Dhakal, S. (2012).

Psychological Evaluation in Juvenile Justice System , in “Children: Right and Justice in

Nepal” .Tribhuvan University, Faculty of Law, Criminal Law Subject Committee and Central Child Welfare
Board, Ministry of Women, Children, and Social Welfare, Nepal Government ( pp.370-390).

Chapter 26

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION IN JUVENILE JUSTICE

SYSTEMS
Sandesh Dhakal

Juvenile justice systems are aimed at serving multiple functions. In Western juvenile justice
systems these functions are typically related to maintaining public safety and rehabilitating
young offenders.1 The juvenile justice system aims to protect society from juvenile delinquent
activities, where juvenile justice decisions should focus on issues pertaining to what level of
supervision is suitable for youth and what period of supervision is necessary to protect society
from further offences. In an attempt to protect public safety, decisions are largely determined on
the basis of the nature of the offence perpetrated by the youth and questions of risk. The juvenile
justice system also aims to address the mental health needs of the offender through intervention
programs. Here, juvenile justice decisions should focus on issues pertaining to case management
and the programs which are likely to address the juvenile delinquents‟ mental health needs.2

Juvenile Justice System is relatively a new practice in Nepalese legal system. At it‟s early stage
it has recognized the relevance of psychological intervention of juvenile delinquents. Some
preliminary attempts to incorporate psychology with law have already been made through
trainings and seminars. The newly introduced juvenile court includes psychologists and social
workers along with regular court personnel. The collaboration of law with psychology is not
sufficient in itself to produce fruitful results. To be benefitted from this collaboration the best
practices found around the world are to be reviewed, relevant practices are to be adapted, and
culturally suitable procedures and tools are to be developed.

This chapter will examine some crucial issues on screening and assessment of juvenile
delinquents in juvenile justice system. It includes need for screening and assessment in juvenile
justice system, and brief descriptions of available tools and instruments for comprehensive
psychological assessment.

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

1
Thompson, A. P. (2003). Current research and practice with risk-need assessment in NSW juvenile justice. Paper
presented at the Juvenile Justice: From lessons of the past to a road map for the future, Sydney.
2
Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. (2002). YLS/CMI: Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Canada: MHS
Inc.

1
Virtually, all serious criminal offences contain both a physical and a mental element in their
commission. So, the prosecution must prove not only that the defendant has committed a
particular voluntary act (actus reus), but also that the act was done with a particular state of mind
(mens rea), i.e. in most cases an intention to commit the crime, although the precise degree of
intention required varies from offence to offence. The criminal justice system is based on the
premise that blame can and should be attributed, and the attribution of blame has been called the
„originating and vindicating activity‟ in the whole criminal justice process.3 Thus, within the
criminal legal system, young people can be found guilty of an offence and therefore blamed for
the commission of the offence, but may not be responsible for their actions because of:
 limitations in cognitive development,
 limitations in moral development, and
 presence of psychological disorder.

Juvenile delinquents have increased rates of psychiatric disorder, notably conduct disorder. Other
psychological disorders reviewed by Bailey 4 in relation to violent children include depression,
present in 15–31% of those with conduct disorder,5 the rare occurrence of psychotic disorders,6
autistic spectrum disorders7 and prodromal personality disorder in children. However, the
majority of juvenile delinquents are unlikely to show signs of serious mental illness such as
schizophrenia; rather, they are likely to present with a severe, childhood-onset conduct disorder
with a wide range of additional contextual psychosocial problems.

Certain psychological disorders, by their presence, are likely to impair the judgment of the youth,
and this will have relevance if that youth is facing criminal charges. Kazdin‟s review of the
implications for decision-making and choices by adolescents 8 suggested the evidence base for
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) present in childhood as a predictor of
delinquency and criminal behavior in adolescence and adult life.9 High rates (32%) of post-
traumatic stress disorder in delinquent youths have been noted.10 Kazdin notes the increased
exposure to a variety of traumas, such as child abuse and domestic violence, in delinquent as
opposed to non-delinquent samples. A recent comprehensive review 11 indicates that the

