Supporting <i>young people's</i> cognition and communication in the courtroom: A scoping review of current practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis suggested that the majority of young people in contact with the criminal justice system have cognitive and/or communication impairments. Over the past 20 years, recognition of these complex needs has resulted in support measures being put in place in courtrooms across the globe. It is therefore timely to review evidence for the efficacy of these measures. AIMS: This scoping review evaluates evidence on support measures employed to facilitate access to court proceedings for individuals with cognition and communication impairments, and considers how this evidence might inform future research and practice. METHODS: Research databases were searched for studies that: directly or indirectly involved a population with a form of functional impairment and/or diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorder; and refer to support delivered to remove barriers or support access to courtroom processes. RESULTS: Searches identified 3,318 distinct articles. Following review, 37 papers were identified for inclusion. The papers were published between 1993 and 2019, with the majority being published since 2010 (n = 23). The majority of papers were from the United Kingdom (n = 26); other countries represented were Australia (n = 1), Canada (n = 3), New Zealand (n = 2), UK papers don't necessarily state which countries involved (n = 2) Scotland specifically state Scotland only and the United States (n = 3). No papers met the criteria for an experimental research design. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the high level of need in this population is well established, which support measures are most effective in enabling engagement in court processes is not currently clear. More robust evaluative research is therefore required to establish the most effective methods of support. Despite this lack of evidence regarding outcomes, both young people and professionals generally view support measures favourably. There is an increasing onus on professionals to adapt their practice rather than to support/enhance the cognition and communication skills of young people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".