title: Assessing dimensions of competency to stand trial: construct validation of the ECST-R.
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).
authors.affiliation: University of North Texas, USA.
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Rogers
authors.forename: Rebecca L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Jackson
authors.forename: Kenneth W
authors.initials: KW
authors.lastname: Sewell
authors.forename: Chad E
authors.initials: CE
authors.lastname: Tillbrook
authors.forename: Mary A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Martin
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007406:Interview, Psychological / Q000379:methods*; D007603:Jurisprudence; D008297:Male; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000145:classification* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008960:Models, Psychological; D011569:Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; D011594:Psychometrics; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States