Sturman Edward D
Graduate Psychology, York University, BSB, 2nd floor, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2005 Nov;25(7):954-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.04.010.
The use of standardized tools for the assessment of competency is vital, given that informal assessments performed by physicians are idiosyncratic and unreliable []. A number of instruments have been developed for this purpose, which are outlined in the following review. For the most part, these tools rest on a definition of competency put forward by Appelbaum and Roth [Appelbaum, P. S., & Roth, L. H. (1982). Competency to consent to research. A psychiatric overview. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 951-958], which incorporates various legal standards. Therefore, the present review will summarize current thinking on competence as well as the strengths, weaknesses, and psychometric properties of existing measures. As competency assessment will be more or less necessary depending on the patient population, another goal of the paper was to assemble the major findings pertaining to patient groups that have impairments in capacity. Although competency varies between and within diagnostic groups, empirical studies consistently demonstrate increased risk for some populations, and clinicians or researchers should be aware of this information. As such, this review may be useful as an initial source for interested researchers or clinicians.
鉴于医生进行的非正式评估具有独特性且不可靠，使用标准化工具来评估能力至关重要[ ]。为此已经开发了一些工具，以下综述将对此进行概述。在很大程度上，这些工具基于阿佩尔鲍姆和罗斯提出的能力定义[阿佩尔鲍姆，P.S.，&罗斯，L.H.（1982年）。同意研究的能力。精神病学概述。《普通精神病学档案》，39，951 - 958]，该定义纳入了各种法律标准。因此，本综述将总结当前关于能力的思考以及现有测量方法的优点、缺点和心理测量特性。由于根据患者群体的不同，能力评估或多或少是必要的，本文的另一个目标是汇总与能力受损患者群体相关的主要研究结果。尽管不同诊断组之间以及组内的能力存在差异，但实证研究一致表明某些人群的风险增加，临床医生或研究人员应该了解这些信息。因此，本综述可能对感兴趣的研究人员或临床医生作为初始资料来源有用。
