Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, R.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, R.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, M. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Assessing Dimensions of Competency to Stand Trial

Construct Validation of the ECST-R

Richard Rogers

Rebecca L. Jackson

Kenneth W. Sewell

University of North Texas

Chad E. Tillbrook

University of Massachusetts

Mary A. Martin

University of North Texas

Four decades of forensic research have left unanswered a fundamental issue regarding the best conceptualization of competency to stand trial vis-à-vis the Dusky standard. The current study investigated three competing models (discrete abilities, domains, and cognitive complexity) on combined data ( N = 411) from six forensic and correctional samples. Using the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST-R), items representative of the Dusky prongs were used to test the three models via maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Of the three, only the discrete abilities model evidenced a good fit, indicating that competency to stand trial should consider separately each defendant’s factual understanding of the proceedings, rational understanding of the proceedings, and ability to consult with counsel. ECST-R competency scales, based on the current CFA, have excellent alphas (.83 to .89) and interrater reliabilities (.97 to .98).

Key Words: competency • ECST-R • Dusky standard

Assessment, Vol. 10, No. 4, 344-351 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1073191103259007
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 AssessmentHome page
M. J. Vitacco, R. Rogers, and J. Gabel
An Investigation of the ECST-R in Male Pretrial Patients: Evaluating the Effects of Feigning on Competency Evaluations
Assessment, September 1, 2009; 16(3): 249 - 257.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
D. Mossman, S. G. Noffsinger, P. Ash, R. L. Frierson, J. Gerbasi, M. Hackett, C. F. Lewis, D. A. Pinals, C. L. Scott, K. G. Sieg, et al.
AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2007; 35(Supplement_4): S3 - S72.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
D. Mossman
Predicting Restorability of Incompetent Criminal Defendants
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, March 1, 2007; 35(1): 34 - 43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
J. L. Viljoen, G. M. Vincent, and R. Roesch
Assessing Adolescent Defendants' Adjudicative Competence: Interrater Reliability and Factor Structure of the Fitness Interview Test-Revised
Criminal Justice and Behavior, August 1, 2006; 33(4): 467 - 487.
[Abstract] [PDF]