The Experts below are selected from a list of 59931 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marlene M Eisenberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
psychometric properties of the macarthur Competence Assessment tool criminal adjudication
Psychological Assessment, 1998Co-Authors: Randy K. Otto, Norman G. Poythress, Richard J. Bonnie, John Monahan, Steven K. Hoge, Robert A Nicholson, John F Edens, Marlene M EisenbergAbstract:University of VirginiaThis article describes the development of a new clinical instrument for use in Assessments of adultcriminal defendants' Competence to proceed to adjudication, the MacArthur Competence AssessmentTool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA). The MacCAT-CA was derived from a more comprehen-sive research instrument (MacArthur Structured Assessment of Competencies of Criminal Defendants;Hoge, Bonnie, Poythress, Monahan, & Eisenberg, 1997) on the basis of considerations efface validityfor use in legal contexts, psychometric analyses, and advice from mental health experts who reviewedan earlier prototype. This article presents the results from an National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored validation study that investigated the psychometric properties of the MacCAT-CA.At least 25,000 criminal defendants are referred annually forevaluation of their Competence to participate in legal proceed-ings (Steadman & Hartstone, 1983). Although a number ofmeasures have been specifically designed to assess defendants'capacities in this area (e.g., Competence Screening Test [CST],Lipsitt, Lelos, & McGarry, 1971; Georgia Court CompetencyTest [GCCT], Wildman et al., 1980; CADCOMP, Barnard etal., 1991; Competency Assessment Instrument [CAI], Labora-tory of Community Psychiatry, 1974; Interdisciplinary FitnessInterview [IFI], Golding, Roesch, & Schreiber, 1984; Fitnessto Stand Trial Interview, Menzies, Webster, Roesch, Jensen, R RobertA. Nicholson, Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa; JohnMonahan and Richard J. Bonnie, School of Law, University of Virginia;Steven K. Hoge, School of Law and School of Medicine, University ofVirginia; Marlene Eisenberg, Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and PublicPolicy, University of Virginia.John F. Edens is now at the Department of Psychology, Sam HoustonState University.This research was supported by the MacArthur Foundation ResearchNetwork on Mental Health and the Law, and by Grant RO1MH54517-O1A1 from the National Institute of Mental Health. We are grateful toTom Feucht-Haviar for his assistance on a pilot test of this measure.Norman G. Poythress, John Monahan, Richard J. Bonnie, and StevenK. Hoge are authors of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) published by Psychological As-sessment Resources. Randy K. Otto, Norman G. Poythress, Robert A.Nicholson, John F. Edens, John Monahan, Richard J. Bonnie, and StevenK. Hoge are authors of the MacCAT-CA manual, also published byPsychological Assessment Resources.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to RandyK. Otto, Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, Florida MentalHealth Institute, University of South Florida, 13301 Bruce B. DownsBoulevard, Tampa, Florida 33612-3899. Electronic mail may be sent toorto@hal.fmhi.usf.edu.Eaves, 1984), each exhibits various limitations (Grisso, 1991;Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997; Nicholson, 1992).Briefly, some measures were designed to serve primarily asscreening instruments (e.g., CST and GCCT) and appear mainlyto be collections of items having various legal content but littleor no underlying conceptual structure. Others (e.g., CAI and IFI)lack standardized administration and criterion-based scoring,relying instead on the judgment of the clinician to determine,on a case-by-case basis, which questions to pose to the defendantand how to rate the responses received. None is designed toprovide quantitative indexes of discrete Competence-related abil-ities, nor have interpretative norms based on large, nationalsamples been developed for any of these measures.Given the pivotal role of a defendant's Competence, one of themajor research initiatives of the MacArthur Foundation ResearchNetwork on Mental Health and the Law was the developmentof a standardized research instrument for evaluating criminaldefendants' psycholegal abilities related to Competence to pro-ceed to adjudication. The MacArthur Structured Assessmentof Competencies of Criminal Defendants (MacSAC-CD; Hoge,Bonnie, Poythress, Monahan, & Eisenberg, 1997) was based onBonnie's (1992, 1993) comprehensive theory of legal compe-tence, and it contains measures of discrete Competence-relatedabilities. Items in the MacSAC-CD were modeled after thosecreated by Grisso, Appelbaum, Mulvey, and Fletcher (1995) forthe Assessment of Competence to consent to treatment (see, moregenerally, Grisso & Appelbaum, 1998). Each measure in theMacSAC-CD involves standardize d administration an crite-rion-based scoring, thus reducing much of the discretionary(and potentially idiosyncratic) scoring that plagues existingmeasures.Hoge et al. (1997) recently described the MacSAC-CDand presented the primary findings from a field study that in-volved both incompetent and competent defendants as researchparticipants. The results of this field study indicated that the
Stephen L. Golding - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Factor structure and validity of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication.
