JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY

Towards Objectifying Mentally Unfit for Trial in South Australia: Creation of the MacCAT-Au(SA)

Thesis Confirmation Proposalfor the

Doctorate of Psychology (Clinical and Forensic)

Sam van der Wijngaart6 August 2010

Towards Objectifying Mentally Unfit for Trial in South Australia: Creation of the MacCAT-Au(SA)

AbstractThe right to a fair trial is the undisputed cornerstone of the criminal justice system in all modern nations. Integral to a fair trial must be the ability of the accused to participate in the trial – they must be able to, at some level, understand the law and proceedings sufficiently to be able to defend themselves. If they cannot, for whatever reason, sufficiently comprehend proceedings, understand what is occurring, and explain their version of events, then no fair trial is possible. In some cases therapeutic, medical or other interventions may be possible to restore competency. In very general terms, this is the principle of fitness to plead (FtP), or competency to stand trial. The legal criteria and terminology vary from place to place, however no modern legal system today functions without mechanisms in place to fairly deal with persons who may not have the ability to adequately partake in the legal process.

Historically, the criteria for fitness to plead have been outlined by legal precedents, and based on case law. In many jurisdictions, criteria have been clarified in state laws. Courts have traditionally sought expert opinion from forensic psychiatrists and psychologists to guide them in assessing fitness. This is completed through unstructured clinical interviews supported by cognitive testing. Such opinions are likely to be fraught with subjectivity, poor reliability and validity, and indefensible opinion (R v Miller [No 2], 2000 SASC 152). Faced with these concerns and criticisms, forensic specialists have looked at developing valid and reliable assessment tools to assess competence. In the United States, there are several competence tests available, each supported with varying amounts of empirical research – although these cannot be directly used in Australia (R v Stevens, 2010, SASCFC 1). The United Kingdom has seen some efforts to trial and use objective tools (Akinkunmi, 2002).

To some extent, Australia lags the world in the movement towards incorporating objective tools into the assessment of fitness to plead. Unlike other psychometric tools, differences between legal structures mean that competency tests cannot be used without significant modification. Other tools, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS III; Wechsler, 1997) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey) have been used in Australia with minor if any changes, as there is an underlying assumption that our populations share sufficient similarities to be applicable to both populations. Tests for assessing competency cannot be so readily moved between jurisdictions, even within Australia. Even given the apparent similarities between the legal systems of the USA, UK and Australia, there are significant differences, and so it follows that extensive changes would be required to convert an English or American tool to meet Australian needs.

No tests of fitness to plead have been developed for, or are routinely used or accepted in Australian jurisdictions. The British face similar hurdles, though recently the MacCAT-CA has been adapted for the UK. This test, the MacCAT-FP, has shown good predictive properties in assessing that population. Since Australia shares a strong history with the UK, and as a whole has very similar legal proceedings, we would assume that the MacCAT-FP could be adapted for use in an Australian state or states. Judgments such as R v Stevens ([2010], SASCFC 1, highlight the necessity for a local test addressing

Page 1

relevant Australian common law precedents. In R v Stevens, psychologists were criticised for not addressing common law criteria, and their use of a test designed for the United States was rebuked as inappropriate.

This research will make a needed and unique contribution to the assessment of fitness to plead in Australia by converting the MacCAT-CA/-FP, an objective test of fitness for trial, for use in South Australia.The instrument will be converted from the MacCAT-CA/-FP to a South Australian version. It will betrialled on two groups of South Australian prisoners – those awaiting trial and referred for competency assessment, and a control group of those awaiting trial and assumed competent (remandees).

ContextThe notion of fitness to plead(FtP) has been entrenched in British law since 1836, when the English case of Pritchard determined specific criteria to ascertain a defendant’s fitness to proceed to trial. The term FtP is primarily used in England and Wales and much of Australia, Competence to Stand Trial (CST) across much of the USA, and Fitness to Stand Trial (FST) in Canada; with the term Adjudicative Competence (AC) gaining popular usage in research(Mumley, Tillbrook, & Grisso, 2003).

