Abstract
The insanity defense represents one of the most controversial and debated evaluations performed by forensic psychiatrists and psychologists. Despite the variation among different jurisdictions, in Western countries, the legal standards for insanity often rely on the presence of cognitive and/or volitional impairment of the defendant at the time of the crime. We developed the defendant’s insanity assessment support scale (DIASS) based on a wide view of competent decision-making, which reflects core issues relevant to legal insanity in many jurisdictions. To assess the characteristics of the DIASS we asked 40 forensic experts (16% women; years of experience = 20.6 ± 12.9) to evaluate 10 real-life derived forensic cases with the DIASS; cases included defendants’ psychiatric symptom severity, evaluated through the 24-itemBrief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Exploratory factor analysis by principal axis factoring was conducted, which disclosed a two-factor solution explaining 57.6% of the total variance. The DIASS showed a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86), and substantial inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s kappa = 0.72). The capacities analyzed through the DIASS were mainly affected by mania/excitement and psychotic dimensions in nonresponsible and with substantially diminished responsibility defendants, while by hostility and negative symptoms in responsible defendants. The DIASS proved to be an effective psychometric tool to guide and structure insanity defense evaluations, in order to improve their consistency and reliability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The insanity defense is a legal construct that, in specific circumstances, exempts defendants affected by mental illness from being held accountable for their criminal behavior [1]. It is a defense that dates to ancient times, and some traces can be found in ancient Greek and Roman texts [2]. The Napoleonic code was the main point of reference for the whole continental European codification of the nineteenth century. The legal nature of the criteria underlying insanity has sources that are also historical and that in Italy has led to giving greater weight to the epistemic and inhibitory control components. The most acknowledged standards in the Anglo-American systems are the M’Naghten RuleFootnote 1, and The Model Penal Code’s test, also known as the American Law Institute (ALI) standard [3] (see Table 1).
Nowadays, insanity definition and the threshold for satisfying its legal criteria tend to vary depending on the jurisdiction. Yet, in Western countries, the legal standards for insanity often rely on the presence of defendants’ cognitive and/or volitional impairment at the time of the crime [2].
In Italy, forensic experts have three possible conclusions regarding defendants’ criminal responsibility: nonresponsible, with substantially diminished responsibility, and responsibleFootnote 2 [4]. The forensic psychiatric evaluation leading to criminal irresponsibility or substantially diminished responsibility must also detect a cause-effect association between infirmity and specific criminal behaviour. Expert consultants can be appointed by the judge if he/she decides to avail himself/herself of their help or at the same time they can be summoned by the prosecution or by the defense with the aim of assessing the criminal responsibility and social dangerousness of the offender. However, the judge can also decide not to rely upon experts’ opinions nor is obliged to follow their suggestions.
Despite the presence of established legal criteria, the reliability and objectivity of insanity evaluations have been widely questioned, because of the frequent disagreement among forensic experts regarding the same case [5, 6], the lack of standardized procedures to guide the forensic evaluation [7], and the presence of unintentional or cognitive biases [7,8,9,10]. In addition, several factors such as money, prestige, and the amount of public attention attracted by the case have been shown to have an influence on forensic experts’ decisional processes [11]. Another source or limit could be represented by the intrinsic limits of psychiatric diagnosis and the longitudinal variability of psychiatric symptoms [12]. Moreover, discrepancies between forensic reports may be accounted for also by the absence of biological markers available and the relative scarcity of reliable diagnostic tools to guide forensic evaluations. Finally, the dialectic of the criminal trial itself may play a role, with the possibility of the presence of different opinions from different parties which plead their case, which the court or jury weighs.
