A response that clearly relates to one of the legal crite-
ria receives a score of 2. Responses characterized as
redundant, circular, or impoverished but not clearly
inappropriate are scored 1. A zero score would be given
for an answer that reveals characteristics such as self-
defeating behavior, substantial disorganization, or a
thought disorder that would interfere with the ability to
contribute to one’s defense. For example, on Item 2,
“When I go to court, the lawyer will.. .,” an appropriate
response is “defend me” and would be scored a 2,
reflecting the nature of the proceedings and the role of
the attorney. A contrasting response, “put me away,”
would receive a zero score. This item addresses the legal
criterion of a defendant’s ability to assist an attorney in
his or her own defense. The psychological referent
focuses on trust and the ability to engage with another,
in this case the lawyer. Understanding of the role of
legal representation is also an element in this item.
Scores are summated and can total in a range from
0 to 44. Qualitative differences were found at about
20; thus, a score of 20 or below is judged as incompe-
tency for trial. Reliability by trained researchers was
.93, significant at the .001 level.
As a screening instrument, the purpose of the CST
is to avoid hospitalization of those defendants who
may be tested in the court and most likely deemed to
be competent, rather than delay the trial of those indi-
viduals. The test results of the CST and judges’ deci-
sions on return to trial were generally consistent.
Focusing on the criteria for competency to stand trial
also offered specific guidelines for making a judgment
that could avoid pretrial detention. Several validation
studies have followed the original test construction and
research and have supported the efficacy of the CST.Further Research
Additional research has been undertaken by psychol-
ogists to aid the courts in the assessment of fitness
for trial. John Monahan and his colleagues at the
University of Virginia have constructed an instrument
based on the parameters of understanding, reasoning,
and appreciation, consistent with the psychological
underpinnings of the legal criteria for competency to
stand trial.Paul D. LipsittSee also Competency, Restoration of; Competency to Stand
Trial; Georgia Court Competence Test (GCCT)Further Readings
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
Lipsitt, P. D., Lelos, D., & McGarry, A. L. (1971).
Competency for trial: A screening instrument. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 128(1), 105–109.
Nottingham, E. J., IV, & Mattson, R. E. (1981). A validation
study of the Competency Screening Test. Law and Human
Behavior, 5,329–335.
Otto, R. K., Poythress, N. G., Nicholson, R. A., Edens, J. E.,
Monahan, J., Bonnie, R.J., et al. (1998). Psychometric
properties of the MacArthur Competence Tool–Criminal
Adjudication. Psychological Assessment, 10,435–443.
Randolph, J. J., Hicks, T., Mason, D. J. (1982). The
Competency Screening Test: A validation study in Cook
County, Illinois. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9,
495–500.COMPETENCY TOBESENTENCED
The question of whether an individual is competent to
be sentenced hinges on the broader question “What is
competence?” In general, competence is defined
within the legal arena as the mental ability to play an
active role in legal proceedings. Competence to be
sentenced is a specific form of legal competence that
addresses an individual’s ability to participate in the
sentencing stage of trial and to both understand and
appreciate the ramifications of the sentence that is
imposed. The term competence to be sentencedhas
been used interchangeably with competence to be exe-
cuted, but the former expression is more inclusive
than the latter. Psychologists assist the courts by pro-
viding evaluations of competency to be sentenced,
although there are minimal assessment guidelines and
no accepted measures to guide their assessments.
The general standard for competency was defined
by the Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States
(1960) as the defendant’s “sufficient present ability to
consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding” and “a rational as well as fac-
tual understanding of the proceedings against him.”
This protection has been deemed to include the stages
from the time of arrest through the end of the trial.
However, sentencing is separate from trial, and juris-
dictions differ on whether the Duskystandard extends
to the sentencing phase. In some jurisdictions, defen-
dants need only have a minimal level of competency
to be sentenced (e.g., a defendant need only understand116 ———Competency to Be SentencedC-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 116