person being evaluated over a long period, ideally before, during, and after the alleged incidents, as well as individuals who can provide information about their previous and current levels of functioning and performance. These individuals may include parents, siblings, other family members, friends, coworkers, supervisors, therapists, and mentors, among others. Those contacted for collateral interviews should be asked about their observations of the individual's performance, functioning, and symptoms, as well as any other relevant information they can provide. However, especially when interviewing family members, it is crucial to understand that some of these individuals may have been perpetrators of past or ongoing trauma, even if the person being evaluated is unwilling to discuss this with the examiner.

Informed Consent and Limits of Confidentiality

Once the evaluator has reviewed relevant documents and discovery materials, it is essential to obtain informed consent upon meeting with the person being evaluated. The APA Ethics Code specifies that psychologists must obtain informed consent and that when services are court-ordered or mandated, psychologists inform the individual of the nature of the anticipated services, including whether they are court-ordered or mandated, and any limits of confidentiality before proceeding. It further specifies that consent must be appropriately documented. Standards also clarify issues related to the informed consent process in assessments. Consent should be obtained in writing, and it is essential that the individual being evaluated fully understands the evaluation process, the evaluator's role, the limits of confidentiality, and the differences between a forensic evaluation and treatment. The process should also clearly describe how the information will be used and to whom it will be provided.

Standard 4 of the Ethics Code outlines psychologists' obligation to "take reasonable precautions to protect confidential information" and to discuss with individuals "the relevant limits of confidentiality" and the "foreseeable uses of the information generated." This informed consent process should also be repeated when conducting any collateral interviews, as it is essential that anyone interacting with the forensic evaluator understands the purpose of the interview and the limits of confidentiality.

When evaluating individuals who have experienced complex trauma and may be exhibiting symptoms of dissociation, it is especially important to remember that issues related to informed consent may need to be addressed frequently throughout the evaluation. Additionally, forensic psychologists will need to consider the pacing of the evaluation and ensure that the individual being evaluated understands the nature of the questions that will be asked and the information that will be discussed. Furthermore, the individual should be prepared for the potential difficulty of the evaluation, given the need to disclose trauma-related information in a time-limited setting.

Use of Appropriate Assessment Tools

Both the APA Ethics Code and Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology include statements emphasizing the importance of using assessment tools appropriate for the matter at hand. The Ethics Code emphasizes the need to base opinions on information and techniques sufficient to support findings, and states that psychologists' work is based on established scientific and professional knowledge. The Specialty Guideline states that forensic practitioners strive to use appropriate methods and procedures in their work, and that they use assessment procedures in the manner and for the purposes that are appropriate based on research or evidence of their usefulness and proper application.

In the case of forensic assessment of complex trauma and dissociation, the evaluator generally includes assessment tools that measure overall personality and potentially cognitive functioning, as well as trauma-specific assessment tools. When using general measures of personality, such as the PAI or the MMPI, the psychologist must be well-versed in how trauma survivors respond to these measures, both on validity and clinical scales. In accordance with ethical standards, tests used should be current, and if test scoring and interpretation services are used, the psychologist must ensure that interpretations are based on accurate data and norms validated for the population being evaluated.

In addition to using general measures, a competent and ethical forensic evaluation of trauma and dissociation will need to include measures that specifically evaluate these traumatic experiences and symptoms. Careful selection of these trauma-specific measures will help the evaluator use measures that are appropriately normed and validated and that have shown effectiveness in evaluating trauma-related symptoms. Several of these, such as the TSI-2, also include validity measures. All instruments used should, of course, be carefully and properly scored using appropriate norms.

In any forensic evaluation, where there may be external motivation to either exaggerate or minimize symptoms and psychological problems, it is essential that the possibility of malingering and overall response style be carefully evaluated. Many articles have been written about assessing malingering in trauma survivors, and it is essential that the evaluator ensures they are using measures appropriately normed and validated in traumatized populations. Additionally, it is critical that forensic evaluators are aware of ways in which the responses of complex trauma survivors can appear exaggerated or feigned.

Record Keeping

Throughout the evaluation, the evaluator should take care to keep accurate and detailed records. They will need to note both what is observed during the evaluation and what is reported by the person being evaluated, and these behavioral observations should be accurately labeled as such. Additionally, it is critical that the evaluator retains a copy of the engagement agreement with the attorney, thoroughly documents everything reviewed as part of the evaluation, and maintains a complete record of all testing and notes taken during the evaluation.

Experts provide guidance on the importance of recording observations, particularly when assessing an individual who has experienced complex trauma and dissociation. This recommendation aligns with the Ethics Code standard regarding documentation of professional work and records maintenance, and with the Specialty Guideline that encourages forensic practitioners to document all data they consider with enough detail and quality to allow for reasonable judicial scrutiny and adequate discovery by all parties. The evaluator will also likely be required to provide a copy of their entire file to the court and to the opposing attorneys.

Finally, when preparing and copying the record, attention should be given to maintaining test security in accordance with the Ethics Code standard that specifies the need for maintaining test security, as well as any copyright regulations pertaining to the test materials being replicated.

Impact of Trauma Exposure on the Individual Being Evaluated and the Evaluator

Additional areas for consideration specific to a forensic evaluation involving the assessment of complex trauma and dissociation include awareness of how the individual's history and experiences may affect them throughout the evaluation. For example, victims of complex trauma may have significant difficulties with trust and feelings of shame, and may rely on coping strategies such as minimization, denial, or avoidance, which could significantly impact their responses during the evaluation.

The very nature of a forensic evaluation requires reviewing a great deal of potentially traumatic information in a relatively brief period, often just one to two days. This intense exposure can be overwhelming for the individual being evaluated. As a result, the evaluator needs to pay attention to the pacing of the evaluation and may need to offer frequent breaks. Additionally, the evaluator needs to observe how the individual is responding to questions and how present and grounded they are. The evaluator will need to help the individual remain within a window of emotional tolerance to maximize the quality and accuracy of the data being gathered. This may seem to conflict with the forensic evaluator's role as an objective investigator, and the evaluator must be careful not to blur their role between forensic evaluator and treating clinician. However, a competent forensic assessment will require the use of both clinical and assessment skills, particularly when evaluating a survivor of complex trauma. In many circumstances, the person being evaluated may be in therapy, and it is wise to request that the therapist be available to assist the individual with issues related to safety, stabilization, and distress tolerance during and after the evaluation. If the individual is incarcerated, it is helpful to consider that overt distress can make someone a target and ensure there is enough time to help the individual regulate before returning to their cell.

It is also important to be aware of and to communicate with the hiring attorney how the trauma survivor's experiences may impact their interactions with the legal system, their response to the demands of the evaluation, and their ability to testify. For example, individuals with cPTSD may be very hesitant to discuss or even disclose their experiences to their attorneys, and their use of psychological defenses such as minimization, compartmentalization, or denial may make it more difficult for their attorneys to successfully advocate on their behalf. Additionally, difficulties with emotional regulation and impulse control, as well as engaging in high-risk behaviors such as self-injury or substance use, may interfere with their interactions with the legal system. Judges and juries may have difficulty understanding an individual's apparent lack of emotional response when testifying about their experiences, and the testifying forensic expert will need to clearly explain the individual's behavior in a way that helps those making legal decisions understand what they are observing.

In addition to considering the impact of the evaluation on the individual being evaluated, a significant part of competence for the forensic evaluation of complex trauma involves understanding how the demands and content of the evaluation will affect the evaluator. The Ethics Code states that psychologists should not begin professional activities when they know or should know that their personal problems will interfere with performance. When experiencing personal problems with the potential to interfere with competence, they should "take appropriate measures such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance and determine whether they should limit, suspend, or terminate their work-related duties."

The nature of a forensic assessment of complex trauma and its effects is such that the evaluator will be exposed to explicit details about traumatic events and their effects in a relatively brief period. Additionally, the evaluator will not have the benefit of gathering information within a therapeutic relationship that develops over time, which may increase vulnerability to vicarious traumatization. Vicarious traumatization, which is different from burnout and compassion fatigue, can cause the evaluator (or therapist) to experience the same symptoms as the trauma survivor. Similarly, experts discuss the impact of countertransference on a therapist's ability to hear and understand what the trauma survivor is trying to communicate. Considering the risks of vicarious traumatization and its potential negative impact on the psychologist and on the forensic evaluation, it is imperative that the forensic evaluator practices self-care. Clinician self-care can include things such as diet, exercise, sleep, and time off, as well as consultation and personal therapy.