3
Vizard, E. (2006).Child Defendants: Occasional Paper OP56. Royal College of Psychiatrists London
4
Bailey, S. (2002). Violent children: a framework for assessment. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 8, 97–106.
5
Goodyer, I. M., Herbert, J. & Secker, S. M., et al (1997) Short-term outcome of major depression. 1: Comorbidity
and severity at presentation of persistent disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 36, 179–187.
6
Clare, P., Bailey, S. & Clark, A. (2000) Relationship between psychotic disorders in adolescence and
criminally violent behaviour. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 275–279.
7
Howlin, P. (1997) ‘Autism’: Preparing for Adulthood. London: Routledge.
8
Kazdin, A. E. (2000) Adolescent development, mental disorders and decision making of delinquent youths.
In T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz (Eds.) Youth on Trial. A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice.), (pp. 33–
65). London: University of Chicago Press.
9
Lahey, B. J. & Loeber, R. (1997) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct
disorder and adult antisocial behaviour: a life-span perspective. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling & J. D.
Maser(Eds.), Handbook of Antisocial Behaviour (pp. 51–59). New York: Wiley.
10
Steiner, H., Garcia, I. G. & Mathews, Z. (1997) Posttraumatic stress disorder in incarcerated juvenile
delinquents. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 357–365.
11
Grisso, T. (2004). Double jeopardy: Adolescent offenders with mental disorders. Available from
http://books.google.com/books/about/Double_jeopardy.html?id=t29SkPBILFoC

2
following are the most common disorders assessed in major studies of youths‟ mental disorders
in juvenile justice programs:
 Mood disorders, such as major depression, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, and other
depressive or bipolar disorders.
 Anxiety disorders, such as obsessive–compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress
disorder.
 Substance-related disorders, including disorders (i.e., abuse and dependence) related to
chronic and serious drug or alcohol use.
 Disruptive behavior disorders, such as oppositional defiant disorder and conduct
disorder.
 Thought disorders, such as schizophrenia or adolescent precursors of psychotic
conditions.

The possibility of a link between attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and posttraumatic stress
disorder in delinquent children increases the likelihood of a cumulatively adverse effect on the
judgment of such children, both in terms of avoiding criminal behavior in the first place and
subsequently in participating fully and fairly in the trial process. The mere presence of a
psychological disturbance does not mean that it is directly related to the legal issue at hand. The
mental health professional has to make the connection. Most psychological tests used in juvenile
justice settings were developed for therapeutic purposes and not specifically to be used in
forensic contexts; therefore, inferences have to be made about how they apply to the question at
hand. It is best if legally relevant psychological conditions can be assessed directly by
administering tests that are specifically designed to answer the psycho-legal questions at issue.

The role of psychologist in the assessment of juvenile delinquent is relevant in relation to the
youth‟s ability to participate effectively in the trial process and the youth‟s fitness to plead.
Psychologist‟s opinion in relation to the juvenile delinquents‟ mental state will be highly relevant
in relation to sentencing and disposal. Psychologists can assist judges and attorneys who are
charged with making important decisions about minors involved in the juvenile justice systems
by conducting specific forensic evaluations of the subjects of their proceedings and providing
them with important information about the youth‟s emotional, behavioral, and cognitive
functioning that they would not otherwise have. This should result in more informed and better
decision making and dispositions. Additionally, psychologists can provide treatment and other
interventions to juveniles and their families, the purpose of which is to bring about an overall
improvement in the youth‟s emotional and behavioral adjustment and functioning as well as to
decrease the youth‟s likelihood of reoffending. In addition the level of psychological disturbance,
his/her capacity to accept responsibility and to develop appropriate remorse, moral
understanding, empathy for victims, and motivation for personal change will need to be assessed
in order to recommend proper treatment.

IS JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM OBLIGATED TO IDENTIFY YOUTH’S MENTAL

HEALTH NEEDS?
Knowing that many of youths in juvenile justice programs have various mental disorders does
not lead automatically to any particular conclusion about the system‟s obligations to respond to
their needs. It can be claimed that there is such an obligation, but there is less agreement
regarding its nature and extent. Basically, Juvenile justice systems were not designed as sites for

3
comprehensive psychological intervention of juvenile delinquents‟ mental disorders. On the
other hand, some level and some type of “essential” services seem necessary. What is the scope
of the juvenile justice system‟s obligation to respond to youths‟ mental health needs? To
determine this requires considering the juvenile justice system‟s purposes as defined by its social
and legal mandates. Such an analysis 12 reveals three primary reasons why the juvenile justice
system is obligated to respond to the mental health needs of youths in its custody: (1) a custodial
obligation, (2) a due process obligation, and (3) a public safety obligation.

Custodial Obligations
Custodial obligation to respond to youths‟ mental health needs resides in the condition of
custody itself. Most of the juvenile justice custody restricts youths‟ access to public health
services for which they have a pressing need and that they would otherwise be eligible to
receive. Therefore, especially in circumstances of incarceration (e.g., pretrial detention, secure
juvenile corrections), it is the obligation of juvenile justice system is to provide access to
emergency or other essential mental health services when youths are in significant distress or
have acute disabilities that require immediate attention.

