Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

multiplied by 2), and the recommended cut score is 69

or below; defendants who score in this range are rec-

ommended for further evaluation.

Research conducted on the GCCT–MSH has been

limited, but that which is available suggests that the

measure has good interrater reliability, has good inter-

nal consistency, and can be effective as a checklist to

identify potential deficits in functional abilities. Three

studies have looked at the factor structure of the

GCCT–MSH, and the findings have indicated a lack

of stability; consequently, the exact domains that are

assessed by GCCT–MSH are not clear.

Much of the commentary regarding the utility of the

GCCT–MSH relates to the narrow focus of the mea-

sure, specifically the almost exclusive focus on founda-

tional competence (e.g., the ability to understand the

purpose and process of the criminal proceedings) to the

near exclusion of decisional competencies (e.g., knowl-

edge of the legal options, capacity to engage in rational

deliberations regarding legal strategy). Numerous

scholars have discussed the relative importance of deci-

sional competencies over foundational competencies,

and they contend that foundational competence does

not adequately capture what is required to demonstrate

competence. Instead, they argue that it is the defen-

dants’ ability to function within the context of their own

legal proceedings that is of paramount importance.

In addition to the narrow focus of the measure, con-

cerns regarding the face validity of the GCCT–MSH

have been raised and addressed in the literature. In 1995,

Shayna Gothard and colleagues created the Atypical

Presentation Scale to the GCCT–MSH. This scale is

composed of 8 items that are scored on a 3-point scale

(0 =no,1 =qualified yes,2 =definite yes). In the origi-

nal study, scores of 6 or higher suggested atypical

responding and the need for a more comprehensive eval-

uation of malingered incompetence. A more recent

study indicated that the original cut score was too strin-

gent, and it was suggested that the cut score be lowered

to 3 or higher, or perhaps even 1 or higher.

The utility of the GCCT–MSH is limited to screen-

ing for possible concerns regarding the competence of

the defendant. Although a cut score of 69 has been the

recommendation for a further evaluation of compe-

tence to stand trial, this score should never be used as

the sole criterion for such a determination. Like all

forensic assessment instruments, the GCCT–MSH

plays a small and unique role in the comprehensive

evaluation of a defendant.

Karen L. Salekin

See also Competency to Stand Trial; Forensic Assessment;

Presentence Evaluations

Further Readings

Bonnie, R. (1992). The competency of criminal defendants:

A theoretical reformulation. Behavioral Sciences and the

Law, 10,291–316.

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

Gothard, S., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1995). Feigning

incompetency to stand trial: An investigation of the

GCCT. Law and Human Behavior, 19,363–373.

Rogers, R., Ustad, K. L., Sewell, K. W., & Reinhart, V.

(1996). Dimensions of incompetency: A factor analytic

study of the Georgia Court Competency Test. Behavioral

Sciences and the Law, 14,323–330.

GRISSO’SINSTRUMENTS FOR

ASSESSINGUNDERSTANDING

ANDAPPRECIATION OF

MIRANDA RIGHTS

The Instruments for Assessing Understanding and

Appreciation of MirandaRights were originally devel-

oped in the 1970s by Thomas Grisso as a research tool

to inform public policy about juveniles’ and adults’

capacities to waive rights. The tool, composed of four

distinct instruments, was subsequently adopted for use

in juvenile and adult forensic evaluations, and the

instruments were published for clinical use in 1998. A

revised version of the instruments, the MirandaRights

Comprehension Instruments–II, has been developed

and normed, and the manual is in preparation.

Development and Purpose

Grisso organized an expert panel of lawyers and psy-

chologists to offer comments about, and reach a con-

sensus on, the organization of the instruments, item

structure, and scoring criteria. In 1980, Grisso pub-

lished the results of a large-scale study employing these

instruments and, in that article, included the instru-

ments’ norms and psychometric properties.

Although the instruments were designed for research

purposes, their clinical utility quickly became appar-

ent. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Miranda v. Arizona

(1966), established that a valid waiver of rights must be

336 ———Grisso’s Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of MMiirraannddaa Rights

G-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 336