Report Writing and Testimony

Following the completion of the evaluation, the forensic psychologist will typically provide feedback to the hiring party and may then be required or asked to prepare a written report. The report should carefully describe the assessment process and the bases for the conclusions made. In the context of the forensic assessment of complex trauma and dissociation, it is particularly important that the forensic psychologist is prepared to present accurate information in a manner that is both easily understandable and evidence-based. The psychologist should also be prepared to correct misinformation and present all information in a scientifically informed manner.

In accordance with the Ethical Standard, psychologists base the opinions in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to support their findings. The evaluator should be sure to limit their conclusions to results supported by the evaluation and not go beyond the data when explaining assessment results. As specified in the Specialty Guideline, care should also be taken to clearly "distinguish observations, inferences, and conclusions." Forensic practitioners are encouraged to explain the relationship between their expert opinions and the legal issues and facts of the case at hand.

The evaluator may also face pressure from the hiring attorney to add or withhold statements that the attorney views as potentially damaging or disadvantageous to their client. This is especially true when a plaintiff has a long and extensive history of complex trauma, and the attorney is concerned that discussing the individual's past trauma could harm the case. It is crucial that the forensic psychologist makes it clear to the attorney that all relevant history will need to be explored and disclosed, and that the psychologist's role is to provide an independent evaluation, not an advocacy report. The psychologist should be guided by the Ethical principles of Fidelity and Responsibility, as well as Integrity, in adhering to the standard regarding the avoidance of false or deceptive statements. Additionally, Specialty Guidelines provide guidance regarding accuracy, fairness, avoidance of deception, and the comprehensive and accurate presentation of opinions in reports.

Conclusions

This article has highlighted key ethical and professional considerations in forensic psychological evaluations generally, and more specifically in the assessment of complex trauma and dissociation. The importance of recognizing trauma psychology and forensic psychology as specialized areas of practice has been emphasized. Therefore, forensic practitioners wishing to evaluate victims of complex trauma, and trauma specialists wishing to become involved in forensic practice, will both require specialized training, education, professional consultation, and ongoing continuing education to maintain the necessary competencies. Forensic practitioners need to stay aware of relevant laws and regulations in the jurisdictions where they intend to practice and remain mindful of potential role conflicts. Additionally, cultural competence and ongoing awareness of how trauma exposure will impact the individual being evaluated, their participation in the legal system, and the forensic psychologist themselves are essential. Forensic psychologists should rely on evidence-based and trauma-informed assessment tools and use multiple data sources when conducting evaluations. Knowledge and comfort with the appropriate use of measures specific to trauma and dissociation, as well as awareness of how complex trauma survivors respond to broad-based measures, are also essential. An evaluator who attends to these ethical and professional considerations can greatly contribute to the field of forensic psychology. As concluded by some experts, by considering the devastating effects trauma can produce, alongside the resilience of the human spirit, the forensic evaluator can help the court reach a fair and balanced solution in civil and criminal matters.

Understanding Trauma in Forensic Psychology

Experts in psychology, mental health, and public policy are increasingly aware that experiencing traumatic events is common and can lead to various trauma-related conditions. For example, studies show that a large majority of adults have experienced at least one traumatic event, and many have faced multiple types of trauma. While high in the general population, the rates of trauma exposure are even higher in clinical settings. Because trauma is so common, forensic psychologists often work on legal cases that involve individuals who have experienced significant traumatic events. Ethical practice is always important in forensic work, but evaluating those who have experienced complex trauma presents special challenges that psychologists need to understand. This document explores the ethical considerations crucial for any forensic evaluation and discusses how repeated trauma can make forensic practice more complicated.

Roles of Forensic Psychologists

Forensic psychologists often work where psychology and law meet. They provide specialized knowledge in areas like trauma, complex trauma, and dissociation. An evaluator conducts an independent psychological assessment to answer specific legal questions. This might involve writing a report or giving expert testimony about the evaluation and their professional opinions. For instance, in civil cases, they might evaluate someone who claims injury from a traumatic event. Here, the evaluator might assess the person's previous functioning, the trauma's impact, and the extent of the harm. In criminal cases, forensic evaluators might assess a person's state of mind during an alleged offense or explain how traumatic events could have affected their behavior. They might also identify traumatic events as factors to consider during sentencing.

Psychological experts can also offer general scientific testimony without evaluating a specific person. This means they present scientific information about topics in their area of expertise. For example, an expert might explain the frequency of trauma, its psychological effects, how traumatic memories work, or issues related to risk prediction. They can also explain how trauma might influence someone's involvement with the legal system or how they tell their story. Both evaluating experts and those providing general scientific testimony aim to offer independent, scientific information to the court within their proven area of knowledge.

In other situations, forensic psychologists act as consultants for legal teams. In this role, they do not conduct evaluations or provide expert testimony. Instead, they help attorneys understand scientific information about trauma or make sense of a traumatized person's behaviors, assisting with the legal strategy. Regardless of their specific role, forensic psychologists must follow ethical principles and professional standards, especially when dealing with trauma, complex trauma, or dissociation.

Ethical and Professional Considerations

All psychologists, including those in forensic roles, must follow the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code. This code provides foundational ethical guidelines and enforceable rules for conduct. Beyond this, forensic psychologists also use the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Practice. These guidelines aim to improve the quality of forensic services, encourage high professional standards, and ensure respect for the rights of those served. While advisory, these guidelines help direct ethical behavior in forensic work. Additionally, forensic psychologists should be familiar with guidelines and standards from other scientific and professional organizations in their specialized areas, such as those related to complex trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Many ethical issues in forensic evaluations involving complex trauma and dissociation are common to general forensic practice.

Competence

When an attorney contacts a forensic psychologist, the psychologist must first understand the legal questions. This helps determine if the questions fall within their expertise and if an evaluation can realistically provide answers. Psychologists must ensure they have the necessary skills, training, and knowledge to conduct the evaluation. This means providing services only in areas where they have appropriate education, training, experience, or have sought consultation. Few mental health professionals receive extensive training in assessing and treating trauma, and even fewer specialize in complex trauma and dissociation. Therefore, forensic psychologists working in these areas need specific training and expertise in both forensic psychology and trauma psychology.

A competent forensic psychologist needs to understand several key areas. Traumatic events are common, but the development of PTSD after trauma is less frequent. However, individuals who have experienced trauma are often involved in legal cases, especially those alleging emotional injury from events like harassment or assault. Forensic psychologists must assess the impact and emotional harm from these events, considering multiple traumas over a person's lifetime.

Forensic psychologists also need to understand revictimization. Childhood trauma, for example, can make a person more vulnerable to future traumatic experiences. This means evaluators might need to assess the effects of trauma that occurred in adulthood when there's also a history of earlier traumatic events. They might also explore how childhood trauma has shaped an individual's life.

A key area of expertise is complex trauma. This type of trauma involves harm or neglect by caregivers during vulnerable developmental periods, especially in childhood, and includes repeated or long-term exposure to multiple traumatic stressors from caregivers. Such repeated trauma often leads to chronic and complex issues, and increases the risk of further victimization. The collection of difficulties experienced by adults severely traumatized in childhood is sometimes called complex PTSD (cPTSD). This condition often involves severe dissociation, difficulty managing emotions, physical symptoms, and changes in how a person sees themselves and relationships. Forensic evaluators must recognize the link between trauma and dissociation, as individuals with cPTSD often experience more severe and frequent trauma-related dissociation.

Dissociation is a break or disruption in how a person normally integrates consciousness, memory, identity, and other functions. It is often seen as a way of coping with trauma when escape is not possible. While it can appear in various conditions, dissociation is most often linked to trauma. Dissociative disorders are more common than many people realize. Given that dissociation is associated with many functional impairments and a lower quality of life, forensic evaluators assessing trauma must also evaluate for dissociative symptoms. This specialized assessment requires specific expertise in both forensic psychology and trauma psychology.

