Grisso / Borum / Moye Evaluating Competencies

Forensic Assessments and Instruments
2. Auflage 2003
ISBN: 978-0-306-47922-9
Verlag: Springer US
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, Band 16, 553 Seiten

Reihe: Perspectives in Law & Psychology

As in its first edition, this book offers a conceptual model for understanding the nature of legal competencies. The model is interpreted to assist mental health professionals in designing and performing assessments for legal competencies defined in criminal and civil law, and to guide research that will improve the practice of evaluations for legal competencies. A special feature is the book's evaluative review of specialized forensic assessment instruments for each of several legal competencies. Three-fourths of the 37 instruments reviewed in the second edition are new and thus were not reviewed in the first edition. Application of the assessment model and reviews of instruments are provided for six areas of legal competence: *Competence to Stand Trial, *Waiver of Rights to Silence and Legal Counsel, *Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, *Parenting Capacity - Determination of Child Custody, *Guardianship and Conservatorship, and *Competence to Consent to Treatment.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Grisso, Thomas

Borum, Randy

Moye, Jennifer

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Contents;15
2;1 Advances in Assessments for Legal Competencies;20
2.1;LEGAL COMPETENCIES;21
2.2;ADVANCES IN ASSESSMENTS FOR LEGAL COMPETENCIES;22
2.3;LEGAL COMPETENCIES IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS;22
2.3.1;Competence to Stand Trial (Chapter 4);22
2.3.2;Capacity to Waive "Miranda Rights" (Chapter 5);23
2.3.3;Criminal Responsibility (Chapter 6);24
2.3.4;Other Competencies in Criminal Law;25
2.4;LEGAL COMPETENCIES IN CIVIL CASES;26
2.4.1;Parental Competence (Chapter 7);26
2.4.2;Competence to Care for Self or Property (Chapter 8);27
2.4.3;Competence to Consent to Treatment (Chapter 9);27
2.4.4;Other Civil Law Competencies;28
2.5;SUMMARY;28
2.6;IMPROVING EVALUATIONS FOR LEGAL COMPETENCIES: HOW FAR HAVE WE COME?;29
2.7;IGNORANCE AND IRRELEVANCE;31
2.8;INTRUSION;34
2.9;INSUFFICIENCY AND INCREDIBILITY;36
2.10;THE VALUE OF A CONCEPTUAL MODEL;38
3;2 Legally Relevant Assessments for Legal Competencies;40
3.1;INTRODUCTION;41
3.2;FIVE COMPONENTS OF LEGAL COMPETENCIES;42
3.2.1;FUNCTIONAL COMPONENT;42
3.2.2;CAUSAL COMPONENT;48
3.2.3;INTERACTIVE COMPONENT;51
3.2.4;JUDGMENTAL AND DISPOSITIONAL COMPONENTS;55
3.3;SUMMARY;58
4;3 Empirical Assessments for Legal Competencies;60
4.1;FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;61
4.1.1;OBJECTIVES OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;62
4.1.2;THE NEED FOR EVALUATION OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;66
4.2;STANDARDS FOR FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;68
4.2.1;CONCEPTUAL BASIS: DEFINING LEGALLY RELEVANT FUNCTIONAL ABILITIES;69
4.2.2;PSYCHOMETRIC DEVELOPMENT;74
4.2.3;CONSTRUCT VALIDATION;78
4.2.4;PREDICTIVE OR CLASSIFICATORY UTILITY;80
4.3;ORIENTATION TO THE INSTRUMENT REVIEWS;83
4.3.1;DISCOVERY AND SELECTION OF THE INSTRUMENTS;83
4.3.2;PURPOSES AND OUTLINE OF THE REVIEW CHAPTERS;84
5;4 Competence to Stand Trial;87
5.1;THE COMPETENCE QUESTION;87
5.1.1;LAW AND CURRENT PRACTICE;88
5.1.2;FROM LEGAL STANDARD TO FORENSIC ASSESSMENT;100
5.2;REVIEW OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;107
5.2.1;FITNESS INTERVIEW TEST—REVISED (FIT-R);119
5.2.2;COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT FOR STANDING TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION (CAST-MR);126
5.2.3;GEORGIA COURT COMPETENCE TEST—MISSISSIPPI STATE HOSPITAL (GCCT-MSH);133
5.2.4;COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (CAI);139
5.2.5;COMPETENCE SCREENING TEST (CST);148
5.3;CURRENT STATUS OF THE FIELD;157
5.3.1;RESEARCH DIRECTIONS;157
5.3.2;CLINICAL APPLICATION;163
6;5 Waiver of Rights to Silence and Legal Counsel;167
6.1;THE COMPETENCE QUESTION;167
6.1.1;LAW AND CURRENT PRACTICE;168
6.1.2;FROM LEGAL STANDARD TO FORENSIC ASSESSMENT;175
6.2;REVIEW OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;181
6.2.1;COMPREHENSION OF MIRANDA RIGHTS (CMR);182
6.2.2;COMPREHENSION OF MIRANDA RIGHTS—RECOGNITION (CMR-R);191
