RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluating Competency to Stand Trial with Evidence-Based Practice
JF Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
JO J Am Acad Psychiatry Law
FD American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
SP 450
OP 460
VO 37
IS 4
A1 Rogers, Richard
A1 Johansson-Love, Jill
YR 2009
UL http://jaapl.org/content/37/4/450.abstract
AB Evaluations for competency to stand trial are distinguished from other areas of forensic consultation by their long history of standardized assessment beginning in the 1970s. As part of a special issue of the Journal on evidence-based forensic practice, this article examines three published competency measures: the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA), the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R), and the Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR). Using the Daubert guidelines as a framework, we examined each competency measure regarding its relevance to the Dusky standard and its error and classification rates. The article acknowledges the past polarization of forensic practitioners on acceptance versus rejection of competency measures. It argues that no valuable information, be it clinical acumen or standardized data, should be systematically ignored. Consistent with the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Practice Guideline, it recommends the integration of competency interview findings with other sources of data in rendering evidence-based competency determinations.