Premium
The R‐CRAS and insanity evaluations: a re‐examination of construct validity
Author(s) -
Rogers Richard,
Sewell Kenneth W.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
behavioral sciences and the law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.649
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1099-0798
pISSN - 0735-3936
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199904/06)17:2<181::aid-bsl338>3.0.co;2-4
Subject(s) - insanity , insanity defense , psychology , criminal responsibility , construct (python library) , linear discriminant analysis , diminished responsibility , variance (accounting) , construct validity , discriminant function analysis , clinical psychology , psychiatry , psychometrics , criminology , criminal law , statistics , mathematics , computer science , accounting , business , programming language
Insanity evaluations are characterized by continued professional debate and the paucity of empirical research. To address the latter, the construct validity of the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R‐CRAS; Rogers, 1984) was examined via an extensive re‐analysis of 413 insanity cases. A series of six separate discriminant analyses was examined to address major components of insanity evaluations. These analyses yielded highly discriminating patterns ( M hit rates of 94.3%) and accounted for substantial proportion of the variance ( M =63.7%). In general, predicted relationships between individual variables and the discriminant functions were supported. We also addressed the usefulness of the R‐CRAS additional variables for the assessment of insanity. We found that these variables contributed substantially to the determination of criminal responsibility. Finally, we pose important and polemical issues for forensic experts conducting evaluations of criminal responsibility. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.