To overcome these limits, theoretical models, some practice guidelines and forensic assessment instruments have been developed to assist the criminal responsibility evaluation [1, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Among the tools used to perform insanity evaluations, are included the “Mental State at the Time of the Offense Screening Evaluation” (MSE) [22], the “Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales” (R-CRAS) [23, 24], the “Rating scale of criminal responsibility for mentally disordered offenders” (RSCRs) [25], and the “Criminal Responsibility Scale” (CRS) [26]. In addition to those previously mentioned, there is the “Defendant’s Insanity Assessment Support Scale” (DIASS) [21]. Differently from the MSE, which is structured to screen out defendants whose criminal conduct clearly was not caused by significant mental abnormality, and the RSCRs, which evaluates defendants’ cognitive and volitional dimension through a hypothetical scenario based on clinical vignettes, the R-CRAS, RSCRs, and DIASS evaluate defendants’ criminal responsibility associated with the alleged crime.
The aim of the present study was to validate the DIASS, to study its psychometric properties and its factorial structure.
Materials and methods
The present study was conducted from February 2020 to June 2020 and involved the development of 10 hypothetical forensic cases, based on real forensic cases modified to ensure nonrecognizability. Each forensic case included a measure of the defendant’s psychiatric symptomatology at the time of the forensic evaluation through the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS, Expanded Version) [27]. It was chosen to describe the psychiatric symptoms at the time of the assessment, since a detailed description of the symptoms is not available at the time of the crime, at least not such as to be able to fill in a BPRS. Usually, psychiatric symptoms at the time of the crime must be deduced retrospectively by the forensic evaluator on the basis of several factors such as the defendant’s account of the offense, past and present behavior, the characteristics of the alleged crime, and the psychiatric history of the accused, the witness report, or by video recordings, where available. Consequently, we provided hypothetical forensic cases with information related to the state of mind at the time of the crime, which was inferable from the methods used and data available, reported in the historical descriptions. The BPRS scores were based on the information available including what the experts had reported in their forensic reports of the real forensic cases. We decided to use this methodology, despite its possible limitations, because the reports we used to develop the hypothetical forensic cases neither include a BPRS evaluation nor other psychiatric rating scales. By doing so we assumed that the psychopathological elements that the expert had decided to describe in the report and therefore to convey to the judge, were those that the expert had taken into account in the decision-making process. This method has already been used in another study by our group [28]. Five BPRS factor scores were calculated, i.e., manic/excitement, depression/suicidality, hostility, positive symptoms, and negative symptoms [29].
We then sent the 10 hypothetical forensic cases by email to 50 experts in forensic psychiatry and legal psychology from Northern, Central and Southern Italy, asking them to rate just 5 of them (chosen by us) with the help of the DIASS and to apply its decision-making model to reach their final judgement (nonresponsible, substantially diminished responsibility, responsible), while evaluating the remaining 5 cases as they used to.
An ad-hoc form was developed to collect data about the forensic evaluator, such as name and surname, age, sex, years of forensic experience, and specialty.
Forensic cases were emailed to each examiner together with a cover letter explaining the aim of the study. Each evaluator was told to imagine being the judge’s expert consultant and was reminded of the study up to a maximum of three times, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after the first email, respectively. Those evaluators who still failed to give feedback were considered nonresponders.
The Defendant’s Insanity Assessment Support Scale (DIASS)
The DIASS is a tool that has been developed on the theoretical model of competent decision-making and reflects core issues relevant to legal insanity in many jurisdictions in Western Countries [21]. It is composed of 9 binary items (present/absent) grouped into 4 dimensions: “Knowledge/understanding of the crime” (3 items), “Appreciating of the crime” (1 item), “Reasoning” (3 items), and “Control of voluntary motor activity” (2 items). The first two dimensions refer to the “Epistemic component”, while the third and fourth dimensions refer to the “Control component”. A box at the end of the scale refers to the final judgements on the Epistemic and Control components, which are scored on a 3-point scale (Intact, partially compromised and compromised). All the items refer to the state of mind of the accused, reconstructed at the time of the crime. The DIASS is an instrument designed to support and guide the insanity evaluation and should be used only after having examined all the legal and health documentation of the defendant, as a framework during the clinical evaluation. The instrument does not produce a compute score, but assists forensic evaluators in identifying which capacities relevant to mental criminal responsibility were present at the time of the offense. For a deeper description of the instrument and its development see Parmigiani et al., 2019 [21].
