Adjudicative competence
PURPOSE OF REVIEWAlthough 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 con...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Current opinion in psychiatry 2008-09, Vol.21 (5), p.490-494 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 494 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 490 |
container_title | Current opinion in psychiatry |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Dawes, Sharron E Palmer, Barton W Jeste, Dilip V |
description | PURPOSE OF REVIEWAlthough 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 FINDINGSMost 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.
SUMMARYAdjudicative 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328308b2ee |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2570182</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1518900231</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4583-74a7d6b0b0f574b779c1a98bff3acb221e3ba12fc28590d5a47b1a885b4b37433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkTFvFDEQRq0IlFwO6jRRhCjoNow99tpuIkUnCEiR0kBBZdne2dwee7sXezcR_x5HORFIQ2XZ_uZpZh5jpxzOOVj98cfq5hwCcCQUBsEEQXTAFlxqrGqlzSu2AKt4pbHWR-w45w0ASC7sITviplZQW1ywk8tmMzdd9FN3T-_iuN3RREOkN-x16_tMb_fnkn3__Onb6kt1fXP1dXV5XUWpDFZaet3UofTRKi2D1jZyb01oW_QxCMEJg-eijcIoC43yUgfujVFBBtQScckunri7OWypiTRMyfdul7qtT7_c6Dv378_Qrd3teO-E0sCNKIAPe0Aa72bKk9t2OVLf-4HGObsypbRo6v8GBZdlXwgl-P5FcDPOaShbcAKFRFkX5pLJp1BMY86J2j8tc3CPflzx4176KWVnf4_7XLQX8sx9GPuJUv7Zzw-U3Jp8P61dMQhcgawEgAFbbtXjC-Jvc82bOw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>232434669</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Adjudicative competence</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Dawes, Sharron E ; Palmer, Barton W ; Jeste, Dilip V</creator><contributor>Arboleda-Florez, JE</contributor><creatorcontrib>Dawes, Sharron E ; Palmer, Barton W ; Jeste, Dilip V ; Arboleda-Florez, JE</creatorcontrib><description>PURPOSE OF REVIEWAlthough 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 FINDINGSMost 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.
SUMMARYAdjudicative 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0951-7367</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1473-6578</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328308b2ee</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18650693</identifier><identifier>CODEN: COPPE8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Ethics, Medical ; Expert Testimony - ethics ; Expert Testimony - legislation & jurisprudence ; Humans ; Informed Consent - ethics ; Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence ; Interview, Psychological ; Mental competency ; Mental Competency - legislation & jurisprudence ; Mental Disorders - diagnosis ; Mental Disorders - psychology ; Observer Variation ; Performance evaluation ; Studies ; Telemedicine</subject><ispartof>Current opinion in psychiatry, 2008-09, Vol.21 (5), p.490-494</ispartof><rights>2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Sep 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4583-74a7d6b0b0f574b779c1a98bff3acb221e3ba12fc28590d5a47b1a885b4b37433</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,777,781,882,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18650693$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Arboleda-Florez, JE</contributor><creatorcontrib>Dawes, Sharron E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palmer, Barton W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeste, Dilip V</creatorcontrib><title>Adjudicative competence</title><title>Current opinion in psychiatry</title><addtitle>Curr Opin Psychiatry</addtitle><description>PURPOSE OF REVIEWAlthough 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 FINDINGSMost 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.
SUMMARYAdjudicative 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.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Ethics, Medical</subject><subject>Expert Testimony - ethics</subject><subject>Expert Testimony - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed Consent - ethics</subject><subject>Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Interview, Psychological</subject><subject>Mental competency</subject><subject>Mental Competency - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - psychology</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Telemedicine</subject><issn>0951-7367</issn><issn>1473-6578</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkTFvFDEQRq0IlFwO6jRRhCjoNow99tpuIkUnCEiR0kBBZdne2dwee7sXezcR_x5HORFIQ2XZ_uZpZh5jpxzOOVj98cfq5hwCcCQUBsEEQXTAFlxqrGqlzSu2AKt4pbHWR-w45w0ASC7sITviplZQW1ywk8tmMzdd9FN3T-_iuN3RREOkN-x16_tMb_fnkn3__Onb6kt1fXP1dXV5XUWpDFZaet3UofTRKi2D1jZyb01oW_QxCMEJg-eijcIoC43yUgfujVFBBtQScckunri7OWypiTRMyfdul7qtT7_c6Dv378_Qrd3teO-E0sCNKIAPe0Aa72bKk9t2OVLf-4HGObsypbRo6v8GBZdlXwgl-P5FcDPOaShbcAKFRFkX5pLJp1BMY86J2j8tc3CPflzx4176KWVnf4_7XLQX8sx9GPuJUv7Zzw-U3Jp8P61dMQhcgawEgAFbbtXjC-Jvc82bOw</recordid><startdate>200809</startdate><enddate>200809</enddate><creator>Dawes, Sharron E</creator><creator>Palmer, Barton W</creator><creator>Jeste, Dilip V</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc</general><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200809</creationdate><title>Adjudicative competence</title><author>Dawes, Sharron E ; Palmer, Barton W ; Jeste, Dilip V</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4583-74a7d6b0b0f574b779c1a98bff3acb221e3ba12fc28590d5a47b1a885b4b37433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Ethics, Medical</topic><topic>Expert Testimony - ethics</topic><topic>Expert Testimony - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed Consent - ethics</topic><topic>Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Interview, Psychological</topic><topic>Mental competency</topic><topic>Mental Competency - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - psychology</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Telemedicine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dawes, Sharron E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palmer, Barton W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeste, Dilip V</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Current opinion in psychiatry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dawes, Sharron E</au><au>Palmer, Barton W</au><au>Jeste, Dilip V</au><au>Arboleda-Florez, JE</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Adjudicative competence</atitle><jtitle>Current opinion in psychiatry</jtitle><addtitle>Curr Opin Psychiatry</addtitle><date>2008-09</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>490</spage><epage>494</epage><pages>490-494</pages><issn>0951-7367</issn><eissn>1473-6578</eissn><coden>COPPE8</coden><abstract>PURPOSE OF REVIEWAlthough 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 FINDINGSMost 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.
SUMMARYAdjudicative 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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc</pub><pmid>18650693</pmid><doi>10.1097/YCO.0b013e328308b2ee</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0951-7367 |
ispartof | Current opinion in psychiatry, 2008-09, Vol.21 (5), p.490-494 |
issn | 0951-7367 1473-6578 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2570182 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Adult Ethics, Medical Expert Testimony - ethics Expert Testimony - legislation & jurisprudence Humans Informed Consent - ethics Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence Interview, Psychological Mental competency Mental Competency - legislation & jurisprudence Mental Disorders - diagnosis Mental Disorders - psychology Observer Variation Performance evaluation Studies Telemedicine |
title | Adjudicative competence |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T13%3A43%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Adjudicative%20competence&rft.jtitle=Current%20opinion%20in%20psychiatry&rft.au=Dawes,%20Sharron%20E&rft.date=2008-09&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=490&rft.epage=494&rft.pages=490-494&rft.issn=0951-7367&rft.eissn=1473-6578&rft.coden=COPPE8&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/YCO.0b013e328308b2ee&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1518900231%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=232434669&rft_id=info:pmid/18650693&rfr_iscdi=true |