Search results

Evaluations of the impact of case formulation on outcomes for offenders are needed. The quality of case formulations may impact on outcomes, hence one essential aspect in outcome evaluation is quality assessment. A case formulation quality checklist (CFQC) was constructed and showed good reliability and internal consistency. However, feedback from users was the CFCQ could be improved. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the opinions of professionals who had used the CFQC to provide a basis for its revision.

This was a qualitative study, in which ten professionals who had used the CFQC were asked their views about it. An inductive thematic analysis was used to organise the data.

Seven themes were identified. First, the importance of assessing quality in case formulation; second, the appropriate and comprehensive content of the CFQC; third, the practicality of the CFQC; fourth, validity and reliability issues; fifth, ways to improve the CFQC; sixth, potential as a training tool; seventh, limitations of the use of the CFQC. The CFQC was revised in light of these comments, producing the CFQC-R.

The reliability and consistency of the CFQC-R needs to be examined, as does validity, particularly predictive validity. This information will better enable research into whether case formulation improves outcomes for service users, and whether better quality case formulations lead to greater improvements.

The CFQC-R may be of value in training and supervising clinicians in constructing case formulations.

The CFQC-R is reproduced here so that researchers and practitioners may use the checklist.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of current practice in forensic case formulation, describing different approaches and discussing some of the practical and ethical issues that routinely arise. The paper further identifies areas where future practice and research might be strengthened.

There is only a very small literature to draw upon in reviewing this topic. Therefore a narrative literature review was undertaken, synthesising findings from published, peer-reviewed studies, and papers that addressed case formulation in psychological practice.

Despite case formation being considered by many to be a core competency of evidence-based forensic practice, it is not currently possible to describe a typical forensic case formulation or advocate for a particular approach to practice.

A number of practical and ethical issues routinely arise in the process of conducting a forensic case formulation. Ultimately, the absence of a consistent approach can lead to lead to poor clinical decision-making and the delivery of inadequate or inappropriate intervention.

This is one of the few discussions of case formulation that have been prepared for forensic practitioners. It is likely to be of interest to readers of the journal given the importance of the formulation process in contemporary forensic practice.

Despite the popularity of team formulation, there is a lack of knowledge about workable implementation in practice. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to characterise team formulation, based upon examples from practice; and second, to identify factors perceived to support or obstruct workable implementation in practice.

An online survey recruited UK Clinical Psychologists (n=49) with experience in team formulation from a range of work contexts. Examples of team formulation in practice were analysed using both deductive and inductive framework analysis.

Four novel types of team formulation with different functions and forms are described: case review, formulating behaviour experienced as challenging, formulating the staff-service user relationship and formulating with the service-user perspective. A number of factors perceived to support and obstruct team formulation were identified including team distress, facilitating change, managing difference and informing practice. These were common across team formulation types.

The team formulation types identified could be used to standardise team formulation practice. Several common factors, including managing team distress, were identified as aiding workable implementation across team formulation types. Future research should investigate the key processes and links to outcomes of team formulation in practice.

This paper presents two original, practice-based and practice-informing frameworks: describing, first, novel forms and functions of team formulation and, second, the factors supporting and obstructing facilitation in practice. This paper is the first to highlight the common factors that seem to facilitate workable implementation of team formulation in practice.

The purpose of this paper is to review the evidence base for the use of risk formulation in forensic practice settings.

Systematic literature review principles were adopted to identify literature exploring risk formulation in forensic practice settings in relation to offending behaviour.

Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach, and commonalities were observed across some of the studies in terms of definitions, outcomes, and implementation, of risk formulation; however, the findings of the review did not provide a definitive account of risk formulation practice in forensic settings. This is due to the narrow scope of the included studies, the small yet diverse samples, the heterogeneity in research aims and the methodological weaknesses apparent within the included studies.

Further research is needed to understand the application and outcomes of risk formulation in forensic practice settings.

Practitioners should be clear about how they are defining, implementing and assessing the outcomes of risk formulation, alongside being mindful of the evidence base when utilising forensic risk formulation in practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to focus solely on the evidence base for forensic risk formulation in practice.

Team formulation, used to understand patient problems and plan care, is a growing practice in adult mental health and learning disability services. The purpose of this paper is to explore definitions applied to team formulation (as distinct to therapy formulation), its underpinning theories, and the inter-relationship between the team and the process of formulation.

A database search (main search term of team formulation) of peer-reviewed studies was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A main and second reviewer conducted quality appraisals and thematic analysis. Data were analysed by convergent qualitative synthesis design using thematic analysis to transform evidence from quantitative and qualitative studies into qualitative findings.

Initial searching produced 4,532 papers, 10 of which were eligible for inclusion. Team formulation has no distinct definition. Theories underpinning the practice of therapy formulation emanating from general psychological theory underpin team formulation. Seven studies applied psychological theories to the examination of team formulation. No studies examined the impact of the team on the formulation. Six themes were generated regarding the impact of team formulation on the team; “increased knowledge and understanding”, “altered perceptions, leading to altered relationships, feelings and behaviours”, “space to reflect”, “useful when stuck or challenged”, “perceived increase in effectiveness” and “improved team working”.