Due Process Obligation

Identification of mental conditions that might impair their ability to make decisions during their
adjudication is included in the system‟s obligation to protect youths‟ due process rights. This
obligation has implications at several levels of juvenile justice protection: (1) promoting laws
that recognize the relevance of mental disorders for youths‟ participation in their trials; (2)
providing methods to identify youths with mental disorders for whom the question of mental
incompetence should be raised, and to determine when this question should be raised; and (3)
assuring the availability of adequate assessment services to determine whether a youth‟s mental
disorder actually impairs the youth‟s functioning in a way that threatens due process in the
youth‟s adjudication.

Public Safety Obligation

There are no supporting evidences to claim that juvenile delinquents, in the juvenile justice
system, who have mental disorders, present a substantially greater risk of violence or harm to
others than other youths in the juvenile justice system do. But when youths have mental
disorders, their disorders do play a role in their aggression.13 Their mental disorders influence
whether, how, and under what circumstances their aggression is likely to be expressed.
Therefore, reducing their aggression requires a response to their mental disorders, which begins
with the ability to identify these disorders and the level of risk that they present14.

These response obligations provide the foundation for the general obligation to identify youths‟
mental health needs through screening and comprehensive psychological assessment.

12
Grisso, T. (2004). Double jeopardy: Adolescent offenders with mental disorders. Available from
http://books.google.com/books/about/Double_jeopardy.html?id=t29SkPBILFoC
13
Connor, D. (2002). Aggression and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Research and treatment.
New York: Guilford Press.
14
Borum, R. (2000). Assessing violence risk among youth. Journal of Clinical Psychology,56, 1263–1288.

4
 What should legal decision makers seek from mental health professionals? Grisso's 15 "model of
legal competencies" contains the following elements:
a) functional abilities (abilities relevant for the legal competency in question),
b) context (situation in which the competency must be demonstrated),
c) causal inference (nature of the relationship between the observed deficits and the legal
ability),
d) interaction (between the person's particular abilities and the specific demands of the
situation),
e) judgment (determination by the legal decision maker whether the person-situation
incongruence is sufficient to warrant a finding of incompetency), and
f) disposition (the legal response to the individual authorized by the decision maker's
finding).

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Although various forms of “structural” decision- making instruments are used widely in fields
such as medicine and adult corrections, juvenile justice professionals today make limited use of
such decision making tools to assess risk for future offending or amenability to treatment .16 It is
desirable in juvenile justice system to make use of available structured instruments or to develop
relevant tools, instead of being based on intuitions about whether the individual presents a
significant likelihood of future harm to the community, or whether s/he would make good use of
available services, or both. Juvenile justice professionals must make well-reasoned judgments
about two key issues: the risk of future harm to the community posed by juvenile delinquent and
how likely that juvenile delinquent is to benefit from interventions. Screening and assessment are
key to address the risk of reoffending and mental health needs of the juvenile delinquent.

Screening
Screening in Juvenile Justice System refers to a relatively brief process designed to identify
youth who are at increased risk of having disorders that warrant immediate attention,
intervention, or more comprehensive evaluation. Its purpose is to do an initial “sorting” of youths
into at least two groups: one group that is with relatively severe problematic characteristics (e.g.,
mental health needs, risk of harm to others), and another group that exhibit less problematic
characteristics. The screening process is similar to triage in medical settings, where incoming
patients are initially classified into three categories according to their level of urgency. Screening
is useful in systems that have limited resources and therefore cannot respond comprehensively or
immediately to every individual‟s particular needs. In such circumstances, identifying those who
may be most greatly and most urgently in need is not just a defensible position, but the best one.

The brevity of screening methods requires a tradeoff. Most screening methods sort youths into
categories, but are not intended to provide sufficient detail about a youth‟s condition to allow for

15
Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. Available from
http://books.google.com/books
16
Mulvey, P.E., & Iselin, A.M.R (2008). Improving Professional Judgments of Risk and Amenability in Juvenile
Justice. Future of Children, 18(2), 35-57.

5
 an individualized decision about the youth‟s need for specific services.17 The Massachusetts
Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2(MAYSI-2) is one of the most frequently used tools. It is
a 52-item self-report instrument which is used to identify mental health and substance use needs
of youth. It is suitable for age 12-17, and requires 10-15 minutes to administer. Other common
tools are the Problem-Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT), and the Child and
Adolescent Functional Assessment (CAFAS) are some of the most frequently used brief
screening instruments. Among them CAFAS can also be used for assessment.

