Administered a modified Stroop Color‐Word Test to 80 healthy males aged 21‐90 years as part of a study of neuropsychological functioning. No age differences were demonstrated on simple reading tasks; however, significant age effects were observed for the color naming and interference tasks (ps < 001). Ss in the oldest age groups (61‐70 and 71‐90 years) performed more slowly than younger individuals on both of these. Of a variety of tests administered, performance on the Stroop Test was most affected by age. Because impairment on Stroop color naming and interference tests appears to be a concomitant of normal aging, caution should be exercised when one is interpreting Stroop test results from older patients with suspected cerebral dysfunction.

Because the trier of fact determines the weight to be assigned to an examiner's opinion by assessing the strength and persuasiveness of his or her analysis of the data, it is essential that forensic reports communicate the examiner's reasoning process. This study analyzes community examiners' reports on competence to stand trial (CST), emphasizing the nature of examiners' (1) expressed conceptualizations of CST and ( 2) reasoning establishing a nexus between CST impairments and symptoms of psychopathology. Expert raters coded 100 randomly selected CST reports with respect to a variety of issues, including the examiners' description of the defendant's psycholegal deficits, provision of specific reasoning to link these deficits to psychopathology, and agreement with a paired examiner's global and specific opinions about the defendant's impairments. CST reports were found to (1) reflect basic operationalizations of competence that fail to incorporate legally relevant facets such as a defendant's decisional capacities and (2) adequately document clinical findings, but fail to describe the reasoning underlying psycholegal conclusions. Examiners demonstrated moderately high levels of agreement on defendant's global CST, but expressed radically divergent bases for this opinion. These findings are discussed in light of legal, ethical, and professional standards of practice.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract