Subject Inde

Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent

Evaluation of Custody (ASPECT), 258-268 Activities of daily living (ADL): see

Guardianship, assessment for;

Guardianship, assessment instruments Actual understanding, meaning of, 455 Actus reus, meaning of, 5, 193 Adjudicative competence, 72-73 assessment instrument, 90-101 Admissibility of expert testimony, 17 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, 234 Adult Functional Adaptive Behavior Scale

(AFABS), 334-338 Alzheimer's disease, 311 American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry guidelines, child protection cases, 244, 247 American Academy of Forensic

Psychology, continuing education program, 12

American BarAssociation (ABA) standard, insanity defense, 196-197, 204-205

American Law Institute (ALI) standard, insanity defense, 196-197, 204-206, 218 American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) guidelines, child protection cases, 243­244

American Psychological Association (APA) child protection cases, 243, 246 psychology and law study, 12

American Psychology-Law Society, 13

Amnesia, and competence to stand trial, 33, 72

Appreciation of criminality, as psychological standard, 204-205

Approximation standard, parental competence, 238

Assessment of Living Skills and Resources (ALSAR), 333

Assisted competence, meaning of, 457

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) guidelines, child protection cases, 246

Autonomy issue competence to consent to treatment, 392-393

guardianship, 313

Barthel Index, 333

Behavioral control, loss of, 218-219 Bender-Gestalt Visual Motor Test, 247 Best interests of child standard, 235, 237­239, 257

Biber Figure Test, 332

Bricklin Perceptual Scales (BPS), 268-274 Brockton Social Adjustment Scale, 376

Canterbury v.

Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument (CCTI), 405-412

Capacity to understand, meaning of, 455

Causal components, 29-32

assessment tools, 30-32

competence to consent to treatment assessment, 400-402, 456-457

competence to stand trial assessment, 85-87, 142

competency to waive Miranda rights assessment, 159-161, 189

forensic assessment instruments design,

469- 471

guardianship, assessment for, 325-328, 383-385

insanity assessment, 206-207

legal importance of, 29-30, 85-86 parental competence assessment, 252­254

research needs/directions, 142, 189, 223­

224

theory, limitations of, 32

and treatment provisions, 86 Cause/explanation of deficits: see Causal components

Child abuse/neglect: see Parental competence; Parental competence assessment

Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI), 281­290

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment

Act of 1974, 232

Child custody: see Parental competence;

Parental competence assessment

Children's Apperception Test, 247

Civil cases

competence to care for property, 8 competence to consent in research, 9 competence to consent to treatment, 8-9 parental competence, 7-8

Clinical applications competence to consent to treatment assessment, 458-460

competence to stand trial assessment, 146-148

competency to waive Miranda rights assessment, 190-192

guardianship, assessment, 387-389 insanity assessment, 225-226

Clinical incompetence, versus judicial incompetence, 310-311

Cobbs v.

Cognitive abilities

deficits: see Intellectual deficits

for financial management tasks, 323-324 intelligence tests, 332

meaning of, 193

Cognitive control, loss of, 218-219

Collateral interviews

in forensic report, 203

in parental competence assessment, 248 types of, 201

Colorado v. Connelly, 153

Community Competence Scale (CCS), 370

Comparisons between examiners, and procedures related to tests, 47

Competence Assessment for Standing Trialfor Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR), 108-115

Competence to care for self or property and complexity of property, 33 See also guardianship; guardianship, assessment for

Competence to consent to treatment, 391­398

autonomy issue, 392-393 competence element, 394 disclosure element, 391, 393-394 functional abilities required, 395, 398­399

informed consent, 8-9, 391-392

legal process, 396-397

legal standard, 393-396, 398-399 meaning of, 392

of minors, 395-396 voluntariness element, 391, 394

Competence to consent to treatment assessment, 397-404 causal component, 400-402, 456-457 functional component, 398-400, 453-456

Competence to consent to treatment assessment (cont.)

informal procedures, 397-398 interactive component, 402-403, 457 judgmental and dispositional characteristics, 403-404

research needs/directions, 453-458 tests: see Competence to consent to treatment assessment instruments

