国家培训和认证出庭能力评估员标准

W. Gowensmith, D. Pinals, A. C. Karas
{"title":"国家培训和认证出庭能力评估员标准","authors":"W. Gowensmith, D. Pinals, A. C. Karas","doi":"10.1080/15228932.2015.1046798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The standards used to select, train, certify, and retain forensic evaluators of Competency to Stand Trial (CST) vary widely across states. Despite the very important ramifications that CST evaluations have for the defendants who undergo them, little is currently known about how states ensure that evaluators provide the highest-quality work possible. A survey was sent to all 50 states and Washington, DC, to solicit information regarding evaluator selection and certification processes, payment of CST evaluators, and other related topics. Results were compared to previous studies completed in 1997 and 2006 to allow for a longitudinal analysis. Results indicate that although some progress has occurred since the publication of those studies, most states still do not have a formal process for selecting or certifying their CST evaluators. Also, professional qualifications for CST evaluations are loosening, and payment remains relatively low. These findings, as well as the importance of retaining high standards for the field of forensic mental health assessment, are discussed. Specific components of existing certification programs are also detailed.","PeriodicalId":89973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","volume":"15 1","pages":"295 - 317"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228932.2015.1046798","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"States’ Standards for Training and Certifying Evaluators of Competency to Stand Trial\",\"authors\":\"W. Gowensmith, D. Pinals, A. C. Karas\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15228932.2015.1046798\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The standards used to select, train, certify, and retain forensic evaluators of Competency to Stand Trial (CST) vary widely across states. Despite the very important ramifications that CST evaluations have for the defendants who undergo them, little is currently known about how states ensure that evaluators provide the highest-quality work possible. A survey was sent to all 50 states and Washington, DC, to solicit information regarding evaluator selection and certification processes, payment of CST evaluators, and other related topics. Results were compared to previous studies completed in 1997 and 2006 to allow for a longitudinal analysis. Results indicate that although some progress has occurred since the publication of those studies, most states still do not have a formal process for selecting or certifying their CST evaluators. Also, professional qualifications for CST evaluations are loosening, and payment remains relatively low. These findings, as well as the importance of retaining high standards for the field of forensic mental health assessment, are discussed. Specific components of existing certification programs are also detailed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic psychology practice\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"295 - 317\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228932.2015.1046798\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic psychology practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1046798\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1046798","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

用于选择、培训、认证和保留出庭能力法医评估人员(CST)的标准在各州之间差别很大。尽管CST评估对接受评估的被告产生了非常重要的影响,但目前人们对各州如何确保评估人员提供尽可能高质量的工作知之甚少。一项调查被发送到所有50个州和华盛顿特区,以征求有关评估员选择和认证过程、CST评估员支付和其他相关主题的信息。研究结果与1997年和2006年完成的先前研究进行了比较,以便进行纵向分析。结果表明,尽管自这些研究发表以来取得了一些进展,但大多数州仍然没有正式的程序来选择或认证其CST评估人员。此外,CST评估的专业资格正在放宽,支付仍然相对较低。讨论了这些发现,以及在法医心理健康评估领域保持高标准的重要性。现有认证程序的具体组成部分也详细说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
States’ Standards for Training and Certifying Evaluators of Competency to Stand Trial
The standards used to select, train, certify, and retain forensic evaluators of Competency to Stand Trial (CST) vary widely across states. Despite the very important ramifications that CST evaluations have for the defendants who undergo them, little is currently known about how states ensure that evaluators provide the highest-quality work possible. A survey was sent to all 50 states and Washington, DC, to solicit information regarding evaluator selection and certification processes, payment of CST evaluators, and other related topics. Results were compared to previous studies completed in 1997 and 2006 to allow for a longitudinal analysis. Results indicate that although some progress has occurred since the publication of those studies, most states still do not have a formal process for selecting or certifying their CST evaluators. Also, professional qualifications for CST evaluations are loosening, and payment remains relatively low. These findings, as well as the importance of retaining high standards for the field of forensic mental health assessment, are discussed. Specific components of existing certification programs are also detailed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信