* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Psych. 3CC3 March 20, 2009 Assessment of Competence and Criminal
Asperger syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Controversy surrounding psychiatry wikipedia , lookup
Mental disorder wikipedia , lookup
Factitious disorder imposed on another wikipedia , lookup
Personality disorder wikipedia , lookup
Antisocial personality disorder wikipedia , lookup
Child psychopathology wikipedia , lookup
Spectrum disorder wikipedia , lookup
Emergency psychiatry wikipedia , lookup
Psychological evaluation wikipedia , lookup
History of psychiatric institutions wikipedia , lookup
Mental status examination wikipedia , lookup
Causes of mental disorders wikipedia , lookup
History of psychiatry wikipedia , lookup
Dissociative identity disorder wikipedia , lookup
Narcissistic personality disorder wikipedia , lookup
Abnormal psychology wikipedia , lookup
Glossary of psychiatry wikipedia , lookup
Pyotr Gannushkin wikipedia , lookup
Classification of mental disorders wikipedia , lookup
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders wikipedia , lookup
Psych. 3CC3 March 20, 2009 Assessment of Competence and Criminal Responsibility (continued) MCMI developed in the 1970s based on Theodore Milon’s model of psychopathology and personality shorter than the MMPI most of the scales are about personality disorders or styles the 3 severe personality disorders are actually disorders in the DSM the 7 moderate syndrome scales are close to DSM categories; but they’re not very relevant to a judgement of criminal responsibility/insanity the 3 severe syndrome scales would be relevant; they’re the most important to forensics there are cases of very severe psychotic depression in which the person may be deemed NCR it has 3 validity scales: people can try and fake being NCR (malingering), and so we need ways of assessing this the first validity scale is the disclosure scale: measures person’s willingness to be open and honest; willingness to admit symptoms and problems the desirability scale measures the person’s tendency to answer items in way that make them look very favorable and without problems and the debasement measures the person’s tendency to exaggerate symptoms and problems; person wants to appear insane validity index: choosing 2 out of 3 seldom-chosen items invalidates profile, i.e., we know the person is lying MCMI-III Scoring convert raw scale scores to Base Rates (BR) range from 0 to 115 60 = median raw score for all patients on that scale 75 = minimum for patients meeting DSM-III criteria for disorder or condition 75 - 84 = “clinically significant personality style or syndrome” Additional Milon Tests o o MCMI-III Corrections Report Assesses inmates needs while in prison (eg. Mental health intervention, substance abuse services) Assesses individual’s risk of rejecting authority, suicide, dealing with crowding in prison, ability to respond to treatment or correction of behavior MCMI-III Issues Reliability: high test-retest reliability on personality scales, but less on clinical syndrome scales Normative sample small, unrepresentative of minority groups High degree of scale overlap; high interscale correlations (.40 - .85) Most items are scored “true” (you get a point if you answer “true”, but there are people who have a bias towards choosing “true” or “false”); vulnerable to aquiescence bias Weak on assessing major psychotic disorders, minor personality pathology (but this is not a huge issue because the MCMI is only one of a number of measures you use to assess people for criminal responsibility) Some scales weak in diagnosing related personality disorders; better at styles Many scales have low convergent validity with other psychiatric rating instruments Milon’s model of personality disorders has not been validated Test is too new to have generated supporting research The R-CRAS All it does is assess criminal responsibility The other instruments we’ve discussed measure other things as well as criminal responsibility Published in 1984 It is a structured interview; an expert sits down with person and asks them questions and quantify their clinical judgment about person on the R-CRAS It can only be carried out by a trained clinician A numerical quantification of clinician’s subjective clinical judgment of person Assesses criminal responsibility using the American Law Institute Standard for insanity 25 – 30 variables, with each rated on a 5- or 6-point scale: o 0 = no info. given o 1 = not present (problem not present) o 2 = problem present, but not clinically significant o 3-6 = increasing gradations of clinically significant/relevant symptoms R-CRAS Variables Malingering (2 scales) Signs of an organic mental disorder (brain damage for eg.) Mental retardation Amnesia (inability to recall criminal event) Anxiety Bizarre behavior Delusions Depressed or elevated mood Affective disorder Hallucinations Thought disturbance Language disturbance Awareness of criminality Evidence of planning You summarize all the information you get from the interview into 6 summary psychological criteria: o A1 – presence of malingering o A2 – presence of organicity o A3 – presence of major psychiatric disorder o A4 – ability to comprehend criminality of behavior o A5 – loss of behavioural control o A6 – was loss of control due to: organic disturbances? Psychiatric disturbances? Because the R-CRAS is a structured clinical interview it makes it the same across various clinicians (i.e. conducted the same way by all clinicians) R-CRAS Reliability Test-retest reliability o 12 variables have correlations greater than .60 o 8 variables have correlations greater than .40 o 3 variables have correlations less than .40 Inter-rater reliability (expert agreement) o This is tested by having experts assess same person o So it’s kind of expected they’ll assess them similarly (because interview is structured) R-CRAS Validity Validity = test measures what it’s supposed to measure Substantive validity: do the items in scale address elements of the construct? (content validity) YES Structural validity: do individuals judged insane by R-CRAS have characteristics of insanity? YES o Absence of malingering o More severe psychological impairment o Greater loss of cognitive and behavioural control than those judged criminally responsible But doesn’t this have to be so since these same characteristics are the basis on which people would be assessed as being NCR??? External validity (criterion validity): are individuals judged insane by the R-CRAS found insane at trial? YES o 75% people judged insane by R-CRAS also found insane at trial o 95% people judged sane by R-CRAS also found criminally responsible at trial But R-CRAS expert testimony is part of the trial evidence: juries put high weight into expert testimony and this could be the reason why people judged insane or sane by R-CRAS are found insane or criminally responsible, respectively, at trial So the verdict reached by the jury is not independent of the assessment!