Competence to consent to treatment assessment instruments, 404-453

Capacity to Consent to Treatment

Instrument (CCTI), 405-412 clinical applications, 458-460 Hopemont Capacity Assessment Interview (HCAI), 412-416

Hopkins Competency Assessment Test (HCAT), 416-421

MacArthur Competence Assessment Toolfor Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), 428­434

MacArthur Competence Assessment Toolfor Treatment (MacCAT-T), 421-428

Perceptions of Disorder (POD), 440-446

Thinking Rationally about Treatment (TRAT), 446-452

Understanding Treatment Disclosures (UTD), 435-440

Competence to contract and execute will: see Testamentary competence

Competence determination, request for, 75

Competence to dismiss counsel, 6

Competence to plead guilty, legal precedent, 6

Competence Screening Test (CST), 130-139

Competence to stand trial, 3-4, 69-82 adjudicative competence, 72-73 competence determination, 75 competence evaluation procedure, 75-76 decisional competence, 72-73, 83 disposition/provision of treatment, 77­78

evolution of doctrine, 3-4

factual versus rational understanding, 84 incompetence and treatment provisions, 77-78

of insane person, 6

judicial determination of competence, 76-77

and juveniles, 73-74

Competence to stand trial (cont.)

legal definition of, 4, 43

legal precedent, 4, 22, 43, 70-72 legal process, steps in, 74-75 rehearings on competence, 78 state statues, varieties of, 71-72, 75-76 statistics on, 69-70 weighted factors, 71

Competence to stand trial assessment, 82­89

ability domain, empirical analysis of, 140-141

causal components, 85-87, 142

clinician opinion, acceptance issue, 82 functional ability concepts list, 83-84 functional component, 139-140 improvement in evaluations, 81-82 information given to defendant, 76 inpatient versus outpatient, 76, 78-80 interactive components, 87-88, 144-145 judgmental and dispositional and legal competence, 88-89, 145-146

research needs/directions, 139-146 tests: see Competence to stand trial assessment instruments

time factors, 76

Competence to Stand Trial Assessment

Instrument (CAI), 121-129

Competence to stand trial assessment instruments, 90-138

clinical applications, 146-148

Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR), 108-115

Competence Screening Test (CST), 130-139 Competence to Stand Trial Assessment Instrument (CAI), 121-129

Fitness Interview Test-Revised (FIT-R), 101­

108

Georgia Court Competence Test-Mississippi State Hospital (GCCT-MSH), 115-121 MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool­Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA), 90-101

Competency to waive Miranda rights, 4-5, 149-157

decision variables, 154-155 delusional defendant, 152-153, 158 induction of waiver, methods of, 155 intellectual deficits, 156-157, 158-160

Competency to waive Miranda rights

(cont)

intelligent waiver, 152-153 and intoxicated persons, 162 and juveniles, 26, 33, 153, 154, 155-156, 160-161

knowing waiver, 151 legal standard, 150-155 measurement by forensic assessment, 60 per se legal approach, 154

tests for valid waiver, 5, 151, 154 totality of circumstances approach, 151, 153, 154, 161-162

versus false statements, 150

voluntary waiver, 153-154 Competency to waive Miranda rights assessment, 157-163

causal component, 159-161 functional component, 157-159 interactive component, 161-162 judgmental and dispositional components, 163

research needs/directions, 187-190 tests: see Competency to waive Miranda rights assessment instruments Competency to waive Miranda rights assessment instruments, 164-186 clinical applications, 190-192 Comprehension of Miranda Rights (CMR), 164-172

Comprehension of Miranda Rights-

Recognition (CMR-R), 172-176

Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary

(CMV), 177-181

Function of Rights of Interrogation (FRI), 181-186

Waiver Expectancy Interview, 187 Comprehension of Miranda Rights (CMR), 164-172

Comprehension of Miranda Rights-Recognition

(CMR-R), 172-176

Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary

(CMV), 177-181

Comprehensive Assessment and Referral

Evaluation (CARE), 333

Conceptual elements of test, 50-54 content validity, 51 face validity, 51 items/tasks of test, 53-54 needs and requirements, 19-20