Assessment
In contrast, assessment is performed selectively with some youths and not others on the basis of
signals (e.g., indications during screening) that suggest the need for a more individualized and
thorough identification of mental health needs. Assessment may occur soon after first contact in
response to screening information, in which case it may be aimed at determining whether an
emergency situation truly exists, what the specific nature of the emergency is in this particular
youth‟s case, and how best to deal with it. Or it may be delayed if screening does not suggest an
emergency situation, focusing instead on comprehensive collection of data aimed at developing
longer range treatment planning or meeting judicial needs for information related to a forensic
question. The timing of assessment methods is more variable.

Assessment strives for a more comprehensive or individualized picture of a youth. The

assessment tools are chosen to assess the risk of reoffending or to verify the presence or absence
of mental health needs among “screened-in” youths, determine how disorders are manifested in
these specific youths, and focus on recommendations for some specific intervention. The
instruments used in assessment often involve longer administration times (e.g., more than 30
minutes), and they are often supplemented with clinical interviews and with past records from
other agencies. They may or may not be performed by mental health professionals (child-
specialized psychiatrists, psychologists, or psychiatric social workers), depending on their nature
and scope, but they all require considerable training and expertise.

Risk/Need Assessment
Assessments are focused on assessing risk/protective factors, and mental health needs of juvenile
delinquents. So they are divided as risk assessment and needs assessment.

Risk assessment is aimed at the prediction of the likelihood of re-offending. A risk assessment
tool is a formalized method that provides a uniform structure and a set of criteria for determining
risk.18 This encompasses the risk factors selected for assessment, the rating scales or checklists
are utilized to capture the assessment, and the procedures and calculations for determining risk.
More specifically, risk assessment tools are comprised of a number of items that aim to appraise
a constellation of pertinent risk factors and, in some cases, protective factors. As the term
suggests, risk factors are those variables that produce an elevated risk of recidivism, possibly
triggering offending behavior. Protective factors, in contrast, are those variables that buffer an
individual from engaging in offending behavior, thus diminishing the risk of recidivism.

17
Grisso, T. (2005) Why we need mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice systems. In T. Grisso, G.
Vincent, & D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental Health Screening and Assessment in Juvenile Justice (pp 3-21).
Available from http://books.google.com/books
18
Cicchinelli, I. F. (1995). Risk assessment expectations and realities. The APSAC Advisor, 8, 3-8.

6
Protective factors may ameliorate risk by mitigating the effects of risk factors; alternatively,
protective factors may have an independent effect on recidivism risk. In order to obtain accurate
assessments of risk, it is typically argued that a holistic risk assessment which incorporates both
risk and protective factors is required.19 Results from risk assessment are helpful on decisions.

Needs assessment provides a uniform structure for appraising an individuals‟ mental health
needs.20 Mental health needs are those factors empirically associated with offending behavior
that are amenable to change.21 Needs assessment tools are comprised of items that aim to
evaluate a number of dynamic mental health factors that, if targeted for intervention, can reduce
the likelihood of recidivism. Consequently, unlike risk assessments comprised of static risk
factors, needs assessments can guide intervention strategies.

In isolation, risk/needs assessment neither reduces recidivism nor fulfills mental health needs of
the juvenile. There is a need for these tools to be tied to practice. Good risk/needs assessments
should help concerned authority to direct services and design outcome-oriented case plans.22 It is
important to note that these tools provide a baseline for making decisions regarding the relative
priorities for issues to address. It is through the integration of risk/needs assessments and good
practice that these tools function to maximize recidivism reduction as well as address mental
health needs. Although risk/needs assessments play a vital role in this process, it is the
interventions that target criminogenic needs that prevent a young offender from recidivating.23

Need for Comprehensive Psychological Assessment

Presence of psychological disorders along with juvenile delinquency adds complexity to the
juvenile justice process. To reduce this complexity, minimize ambiguity, and ensure juvenile
delinquents‟ rights, mental health professionals (basically psychologists) are assigned in juvenile
justice system. Among others, the major responsibility of psychologists working in juvenile
justice system is to assess the mental health needs of juvenile delinquents. Whether any
significant psychological problem is present or not (screening); which techniques and tools are to
be used to clarify the issue at hand (assessment); to which class that disorder belongs to
(classification); what is that particular disorder (diagnosis); what form that disorder can take if
untreated (prognosis); and what are the best techniques available to address the mental health
need of that youth (recommendations) are the major questions to be addressed by psychologists
working in this field. Among these various responsibilities psychological assessment is the most
crucial one, which requires sound theoretical background, familiarity with available tests,
acquaintance with juvenile justice system, and sensitivity towards cultural, ethical, and legal
issues. An overall aim of assessment is to provide the basis for inferring antecedent and dynamic

