In recent years, the need for psychological expert opinions has expanded and has become more important within the judiciary. Expert opinions play a crucial role for people involved in litigation and can influence their destiny significantly. Psychological assessment in the legal context has to be impartial, which can only be accomplished when using scientifically founded assessment tools, with adequate psychometric characteristics. Psychological evaluation is often accomplished by using psychological tests. Nevertheless, it is essential to know the main differences between clinical evaluation primarily intended for therapeutic or treatment purpose and evaluation for making psychological expert opinion (forensic assessment). The latter requires judicious test selection, that attains higher standards.
The aim of this research was to evaluate assessment tools that are most frequently used in expert opinions in Slovenia and to value their adequacy for legal purposes. Furthermore, the research includes an investigation of assessment tools that indicate suitability in similar sociocultural environments. The sample included assessment tools (N = 19) that were most frequently used for psychological evaluation for legal purposes in the last fifteen years. The evaluation was established within the EFPA Review model for the description and evaluation of psychological and educational tests. Adequacy judgment was grounded on quality standards that most frequently appear in the relevant scientific literature. Results reveal that a small number of assessment tools in their current form are adequate for psychological evaluations within legal expertise. The use of inappropriate assessment tools most likely lower the professional credibility of expert opinions, which arouses doubt on the value of evidence.