Logic and reliability of evaluations of competence to stand trial.

Skeem, Jennifer L.; Golding, Stephen L.; Cohn, Nancy; Berge, G

doi:10.1023/a:1025787429972

Cited by 111 publications

(134 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using only summary data-collection forms, rather than the actual reports, we were unable to examine the ways in which evaluators articulated (or failed to articulate) their rationale to the court (for a rigorous study of actual report content, we refer the reader to Skeem, Golding, Cohn, & Berge, 1998). That is, although we were able to study characteristics of the defendants and the evaluators' psycho-legal opinions, we were unable to conduct a detailed study of the ways in which evaluators linked the two or provided written rationale for opinions.…”

Section: Limitations and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinion formation in evaluating the adjudicative competence and restorability of criminal defendants: a review of 8,000 evaluations

Warren¹,

Murrie²,

Stejskal³

et al. 2006

Behavioral Sci & The Law

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluations of competence to stand trial (CST) are the most common type of criminal forensic evaluation conducted, and courts tend to defer to clinician opinions regarding a defendant's competence. Thus, it is important to study the ways in which clinicians arrive at opinions regarding adjudicative competence and the data they consider in forming their opinions. We reviewed 8,416 evaluations conducted by forensic evaluators in Virginia over a 12 year period, and examined (a) the clinical, demographic, and criminal characteristics of a defendant as related to opinions regarding competence, predicted restorability, and impairment on "prongs" of the Dusky standard, (b) process and outcome differences in evaluations conducted by psychiatrists versus psychologists and inpatient versus outpatient evaluators, and (c) the consistency of incompetence base rates over a 10 year period. Overall, clinicians opined that 19% of defendants were incompetent and considered 23% of these unlikely to be restored to competence. Not surprisingly, psychotic and organic/intellectual disorders were most strongly associated with findings of incompetence. However, there were some notable differences between evaluations by psychologists versus psychiatrists and between evaluations conducted in inpatient versus outpatient settings.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinion formation in evaluating the adjudicative competence and restorability of criminal defendants: a review of 8,000 evaluations

Warren¹,

Murrie²,

Stejskal³

et al. 2006

Behavioral Sci & The Law

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Traditionally, these studies have examined the factors associated with a finding of incompetence (Cooper & Grisso, 1997;Grisso, 1992;Hart & Hare, 1992;Nicholson & Kugler, 1991;Rosenfeld & Wall, 1998). More recently, studies addressing competence evaluation have begun to examine the reliability among evaluating clinicians (Rosenfeld & Ritchie, 1998) as well as the factors considered and the process documented (Nicholson & Norwood, 2000;Skeem, Golding, Cohn, & Berge, 1998). Other emergent research explores the roles that psychological testing (Borum & Grisso, 1995;Heilbrun, 1990), third party information (Heilbrun & Collins, 1995;Heilbrun, Rosenfeld, Warren, & Collins, 1994;Heilbrun, Warren, & Picarello, 2003), and different methods of quantification (Slovic, Monahan, & MacGregor, 2000) can play in forensic evaluation and opinion formation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinion formation in evaluating sanity at the time of the offense: an examination of 5175 pre‐trial evaluations

Warren

Murrie

Chauhan

et al. 2003

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sanity evaluations are high-stake undertakings that explicitly examine the defendant's culpability for a crime and implicitly explore clinical information that might inform a plea agreement. Despite the gravity of such evaluations, relatively little research has investigated the process by which evaluators form their psycholegal opinions. In the current study, we explore this process by examining 5175 sanity evaluations conducted by a cohort of forensic evaluators in Virginia over a ten-year period. Our analyses focus on (i) the clinical, criminal, and demographic attributes of the defendant correlated with opinions indicative of insanity; (ii) the clinical content of the evaluations and the legal criteria referenced as the basis for the psycholegal opinion; (iii) the process and outcome differences in the sanity evaluations conducted by psychologists versus psychiatrists; and (iv) the consistency in these opinions over a ten year period. Analyses predicting an opinion of insanity indicate a positive relationship with psychotic, organic, and affective diagnoses and previous psychiatric treatment. Analyses also indicate a negative relationship with prior criminal history, drug charges, personality disorder diagnosis, and intoxication at the time of the offense. Modest racial disparities were observed with evaluators offering opinions that the defendant was insane more often for white than for minority defendants despite comparable psychiatric and criminal characteristics.

show abstract

“…Based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, the authors developed a coding manual detailing the scoring criteria for variables of interest. The manual was modelled on two other coding instruments used in previous report analyses (Amenta, 2005;Skeem, Golding, Cohn, & Berge, 1998) and underwent several iterations and a pilot analysis. This analysis resulted in a refining of the coding instrument to ensure that consistency of information was obtained across reports (a copy of the data collection form is available from the authors upon request).…”

Section: Report Coding Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Dangerous Sexual Offender Assessment Reports: Recommendations for Best Practice

Doyle

Ogloff

Thomas

2011

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The operation of Australia's preventive detention legislation depends upon forensic clinician assessments of risk for future sexual offending. However, to date, no information is available regarding how such assessments of risk are being conducted. This study provides the first descriptive analysis of the risk assessment practices of mental health professionals conducting assessments under preventive detention legislation around Australia. Eighty-six forensic evaluation reports on 56 sex offenders subject to preventive detention proceedings were obtained and analysed. Overall, the findings are mixed. Positively, valid structured risk assessment tools were commonly utilized. Also, there was good agreement between experts on the final risk assessment outcome, suggesting a consensus in relevant areas relating to risk assessment. However, a number of concerning results were also found (e.g., some evaluators adopted invalid risk assessment methodologies; others incorrectly applied and interpreted otherwise valid risk tools). Taken together, the findings suggest that the standard of practice of risk assessment must be raised. Recommendations for best practice are proposed.

show abstract

Logic and reliability of evaluations of competence to stand trial.

Cited by 111 publications

References 46 publications

Opinion formation in evaluating the adjudicative competence and restorability of criminal defendants: a review of 8,000 evaluations

Opinion formation in evaluating the adjudicative competence and restorability of criminal defendants: a review of 8,000 evaluations

Opinion formation in evaluating sanity at the time of the offense: an examination of 5175 pre‐trial evaluations

An Analysis of Dangerous Sexual Offender Assessment Reports: Recommendations for Best Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About