6.2.3;COMPREHENSION OF MIRANDA VOCABULARY (CMV);195
6.2.4;FUNCTION OF RIGHTS IN INTERROGATION (FRI);199
6.3;CURRENT STATUS OF THE FIELD;204
6.3.1;RESEARCH DIRECTIONS;205
6.3.2;CLINICAL APPLICATION;208
7;6 Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity;211
7.1;THE COMPETENCE QUESTION;211
7.1.1;LAW AND CURRENT PRACTICE;213
7.1.2;FROM LEGAL STANDARD TO FORENSIC ASSESSMENT;221
7.2;REVIEW OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;227
7.2.1;MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE SCREENING EVALUATION (MSE);227
7.2.2;ROGERS CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT SCALES (R-CRAS);234
7.3;CURRENT STATUS OF THE FIELD;241
7.3.1;RESEARCH DIRECTIONS;241
7.3.2;CLINICAL APPLICATION;243
8;7 Parenting Capacity --- RANDY K. OTTO AND JOHN F. EDENS;246
8.1;THE COMPETENCE QUESTION;246
8.1.1;ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS;247
8.1.2;DIVORCE AND CUSTODY;248
8.1.3;LAW AND CURRENT PRACTICE;249
8.1.4;FROM LEGAL STANDARD TO FORENSIC ASSESSMENT;267
8.1.5;ACKERMAN-SCHOENDORF SCALES FOR PARENT EVALUATION OF CUSTODY (ASPECT);275
8.1.6;BRICKLIN PERCEPTUAL SCALES (BPS);285
8.1.7;PERCEPTION OF RELATIONSHIPS TEST (PORT);291
8.1.8;PARENT AWARENESS SKILLS SURVEY (PASS) AND PARENT PERCEPTION OF CHILD PROFILE (PPCP);295
8.1.9;CHILD ABUSE POTENTIAL INVENTORY (CAPI);298
8.1.10;PARENTING STRESS INDEX (PSI);309
8.1.11;PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY (PCRI);315
8.2;CURRENT STATUS OF THE FIELD;318
8.2.1;RESEARCH DIRECTIONS;318
8.2.2;CLINICAL APPLICATION;323
9;8 Guardianship and Conservatorship --- JENNIFER MOYE;325
9.1;THE COMPETENCE QUESTION;325
9.1.1;LAW AND CURRENT PRACTICE;329
9.1.2;FROM LEGAL STANDARD TO FORENSIC ASSESSMENT;338
9.2;REVIEW OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;347
9.2.1;ADULT FUNCTIONAL ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE (AFABS);350
9.2.2;MULTIDIMENSIONAL FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MFAQ);354
9.2.3;PHILADELPHIA GERIATRIC CENTER MULTILEVEL ASSESSMENT INVENTORY (MAI);362
9.2.4;DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL STATUS (DAFS);368
9.2.5;EVERYDAY PROBLEMS TEST (EPT);373
9.2.6;DECISIONMAKING INSTRUMENT FOR GUARDIANSHIP (DIG);375
9.2.7;FINANCIAL CAPACITY INSTRUMENT (FCI);379
9.2.8;HOPEMONT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW (HCAI);383
9.2.9;INDEPENDENT LIVING SCALES (ILS);385
9.3;CURRENT STATUS OF THE FIELD;394
9.3.1;RESEARCH DIRECTIONS;394
9.3.2;CLINICAL APPLICATION;403
10;9 Competence to Consent to Treatment;406
10.1;THE COMPETENCE QUESTION;406
10.1.1;LAW AND CURRENT PRACTICE;408
10.1.2;FROM LEGAL STANDARD TO FORENSIC ASSESSMENT;413
10.2;REVIEW OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;419
10.2.1;CAPACITY TO CONSENT TO TREATMENT INSTRUMENT (CCTI);420
10.2.2;HOPEMONT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW (HCAI);427
10.2.3;HOPKINS COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT TEST (HCAT);431
10.2.4;MACARTHUR COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR TREATMENT (MACCAT-T);436
10.2.5;MACARTHUR COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR CLINICAL RESEARCH (MACCAT-CR);444
10.2.6;UNDERSTANDING TREATMENT DISCLOSURES (UTD);450
10.2.7;PERCEPTIONS OF DISORDER (POD);455
10.2.8;THINKING RATIONALLY ABOUT TREATMENT (TRAT);462
10.2.9;PSYCHOMETRIC DEVELOPMENT;465
10.3;CURRENT STATUS OF THE FIELD;468
10.3.1;RESEARCH DIRECTIONS;468
10.3.2;CLINICAL APPLICATION;473
11;10 Developing and Using Forensic Assessment Instruments;476
11.1;DEVELOPING FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;477
11.1.1;FUNCTIONAL COMPONENT;477
11.1.2;CAUSAL COMPONENT;484
11.1.3;INTERACTIVE COMPONENT;486
11.1.4;JUDGMENTAL AND DISPOSITIONAL COMPONENTS;487
11.2;USING FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS;488
11.2.1;FORMING THE QUESTION;489
11.2.2;SELECTING ASSESSMENT METHODS;489
11.2.3;DESCRIBING FUNCTIONAL ABILITIES;490
11.2.4;EXPLAINING FUNCTIONAL DEFICITS;491
11.2.5;MAKING PREDICTIONS OR POSTDICTIONS;492
11.2.6;STATING CONCLUSIONS;492
11.2.7;A NOTE ON POTENTIAL MISUSE OF FAIS;493
11.3;CONTINUING THE IMPROVEMENT OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENTS;494
11.3.1;THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL;494
11.3.2;THE FUTURE OF FAIS;495
12;References;498
13;Legal Citations;529
14;Author Index;532