Competency Evaluations in Connecticut

Fitzgerald, John F.; Peszke, Michael Alfred; Goodwin, R. Christopher

doi:10.1176/ps.29.7.450

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not surprisingly, studies have demonstrated that outpatient screening procedures offer considerable cost benefits (64)(65)(66)(67). Further, outpatient screening evaluations protect the liberty of defendants by facilitating the right to a speedy trial and are consistent with the principle that defendants should be assessed in the least restrictive setting (68)(69).…”

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interrater Reliability of the Fitness Interview Test across 4 Professional Groups

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interrater Reliability of the Fitness Interview Test across 4 Professional Groups

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The subsequent growth of forensic psychology in general, and psychologists' increased participation in court proceedings in particular, has been well documented (Gordon, 1976;Poythress, 1979;Tapp, 1977). Some recent reports indicate that this expansion may be continuing to include professionals from other mental health disciplines (Bernstein, 1977;Fitzgerald, Peszke, & Goodwin, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The quality of forensic evaluations: An interdisciplinary study.

Petrella¹,

Poythress²

1983

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conventional wisdom in mental health law holds that psychiatrists perform forensic evaluations that are superior to those conducted by non-medically trained clinicians. Both legal opinions and the professional literature have alluded to psychologists as "second rate" experts on forensic issues. Two studies are reported in which the forensic reports of psychiatrists are compared with those of nonmedical examiners (psychologists and/or social workers) on a variety of measures of thoroughness and quality. The findings strongly contradict the conventional wisdom and have significant implications for the increased use of non-medical clinicians with appropriate training and experience in forensic psychology.

show abstract

“…Until recently, virtually all states relied primarily on one or two of their public mental hospitals to conduct the courts’ pretrial evaluations on an inpatient basis (Shah & McGarry, 1986). By the late 1970s, however, several articles began to report isolated state-by-state experiences with the development of alternative approaches (Beran & Toomey, 1979; Commonwealth of Massachusetts Court Clinic Services Committee, 1985; Fitzgerald, Peszke, & Boodwin, 1978; Laben, Kashgarian, Nessa, & Spencer, 1977; Laben & Spencer, 1976; Melton, Weithorn, & Slobogin, 1985; Petrila, 1981; Roth, 1979). Many of these newer approaches followed the pattern of “deinstitutionalization” in broader mental health systems, emphasizing outpatient forensic evaluations performed in the community.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The organization of pretrial forensic evaluation services: A national profile.

Grisso¹,

Cocozza²,

Steadman³

et al. 1994

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey obtained standardized data to provide a dr of the approaches used in the 50 states and the District of Columbia for obtaining court-ordered competence to stand trial and criminal responsibility evaluations. Respondents were forensic mental health administrators and forensic mental health professionals. Data were obtained for variables describing the organizational characteristics of the states' pretrial forensic evaluation systems. A typology of the states' systems was developed, based on their predominant reliance on inpatient versus outpatient approaches and on service providers with court referral catchment areas that were statewide, regional, or local. Five types allowed classification of 43 states. The types are described on the major organizational and functional variables employed in the survey. The traditional practice of obtaining most court-ordered evaluations from a central inpatient facility has been replaced by a number of outpatient models in all but a minority of states. These models are more complex than past descriptions would suggest.Every state provides criminal courts with pretrial mental health evaluations of defendants, when their mental status raises legal questions of competence to stand trial or criminal responsibility. Nevertheless, little is known about the specific * This study was supported by a research grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (ROI-MH-44623). The authors gratefully acknowledge the National Association of State Forensic Mental Health Program Directors for its consultation in the planning phases of the study, as well as Paul Appelbaum for comments on an earlier draft. Reprints may be obtained from

show abstract

Competency Evaluations in Connecticut

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Interrater Reliability of the Fitness Interview Test across 4 Professional Groups

Interrater Reliability of the Fitness Interview Test across 4 Professional Groups

The quality of forensic evaluations: An interdisciplinary study.

The organization of pretrial forensic evaluation services: A national profile.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About