The common law case of King v Pritchard (1836), hereinafter referred to as Pritchard, has been consistently upheld as the point of reference for determining FtP (Mackay, 2007). The Pritchard case requires that the defendant meet five criteria: A defendant needs to be able to plead to the charge; to understand the course of the proceedings; have the ability to instruct counsel; and the ability to understand the evidence. Like Australia and the USA, a defendant need only be found incompetent on one criterion to be unfit to stand trial.The UK model is, unlike most of Australia, based in common law rather than legislation.

The 1960 Dusky v. United States decision sets the minimum standard for competence in the USA, hereinafter referred to as Dusky. Dusky himself was charged with rape related crimes, and was also found to be suffering from a schizophrenic condition. The case was tried, Dusky convicted, and the charge upheld on appeal (Mossman, et al., 2007). However, the US Supreme court found that the courts needed to have considered “whether he [had] sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding – and whether he [had] a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him”(Dusky v. US, 1960, as cited by Mossman, et al., 2007, p. S5). The Dusky standard is far broader in scope than the UK and Australian models, which are each quite prescriptive with narrow criteria (Mullen, 2002a).In the USA competency to stand trial remains heavily based on the Dusky case in most states.

The criteria for FTP in Australia are based on the common law judgement of R. v. Presser (1958), which recognises that the accused needs to be able to play an active role in the proceedings for a fair trial to occur. The six facets of this involvement prescribe that a defendant must have the mental capacity to understand their charges, and be able to plead to them; they must be able to understand the nature of the charges; be able to instruct counsel and assist in formulating a defence; and must be able to give their version of the facts of the case. All Australian states place the final decision of competence with the court of law, which may take guidance from legal and psychiatric counsel to form a basis for a ruling; with the exception of Queensland, where the responsibility lies with the Mental Health Court (Mullen, Briggs, Dalton, & Burt, 2000; Scott, 2007). Although there are six

Page 2

Presser competencies, a defendant need only be found incompetent on one to be declared unfit to stand trial. Common law judgements since Presser include the requirement to consider both the Presser competencies and the length of the trial; specifically if the trial is to be long; it must be reasonably foreseeable that the defendant will remain fit for the duration of the trial (Kesavarajah v. R, 1994).

Table 1 compares the Presser criteria to each states legislation, and it can be seen that each have adopted the Presser criteria to some extent. NSW procedures follow common law, and so include all Presser criteria by default. The rates of those being found unfit to plead vary across the states and are difficult to quantify. The Queensland Mental Health Court, which has the narrowest fitness requirements, in the 2006/07 year found 99 referred cases fit for trial, and 26 unfit.

Table 1.

Comparison of Australian States Legislation Against the 1958 Presser Criteria

Presser Criteria NT ACT TAS SA WA VIC NSW QLD1. Needs to be able to understand what it is that he is charged with.

X X X X X X X

2. Needs to be able to plead to the charge, and to exercise his right of challenge.

X X X X X X X

3. He needs to understand generally the nature of the proceedings, namely, that it is an inquiry as to whether he did what he is charged with.

X X X X X X X X

4. Needs to be able to follow the course of the proceedings so as to understand what is going on in Court in a general sense, though he need not, of course, understand all the formalities.

X X X X X X X

5. Needs to be able to understand the substantial effect of any evidence that may be given against him; and he needs to be able to make his defence or answer to the charge. Where he has counsel, he needs to be able to do this by letting his counsel know what his version of the facts is and, if necessary, telling the Court what it is.

X X X X X X X X

6. He need not have the mental capacity to make an able defence: but he must, I think, have sufficient capacity to be able to decide what defence he will rely upon and to make his defence and his version of the facts known to the court and his counsel, if any.

X X X X X

Note. The X signifies inclusion of this prong in state legislation.

Page 3

Although the basic tenants of fitness are comparable and similar in many jurisdictions, there are fundamental differences between the major western countries. Within the Australian states and territories there are differences in the wording and application of regarding fitness to stand trial. With this variation in standards for competence across the world, there is an impact on the development of competency assessment instruments. These instruments must necessarily vary depending on the legal criteria utilised and the legal frame work of the country or state within which they operate. It is not reasonable to then assume that a competency assessment designed for use in one jurisdiction will be appropriate in another jurisdiction. It must be noted that competence and FtP are foremost legal definitions, and clinical tests when utilised, are an adjuvant to court processes.

