Ethical dilemmas in remote forensic psychological assessment: A systematic review of the scientific evidence
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The incorporation of remote communication technologies into forensic psychological assessment has expanded access to and continuity of expert services, but has also generated ethical, methodological, and legal-evidentiary challenges. The objective of this study was to identify and categorize the ethical dilemmas documented in the scientific literature on forensic psychological assessments conducted using remote communication technologies. A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The search was performed in Scopus using pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 14 studies were selected for thematic analysis. The findings allowed for the identification of seven categories: scientific integrity and expert validity; privacy, confidentiality, and digital security; autonomy and informed consent; professional competence and responsibility; equity, accessibility, and diversity; legal-evidentiary legitimacy; and psychological well-being and risk management. The studies also highlighted the need to assess the suitability of each case, protect information, document the limitations of the procedure, and use appropriate instruments. It is concluded that forensic psychological tele-assessment requires specific safeguards to preserve scientific quality, protect the rights of the people evaluated, and ensure the legal defensibility of expert conclusions in contemporary judicial contexts
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
El contenido de los artículos es responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores.
Debe cumplir con los siguientes aspectos de la licencia CC BY NC ND :
- Atribución: debe otorgar el crédito correspondiente, proporcionar un enlace a la licencia e indicar si se realizó algún cambio. Puede hacerlo de cualquier manera razonable, pero no de ninguna manera que sugiera que el licenciante lo respalda a usted o su uso.
- No comercial: el material no se puede utilizar con fines comerciales.
- Sin derivados: si remezcla, transforma o construye sobre el material, no puede distribuir el material modificado.
- Sin restricciones adicionales: No se pueden aplicar términos legales o medidas tecnológicas que restrinjan legalmente a otros de hacer cualquier cosa que permita la licencia.
References
Adjorlolo, S., & Chan, H. C. O. (2015). Forensic assessment via videoconferencing: Issues and practice considerations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 15(3), 185–204. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1015363
Basilio, H. W., Guballa, M. J., & Ronda, Ma. L. (2024). Ethical issues raised in using online tele-mental health (OTH): a review of studies. Diversitas Journal, 9(1_Special). Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.48017/dj.v9ispecial1.2875
Batastini, A. B., Guyton, M. R., Bernhard, P. A., Folk, J. B., Knuth, S. B., Kohutis, E. A., Lugo, A., Stanfill, M. L., & Tussey, C. M. (2023). Recommendations for the use of telepsychology in psychology-law practice and research: A statement by American Psychology-Law Society (APA Division 41). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 29(3), 255–271. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000394
Bernhard, P. A., McDowell, L., & Vincent, G. M. (2021). Forensic practitioners’ use and perceptions of telepsychology before and during COVID-19. Law and Human Behavior, 45(5), 468–480. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000464
Ebo, T. O., Olawade, D. B., Ebo, D. M., Egbon, E., & Ayoola, F. I. (2025). The lasting impact of COVID-19 on forensic mental health: A review of shifts in patient profiles, service delivery, and legal considerations. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 114, 102920. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2025.102920
Galán Santamarina, A., Gonzalez Sanguino, C., López Neyra, G., & Pérez-Sales, P. (2023). Exploratory study on the quality of forensic assessments using the Istanbul Protocol in a virtual versus face-to-face environment. Torture Journal, 33(1), 32–40. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.7146/torture.v33i1.131491
Goldenson, J., & Josefowitz, N. (2021). Remote forensic psychological assessment in civil cases: Considerations for experts assessing harms from early life abuse. Psychological Injury and Law, 14, 89–103. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09404-2
Khalifa, N., Saleem, Y., & Stankard, P. (2008). The use of telepsychiatry within forensic practice: A literature review on the use of videolink. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 19(1), 2–13. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1080/14789940701560794
Kois, L. E., Cox, J., & Peck, A. T. (2021). Forensic e-mental health: Review, research priorities, and policy directions. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 27(1), 1–16. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000293
Luxton, D. D., Lexcen, F. J., & McIntyre, K. A. (2019). Forensic competency assessment with digital technologies. Current Psychiatry Reports, 21, Article 60. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1037-9
Manalili, J. (2024). Digital Boundaries: A Review of Clinical and Ethical Issues in Telepsychology among Mental Health Professionals. Diversitas Journal, 9(1_Special). Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.48017/dj.v9ispecial1.2870
Mars, M., Ramlall, S., & Kaliski, S. (2012). Forensic telepsychiatry: A possible solution for South Africa? African Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 244–247. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.4314/ajpsy.v15i4.31
Mulchay, C., & Knuth, S. B. (2023). Best Practices in Tele-Forensic Methods of Gathering Data in Child Custody Evaluations. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 7(2), 3–17. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.1936-9298.2023.7.2.3-17
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Saleem, Y., Taylor, M. H., & Khalifa, N. (2008). Forensic telepsychiatry in the United Kingdom. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26(3), 333–344. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.810
Sales, C. P., McSweeney, L., Saleem, Y., & Khalifa, N. (2018). The use of telepsychiatry within forensic practice: A literature review on the use of videolink—A ten-year follow-up. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29(3), 387–402. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1396487
Skala, J., Chavez, J. X., Anderson, K., & Gulrajani, C. (2023). Examiners’ perceptions of forensic mental health assessments conducted via videoconferencing. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 41(5), 292–309. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2621
Trupp, G. F., Ricardo, M. M., Boccaccini, M. T., & Murrie, D. C. (2021). Forensic evaluators’ opinions on the use of videoconferencing technology for competency to stand trial evaluations after the onset of COVID-19. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(4), 537–549. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000322
Wynchank, S., & Fortuin, J. (2010). Telepsychiatry in South Africa—Present and future. South African Journal of Psychiatry, 16(1), a231. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.4102/sajpsychiatry.v16i1.231
Young, G. (2024). Remote neuropsychological assessment: Forensics, research, and ethics. Psychological Injury and Law, 17, 291–309. Documento en línea. Disponible https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-024-09515-6