Cited by 111Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareMental Health and Psychiatry

The cognitive based approach of capacity assessment in psychiatry: A philosophical critique of the MacCAT-T

Breden, Torsten Marcus, Vollmann, Jochen·2004·Health Care Analysis

Abstract

This article gives a brief introduction to the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Treatment (MacCAT-T) and critically examines its theoretical presuppositions. On the basis of empirical, methodological and ethical critique it is emphasised that the cognitive bias that underlies the MacCAT-T assessment needs to be modified. On the one hand it has to be admitted that the operationalisation of competence in terms of value-free categories, e.g. rational decision abilities, guarantees objectivity to a great extent; but on the other hand it bears severe problems. Firstly, the cognitive focus is in itself a normative convention in the process of anthropological value-attribution. Secondly, it misses the complexity of the decision process in real life. It is therefore suggested that values, emotions and other biographic and context specific aspects should be considered when interpreting the cognitive standards according to the MacArthur model. To fill the gap between cognitive and non-cognitive approaches the phenomenological theory of personal constructs is briefly introduced. In conclusion some main demands for further research to develop a multi-step model of competence assessment are outlined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10728-004-6635-x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Clinical assessment can take into account cognitive, emotional and phenomenological factors not covered by structured tests, enabling a more comprehensive capacity assessment.

    “Also, a clinical assessment can take into account other cognitive, emotional and phenomenological factors that are not covered by structured tests (Breden & Vollmann, 2004), enabling a more comprehensive capacity assessment.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 111

Authors
Breden, T. M., & Vollmann, J.
Affiliations
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Vollmann, Jochen
Venue
Health Care Analysis
Published
2004-12
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
273-283
ISSN
  • 1065-3058 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3394
OpenAlex
W2019508497
Cited by
111
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Care Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
cognitive biases, rational decision-making
MeSH terms
Cognition, Decision Making, Emotions, Humans, Models, Psychological, Philosophy, Medical, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Mental Competency, Personal Autonomy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review