Finally, cultural competence is crucial, especially when the evaluator and the person being evaluated come from different backgrounds. Psychologists must respect individual differences based on age, gender, race, culture, religion, and other factors, and consider how these influence a person's trauma experiences and interactions with the legal system. Responding to trauma in a culturally sensitive way requires understanding how context and identity make each trauma unique. Forensic psychologists must also be aware of the power imbalance in their relationship with the evaluee and how this might affect the person during the evaluation.

Potential Role Conflicts

Forensic psychologists can take on various roles in the legal system, such as evaluators, experts providing general scientific testimony, or consultants. While evaluating experts and scientific experts talk with attorneys and educate them about trauma, their role is to provide independent, scientifically-based information, not to advocate for one side. Their opinions should not change based on who hired them. In contrast, a forensic psychologist hired as a consultant works with the legal team to prepare their case. They do not evaluate individuals or testify. They are considered part of the legal team and do not have the same expectations of independence as testifying experts.

It is also vital to understand the differences between clinical (treatment) and forensic (legal) roles. Mixing these roles can create ethical problems and conflicts that interfere with a clinician's ability to give an objective forensic opinion. Ignoring these role differences can harm both the therapeutic process and the legal goals for the individual, as well as the rights of all involved parties.

When conducting any forensic evaluation, it is essential to clearly define the psychologist's role and identify "who is the client." Unlike in clinical settings, the person being evaluated in a forensic case is usually not the client to whom the psychologist owes primary responsibility; the client is often an attorney or the court. The forensic psychologist must clarify the nature of the relationship, who the client is, and any potential conflicts of interest at the start. This clear explanation is even more critical when evaluating trauma survivors, who often struggle with trust, especially in situations with a power difference. The unique nature of complex trauma and its violations of trust make it especially important for forensic psychologists to maintain clear boundaries and avoid role conflicts to prevent further harm. Psychologists may also need to educate attorneys on why therapist and expert roles should not be mixed.

Legal and Jurisdictional Issues

Psychologists must ensure they are legally able to practice in the jurisdiction where a case is located. Licensing laws, requirements for temporary practice, and rules about practicing forensic psychology in different states can vary. Forensic psychologists must know the laws that apply in the states where they plan to work. Given the specialized nature of trauma and dissociation assessment, psychologists with this expertise might be contacted by attorneys from many different states. If not licensed in a particular state, it is recommended that the forensic evaluator contact that state's licensing board.

Fees and Engagement Agreement

The specific terms of the agreement between the hiring party (usually the attorney) and the psychologist should be clearly stated, ideally in writing. This agreement should specify the services, the forensic practitioner's role, who the client is, how the information will be used, and any limits to privacy or confidentiality. It should also outline the fee structure and the estimated timeframe for the evaluation and any reports. Evaluations involving severely traumatized individuals, especially those with complex trauma or dissociation, may take longer due to the complexity and sensitivity of reviewing their histories. Therefore, this must be discussed with the hiring party beforehand. While the APA Ethics Code does not explicitly mention contingent fees (payment depending on the case outcome), professional guidelines advise against them due to the threat they pose to impartiality.

Multiple Sources of Information

A thorough forensic assessment requires gathering information from many sources, not just the person being evaluated. Psychologists should clarify with the hiring party from the beginning that they will need access to all relevant case documents and will conduct interviews with other people who know the individual. These documents might include school records, employment evaluations, medical and therapy records, and legal records. The evaluator will also need to identify and interview individuals who can provide useful information, ideally those who knew the evaluee before, during, and after the alleged traumatic events. These collateral sources might include family members, friends, coworkers, or therapists. However, when interviewing family members, it is crucial to recognize that some may have been perpetrators of past or ongoing trauma.

Informed Consent and Limits of Confidentiality

After reviewing documents, the evaluator must obtain informed consent from the person being evaluated. This means the individual must fully understand the evaluation process, the evaluator's role, the limits of confidentiality, and the differences between a forensic evaluation and psychological treatment. This information should be provided in writing and clearly explain how the information will be used and who will receive it. This informed consent process must also be repeated when interviewing collateral sources. When evaluating individuals with complex trauma or dissociation, informed consent might need to be addressed frequently throughout the evaluation. The psychologist must also consider the pace of the evaluation, ensuring the individual understands the questions and information discussed, and is prepared for the potential difficulty of disclosing trauma-related information in a limited timeframe.

Use of Appropriate Assessment Tools

Both the APA Ethics Code and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology stress the importance of using assessment tools that are appropriate for the specific case. Opinions must be based on sufficient information and techniques, and work should be grounded in established scientific knowledge. For forensic assessments of complex trauma and dissociation, evaluators typically use both general personality and cognitive measures, as well as trauma-specific tools. When using general personality measures, psychologists must understand how trauma survivors respond to these tests, including validity and clinical scales. All tests must be current, and if scoring services are used, the interpretations must be based on accurate data and norms validated for the population being evaluated.

In addition to general measures, a thorough forensic evaluation of trauma and dissociation must include tools specifically designed to assess these experiences and symptoms. Careful selection ensures these measures are appropriately normed and validated for trauma-related issues. In any forensic evaluation, where there might be external reasons to either exaggerate or minimize symptoms, it is crucial to assess for malingering (faking or exaggerating symptoms) and overall response style. Psychologists must use measures validated for traumatized populations and be aware that the responses of complex trauma survivors can sometimes appear exaggerated or feigned.

Record Keeping

Throughout the evaluation, the psychologist must keep careful and accurate records. This includes noting observations during the evaluation and what the evaluee reports, clearly labeling these as observations. It is also critical to keep a copy of the engagement agreement with the attorney, thoroughly document all materials reviewed, and maintain a complete record of all testing and notes. These records should be detailed enough to allow for legal review and access by all parties, and the evaluator will likely need to provide a copy of their entire file to the court and opposing attorneys. When preparing and copying records, test security must be maintained, respecting copyright rules for test materials.

Impact of Trauma Exposure on the Individual Being Evaluated and the Evaluator

Special considerations for forensic evaluations involving complex trauma include recognizing how the evaluee's history and experiences might affect them during the process. For instance, victims of complex trauma may have significant trust issues, feelings of shame, and coping strategies like minimization or avoidance, which can impact their responses during the evaluation.

The nature of a forensic evaluation means reviewing many potentially traumatic details in a short time, which can be overwhelming for the person being evaluated. The evaluator needs to manage the pace of the evaluation, offer frequent breaks, and ensure the individual remains present and grounded. They must help the person stay within a manageable emotional range to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data. While doing this, the evaluator must be careful not to blur their role between objective forensic evaluator and treating clinician. In some cases, it may be beneficial to ask the evaluee's therapist to be available for support during and after the evaluation. For incarcerated individuals, overt distress could make them a target, so enough time should be allowed for them to regulate their emotions before returning to their cell.

It is also important to recognize and communicate to the attorney how trauma can impact an individual's interactions with the legal system and their ability to testify. Individuals with complex PTSD, for example, might hesitate to disclose experiences to their attorneys, and their defense mechanisms could hinder effective advocacy. Difficulties with emotional regulation or engagement in high-risk behaviors might also interfere with legal processes. Judges and juries might misunderstand an apparent lack of emotional response during testimony, so the expert witness may need to explain the individual's behavior clearly.

Beyond the evaluee, forensic psychologists must also be aware of how the evaluation's demands and content impact them. Psychologists should not start professional activities if their personal problems will interfere with their performance. If such problems arise, they should seek consultation or assistance and consider limiting or stopping their work duties. Assessing complex trauma involves exposure to explicit details of traumatic events in a short period, often without the therapeutic relationship that develops over time, increasing the risk of vicarious traumatization. This is distinct from burnout and can cause the evaluator to experience symptoms similar to those of the trauma survivor. To manage these risks and their potential negative impact on the psychologist and the evaluation, self-care is essential. This includes healthy habits, consultation, and personal therapy.

Report Writing and Testimony

After the evaluation, the forensic psychologist typically provides feedback to the hiring party and may prepare a written report. The report must accurately describe the assessment process and the basis for the conclusions. When assessing complex trauma and dissociation, the forensic psychologist must present accurate, understandable, and evidence-based information. They should be ready to correct misinformation and present findings scientifically.

