Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2008 Sep;21(5):490-4.
doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328308b2ee.

Adjudicative competence

Sharron E Dawes  1 , Barton W Palmer, Dilip V Jeste
Affiliations
Review

Adjudicative competence

Sharron E Dawes et al. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2008 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Although the basic standards of adjudicative competence were specified by the US Supreme Court in 1960, there remain a number of complex conceptual and practical issues in interpreting and applying these standards. In this report we provide a brief overview regarding the general concept of adjudicative competence and its assessment, as well as some highlights of recent empirical studies on this topic.

Recent findings: Most adjudicative competence assessments are conducted by psychiatrists or psychologists. There are no universal certification requirements, but some states are moving toward required certification of forensic expertise for those conducting such assessments. Current data indicate inconsistencies in application of the existing standards even among forensic experts, but the recent publication of consensus guidelines may foster improvements in this arena. There are also ongoing efforts to develop and validate structured instruments to aid competency evaluations. Telemedicine-based competency interviews may facilitate evaluation by those with specific expertise for assessment of complex cases. There is also interest in empirical development of educational methods to enhance adjudicative competence.

Summary: Adjudicative competence may be difficult to measure accurately, but the assessments and tools available are advancing. More research is needed on methods of enhancing decisional capacity among those with impaired competence.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Roesch R, Zapf PA, Golding SL, et al. Defining and assessing competency to stand trial. In: Hess AK, Weiner IB, editors. The Handbook of Forensic Psychology. 2nd Edition John Wiley & Sons Inc.; Hoboken, NJ: 1999. pp. 327–349.
    1. Grisso T. Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments. 2nd Edition Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; New York, NY: 2003.
    1. Grisso T. Evaluating Juveniles’ Adjudicative Competence: A Guide For Clinical Practice. Professional Resource Press; Sarasota, FL: 2005.
    1. Poythress NG, Bonnie RJ, Monahan J, et al. Adjudicative Competence: The MacArthur Studies. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; New York, NY: 2002.

    1. Mossman D, et al. AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial: an american legal perspective. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007;35:S3–S72.This recently published document provides a thorough overview of the history and current status of law and empirical data related to adjudicative competence, and importantly, provides specific consensus guidelines for conducting such assessments.

Publication types

MeSH terms