Conceptual elements of test (cont.) objectives of, 43-46 and operational definitions, 52-54 psychological theories, 52 See also legal competence constructs

Conceptual model, advantages of, 19-20, 479-480

Consent to participation in research: see Research participation

Conservatorship

use of term, 309

See also guardianship; guardianship, assessment for

Constructs: see Legal competence constructs

Construct validity of test, 59-61 definition of, 59

evidence accumulation in, 59-60 Miranda comprehension example, 60 and predictive utility, 59, 62

Content-referenced instruments, elements of, 57

Content validity

and concept definition, 51 elements of, 51 and test items/tasks, 53

Context specific assessment: see Interactive components

Continuous Paired Associate Test, 332

Continuous Visual Memory Test, 332 Cooper v.

Criminality, use of term, 204

Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards

project, 196-197

Criminal responsibility, 5-6 actus reus, 5 and insanity defense, 5-6 mens rea, 5

Criterion contamination, 200

Criterion-referenced instruments elements of, 57 limitations and legal competence testing, 57-58

Cutoff scores, negative aspects of, 58

Data collection, and procedures related to tests, 47

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

17, 482

Davis v. Davis, 234

Decisional competence, 72-73, 83 Decisionmaking Instrumentfor Guardianship (DIG), 359-363

Declarative knowledge, meaning of, 323 Delusional defendant

competency to waive Miranda rights, 152-153, 158

insanity assessment, 207-208

versus idiosyncratic defendant, 402 Dementia, diseases related to, 311 Developmental disability, research needs/ directions on, 143-144

Diagnostic Interview Schedule, 350 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders-IV

functional disorders, definition of, 218 and legal criteria for insanity, 194-195, 206 Diagnostic testimony

limitation in court, 12-13

meaning of, 12

Dickerson v. U.S, 149, 150, 151

Direct Assessment of Functional Status (DAFS), 352-356

Disclosure of defendant, in forensic report, 203

Disclosure element, competence to consent to treatment, 391, 393-394

Divorce and custody: see Parental competence; Parental competence assessment

Drope v. Missouri, 70

Durable power of attorney, 310-311 Durham v. U.S, 196

Dusky v. United States, definition of competence, 4, 22, 43, 70-72, 83

Elderly: see Guardianship

Empirical information

ability domain, research needs/ directions, 140-141

to assess functional abilities, 27

and forensic test development, 463-464 English common law, and competence doctrine, 3

Environmental context

difficulty in approximation of, 54

and functional abilities, 24

and test items/format, 53-54

types in legal process, 24

Error reduction, and procedures related to tests, 46

Ethical standards, 13

Everyday Problems Test (EPT), 356-359 Ex Parte Devine, 236

Expert testimony

admissibility of, 17

and insanity defense, 198-199

See also forensic clinicians

Face validity

and concept definition, 51

elements of, 51

and test items/tasks, 53

Factual versus rational understanding, 84, 146

Fare v.

Feuger v. United States, 72

Financial Capacity Instrument (FCI), 363-366 Financial judgment, meaning of, 324 Financial management, cognitive skills needed for, 323-324

Fitness Interview Test-Revised (FIT-R), 101­108

Forensic assessment

conceptual model, value of, 19-20, 479­480

to describe functional abilities, 475-476 expert opionin formulation, 477-478 to explain functional deficits, 476-477 growth/improvement of field, 11-14 legal question, relationship to mental state, 14

prediction based on, 477

referral question, 474

selection of assessment methods, 474­475

shortcomings of: see Forensic assessment limitations

Forensic assessment instruments

benefits of use, 45-46

for competence to consent to treatment assessment, 404-453

for competence to stand trial assessment, 90-138

for competency to waive Miranda rights, 164-186

conceptual objectives of, 43-46 costs related to use, 481-482 development, history of, 42-43

