Date of Award

2020

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Psychology

Abstract

Under the legal standards established in Ford v. Wainwright (1986) and Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), a defendant must possess a factual and rational understanding of their impending execution and the reasons for it. When concerns about a defendants competency for execution (CFE) are raised, the defendant often undergoes a forensic mental health evaluation. Over the past several decades, there has been considerable debate about the involvement of mental health professionals in CFE evaluations, as well as how these types of evaluations should be conducted. However, there is a dearth of empirical research specific to CFE due to the low base rate of these evaluations, as well as ethical concerns regarding professionals involvement. The present study explored real-world practices of psychologists and psychiatrists who conduct CFE evaluations. It also explored evaluator training, with a specific focus on forensic board certification. Forty-eight evaluators who had conducted at least one CFE evaluation participated in the study, most of whom were employed in private practice and retained by a court. Psychologists were significantly more likely to use structured assessment tools than psychiatrists. Additionally, evaluators of either discipline who held forensic board certification were more likely to use structured assessment tools than those who did not hold forensic board certification. However, forensic board certification did not significantly impact the likelihood that the evaluator was aware of research-based practice guidelines for CFE evaluations or the likelihood of utilizing ultimate opinions in reports or testimony. The present research will help to fill the gap in the literature regarding evaluator practices in assessing for CFE.

Download

Share

COinS