Bridging the gap between conventional and standardized competency to stand trial (CST) assessments: An examination of defendant answers to conventional CST questions.

Despite research suggesting that use of forensic assessment instruments of competency to stand trial (CST) can improve the integrity of forensic conceptualizations (Rogers & Johansson-Love, 2009), the majority of evaluators do not use these measures in CST evaluations (Nicholson & Norwood, 2000). The purpose of this study is to bridge the gap between competency evaluations based on a conventional interview and those conducted with the aid of a standardized forensic assessment instrument. To this end, we utilized an archival sample of 704 criminal defendants (543 males, 161 females) ordered to undergo evaluations of CST. In the overall sample, as well as in 2 comparison groups comprised of individuals with psychotic disorders and mental retardation, we coded evaluee responses to 45 conventional competency questions relating to factual understanding, rational understanding, and ability to cooperate with counsel. We present accuracy rates to these questions across competent and incompetent groups in an effort to provide information that can make conventional interviews more evidence-based. Using relative risk ratios, we also sought to identify the questions most associated with evaluator opinions of incompetency. Overall, the results indicated fairly consistent trends that questions relating to rational understanding and ability to cooperate with counsel were the most associated with competence. We discuss how the relative risk ratio findings and descriptive information can be used to make conventional competency interviews more objective and empirically based by providing evaluators with a normative reference point for commonly asked competency questions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores generated from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF test booklets: internal structure comparability in a sample of criminal defendants.

We investigated the internal structure comparability of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores derived from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets in a sample of 320 criminal defendants (229 males and 54 females). After exclusion of invalid protocols, the final sample consisted of 96 defendants who were administered the MMPI-2-RF booklet and 83 who completed the MMPI-2. No statistically significant differences in MMPI-2-RF invalidity rates were observed between the two forms. Individuals in the final sample who completed the MMPI-2-RF did not statistically differ on demographics or referral question from those who were administered the MMPI-2 booklet. Independent t tests showed no statistically significant differences between MMPI-2-RF scores generated with the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets on the test's substantive scales. Statistically significant small differences were observed on the revised Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN-r) and True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r) scales. Cronbach's alpha and standard errors of measurement were approximately equal between the booklets for all MMPI-2-RF scales. Finally, MMPI-2-RF intercorrelations produced from the two forms yielded mostly small and a few medium differences, indicating that discriminant validity and test structure are maintained. Overall, our findings reflect the internal structure comparability of MMPI-2-RF scale scores generated from MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets. Implications of these results and limitations of these findings are discussed.

Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-2-restructured form (MMPI-2-RF) predictors of violating probation after felonious crimes.

We compared Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores of 25 individuals convicted of felonies who violated probation within 1 year of sentencing with those of 45 similarly sentenced defendants who completed probation successfully. The sample (51 males, 19 females) ranged in age from 18 to 81 years (M = 35.2, SD = 13.8) and had 8 to 16 years of education (M = 11.7, SD = 2.1). The majority were Caucasian (85.7%), but African Americans were also represented (14.3%). Individuals in the sample were primarily convicted of mid-level felonies (F-1: 2.9%; F-2: 14.3%; F-3: 22.9%; F-4: 31.4%; F-5: 12.9%). As hypothesized, moderate to large statistically significant differences between probation completers and violators were found on several MMPI-2-RF scales, including Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction, Antisocial Behavior, Juvenile Conduct Problems, Substance Abuse, Aggression, Activation, and Disconstraint. Relative risk ratio analyses indicated that probationers who produced elevated scores on these scales were up to 3 times more likely to violate probation than were those with non-elevated scores. Implications of these results and limitations of our findings are discussed.