Important guidelines for using and thinking about psychological assessment in family disputes:

Transcription

1 Les Katz, PsyD, PC Andrew Loizeaux, PsyD, PC Toni Backman, PhD Joyce Fine, PhD Felicia Greher, PhD Laura Hockman, PsyD Lee Hockman, PsyD Kathryn Kilian, MA, LPC Stacy Nolan, PsyD Ann Schroeckenstein, PsyD Dave Schutzman, MA, LPC Use of Formal Psychological Assessment Instruments in Domestic Relations Cases Family Law Section Luncheon October 18, 2013 Presentation by Dr. Ann Schroeckenstein and Dr. Les Katz Katz & Loizeaux Forensic Services, LLC Important guidelines for using and thinking about psychological assessment in family disputes: From American Psychological Association: Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist 68: Guideline 9. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Guideline 10. ASSESSMENT From: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts: MARTINDALE D.A., MARTIN L., AUSTIN W.G., DROZD L., GOULD-SALTMAN D., KIRKPATRICK H.D., KUEHNLE K., KULAK D., MCCOLLEY D., SHEINVOLD A., SIEGEL J., STAHL P.M. & HUNTER L Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation. Family Court Review 45: Guideline 5. DATA GATHERING Guideline 6. USE OF FORMAL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS Clinical versus Forensic Assessment: In clinical settings, the primary goal is usually to facilitate treatment and the assessments are done in the context of a helping relationship. In forensic settings, the primary goal is usually to help provide information regarding the legal question at hand and the assessments are done in the context of an adversarial system.

2 What is psychological assessment good for in domestic relations cases? In parenting disputes, the relevant functional abilities are related to parenting competency and decision-making competency. Evaluations should be geared toward helping answering questions about these areas of competency. Psychological assessments provide: Information related to level of functioning or severity of behavioral patterns or case specific concerns that could impact caregiving/co-parenting (i.e. impulse control, addiction potential, aggression) Adapted from Gould (2005) and Meyer et al. (2001): Empirically-based set of data that allows for more precise measurement of individual characteristics and scientifically anchors data; Provides independent data that may confirm or disconfirm hypotheses; Allows for the generation of data from a large number of personality, emotional, cognitive or other dimensions; Standardized administration and scoring procedures; Comparison of scores to context specific normative data; Availability of information about reliability and validity. GOULD J Use of Psychological Tests in Child Custody Assessment. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices 2: MEYER G.J., FINN S.E., EYDE L.D., KAY G.G., MORELAND K.L., DIES R.R., EISMAN E.J., KUBISZYN T.W. & REED G.M Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist 56: Understanding the limits of psychological assessments in parenting disputes: The magic of assessment: There is an unwarranted tendency for people to try to give formal psychological assessments more weight or credence than other data collection techniques. Assessments should be one aspect, and only one aspect, of a broader data collection process. There is no evidence that assessments can be used to determine the better parent, the best parenting plan, or the best fit between parent and child. Page 2 of 6

3 The well-constructed instruments most often used in custody evaluations were not developed specifically for determining who is the better parent. Instruments developed specifically for parenting disputes have generally not been well constructed. Assessments do not directly answer questions about the more significant types of allegations made in parenting disputes. For example, there is no one test or profile that will definitely answer the question Is parent A a parent alienator or is parent B a child abuser? It is important to understand context. Context impacts assessment results. The context of someone completing an assessment in a therapeutic setting, or other civil or criminal legal settings is different than the context of taking an assessment in a parenting dispute. Therapeutic settings, in general, lend themselves to individuals being more revealing and forthright. Forensic settings lend themselves to people not being as forthright. In domestic relations cases, parents are often motivated to highlight their virtues and minimize their faults. Choosing instruments: Reliability: Does the assessment consistently measure what it is purported to measure? Validity: Does the assessment accurately measure what it is supposed to measure? Norms: Has the data been normed on the population being assessed? (i.e. custody litigants, cultural considerations) Questions to ask: Is the assessment commercially published? Is a comprehensive manual available regarding information/procedures for standardized administration, scoring, and interpretation? Is the measure reliable and valid? Has the instrument been peer-reviewed? Is there normative data for comparison? What are the qualifications for administration, scoring, and interpretation? Resources providing reviews of psychological assessments: Mental Measurements Yearbook Tests in Print Page 3 of 6