Opinions in reports and testimony must be based on sufficient information and techniques to support the findings. Conclusions should be limited to the results of the evaluation and not go beyond the data. It is important to distinguish between observations, inferences, and conclusions, and to explain how expert opinions relate to the legal issues and facts of the case.

The evaluator might face pressure from the attorney to add or withhold statements that seem advantageous or damaging to their client. This is especially true if the client has a long history of complex trauma, and the attorney worries that discussing past trauma could hurt the case. The forensic psychologist must make it clear that all relevant history needs to be explored and disclosed, and that their role is to provide an independent evaluation, not an advocacy report. Psychologists must adhere to ethical principles of integrity and responsibility, avoiding false or deceptive statements and presenting opinions accurately and fairly.

Conclusions

This document has highlighted key ethical and professional considerations for forensic psychological evaluations, particularly when assessing complex trauma and dissociation. Both trauma psychology and forensic psychology are specialized areas, meaning practitioners in either field who wish to cross over need specialized training, ongoing education, and professional consultation. Forensic psychologists must understand the relevant laws and regulations in their practice jurisdictions and be aware of potential role conflicts. Cultural competence is also vital, as is an ongoing awareness of how trauma exposure impacts the individual being evaluated and the forensic psychologist themselves. Using evidence-based and trauma-informed assessment tools, relying on multiple data sources, and understanding how complex trauma survivors respond to various measures are all essential. By adhering to these ethical and professional guidelines, forensic evaluators can greatly contribute to forensic psychology and help the court reach fair and balanced solutions in legal matters.

Experts in psychology, mental health, and public policy increasingly recognize that traumatic events are common. These events are often linked to various trauma-related conditions. For example, a large national study of adults in the USA showed that nearly 90% had experienced at least one traumatic event, with many experiencing several types of trauma. Another study found that 69% of over 4,000 American women reported a traumatic event during their lives. While trauma is common among the general public, it is even more so in groups of people seeking clinical help. Given how often trauma occurs, forensic psychologists are very likely to work on civil or criminal cases where someone has experienced significant trauma. While ethical behavior is crucial in all forensic work, evaluating people who have experienced complex trauma can bring unique challenges that psychologists must understand. This paper will discuss the important ethical considerations for any forensic evaluation, especially how repeated trauma adds to the difficulty of forensic practice.

Roles of Forensic Psychologists

Forensic psychologists often work where psychology and law meet. They offer specialized knowledge in areas like trauma, complex trauma, and dissociation. A forensic evaluator conducts an independent psychological review to answer specific legal questions. This might involve writing a report or giving expert testimony about their findings. For instance, in civil cases, an evaluator may assess a person who claims injury from a traumatic event. The evaluator would look at the person's past abilities, how trauma affected them, and the extent of the harm. They might also determine when a person should have known about the link between trauma and their injuries. In criminal cases, forensic evaluators might assess a person's mental state during an alleged crime and how trauma might have influenced it. During sentencing, they could review a person's history for traumatic events that might lessen their punishment.

In both civil and criminal cases, psychologists might also offer general scientific testimony about psychological issues without directly evaluating a specific client. This is known as "general scientific testimony." For example, an expert witness who has not assessed a person might help the court by sharing scientific information on topics like how common trauma is, its mental and physical effects, traumatic memory, dissociation, or predicting risk. They can also explain how a person's trauma experiences might affect their involvement with the legal system or how they tell their story. The role of both evaluating experts and those giving general scientific testimony is to provide independent, scientific information on specific topics within their area of proven knowledge to the court.

Sometimes, forensic psychologists are hired as consultants to work directly with lawyers as part of their legal team. In these situations, the psychologist is not expected to conduct an evaluation or provide expert testimony. Instead, the psychologist helps the lawyers prepare and present their client's case. This might involve helping the lawyer understand scientific research about trauma or make sense of a traumatized person's behavior. No matter the role, it is crucial for forensic psychologists to follow ethical rules and professional standards. They must be ready to handle the professional challenges that come with forensic evaluations, especially those involving trauma, complex trauma, or dissociation.

Ethical and Professional Considerations

In forensic psychology, as in all professional fields, psychologists must follow the APA Ethics Code. This code applies to all areas of psychology, including forensic psychology, but some parts are especially important for forensic work and evaluating complex trauma. The Code includes an introduction, a preamble, general principles (A-E), and specific ethical standards. The preamble and general principles are meant to inspire psychologists to reach the highest ethical ideals of their profession. These principles offer a general guide for ethical behavior. The second part of the Code contains specific standards that are enforceable rules for how psychologists must act.

Beyond the APA Ethics Code, forensic psychologists can also look to the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Practice. These guidelines have been updated over time to reflect changes in the field. The guidelines aim to improve forensic psychological services, strengthen forensic psychology practice, encourage high quality work, and ensure that practitioners respect the rights of those they help. While these guidelines are based on the APA Ethics Code, they offer advice and inspiration rather than strict rules. They are not mandatory or a complete list of all rules.

Forensic psychologists should also consider information, guidelines, and standards from other scientific and professional groups in their specific fields. For instance, when evaluating complex trauma, forensic psychologists should know the guidelines for complex trauma and PTSD.

Many ethical issues that come up in forensic evaluations involving complex trauma and dissociation are also found in general forensic psychology. The following sections will look at these ethical challenges and professional considerations, along with relevant parts of the APA Ethics Code and Specialty Guidelines. Specific examples related to evaluating complex trauma and dissociation will be emphasized.

Competence

When an attorney first contacts a forensic psychologist, it is vital to determine if the legal questions fall within the psychologist's area of expertise and if the evaluation can realistically answer them. Before starting an assessment, the psychologist must ensure they have the necessary skills and training. The APA Ethics Code requires psychologists to work only within their areas of competence, based on their education and experience. The Specialty Guidelines also emphasize assessing one's competence, considering the complexity of the service, relevant training, preparation time, and opportunities for expert consultation. Few mental health professionals receive extensive training in trauma, complex trauma, or dissociation. Therefore, forensic psychologists in these fields should seek relevant training, supervision, and expertise in both trauma psychology and general forensic psychology. They need to be knowledgeable about the scientific literature in these areas.

Even though traumatic events are common, the number of people who develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) afterward is relatively low. However, people who have experienced trauma are often found in legal settings. For example, many lawsuits involve claims of emotional injury from trauma, requiring forensic psychologists to assess its impact. It is also understood that childhood trauma can increase vulnerability to future trauma. Therefore, forensic psychologists might need to evaluate adult trauma alongside earlier traumatic events, examining how past traumas shaped a person's life. In criminal cases, they might assess how trauma affected a person's mental state during a crime or explain behavior afterward. However, most trauma research focuses on single events, which may not fully represent individuals with repeated or ongoing trauma.

Complex trauma involves harm or abandonment by caregivers during vulnerable times, especially childhood, through repetitive or long-term exposure to multiple stressors. This repeated trauma can lead to chronic issues and higher risk for future victimization. The difficulties experienced by adults severely traumatized as children are often termed complex post-traumatic stress disorder (cPTSD). This condition involves issues like problematic dissociation, difficulty managing emotions, physical symptoms, and altered self-beliefs. Experts describe how complex trauma can change emotional control, memory, attention, self-perception, relationships, physical health, and a person's sense of meaning. Forensic evaluators must understand the link between trauma and dissociation, as individuals with cPTSD often experience more severe and frequent trauma-related dissociation.

Dissociation refers to a break in a person's normal awareness, memory, identity, emotions, perception, and behavior. It is often a coping mechanism when physical escape from trauma is not possible. While it can occur in various conditions, dissociation is most often linked to trauma. Dissociative disorders are more common than generally known, and they can lead to many functional problems and a lower quality of life. Therefore, it is crucial for forensic evaluators assessing trauma to also check for dissociative symptoms. Evaluating complex trauma and dissociation in a legal context is a highly specialized field requiring expertise in both forensic psychology and trauma psychology. Unfortunately, specific training in trauma and dissociation is often lacking in psychology programs.

