an approach was needed that stressed the possible, but
not automatically assumed, linkage between psy-
chopathology and incapacity. Third, an assessment
approach needed to reflect the highly contextualized
nature of adjudicative competence.
As originally designed and tested, the IFI manual
stressed the linkage and contextual aspects of compe-
tency assessment and emphasized the importance of
these aspects of competency evaluation by including
both attorneys and forensic mental health profession-
als in the interview and evaluation process (hence the
term interdisciplinary). It was a good, but impractical,
idea. In the NIMH-funded pilot project, attorneys
proved to be able to contribute in a meaningful and
reliable fashion to the competency appraisal, but
implementing their routine involvement proved diffi-
cult for financial and logistical reasons. In its modern
form, the revised version (IFI–R) is designed so that
the forensic examiner provides the linkage based on
extensive training, knowledge of the legal issues, and
consultation with both defense and prosecution about
the particular context of a given case. The IFI–R is
also designed to include a more extensive linkage
analysis and includes additional psycholegal abilities
associated with more modern competency cases.
Thus, the IFI–R, in addition to the traditional compe-
tency domains, also focuses on competencies associ-
ated with the decision to proceed pro se or to plead
guilty, the competency to comprehend and appreciate
rights during a custodial interrogation, and the iatro-
genic effects of medication.
The IFI–R organizes 35 specific psycholegal
abilities associated with adjudicative competency into
11 broad domains. Thus, the IFI–R spans the entire
domain of competency-related psycholegal abilities,
ranging from fundamental issues such as understand-
ing the prosecutor’s adversarial role, through common
competency concerns such as the ability to communi-
cate relevant information to counsel, to higher-order
decisional competencies such as the ability to make a
reasoned choice of defense options. Special compe-
tency considerations that arise in the context of psy-
chotropic medications, such as deficits in psycholegal
abilities induced by such treatments and treatment
refusal, are also addressed.
For each psycholegal ability, the IFI–R guides
examiners through suggested inquiries meant to explore
the linkage, if any, between psychopathological symp-
toms or cognitive deficits and impairment in each
domain. While each psycholegal ability can be “scored”as to degree of impairment, the inherent idiographic
nature of the instrument means that the scores are
specifically not designed to be summed into a “compe-
tency score” but rather are meant to guide a forensic
examiner’s structured judgment. Subsequent research
across various competency assessment instruments has
demonstrated the validity of this assumption.
The IFI–R has not been thoroughly examined from
an empirical perspective. The original NIMH develop-
mental and validational studies found that the IFI items
were scored with good to excellent interrater reliability.
Furthermore, competency judgments based on the IFI
aligned very well with both independent assessments by
a “blue-ribbon panel” and court judgments. However, it
should be pointed out that these results were obtained
with a group of interviewers who received intensive
training in both the logic and the methodology of the IFI
as well as a detailed review of relevant case law. When
untrained examiners’ evaluations (using unstandardized
methods) are “coded” according to the IFI–R domain/
subdomain scheme or when untrained examiners are
provided the IFI–R format without training and super-
vision, their assessments of individual domains or sub-
domains are quite unreliable. Thus, the IFI–R is meant
to be used by highly trained and experienced forensic
examiners. It has been favorably reviewed in terms of its
conceptualization and its usefulness in guiding forensic
competency assessments. Most research on the concep-
tualization of the IFI–R (i.e., using a contextualized
semistructured interview to examine the linkage
between psychopathology and articulated psycholegal
ability domains) has been conducted with the Canadian
cousin of the IFI–R, the Fitness Interview Test–Revised
(FIT–R).
Unlike most other competency evaluation methods
and procedures, the IFI–R and its Canadian cousin,
the FIT–R, are the only procedures that have been
examined with respect to their comparative validity in
a real-world context. Most other competency instru-
ments have been validated by showing that scores on
the instrument are significantly different in groups
adjudicated as incompetent versus those judged com-
petent. Although such contrasted group designs do
provide informative data, they are relatively weak
tests of construct validity.
Stephen GoldingSee alsoCompetency, Foundational and Decisional;
Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI); Competency
Screening Test (CST); Competency to Stand Trial;378 ———Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI)I-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 378