Assessing dimensions of competency to stand trial: construct validation of the ECST-R.

Content Provider	Semantic Scholar
Author	Rogers, Richard Jackson, Rebecca L. Sewell, Kenneth W. Tillbrook, Chad E. Martin, Mary A.
Copyright Year	2003
Abstract	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).
File Format	PDF HTM / HTML
DOI	10.1177/1073191103259007
PubMed reference number	14682480
Journal	Medline
Volume Number	10
Issue Number	4
Alternate Webpage(s)	https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=resec_faculty_pubs&httpsredir=1&referer=
Alternate Webpage(s)	https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=resec_faculty_pubs
Alternate Webpage(s)	http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=resec_faculty_pubs
Alternate Webpage(s)	https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103259007
Journal	Assessment
Language	English
Access Restriction	Open
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article