Competency assessments have traditionally been unstructured clinical assessments. Such clinical assessments are notoriously subjective, with poor reliability (James, Duffield, Blizard, & Hamilton, 2001).The R v Miller (SASC 152, 2000) case is a clear example of the fallibility and indefensibility of clinical judgment in court. To expand, this case involved difference of opinion between four experts, who were involved in determining a defendant’s ability to adequately participate in his trial. Each specialist used different tools and methodologies to arrive at their opinion, and there was no consensus on the defendant’s fitness. The court eventually decided that the defendant could not understand the charges against him, and he was found mentally unfit to stand trial.

The more recent case of R v Stevens ([2010], SASCFC 1) again shows difficulties in translating psychological concepts into legal contexts. In this case, two forensic psychologists agreed that the defendant was unfit to stand trial. One psychologist was criticised by the judge for using a test of competence used in the United States, and the judge was particularly critical of both psychologist’s failure to specifically address the Presser criteria in their responses to the court. This defendant was found mentally fit to stand trial, and the psychologist’s opinions were largely discounted. The use of an Australian fitness instrument in this case would have assisted the psychologists to produce objective and defensible arguments regarding fitness, and assisted them to address the specific Presser criteria in responding.

The development and use of competency assessment toolshas been shown to improve reliability of these assessments (Mumley, et al., 2003) allowing these clinical decisions to become more objective and defendable. Its importance highlights the inadequacy of making such assessments with unstructured interview techniques, which have inadequate reliability and validity. Objective, valid and practical tools are essential if FtP is to e assessed accurately, reliably and fairly.

Competency InstrumentsAcross the UK, the USA, Canada and Australia, FtP has long been decided by clinical judgement, where psychiatrists and psychologists make an assessment of symptomology and attempt to relate this to relevant legal criterion (James, et al., 2001). As noted in James and colleagues, this may lead to poor competence decisions based on either an under- or over-estimation of symptomology, and it’s applicability to legal criteria. The subjectiveness of these clinically based competence assessments strongly indicates a need for the development of a method of objectively determining fitness, not to rule out clinical expertise, but to support, strengthen and complement clinically based decisions. Thus, competency instruments have been created to help move towards a more objective assessment of fitness.

Page 4

Mankad, Brakel and Wilson (2002)questioned the clinical usefulness of competence instruments, and indicated specificprinciplesthey considered essential before use in a forensic psychiatry context. Firstly, they suggested there should be both economic and clinical benefits to using such tests, as the use of assessment instruments needs to add value to clinical judgement alone.That is, the tests should make existing processes more efficient and more robust, otherwise they risk adding expense, time and effort, without positively adding to the process(Mankad, et al.). Mankad and colleagues advocated the use of simple high quality assessment instruments to reduce the time and cost of competency assessments.The implementation of competency screening instruments as an early identification procedure will result in a streamlined forensic psychiatric process, hopefully resulting in a flow-on effect of contributing to the fairness of judicial proceedings(Mankad, et al.). However, Mankad and colleagues warn that inaccurate screening tests, producing excess numbers of false positives, could inadvertently increase the need for comprehensive psychiatric evaluations, increasing costs and slowing the judicial process. Although Mankad and colleagues take a negative overall view of competence tests, it is still clear that they advocate the appropriate and informed use of such tests. The cautious and educated use of competence tests can clearly add value to the legal process, whereas ill-informed application can have unforeseen and unwanted consequences.

The Fitness Interview Test – Revised Edition (FIT-R; Roesch, Zapf, Eaves, & Webster, 1998) is an example of a competency screening test. It ispresented as a semi-structured interview, and as such is not strictly objective. It is of Canadian origin, and has been shown to correctly identify the competence status of approximately 80 to 86% of defendants (Zapf & Roesch, 1997).

Parton, Day and White (2004) chose the FIT-R to conduct a study assessing the relationship between intellectual ability and an understanding of the legal process. The lack of an Australian instrument forced the authors to look abroad for a suitable measure. They chose the FIT-R, as they considered the Canadian legal system that the FIT-R was based on to be more closely related to the South Australian mental health legislation than any US test or legal system. Further, they saw that it could consider the complexity of the trial;it was related to legal rather than clinical criteria; and could be applied to the defendant’s personal situation.

