Five year research update (1991–1995): evaluations for competence to stand trial

Competence to stand trial and criminalization: an overview of the research

“…Adequate representation and proper identification of intellectually disabled defendants in criminal cases were raised as concerns given that previous research had suggested that approximately 15% of incompetent defendants were intellectually disabled. 31 Throughout the 1990s, research reported that about one-half of intellectually disabled defendants were not identified for competency evaluation [32][33][34] and suggested that these individuals proceed through the criminal justice system without understanding the process or punishments.…”

“…In 1997, Cooper and Grisso noted that a majority of forensic patients in the United States were receiving competency restoration services but there existed little research on treatment for competency restoration. 34 Two decades later, we remain in dire need of systematic research on competency restoration. Pirelli and Zapf 20 conducted a systematic review of restoration services for 12 781 defendants across 51 studies and found that 81% of individuals were restored to competency, after an average of 175 days.…”

Forensic competency evaluations via videoconferencing: A feasibility review and best practice recommendations.

“…Evaluations of competency to stand trial are the most common source of referrals to forensic mental health professionals in the United States (Gowensmith, Murrie, & Packer, 2014). The number of court-ordered referrals for evaluations has increased significantly over the past several decades (Gowensmith & Robinson, 2017;Stafford & Sellbom, 2012), driven by various factors including transinstitutionalization-the use of the resources of the criminal justice system as a proxy for the mental health system (Cooper & Grisso, 1997;Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007). The financial costs associated with competency to stand trial evaluations and subsequent treatment and adjudication are also on the rise and require more financial resources than any other activity in the field of forensic psychology (Pirelli, Gottdiener, & Zapf, 2011;Zapf, Skeem, & Golding, 2005).…”

A meta-analytic review of competency to stand trial research.

“…Robey's checklist has never been systematically studied (Roesch Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR; Everington & Luckasson, 1992), the Metropolitan Toronto Forensic Service (METFORS) Fitness Questionnaire (MFQ; , the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA; Poythress et al, 1999), the Mosley Forensic Competency Scale (MFCS; , the Evaluation for Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R; Rogers, Tillbrook, & Sewell, 2004), and the Test of Malingered Incompetence (TOMI; Colwell et al, 2008). For a full description of most of the aforementioned instruments, including instrument development, administration, scoring, and psychometric properties, readers are referred to other sources (Cooper & Grisso, 1997;Goldstein, 2003;Grisso, 1986Grisso, , 1992Grisso, , 2003Melton et al, 2007;Mumley, Tillbrook, & Grisso, 2003;Pirelli, 2008;Roesch, Zapf, Golding, & Skeem, 1999;.…”

“…Adjudicative competency research has been published steadily since the 1960s, but there is a dearth of review literature in the area. Grisso and colleagues have published three qualitative reviews/5-year research updates since 1992 (Cooper & Grisso, 1997;Grisso, 1992;Mumley, Tillbrook, & Grisso, 2003) and one meta-analysis was conducted by Nicholson and Kugler in 1991. Qualitative and quantitative reviews benefit psycholegal researchers and practitioners by providing summaries of acquired knowledge in the area of study, thereby facilitating conceptual and practical advancements (e.g., models, theories, standards of practice). Such reviews are particularly important in the competency arena because of the numerous empirical investigations conducted over the past 50 years.…”