Forensic assessment instruments (cont.) development of: see Forensic assessment instruments design

evaluation of instruments, purposes of, 47-49

for guardianship, assessment, 331-378 for insanity assessment, 209-222 misuse of, 478-479

for parental competence assessment, 258-300

procedural objectives of, 46-47 referral question, components of, 474 review of instruments, elements of, 64­68

Forensic assessment instruments design causal component, 469-471 empirical information for, 463-464 final concepts, elements of, 464-465 functional component, 462-469 interactive component, 471-472 judges and lawyers for consensus research, 463

judgmental and dispositional components, 472-473 law research for, 462-463 legal decision-making, knowledge of, 463

malingering / dissimulation detection,

470- 471

predictive utility of test, 468-469 psychological theories, use of, 463 reliability of test, 470 scoring criteria, 467

stimulus-response format, development of, 465-466

validity of test, 468

Forensic assessment instruments standards conceptual elements, 50-54 construct validity, 59-61 person-situation congruency of test, 63­64

predictive utility, 61-63 psychometric elements of test, 55-59

Forensic assessment limitations

and diagnostic testimony, 12-13 insufficiency of supporting information, 17-19

intrusion into legal factfinding, 15-16 irrelevance in courtroom testimony, 12-15 on theoretical speculations, 18

Forensic clinicians

admissibility of testimony, 17

ethical standards, 13

and insanity defense, 198-199 limitations in legal process, 12-19 requirements for legal testimony, 13-14

Forensic identification, meaning of, 200 Forensic report, components of, 202-203

Foster care, parental competence, 234

Frye V.

Functional components, 23-29

assessment, steps in, 26-29 competence to consent to treatment

assessment, 398-400, 453-456 competence to stand trial assessment,

83-84, 139-140

competency to waive Miranda rights assessment, 157-159, 187

and environmental context, 24

expert inferences, limitations of, 25-26 forensic assessment instruments design, 462-469

functional ability concepts list, 83-84 guardianship, assessment for, 322-325, 378-383

insanity assessment, 203-206

legal criteria for legal competence, 28

legal precedents, 33

meaning of, 23-24

parental competence assessment, 250­252

research needs/directions on, 139-140, 187, 223

Functional Independence Measure (FIM), 334

Function of Rights of Interrogation (FRI), 181­

186

Gallagos v. Colorado, 154

Godinez V. Moran, on competency to stand trial, 6, 72-73, 83, 146

Griswold V. Connecticut, 232

Guardianship, 309-320

appointment of guardian, 319-320 autonomy, impact of loss of, 313 debilitating conditions leading to, 311­312

incapacity, basis of, 316

judicial incompetence and appointment of, 310-311

and least restrictive alternative, 330

Guardianship (cont.)

legal process, 317-320

legal standard, 314-317

limited guardianship, 311 monitoring of guardian, 320 past standards, limitations of, 314 potential abuses, causes of, 314 reform measures, 314, 316-320 role of guardian, 312-313 use of term, 309

Guardianship, assessment for, 320-330

for activities of daily living (ADLs), 322­323

assessment guidelines, 320-322

causal component, 325-328, 383-385 dementia related diseases, 311

due process protections, 318

examiner qualifications, 318

for financial management tasks, 323-324 functional component, 322-325, 378-383 for health care tasks, 324-325

for independent living tasks, 325 interactive component, 328-330, 385-386 judgmental and dispositional components, 330-331, 386

medical evidence, 317-318

mental functions, deficits measured, 316 physical/mental limitations and testing, 326-327

representation of respondent by counsel, 319

respondent presence at hearings, 318-319 tests: see Guardianship, assessment instruments

for transportation tasks, 325 Guardianship, assessment instruments, 331-378

Adult Functional Adaptive Behavior Scale (AFABS), 334-338

clinical applications, 387-389

Decisionmaking Instrument for

Guardianship (DIG), 359-363

Direct Assessment of Functional Status (DAFS), 352-356

Everyday Problems Test (EPT), 356-359

Financial Capacity Instrument (FCI), 363-366

Hopemont Capacity Assessment Interview (HCAI), 366-369

Independent Living Scales (ILS), 369-378

Guardianship, assessment instruments (cont.)

intelligence tests, 332

Multidimensional Functional

Assessment Questionnaire (MFAQ), 338-345

Philadelphia Geriatric Center Multilevel Assessment Inventory (MAI), 346-352 research needs/directions, 378-386 Guidelinesfor Child Custody Evaluations in

Divorce Proceedings, 246

Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations in Child Protection Matters, 243

Guilty but mentally ill (GBMI), 197-198 versus not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), 198

Haley v. Ohio, 154

Hansford v.