Forensic cases
Each forensic case described the defendant’s personal, medical, social, and employment history, family relationships, arrest behavior, and current mental status. A summary of the 10 hypothetical forensic cases is shown in Table 2 (The full text is available on the Supplementary Material data file). The severity of psychiatric symptoms was shown through the BPRS.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Software for Social Sciences v. 20.0 (SPSS). The alpha value was set to 0.05, all tests were two-tailed.
We performed an exploratory factor analysis by principal axis factoring of the DIASS items through Eigenvalue method >1 in order to extract the factors, also observing the scree plot. We rotated the factors by an oblique rotation (direct oblimin), and analyzed the DIASS internal consistency through Cronbach’s alpha.
To investigate Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR) Cohen’s kappa statistics [30] were used; IRR was investigated by comparing every possible combination of pairs of raters, scoring the same forensic case. Landis and Koch [31], have arbitrarily defined intervals in Cohen’s kappa for inter-rater agreement, where 0–0.20 is considered as slight, 0.21–0.40 as fair, 0.41–0.60 as moderate, 0.61–0.80 as substantial, and 0.81–1 as almost perfect agreement.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to investigate associations among the items of the DIASS and the psychopathological dimensions investigated through the BPRS.
Results
The 10 hypothetical forensic cases were sent to a sample composed of 50 forensic experts, of which 80% (N = 40) replied. The characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 3.
The exploratory factor analysis by principal axis factoring disclosed a 2-factor solution with a different distribution of the items compared to the original scale (Table 4), explaining 57.6% of the total variance. The first DIASS factor, which we named “epistemic component” comprised five items referring to the knowledge /understanding of the crime context (A1), appreciation of the criminal behavior through the subjective moral standard (B1), and reasoning about the possibility of non-acting/alternative choices (C1), about consequences -pros and cons (C2) and integration of relevant information (C3). The second DIASS factor, named “control component” comprised three items dealing with the knowledge/understanding of the criminality of the act and moral standard (A3), the control of voluntary motor activity through the ability to program, organize, finalize the action (D2), and the ability to inhibit one’s own behavior (D1). Item A2 (knowledge/understanding of the nature of the criminal act) was dropped from the scale because it loaded on both factors. In Appendix A is reported the final structure of the DIASS.
The DIASS showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86), and a good concurrent validity as shown through the highly significant association between forensic experts’ judgment reached using the DIASS and the court ruling on the real cases (rho = 0.674; p < 0.001).
Cohen’s kappa disclosed substantial DIASS internal consistency among different raters varying from 0.44 to 1, with a mean value of 0.72.
No differences emerged between forensic experts’ final judgement reached with the use of the DIASS and without it, as disclosed by Fisher’s exact test (Table 5).
Correlations among the capacities analyzed through the DIASS and the severity of psychiatric symptoms in nonresponsible, with substantially diminished responsibility and responsible defendants are shown in Table 6.
Discussion
Our study on a sample of 40 forensic experts confirmed the bifactorial structure of the DIASS, although exploratory factor analysis revealed a different distribution of the items than the original construct/scale. Specifically, item A3, (Knowledge/Understanding of the criminality of the act and moral standard), which was originally conceived as part of the epistemic component, after the exploratory factor analysis, loaded on the control component. In interpreting this result, we must consider that this item deals with an aspect that forensic experts analyze through the observation of external behavior, which is associated with the notion of inhibitory control. For example, the absence of efforts to avoid detection or apprehension may suggest a lack of knowledge/understanding of wrongfulness.
