Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
OtherJOURNAL ARTICLE

Cognitive functions in the informed consent evaluation process: a pilot study

JC Holzer, DA Gansler, NP Moczynski and MF Folstein
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online December 1997, 25 (4) 531-540;
JC Holzer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DA Gansler
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NP Moczynski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MF Folstein
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Assessment of capacity to give informed consent in the general hospital setting usually rests on a clinical judgment made of a patient's understanding and appreciation of his or her illness, a process limited by its subjective nature, interexaminer variability, and relative deficiency of quantitative instruments available to provide collateral information. Inasmuch as identification of associated variables could strengthen this process, this study examines the association of cognitive functions to the capacity to give informed consent. Over a one-year period, 65 patients were evaluated independent of medical or psychiatric diagnoses. The study population consisted of medical and neurology inpatients seen for neuropsychiatric evaluation. All evaluations included assessment of capacity to give informed consent as it related to the reason for the admission to the hospital, followed by administration of the Hopkins Competency Assessment Test, the Mini-Mental Status Examination, the Trail-Making Test, Parts A and B, and the Executive Interview. Of 65 patients, 34 were excluded based on preset criteria. The remaining patients were assigned to either a "competent" or "noncompetent" group based on clinical evaluation. Number of patients, gender, and handedness distributions between groups were similar. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of age or education. Significant between-group differences were found on an empirical measure of competency, a general mental state measure, and on measures of attentional and executive cognitive functions. An analysis of classification rates indicated that a measure of executive cognitive functioning (Executive Interview) had the best sensitivity and specificity in correctly classifying competent and noncompetent patients. The results of this study support the association between the capacity to give informed consent in the hospital setting and measures of cognitive functioning, suggesting that utilization of cognitive function measures may strengthen the competency assessment process.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 25 (4)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 25, Issue 4
1 Dec 1997
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cognitive functions in the informed consent evaluation process: a pilot study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Cognitive functions in the informed consent evaluation process: a pilot study
JC Holzer, DA Gansler, NP Moczynski, MF Folstein
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 1997, 25 (4) 531-540;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Cognitive functions in the informed consent evaluation process: a pilot study
JC Holzer, DA Gansler, NP Moczynski, MF Folstein
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 1997, 25 (4) 531-540;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Thirty-five years of working with civil commitment statutes
  • "Just say no": experts' late withdrawal from cases to preserve independence and objectivity
  • Co-occurrence of personality disorders in persons with kleptomania: a preliminary investigation
Show more JOURNAL ARTICLE

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law