-
Pathogenic
Mentally disordered
-
-
Adaptational
Attempting to meet their objectives in opposing circumstances
-
Pathogenic model
Model in which the patient fakes symptoms
-
Criminological model
Models presuppose malingering is likely to occur with (1) a person with antisocial personality disorder (APD), (2) evaluations conducted for forensic purposes, (3) persons uncooperative with evaluation and treatment, and (4) persons whose claims are discrepant with objective findings
-- ADP * forensic context * uncooperative * wrong symptoms --
-
Adaptational model
Model in which would-be malingerers engage on cost-benefit analysis with an assessment they perceive as indifferent to their needs
-
Explanatory model
Model that attempted to test the efficacy of DSM-IV indicators of malingering on a forensic sample
-
Psychopathy
Demonstrating characteristics including (1) glibness and superficial charm, (2) pathological lying, (3) conning and manipulativeness, basically just takes advantage of others
-
Malingering
Conscious misrepresentation of physical and/or psychological symptoms for an external goal
-
Defensiveness
The conscious denial or gross minimization of physical and/or psychological symptoms
-
Irrelevant responding
A response style in which the individual does not become psychologically engaged in the assessment process
-
Random responding
Irrelevant responding in which a random pattern can be identified
-
Honest responding
A patient's sincere attempt to be accurate in his/her responses
-
Hybrid responding
Using any combination of responding styles
-
Dissimulation
Deliberately misrepresenting psychological symptoms
-
Unreliability
response of no use to the case
-
Deception
To distort or misrepresent a self-reporting
-
Self-disclosure
What a person reveals about him/herself
-
Social desirability
The denial of negative characteristics and the attribution of positive qualities
-
Impressions management
Social behaviors by attempting to create a positive image and avoid embarrassment and other negative emotions
-
Simulation-malingering paradox
In order to learn about dishonest people who do not comply with instructions to answer tests honestly, we study honest people who are complying with the instruction to answer tests dishonestly.
-
self-report with limited reliability
The patient answers fairly accurately, but leaves out some information
-
self-report without reliability
unbelievable response of symptoms due to exaggeration, denial, and guardedness
-
mild malingering
There is clear evidence that the patient is attempting to malinger, primarily through exaggeration.
-
moderate malingering
The patient, either through exaggeration or fabrication, attempts to present him/herself as considerably more disturbed than is the case.
-
severe malingering
The patient is extreme in his or her fabrication of symptoms to the point that the presentation is fantastic or preposterous
-
mild defensiveness
There is clear evidence that the patient's severity of symptoms are downsized but present
-
moderate defensiveness
The patient minimizes or denies substantial psychological impairment.
-
severe defensiveness
The patient denies any problem
-
degree of certainty
the level of experimental support and theoretical basis for justifying a diagnostic conclusion
-
simulation design
design in which participants are offered small incentives for faking particular symptoms
-
honest responders
patients responding accurately
-
differential prevalence design
design where persons with different settings are assumed to have contrasting rates or dissimulation
-
cognitive prong
defense that a person may be excused if his thinking was severely disordered
-
volitional prong
defense that a person may be excused if his ability to control his behavior was severely impaired
-
-
unsupported level of certainty
conflicting research findings
-
speculative level of certainty
conclusions that are consistent with accepted theory and supported by one or two studies of limited genalizability
-
tentative(guarded) level of certainty
research studies consistently show statistical significance in the expected direction, but have little or no practical value in classifying individuals
-
probable level of certainty
research studies consistently establish statistical significance in which cutting scores, measures of central tendency, or a similar statistic accurately differentiate between at least 75% of the criterion groups
-
definite level of certainty
accurate classification of 90% or more of individual persons based on extensive, cross-validated research. Finding are congruent with accepted theory.
-
adjudicative competence
The set of abilities necessary for a criminal defendant to understand the proceedings in which he or she is participating and to make rational decisions about the alternative courses of action that are available.
-
affirmative defense
In a trial, a position by the defendant that places the burden on the defendant to prove his/her claim.
-
Brawner rule
Not responsible if:lacks capacity to determine “wrongfulness” (cognitive)OR unable to conform conduct to requirements of the law (volitional)
(ALI rule)
-
competence
understanding of the the nature and purpose of the criminal proceeding
-
competence to plead guilty
The ability of a defendant to understand the possible consequences of pleading guilty to criminal charges instead of going to trial, and to make a rational choice between these alternatives.
-
competence to stand trial
Sufficient ability to understand the legal proceedings in which one is involved and to consult with one's attorney.
-
diminished capacity
A variation of the insanity defense that is applicable if the defendant (in the words of the law) lacks the ability to understand the consequences of their act
-
insanity
mental state at the time of the crime
-
M'Naghten rule
A rule applied in the history of the insanity defense, in which the defendant must show that he did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know the difference between right and wrong.
-
nolo contendere
A plea of no contest.
-
stipulate
To agree about a fact in a legal proceeding without further argument or examination.
-
6th Amendment
Protects the rights of the accused to jury trial, confront opposition, and right to counsel
-
14th Amendment
Right to due process of law and equal protection
-
Positive symptoms of Psychosis (4)
- (1)Delusions
- (2)Disorganized thoughts/speech
- (3)Hallucinations
- (4)Inappropriate Affect/Emotion
-
Negative Symptoms of Psychosis (4)
- (1)Poverty of Speech
- (2)Flat Affect
- (3)Apathy/Amotivational
- (4)Ambivalence
-
Prodromal Phase of Psychosis
gradual deterioration
-
Active Phase of Psychosis
Pronounced Positive Symptoms
-
Residual Phase of Psychosis
Positive symptoms decrease, negative symptoms remain
-
Dusky v. United States (1960)
“…sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and…has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him”
-
psycholegal abilities
Those psychological factors that directly bear on the legal issue at hand
-
Competency Screening Test (CST)
Initial screening test
-
Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI)
Interview that covers the patient's legal competency
-
Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI)
Screening test that combined legal competence with psychopathological symptoms
-
Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT)
highly reliable test that tapped into the patients general legal knowledge, courtroom layout and specific legal knowledge
-
MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA)
Assesses understanding, reasoning, and appreciation of relevant legal issues
-
Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that determined a state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
- release of patients IST in decent time frame -
-
Wilson v. United States (1968)
led to the consideration of six factors when deciding competency with amnesia
-
Amnesia - 6 things to consider
- (1)ability to consult counsel
- (2)ability to testify
- (3)can others reconstruct crime
- (4)prosecutions assistance in reconstruction
- (5)strength of prosecutions case
- (6)anything else that indicates the fairness of the trial
-
Godinez v. Moran (1993)
a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.
-
Colin Ferguson
refused the right to counsel, lost
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
Inability to exercise rational control over one’s behavior
-
|
|