Administering Competency Screening Tests

Administering Competency Screening Tests

Name

Institution Affiliation

Date

Administering Competency Screening Tests on a Minor

Abstract

Balancing between Competency Screening Test (CST) expectations and demands of a given situations is normally an uphill task for CST administrators. A CST tool administers tests on juvenile or mentally challenged individuals. The process is tedious since there are several situation of communication breakdown, and this endangers the processes. For this reason, the administering official should displays proper and higher degree of professionalism by using of tests or face-to-face communication with the juvenile. This analysis will appoint Dr. Roberts defense of a 17-year-old individual who has been accused of sexual assault and battery.  The juvenile is a linguistically challenged immigrant from Chile. The individual can only communicate Mapudungun and Spanish; however, he can speak and communicate rudimentary English, and this is not positive to the court. The commencing research will prove that Dr. Robert should apply  a professional approach to determine the case’s course. The report will further clarify it is appropriate to encourage CST as compared to direct judicial test to minors who are linguistically challenged.

How should Dr. Roberts proceed with the evaluation?

Determining the eligibility of the case is normally an uphill task if the defendant is linguistically challenged. However, this does not deter clinicians from providing a valid assessment of whether the case is in a position to defend himself through language. The male defendant in Dr. Robert case is rather complicated. Accordingly, the young male defendant is not only linguistically challenged but also has a lower I.Q and is paranoid of ideas. Dr. Robert is expected by the judiciary to provide appropriate assessment. For this reason, the evaluation should ascertain judiciary expectations that the defendant is in a position to comply with the appropriate judicial process.

Since Dr. Robert is authorized by the court to conduct an evaluation, it will only be necessary to have the paperwork intact. Dr. Robert should clarify whether the evaluation is appropriately sought and assess possibility of psycho-legal questions is also at hand. Preliminary information seeks to clarify issues that elicit CST concern. This reflects the subject’s background information. The young man can communicate using rudimentary English. Dr. Robert should be able to understand this English when assessing the young man.

Secondly, Dr. Robert should specify the appropriate time, which should be applied during the evaluation process. Time specification reduces redundancy or false information development. For the legal assessment, Dr. Robert should alert the defense counsel to determine how the attorney plans to present the minor. In addition, Dr. Robert should assess whether the attorney understands the defendant situation and whether it is possible to provide reasons for the CST concerns. Thirdly, Dr. Robert should present the situation the minor parents and caregivers (Jackson, Rogers and Sewell, 2005, pp. 201).

Data overview and evaluation is an essential process that should be pursued and demonstrated with proper connection. Empirical demonstration seeks to examine the youth’s behavioral, social, cognitive, and emotional situation. That is, whether the juvenile conducted the act at his right mental status. Dr. Robert should necessitate direct question based on observation, mental status question, interviewing, psychological testing and symptom interviewing. Dr. Robert should adopt the principle of reliability that is, credibility and dependability.

What, if any, testing should be conducted?

As stated, Data overview and evaluation will seek examine test, which will outline possible results. Tests will be necessary to reflect the juvenile situation. Dr. Robert may think it prudent to use a Competency Screening Test (CST) tool. The test will initialize standardized and scoring tools that are presented on a scale of 0-2 with two meant to reflect a higher degree of sentence completion showing a higher degree of legal comprehension and 0 presenting a low level. Test administration time should be over 25 minutes.

Dr. Robert will have to examine the test results presented during the interview. If the defendant scores below 20, this will request for a comprehensive evaluation. Twenty is according to reliable standards established for the tests. Errors are part of the test results, and they happen to indicate false positives; for example, labeling the minor as incompetent whereas he is competent. Dr. Robert should therefore specify room error even though this provision is controlled. False positive rate should sufficiently demonstrate lower instrumental competence, and these will encourage Dr. Robert to initiate a more decisive evaluation. Testing tool will further seek to clarify a false result that is a percentage, which ranges from 14.3% to 28.6% and is maintained and controlled at that point.

Should he use an individual who speaks Spanish to assist with the evaluation?

Using an individual who speaks French is an ideal approach, however for clinical competence, and this not prove a reliable loom. Rosner (2006, pp. 218) argues that translators are very essential at the judicial court level since the magistrate or the clerk may fail to understand the defendant language. However, in a clinical test, dealing with the juvenile directly is essential since this enables communication. Additionally, Dr. Robert test seek to clarify whether the Juvenile is capable of presenting himself in court of law. There are several problems associated with involving a translator at the clinical level. Most of these problems cannot be extinguished by mere counseling, and it is up to practitioners like Dr. Robert to go the last mile.

It is hard to get a competent translator and according to the extract, and the county does not have finances to hire for a translator neither does Dr. Robert. Secondly, translators utilizing a language fluently are hard to get, and the defendant rudimentary English might be much better. A non-professional translator will natur.............