Harris v. State, 198

Health care management

appointing managers of, 310-311, 324­325

tasks related to, 324-325

Hinckley, John, 197

Hopemont Capacity Assessment Interview (HCAI), 366-369, 412-416

Hopkins Competency Assessment Test (HCAT), 416-421

Incapacity

global versus specific incapacity, 311 use of term, 311

Incompetence

clinical versus judicial incompetence, 310-311

global versus specific incapacity, 311 treatment provisions, 77-78

versus incapacity, 311

Incompetent to stand trial, of sane person, 6

Independent activities of daily living (IADL)

tasks related to, 325

See also guardianship, assessment for; guardianship, assessment instruments Independent Living Scales (ILS), 369-378 Informed consent

elements of, 8-9, 391-392

See also competence to consent to treatment

Inpatient versus outpatient assessment, 76, 78-80

In re the Custody of a Minor, 235

In re Gault, 33, 73-74, 149, 150, 153, 154

In re the Interest ofS.H., a Child, 74

In re Kelly, 235

In re Patrick W., 152, 153

In reRathburn, 245

Insanity

legal definition of, 6, 194

versus competence to stand trial, 6 versus mental state at time of offense (MSO), 194-195

Insanity assessment

causal component, 206-207 data collection, sources of, 201 foresic report, components of, 202-203 functional component, 203-206 interactive component, 207-208 judgmental and dispositional components, 208-209

research needs/directions, 223-225 tests: see Insanity assessment instruments

ultimate issue, 208-209, 225

Insanity assessment instruments, 209-222 clinical applications, 225-226

Mental State and the Time of the

Offense Screening Evaluation (MSE), 209-215

reliability and validity of, 199-200

Rogers Criminal Responsibility

Assessment Scales (R-CRAS), 216-222

Insanity defense, 5-6, 195-200 abolishment of (by states), 197 American Bar Association (ABA) standard, 196-197, 204-205

American Law Institute (ALI) standard, 196-197,204-206

basic premise of, 5-6

civil versus criminal proceedings, 198 and expert testimony, 198-199 frequency of use, 195

guilty but mentally ill (GBMI), 197-198 legal process, 198-199

McNaughtan rule, 196, 203-206 mental state at time of offense (MSO), 194

requirements for, 194-195

and self-incriminating testimony, 199

Intellectual deficits

assessment instrument, 108-115 competence to stand trial, 72 competency to waive Miranda rights, 156-157, 158-160

See also functional components

Intelligence tests, guardianship assessment, 332

Intelligent waiver, of Miranda rights, 152­153

Interactive components, 32-36 assessment objectives, 35 assessment on parallel dimensions, 35 cases related to, 33 competence to consent to treatment assessment, 402-403, 457

competence to stand trial assessment,

87- 88, 144-145

competency to waive Miranda rights assessment, 161-162, 189

and definition of legal competence, 32-33 forensic assessment instruments design,

471- 472

functions related to, 144-145 guardianship, assessment for, 328-330, 385-386

insanity assessment, 207-208 parental competence assessment, 254­256

person-situation congruency, 33-34, 63­64

research needs/directions on, 144-145, 189, 225

variables related to, 87-88 Inter-examiner reliability, meaning of, 56 Inter-rater reliability, meaning of, 56 Intoxicated persons, and competency to waive Miranda rights, 162

