Because the trier of fact determines the weight to be assigned to an examiner's opinion by assessing the strength and persuasiveness of his or her analysis of the data, it is essential that forensic reports communicate the examiner's reasoning process. This study analyzes community examiners' reports on competence to stand trial (CST), emphasizing the nature of examiners' (1) expressed conceptualizations of CST and ( 2) reasoning establishing a nexus between CST impairments and symptoms of psychopathology. Expert raters coded 100 randomly selected CST reports with respect to a variety of issues, including the examiners' description of the defendant's psycholegal deficits, provision of specific reasoning to link these deficits to psychopathology, and agreement with a paired examiner's global and specific opinions about the defendant's impairments. CST reports were found to (1) reflect basic operationalizations of competence that fail to incorporate legally relevant facets such as a defendant's decisional capacities and (2) adequately document clinical findings, but fail to describe the reasoning underlying psycholegal conclusions. Examiners demonstrated moderately high levels of agreement on defendant's global CST, but expressed radically divergent bases for this opinion. These findings are discussed in light of legal, ethical, and professional standards of practice.

Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are frequently involved as expert witnesses in legal proceedings. However, clinical judgment and decision making, which play a role in almost all clinical evaluations, have problems and limitations. Mental health professionals who conduct forensic examinations should be aware of these problems and take steps to address them. This article details the limitations of clinical judgment and decision making, and suggests ways to minimize associated problems, thereby improving the validity and utility of forensic evaluations.

Three questions relevant to insanity decisions were examined: (a) What informational cues are weighed most heavily in the attribution of criminal responsibility? (b) How do verdict forms influence these attributions? And (c) How do individuals' beliefs about insanity and responsibility influence decision making? Undergraduate subjects (n = 181) responded to vignettes portraying an act by a mentally disordered defendant. Psychiatric jargon was avoided, so that attributions were not a function of diagnostic terminology. It was lbund that, under the traditional scheme of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) vs. guilty, level of mental disorder (schizophrenia vs. personality disorder) was the primary determinant of insanity decisions. Also, insanity judgments were more likely to be made for acts performed without planful intentionality. Under the alternative scheme of NGRI vs. guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) vs. guilty, mental disorder still controlled NGRI verdicts; a bizarre act increased the likelihood of a GBMI over a guilty verdict; and the GBMI verdict option reduced markedly the proportion of psychotic defendants found NGRI and the proportion of personality disordered defendants found guilty. There were no significant differences between diagnostic groups in the likelihood of being found GBMI. Most subjects preferred to utilize the GBMI option as a compromise verdict even in the face of very severe mental illness. Attitudinal data revealed considerable variation in agreement with the classic moral logic of the insanity defense and accounted for a significant amount of the variance in insanity decisions. The implications for both social policy and future research are discussed.

The use of omega-squared ratios for the analysis and interpretation of data pertaining to the individual-differences-situationism controversy is critically examined. It is shown that these ratios are formally inappropriate indices when the issue is defined in terms of the limits of transsituational generalization. Coefficients of geheralizability are shown to be the correct indices, and the differing properties of the two indices are discussed. Attention is also paid to the logical and empirical unjustifiability of interpreting the relative size of interaction terms without subsequent multivariate demonstration that these interactions are nonartifactual, replicable, and meaningfully patterned. The need is stressed for methodologically correct analyses of ecologically representative data bases in the development of sophisticated theories that take the joint influence of individual differences and situational factors into account.

This study provides an analysis of the views of the legal community with respect to competency to stand trial statutes and procedures. Responses from North Carolina judges and defense attorneys reveal significant areas of disagreement or misunderstanding. While many judges believed that defense attorneys misunderstood or misused the competency procedures, the judges uniformly granted the motions. Defense attorneys indicated reasons for requesting competency evaluations that were frequently unrelated to concerns about competency. Hearings to determine competency were often not even held, and if a defendant was found to be incompetent. most judges believed that involuntary commitment to a mental institution should be automatic regardless of perceived dangerousness. The authors argue that these issues demand further attention and resolution to allow the competency laws to accomplish their intended goal without jeopardizing defendants’ rights.