When evaluating complex trauma and cPTSD, cultural competence and diversity are essential, particularly when the psychologist and the person being evaluated have different backgrounds. The APA Ethics Code requires psychologists to respect all people and be aware of cultural, individual, and role differences, preventing biases from affecting their work. When assessing a trauma survivor, the psychologist must consider how the person's cultural background affects their traumatic experiences and interactions with the legal system. Understanding how context and identity make each trauma unique is part of cultural competence. Different aspects of identity can also increase the likelihood of experiencing trauma and dissociative symptoms, especially for those from less powerful groups within the dominant culture. Forensic psychologists must also recognize the power imbalance in the evaluation relationship and how it might influence the person's behavior and mental state.

Potential Role Conflicts

Forensic psychologists play various roles in the legal system, such as evaluators, experts giving general scientific testimony, and consultants. Experts who testify, whether as evaluators or providers of general scientific information, speak with attorneys to explain trauma and dissociation. Their job is to provide independent, scientifically-based information, not to advocate for one side. Their opinions should not change based on who hired them. In contrast, a forensic psychologist hired as a consultant works with the legal team to help prepare and execute their case. They are not expected to evaluate individuals or provide expert testimony. As consultants, they might help the legal team understand psychological issues or assess reports from opposing experts. They may also help with legal strategy, like jury selection or preparing questions for witnesses. In this role, they are part of the legal advocacy team and are not expected to be as independent or objective as those providing expert testimony.

It is also crucial to understand the differences between clinical and forensic roles. Experts have pointed out many differences between these roles and the ethical conflicts that can arise when a therapist tries to give a forensic opinion about a client. They stress the importance of respecting these distinct roles, arguing that ignoring this conflict can harm both the patient's therapy and the legal process, as well as the rights of everyone involved. Since this concept was introduced, there has been more awareness of the ethical issues that come up when forensic psychologists are asked to take on a clinical role after a legal case is over.

Both the APA Ethics Code and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists stress the importance of avoiding potential role conflicts. The Ethics Code states that a psychologist should not enter into multiple relationships if doing so could reasonably harm their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness. A "multiple relationship" happens when a forensic practitioner has a professional role with someone and, at the same time or later, takes on a different role with the same person. Providing both forensic and therapeutic services to the same person or closely related individuals involves multiple relationships that could reduce objectivity or cause harm.

During any forensic evaluation, it is essential to clarify the psychologist's role and identify "who the client is." Unlike in therapy, the person being evaluated in a forensic setting is not the client; the primary responsibility is owed to the party who requested the evaluation, usually an attorney or the court. Upon initial contact, the forensic psychologist should also identify all involved parties to check for potential conflicts. The Ethics Code addresses conflicts of interest and requests for services from third parties. Clearly explaining the evaluator's role is even more important when assessing a trauma survivor, as these individuals often have trouble building trust, especially when there is a power difference. Given the nature of complex trauma and its violations of trust, forensic psychologists must maintain clear boundaries and be cautious of role conflicts to avoid further harm. They may also need to explain to attorneys the important differences between a therapist and an expert witness, as lawyers sometimes incorrectly believe a therapist is the best person to testify for their client.

Legal and Jurisdictional Issues

Beyond identifying potential conflicts, psychologists must confirm they are legally allowed to practice in the area where the case is taking place. Licensing laws, and rules for temporary practice, differ from state to state. Practicing forensic psychology in a state where one is not licensed can be a debated topic. While many states permit temporary practice with limits, a notable number do not. The Ethics Code requires psychologists, when taking on forensic roles, to become familiar with the legal or administrative rules that guide their work.

The Specialty Guidelines also state that forensic practitioners understand the importance of having a basic and reasonable knowledge of the legal and professional standards, laws, rules, and past decisions that control their involvement in legal cases and guide how their services affect the people they help.

Because evaluating trauma and dissociation in forensic cases is a specialized field with limited training available, psychologists with this expertise might be contacted by attorneys from various legal areas. Therefore, it is crucial for forensic psychologists to know the laws of the jurisdictions where they plan to practice. However, information about temporary practice can sometimes be unclear and hard to find. It is recommended that a forensic evaluator contact the licensing board of the state where they plan to conduct an evaluation if they are not licensed there.

Fees and Engagement Agreement

The specific terms of the agreement between the hiring party, usually an attorney, and the psychologist should be clearly outlined, preferably in writing. The Specialty Guidelines state that when a service is requested, forensic practitioners should clarify the nature of the relationship, the services to be provided, who the client is, how the services or information will likely be used, and any limits to privacy or confidentiality. Similarly, the Ethics Code states that when psychologists provide services at the request of a third party, they should clarify the nature of the relationship with all involved individuals or organizations from the start. The agreement should cover the evaluation's parts, the fees, and the timeline.

The Specialty Guidelines specifically cover how to determine fees and the need to clearly explain the likely cost of services to the client. Attorneys should also receive guidance on the estimated total time needed for the evaluation and for writing a report, if one is required.

People who have experienced severe trauma and show signs of dissociation may need more time to fully review their history. Specifically, individuals with multiple trauma experiences starting in early childhood will likely have more complex and extensive background information that needs to be reviewed and possibly included in a report. Also, because the information being discussed can be emotionally upsetting, it might be better for those being evaluated to have several shorter appointments instead of one long session. The complex nature of these evaluations can significantly increase the time needed to assess complex trauma and dissociation, and this must be clearly discussed with the hiring party before the evaluation begins.

While the Ethics Code does not specifically mention payment based on the outcome of a case, the Specialty Guidelines state that forensic practitioners should try to avoid accepting such "contingent fees." This is because these fees can threaten a psychologist's fairness and are often prohibited by law. The engagement agreement should also consider the specific legal requirements of the jurisdiction. For instance, federal law generally requires a written report, as do evaluations of plaintiffs done by forensic examiners hired by the defense.

Multiple Sources of Information

A thorough forensic mental health assessment requires using multiple sources of information, in line with guidelines that advise against relying on just one source and recommend confirming important details when possible. The psychologist should inform the hiring party from the start that they will need access to all case documents and will conduct interviews with other people involved. The evaluator should not only carefully review all documents provided but also request specific additional records. For example, when assessing harm after a traumatic event, the evaluator needs to review independent information about the person's past and current abilities. This documentation might include school records, employment reviews, previous psychological tests, therapy and medical records, arrest and prison records, and possibly records from foster care or child services.

The evaluator will also need to find people who have useful information for additional interviews. The Specialty Guidelines state that forensic practitioners should try to get information or records from other sources with the permission of the attorney or the relevant party. For complex trauma assessments, these individuals typically include those who have known the person being evaluated for a long time—ideally before, during, and after the alleged events. They also include people who can provide information about the person's past and current functioning and performance. These might be parents, siblings, other family members, friends, coworkers, supervisors, therapists, and mentors.

However, especially when interviewing family members, it is important to remember that some of these individuals might have caused past or ongoing trauma, even if the person being evaluated is not ready to discuss this with the psychologist.

Informed Consent and Limits of Confidentiality

After reviewing relevant documents, the evaluator must obtain informed consent from the person being evaluated. The APA Ethics Code states that psychologists must get informed consent, and for court-ordered services, they must inform the individual about the nature of the services, if they are mandated, and any limits to confidentiality before proceeding. Consent must also be properly documented. It is crucial to get written consent and ensure the individual fully understands the evaluation process, the evaluator's role, the boundaries of confidentiality, and how a forensic evaluation differs from therapy. The process should also clearly explain how the information will be used and who will receive it.

The Ethics Code outlines psychologists' duty to "take reasonable steps to protect confidential information" and to discuss "the relevant limits of confidentiality" and "the expected uses of the information gathered" with individuals. This informed consent process should also be repeated during any additional interviews to ensure everyone involved understands the interview's purpose and the limits of confidentiality.

When evaluating people with complex trauma who may show signs of dissociation, it is especially important to discuss informed consent issues frequently throughout the evaluation. Forensic psychologists also need to consider the pace of the evaluation, making sure the individual understands the questions that will be asked and the information that will be discussed. Furthermore, the person being evaluated should be prepared for the potential difficulty of the assessment, given that trauma-related information must be shared within a limited timeframe.