19
Rogers, R. (2000). The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law and Human
Behavior, 24(5), 595-605.
20
Borum, R. (2003). Managing at-risk juvenile offenders in the community: Putting evidence-based principles into
practice. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,19(1), 114-137.
21
Hoge, R. D. (2002). Standardised instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 29(4), 380-396.
22
English, D. J., & Pecora, P. J. (1994). Risk assessment as a practice method in child
protective services. Child Welfare, 73, 451-472
23
Schwalbe, C., Fraser, M., Day, S., & Arnold, E. (2004).North Carolina Assessment of Risk(NCAR): Reliability
and predictive validity with juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(1/2), 1-22.

7
factors that bear on specific actions, and to make recommendations pertinent to the issues at
hand.

The assessment process involves the collection, processing, and synthesis of information about
the individual. To be comprehensive, a psychological assessment needs to examine a range of
psychological factors. Intellectual and personality functioning are the most frequently assessed
domains, which can be further broken down into specific elements: emotional, cognitive,
intellectual, developmental, executive, educational, social, organic, neuropsychological, and
physiological functions. The analysis and integration of these various elements provides a
complex psychological picture of the individual from which specific behaviors can be
understood, can be used for diagnoses, recommendations formulated and prognoses proffered.
A psychological assessment also helps to explain the association between psychological
functioning and behavior.

In a comprehensive psychological assessment information is gathered from multiple sources. A

typical method used to gather information is through administering standardized psychological
tests. Background information is necessary for interpreting psychological test results or forming
diagnostic conclusions.

Another category of assessment instruments incorporates general application measures. A large

number of available personality tests, intelligent tests, structured interview schedules,
rating/checklist measures and attitudinal measures have proven useful in assessing juvenile
delinquents. All mental health professional are familiar with these instruments‟ administration,
scoring, analysis, reliability, validity, norm, cultural issues and other related issues. General
application measures can be the instruments of choice in cases where relevant forensic
assessment instruments are not available or are yet to be developed. Some of the relevant general
assessment measures are discussed here.

Interview
There is a dependence on interviews in the collection of information about clients in juvenile
justice system. It is the only method used for assessment of juvenile delinquents in Nepalese
Juvenile Court. For the most part the dependence is on unstructured or semi structured clinical
interviews. Which may include mental status examination (MSE) and case history along with
interviews with significant others. Interviewing the child provides another important source of
information.

The interview includes a “mental status examination” which considers the youth‟s behavior
during the evaluation, mood, speech, the presence of delusions, hallucinations, obsessions or
suicidal thoughts, and insight. In addition, evaluators should interview the youth‟s parents (or
other family members/legal guardians), and other individuals who are familiar with the youth
such as teachers, employers, coaches, therapists, case workers. A detailed review of history is of
equal importance. It includes: 1) delinquency and dependency history and records, 2) current
arrest report, 3) school records, 4) prior mental health evaluations and records, and 5) medical
records.24 There are also standard interview schedules designed for diagnosing personality and
24
Shinghas, S. (2003). A Lawyer’s Guide to Psychological Assessment of Adolescents. Retrieved from
http://www.njdc.info/pdf/factsheetpsych.pdf

8
behavioral disorders in children and youths. The Revised Diagnostic Interview Schedule for
Children is an example which is specifically designed for assessing DSM-IV 25 conditions.

Behavioral Measures
Standardized observation schedules, behavioral checklists, and rating scales are another category
of general application measures. These instruments are particularly important in applied
assessment situations because of their relative ease and economy of use. Research has made
increasingly clear that there are more-or –less stable patterns of behavior associated concurrently
and predictively with antisocial behavior.26 As conduct disorder and attention deficit disorder are
directly linked with juvenile delinquency, behavioral measures are of greater importance in
juvenile justice system.27 Similarly the great popularity of behavior-based counseling and
therapy programs also places demands on behavioral assessment. Some of the widely used
checklist and rating scale measure of behavioral adjustment are: the Revised Behavioral Problem
Checklist, the Behavioral Assessment System for Children, and the Child Behavior Checklist.