Jackson V. Indiana, 77

Johnson V. Zerbst, 154

Judgmental and dispositional components, 36-39

assessment principles, 37-38 competence to consent to treatment assessment, 403-404, 457-458 competence to stand trial assessment,

88- 89,145-146

competency to waive Miranda rights assessment, 163, 189-190

Judgmental and dispositional components (cont.)

forensic assessment instruments design,

472- 473

guardianship, assessment for, 330-331,

386

insanity assessment, 208-209

parental competence assessment, 256­

257

person-contex incongruency in, 36-37 research needs/directions on, 145-146, 189-190, 225

Judicial incompetence, versus clinical incompetence, 310-311

Jurisdictional standard, parental competence, 235

Juveniles

competence to consent to treatment, 395-396

competence to stand trial, 73-74

Miranda rights, competency to waive rights, 26, 33, 153, 154, 155-156, 160­161, 187

Kaimowitz v. Department of Mental Health, 392, 403

Katz Adjustment Scale, 376

Katz Index of ADL, 333

Knowing waiver, of Miranda rights, 151

Knowledge of criminality, as psychological standard, 204-205

Kohlman Evalutation of Living Skills (KELS), 334

Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 482

Law, review and test development, 462­

463

Least detrimental alternative standard, parental competence, 237-238

Least restrictive alternative

and guardianship, 330

testing setting, 78

Legal competence constructs, 22-39

causal component of, 29-32

functional component of, 23-29

interactive component of, 32-36

judgmental and dispositional component, 36-39

Legal competencies

competence to care for self, 8

Legal competencies (cont.)

competence to consent to treatment, 8-9 competence to contract and execute will,

9

competence to dismiss counsel, 6 competence to plead guilty, 6 competence to stand trial, 3-4 competency to waive Miranda rights, 4­

5

consent to participation in research, 9 as constructs, 22-23 and criminal responsibility, 5-6 parental competence, 7-8 relationship to legal matters, 2

Legal competencies evaluation: see

Forensic assessment

Legal definitions, research needs/ directions, 141

Limited guardianship, 311 Lyles v. United Slates, 71

MacArthur Competence Assessment Toolfor Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), 428­434

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool­Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA), 90-101

MacArthur Competence Assessment Toolfor

Treatment (MacCAT-T), 421-428

McNaughtan rule, 203-206 components of, 196 functional component, 203-204

McNaughtan's Case, 196

Malingering, 85

detection and test design, 470-471 validation of, 142-143

Matter of Conroy, 398

Matter of O'Brien, 398-399 mens rea, meaning of, 5, 193

Mental health records, in forensic report,

202

Mental illness

delusional defendant, competency to waive Miranda rights, 152-153, 158 guilty but mentally ill (GBMI), 197-198 and lack of insight, 402 mental state at time of offense (MSO), 194-195

not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), 194, 198

Mental illness (cont.)

and treatment decision-making, 400-402 See also insanity defense

Mental retardation: see Intellectual deficits

Mental state at time of offense (MSO) causal factors, 206-207 forensic identification, 200 versus insanity, 194-195 versus legal competency, 194 See also insanity defense; insanity defense assessment

Mental State and the Time of the Offense Screening Evaluation (MSE), 209-215

Meyer v. Nebraska, 232

Michigan v. Daoud, 153

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), 247-248

Minors

mature minors, 396

See also juveniles

Miranda rights boilerplate reading, 162 purpose of, 5 warnings, content of, 151

See also competence to waive Miranda rights

Miranda v. Arizona, 5, 149, 151

Model Penal Code, of American Law

Institute (ALI), 196-197

Model Standard of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations, 246

Multidimensional Functional Assessment Questionnaire (MFAQ), 338-345

Natanson v. Kline, 393-394

Norms of test, 56-59 content-referenced instruments, 57 criterion-referenced instruments, 57 norms development, 58-59 purpose of, 56-57

Not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) legal implications of, 194 versus guilty but mentally ill (GBMI), 198

