RESUMEN
This paper is the third in a series of research reports on quality of forensic mental health evaluations submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. Previous studies examined quality of reports assessing competency to stand trial (CST) and post-acquittal conditional release, in felony defendants undergoing court-ordered examinations. Utilizing a 44-item quality coding instrument, this study examined quality of criminal responsibility reports in a sample of 150 forensic mental health evaluations conducted between 2006 and 2010 by court-appointed panels. Raters attained high levels of agreement in training and quality coding. Similar to the previous studies, overall quality of reports was mediocre, falling below the .80 quality criterion score for report elements, regardless of evaluator professional identification or employment status. Level of agreement between evaluators and judicial sanity determinations was "fair" using Cicchetti's (1994) standards for interpretation of intra-class correlations. Level of agreement was lower than previously published findings for CST reports and better than conditional release reports. Reasons for mediocre report quality and "fair" inter-rater agreement are discussed, including the fact that criminal responsibility evaluations are complex, retrospective in nature, and involve significant degrees of inference. In contrast to CST evaluations, assessment of criminal responsibility involves a mental state at the time of the offense evaluation. Threats to reliability in forensic reports are discussed. Suggestions for improvement of report quality are proffered, including standardization of procedures and report format and use of forensic assessment instruments.
Asunto(s)
Criminales/psicología , Psiquiatría Forense/normas , Defensa por Insania , Competencia Mental/normas , Hawaii , Humanos , Competencia Mental/legislación & jurisprudenciaRESUMEN
Annually thousands of insanity acquitees are released from mental hospitals when they are no longer determined to be dangerous. This research examined quality of post-acquittal Conditional Release (CR) reports submitted to the Hawaii Judiciary. Hawaii utilizes a "three panel" system for assessing trial felony competency, criminal responsibility, and conditional release, where typically two psychologists (one Department of Health and one community-based) and one community-based psychiatrist submit independent reports to the Court. One hundred fifty CR reports were rated using a 44-item report quality measure. Interrater reliability trials indicated good to excellent agreement between quality ratings. Overall level of report quality was poor regardless of examiners' professional discipline, employer, or board certification status. Concordance rates for CR opinions were poor. Level of agreement between the judicial determination and majority recommendations was also poor. Reasons for the poor quality and level of agreement are discussed with recommendations for report quality improvement, including standardization of procedures and use of forensic risk assessment instruments.