The DIASS showed good internal consistency, concurrent validity and substantial inter-rater reliability. These results underline the good psychometric characteristics of the DIASS as well as the importance for criminal responsibility evaluations of both the cognitive and control components, as already is the case in Italy and in those countries, which use the ALI standard, compared to those that use the M’Naghten [2]. In addition, the role of inhibitory control and executive functions is supported by neuroscientific studies, showing the presence of cerebral alterations in violent offenders, specifically prefrontal dysfunctions [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
The absence of significant differences between final judgements of forensic cases evaluated with and without the use of the DIASS, suggests that our instrument does not alter the decisional process typically used in forensic experts’ practice, despite improving the transparency and verifiability of judgment. In this regard, it is worth underlining that the scale may be apparently of little use for those forensic experts with many years of experience. However, we deem that the DIASS could be useful also for experienced forensic experts, as it would allow them to make explicit in the forensic reports the patterns of reasoning that are generally implicit, making them more objective. In addition, the DIASS could be especially useful to those who are at the beginning of the forensic profession as it could act as support and guidance for the evaluation of the defendant’s accountability as well as the training of forensic specialists.
From the analysis of the correlations between the defendants’ capacities analyzed through the DIASS and the psychopathological dimension measured by the BPRS, three different profiles of forensic experts’ decision-making emerged. While regarding defendants judged nonresponsible the impairment of the capacities analyzed through the items of the DIASS (such as the ability to control one’s own behavior, etc.) were mainly associated with the mania/excitement dimension, for defendants with substantially diminished responsibility the most affected psychopathological dimension was represented by positive symptoms on the BPRS. This is in line with some studies reporting positive, negative, and manic symptoms as to be more frequently associated with judgments of nonresponsibility and could be considered as generally related to the impact of the “psychotic dimension” on responsibility [25, 40, 41]. Finally, regarding responsible defendants, the psychopathological dimensions most involved in the impairment of the cognitive-volitional components were those of hostility and negative symptoms, probably reflecting the fact that our responsible sample was mainly composed of defendants affected by personality disorders such as antisocial, borderline or paranoid, with high levels of anger and hostility. Differently from defendants judged nonresponsible and with substantially diminished responsibility, where the presence of psychotic symptoms plays a role in forensic experts’ decisional processes, regarding responsible defendants, the psychiatric dimension of hostility and negative symptoms (composed of motor retardation, blunted affect, disorientation, and self-neglect) are not associated with a judgement of nonresponsibility, but merely present. In interpreting these results, we must consider that these correlations refer to the psychopathological dimensions present in our forensic hypothetical case (based on real forensic cases modified to make them not recognizable) and that the BPRS referred to the state of mind at the time of the forensic evaluation, as it has been reported in the forensic report, and not at the time of the crime. A possible limitation of this study is represented by the limited number and typology of hypothetical forensic cases (although based on real cases modified to make them unrecognizable) and the reduced number of forensic experts (N = 40) who evaluated the cases.
Despite the DIASS having been validated on forensic cases based on the Italian penal code, it can also be used in those countries where insanity criteria follow the M’Naghten Rule or the ALI standard. In such cases, the evaluators should focus more on those components of the DIASS that refer to the criterion deemed most relevant within a specific jurisdiction. Furthermore, it could be useful in those states such as the Netherlands where no specific legal standards have been formulated to establish when a person is criminally responsible for their actions. In addition, there is a need for cross-cultural validation within both continental European and Common Law legislation.
Moreover, it represents the first step toward a reduction of the heterogeneity of forensic evaluations and toward standardization of their methodology, thus leading to an improvement in the whole criminal justice process.
Notes
M’Naghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843
Articles 88 and 89 of the Italian Penal Code establish the criteria for determining whether an offender can be considered nonresponsible o with substantially diminished responsibility, as in the following: “a person who, at the moment in which he/she committed the crime, was, because of infirmity, in such a state of mind as to exclude the capacity of appreciating or willing, is nonresponsible” (Article 88); “a person who, at the moment in which he/she committed the crime, was, because of infirmity, in such a state of mind as to greatly diminish, without excluding, the capacity of appreciating and willing, is responsible for the crime committed, but the penalty is reduced” (Article 89)
References
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL). AAPL practice guideline for forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants raising the insanity defense. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42:S3–S76..
Simon RJ, Ahn‐Redding H. The Insanity Defense, The World Over. Plymouth: Bowman & Littlefields; 2006.
American Law Institute. Model Penal Code. Philadelphia: American Law Institute; 1962.
