Quality of forensic psychological assessments in competency to stand trial proceedings.

Abstract

This study examines the quality of forensic assessments conducted by mental health professionals to determine competency to stand trial. Data were collected from 68 cases involving Rule 11 proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona for Pima County from 1986 through 1989. Two raters independently evaluated the court order forms and rated each report on recommended assessment and reporting procedures. Percent agreement and Cohen's Kappa results revealed moderate to excellent inter-rater reliability. These results suggested that competency to stand trial assessments lacked basic information recommended by acknowledged experts and written Arizona Bar Association (A.B.A.) standards. Implications of these findings suggest the establishment of a multi-disciplinary panel to examine and evaluate the court order forms and utilization of assessment and reporting procedures in Competency to Stand Trial proceedings.