Use of Appropriate Assessment Tools

Both the APA Ethics Code and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology highlight the importance of using assessment tools that are suitable for the case. The Ethics Code emphasizes that opinions must be based on enough information and techniques to support the findings, and that psychologists' work should come from established scientific and professional knowledge. The Specialty Guidelines state that forensic practitioners should use appropriate methods and procedures and apply assessment procedures in ways that are suitable given research on their usefulness and correct application.

When evaluating complex trauma and dissociation in a forensic setting, the psychologist typically uses tools that measure overall personality and possibly cognitive abilities, as well as tools specifically designed for trauma. When using general personality measures, the psychologist must understand how trauma survivors respond to these tests, both in terms of the test's validity and clinical scales. According to ethical standards, tests used should be current. If test scoring and interpretation services are used, the psychologist must ensure that the interpretations are based on accurate data and norms that have been proven valid for the population being evaluated.

Besides general measures, a skilled and ethical forensic evaluation of trauma and dissociation must include tools that specifically assess traumatic experiences and symptoms. Carefully choosing these trauma-specific measures helps the evaluator use tests that are properly standardized and proven effective for assessing trauma-related symptoms. Some of these tools also include ways to check for validity. All instruments used should, of course, be accurately scored using appropriate norms. In any forensic evaluation, where there might be outside reasons for someone to either overstate or downplay symptoms, it is essential to carefully assess for malingering (faking symptoms) and overall response style. Many resources exist on assessing malingering in trauma survivors, and evaluators must use measures that have been properly standardized and proven valid for traumatized populations. It is also crucial for forensic evaluators to understand how the responses of complex trauma survivors can sometimes appear to be exaggerated or faked.

Record Keeping

Throughout the evaluation, the psychologist should keep careful and accurate records. This means noting both observations made during the evaluation and what the person being evaluated reports, clearly labeling behavioral observations. It is also crucial for the evaluator to keep a copy of the agreement with the attorney, thoroughly document everything reviewed for the evaluation, and maintain a complete record of all tests and notes taken.

Experts provide guidance on the importance of recording observations, especially when assessing someone who has experienced complex trauma and dissociation. This advice aligns with the Ethics Code standard on documenting professional work and maintaining records. The Specialty Guidelines also encourage forensic practitioners to document all data with enough detail and quality for judicial review and discovery by all parties.

The evaluator will likely also be required to provide a copy of their complete file to the court and to the opposing attorneys.

Finally, when preparing and copying records, attention should be paid to keeping test materials secure, following the Ethics Code standard on test security and any copyright rules for the materials being copied.

Impact of Trauma Exposure on the Individual Being Evaluated and the Evaluator

When conducting a forensic evaluation involving complex trauma and dissociation, it is important to consider how a person's history might affect them. Victims of complex trauma often struggle with trust and shame, and may use coping strategies like minimization or avoidance, which can impact their responses. Forensic evaluations require reviewing much potentially traumatic information quickly, which can be overwhelming for the individual. Therefore, the evaluator needs to manage the pace, offer breaks, and ensure the person remains emotionally stable to gather accurate data. The psychologist must be careful not to blur their role as an objective investigator with that of a treating therapist.

A skilled forensic assessment demands both clinical and assessment skills, especially with complex trauma survivors. If the person is in therapy, it is wise to have their therapist available for support during and after the evaluation. For incarcerated individuals, extra care is needed to help them regulate emotions before returning to their cell, as visible distress can make them a target. It is also important to communicate to the attorney how a trauma survivor's experiences might affect their involvement with the legal system and their ability to testify. Individuals with cPTSD might be hesitant to share experiences with attorneys, and defense mechanisms like denial can hinder advocacy. Emotional regulation difficulties or high-risk behaviors may also interfere with legal interactions.

Judges and juries might find it hard to understand a person who shows little emotional response while testifying about traumatic experiences. The forensic expert providing testimony will need to clearly explain the individual's behavior to help the court make sense of what they observe.

Beyond considering the impact on the person being evaluated, understanding how the demands of the evaluation affect the psychologist is a key part of competence in complex trauma assessments. The Ethics Code advises psychologists not to begin work if personal problems will interfere with performance, and to seek consultation or limit duties if such problems arise. The intense nature of these assessments, exposing the evaluator to explicit trauma details without the buffer of a therapeutic relationship, can lead to vicarious traumatization. This is distinct from burnout and can cause the psychologist to experience symptoms similar to the trauma survivor. Given these risks, it is essential for the forensic evaluator to practice self-care, including a healthy lifestyle, time off, professional consultation, and personal therapy.

Report Writing and Testimony

After the evaluation is complete, the forensic psychologist typically gives feedback to the hiring party and may then be asked or required to write a report. The report should clearly describe the assessment process and the reasons for the conclusions reached. When assessing complex trauma and dissociation, it is especially important for the forensic psychologist to present accurate information in a way that is both easy to understand and based on evidence. The psychologist should also be ready to correct false beliefs and present all information scientifically.

According to ethical standards, psychologists must base their opinions in recommendations, reports, and evaluations, including forensic testimony, on enough information and techniques to support their findings. The evaluator should ensure their conclusions are limited to the results supported by the evaluation and avoid going beyond the data when explaining findings. The Specialty Guidelines also advise distinguishing between observations, inferences, and conclusions, and encourage forensic practitioners to explain the connection between their expert opinions and the legal issues and facts of the case.

The evaluator might face pressure from the attorney who hired them to include or leave out statements that the attorney believes could harm their client's case. This is especially common when a client has a long history of complex trauma, and the attorney worries that discussing past trauma could be detrimental. It is crucial for the forensic psychologist to make it clear to the attorney that all relevant history must be explored and revealed, and that the psychologist's role is to provide an independent evaluation, not a report that advocates for one side. The psychologist should follow ethical principles of fidelity, responsibility, and integrity, avoiding false or misleading statements. The Specialty Guidelines also offer advice on accuracy, fairness, avoiding deception, and presenting opinions in reports completely and accurately.

Conclusion

This article has emphasized important ethical and professional considerations in forensic psychological evaluations, especially when assessing complex trauma and dissociation. It highlighted that trauma psychology and forensic psychology are specialized fields. Therefore, psychologists who evaluate complex trauma victims or trauma specialists entering forensic practice need specialized training, education, professional consultation, and ongoing learning to maintain their skills. Forensic practitioners must stay informed about laws and regulations in their practice areas and be aware of potential conflicts of interest. Cultural competence is also crucial, along with understanding how trauma exposure affects the individual being evaluated, their legal involvement, and the psychologist themselves. Forensic psychologists should use evidence-based, trauma-informed assessment tools and multiple sources of information. They must also be knowledgeable about trauma and dissociation-specific measures and how complex trauma survivors respond to broader assessments. By paying attention to these ethical and professional considerations, evaluators can significantly contribute to forensic psychology.

By considering the devastating effects of trauma, as well as the human spirit's ability to recover, forensic evaluators can help the court reach fair and balanced decisions in both civil and criminal cases.

Understanding Trauma

Experts in mental health and public policy are learning that experiencing upsetting events is not rare. These events can lead to various problems related to trauma. For example, a large study in the USA found that almost 90% of adults had gone through at least one major upsetting event, and many had gone through more than one. Other studies show similar high numbers. When looking at people in a hospital or clinic, these numbers are even higher. Because so many people have experienced trauma, it is very likely that special psychologists who work with the law will meet people who have gone through upsetting events. It is important for these psychologists to understand the special problems that can come up when evaluating people who have experienced trauma many times. This paper will talk about how to do this work fairly and correctly.

Roles of Forensic Psychologists

Forensic psychologists often work where psychology and law meet. They can help in many ways when dealing with trauma, complex trauma (trauma that happens over and over), and dissociation (feeling disconnected). A forensic psychologist might do an independent mental health check to answer a specific legal question. They might then write a report or speak in court about their findings. For instance, in civil cases (not criminal), they might check on someone who says they were hurt by a traumatic event. The psychologist would look at how the person was doing before the event, how the event affected them, and how much harm was caused. They might also figure out when the person should have known about the harm from the event. In criminal cases, these psychologists might look at a person's state of mind when a crime happened or explain how traumatic events might have affected their behavior. They could also help explain how past traumatic events might be a reason to give a lighter sentence.

