Research has demonstrated that there is generally
good agreement among evaluators with respect to
overall decisions regarding competency; however,
examiner agreement falls significantly when specific
psycholegal deficits are examined. Research has indi-
cated that examiner agreement reaches 80% or higher
for overall decisions regarding competency but that it
falls to about 25% across a series of competency
domains. Of course, it is the more difficult cases, the
gray-area cases in which competency is truly a serious
question, that are of the greatest concern and for
which no research is available.
Given the low base rate of incompetence, high levels
of agreement among examiners on the issue of a defen-
dant’s overall competence are to be expected; however,
high levels of reliability do not ensure that valid deci-
sions are being made. Validity is difficult to assess
because of the criterion problem; that is, there is no true
criterion for competency and thus no way to determine
whether decisions that have been made about a defen-
dant’s competency are accurate. It is impossible to fully
assess predictive validity as only those defendants who
are considered competent are allowed to proceed; thus,
we have no way of knowing whether a defendant who
was considered incompetent was actually unable to per-
form the abilities required of him or her.CChhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss ooff IInnccoommppeetteenntt DDeeffeennddaannttss
The vast majority of the research that has been con-
ducted on competency to stand trial has examined the
characteristics of and differences between competent
and incompetent defendants. The constellation of
characteristics held in common by defendants referred
for evaluations of competency include being male,
single, or unemployed; living alone; having a history
of contact with both the criminal justice and the men-
tal health systems; and being diagnosed with a major
mental disorder.
The individuals who are found incompetent to stand
trial generally show the following characteristics: poor
performance on psychological tests that measure a
defendant’s legally relevant functional capacities,
a diagnosis of psychosis, and psychiatric symptoms
indicative of severe psychopathology. In addition,
diagnoses of schizophrenia, mental retardation, mood
disorders, and organic brain disorders have all been
found to be strong predictors of incompetency.
Direct comparisons of competent and incompetent
defendants reveal that incompetent defendants aresignificantly more likely to be single, unemployed,
charged with a minor offense, and diagnosed with a
psychotic disorder and significantly less likely to be
charged with a violent crime and to have substance
use disorders than are competent defendants.CCoommppeetteennccyy RReessttoorraattiioonn
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jackson
(discussed above), most jurisdictions now require
evaluators to provide an opinion regarding the restor-
ability of a defendant who is considered incompetent
to stand trial. In general, evaluators are usually
required to provide information to the court on
whether the defendant can be restored to competency
(or the probability of restoration occurring) and what
the available treatment options are for the defendant.
In addition, some jurisdictions require the evaluator to
provide an estimate of the time frame required for
restoration. Generally, many defendants are restored
to competency within 6 months, and the vast majority
are restored within a 1-year period.
Although a full discussion of competency restora-
tion is beyond the scope of this entry, some research has
examined the characteristics of restorable and nonre-
storable incompetent defendants. In general, this
research has indicated that those defendants considered
to be restorable tend to be younger and are more likely
to have a previous criminal history and a nonpsychotic
diagnosis than their unrestorable counterparts.Patricia A. Zapf and Virginia G. CooperSee also Competency, Foundational and Decisional;
Competency, Restoration of; Competency Assessment
Instrument (CAI); Competency Screening Test (CST);
Competency to Waive Counsel (Proceed Pro Se);
Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial–Revised
(ECST–R); Fitness Interview Test–Revised (FIT–R);
Georgia Court Competence Test (GCCT); Interdisciplinary
Fitness Interview (IFI); MacArthur Competence
Assessment Tool for Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT–CA)Further Readings
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
Godinez v. Moran,509, U.S. 389 (1993).
Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic
assessments and instruments(2nd ed.).New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972).122 ———Competency to Stand TrialC-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 122