Premium
The RCRAS and legal insanity: A cross‐validation study
Author(s) -
Rogers Richard,
Seman William,
Wasyliw Orest E.
Publication year - 1983
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/1097-4679(198307)39:4<554::aid-jclp2270390415>3.0.co;2-w
Subject(s) - psychology , inter rater reliability , insanity defense , insanity , forensic science , reliability (semiconductor) , criminal responsibility , kappa , clinical psychology , forensic psychiatry , social psychology , psychiatry , rating scale , developmental psychology , criminal law , criminology , medicine , power (physics) , physics , linguistics , philosophy , quantum mechanics , veterinary medicine
Examined the RCRAS as an empirically based approach to insanity evaluations. Previous research has been encouraging with regard to the RCRAS' interrater reliability and construct validity. The present study, with a larger data base ( N = 111), sought to cross‐validate these findings. Results from five forensic centers established satisfactory reliability for the RCRAS (mean kappa r = 0.80 for decision variables for criminal responsibility) and differentiating patterns for four of the five scales between sane and insane patient‐defendants. Results further suggested that the RCRAS was generalizable across age, sex, criminal behavior, and location of the forensic evaluation. These findings were discussed with respect to the potential clinical utility of the RCRAS.