Competency to stand trial entails an individual’s mental ability to stand trial by understanding the character alongside consequences of the trial and can assist in her or his defense, whereas legal insanity refers to an individual’s mental incapacity or illness to the extent that the law recognizes the individual to be insane (Gregory, 2014). Further, competency is concerned with the current era, while legal insanity is concerned with a given time in the past when a crime was committed.
Issues involved in a Forensic Setting Assessment
In a forensic setting, the opinions and conclusions attained must be obtained on a scientific basis. Therefore, the forensic examiners must be able to defend the data collection technique and its scientific nature. Further, the laws require that the interpretations made in a forensic test be based on more than a single data collection technique (Yourstone, Lindholm, Grann, " Svenson, 2008). Moreover, it is ideal for assessment of the examinee’s response style to minimize the chances for psychological impairment. Finally, in situations where testing instruments are to be used, they should relate with the legal issue, as well as be psychometrically and theoretically sound.
Two Specific Tests Used in Forensic Setting
Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST)
M-FAST is a screen test that is used in a forensic setting to detect mental illness, malingering, and feign. The M_FAST entails a 25-item interview, which is in most cases carried out in less than ten minutes. The test items represent a variety of response styles such as rare combinations, unusual hallucinations, and negative image that identify malingered psychiatric symptoms.
Competency Screening Test (CST)
The forensic instrument is designed to offer objective measures by applying a legal strategy. The CST entails 22 items that are framed in a sentence-completion design. The test is presented as a self-reporting report-and-pencil test. The items are measured on a 3-point scale, starting from 0 to 2 on the basis of one or two factors. Responses that clearly relates to legal criteria attains a score of 2, redundant responses 1 and 0 for those that reveals various characteristics (Chadda, 2013). The scores are then summed up, and individuals with a score of 20 and below are considered incompetent and those above 20 competent.
References
Chadda, R. K. (2013). Forensic evaluations in psychiatry. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(4), 393.
Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Yourstone, J., Lindholm, T., Grann, M., " Svenson, O. (2008). Evidence of gender bias in legal insanity evaluations: A case vignette study of clinicians, judges, and students. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 62(4), 273-278.
