Dangerousness and disability as predictors of psychiatric patients' legal status.

Abstract

In a sample of patients admitted to two state psychiatric facilities, discriminant analyses were used to predict (1) legal status at admission (voluntary versus emergency detention), and (2) the subsequent decision to commit patients initially admitted under an order of emergency detention (court commitment versus release). Measures of preadmission dangerousness, followed by variables reflecting degree of disability or impairment, accounted for most of the variance in legal status at admission. Personal resources and demographic characteristics added little to the discrimination. Measures of disability accounted for most of the variance in the later decision to commit, whereas indices of dangerousness, personal resources, and demographics added little to discrimination of discharged and court-committed patients. These findings reflect the gap between legal standards and the practice of civil commitment, and support the argument that degree of disability plays a more important role than dangerousness in decisions to extend the hospitalization of involuntary patients.