Ciccone JR, Ferracuti S. Comparative Forensic Psychiatry: II. The Perizia and the Role of the Forensic Psychiatrist in the Italian Legal System. Bull Am Acad Psychiatr Law. 1995;23:453–66.
Gowensmith WN, Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT. How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity? Law Hum Behav. 2013;37:98–106.
Guarnera LA, Murrie DC. Field reliability of competency and sanity opinions: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Psychol Assess. 2017;29:795–818.
Beckham JC, Annis LV, Gustafsont DJ. Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity. Law Hum Behav. 1989;13:79–87.
Dattilio FM, Commons ML, Adams KM, Gutheil TG, Sadoff RL. A pilot rasch scaling of lawyers’ perceptions of expert bias. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2006;34:482–91.
Homant RJ, Kennedy DB. Judgment of legal insanity as a function of attitude toward the insanity defense. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1986;8:67–81.
Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT, Guarnera LA, Rufino KA. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychol Sci. 2013;24:1889–97.
Commons ML, Miller PM, Gutheil TG. Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2004;32:70–75.
Scarpazza C, Miolla A, Zampieri I, Melis G, Sartori G, Ferracuti S, et al. Translational application of a neuro-scientific multi-modal approach into forensic psychiatric evaluation: why and how? Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:597918.
Kalis A, Meynen G. Mental disorder and legal responsibility: the relevance of stages of decision making. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2014;37:601–8.
Meynen G. Free will and psychiatric assessments of criminal responsibility: a parallel with informed consent. Med Health Care Philos. 2010;13:313–20.
Meynen G. Free will and mental disorder: exploring the relationship. Theor Med Bioeth. 2010;31:429–43.
Meynen G. Autonomy, criminal responsibility, and competence. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2011;39:231–6.
Meynen G. An ethical framework for assessments of criminal responsibility: applying Susan Wolf’s account of sanity to forensic psychiatry. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2012;35:298–304.
Meynen G. A neurolaw perspective on psychiatric assessments of criminal responsibility: decision-making, mental disorder, and the brain. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2013;36:93–9.
Meynen G. Legal insanity: Explorations in psychiatry, law, and ethics. Springer; 2016.
Parmigiani G, Mandarelli G, Meynen G, Tarsitani L, Biondi M, Ferracuti S. Free will, neuroscience, and choice: towards a decisional capacity model for insanity defense evaluations. Riv Psichiatr. 2017;52:9–15.
Parmigiani G, Mandarelli G, Meynen G, Carabellese F, Ferracuti S. Translating clinical findings to the legal norm: the Defendant’s Insanity Assessment Support Scale (DIASS). Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9:278.
Slobogin C, Melton GB, Showalter CR. The feasibility of a brief evaluation of mental state at the time of the offense. Law Hum Behav. 1984;8:305–20.
Rogers R, Dolmetsch R, Cavanaugh JL. An empirical approach to insanity evaluations. J Clin Psychol. 1981;37:683–7.
Rogers R, Wasyliw OE, Cavanaugh JL. Evaluating insanity. A study of construct validity. Law Hum Behav. 1984;8:293–303.
Cai W, Zhang Q, Huang F, Guan W, Tang T, Liu C. The reliability and validity of the rating scale of criminal responsibility for mentally disordered offenders. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;236:146–50.
Meyer LF, Leal CCS, Omena AAS, Mecler K, Valenca AM. Criminal Responsibility Scale: development and validation of a psychometric tool structured in clinical vignettes for criminal responsibility assessments in Brazil. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:579243.
Ventura J, Lukoff D, Nuechterlein KH, Liberman RP, Green M, Shaner A. Appendix 1: brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) Expanded Version (4.0) scales, anchor points and administration manual. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1993;3:227–43.
Mandarelli G, Parmigiani G, Trobia F, Tessari G, Roma P, Biondi M, et al. The Admission Experience Survey Italian Version (I-AES): a factor analytic study on a sample of 156 acute psychiatric in-patients. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019;62:111–6.
