Salekin, R. T., & Grimes, R. (2008). Clinical evaluations of
juvenile offenders facing transfer to adult court. In
R. Jackson (Ed.),Learning forensic assessments.New
York: Routledge.ROGERSCRIMINALRESPONSIBILITY
ASSESSMENTSCALES (R–CRAS)
The Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales
(R–CRAS) is a structured decision model for quantify-
ing relevant psychological variables that are salient for
the retrospective evaluation of insanity. The R–CRAS
was validated to address specifically the American Law
Institute (ALI) insanity standard that requires an assess-
ment of a defendant’s cognitive and volitional impair-
ment at the time of the alleged offense. In addition to the
ALI standard, the R–CRAS provides clinical data rele-
vant to the M’Naghten insanity standard and the
Michigan-based guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) standard.
The R–CRAS decision process combines an
appraisal of general diagnostic categories with an
assessment of cognitive and behavioral (i.e., volitional)
abilities at the time of the offense. Three rationally con-
structed scales evaluate diagnostic issues: (1) Patient
Reliability, which includes malingering or involuntary
interference with accurate recall; (2) Organicity, which
addresses the likely effects of brain damage or mental
retardation; and (3) Psychiatric Disorders, which exam-
ines the effects of key Axis I symptoms. Two scales
address legally relevant impairment: (1) Cognitive
Control, which evaluates impairment in verbal abilities,
awareness of the criminal behavior, and capacity for
planning; and (2) Behavioral Control, which considers
level and focus of criminal activity, as well as the defen-
dant’s capacity to control criminal behavior and engage
in responsible behavior. Finally, the GBMI items
address general domains of impairment that are not spe-
cific to criminal behavior.Description and Development
The R–CRAS was developed by a study group of five
experienced forensic psychologists and psychiatrists
who reached consensual agreement for the inclusion of
core psychological and situational variables relevant to
insanity. This operationalization of the ALI standard
requires forensic experts to make a series of profes-
sional judgments based on anchored ratings. These rat-
ings provided descriptions of impairment for eachlevel that typically ranged from “none” and “slight” to
“moderate,” “severe,” and sometimes “extreme.”
The primary standardization sample was drawn
from two well-established outpatient forensic centers:
the Isaac Ray Center in Chicago and the Court
Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Toledo. Using
eight forensic psychologists and eight forensic psy-
chiatrists, R–CRAS data were collected on a total of
157 insanity evaluations with test-retest reliability on
76 cases. A secondary sample of 103 insanity referrals
was collected from two inpatient and two outpatient
forensic facilities.Reliability
The reliability of the R–CRAS is challenging to estab-
lish, given the retrospective nature of insanity evalua-
tions. As a rigorous test of its reliability, the R–CRAS
was administered by independent evaluators on sepa-
rate occasions with an average interval of 2.7 weeks.
For individual variables, the mean reliability coeffi-
cient was .58, which is very acceptable given the rig-
orousness of the retrospective test-retest design.
One critical issue is the reliability of the ALI deci-
sion model to demonstrate the reproducibility of
R–CRAS decision variables by independent experts at
separate times. Average agreement between experts
was very high with values ranging from 85% to 100%
(M=91%). Kappa coefficients were generally excel-
lent with an average of .81. Because kappas are
affected by low base rates, the kappa for malingering
was modest (.48) despite the high level of agreement
(85%). For the final decision regarding insanity, the
agreement between independent experts was almost
perfect (97%; k =.94).Validity
The R–CRAS used Loevinger’s model of construct val-
idation, which is conceptualized in terms of substantive,
structural, and external validities. The development of
the R–CRAS addressed substantive validity in its selec-
tion and operationalization of key variables relevant to
insanity. The structural validity used a formulation of
insanity that could be tested as a series of hypotheses. In
comparison with sane defendants, clinically evaluated
insane defendants would manifest (a) a relative absence
of malingering, (b) greater psychological impairment
(i.e., organicity and mental disorders), and (c) greater
impairment (i.e., cognitive and volitional). Marked dif-
ferences were observed in the predicted direction. ForRogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R–CRAS)——— 703R-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 703