Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy

Reformation of psychological assessment for firearm eligibility: Issues of diagnostics and evaluation in Austria's gun law

Salvatore Giacomuzzi, Lisa Knoll, Markus Ertl
Download article
Abstract

The psychological assessment of firearm applicants is crucial for public safety, yet the scientific validity of the methods mandated by law in Austria and other European nations remains inadequate. The study emphasised the need to redefine approaches to the psychological assessment of individuals applying for firearm ownership toward greater scientific validity and interdisciplinary coherence. The study aimed to critically evaluate the diagnostic and evaluation foundations of the assessment framework enacted by the Austrian Weapons Act, highlighting scientific and legal deficiencies. The evaluation was conducted through a critical analysis of the legal regulations, a formal-logical deconstruction of the mandated test combinations, and a systematic review of the psychometric properties and forensic suitability of each prescribed evaluation instrument. The problematic legal framework, which mandated outdated and scientifically unsubstantiated test series, was analysed. The logical inconsistencies and false equivalences created by the legally permissible combinations of different psychological tests were described. The study stated that the individual instruments are unsuitable for forensic assessment due to outdated norms, a lack of predictive validity for firearm-related risk behaviour, and susceptibility to response distortion. The study further detailed how the reliance on static, actuarial assessment methods contradict modern, evidence-based standards in forensic psychology. The results of this research can be used by legislators, legal experts, and clinical psychologists to reform the existing assessment procedures, thereby enhancing the scientific accuracy and legal defensibility of firearms licensing processes

Keywords

firearms licensing; forensic evaluation; psychometric deficiencies; forensic psychology; diagnostic validity

