The cognitive based approach of capacity assessment in psychiatry: A philosophical critique of the MacCAT-T
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Decision making capacity for treatment in psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Breden & Vollmann, 2004
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
- ORCID
- 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
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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