See also insanity defense

Occupational therapy, assessment instruments, 334

Operational definitions, 22, 52-54

Parental competence, 7-8, 229-242 approximation standard, 238 best interests of child standard, 235, 237-239, 257

consistencies across states, 239 custody decisions, 231-232, 235-240 discretionary use of criteria, 239-240 foster care, 234

functional abilities of parents, 234-235 jurisdictional standard, 235 least detrimental alternative standard, 237-238

legal process, 240-242

legal standards, 235

parental rights standard, 235 parenting styles and evaluation, 252 parenting task related to competence, 251

psychological parent standard, 235, 237­238, 249

state rights and children, 232-233 tender years doctrine, 236-237 termination of parental rights, 230-231, 233-235, 241

Parental competence assessment, 243-257 age/development of parents, 305 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry guidelines, 244, 247

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) guidelines, 243-244

American Psychological Association (APA), guidelines, 243, 246

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) guidelines, 246 causal component, 252-254, 303 child custody evaluations, proposed scope of, 249

functional components, 250-252, 301­302

integration with child assessment, 254­255, 304-305

interactive component, 254-256, 303-304 judgmental and dispositional components, 256-257, 305-306

legal situations for, 229 mental health professionals in, 244-246, 247-250

parental deficits, causes of, 253-254 Parental competence assessment (cont.) psychological tests, 247-248 tests: see Parental competence assessment instruments

Parental competence assessment instruments, 258-300

Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody (ASPECT), 258­268

Bricklin Perceptual Scales (BPS), 268-274 Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI), 281-290

Parental Custody Index (PCI), 262-268

Parent Awareness Skills Survey (PASS), 278-281

Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI), 298-300

Parenting Stress Index (PSI), 292-297 Perception of Child Profile (PPCP), 278-281 Perception of Relationships Test (PORT), 274-277

research needs/directions, 301-306

Parental Custody Index (PCI), 262-268

Parental rights standard, parental competence, 235

Parent Awareness Skills Survey (PASS), 278­

281

Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI), 298-300

Parenting Stress Index (PSI), 292-297 Parkinson's disease, 311

Pate v. Robinson, 70

People v. Baker, 152

People v. Bernasco, 152

People v. Crews, 198

People v. Lara, 150, 152-153

People v. Pennington, 70

Perception of Child Profile (PPCP), 278-281

Perception of Relationships Test (PORT), 274­277

Perceptions of Disorder (POD), 440-446 Performance Assessment of Self-Care Skills (PASS), 333

per se legal approach, competency to waive Miranda rights, 154

Person-situation congruency competence to stand trial assessment, 114-115

competence to waive Miranda rights assessment, 171-172, 176, 180, 186

Person-situation congruency (cont.) guardianship, assessment for, 329, 377­378

as interactive component, 33-34 standard of test, 63-64

Philadelphia Geriatric Center Multilevel Assessment Inventory (MAI), 346-352

Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 396

Policeman at the elbow test, 205

Practice Guidelines for Psychological

Evaluation of Suspected Sexual Abuse in Children, 244

Practice Guidelines for Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Psychological Maltreatment of Children and Adolescents, 243-244

Practice Parameters of Child Custody Evaluation, 246-247

Practice Parameters for the Forensic Evaluation of Children and Adolescents Who May Have Been Physically or Sexually Abused, 244

Predictive utility of test, 61-63

and construct validity, 59, 62 limitations of, 61-63, 479 meaning of, 61

scope of and testing, 477

and test development, 468-469

Predictive validity, meaning of, 59

Prince v. Massachusetts, 232

Prior diagnosis, in forensic report, 202

Procedural knowledge, meaning of, 323­

324

Procedural objectives of test, 46-47 benefits of, 46-47

Psychiatric history, in forensic report, 202

Psychiatric hospitalization, competence and consent to, 9

Psychological parent standard, parental competence, 235, 237-238, 249

Psychological tests

in forensic report, 202 parental competence assessment, 247­248

Psychological theories: see Theory and assessment

Psychometric elements of test, 55-59 norms, 56-59 reliability,55-56 standardization, 55

