Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42293918›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Psychological assessment in forensic settings: new methodological conceptions and ethical considerations.

Alfredo Verde, Emanuela Saveria Gritti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alfredo VerdeUniversità di Genova, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute - Sezione di Scienze Medico-forensi, Genova, Italy.
Emanuela Saveria GrittiUniversità di Genova, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute - Sezione di Scienze Medico-forensi, Genova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forensic psychological and psychiatric evaluations-understood here as assessments addressing legally operative questions such as, for instance, competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility (sanity), violence risk, but also those on legal capacity and child custody-must meet stringent standards of scientific rigor, transparency, and replicability, yet the reasoning processes underlying clinical formulation require further theoretical articulation. This paper operates at an explicitly metatheoretical level: it does not propose a new clinical procedure, but an epistemological framework grounded in C. S. Peirce's theory of abduction. Abduction designates a third form of inference, irreducible to both induction and deduction: whereas deduction derives a necessary conclusion from a rule, and induction generalizes a rule from observed cases, abduction moves from a surprising fact to the most plausible explanatory hypothesis-a provisional conjecture that requires deductive and inductive testing. Within this framework, forensic case formulation is reconceptualized as an iterative, multi-level abductive process in which idiographic formulations must be systematically anchored to nomothetic data, safeguarded by dual-process reasoning and multimethod and Process-Focused assessment against distortions such as forensic confirmation bias, first-impression effects, and malingering. A novel theoretical contribution is a fractal model of abductive reasoning: clinical inference replicates its structure from micro-abductions on individual signs, through meso-abductions on diagnostic patterns, to macro-abductive formulations. Diagnostic errors can be understood as a "collapse of the fractal." Three vignettes from Italian proceedings illustrate the framework. The paper concludes with methodological and ethical recommendations, arguing that diagnostic error in forensic contexts carries both epistemic and ethical consequences.

Indexed as

abductive reasoningcase formulationcognitive biasdual-process theoryforensic psychological assessmentmultimethod assessmentnomothetic–idiographic integrationPeirce

Identifiers

PMID42293918
PMCPMC13261572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.