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.
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.
Authors: Dilip V Jeste; Barton W Palmer; Shahrokh Golshan; Lisa T Eyler; Laura B Dunn; Thomas Meeks; Danielle Glorioso; Ian Fellows; Helena Kraemer; Paul S Appelbaum Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 9.306