Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29698396›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Fitness to plead: Development and validation of a standardised assessment instrument.

Penelope Brown, Daniel Stahl, Elizabeth Appiah-Kusi, Rebecca Brewer, Michael Watts, Jill Peay, Nigel Blackwood

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Characteristics and re-offending outcomes of 'limiting-term' forensic patients found unfit to stand trial in New South Wales, Australia.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Penelope BrownDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8487-7106
Daniel StahlDepartment of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth Appiah-KusiDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rebecca BrewerDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Michael WattsDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jill PeayDepartment of Law, London School of Economics, London, United Kingdom.
Nigel BlackwoodDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBLondon School of Economics and Political Science · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability of an individual to participate in courtroom proceedings is assessed by clinicians using legal 'fitness to plead' criteria. Findings of 'unfitness' are so rare that there is considerable professional unease concerning the utility of the current subjective assessment process. As a result, mentally disordered defendants may be subjected unfairly to criminal trials. The Law Commission in England and Wales has proposed legal reform, as well as the utilisation of a defined psychiatric instrument to assist in fitness to plead assessments. Similar legal reforms are occurring in other jurisdictions. Our objective was to produce and validate a standardised assessment instrument of fitness to plead employing a filmed vignette of criminal proceedings. The instrument was developed in consultation with legal and clinical professionals, and was refined using standard item reduction methods in two initial rounds of testing (n = 212). The factorial structure, test-retest reliability and convergent validity of the resultant instrument were assessed in a further round (n = 160). As a result of this iterative process a 25-item scale was produced, with an underlying two-factor structure representing the foundational and decision-making abilities underpinning fitness to plead. The sub-scales demonstrate good internal consistency (factor 1: 0·76; factor 2: 0·65) and test-retest stability (0·7) as well as excellent convergent validity with scores of intelligence, executive function and mentalising abilities (p≤0·01 in all domains). Overall the standardised Fitness to Plead Assessment instrument has good psychometric properties. It has the potential to ensure that the significant numbers of mentally ill and cognitively impaired individuals who face trial are objectively assessed, and the courtroom process critically informed.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCriminal LawEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMemory and Learning TestsMental DisordersMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29698396
PMCPMC5919482
OpenAlexW2803049663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.