Suggested citation
Giacomuzzi, S., Knoll, L., & Ertl, M. (2025). Reformation of psychological assessment for firearm eligibility: Issues of diagnostics and evaluation in Austria's gun law. Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy, 13(4), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.31548/hspedagog/4.2025.77
References
  1. Albright, T.D., & Scurich, N. (2024). A call for open science in forensics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(24), article number e2321809121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2321809121.
  2. American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.
  3. Andrade, J.T. (2009). Handbook of violence risk assessment and treatment: New approaches for forensic mental health professionals. New York: Springer.
  4. Bandel, S.L., Rodriguez, T.R., Anestis, M.D., & Anestis, J.C. (2025). Utilizing personality assessment to further firearm injury prevention research: An example investigation with the MMPI-3. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1-9. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2025.2550381.
  5. Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2023). Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  6. Blandino, A., Galante, N., Cuppone, F., Giriodi, M., & Travaini, G.V. (2024). Firearm ownership and suicide: Has the time come to discuss uniformity of health and social assessments in aid of regulation? Reflection from a retrospective study on a forensic case series. Annali di Igiene, 37(2), 215-224. doi: 10.7416/ai.2024.2648.
  7. Brookstein, D.M., Daffern, M., Ogloff, J.R.P., Campbell, R.E., & Chu, C.M. (2020). Predictive validity of the HCR-20V3 in a sample of Australian forensic psychiatric patients. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 28(3), 325-342. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1775152.
  8. Costa, P., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Neo PI-R professional manual. The NEO Inventories, 6, 244-256.
  9. Denz, R., Klaaßen-Mielke, R., & Timmesfeld, N. (2023). A comparison of different methods to adjust survival curves for confounders. Statistics in Medicine, 42(10), 1461-1479. doi: 10.1002/sim.9681.
  10. Douglas, K.S., & Otto, R.K. (2021). Handbook of violence risk assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  11. Douglas, K.S., Hart, S.D., Webster, C.D., Belfrage, H., Guy, L.S., & Wilson, C.M. (2014). Historical-clinical-risk management-20, version 3 (HCR-20V3): Development and overview. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(2), 93-108. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2014.906519.
  12. Doyle, M., & Dolan, M. (2002). Violence risk assessment: Combining actuarial and clinical information to structure clinical judgements for the formulation and management of risk. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 9(6), 649-657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2850.2002.00535.x.
  13. Ellerbrock, D. (2010). Gun violence and control in Germany 1880-1911: Scandalizing gun violence and changing perceptions as preconditions for firearm control. In W. Heitmeyer, H.G. Haupt, S. Malthaner & A. Kirschner (Eds.), Control of violence (pp. 185-212). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0383-9_8.
  14. Endler, N.S., & Parker, J.D. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 844-854. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.844.
  15. Ertl, M., Giacomuzzi, S., Gundolf, E.-M., & Garber, K. (2021). Evaluation of social desirability (lie scales) using the freiburg personality inventory (FPI-R) especially in regard to child custody procedures. Psychologie in Österreich, 2, 169-176.
  16. Fazel, S., Singh, J.P., Doll, H., Grann, M. (2012). Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, article number e4692. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4692.
  17. Gerhold, D., & Obermaier, C. (2013). Reliability under firearms legislation in Austria. SIAK-Journal – Zeitschrift für Polizeiwissenschaft und Polizeiliche Praxis, 3, 47-59. doi: 10.7396/2013_3_E.
  18. Giacomuzzi, S., & Ertl, M. (2024). On the fundamental problems of diagnostics and test theory in psychological assessments for the purpose of firearms legislation. Psychologie in Österreich, 4 & 5, 336-345.
  19. Goncalves, L.C., Rossegger, A., & Endrass, J. (2017). Forensic operationalized therapy/risk evaluation system (FOTRES). In J.P. Singh, D.G. Kroner, J.S. Wormith, S.L. Desmarais & Z. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of recidivism risk/needs assessment tools (1st ed.) (pp. 243-253). Hoboken: Wiley.
  20. Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., Holliday, S.B., & LaDuke, C. (Eds.). (2014). Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/med:psych/9780199941551.001.0001.
  21. Henriksen, S.V., & Kruke, B.I. (2020). Norwegian police use of firearms: Critical decision-making in dynamic and stressful situations. Nordic Journal of Studies in Policing, 7(2), 99-120. doi: 10.18261/issn.2703-7045-2020-02-03.
  22. Hoppe, S.J., Zhang, Y., Hayes, B.E., & Bills, M.A. (2020). Mandatory arrest for domestic violence and repeat offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 53, article number 101430. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2020.101430.
  23. Hutten, J.C., van Horn, J.E., Hoppenbrouwers, S.S., Ziermans, T.B., & Geurts, H.M. (2024). Neuropsychological assessment of aggressive offenders: A Delphi consensus study. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, article number 1328839. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1328839.
  24. John, O.P., Naumann, L.P., & Soto, C.J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and conceptual issues. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.). (pp. 114-158). New York: Guilford Press.
  25. Kampusch, A. (2022). System error in the weapons psychology assessment of phase 1 by the 1st weapons act implementation ordinance. Sachverständige, 4, 207-211.
  26. Kennedy, K.S., Wagner, E.D., Meyerson, N.S., Oliphant, S.N., McCourt, A.D., Zeoli, A.M., Webster, D.W., & Crifasi, C.K. (2025). Examining the impacts of firearm purchaser licensing laws on firearm deaths among youth aged 15 to 24, by age group-USA, 1990-2019. Injury Prevention, 0, 1-5. doi: 10.1136/ip-2025-045700.
  27. Koh, M.K., & Kim, H.S. (2023). Discriminant analysis of high-risk recidivism in criminal offenders based on psychopathological factors from MMPI-2-RF profiles. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 34(3-4), 332-356. doi: 10.1080/14789949.2023.2226126.
  28. Kohut, O. (2020). The concept of integrative development of the personality's tolerance to stress in systemic discourse. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University. Series “Pedagogy and Psychology”, 6(2), 113-123. doi: 10.52534/msu-pp.6(2).2020.113-123.
  29. Margraf, J., & Schneider, S. (2018). Textbook of behavioural therapy (4th ed.). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin.
  30. Ogloff, J.R.P. (2003). Advances in violence risk assessment: A structured professional judgment approach. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 37, article number A5-A5.
  31. Oliphant, S.N., Crifasi, C.K., Doucette, M.L., Topazian, R.J., McCourt, A.D., Kennedy, K.S., & Zeoli, A.M. (2025). Association of firearm purchaser licensing laws with intimate partner homicide. Violence and Gender, 12(2), 67-73. doi: 10.1089/vio.2024.0035.
  32. Ortega-Escobar, J., Alcázar-Córcoles, M.A., Puente-Rodríguez, L., & Peñaranda-Ramos, E. (2017). Psychopathy: Legal and neuroscientific aspects. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 27(1), 57-66. doi: 10.1016/j.apj.2017.01.003.
  33. Paris, J. (2003). Personality disorders over time: Precursors, course, and outcome. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(6). doi: 10.1521/pedi.17.6.479.25360.
  34. Pearson. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.pearsonclinical.de/.
  35. Pirelli, G., Wechsler, H., & Cramer, R.J. (2015). Psychological evaluations for firearm ownership: Legal foundations, practice considerations, and a conceptual framework. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(4), 250-257. doi: 10.1037/pro0000023.
  36. RIS. (n.d.-a). Consolidated federal law: Complete legislation on firearms 1996 (1. WaffV). Retrieved from https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10006017.
  37. RIS. (n.d.-b). Consolidated federal law: Complete legislation on firearms 1996 (1. WaffV). Retrieved from https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10006016.
  38. Roesch, R., & Cook, A.N. (2017). Handbook of forensic mental health services. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315627823.
  39. Schuhfried. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.schuhfried.com/.
  40. Swets, J.A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240(4857), 1285-1293. doi: 10.1126/science.3287615.
  41. Testzentrale. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.testzentrale.de/.
  42. Trempa, E., Janke, W., & Weyers, P. (2002). The predictability of stress processing methods under natural stress conditions using the SVF120. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23(3). doi: 10.1024/0170-1789.23.3.291.
  43. van Leeuwen, F.D., Steyerberg, E.W., van Klaveren, D., Wessler, B., Kent, D.M., & van Zwet, E.W. (2025). Instability of the AUROC of clinical prediction models. Statistics in Medicine, 44(5), article number e70011. doi: 10.1002/sim.70011.
  44. Völlm, B.A., Clarke, M., Herrando, V.T., Seppänen, A.O., Gosek, P., Heitzman, J., & Bulten, E. (2018). European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on forensic psychiatry: evidence-based assessment and treatment of mentally disordered offenders. European Psychiatry, 51, 58-73. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.12.007.
  45. World Health Organization (WHO). (n.d.). International classification of diseases 11th revision. The global standard for diagnostic health information. Retrieved from https://icd.who.int/.
  46. Youngstrom, E.A. (2014). A primer on receiver operating characteristic analysis and diagnostic efficiency statistics for pediatric psychology: We are ready to ROC. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(2), 204-221. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jst062.