The Use of an Interpreter During a Forensic Interview: Challenges and Considerations

Abstract

The purpose of this Open Forum is to detail the unique considerations present when using an interpreter in a forensic interview, including whether it is appropriate to take the case, the practical aspects of working with an interpreter, and whether the use of standardized instruments is indicated. While working with the interpreter, a forensic psychiatrist can enhance the interview by discussing the purpose of the interview with the interpreter before it takes place, encouraging accurate translation of information, reviewing incorrect or unusual responses to questions, and considering the evaluee's cultural beliefs. Standardized instruments, which can be very helpful in an English language interview, may be less useful when an interpreter is used.

An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency.

“…Challenges can arise when necessity dictates the use of a professional interpreter who is not court-certified, as these interpreters are more likely to be inexperienced and/or unfamiliar with the forensic evaluation process (Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012). The greatest concern in these situations is when interpreters fail to accurately convey the presence of speech-impairing mental health symptoms, such as disorganization (Wagoner, 2017). Interpreters not familiar with the purpose of forensic evaluations may also potentially bias results by improperly prompting or describing legal concepts to defendants (Fontes & Tishelman, 2016).…”

“…Second, some defendants may elect to conduct the interview in English if they feel sufficiently confident in their English-speaking abilities. In both of these situations, the evaluator should be cautious about making assumptions regarding their own level of linguistic fluency, as an individual with an intermediate level of language proficiency may be able to adequately communicate about mundane topics but may lack the nuanced ability to accurately describe symptomology or complex legal concepts (Fontes & Tishelman, 2016; Wagoner, 2017). Having interpreters present on standby can help to mitigate some risk, as it provides for the opportunity to alternate between languages as needed (Fontes & Tishelman, 2016).…”

“…Likewise, although in-person interpretation is preferable, phone service may sometimes be necessary. Although phone services can provide access to a professional interpreter in locations where none exist, past research suggests that they are perceived less positively compared with live, court-certified interpreters and may be less likely to have a dialect match (Fontes & Tishelman, 2016; Wagoner, 2017). Overall, the likelihood for error can potentially be reduced by providing detailed expectations to interpreters regarding the need for word-for-word interpretation.…”

“…The accuracy of clinical diagnoses can be affected by differences in degrees of openness and directness, the manner in which emotions are expressed, and the challenges associated with differentiating between delusional beliefs and culturally normative worldviews (Kois & Chauhan, 2016; Wagoner, 2017; Weiss & Rosenfeld, 2012). For example, a lack of familiarity with cultural mistrust is believed to have contributed to the overdiagnosis of psychosis in Black individuals (Whaley, 2004), as has the overdiagnosis of psychosis by evaluators unfamiliar with sovereign citizens’ subcultural beliefs (Parker, 2014).…”

Documenting human rights violations: An introduction to the psychological evaluation of asylum seekers.

“…Although certified interpreters are preferred, they are not always available especially when clients speak indigenous languages, nonetheless it is essential that the interpreter not be a member of the client’s family or legal team. Providers are encouraged to discuss the purpose of the assessment, request verbatim interpretation, follow up on any unexpected or incorrect responses, and inquire into cultural implications of the client’s disclosures with the interpreter (Wagoner, 2017). The clinician should speak directly to the asylum seeker and focus on delivering questions that are clear and concise (Searight & Searight, 2009).…”