Limited evidence and variable quality compromised the availability of review evidence.

This is the first review to examine team formulation through the context of the team. The authors argue that a conceptual framework to encompass team inputs, processes and outputs in team formulation practice should guide future research.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the initial development of a framework to assist in clinical case formulation for individuals diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) who have been convicted of violent and other offences.

The proposed framework obtains information on the presence of ASD features from an individual’s developmental history, index offence and offence paralleling behaviours. Through obtaining information across these three domains the framework helps the practitioner make an informed assessment of the possible contribution of ASD to offending.

The framework aims to assist the practitioner to develop a clinical formulation based on hypothesised linkages between these domains for use in forensic assessment reports and to aid treatment planning. The use of the proposed framework is illustrated through a reference formulation based on a fictive case example.

The framework is still in the early stages of development and has not been tested. The next stage is to utilise case information data to assess the validity of the items. This does not preclude the use of the framework by practitioners as an aid to generating clinical hypotheses about the possible link between autism and offending as the development of the tool has been informed by research on ASD and offending.

The framework may be used in conjunction with structured professional judgement tools. For example, the recently published third version of the HCR-20 includes pervasive developmental disorders as a historical risk item. This possible relevance of this item in terms of forensic risk could be presented using information obtained from the framework outlined in this paper. This in turn could be used to inform the formulation section of the HCR-20 and in the generation of treatment plans. In the longer term, the framework may help inform our understanding of possible relationships between violence risk and ASD and therefore aid effective assessment and treatment planning.

In the longer term, the framework may help inform our understanding of possible relationships between violence risk and ASD and therefore aid effective assessment and treatment planning.

Although there is an emergent body of research on ASD and offending this has not yet been translated into a tool to help practitioners. This paper sets out an approach to do this and therefore makes an original contribution to the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of psychological case formulation meetings for staff in a secure forensic learning disability and autism service.

In total, 89 of the attendees completed a questionnaire prior to the formulation meeting and then another questionnaire following attendance at a formulation meeting.

The results indicate that staff found these to be a helpful, informative and a positive experience professionally and personally. The results suggest that the formulation meetings developed staffs’ psychological understanding about the patient and their problems, helped to increase their empathy towards the patient, increased consistency in the teams’ views, and that the staff felt listened to.

Psychological formulation meetings are established in the current service, and therefore this may be a contributing to factor to the lack of significant change found in some of the items. Therefore, it would be beneficial for future services to complete a service evaluation at a much earlier point of implementation, as this may impact the level of significance.

The findings of this service evaluation suggest that formulation is a beneficial and useful tool for teams and would be a helpful tool for psychologists to use in the clinical work with teams.

Today, industrial firms need to cope with competitive challenges related to innovation, dynamic responses, knowledge sharing, etc. by means of effective and dynamic strategy formulation. In light of these challenges, the purpose of the paper is to present and evaluate an assessment tool for strategy formulation processes that ensures high quality in process and outcome.

A literature review was conducted to identify success criteria for strategy formulation processes. Then, a simple questionnaire and assessment tool was developed and used to test the validity of the success criteria through face‐to‐face interviews with 46 managers, workshops involving 40 managers, and two in‐depth case studies. The success criteria have been slightly modified due to the empirical results, to yield the assessment tool.

The resulting assessment tool integrates three generic approaches to strategy assessment, namely the goal‐centred, comparative and improvement approaches, as found in the literature. Furthermore, it encompasses three phases of strategy formulation processes: strategic thinking, strategic planning and embedding of strategy. The tool reflects that the different approaches to assessment are relevant in all phases of strategy formulation, but weighted differently. Managerial perceptions expressed in particular that learning from experience should be accommodated in strategic thinking. The strategic planning stage is mainly assessed based on the goal‐centred approach, but cases and managerial perceptions indicate that the need for accurate and detailed plans might be overrated in the literature, as implementation relies heavily on continuous improvement and empowerment. Concerning embedding, key aspects relate both to the goal‐centred and improvement approaches, while the comparative approach appears to play a more modest role, related to monitoring external changes and enabling the organization to respond adaptively.

The proposed assessment tool is general in the sense that it does not take into account relationships between the strategic context and the assessment of strategy formulation processes. The investigated cases indicate that contingencies matter, and call for further investigation of particular applications. The present research maintained a focus on formal and relatively top‐down‐oriented strategy formulation processes.

The integration of three different strategy assessment approaches has been made to obtain a holistic, multi‐perspective reflection on strategy formulation. Such reflection is assumed to enable managers to proactively evaluate the potential outcome and performance of their chosen strategy.

The originality of the paper lies in the combination and compilation of multiple approaches to strategy assessment, which draws on a wide range of literature, and in the proactive perspective on strategy assessment. Furthermore, the validity of the proposed assessment tool or checklist is based on multiple sources of empirical evidence.