Psychotropic medication, in forensic report, 202

Quillion r. Walcott, 232

"Raising the question," 74

Rational choice, meaning of, 454

Referral question, 474

Rehearings, on competence, 78

Relf v. Weinberger, 394

Reliability of test, 55-56

and error sources, 56

and forensic assessment test design, 470 inter-examiner reliability, 56 inter-rater reliability, 56

purpose of, 55

reliability coefficients, 55-56

Rennie V. Klein, 392, 403

Research needs/directions

on cause and test performance, 142 competence to consent to treatment assessment, 453-458

competence to stand trial assessment,

139- 146

competency to waive Miranda rights assessment, 187-190

on developmental disability, 143-144 empirical analysis of functional ability,

140- 141

on functional component, 139-140 guardianship, assessment instruments, 378-386

insanity assessment, 223-225

on interactive component, 144-145

on judgmental and dispositional components, 145-146

legal consensus for test content, 141

on malingering, 142-143

parental competence assessment instruments, 301-306

and procedures related to tests, 47

on stimulus-response mode, 141-142

on unaided understanding, 143 validity of tests, 142

Research participation, competence to consent to, 9

Response bias, 85

Riggins V. Nevada, 78

Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment

Scales (R-CRAS), 216-222

Rogers V. Okin, 392

Rorschach Inkbot Technique, 247

sanity, and incompetence to stand trial, 6 Santosky V. Kramer, 232, 233

Scoring criteria, in forensic assessment test design, 467

Self-incriminating testimony, and insanity defense, 199

Sexual abuse of children

as criminal case, 233

sexual abuse evaluation guidelines, 244

Sieling V. Eyman, 72

Standardization of test

elements of, 55

objective of, 55

Standardized Consent Capacity Interview (SCCI), 405

Stanfield V. Stanfield, 237

Stanley V. Illinois, 232

State V. Jackson, 155

State V. McDonald, 245

State V. Prater, 151

State V. White, 154

Stimulus-response format

development for test, 465-466

research needs/directions on, 141-142

Structured Assessment of Independent LiVing Skills (SAILS), 333

Substance abuse

in forensic report, 203

and insanity defense, 207

Swisher V. United States, 72

Tender years doctrine, 236-237

Termination of parental rights, 230-231, 233-235, 241

See also parental competence; parental competence assessment Testamentary competence, basis for decision about, 9

Test design: see Forensic assessment instruments design

Test items

and environmental context of competence, 53-54

formats for, 52-53

and standardization, 55 stimulus-response format, 141-142, 465­466

Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), 247

Theory and assessment

and competence to waive Miranda rights, 161

and functional abilities assessment, 27, 52

limitations in expert testimony, 32

and test development, 463

Thinking Rationally about Treatment (TRAT), 446-452

Time-related comparisons, and procedures related to tests, 46

Totality of circumstances approach, competency to waive Miranda rights, 151, 153, 154, 161-162

Transportation, assessment of skills for, 325

Treatment decision-making: see Competence to consent to treatment

Treatment provisions for incompetent, 77­78

and cause of disorder, 85-86

Tuter r. Tuter, 236

Ultimate issue, insanity assessment, 208­209, 225

Understanding

actual understanding, 455 aspects of trial, testing of unaided understanding, 143

capacity to understand, 455

Understanding Treatment Disclosures (UTD), 435-440

Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act, 315

Uniform Probate Code, Article V, 315 United States ex rel. Simon v. Maroney, 151 United States v. Adams, 72

United States v. Sermon, 87

U.S. v. Wilson, 33

Validity of test

construct validity, 59-61

content validity, 51, 53

face validity, 51, 53

predictive validity, 59

research needs/directions, 142, 187-188

validation and test development, 468 Volitional abilities, meaning of, 193, 205 Voluntariness element, competence to consent to treatment, 391, 394 Voluntary waiver, of Miranda rights, 153-154

Waiver Expectancy Interview, 187

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III, 332 Wechsler Memory Scale-III, 332

Westbrook v. Arizona, 72

West v. United States, 151, 154-155

Wieter v. Settle, 72, 83

Wilson v. United States, 87

Zinermon v. Burch, 9