For many forensic mental health clinicians, conducting evaluations remotely was not common practice until the onset of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Available research on remote forensic services largely focuses on perceived concerns and self-reported use. Using a sample of 156 jury-eligible participants, this study is the first to empirically explore whether conducting evaluations remotely may translate to negative impacts in the courtroom. Participants listened to a mock contested competency hearing in which an expert testified about the results of an evaluation conducted with the defendant using videoconferencing technology. As expected, participants who heard attorney cross-examination questions that raised concerns about the accuracy of remote evaluations rated the expert as less credible compared to the experimental control condition in which attorney questions related to videoconferencing were excluded. Despite these results, this study should not be used to justify abandoning remote forensic evaluations; rather, it suggests further research and practice recommendations are needed to better prepare for cross-examination questioning and/or educate the court about the validity of remote evaluations. Additional implications and recommendations for experts, attorneys, and forensic psychology researchers are discussed.
Lord et al. (Mon,) studied this question.