The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA; Poythress, et al., 1999)takes the form of a vignette style structured interview, made up of 22 items, and assesses three competency related abilities; understanding, reasoning and appreciation. The MacCAT-CA vignette is based on an incident in a pool hall, which ends in a fight. The defendant has to answer questions regarding their comprehension of the fight incident, and the legal ramifications of this fight incident. This method elicits important information from the defendant regarding their knowledge and understanding of the hypothetical case, which is viewed as related to their ability to think and make decisions on their own case.

The MacCAT-CA was initially validated across three groups of defendants: (1) patients of psychiatric units who had already been found incompetent; (2) incarcerated defendants with mental health issues, but presumed competent; and (3) randomly selected inmates who were presumed competent. The instrument showed high internal consistency, high inter-rater reliability, and was able to discriminate between the three groups. Furthermore, it was shown to provide expected correlations with measures of psychopathology, cognitive ability and clinical opinions of competency(Hoge, Bonnie, Poythress, & Monahan, 1999).

Page 5

The MacCAT Fitness to Plead(MacCAT-FP; Akinkunmi, 2002) has been the first published attempt to apply the MacCAT-CA to other countries. The MacCAT-FP was converted for UK usage, altering those elements which were not relevant to the English context. References to the jury prescribing a sentence were removed and the test was refitted with appropriate offence titles (Akinkunmi, 2002). The MacCAT-FP was then reviewed by experienced forensic psychiatrists, and legal practitioners to ensure it appropriately captured the English legal criteria for determining competence. Akinkunmi’s preliminary evaluation of the MacCAT-FP by the showed internal consistency alpha levels appropriate for research ( > .70), but not strong enough for clinical decision making ( > .90), suggesting that further work is required to bring the MacCAT-FP to a clinically useful standard. When compared to clinical opinion, Akinkunmi’s results suggested that the MacCAT-FP was able to correctly distinguish between fit and unfit patients. The MacCAT-FP appears, on the surface, to be readily convertible for Australian use.

The Dusky criteria used to assess competence in the USA appear to be functionally different to those used under Pritchard in the UK. In the USA, fitness is determined by consideration of broad competencies; this is in contrast to Australia and the UK, where competency is assessed in terms of narrowly focussed specific abilities (Mullen, 2002b). This introduces complications in taking an instrument designed for the US legal systems and placing it in a system based on completely different mechanisms. An instrument designed for use in Australia or the UK needs to specifically address the narrow competencies prescribed under the respective common law judgements and legislation, rather than the broad functional competencies used in the USA. Conversion must encompass more than just the wording of the items, and must reflect on the broad legal framework of both the original and gaining legal systems, to warrant the conversion and to ensure that the conversion is robust for both the underlying and surface dimensions. Parton, Day and White (2004) chose to use the semi-structured FIT-R in their assessments, due to the Canadian legal systems similarity to that of South Australia, where the study was set. They found an appropriate level of correlation between expert opinion and the determinations of the FIT-R, suggesting that at least on the surface, the two legal systems are compatible.

The advent of the structured interview competence tests, such as the FIT-R and the MacCAT family of tests offers courts the opportunity to receive reports based on objective measures working alongside clinical judgement, and to allow an evidence based decision making process. The conversion of an objective assessment tool(MacCAT-FP/MacCAT-CA), which is able to support other clinical data, will move South Australia closer to the gold standard of objective, defensible FtP assessments which are accepted by the courts.

Purpose of the Present StudyThis thesis aims to undertake a conversion and preliminary testing of an existing objective fitness to plead assessment tool,namely the MacCAT-CA/-FP to meet South Australian legislative requirements for the assessment of competence for trial. As the South Australian courts have been reticent to accept competence instruments designed specifically to meet the American Dusky standards (J. White, personal communication, June 25, 2010), this research aims to fill a gap in practise by producing an instrument designed specifically to meet South Australian needs. This will be the first known attempt to create a fitness instrument in Australia. This new tool, tentatively termed the MacCAT-Au(SA), will be validated and then trialled in South Australia with remandees and defendants awaiting trial.

Page 6

Method

Instrument ConversionThe new instrument will be converted from the MacCAT-FP (Akinkunmi, 2002), with reference to the MacCAT-CA (Hoge, et al., 1997).

