Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

example, very large effect sizes were found for the role

of hallucinations (Cohen’s d= 1.80) and delusions

(Cohen’s d=3.15) in criminal behavior. Discriminant

analyses were also used to demonstrate differentiating

patterns between sane and insane defendants on calibra-

tion and cross-validation samples. As evidence of exter-

nal validity, R–CRAS decisions were compared with

legal outcomes. The primary samples yielded high con-

cordance rates that were nearly identical—88.5% for the

Isaac Ray Center and 88.1% for the Court Diagnostic

and Treatment Center.

Forensic Applications

The R–CRAS is the only well-validated decision

model for the assessment of criminal responsibility.

Its model requires forensic psychologists and psychi-

atrists to quantify key variables related to the severity

of Axis I symptoms and elements of criminal behav-

ior. This model appears to be generalizable to defen-

dants with different sociodemographic (e.g., gender,

race, age, and education), criminal (e.g., prior arrests

and delinquency), and clinical (e.g., prior diagnoses

and hospitalizations) variables.

Forensic psychologists may prefer to use the

R–CRAS for insanity evaluations as a structured guide

rather than a formal test. This use appears warranted,

especially in jurisdictions that do not use the ALI insan-

ity standard. For GBMI consultations, the Michigan-

based R–CRAS criteria are used in many jurisdictions.

However, forensic clinicians should carefully check its

relevance to their particular jurisdiction. Finally,

experts are likely to be divided on whether to render

conclusory opinions with insanity cases. Forensic psy-

chologists avoiding conclusory opinions should use the

final decision point for sanity as simply advisory and

not document it in their forensic reports.

Richard Rogers

See alsoCriminal Responsibility, Assessment of; Criminal

Responsibility, Defenses and Standards; Forensic

Assessment; Insanity Defense, Juries and

Further Readings

Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic

assessments and instruments.New York: Kluwer.

Rogers, R. (1984). Rogers criminal responsibility

assessment scales (R–CRAS) and test manual.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1999). The R–CRAS and

insanity evaluations: A re-examination of construct

validity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17,181–194.

Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2000). Conducting insanity

evaluations(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

704 ———Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R–CRAS)

R-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 704