Logo image
Back
Assessing judges' perceptions of the quality of competence to stand trial reports
Thesis   Open access

Assessing judges' perceptions of the quality of competence to stand trial reports

Aislinn Tansey
Master of Science (M.S.), Drexel University
Jun 2021
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17918/00000742
pdf
Tansey_Aislinn_2021685.56 kBDownloadView
PDF Open Access Open Access (License Unspecified)

Abstract

Forensic psychology Competency to stand trial
Competence to stand trial evaluations (CST) are the most commonly conducted forensic mental health assessment (FMHA). Thus, it is crucial to examine components of CST evaluations under the guidelines of best practices. CST evaluations typically result in a written report, and prior research has indicated that these reports are highly influential to judges presiding over CST hearings. After Heilbrun (2001) published 29 principles of FMHA, Heilbrun et al. (2009) published an expanded list of 38 principles of FMHA that are meant to steer forensic evaluators through the process of FMHA and provide best practice guidelines. This study aims examined the impact that Heilbrun's principles of FMHA have on judges' perceptions of CST reports. The participants were split into three groups, one group receiving a high principle adherence report, one group receiving a moderate principle adherence report, and one receiving a low principle adherence report. The judges then rated the quality of the reports. The results demonstrated that there was no significant relationship between the level of adherence to the principles of FMHA and judges' perceptions of the quality of the report. Findings indicate that judicial decision makers do not hold forensic mental health reports to the same standards that psychologists do.

Metrics

62 File views/ downloads
48 Record Views

Details

Logo image