This process will include a careful comparison of the MacCAT-FP and MacCAT-CA instruments to determine exactly what differences exist between the two instruments. Akinkunmi (2002) notes that changes included omitting references to juries being involved in sentencing, adjusting offence designations (e.g. replacing aggravated assault with grievous bodily harm). It is anticipated that further minor wording changes were also made. The scoring rubrics will also be compared to determine how each instrument fits the laws they are designed to represent.

After consideration of the changes made between the MacCAT-CA and the MacCAT-FP, the wording of each will be used to create the wording of the South Australian instrument, the MacCAT-Au(SA). The aim of the MacCAT-Au(SA) is to test abilities according to the criteria for fitness to stand trial in South Australia. Members of the South Australian Police (SAPOL) will be approached with examples of the vignettes to determine the correct offence designations in the South Australian context.

The instrument will be provided for review to a selection of experienced forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, legal practitioners and judges, with the intention of ensuring that its content captures all the relevant legal and clinical criteria.

Instrument Trial

ParticipantsThe participants for the instrument trial will be drawn from adult remandees and defendants, who have been charged with an offence and are awaiting trial, in South Australia. The first group, the referred group will be comprise prisoners who have been referred by the Court for assessment to determine their fitness for trial. The control group will comprise randomly selected remandees from either of the Adelaide Remand Centre, or Yatala Labour Prison. Participants will be excluded from thereferred group if the interviewer feels the participant was unable to give valid consent to participating in the study.

Participants will be excluded from the control group if they have been receiving psychiatric treatment whilst awaiting trial, are currently in drug and alcohol treatment programs, or are suspected of mental illness. The participants in both groups will be limited to English speakers.

The number of participants for the referred group is dependent on the number of referrals made by the court during the study period. As a guide, in South Australia in 2006, 118 defendants were found Not guilty - Mentally Incompetent(Thomas, 2008). This figure includes both mentally unfit for trial and those mentally incompetent to commit the offence, with no ability to discriminate. Further, the numbers of those defendants who were referred for fitness assessments is unknown.

It is anticipated that numbers available for the referred group will be quite small. The control group will likely be restricted to a convenience sample, although efforts will be made to obtain as random a

Page 7

sample as possible. It is intended to set the control group at 40 participants, and it is estimated that 15 – 20 suitable remandees will agree to participate in the referred group.

EthicsAn ethics application will be made to the James Cook University Ethics Committee, using the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHRMC) guidelines, and/or local procedures as required.

Further, an ethics application will be made to the South Australian Department of Corrective Services (DCS), to allow access to remandees for the control group.

Additionally, permission will be sought from the Chief Justice of South Australia to permit access to defendants who are referred by the court for fitness to plead assessments.

Participation will be voluntary, and all data collected treated as confidential. Participants will be asked to read and sign a release of information and an informed consent statement.

Instrument Trial Measures

Demographic and Justice System Experience Data will be collected regarding age, gender, ethnicity, offence charged, and socioeconomic status by self-report. Socio-economic status (SES) will be calculated using Socio-economic Indexes for Areas(SEIFA; Pink, 2006), as determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which provides an index score indicating social advantage or disadvantage. Experience in the justice system will be coded from answers to questions related to the number of previous court appearances as a defendant, number of previous convictions, and if they have ever been incarcerated.

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – Australia (South Australia)The MacCAT-Au(SA) will be a nominally 22-item instrument, of which 16 items are based on a hypothetical scenario based around a fight in a hotel. In the vignette, two men get into a fight, and one is charged with assaulting the other. The MacCAT-CA/FP on which this instrument will be based, is divided into three measures of Understanding, Reasoning and Appreciation. Scores on this measure are expected to range from 0 to 44, with separate scores for each measure.

Mini-Mental Status ExamThe Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE; Crum, Anthony, Bassett, & Folstein, 1993) is a widely used screening test of the severity of cognitive impairment. It is a brief, standardised test allowing the grading of a patient’s cognitive mental status. It assesses orientation, attention, immediate and short-term recall, language, and the ability to follow simple verbal and written commands. It provides a total score out of 30.

Brief Psychiatric Rating ScaleThe BPRS is a standardized interview-based assessment that provides a reliable and valid assessment of the participant’s current mental state. The symptoms and behaviour will be rated on their occurrence during the previous week and during the interview situation. It is intended to use the 25-item version, with a likert scale from 0 to 7, giving a maximum score of 175.

