Evaluating competency to stand trial with evidence-based practice

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 450-460

  Rogers, Richard ^a   Johansson Love, Jill ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b Dallas County Community Supervision and Corrections   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIME; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL CAPACITY; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; MENTAL DISEASE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL RATING SCALE; RECUMBENCY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

CRIME; DECEPTION; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; EXPERT TESTIMONY; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MENTAL COMPETENCY; MENTAL DISORDERS; MENTAL RETARDATION; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHIATRIC STATUS RATING SCALES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 76249133088     PISSN: 10936793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Paris J: Canadian psychiatry across 5 decades: from clinical inference to evidence-based practice. Can J Psychiatry 45: 34-9, 2000
2. Dongier M: Evidence-based psychiatry: the pros and cons. Can J Psychiatry 46: 394-5, 2000
3. Lam RW, Kennedy SH: Using meta-analysis to evaluate evidence: practical tips and traps. Can J Psychiatry 50: 167-74, 2005
4. Levine R, Fink M: The case against evidence-based principles in psychiatry. Med Hypotheses 67: 401-10, 2006
5. Maier T: Evidence-based psychiatry: understanding the limitations of a method. J Eval Clin Pract 12: 325-9, 2006
6. Slade M, Cahill S, Kelsey W, et al: Threshold 3: the feasibility of the threshold assessment grid (TAG) for routine assessment of the severity of mental health problems. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 36: 516-21, 2001
7. Aarons GA: Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Serv Res 6: 61-74, 2004
8. Aarons GA, McDonald EJ, Sheehan AK, et al: Confirmatory factor analysis of the evidence-based practice attitude scale in a geographically diverse sample of community mental health providers. Adm Policy Ment Health 34: 465-9, 2007
9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
10. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
11. Popper K: The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959
12. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
13. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
14. Rogers R, Shuman DW: Fundamentals of Forensic Practice: Mental Health and Criminal Law. New York: Springer, 2005
15. Welch C: Flexible standards, deferential review: Daubert's legacy of confusion. Harv J L Public Policy 29: 1085-105, 2006
16. Federal Judicial Center: Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (ed 2). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 2000
17. Gatowski SI, Dobbin SA, Richardson JT, et al: Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law Hum Behav 25: 433-58, 2001
18. Grove WM, Barden RC, Garb HN, et al: Failure of Rorschach-comprehensive- system-based testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho standard. Psychol Public Policy Law 8: 216-34, 2002
19. Ritzier B, Erard R, Pettigrew G: A final reply to Grove and Barden: the relevance of the Rorschach comprehensive system for expert testimony. Psychol Public Policy Law 8: 235-46, 2002
20. Rogers R, Salekin RT, Sewell KW: Validation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory for Axis II disorders: does it meet the Daubert standard? Law Hum Behav 23: 425-43, 1999
21. Dyer FJ, McCann JT: The Millon clinical inventories, research critical of their forensic application and Daubert criteria. Law Hum Behav 24: 487-97, 2000
22. Rogers R, Salekin RT, Sewell KW: The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory: separating rhetoric from reality. Law Hum Behav 24: 501-6, 2000
23. Rogers R, Jordan MJ, Harrison KS: A critical review of published competency-to-confess measures. Law Hum Behav 28: 707-18, 2004
24. Grisso T: Reply to a critical review of published competency-to-confess measures. Law Hum Behav 28: 719-24, 2004
25. Rogers R, Shuman DW: The Mental State at the Time of the Offense measure: its validation and admissibility under Daubert. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 28: 23-8, 2000
26. Poythress N, Melton GB, Petrila J, et al: Commentary on the Mental State at the Time of the Offense measure. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 28: 29-32, 2000
27. Kelly RF, Ramsey SH: Assessing and communicating social science information in family and child judicial settings: standards for judges and allied professionals. Fam Court Rev 45: 22-41, 2007
28. Rogers R: Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS) and Test Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1984
29. Rogers R, Bagby RM, Dickens SE: Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992
30. Rogers R, Tillbrook CE, Sewell KW: Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R) and Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 2004
31. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)
32. Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, et al: Psychological Evaluations for the Courts (ed 3). New York: Guilford Press, 2007
33. American Psychiatric Association: Psychiatric Services in Jails and Prisons (ed 2). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2002
34. Robey A: Criteria for competency to stand trial: a checklist for psychiatrists. Am J Psychiatry 122: 616-23, 1965
35. Lipsitt PD, Lelos D, McGarry AL: Competency for trial: a screening instrument. J Psychiatry 128: 105-9, 1971
36. Laboratory of Community Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: Competency to Stand Trial and Mental Illness (DHEW Pub. No. ADM-77-103). Rockville, MD: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1973
37. Mossman D, Nofrsinger SG, Ash P, et al: Practice guideline of the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 35(Suppl):S3-72, 2007
38. Heilbrun K, Rogers R, Otto RK. Forensic assessment: current status and future directions, in Taking Psychology and Law Into the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Ogloff JRP. New York: Kluwer, 2002, pp 120-146
39. Grisso T: Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments (ed 2). New York: Kluwer Academic, 2003
40. Poythress NG, Nicholson R, Otto RK, et al: Professional Manual for the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1999
41. Everington C, Luckasson R: Manual for Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation: CAST-MR. Worthington, OH: IDS Publishing, 1992
42. Hoge SK, Bonnie RJ, Poythress N, et al: The MacArthur adjudicative competence study: development and validation of a research instrument. Law Human Behav 21: 141-82, 1997
43. Miller GA: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63: 81-97, 1956
44. Baddeley A: The magical number seven: still magic after all these years? Psychol Rev 101: 353-356, 1994
45. Cohen DA: Review of the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised. Mental Measurements Yearbook, Lincoln, NE, Accession No. 16093149, 2004. Available at http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2055/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid= 102&sid=bdf72205-c12f-4c62-aa8f-e6eedlalb8e2%40sessionmgr110&bdata= JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbG12ZSZzY29wZT1zaXR1#db=loh&AN=16093149. Accessed January 20, 2008
46. Leark RA: Review of the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised. Mental Measurements Yearbook, Lincoln, NE, Accession No. 16093149, 2004. Available at http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2055/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid= 102&sid=bdf72205-c12f-4c62-aa8f-e6eedlalb8e2%40sessionmgr110&bdata= JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbG12ZZsY29wZT1zaXR1#db=loh&AN=16093149. Accessed January 20, 2008
47. Rush AJ, Pincus HA, First MB, et al: Handbook of Psychiatric Measures. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 2000
48. Gutheil TG, Bursztajn H: Avoiding ipse dixit mislabeling: post-Daubert approaches to expert clinical opinions. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31: 205-210, 2003