Cited by 84Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics in Clinical ResearchSchizophrenia research and treatment

Determining when impairment constitutes incapacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research

Open access
Kim, Scott Y. H., Appelbaum, Paul S., Swan, Jeffrey, Stroup, T. Scott, McEvoy, Joseph P., Goff, Donald C., Jeste, Dilip V., Lamberti, J. Steven +2 more·2007·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Although people with schizophrenia display impaired abilities for consent, it is not known how much impairment constitutes incapacity. Aims: To assess a method for determining the categorical capacity status of potential participants in schizophrenia research. Method: Expert-judgement validation of capacity thresholds on the sub-scales of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – Clinical Research (MacCAT–CR) was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in 91 people with severe mental illness and 40 controls. Results: The ROC areas under the curve for the understanding, appreciation and reasoning sub-scales of the MacCAT–CR were 0.94 (95% CI 0.88–0.99), 0.85 (95% CI 0.76–0.94) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.70–0.90). These findings yielded negative and positive predictive values of incapacity that can guide the practice of investigators and research ethics committees. Conclusions: By performing such validation studies for a few categories of research with varying risks and benefits, it might be possible to create evidence-based capacity determination guidelines for most schizophrenia research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.033324

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Previous research demonstrated that the MacCAT scales provide the best results.

    “Previous research demonstrated that the MacCAT scales provide the best results [28–30].”

    From Why is it hard to make progress in assessing children's decision-making competence? (2015) · cites this paper as [30]

    The “Predictive values of MacCAT-CR scores” section (page not provided) reports that MacCAT-CR subscales predicted capacity status, with understanding performing best among the subscales. It does not compare the MacCAT scales with other instruments or establish that they provide the best results overall. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In adults, systematic studies using MacCAT-CR were conducted in populations of mentally compromised patients.

    “In adults, systematic studies using MacCAT-CR were conducted in populations of mentally compromised patients [29, 30].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, S. Y. H., Appelbaum, P. S., Swan, J., Stroup, T. S., McEvoy, J. P., Goff, D. C., Jeste, D. V., Lamberti, J. S., Leibovici, A., & Caine, E. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, Scott Y. H.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2007-07
Volume
191
Issue
1
Pages
38-43
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2056470410
Cited by
84
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01mh90001-21-0-0)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (N01 MH90001, MH-64172, K23MH064172, MH90001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
informed consent, decision-making capacity, schizophrenia, capacity threshold, research ethics, severe mental illness, predictive validity
MeSH terms
Adult, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Interview, Psychological, Male, Psychometrics, Reference Standards, ROC Curve, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Case-Control Studies, Mental Competency

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