Competency to stand trial research: Guidelines and future directions

The adjudicative competency literature has been growing consistently since the early 1960s; however, there has been great variability in the research methods employed by researchers and the way in which findings have been presented. We recently conducted a meta-analysis which included 68 studies published between 1967 and 2008 comparing competent and incompetent defendants on a number of demographic, psychiatric, and criminological variables. The findings from our meta-analysis are presented elsewhere (Pirelli, G., Gottdiener, W.H., & Zapf, P.A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of competency to stand trial research. Psychology, Public Policy and Law. Online First Publication, January 17, 2011. doi: 10.1037/a0021713; however, based on our findings, we developed 13 competency research guidelines intended to serve as a reference for those conducting research in the area. The guidelines represent an effort to effectuate consensus in terms of methods utilized and comparability in terms of results presented. We also set forth three areas deemed promising for future study. The guidelines and future directions presented in this manuscript are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a much needed point of consensus among researchers leading to the commencement of a new line of competency research.