罗杰斯刑事责任评定量表的信度和效度研究

目的：本研究旨在考察罗杰斯刑事责任评定量表（ＲＣＲＡＳ）的信度和效度，为临床应用提供参考。方法：以２８１名刑事案件的被告人为研究对象，分别考察ＲＣＲＡＳ的重测信度及其五个题目群的同质信度，通过比较华西模式（ＷＣＵＭ）与ＡＬＩ、ＧＢＭＩ、Ｍ＇Ｎａｇｈｔｅｎ三种模式的差别以检验其效度。结果：重测信度系数ｒ＝０．６１，五个题目群的同质信度系数分别是：病人的信度ｒ＝０．５７，器质性ｒ＝０．８３，精神病态ｒ＝０．５５，认知控制ｒ＝０．８８，行为控制ｒ＝０．５２。ＷＣＵＭ与ＡＬＩ、Ｍ＇Ｎａｇｈｔｅｎ模式没有显著性差异。卡方值分别为０．１１４３（Ｐ＝０．７３４６）和０．４５８３（Ｐ＝０．４９７７）。结论：ＲＣＲＡＳ具有一定的信度，ＷＣＵＭ与ＡＬＩ和Ｍ＇Ｎａｇｈｔｅｎ模式有较多相似，而与ＧＢＭＩ模式差异较大。

Reliability and Validity of Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale

Objective:To examine reliability and validity of Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessmentscale (RCRAS) used in assessing Chinese criminal responsibility. Method:RCRAS was adopted to test two hundred and eighty-one criminal defence cases. Results:Test-retest reliability coefficient (r) of the RCRAS was 0.61; alpha coefficents for internal consistency of the five summary scales were 0.57 for Patient's reliability, 0.83 for Organicity, 0.55 for Psychopathology, 0.88 for Cognitive control, and 0.52 for Behavioral control; West China University model, American Law Institute model and M'Naghten model had no significant differense in identifying criminal responsibility capacity. Conclusion:Chinese version RCRAS have better reliability and Validity; The West China University model is more compatible with the American Law Institute and M'Naghten model, but less so with the GBMI model.