Exaggeration of Neuropsychological Deficit in Competency to Stand Trial

Wynkoop, Timothy F.; Denney, Robert L.

doi:10.1300/j151v01n02_04

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Frederick and his colleagues adapted the SVT to assess feigned shortterm memory deficits and compared their findings to other established tests of Evaluations for competence to stand trial 337 memory. They also offered case studies to illustrate issues in the detection of malingering in AC cases, as did two other articles (Denney, 1996;Wynkoop & Denney, 1999). These three reports suggest that the SVT procedure may be helpful in identifying actual and malingered neuropsychological deficits.…”

Section: Malingering and Competence Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Five year research update (1996–2000): evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence)

Fogel

Schiffman

Mumley

et al. 2003

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 1996-2000 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial (also known as adjudicative competence). The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) the systemic context of evaluations of adjudicative competence (AC); (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations; (iii) research on AC assessment methods; (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities; (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports; (vi) interpretation of AC evaluation data; (vii) issues in AC assessment of special populations (e.g., juveniles, persons with mental retardation, and women); and (viii) treatment to restore competence. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.

show abstract

Section: Malingering and Competence Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Five year research update (1996–2000): evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence)

Fogel

Schiffman

Mumley

et al. 2003

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their review of the research literature, Wynkoop and Denney (1999) found only two peer reviewed studies concerning malingering among individuals being evaluated for competency to stand trial (CST; Daniel & Resnick, 1987;Gothard, Viglione, Meloy, & Sherman, 1995), neither of which specifically addressed feigning of cognitive impairment. Subsequent research has found a modest prevalence of feigned psychiatric symptoms in CST samples; for example, Lewis and colleagues found that of 55 individuals undergoing CST evaluation in the federal justice system, 24 (44%) were classified as feigning based on the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (Lewis, Simcox, & Berry, 2002).…”

Section: Competency To Stand Trial Defendantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Validation of the Test of Memory Malingering in a Forensic Psychiatric Setting

Weinborn¹,

Orr²,

Woods³

et al. 2003

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) has not been adequately validated in a forensic psychiatric setting. Dissimulation of cognitive impairment, as assessed by the TOMM, was evaluated in a group of 25 forensic inpatients admitted for evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial (CST/MSO group), and hypothesized to be at higher risk for feigning cognitive impairment. A comparison group of 36 patients, who were either civilly committed or adjudicated Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (CIVIL/NGRI group), were hypothesized to be less likely to feign cognitive impairment. Groups were comparable in age, education, premorbid intelligence, and psychiatric symptom severity. Significantly more CST/MSO patients (36%) scored below a recommended TOMM cutoff score relative to CIVIL/NGRI patients (6%). Findings indicate excellent specificity and modest sensitivity, and generally support the validity of the TOMM in a forensic psychiatric population. The utility of different cutoff scores and need for multiple indicators of effort are discussed.

show abstract

“…Denney & Wynkoop, 2000;Wynkoop & Denney, 1999), and introducing the developmental element only complicates things further. In many jurisdictions (Ohio and Federal included), the presence of a severe mental condition, sometimes referred to as disease or defect, is required to form a basis (or cause) for "present inability to consult with his or her attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him or her" (Dusky, 1960, italicized material added;cf.…”

Section: Legal and Training Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Denney & Wynkoop, 2000;Wynkoop & Denney, 1999), there is nothing yet written on the application of neuropsychology to juvenile adjudicative competence. This article is a primer on juvenile adjudicative competence from a neuropsychological perspective, briefly describing some of the issues relevant to juvenile adjudicative competence, the complexities of juvenile justice, neuropsychological development (normal and problematic), neuropsychological differences between adults and children (development and assessment), application of child neuropsychology to adjudicative competence, and suggestions for future directions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuropsychology of Juvenile Adjudicative Competence

Wynkoop¹

2003

Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the application of neuropsychology to adult adjudicative competence has been examined previously (cf. Denney & Wynkoop, 2000;Wynkoop & Denney, 1999), there is nothing yet written on the application of neuropsychology to juvenile adjudicative competence. This article is a primer on juvenile adjudicative competence from a neuropsychological perspective, briefly describing some of the issues relevant to juvenile adjudicative competence, the complexities of juvenile justice, neuropsychological development (normal and problematic), neuropsychological differences between adults and children (development and assessment), application of child neuropsychology to adjudicative competence, and suggestions for future directions.

show abstract

Exaggeration of Neuropsychological Deficit in Competency to Stand Trial

Cited by 10 publications

References 38 publications

Five year research update (1996–2000): evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence)

Five year research update (1996–2000): evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence)

A Validation of the Test of Memory Malingering in a Forensic Psychiatric Setting

Neuropsychology of Juvenile Adjudicative Competence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About