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
Research ArticleRegular Article

Competency Restoration Treatment: Differences Between Defendants Declared Competent or Incompetent to Stand Trial

Claire D. Advokat, Devan Guidry, Darla M. R. Burnett, Gina Manguno-Mire and John W. Thompson
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online January 2012, 40 (1) 89-97;
Claire D. Advokat
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Devan Guidry
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Darla M. R. Burnett
PhD, MP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gina Manguno-Mire
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John W. Thompson Jr
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1

    Comparison of Incompetent and Competent Defendants on Demographic Variables

    CategoryIncompetentCompetentp
    Age in years, mean (SD)37.5 (14.1)34.9 (13.2)NS
    Gender
        Male66.7 (10)86.0 (37)NS
        Female33.3 (5)14.0 (6)NS
    Ethnicity
        Caucasian6.7 (1)16.3 (7)—
        African American93.3 (14)81.4 (35)NS
        Asian0.02.3 (1)—
    Marital status
        Single80 (12)86 (37)NS
        Married6.7 (1)7.0 (3)—
        Divorced13.3 (2)7.0 (3)—
    Education level
        <1260.0 (9)55.8 (24)NS
        ≥12/GED40.0 (6)41.9 (18)NS
        Unknown0.02.3 (1)—
    Employment status
        Unknown13.3 (2)14.0 (6)—
        Unemployed46.7 (7)41.9 (18)NS
        Employed6.7 (1)7.0 (3)—
        Disabled33.3 (5)37.2 (16)NS
    • All values, except age, are percentage (n). NS, not statistically significant; —, not analyzed.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Comparison of Incompetent and Competent Defendants on Forensic Variables

    CategoryIncompetentCompetentp
    GCCT score, M (SD)
        1st evaluation42.9 (21.7)63.2 (17.1).02
        2nd evaluation62.4 (21.9)91.7 (5.9)<.01
    Type of offense
        Nonviolent46.7 (7)39.5 (17)NS
        Violent46.7 (7)46.5 (20)NS
        Both6.7 (1)14.0 (6)—
    Type of prior offense
        Nonviolent40.0 (6)32.6 (14)NS
        Violent13.3 (2)30.2 (13)—
        Both13.3 (2)20.9 (9)—
        No information33.3 (5)16.3 (7)—
    Juvenile abuse
        Yes73.3 (11)76.7 (33)NS
        No20.0 (3)16.3 (7)—
        Unknown6.7 (1)7.0 (3)—
    • All values, except GCCT, are percentage (n). NS, not statistically significant; —, not analyzed.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Comparison of Incompetent and Competent Defendants on Clinical Variables

    Clinical MeasuresIncompetent mean (SD)Competent mean (SD)p
    GAF
        Initial evaluation33.6 (9.9)43.2 (14.8).04
        Final evaluation40.7 (9.8)60.2 (10.5)<.01
    BPRS
        Initial evaluation47.1 (10.5)48.1 (13.6)NS
        Final evaluation40.7 (18.2)35.0 (7.7)NS
    Quick test70.5 (22.9)73.5 (18.8)NS
    MMSE20.4 (5.3)22.4 (6.5)NS
    Length of stay, months
        Admit to evaluation4.3 (3.8)2.7 (1.5)NS
        Admit to discharge17.9 (7.0)7.7 (8.6).01
    Diagnostic Variables% (n)% (n)p
    Diagnosis, Axis 1
        Psychosis66.7 (10)65.1 (28)NS
        Affective0.014 (6)—
        Cognitive13.3 (2)4.7 (2)—
        Malingering6.7 (1)7 (3)—
        No information13.3 (2)9.3 (4)—
    Diagnosis, Axis 2
        Mental retardation46.7 (7)32.6 (14)NS
        Personality disorder6.7 (1)16.3 (7)—
        No information/deferred/RO46.7 (7)51.2 (22)NS
    Substance abuse
        Yes40.0 (6)60.5 (26)NS
        No60.0 (9)39.5 (17)NS
    Treatment history
        Inpatient0.018.6 (8)—
        Outpatient13.3 (2)18.6 (8)—
        Both60.0 (9)37.2 (16)NS
        Unknown26.7 (4)25.6 (11)—
    • NS, not statistically significant; —, not analyzed; RO, ruled out.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Comparison of Clinical Measures on Initial and Final Evaluations

    AssessmentInitial EvaluationFinal Evaluationp
    Competent at final evaluation
        GAF43.2 (14.8)60.2 (10.5)<.01
        GCCT63.2 (17.1)91.7 (5.9)<.01
        BPRS48.1 (13.6)35.0 (7.7)<.01
        BPRS subscales
            Positive symptoms13.4 (5.3)8.8 (3.3)<.01
            Negative symptoms7.4 (4.2)5.1 (2.2).04
            Resistance8.8 (4.2)6.1 (2.1).01
            Discomfort10.2 (4.7)9.2 (4.8)NS
    Incompetent at final evaluation
        GAF33.6 (9.9)40.7 (9.8).02
        GCCT42.9 (21.7)62.4 (21.9).01
        BPRS47.1 (10.5)40.7 (18.2)NS
        BPRS Subscales
            Positive symptoms12.4 (4.8)9.3 (8.0)NS
            Negative symptoms7.8 (3.8)4.9 (3.2)NS
            Resistance6.0 (4.5)6.0 (4.8)NS
            Discomfort10.5 (3.6)8.5 (5.2)NS
    • Data are expressed as the mean ± SD.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 40 (1)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 40, Issue 1
1 Jan 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
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.
Competency Restoration Treatment: Differences Between Defendants Declared Competent or Incompetent to Stand Trial
(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
Competency Restoration Treatment: Differences Between Defendants Declared Competent or Incompetent to Stand Trial
Claire D. Advokat, Devan Guidry, Darla M. R. Burnett, Gina Manguno-Mire, John W. Thompson
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jan 2012, 40 (1) 89-97;

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Competency Restoration Treatment: Differences Between Defendants Declared Competent or Incompetent to Stand Trial
Claire D. Advokat, Devan Guidry, Darla M. R. Burnett, Gina Manguno-Mire, John W. Thompson
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jan 2012, 40 (1) 89-97;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • A Forensic Science-Based Model for Identifying and Mitigating Forensic Mental Health Expert Biases
  • Reconsidering the Relationship Between Criminal Insanity and Delusions
  • A Retrospective Analysis of Rates of Malingering in a Forensic Psychiatry Practice
Show more Regular 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