Psychological Tests
Psychological tests assess abilities, skills, or traits that are measureable. Those attributes that are
measureable are called “constructs”, which may not be always relevant, or may be indirectly
related to, the questions at issue in court. Many of the tests use in juvenile justice system do not
directly answer the relevant legal questions.
Psychological tests vary in their types and purposes, but they can be described as standardized
ways of assessing various aspects or abilities of a person. For example there are standardized
tests for assessment of mood, intelligence, aptitude, achievement, quality of thought process,
adaptive behaviors, memory, etc, which if administered and analyzed properly prepares a basis
for comparing a person with other person(s).

Measures of Intelligence, Aptitude and Achievement

Judgments about cognitive and academic functioning are often involved in judicial decision
making, and hence these standardized measures have an important role to play in this context.
Information about cognitive deficits is often considered as mitigating factors in pre-and post-
disposition decisions. Standardized intelligence tests, neuropsychological test batteries, tests of
specialized aptitudes, measures of academic achievements, and tests of interests are capable of
providing reliable and valid information in these cases. Inferences regarding general academic
competencies and specific learning disabilities are often of concern in systems with rehabilitation
focus. There is a wide selection of well-researched and well-standardized measures for these
constructs. Some of the tests are discussed here:

Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children- Third Edition (WISC-III)

• Most used test in this category for children ages 6-16
• Consists of two major scales: Verbal and Performance
25
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4 th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
26
LeBlanc, M., & Loeber, R.(1993). Precursors, causes and the development of offending.In D.F. Hay & A. Angold
(Eds.), Precursers and causes in development and psychopathology (pp.233-263). London: Wiley.
27
Hoge, R. (1999). An expanded role for psychological assessment in juvenile justice systems. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 26(2): 251-266.

9
 • Each scale contains six subtests:
• The verbal subtests do not require reading or writing by the examinee. Instead, they
require a verbal response.
• They are administered orally by the examiner, and except for the math subtests they are
untimed.
• The scales and measures for the verbal subtests are:
o Information - general comprehension of facts
o Similarities - logical and abstract thinking ability and verbal concept formation
o Mathematics
o Vocabulary
o Comprehension - practical knowledge and social judgment
o Digit span - attention and rote memory
Each subtest is given a score:
1-5 Mentally Handicapped
6-8 Slow Learners
9-11 Average
12-14 Superior
15-20 Very Superior
• The performance subtests are timed and primarily involve visual perceptual organization,
motor speed and coordination, visual motor integration, and reasoning abilities.
• The scales and measures for the performance subtests are:
o Picture Completion - visual alertness and visual memory
o Picture Arrangement - interpretation of social situations
o Block Design - analysis and formation of abstract design
o Object Assembly - ability to synthesize concrete parts into wholes and visual-
motor coordination
o Coding - Speed of mental reactions and eye-hand coordination
o Mazes - Ability to plan and follow a visual pattern
• Scores are given for each measure of a subtest as well as a composite score (Full Scale
IQ-FSIQ).
• A composite score of 100 is average.
• The FSIQ is the best indicator of overall functioning unless there is a significant
difference between the verbal and performance scores (11 points or more). In these cases,
other factors, such as an underlying language or perceptual motor problem, should be
considered.

Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI)

• Culture-free assessment of intelligence, aptitude, abstract reasoning and problem-solving.

• Designed to measure intelligence using a language-free method for all ages.
• Ideal for use assessing individuals with impaired linguistic skills (i.e. non-English
speakers) or are socially/economically disadvantaged or with impaired motor skills (i.e.
hearing impaired or disabled).
• Instructions and answers can be given verbally or pantomime, utilizing pictures and
geometric patterns, and subject can indicate the answers verbally or by pointing.

10
 • Not designed to replace, but to compliment standard tests when language or motor
difficulties are an issue.
• Three cognitive abilities are measured: analogies, categorical associations or
classifications, and sequential or successive reasoning.

Assessment of Academic Functioning

Academic tests are designed to assess skills such as reading, spelling, vocabulary,
arithmetic and writing. Academic functioning can be measured through individually
administered tests. A person‟s academic functioning should fit with measured
intelligence. Thus, a significant discrepancy between IQ and the standard scores on the
academic achievement tests (with academic achievement being lower than expected
given IQ) – may indicate learning difficulties.

Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery Revised - (WJEB-R)

• Used for ages 2 through adults.
• Consists of battery of standardized tests measuring cognitive abilities, scholastic
aptitudes, and achievement.
• Considered the most comprehensive individual academic achievement battery.
• 21 Cognitive ability tests.
• Areas assessed include long and short-term memory, auditory and visual processing,
processing speed, comprehension, and reasoning.
• 18 Achievement tests.
• Assess levels of functioning, word-attack skills, reading comprehension, letter-word
identification and vocabulary.