Page 8

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of IntelligenceThe WASI will be used to estimate a participant’s cognitive functioning level. The WASI is a battery of four subtests: Vocabulary, Block Design, Similarities and Matrix Reasoning. These subtests are similar to their counterparts in the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Third Edition (WAIS III;Wechsler, 1997)) although the actual content differs. The four subtests yield a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ-4). The Vocabulary and Similarities subtests are combined to form the Verbal Scale and produce a Verbal IQ (VIQ) score, and the Block Design and Matrix Reasoning subtests form the Performance Scale and yield a Performance IQ (PIQ) score.

In addition, the Comprehension subtest from the WAIS III (Wechsler, 1997)will be used to provide more information regarding a participants comprehension abilities.

ProcedureAll participants will be assessed with the same protocol. The control group will be assessed at their resident correctional facility. The referred group will be assessed at a variety of locations, dependant on availability and bail status. It is anticipated that the total time required to complete the assessment protocol will be approximately one and a half hours per participant.

With the permission of the Chief Justice, the expert opinions regarding fitness of the defendant will be collected after their referral has been completed. Ideally, the court outcome will also be collected. Once these outcomes have been collected, all identifying data will be removed from the data.

The data will be analysed using SPSS (version 16). It is anticipated that internal consistency reliability of the MacCAT-Au(SA) will be analysed using the α coefficient correlation. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis (Rockette, Brown, Britton, Trowers, & Guur, 1985) will be used to compare the performance of the MacCAT-Au(SA) against clinical opinion. Independent t tests, paired t tests, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used for comparative analyses.

BudgetThe estimated available budget is small. Any shortfall will be made up by the researcher. Supervision from Dr Golus is voluntary, and supervision from Dr Moston and Professor Helmes will be provided through the university.

Item Qty List Price Discount Total

WASI 1 $ 718.70 40% $ 431.22WASI Record Forms 1 $ 162.10 40% $ 97.26Transport Expenses $ 500.00Room Hire $ 500.00Total

TimelineThe projectis intended to occur as shown in the Gantt chart below.

Page 9

The earliest stages of the project involve creation and validation of the MacCAT-Au(SA) and beginning the case analyses. This is followed by ethics approval submissions, and data collection. Finally the results are collated and the thesis prepared.

Three months has been allocated for collation of the final product.

May 10 Aug 10 Nov 10 Feb 11 Jun 11 Sep 11 Dec 11

Literature Review

Case Analysis

MacCAT-Au(SA) Creation

MacCAT-Au(SA) Validation

Ethics Approval - JCU

Ethics Approval - DCS

Chief Justice Approval

Write-up Case Analysis

Referred Data Collection

Control Data Collection

MacCAT-Au(SA) Data Collation

Write-up Trial

Overall Discussion

Final Report Collation

Gantt Chart

DeliverablesThe final deliverable will be submitted in the form of a doctoral thesis for marking. This thesis is anticipated to be 30,000 to 50,000 words long.

Further, the results of these studies will be submitted for publication in leading journals related to the psycho-legal field, such as Behavioural Sciences and the Law (Tier A) and Law and Human Behavior (Tier A). In addition, papers based on this research will be submitted to legal, psychiatry, psychology and mental health conferences, both inside Australia and beyond. Copies of all papers will be provided as annexes to the thesis.

DelimitationsAs this study will be limited to South Australia, any findings will not easily be generalisable to other states. Any tool created cannot be assumed to be suitable for use in other states.

The experimental study is a trial only. It is not anticipated that this study will produce an instrument that will be clinically useable, but rather one that is suitable for larger scale trials before clinical utilization.

ResearcherIn conducting this research, there will be one primary researcher, three supervisors, and possibly one voluntary research assistant for data collection. The team comprises:

Page 10

Ms Sam van der Wijngaart – Doctoral CandidateDr Stephen Moston – Primary Forensic SupervisorDr Peter Golus – Secondary External SupervisorProfessor Ed Helmes – Clinical SupervisorProvisional Psychologist (TBA) – Research Assistant

Ms Sam van der WijngaartSam is a Doctorate of Psychology (Forensic and Clinical) student at James Cook University. She holds a Post Graduate Certificate of Crime Analysis, a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in psychology, a Bachelor of Further Education and Training, a Post Graduate Certificate of Education, and a Diploma of Information Technology (Software Applications). Her honours thesis was a meta-analysis of the effects of goal-setting, and is being prepared for publication. Sam was co-author of a meta-analysis recently presented at the 2009 World Congress of the International Society of Sport Psychology. She is currently a student member of the APS, student representative member of the APS Forensic College (SA) committee, and editor of the national APS Forensic College newsletter, “The Profiler”. She has held state level positions in community organisations which have required active project management. Ms Wijngaart has an active interest in fitness to plead related research and will be responsible for the research and write-up.