Psychological assessment, 2005Co-Authors: Patricia A. Zapf, Jennifer L. Skeem, Stephen L. GoldingAbstract:Examination of the available literature regarding the development of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) reveals 2 theoretical factor structures on which the MacCAT-CA was based: one in which 3 lower-order constructs are proposed (understanding, reasoning, appreciation) and one in which 2 higher-order constructs are proposed (Competence to assist counsel and decisional Competence). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with the MacCAT-CA's original normative sample (N = 729) to test both the relative fit of these 2 theoretical factor structures and models that combine the 2 factor structures. Analyses were also completed to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the MacCAT-CA. Results are discussed in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the nomothetic nature of the MacCAT-CA.
David M. Glassmire - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication: Factor structure, interrater reliability, and association with clinician opinion of Competence in a forensic inpatient sample.
Psychological assessment, 2017Co-Authors: Mary Elizabeth Wood, Jaime L. Anderson, David M. GlassmireAbstract:Adjudicative Competence is the most frequently referred evaluation in the forensic context, and it is because of this that periodic evaluation of Competence Assessment instruments is imperative. Among those instruments, the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties suggesting its utility in informing the forensic inquiry. The purpose of the current study was to further investigate the psychometric properties and ultimate utility of subscale scores using archival data from a sample of 103 male and female forensic patients who were hospitalized for Competence restoration treatment. Results of the present study suggested adequate internal consistency and good model fit for the factor structure. Interrater reliability was evaluated by comparing the absolute agreement of scores derived from 2 independent research assistants for each of the subscales; 2 of the 3 subscales fell within the acceptable range given established interpretative benchmarks for forensic Assessment. Of particular interest was that the Appreciation subscale, while heralding the lowest intraclass correlation coefficient, explained the largest proportion of variance in clinician opinion relative to the other 2 subscales. In other words, the most subjective subscale (as evidenced by the lowest intraclass correlation), explained the largest proportion of variance in ultimate opinion. The authors argue that, although these results are an important consideration in these Assessments, they are neither surprising nor entirely problematic when considering the case-specific nature of the inquiries on the subscale, as well as the subjectivity of scoring criteria for each of the Appreciation items. (PsycINFO Database Record
Randy K. Otto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Development of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (The MacCAT-CA)
Adjudicative Competence, 2002Co-Authors: Norman G. Poythress, Richard J. Bonnie, John Monahan, Randy K. Otto, Steven K. HogeAbstract:The research described in Chapter 3 established that the MacSAC-CD was a reliably-scored, valid measure of criminal defendants’ ability to participate in the legal process, that was also grounded in a legal theory of Competence. The MacSAC-CD, however, was judged not appropriate for clinical-forensic use for a number of reasons. Some of the items lacked face validity for the legal setting, preliminary findings indicated that some of the MacSAC-CD measures yielded redundant information (e.g., paraphrase and recognition measures of understanding), and administration time for the MacSAC-CD ranged from 1.5 to 2.0 hours (which was significantly longer than the time required to administer any of the existing Competence Assessment instruments). This argued for development of a briefer Competence Assessment instrument.