Wide Range Achievement Test Third Edition (WRAT-III)

• Used for ages 5 years and older.
• Measures grade level in reading, spelling and arithmetic.
• Does not measure reading comprehension.
• Test does not identify learning difficulties such as reading comprehension, language
difficulties and writing problems.
• Test items range in difficulty from preschool level (e.g. naming letters, counting) to
problems beyond high school level.

Personality Tests
Inferences about the personality traits of youths occur at all stages of juvenile justice processing.
These may be focused on violent tendencies, impulse control, self-control, introversion, and
some other relevant dimensions. These inferences very often underlie judgments about
aggravating/mitigating circumstances, emotional, risk levels, maturity, or treatment needs, and as
such, they are involved in the entire range of pre-and post-disposition decisions. Though there
are some personality assessments tools developed specifically as forensic classification
instruments, general assessment measures are being successfully used for the similar
requirement.
Personality tests are designed to evaluate an individual‟s thoughts, emotions, attitudes and
behavioral traits. There are two types of personality tests: self-report “objective” inventories or

11
loosely structured “projective” techniques. Some of personality tests relevant for assessment in
Juvenile justice system are discussed here:

Objective Tests
In general, objective tests include a variety of questionnaires, self-report measures, inventories
and rating scales. Some objective tests call for “true” or “false” responses to questions (e.g. “At
times I am full of energy,” “I am afraid of losing my mind”). Some are incomplete sentences to
fill in the blank. Other tests ask the individual to respond to various descriptions of behavior, e.g.
“withdraws from others”, on a continuum from “never happens” to “sometimes happens” to
“frequently happens”.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A)
• Adolescent version of the adult MMPI.
• Used with children and adolescents up to age 18.
• Standardized questionnaire comprised of 13 scales.
• 3 relate to validity.
• 10 relate to clinical or personality indices.
• Score based on these 13 different categories of responses and is represented in graph
form on a profile sheet that is usually computerized.

Projective Tests
In contrast to objective tests, projective tests are unstructured and rely on highly ambiguous
stimuli (inkblots or pictures). The underlying principle of projective tests is that aspects of an
individual‟s personality will be reflected in that individual‟s responses. The three most common
categories of projective tests used are storytelling, inkblots and projective drawing.

Children's Apperception Test (A Storytelling Technique)

• Ages 3 to 10.
• Depicts cartoon-like pictures of animals in human situations that relate to various
developmental themes (e.g. toilet training, feeding, and sibling rivalry).

House-Tree-Person (A Projective Drawing Technique)

• Child is asked to produce separate drawings of a house, tree and person.
• Interpretations are made from characteristics and features of the drawing (e.g. relative
size and placement of objects).

Family Drawing Test (A Projective Drawing Technique)

• Child is asked to draw a picture of his/her family doing something together.
• Interpretations are made in terms of the distances between individuals and the degree of
interaction.

Rorschach Inkblot Test

• Ages 10 to adult.
• Child asked to identify or interpret what they see from a series of inkblot cards.
• Individual responses are compared to normative samples.

Emotional Functioning Tests

12
Tests designed to provide an index of a youth‟s emotional functioning are also included in
juvenile justice system. The most commonly used measure of emotional function is BDI:

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)

• Used with adolescents and adults ages 13 and older.
• 21-item inventory that measures the degree of depressive symptoms.
• Scales include: sadness, pessimism, sense of failure, suicidal, ideas, social withdrawal,
work difficulty, etc.

Diagnostic and Classification Systems

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM IV), of the American Psychiatric
Association is being used as an authentic diagnostic and classification system in juvenile justice
systems. The DSM IV is a compilation of all of the recognized psychiatric disorders, grouped by
category: mood disorders, substance abuse disorders, anxiety disorders, and so forth. Each
disorder lists a set of behavioral and other criteria which must be present in the individual to
warrant a given diagnosis. The purpose of the DSM IV is to provide clear descriptions of
diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate
about, study and treat people with various mental disorders”. DSM is organized to allow for
assessment and description of disorders. When mental health professionals conduct evaluations
and rely on DSM-IV, they classify the disorders that people have, allocating the disorder to five
different domains. Each domain is called an “axis.” For purposes of juvenile court practitioners,
the first two axes are usually the most important.28
Axis I looks at Clinical Disorders, which includes depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia,
oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It also includes other
conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention, including physical abuse of child, sexual
abuse of child, parent-child problems, borderline intellectual functioning, etc.
Axis II looks at Personality Disorders, which are more ingrained, long-standing aspects of a
person‟s personality that are typically not expected to change over time. Children typically
should not receive personality disorder diagnoses because their personalities are still developing.
Examples include antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. Also
included in Axis II is mental retardation, which may be relevant in many cases.
Axis III: General Medical Conditions Relevant to Emotional/Behavior Functioning. Examples
include seizure disorder, head injury.
Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environmental Problems. Examples include educational problems,
occupational problems, housing problems, and problems related to interactions with the legal
system.
Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). The examiner‟s judgment of the examinee‟s
overall level of functioning ranging from 0 to 100. This information is useful in planning
treatment and measuring its impact.

