Fitness in paradise: Quality of forensic reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary

Robinson, Richard; Acklin, Marvin W.

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.03.001

Cited by 41 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in spite of a fairly large research base, there are still numerous aspects of the CST evaluation process that are understudied or unknown. For example, in their review of the literature spanning 2001 to 2010, Fogel et al (2013 noted that there is still scant research addressing issues relating to ethnic and cultural diversity (e.g., use of interpreters in evaluations). Further, no research has compared initial CST evaluations with those conducted after the examinee has received restoration services.…”

Section: Competence To Stand Trial Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state‐wide review of court‐ordered reports

Murrie

Gardner

Torres

2020

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations are a critical part of certain criminal proceedings, and competence‐related evaluation and treatment are an increasing part of public mental health services. Whereas more research describes the defendants undergoing competence evaluations, less research has examined the actual reports detailing those competence evaluations. This study reviewed 3,644 court‐ordered CST evaluation reports submitted by 126 evaluators in Virginia since Virginia initiated an oversight system allowing for comprehensive review. The base rate of incompetence opinions was 38.8%, but these rates varied significantly across evaluation type (initial versus post‐restoration efforts) and evaluators (ranging from 9.1% to 76.8% incompetence rate). Results suggest generally strong compliance with state statutes guiding CST evaluations, but also highlight marked variability in forensic conclusions and reveal a few areas in which some reports fell short of statutory requirements and practice guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Competence To Stand Trial Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state‐wide review of court‐ordered reports

Murrie

Gardner

Torres

2020

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As in the previous review period, a number of studies investigated differences in characteristics of incompetent and competent defendants. Some studies used judicial conclusions and others evaluators' opinions, but the two may be almost interchangeable, in that two recent studies reported agreement between courts' AC decisions and evaluators' AC opinions 99.6% of the time (Cox & Zapf, ) and 90% of the time (Robinson & Acklin, ). Other studies used measures of psycholegal abilities as their criteria.…”

Section: Empirical Correlates Of Ac Judgments and Psycholegal Abilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that most reports for defendants found incompetent included information about defendants' factual understanding, but that over 90% of these reports offered no information about defendants' “appreciation” or “reasoning” abilities (typically associated with the law's requirement of rational understanding). Evaluating AC reports in Hawaii, Robinson and Acklin () developed a survey instrument to assess “a comprehensive list of quality elements” (p. 134). Only one‐quarter of the reports received a score at or above 80% of the maximum possible score.…”

Section: Quality Of Ac Evaluations and Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an effort to enhance the quality of report writing, Robinson and Acklin () suggested the use of checklists. Witt () has created such a forensic report checklist, using the results from Grisso's () description of the 10 most frequent errors in forensic reports, based on a review of practice samples submitted but not approved for use in the final phase of application for board certification in forensic psychology by the American Board of Forensic Psychology.…”

Section: Quality Of Ac Evaluations and Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

Fogel

Schiffman

Mumley

et al. 2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 2001-2010 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial, referred to in this article 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) systemic issues, (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations, (iii) AC assessment methods, (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities, (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports, (vi) interpretive issues, (vii) special populations (defendants who are elderly, defendants with intellectual disabilities), (viii) AC evaluations of juveniles, and (ix) treatment of incompetent defendants. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.

show abstract

“…In Australian courts, expert reports are usually withheld from jurors as lawyers and judges deem them unsuitable for jury review and unhelpful in deliberation. In most jurisdictions worldwide, few opportunities exist for experts to receive feedback from courts and lawyers on the quality of their written reports (Day et al., ; Robinson & Acklin, ). Accordingly, some psychologists advocated the establishment of forensic report databases to enhance the visibility of this aspect of professional practice and to create a public forum for its evaluation (Heilbrun, DeMatteo, & Marczyk, ).…”

Section: Sources Of Advice On Forensic Report Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Forensic Examination of Court Reports

Goodman‐Delahunty

Dhami

2013

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advice to professionals who conduct forensic evaluations for courts on how to write an effective report has been driven by legal evidentiary principles and best practices in assessment. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to how salient information is integrated within a report, and how non-informational aspects of reports (e.g., order and format of information) may impact the fact-finding process. Experts are required to integrate both qualitative and quantitative information from a variety of different sources, with varying degrees of reliability and validity. Nevertheless, it is assumed that the trier of fact relatively weights and integrates the relevant information contained in a report in order to form a conclusion, and that this conclusion is then itself weighted and integrated with other evidence in order to formulate the final decision in a case. We apply theories and findings from the field of decision science to critically evaluate these assumptions and extend their application to outcomes of empirical studies on forensic reports. By drawing together the findings from these two areas of research, we identify research gaps and provide some recommendations on ways to structure and format expert reports to enhance their appropriate impact on the trier of fact.

show abstract

Fitness in paradise: Quality of forensic reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary

Cited by 41 publications

References 26 publications

Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state‐wide review of court‐ordered reports

Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state‐wide review of court‐ordered reports

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

A Forensic Examination of Court Reports

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About