Page 11

ReferencesAkinkunmi, A. (2002). The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Fitness to Plead: A preliminary

evaluation of a research instrument for assessing fitness to plead in England and Wales. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 30(4), 476.

Crum, R., Anthony, J., Bassett, S., & Folstein, M. (1993). Population-based norms for the Mini-Mental State Examination by age and educational level. Jama, 269(18), 2386-2391.

Hoge, S., Bonnie, R., Poythress, N., & Monahan, J. (1999). The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool: Criminal Adjudication: MacCAT-CA: PAR.

Hoge, S., Bonnie, R., Poythress, N., Monahan, J., Eisenberg, M., & Feucht-Haviar, T. (1997). The MacArthur adjudicative competence study: Development and validation of a research instrument. Law and Human Behavior, 21(2), 141-179.

Hoge, S., Poythress, N., Bonnie, R., Eisenberg, M., Monahan, J., Feucht-Haviar, T., et al. (1996). Mentally ill and non-mentall ill defendants' abilities to understand information relevant to adjudication: A preliminary study. . Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 24, 187 - 197.

Thomas, P. (2008). Adelaide, South Australia: Office of Crime Statistics and Reporting, South Australia (OCSAR).

James, D., Duffield, G., Blizard, R., & Hamilton, L. (2001). Fitness to plead. A prospective study of the inter-relationships between expert opinion, legal criteria and specific symptomatology. Psychological Medicine, 31(01), 139-150.

Mackay, R. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial: an English legal perspective. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 35(4), 501.

Mankad, M., Brakel, S., & Wilson, R. (2002). Commentary: Incorporation of competence instruments into clinical practice. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 30(4), 483.

Morey, L. C. (1991) Personality Assessment Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Mossman, D., Noffsinger, S., Ash, P., Frierson, R., Gerbasi, J., Hackett, M., et al. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 35(Supplement_4), S3.

Mullen, P. (2002a). Commentary: Competence assessment practices in England and Australia versus the United States. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 30, 486-487.

Mullen, P. (2002b). Commentary: Competence assessment practices in England and Australia versus the United States. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 30(4), 486.

Mullen, P., Briggs, S., Dalton, T., & Burt, M. (2000). Forensic mental health services in Australia. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 23(5-6), 433-452.

Mumley, D., Tillbrook, C., & Grisso, T. (2003). Five year research update (1996-2000): Evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence). Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(3), 329-350.

O'Shaughnessy, R. J. (2007). AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial: A Canadian Legal Perspective. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 35(4), 505-508.

Parton, F., Day, A., & White, J. (2004). An Empirical Study on the Relationship Between Intellectual Ability and an Understanding of the Legal Process in Male Remand Prisoners. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11(1), 96-109.

Pink, B. (2006). Information paper: An introduction to socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA): Australian Bureau of Statistics

Page 12

Poythress, N., Nicholson, R., Otto, R., Edens, J., Bonnie, R., Monahan, J., et al. (1999). The MacArthur Competence Assessment tool - Criminal Adjudication professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Rockette, H. E., Brown, M. L., Britton, C. A., Trowers, J. T., & Guur, D. (1985). ROC Curve Articles Retrieved May 1999, from www.worldmedicus.com/servlet/controller

Roesch, R., Zapf, P., Eaves, D., & Webster, C. D. (1998). Fitness Interview Test (Revised Edition). Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.

Scott, R. (2007). Fitness for Trial in Queensland. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 14(2), 327-349. Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The

Psychological Corporation.Zapf, P., & Roesch, R. (1997). Assessing fitness to stand trial: A comparison of institution-based

evaluations and a brief screening interview. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 16, 53-66.

Page 13