These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

506 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9148886)

  • 21. [Development of modern classification systems and their effects on forensic psychiatric expert assessment].
    Krupinski M
    Gesundheitswesen; 1994 Dec; 56(12):652-6. PubMed ID: 7841673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The competency of criminal defendants to refuse, for delusional reasons, a viable insanity defense recommended by counsel.
    Litwack TR
    Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(2):135-56. PubMed ID: 12645042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [The application of evaluation tools for criminal responsibility in forensic psychiatric expertise].
    Fu PX; Wang J; Shi TT; Hu JN; Zhu MX
    Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2010 Jun; 26(3):210-3. PubMed ID: 20707283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Competency to stand trial in family court: characteristics of competent and incompetent juveniles.
    McKee GR; Shea SJ
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1999; 27(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 10212027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Excluding personality disorders from the insanity defense--a follow-up study.
    Reichlin SM; Bloom JD; Williams MH
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1993; 21(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 8477109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The treating psychiatrist as forensic evaluator.
    Miller RD
    J Forensic Sci; 1984 Jul; 29(3):825-30. PubMed ID: 6747583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. AAPL practice guideline for forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants raising the insanity defense. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
    Giorgi-Guarnieri D; Janofsky J; Keram E; Lawsky S; Merideth P; Mossman D; Schwart-Watts D; Scott C; Thompson J; Zonana H;
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2002; 30(2 Suppl):S3-40. PubMed ID: 12099305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The mental state of arsonists as determined by forensic psychiatric examinations.
    Räsänen P; Hakko H; Väisänen E
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1995; 23(4):547-53. PubMed ID: 8639982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Competence to stand trial: clinician reliability and the role of offense severity.
    Rosenfeld B; Ritchie K
    J Forensic Sci; 1998 Jan; 43(1):151-7. PubMed ID: 9456535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Racial differences in the criminalization of the mentally ill.
    Grekin PM; Jemelka R; Trupin EW
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1994; 22(3):411-20. PubMed ID: 7841513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Competence-to-stand-trial evaluations of geriatric defendants.
    Frierson RL; Shea SJ; Shea ME
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2002; 30(2):252-6. PubMed ID: 12108562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Competency restoration treatment: differences between defendants declared competent or incompetent to stand trial.
    Advokat CD; Guidry D; Burnett DM; Manguno-Mire G; Thompson JW
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(1):89-97. PubMed ID: 22396346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Psychiatric aspects of criminal responsibility: insanity and mitigation.
    Burrows M; Reid WH
    J Psychiatr Pract; 2011 Nov; 17(6):429-31. PubMed ID: 22108401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Medical expert assessment in psychiatry].
    Pietzcker A
    Z Arztl Fortbild (Jena); 1996 Nov; 90(7):623-6. PubMed ID: 9064935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The relationship between criminal charges, diagnoses, and psycholegal opinions among federal pretrial defendants.
    Cochrane RE; Grisso T; Frederick RI
    Behav Sci Law; 2001; 19(4):565-82. PubMed ID: 11568961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Differences in psychiatric expertise of responsibility: Assessment and initial hypotheses through a review of literature].
    Guivarch J; Piercecchi-Marti MD; Glezer D; Chabannes JM
    Encephale; 2015 Jun; 41(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 25864036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Validation of a brief form of the Competency Screening Test.
    Nicholson RA
    J Clin Psychol; 1988 Jan; 44(1):87-90. PubMed ID: 3343371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The use of third-party information in forensic assessments: a two-state comparison.
    Heilbrun K; Rosenfeld B; Warren J; Collins S
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1994; 22(3):399-406. PubMed ID: 7841511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Using Technology to Improve the Objectivity of Criminal Responsibility Evaluations.
    Vitacco MJ; Gottfried ED; Batastini AB
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2018 Mar; 46(1):71-77. PubMed ID: 29618538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. AAPL Practice Guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial.
    Mossman D; Noffsinger SG; Ash P; Frierson RL; Gerbasi J; Hackett M; Lewis CF; Pinals DA; Scott CL; Sieg KG; Wall BW; Zonana HV;
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2007; 35(4 Suppl):S3-72. PubMed ID: 18083992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 26.