-
psychometric properties of the macarthur Competence Assessment tool criminal adjudication
Psychological Assessment, 1998Co-Authors: Randy K. Otto, Norman G. Poythress, Richard J. Bonnie, John Monahan, Steven K. Hoge, Robert A Nicholson, John F Edens, Marlene M EisenbergAbstract:University of VirginiaThis article describes the development of a new clinical instrument for use in Assessments of adultcriminal defendants' Competence to proceed to adjudication, the MacArthur Competence AssessmentTool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA). The MacCAT-CA was derived from a more comprehen-sive research instrument (MacArthur Structured Assessment of Competencies of Criminal Defendants;Hoge, Bonnie, Poythress, Monahan, & Eisenberg, 1997) on the basis of considerations efface validityfor use in legal contexts, psychometric analyses, and advice from mental health experts who reviewedan earlier prototype. This article presents the results from an National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored validation study that investigated the psychometric properties of the MacCAT-CA.At least 25,000 criminal defendants are referred annually forevaluation of their Competence to participate in legal proceed-ings (Steadman & Hartstone, 1983). Although a number ofmeasures have been specifically designed to assess defendants'capacities in this area (e.g., Competence Screening Test [CST],Lipsitt, Lelos, & McGarry, 1971; Georgia Court CompetencyTest [GCCT], Wildman et al., 1980; CADCOMP, Barnard etal., 1991; Competency Assessment Instrument [CAI], Labora-tory of Community Psychiatry, 1974; Interdisciplinary FitnessInterview [IFI], Golding, Roesch, & Schreiber, 1984; Fitnessto Stand Trial Interview, Menzies, Webster, Roesch, Jensen, R RobertA. Nicholson, Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa; JohnMonahan and Richard J. Bonnie, School of Law, University of Virginia;Steven K. Hoge, School of Law and School of Medicine, University ofVirginia; Marlene Eisenberg, Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and PublicPolicy, University of Virginia.John F. Edens is now at the Department of Psychology, Sam HoustonState University.This research was supported by the MacArthur Foundation ResearchNetwork on Mental Health and the Law, and by Grant RO1MH54517-O1A1 from the National Institute of Mental Health. We are grateful toTom Feucht-Haviar for his assistance on a pilot test of this measure.Norman G. Poythress, John Monahan, Richard J. Bonnie, and StevenK. Hoge are authors of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) published by Psychological As-sessment Resources. Randy K. Otto, Norman G. Poythress, Robert A.Nicholson, John F. Edens, John Monahan, Richard J. Bonnie, and StevenK. Hoge are authors of the MacCAT-CA manual, also published byPsychological Assessment Resources.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to RandyK. Otto, Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, Florida MentalHealth Institute, University of South Florida, 13301 Bruce B. DownsBoulevard, Tampa, Florida 33612-3899. Electronic mail may be sent toorto@hal.fmhi.usf.edu.Eaves, 1984), each exhibits various limitations (Grisso, 1991;Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997; Nicholson, 1992).Briefly, some measures were designed to serve primarily asscreening instruments (e.g., CST and GCCT) and appear mainlyto be collections of items having various legal content but littleor no underlying conceptual structure. Others (e.g., CAI and IFI)lack standardized administration and criterion-based scoring,relying instead on the judgment of the clinician to determine,on a case-by-case basis, which questions to pose to the defendantand how to rate the responses received. None is designed toprovide quantitative indexes of discrete Competence-related abil-ities, nor have interpretative norms based on large, nationalsamples been developed for any of these measures.Given the pivotal role of a defendant's Competence, one of themajor research initiatives of the MacArthur Foundation ResearchNetwork on Mental Health and the Law was the developmentof a standardized research instrument for evaluating criminaldefendants' psycholegal abilities related to Competence to pro-ceed to adjudication. The MacArthur Structured Assessmentof Competencies of Criminal Defendants (MacSAC-CD; Hoge,Bonnie, Poythress, Monahan, & Eisenberg, 1997) was based onBonnie's (1992, 1993) comprehensive theory of legal compe-tence, and it contains measures of discrete Competence-relatedabilities. Items in the MacSAC-CD were modeled after thosecreated by Grisso, Appelbaum, Mulvey, and Fletcher (1995) forthe Assessment of Competence to consent to treatment (see, moregenerally, Grisso & Appelbaum, 1998). Each measure in theMacSAC-CD involves standardize d administration an crite-rion-based scoring, thus reducing much of the discretionary(and potentially idiosyncratic) scoring that plagues existingmeasures.Hoge et al. (1997) recently described the MacSAC-CDand presented the primary findings from a field study that in-volved both incompetent and competent defendants as researchparticipants. The results of this field study indicated that the
Patricia A. Zapf - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Factor structure and validity of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication.
Psychological assessment, 2005Co-Authors: Patricia A. Zapf, Jennifer L. Skeem, Stephen L. GoldingAbstract:Examination of the available literature regarding the development of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) reveals 2 theoretical factor structures on which the MacCAT-CA was based: one in which 3 lower-order constructs are proposed (understanding, reasoning, appreciation) and one in which 2 higher-order constructs are proposed (Competence to assist counsel and decisional Competence). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with the MacCAT-CA's original normative sample (N = 729) to test both the relative fit of these 2 theoretical factor structures and models that combine the 2 factor structures. Analyses were also completed to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the MacCAT-CA. Results are discussed in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the nomothetic nature of the MacCAT-CA.