Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

The test manual for the ASPECT reports high lev-

els of interrater reliability. As evidence of validity, the

authors claim that in judicial dispositions of 118 of the

200 cases in the normative sample for which outcome

data were available, there was a 91% hit rate of dispo-

sitions matching recommendations.

Limitations of the ASPECT

There are significant weaknesses in the basic con-

ceptualization and the psychometric properties of the

ASPECT, as its authors concede. Critics have noted

that there was inadequate research to establish the

constructs to be measured and their relevance to com-

petent parenting. Instrument selection for its compo-

nent parts was done without sufficient analysis to

determine whether the data collected added incremen-

tal validity to the assessment of parenting strengths.

Although a number of the factors to be considered by

the user may seem to be logically associated with par-

enting, some clearly lack such inferential connected-

ness, and no empirical link is provided.

Further research is needed to support the cut score

recommended by the authors, as well as to support the

ideas that high PCI scorers are more effective parents,

that sole custody is the best arrangement for children of

parents who have disparate PCI scores, and that 20

points is sufficiently disparate for a recommendation of

sole custody. Finally, further data are needed to support

the implicit notion that the ASPECT takes into account

all relevant data to be considered by the evaluator in for-

mulating recommendations, if any, to be offered to the

court for apportionment of parenting time and responsi-

bility. The ASPECT’s relevance and reliability have not

been adequately demonstrated to justify its use for the

court-referred assessments for which it was designed.

Mary Connell

See alsoDivorce and Child Custody

Further Readings

Ackerman, M. J. (2005). The Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales

for Parent Evaluation of Custody (ASPECT): A review

of research and update. Journal of Child Custody,

2 (1/2), 179–193.

Connell, M. A. (2005). Review of “The Ackerman-

Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody”

(ASPECT). Journal of Child Custody, 2,195–209.

Heinze, M. C., & Grisso, T. (1996). Review of instruments

assessing parenting competencies used in child custody

evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14,293–313.

Otto, R. K., & Edens, J. F. (2003). Parenting capacity. In

T. Grisso (Ed.),Evaluating competencies: Forensic

assessments and instruments(2nd ed., pp. 229–307).

New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

ADJUDICATIVECOMPETENCE

OFYOUTH

Although the early juvenile justice system did not

require that adolescent defendants be able to under-

stand and participate in their legal proceedings, courts

have increasingly required that adolescent defendants,

like adult criminal defendants, be competent to pro-

ceed to adjudication (competent to stand trial). This

has raised a unique set of challenges for the courts and

mental health clinicians. Research has indicated that

young adolescents have high rates of deficits in com-

petence-related legal capacities in comparison with

adults. As described below, however, little is known

about assessing and treating adjudicative incompe-

tence in youth, and legal standards regarding youths’

adjudicative competence remain unclear.

Legal Standards for

Juvenile Competence

Since the 1700s, the legal system has required that

adult defendants tried in criminal courts be competent

to proceed to adjudication. More specifically, the law

requires that criminal defendants be able to under-

stand the nature of the legal proceedings, appreciate

the significance and possible consequences of these

proceedings, communicate with their attorney, and

reason about relevant legal decisions, such as how to

plead. If defendants lack these capacities, they can be

found incompetent, in which case their adjudication is

typically suspended, and they are treated in an effort

to restore their competence.

The early juvenile justice system, which was devel-

oped in Illinois in 1904, did not require that adolescent

defendants be competent to proceed to adjudication.

Because early juvenile justice was designed to be reha-

bilitative rather than punitive, it was not considered nec-

essary that youth be able to understand and participate

2 ———Adjudicative Competence of Youth

A-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 2