28
Rosado L. M.(2000). ABA Juvenile Justice Center/National Juvenile Defender Center (2000). Mental health
assessments in the justice system: How to get high-quality evaluations and what to do with them in court.
Understanding Adolescents ! A Juvenile Court Training Curriculum. Retrieved from
http://www.njdc.info/pdf/maca3.pdf

13
Grisso and Barnum29 refer to the range of mental health disorders as lying within the narrow
band, i.e. serious mental health disorders and formal DSM-IV diagnosis, and broad band, i.e.,
severe emotional and adjustment problems regarding family, school, or community. Though the
DSM-IV-TR30 struggles to appropriately integrate the mental health needs of juveniles, still there
can be confusions in identifying mental disorders in this population. Mental health issues and
behavioral issues are not always fully distinct. Thus, a flexible diagnostic classification approach
is necessary in distinguishing between the mental health and juvenile justice issues and
implementing intervention strategies to deal with both sets of issues.

To lessen the confusion between definitional and diagnostic concerns, Underwood and Berenson
31
proposed a categorical approach to mental health. They recognized that juveniles with mental
health disorders who enter the juvenile justice system are different in terms of demographics,
personal histories, personality functioning, and manifestations of mental disorders. When
planning mental health services for these youth, it is important for juvenile justice administrators
to have a framework based on the range of mental health disorders so that the appropriate
treatment addresses the unique needs of each youth.
They proposed a framework to distinguish between six categories of mental disorders that are
common among the juvenile in the juvenile justice system and their classifications are
compatible with DSM-IV-TR. Their categorization includes:
1. Affective Disorders
2. Anxiety Disorders
3. Psychotic Disorders
4. Co-occurring Disorders
5. Personality Disorders
6. Disruptive Behavior Disorders.
Each group of disorders has unique behavioral symptoms that pose the challenges to the
treatment and management of juvenile delinquents. These indicators must be addressed, by
providing mental health interventions tailored to the individual, so that more comprehensive
treatment can be implemented for the purpose of reducing the risk of future mental health crisis
and delinquent behavior.

CONCLUSION: TIME TO INCORPORATE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

PROGRAMS WITHIN NEPALESE JUNENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Juvenile courts in Nepal include psychologists, which prove that it has already recognized the
importance of psychological interventions in juvenile justice system. A psychologist working at
juvenile court can assist in the court‟s decisions in various aspects. One of the major
contributions that a psychologist can make is through comprehensive psychological evaluation of

29
Grisso, T., & Barnum R. (2000). Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument -- 2: User's Manual and Technical
Report. University of Massachusetts Medical School.
30
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4 th ed.,
text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
31
Underwood, L., & Berenson, D.( 2001). Mental Health Programming in Youth Correction and Detention
Facilities: A Resource Guide. Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators.

14
the juvenile delinquent. Though assessment and screening is not a new story in Western setting,
its effective use in Nepalese juvenile justice system is yet to be seen.

There are innumerable specific instruments developed in the western contexts for evaluation of
different psychological aspects of juvenile delinquents. Their relevance in respective settings has
already been proved. Standardized psychological tests (general application measures) are also
being used successfully in juvenile justice systems. Unstructured clinical interview is the only
one procedure used in our juvenile courts to evaluate the juvenile delinquent different
psychological aspects, which is not sufficient in itself. Literatures reveal that as definition of
juvenile delinquents and juvenile justice varies from place to place, so does the goals of
screening and assessment instruments. Foreign screening and assessment instruments can be
imported for the time being but the ultimate necessity of developing own standardized measures
cannot be discarded.

Yet one can argue that ineffective measures can be worse than no measures at all, given the
waste of resources that could be used to meet other important needs of youths. Proper
identification of youth‟s mental health needs and risk of harm require taking the time to make
careful selection and to position the right tools within an effective screening and assessment
process. The following considerations should be made while preparing to use available
instruments:
a) Selecting relevant measures
b) Evaluating measures
c) Cost of the measures and their administration
d) Professional expertise
e) Cultural, ethical and legal issues.

15