The task of assessing a juvenile’s competency to stand trial is often performed by a professional in the sphere of forensic psychology because it is important to provide reasonable decisions regarding a young person’s ability to stand trial (Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001, p. 2015). The standard evaluation of the competency can also be supported with the formal psychological assessment, and in this situation, it is important to choose the most appropriate tool and procedure to conduct the necessary assessment (MacArthur Foundation Research Network, n.d., p. 2). This paper aims to discuss the validity of one of the tools usually used in assessing adults’ competency because of the necessity to conclude about its relevance for use in adolescents.
The consultation of professionals in forensic psychology is actively used in court settings to make decisions regarding the competency and abilities of defendants to stand trial. This approach helps to protect the adolescents’ interests and conclude whether they understand the consequences of the trial. The application of forensic psychology is important to prevent the inappropriate discussion of cases for persons with mental illnesses and for adolescents who can demonstrate psychological immaturity (MacArthur Foundation Research Network, n.d., p. 2; Steblay, Besirevic, Fulero, & Jimenez-Lorente, 1999, p. 219). From this point, the psychological evaluation is the necessary measure in examining the adolescents’ competency.
Even though the research conducted by Nottingham and Mattson in 1981 can be discussed as rather outdated, it is important to analyze its results because of the debates regarding the effectiveness of standard tools to assess the legal competency in both adults and adolescents. In their research, Nottingham and Mattson focused on evaluating the validity of the Competency Screening Test (CST) to state the competency to participate in the trial process. The researchers adapted the written version of the tool for the interview and assessed 50 male residents of the Southwestern State Hospital Forensic Unit in Virginia (Nottingham & Mattson, 1981, p. 331). The mean age of the sample participants was 28 years, and the sample included persons aged 18-63. Therefore, it is possible to state that the results of the study are rather relevant to conclude about the juvenile competency to stand trial. The competency of the participants was re-assessed with the help of the Forensic Team, and it was found that in the majority of cases (82%), the competency was assessed correctly (Nottingham & Mattson, 1981, p. 332). Thus, the validity of the CST was supported with the evidence, and this tool can be used in assessing the adolescents’ competency.
The researchers’ conclusions about the tool’s validity are important to discuss the appropriateness of the CST for working with different age groups. Although the study was not oriented to assessing adolescents’ competency, its results can be used by professionals in forensic psychology in order to adapt this traditional instrument within the juvenile forensic settings to achieve credible assessment results. Furthermore, the researchers’ ideas regarding the participants’ intentions to be often evaluated as ‘incompetent’ are also important to be taken into consideration while working with adolescents.
In order to prevent the impact of the adolescents’ developmental immaturity as well as possible mental illness on the trial discussions, it is essential to conduct complete psychological assessments. These evaluations need to be organized by professionals in the field of forensic psychology.
References
Kassin, S., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56(5), 205–216.
MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. (n.d.). Issue brief 1: Adolescent legal competence in court. Web.
Nottingham, E. J., & Mattson, R. E. (1981). A validation study of the competency screening test. Law and Human Behavior, 5(4), 329-335.
Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2), 219–235.