4 Specific instruments most often used in Parental Responsibility Evaluations: Adult Assessments: Personality Inventories: Used to provide additional data related to personality traits or behavioral patterns that may influence parenting or co-parenting. Objective: Inventories with restricted response formats (true/false) that include standardized procedures for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Most Commonly Used: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Second Edition Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-Third Edition Bow, J. N., Flens, J. R., Gould, J. W., & Greenhut, D. (2006). An analysis of administration scoring and interpretation of the MMPI-2 and MCMI-II/III in child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 2(4), Projective: Individual responds to ambiguous stimuli and the content of the responses are interpreted. Most Commonly Used: Rorschach Inkblot Test Erard, R. E. (2005). What the Rorschach can contribute to child custody and parenting time evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 2(1/2), Erikson, S. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Vitacco, M. J. (2007). Failing the burden of proof: The science and ethics of projective tests in custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 45(2), Additional Projective Measures Used: Thematic Apperception Test Sentence Completion Cognitive Measures: Used to assess parental intellectual functioning. Most Commonly Used: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Parenting Inventories: Designed to assess parenting skills/approaches/relationships. Examples of Measures: Bricklin Perceptual Scales Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody Parent Awareness Skills Survey Child Abuse Potential Inventory Parenting Stress Index Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F., & Barcus, E. H. (2000). The use of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38(3), Issue Specific Assessment Measures: Drug/Alcohol Abuse Domestic Violence Page 4 of 6

5 Sexual Abuse Neuropsychological Concerns Learning Disabilities Child Assessments: Used to determine the cognitive, emotional, and social needs of the child. Personality Inventories: Used to derive information regarding coping skills, vulnerabilities, and needs of a child. Objective: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent Projective: Children s Apperception Test Rorschach Inkblot Test Perception-of-Relationships Test Projective Drawings: Kinetic Family Drawing Sentence Completion Doll House Play Sand Tray Play Cognitive and Achievement Measures: Used to assess the cognitive functioning or special needs of a child. Most Commonly Used: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition Wide Range Achievement Test- Third Edition Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Dealing with psychological assessments in examination and cross-examination: Looking for signs of bias in the evaluator; Confirmatory bias: Using new data to reinforce already existing opinions and ignoring or distorting data that doesn t fit with the evaluator s hypotheses. Evaluators who ignore the context of the evaluation; Working with computerized interpretations. Page 5 of 6

6 References Caldwell, A. B., Jr. (2005). How Can the MMPI-2 Help Child Custody Examiners? Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 2(1-2), Calloway, G. C. (2005). The Rorschach: Its Use in Child Custody Evaluations. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 2(1-2), Erard, R. E. (2005). What the Rorschach Can Contribute to Child Custody and Parenting Time Evaluations. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 2(1-2), Erickson, S. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Vitacco, M. J. (2007). Failing the burden of proof: The science and ethics of projective tests in custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 45(2), Flens, J. R. (2005). Introduction to the Volume on Psychological Testing in Child Custody Evaluations. Journal of Child Custody Journal of Child Custody, Journal of Child Custody 2(1-2), 1-2. Flens, J. R. (2005). The Responsible Use of Psychological Testing in Child Custody Evaluations: Selection of Tests. Journal of Child Custody Journal of Child Custody, Journal of Child Custody 2(1-2), Geffner, R., Conradi, L., Geis, K., & Aranda, M. B. (2009). Conducting child custody evaluations in the context of family violence allegations: Practical techniques and suggestions for ethical practice. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 6(3-4), Gould, J. (2005). Use of Psychological Tests in Child Custody Assessment. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 2(1-2), Gould-Saltman, D. (2005). Testing, One, Two, Three, Testing: An Attorney Perspective. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 2(1-2), Martindale, D. A. (2005). Confirmatory Bias and Confirmatory Distortion. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 2(1-2), Medoff, D. (2003). The Scientific Basis of Psychological Testing: Considerations Following Daubert, Kumho, and Joiner. Family Court Review, 41(2), Medoff, D. (2010). Protecting the integrity of forensic psychological testing: A reply to Geffner, et al. (2009). Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 7(1), Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F., & Barcus, E. H. (2000). The use of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 38(3), Page 6 of 6