Descriptive, not categorical
How court questions shape functional expert conclusions in adult capacity cases
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21458849 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jiří Závora (Institute of Endocrinology, corresponding author), Marek Páv (0000-0002-9635-5484, Psychiatrická Nemocnice Bohnice), J Michalec (0000-0003-0965-0774, Psychiatrická Nemocnice Bohnice), Jan Čipera (University Hospital Hradec Králové), Hana Sirotková (Institute of Forensic Science), Ivana Švehlová (Court of Appeal) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 108 |
| Pages | 102249 |
| Publication date | 2026-09-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0160-2527 • E-ISSN: 1873-6386 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ijlp.2026.102249 |
| PMID | 42288022 |
| OpenAlex | W7164735509 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 27 |
The study analyses how courts formulate questions in orders/measures commissioning expert reports in legal-capacity proceedings, with the aim of systematising and improving such assignments. Using qualitative clustering with duplicate removal and explicitly focusing on excluding prompts that solicit legal evaluations, we identified eleven question clusters aggregated into four superordinate categories A-D: (A) identification of illnesses and medication; (B) general limitations of cognitive and motivational-volitional processes; (C) specific limitations with a predominant impact on rights and obligations; and (D) specific limitations with a predominant impact on everyday life. Drawing on this semantic structure, we proposed optimised formulations that invite experts to provide descriptive accounts of a person's condition and functioning rather than categorical "is/is not capable" judgments. The reformulation is grounded in (i) longstanding higher-court critiques in the Czech Republic of courts' passive adoption of categorical expert conclusions, (ii) the revealed thematic categories (A-D) with corrections to imprecise wording, and (iii) international frameworks emphasising supported decision-making and non-discriminatory indicators of support needs. Descriptive conclusions in expert reports better equip courts to form a qualified understanding of mental condition and functioning. Practically, we recommend structuring assignments around clearly defined semantic clusters and using model descriptive phrasings for recurrent content areas. Across two judicial regions (HK and SK), we examined 40 court assignments comprising 202 questions in total, of which 188 were substantively related to legal capacity and were retained for analysis
Injury prevention · MEDLINE · Poison control · Suicide prevention · Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints · Human Factors and Ergonomics · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Assessment of Patients' Competence to Consent to Treatment
Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex
Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm
Developing Mechanisms of Self-Regulation in Early Life
“Mini-mental state”
‘Evaluation of testamentary capacity
Why It Pays to Get Inside the Head of Your Opponent
Collaboration
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis
The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation
Using thematic analysis in psychology
The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks
Qualitative Data Analysis for Health Services Research
| Highly cited | No |
|---|