Anderson Jaime L, Plantz Jake, Glocker Sabine, Zapf Patricia A
Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas.
Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
J Pers Assess. 2022 Mar-Apr;104(2):281-288. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2021.2006671. Epub 2021 Dec 8.
There is debate regarding the utility of standardized instruments in the assessment of competence to stand trial (CST). Though the field generally has a positive view of the second-generation nomothetic instruments available, the frequency of use falls far behind this favorable impression. The current paper reviewed two standardized instruments used in CST evaluations, the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial - Revised (ECST-R) and the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA). We first review the psychometric properties of both instruments, including a review of limitations. Next, we discuss the legal standing of both instruments, including a review of past admissibility challenges and a discussion of potential issues in cross-examination. Finally, we end with practical guidance for clinicians; namely, that these instruments are generally valid indicators of competence to stand trial and are likely to be particularly useful in cases where competence is ambiguous and the clinician would benefit from additional standardized data to make a clear clinical decision.
关于标准化工具在评估受审能力（CST）中的效用存在争议。尽管该领域总体上对现有的第二代常模工具持积极看法，但这些工具的使用频率却远远低于这种良好印象。本文回顾了两种用于CST评估的标准化工具，即修订后的受审能力评估（ECST-R）和麦克阿瑟能力评估工具-刑事裁决（MacCAT-CA）。我们首先回顾这两种工具的心理测量特性，包括对局限性的回顾。接下来，我们讨论这两种工具的法律地位，包括对过去可采性挑战的回顾以及对交叉询问中潜在问题的讨论。最后，我们为临床医生提供实用指导；也就是说，这些工具通常是受审能力的有效指标，并且在能力存在模糊性且临床医生将受益于额外的标准化数据以做出明确临床决策的情况下可能特别有用。
