Citation

Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT, Zapf PA, Warren JI, Henderson CE. Psychol. Public Policy Law 2008; 14(3): 177-193.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, Publisher American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/a0013578

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Are some forensic evaluators more likely than others to find criminal defendants incompetent to stand trial (IST)? Although studies report aggregate IST rates of around 20% across large samples of criminal defendants, these aggregate rates tell us little about the patterns of findings among individual evaluators. This study uses 2 statewide samples to present the first available data addressing how individual clinicians vary in rates of IST opinions. Across 60 clinicians who conducted a combined total of more than 7,000 evaluations, the rates of IST findings varied considerably (range: 0% to 62%). Results suggested that some of the variability across evaluators may be attributable to the evaluator's discipline and how the evaluator considered the relationship between competence and psychosis. However, these findings raise questions about the many other evaluator, system, and policy-level characteristics that may influence evaluator variability. Thus, we suggest a research agenda that may better identify explanations for some of the variability in IST findings across evaluators.