Tarsitani L, Ferracuti S, Carabellese F, Catanesi R, Biondi M, Quartesan R, et al. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded (BPRS-E) factor analysis in involuntarily hospitalized psychiatric patients. Psychiatry Res. 2019;279:380–1.
Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:1.
Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. 1977;33:363–74.
Aharoni E, Vincent GM, Harenski CL, Calhoun VD, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Gazzaniga MS, et al. Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:6223–8.
Bufkin JL, Luttrell VR. Neuroimaging studies of aggressive and violent behavior: current findings and implications for criminology and criminal justice. Trauma Violence Abus. 2005;6:176–91.
Davidson RJ. Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of emotion regulation—a possible prelude to violence. Science. 2000;289:591–4.
Pietrini P, Bambini V. Homo ferox: The contribution of functional brain studies to understanding the neural bases of aggressive and criminal behavior. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2009;32:259–65.
Rigoni D, Pellegrini S, Mariotti V, Cozza A, Mechelli A, Ferrara SD, et al. How neuroscience and behavioral genetics improve psychiatric assessment: report on a violent murder case. Front Behav Neurosci. 2010;4:160.
Sapolsky RM. The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004;359:1787–96.
Sartori G, Scarpazza C, Codognotto S, Pietrini P. An unusual case of acquired pedophilic behavior following compression of orbitofrontal cortex and hypothalamus by a Clivus Chordoma. J Neurol. 2016;263:1454–5.
Scarpazza C, Ferracuti S, Miolla A, Sartori G. The charm of structural neuroimaging in insanity evaluations: guidelines to avoid misinterpretation of the findings. Transl Psychiatry. 2018;8:227.
Kois LE, Chauhan P. Criminal responsibility: meta‐analysis and study space. Behav Sci Law. 2018;36:276–302.
Mandarelli G, Carabellese F, Felthous AR, Parmigiani G, Del Casale A, Catanesi R, et al. The factors associated with forensic psychiatrists’ decisions in criminal responsibility and social dangerousness evaluations. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019;66:101503.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Luca Bartoli, Dr Matteo Caloro, Dr Antonio Coppotelli, Dr Rino De Feo, Prof. Ignazio Grattagliano, Dr. Fabrizio Iecher, Prof. Cinzia Niolu, Prof. Pietro Pietrini, Dr. Pieritalo Pompili, Dr. Daniela Pucci, Prof. Gabriele Rocca, Prof. Gabriele Sani, Dr. Franco Scarpa, Dr. Cristina Scarpazza, Dr. Margherita Spissu, Dr. Federico Trobia, Dr. Alessandro Vento, Prof. Marco Zanasi, Dr. Francesco Saverio Bersani, Dr. Domenico Buccomino, Prof Felice Francesco Carabellese, Prof. Bernardo Carpiniello, Dr. Alberto D’Argenio, Dr. Andrea Concas, Prof. Antonio Del Casale, Prof. Luigi Janiri, Dr. Marco Lagazzi, Dr. Andrea Martella, Dr. Irene Mascia, Prof. Filippo Milano, Dr. Antonio Oliva, Dr. Alessio Picello, Dr. Martina Pinna, Dr. Alessandra Provenzano, Prof. Ugo Sabatello, Prof. Giuseppe Sartori, Dr. Alberto Sbardella, Dr. Stefania Zanobi, Dr. Massimo Di Genio, for their valuable contribution in evaluating the hypothetical forensic cases through the use of the DIASS.
Funding
This work was partially supported by Sapienza University projects RG11916B892E54DB, RM120172B9F35634, and Be-For-ERC fellowship (2020).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
GP, GM, and SF contributed to the conception and design of the study. GP and SF contributed to data acquisition. GP and PR contributed to data-analysis. GP drafted the manuscript. All authors participated in revising it critically for important intellectual content.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Parmigiani, G., Mandarelli, G., Roma, P. et al. Validation of a new instrument to guide and support insanity evaluations: the defendant’s insanity assessment support scale (DIASS). Transl Psychiatry 12, 115 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-01871-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-01871-8
- Springer Nature Limited