Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Recent interview-based measures of competency to stand trial: A critical review augmented with research data

  • Richard Rogers
    ,
  • B. S. Nicole Grandjean
    ,
  • Chad E. Tillbrook
    ,
  • ,
  • Kenneth W. Sewell
  • University of North Texas
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well
  • SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
    SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Abstract

Forensic experts are frequently asked to conduct competency-to-stand trial evaluations and address the substantive prongs propounded in Dusky v. United States (1960). In understanding its application to competency evaluations, alternative conceptualizations of Dusky are critically examined. With Dusky providing the conceptual framework, three interview-based competency measures are reviewed: the Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT), the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (Mac-CAT-CA), and the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R). This review has a twin focus on reliability of each measure and its correspondence to Dusky prongs. The current review is augmented by new factor analytic data on the MacCAT-CA and ECST-R. The article concludes with specific recommendations for competency evaluations.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 503-518 (16 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Behavioral Sciences and the Law (Volume 19, Issue 4)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 2001

Publication status

Published - 2001

ISSN

0735-3936

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 0034806412
  • PubMed: 11568958

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
SciVal
citations
35
SciVal
FWCI
3.73
SciVal
Author count
5
SciVal
Paper percentile
80
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.20
Fractional count
4
Fractional count
0.80
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
43
Captures
35