Sometimes, mental health experts are asked to share general scientific information about mental health issues without checking on a specific person. This is like sharing general knowledge about how common trauma is, how it affects the mind and body, how traumatic memories work, or how to tell if someone might be dangerous. They might also explain how someone's trauma can change how they act in court or how they tell their story. These experts are there to give fair, scientific facts to the court about topics they know a lot about.

In other situations, forensic psychologists work as advisors with legal teams. In these cases, they do not check on people or speak in court. Instead, they help lawyers prepare their case. They might help lawyers understand scientific information about trauma or make sense of how a traumatized person is acting. No matter what role a forensic psychologist has, it is very important that they follow strong rules for doing their work fairly and correctly. They must be ready for the challenges that come up in these types of cases.

Ethical and Professional Considerations

When working as forensic psychologists, like in all jobs in this field, psychologists must follow a set of rules called the APA Ethics Code. This code applies to all areas of psychology, including working with the law. Parts of this code are especially important for cases involving complex trauma. The code has an introduction, a statement of beliefs, general principles, and specific rules. The beliefs and general principles are meant to inspire psychologists to do their best work. The rules, however, are clear steps for how psychologists must act.

Besides the APA Ethics Code, forensic psychologists can also look to the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Practice for help. These guidelines aim to make forensic mental health services better and to make sure people's rights are respected. While these guidelines are based on the Ethics Code, they are suggestions, not strict rules. They are meant to guide psychologists but are not required steps.

Forensic psychologists should also pay attention to information and standards from other expert groups in their specific fields. For example, when checking for complex trauma, psychologists should know the guidelines about complex trauma and PTSD. Many of the ethical issues in checking for complex trauma are similar to other types of forensic work. The following sections will look at these issues and how the rules and guidelines apply, especially for complex trauma.

Competence

Forensic psychologists must make sure they have the right skills and training for each case. This means they need to understand the questions asked and be able to answer them correctly. When taking on a case, a psychologist must be sure they have the knowledge, training, and experience to do the evaluation well and answer the legal questions.

Most mental health workers do not get enough training in trauma, especially complex trauma and dissociation. Therefore, forensic psychologists working in these areas need special training and experience in both trauma psychology and forensic psychology. They need to know a lot about the science behind these topics.

Traumatic events are common, and while not everyone gets PTSD, people who have experienced trauma often show up in legal cases. Psychologists might need to figure out how many traumatic events someone has faced over their life and how those events caused harm. It is important to know that past trauma can make someone more likely to experience trauma again later.

Complex trauma means long-term harm or neglect from caregivers, often in childhood. This can lead to serious and lasting problems, including complex PTSD (cPTSD), which affects emotions, memory, self-image, and relationships. Dissociation, where a person feels disconnected from their thoughts or body, is also very common after trauma and needs to be checked for carefully.

Psychologists must also understand how a person's cultural background, identity, and place in society affect their trauma experience and their involvement with the legal system. They must be fair and respect all people, recognizing that differences can impact how trauma is experienced and handled. This includes being aware of how differences in power between the psychologist and the person being checked might affect the person.

Potential Role Conflicts

Forensic psychologists can have many different jobs when working with the legal system. They can be evaluators (checking on a specific person), scientific experts (giving general scientific facts), or consultants (advising lawyers). Experts who speak in court, whether they evaluate someone or give general scientific facts, should give honest, scientific information, not take sides. They should not have other interests that would change their opinions. On the other hand, a forensic psychologist hired as a consultant works with the legal team to help them prepare their case. They are part of the legal team and do not need to be as neutral as an expert witness.

It is very important to understand the differences between being a regular therapist and a forensic psychologist. Experts have pointed out many ways these two jobs are different. They show that a therapist who also tries to give a legal opinion about their client can cause problems for both the therapy and the legal case. It has also become clear that it can be a problem if forensic psychologists try to become a therapist for someone after their legal case is over.

The APA Ethics Code also stresses the importance of avoiding conflicts. It says that a psychologist should not have many different types of relationships with the same person if those relationships could make it hard for the psychologist to be fair or do their job well. It also states that giving both legal and therapy services to the same person can make a psychologist less objective or even cause harm.

When doing any legal evaluation, it is key to be clear about the psychologist's role and to know "who is the client." In these cases, the person being checked is not the client, and the psychologist does not primarily work for them. Usually, the client is a lawyer, or sometimes the court itself. At the start, the forensic psychologist should find out who is involved in the case to spot any possible conflicts. Making the psychologist's role clear is even more important when checking on a trauma survivor, who often has trouble trusting others, especially when there is a power difference.

Because complex trauma often involves broken trust and safety, it is very important that forensic psychologists who check for complex trauma keep their roles clear and avoid any conflicts. This helps prevent more harm. Psychologists may also need to explain to lawyers why a therapist is not always the "best" person to speak for their clients and why these roles should not be mixed.

Legal and Jurisdictional Issues

Besides avoiding conflicts, psychologists must make sure they are allowed to work in the area where the case is happening. Rules for licenses vary from state to state, as do the rules for working temporarily in a state where a psychologist is not licensed. Many states allow temporary work, but some do not. The Ethics Code says that psychologists in legal roles must understand the court rules that guide their work. Likewise, the Specialty Guidelines state that forensic psychologists should know the legal and professional standards that guide their work in legal cases.

Because checking for trauma and dissociation is a specialized area, and not many people are trained in it, psychologists with this special skill might be asked to work in many different states. Therefore, it is important for forensic psychologists to know the laws of the states where they plan to work. However, information about temporary work can be hard to find. It is best for a forensic psychologist to contact the licensing board of the state where they plan to do an evaluation if they are not licensed there.

Fees and Engagement Agreement

The exact terms of the agreement between the hiring person (usually the lawyer) and the psychologist should be clearly written down. The Specialty Guidelines say that when asked for services, forensic psychologists should clearly explain what kind of work will be done, their role, who the client is, how the information will be used, and any limits on privacy. The Ethics Code also says that when a third party asks for services, psychologists should explain the relationship with everyone involved at the very start. The agreement should cover what the evaluation will involve, how much it will cost, and how long it will take.

People who have experienced severe trauma and dissociation might need more time to talk about their past. Especially if the trauma started early in childhood, there will likely be much more background information to look at. Also, because talking about trauma can be upsetting, it might be better for people to have several shorter meetings instead of one long one. This means that evaluations for complex trauma and dissociation can take a lot more time, and this needs to be clearly discussed with the person hiring the psychologist before the evaluation starts.

The Ethics Code does not specifically mention paying a psychologist based on the outcome of a case. However, the Specialty Guidelines say that because being paid this way can make a psychologist less fair, forensic psychologists should try not to accept payment that depends on the case's result. The agreement must also follow the laws of the specific area. For example, federal law usually requires a report to be written, as do checks done for people in legal cases.

Multiple Sources of Information

A full mental health check for a legal case needs information from many different places. The psychologist should tell the hiring person at the start that they will need to see all documents related to the case and will need to talk to other people as part of the check. The psychologist should not only review all the papers they are given but also ask for other specific documents. For instance, when checking for harm from trauma, the psychologist will need to see other records about how the person was doing before and how they are doing now. These might include school records, work records, old mental health tests, therapy and medical records, arrest records, and records from child services.

The psychologist will also need to find people who might have useful information to interview. The Specialty Guidelines say that forensic psychologists should try to get information from other sources with the permission of the lawyer or the person involved. These people usually include those who have known the person for a long time—before, during, and after the upsetting events. They might also include family members, friends, coworkers, bosses, therapists, and mentors. These people should be asked about what they have seen regarding the person's actions, how they are doing, and any problems they are having. However, especially when interviewing family members, it is important to remember that some of these individuals might have caused past or ongoing trauma, even if the person being checked does not want to talk about it with the psychologist.

Informed Consent and Limits of Confidentiality

After the psychologist has looked at the case documents, it is very important to get permission from the person being checked. The Ethics Code says that psychologists must get this permission and that if the services are ordered by a court, psychologists must tell the person what will happen, if the services are court-ordered, and what information might not be kept private before starting. It also says that this permission must be written down. Permission should be written, and it is key that the person being checked fully understands the process, the psychologist's role, the limits of privacy, and how this is different from therapy. The process should also clearly state how the information will be used and who will see it.

