Schreiber J, Roesch R, Golding S
Cadmus-Group, Belmont, MA 02178.
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1987;15(2):187-203.
In a field experiment involving 120 defendants at Bridgewater State Hospital in Massachusetts, the authors evaluated three instruments for assessing competency to stand trial: the Competency Screening Test (CST), Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI), and Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI). The CST (a paper-and-pencil test) was administered by a research assistant and scored by trained graduate students. Lawyers, psychologists, and social workers were recruited and trained in the use of the other instruments, then assigned as individuals (CAI) or teams (IFI) to conduct interviews and assess subjects. The performance of the project interviewers was compared against two yardsticks: (1) actual decisions reached by the regular Bridgewater staff, and (2) a consensus of two nationally respected experts who reviewed the cases and formed independent competency judgments. Both the CAI and IFI performed well under these conditions, indicating that one-time interviews by well-trained persons can lead to accurate competency decisions in the majority of cases. The authors conclude that hospitalization for competency assessment is rarely necessary.
在马萨诸塞州布里奇沃特州立医院对120名被告进行的一项实地试验中，作者评估了三种用于评估受审能力的工具：受审能力筛查测试（CST）、受审能力评估工具（CAI）和跨学科健康访谈（IFI）。CST（纸笔测试）由一名研究助理进行管理，并由经过培训的研究生评分。招募律师、心理学家和社会工作者并对他们使用其他工具进行培训，然后将他们分配为个人（CAI）或团队（IFI）进行访谈并评估受试者。将项目访谈者的表现与两个标准进行比较：（1）布里奇沃特医院常规工作人员做出的实际决定，以及（2）两位全国知名专家的共识，这两位专家审查了这些案例并形成了独立的受审能力判断。在这些条件下，CAI和IFI都表现良好，这表明训练有素的人员进行的一次性访谈能够在大多数情况下得出准确的受审能力决定。作者得出结论，很少需要住院进行受审能力评估。
