Prior Not Suitable

  • Prior FMRT evaluations may provide valuable historical information that helps inform a current psychological assessment. This section provides guidance regarding the appropriate use of previous FMRT evaluations, management of discrepancies across evaluations, documentation of prior findings, and maintaining an independent clinical opinion. Historical information should enhance, not replace, the evaluator's assessment of the applicant's current psychological functioning.

  • Prior FMRT evaluations may provide valuable historical information and should be reviewed when available. They should be used to:

    • Identify changes in psychological functioning.

    • Compare historical and current self-report.

    • Assess treatment and recovery.

    • Evaluate consistency of reported history.

    • Identify patterns over time.

    The current evaluation should remain an independent clinical opinion based on the applicant's present functioning while incorporating relevant historical information.

  • Significant inconsistencies between a prior FMRT evaluation and the applicant's current self-report should be explored during the interview.

    Examples include:

    • Denial of previously reported mental health history.

    • Denial of prior treatment.

    • Denial of hospitalizations.

    • Contradictory descriptions of symptoms.

    • Changes in reported substance use.

    • Inconsistent employment history.

    When discrepancies cannot be reasonably explained, they may raise concerns regarding:

    • Integrity

    • Insight

    • Judgment

    • Reliability of self-report

    Objective documentation should generally be given greater weight than current self-report when conflicts exist.

  • No.

    A prior Not Suitable (NS) recommendation does not automatically determine the outcome of a subsequent evaluation.

    Psychologists should evaluate:

    • Current psychological functioning

    • Demonstrated stability

    • Treatment history

    • Resolution of previous concerns

    • Current testing

    • Current interview findings

    • Any new collateral information

    Applicants may demonstrate meaningful improvement over time, and each evaluation should stand on its own clinical merits.

  • When referencing a prior FMRT evaluation:

    • Summarize clinically relevant historical information.

    • Describe any significant discrepancies between past and current information.

    • Focus on objective findings rather than prior recommendations.

    • Avoid identifying previous evaluators or unnecessary administrative details.

    • Explain how historical information informed the current clinical opinion.

    The report should emphasize observed inconsistencies rather than simply referencing a previous determination.

    • Prior FMRT evaluations provide valuable historical context but do not determine the current recommendation.

    • Each evaluation should be an independent clinical assessment.

    • Significant discrepancies should be explored and documented.

    • Objective historical documentation generally carries greater weight than inconsistent self-report.

    • Integrity concerns arising from inconsistent reporting should be considered within the overall clinical formulation.

    • Reports should focus on relevant historical findings rather than prior suitability determinations.