The Ethics Code also says that psychologists must "take reasonable steps to protect private information" and to discuss with people "the limits of privacy" and "how the information will likely be used." This process of getting permission should also be done again when talking to other people for information. This ensures that everyone the psychologist talks to understands why the interview is happening and what information will not be kept private.

When checking on people who have experienced complex trauma and might be having dissociation symptoms, it is especially important to remember that getting permission might need to be discussed many times during the evaluation. Also, forensic psychologists will need to think about the pace of the evaluation. They must make sure the person understands the types of questions that will be asked and the information that will be discussed. Also, the person should be ready for how difficult the evaluation might be, since it means sharing information about trauma in a short amount of time.

Use of Appropriate Assessment Tools

Both the APA Ethics Code and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology say that it is important to use the right tools to check on a case. The Ethics Code says that psychologists should base their ideas on enough information and methods to support what they find. It also says that psychologists' work should be based on known scientific and professional knowledge. The Specialty Guidelines say that forensic psychologists should use proper methods in their work and that they should use ways of checking that are right for the purpose and have been shown to be useful.

When checking for complex trauma and dissociation, the psychologist usually uses tools that look at personality and thinking skills, as well as tools that are specific to trauma. When using general personality checks, the psychologist must know how trauma survivors answer these questions, both for honest answers and for typical problems. The tests used should be current. If services for scoring and understanding tests are used, the psychologist must make sure that the answers are based on correct information and standards that have been shown to work for the people being checked.

Besides general checks, a good and fair legal evaluation of trauma and dissociation will need to include tools that specifically look at these traumatic experiences and symptoms. Choosing the right trauma-specific tools will help the psychologist use tools that are properly standardized and have been shown to work well for checking trauma-related problems. Some of these tools also have ways to check if answers are honest. All tools used must, of course, be scored carefully and correctly using the right standards.

In any legal evaluation, where there might be a reason to either make problems seem worse or better, it is important to carefully check for faking or how a person tends to answer questions. Many articles have been written about checking for faking in trauma survivors. It is important that the psychologist uses tools that have been properly standardized for people who have experienced trauma. Also, it is key for forensic psychologists to know how people with complex trauma might respond in ways that seem fake or overdone.

Record Keeping

During the evaluation, the psychologist should be careful to keep clear and correct records. They will need to write down both what they see and what the person being checked reports. These observations of behavior should be clearly marked as such. Also, it is key for the psychologist to keep a copy of the agreement with the lawyer, carefully and fully write down everything looked at during the evaluation, and keep a full record of all tests and notes taken.

Experts have given advice on how important it is to record observations, especially when checking on someone who has experienced complex trauma and dissociation. This goes along with the Ethics Code's rule about keeping professional work records and the Specialty Guideline that says forensic psychologists should record all information they consider in enough detail for courts to review. The psychologist will also likely need to give a copy of their entire file to the court and to the other lawyers.

Finally, when preparing and copying records, attention should be paid to keeping tests safe, as required by the Ethics Code. This includes following any rules about copying test materials.

Impact of Trauma Exposure on the Individual Being Evaluated and the Evaluator

Other things to think about, specifically for a legal evaluation involving complex trauma and dissociation, include knowing how the person's past experiences might affect them during the evaluation. For example, people who have experienced complex trauma might have a lot of trouble trusting others and might feel ashamed. They might also use coping methods like playing down problems, denying things, or avoiding them, which could greatly affect their answers during the evaluation.

A legal evaluation often means looking at many upsetting details about traumatic events in a short time, sometimes just one or two days. This intense sharing can be too much for the person being checked. So, the psychologist needs to pay attention to the pace of the evaluation and might need to offer frequent breaks. Also, the psychologist needs to watch how the person is responding to questions and how aware and present they seem. The psychologist will need to help the person stay calm enough to get good and correct information. This might seem to go against the idea of a psychologist as an unbiased investigator, and the psychologist must be careful not to mix their role with that of a therapist. However, a good legal check will require both counseling and assessment skills, especially when evaluating a trauma survivor. Often, the person being checked might be in therapy, and it is wise to ask their therapist to be available to help them with safety, stability, and managing their feelings during and after the evaluation. If the person is in jail, it is helpful to remember that showing too much distress can make someone a target, so the psychologist should make sure there is enough time to help the person calm down before returning to their cell.

It is also important to know and tell the hiring lawyer how a trauma survivor's experiences might affect how they deal with the legal system and how they respond to the demands of the evaluation and speaking in court. For example, people with complex PTSD might not want to talk about their experiences with their lawyers. Their ways of coping, like playing down or avoiding things, might make it harder for their lawyers to help them. Also, trouble controlling emotions and urges, or doing risky things like self-harm or drug use, might also get in the way of their interactions with the legal system. Judges and juries might not understand why someone speaking about their trauma does not show much emotion. The expert psychologist speaking in court will need to clearly explain the person's behavior to help the court understand what they are seeing.

Besides thinking about the impact of the evaluation on the person being checked, a key part of doing a good legal evaluation for complex trauma involves knowing how the evaluation will affect the psychologist. The Ethics Code says that psychologists should not start professional work if they know their personal problems will get in the way. If they have personal problems that might affect their work, they should take steps like getting advice or help, and decide if they should limit, stop, or end their work.

Checking for complex trauma means the psychologist will hear very clear details about upsetting events and their effects in a short amount of time. Also, the psychologist will not have the benefit of getting this information during a long-term therapy relationship, which can make them more likely to experience vicarious traumatization. This is when the psychologist starts to feel the same symptoms as the trauma survivor. So, given the risks of this and its possible bad effects on the psychologist and the evaluation, it is very important that the forensic psychologist take care of themselves. This can include eating well, exercising, sleeping enough, taking time off, getting advice from other professionals, or going to therapy themselves.

Report Writing and Testimony

After the evaluation is done, the forensic psychologist will usually give feedback to the hiring person and might then need or be asked to write a report. The report should clearly describe how the evaluation was done and what led to the conclusions. It is especially important that the forensic psychologist be ready to present correct information in a way that is easy to understand and based on facts. The psychologist should also be ready to correct false ideas and share all information based on science.

The Ethics Code says that psychologists must base their opinions in reports and court talks on enough information and methods to support what they find. The psychologist should only state conclusions that are backed by the evaluation and not go beyond the information when explaining results. The Specialty Guidelines also say to be careful to "tell the difference between what was seen, what was thought, and what was decided." Forensic psychologists should explain how their expert opinions connect to the legal questions and facts of the case.

The psychologist might also feel pressure from the hiring lawyer to add or remove statements that the lawyer thinks might harm their client's case. This is especially true when the person has a long history of complex trauma, and the lawyer worries that talking about their past trauma could hurt the case. It is important that the forensic psychologist make it clear to the lawyer that all important history will need to be looked at and shared. The psychologist's job is to give a fair evaluation, not a report that takes sides. The psychologist should follow ethical rules about being honest and avoiding false statements. The Specialty Guidelines also give advice on being accurate, fair, and honest in reports.

Conclusions

This paper has talked about important rules and ideas for forensic mental health evaluations, especially when checking for complex trauma and dissociation. It has strongly pointed out that trauma psychology and forensic psychology are special areas of work. Therefore, psychologists who want to evaluate people with complex trauma, and trauma experts who want to work in legal settings, will need special training, education, professional advice, and ongoing learning to stay skilled. Forensic psychologists need to know the laws and rules for the areas where they work and be aware of possible conflicts in their roles. Also, it is key to understand different cultures and to always think about how trauma exposure will affect the person being checked, their involvement in the legal system, and the psychologist themselves. Forensic psychologists should use assessment tools that are based on evidence and understand trauma, and they should get information from many sources during evaluations. Knowing how to use tools for trauma and dissociation correctly, and how people with complex trauma respond to general checks, is also very important. A psychologist who pays attention to these rules and ideas can greatly help the field of forensic psychology. As experts have said, "By considering the terrible effects that trauma can cause, as well as the strength of the human spirit, the forensic evaluator can help the court find a fair and balanced solution in civil and criminal matters."