Testing in child custody evaluations - Selection, usage, and daubert admissibility: A survey of psychologists

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 17-38

  Bow, James N ^a   Flens, James R ^b   Gould, Jonathan W ^d   Greenhut, Dana ^c  

^a Hawthorn Center   (United States)

^b Indiana State University   (United States)

^c WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Admissibility; Child custody; Daubert; Family court; Forensic evaluations; Psychological testing

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CUSTODY; FEMALE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL DISEASE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSONALITY TEST; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGIST; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 33746503565     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: 15229092     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v06n02_02     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. (1997). Custody evaluation practice: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 137-145.
2. Ackerman, M. J., & Schoendorf, K. (1992). Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody (ASPECT). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
3. American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677-680.
4. Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A., & Gottfried, A. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9, 205-211.
5. Bernstein, D.E., & Jackson, J.D. (2004). The Daubert Trilogy in the States, Jurimetrics Journal, 44, http://ssrn.com/abstract=498786
6. Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2001). Psychologists' current practices and procedures in child custody evaluations: Five years after the American Psychological Association guidelines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 261-268.
7. Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2002). A critical review of child custody evaluation reports. Family Court Review, 40, 164-176.
8. Bow, J. N., Quinnell, F. A., Zaroff, M., & Assemany, A. (2002). Assessment of sexual abuse allegations in child custody cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 566-575.
9. Bow, J. N., Flens, J., Gould, J. W., & Greenhut, D. (2005). An analysis of administration, scoring, and interpretation of the MMPI-2 and MCMI-II/ III in child custody evaluations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
10. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
11. Connell, M. (2005). Review of "The Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluations of Custody." Journal of Child Custody, 2, 195-209.
12. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
13. Dyer, F. J. (1997). Application of the Millon inventories in forensic practice. In T. Millon (Ed.), The Millon Inventories: Clinical and Personality Assessment (pp. 124-139). New York: Guilford.
14. Dyer, F. J. (2000). The Millon clinical inventories, research critical of their forensic application and Daubert criteria. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 487-497.
15. Exner, J. E. (1993). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley.
16. Flens, J. R. (2004, October). Advanced institute on psychological testing. Pre-symposium institute conducted at the fourth annual Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Child Custody Symposium, Nashville, TN.
17. Frye v. United States, 293F. 1013 (1923).
18. Gacono, C. B., Evans, F. B., & Viglione, D. J. (2002). The Rorschach in forensic practice. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2, 33-53.
19. Gacono, C. G., Loving, J. L., Evans, F. B., & Jumes, M. T. (2002). The Psychopathy Checklist Revised: PCL-R testimony and forensic practice. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2, 11-32.
20. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
21. Gier v. Educational Serv. Unit 12, 66 F.3d 940 (1995).
22. Gould, J. W. (1998). Conducting Scientifically Crafted Child Custody Evaluations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Gould, J. W. (2005). Conducting Scientifically Crafted Child Custody Evaluations (2nd Edition). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
24. Graham J. R. (2000). MMPI-2: Assessing Personality and Psychopathology, (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford.
25. Grove, W. M., & Barden, R. C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 224-242.
26. Grove, W. M., Barden, R. C., Garb, H. N., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive-System-based testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho standard. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 216-234.
27. Hamilton, H. G. (1998). The movement from Frye to Daubert: Where do the states stand? 38 Jurimetric: The Journal of Law, Science, & Technology, 201-213.
28. Hare, R. (1998). Psychopaths and their nature: Implications for the mental health and criminal justice system. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior (pp. 188-223). New York: Guilford Press.
29. Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of Forensic Mental Health Assessment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
30. Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 257-272.
31. Heinze, M. C., & Grisso, T. (1996). Review of instruments assessing parent competencies used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 293-313.
32. Hunsley, J., Lee, C. M., & Wood, J. M. (2003). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. In S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr (Eds.), Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
33. Hynan, D. (2004). Unsupported gender differences on some personality disorder scales of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 105-110.
34. Keilin, W. G., & Bloom, L. J. (1986). Child custody evaluation practice: A survey of mental health professionals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 338-346.
35. Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. (2000). Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 843-879.
36. Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
37. LaFortune, K. A., & Carpenter, B. N. (1998). Custody evaluations: A survey of mental health professionals. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 207-224.
38. Lalley, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491-498.
39. Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 27-66.
40. Marlowe, D. B. (1995). A hybrid decision framework for evaluating psychometric evidence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 207-228.
41. McCann, J. T. (1998). Defending the Rorschach in court: An analysis of admissibility using legal and professional standards. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 125-144.
42. McCann, J. T. (1999). Assessing adolescents with the MACI: Using the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory. New York: Wiley.
43. McCann, J. T. (2002). Guidelines for forensic application of the MCMI-III. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2, 55-69.
44. McCann, J. T., & Dyer, F. J. (1996). Forensic Assessment with the Millon Inventories. New York: Guilford.
45. McCann, J. T., Flens, J. R., Campagna, V., Collman, P., Lazzaro, T., and Connor, E. (2001). The MCMI-III in child custody evaluations: A normative study. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 27-44.
46. Medoff, D. (2003). The scientific basis of psychological testing: Considerations following Daubert, Kumho, and Joiner. Family Court Review, 41, 199-213.
47. Meyer. G. J. (2000). On the science of Rorschach research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 46-81.
48. Otto, R. K. (2002). Use of the MMPI-2 in forensic settings. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2, 71-91.
49. Otto, R. K., Eden, J. F., & Barcus, E. H. (2000). The use of psychological tests in child custody evaluations. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 312-340.
50. Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology. A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57(1), 5-18.
51. Quinnell, F. A., & Bow, J. N. (2001). Psychological tests used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Science and the Law, 19, 491-501.
52. Retzlaff, P. D. (2000). Comment on the validity of the MCMI-III. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 499-500.
53. Ritzler, B., Erard, R., & Pettigrew, G. (2002). Protecting the integrity of the Rorschach expert witness. A reply to Grove and Barden (1999) Re: The admissibility of testimony under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 201-215.
54. Rogers, R., Salekin, R. T., & Sewell, K. W. (1999). Validation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory for Axis II disorders: Does it meet the Daubert standard? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 425-443.
55. Rogers, R., Salekin, R. T., & Sewell, K. W. (2000). The MCMI-III and the Daubert standard: Separating rhetoric from reality. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 501-506.
56. Schutte, J. W. (2001). Using the MCMI-III in forensic evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19, 5-20.
57. Strong, D. R., Greene, R. L., Hoppe, C., Johnston, T., & Olesen, N. (1999). Taxometric analysis of impression management and self-deception on the MMPI-2 in child custody litigants. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 1-18.
58. Weiner, I. B., Exner, J. E., & Sciara, A. (1996). Is the Rorschach welcomed in the courtroom? Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 422-424.
59. Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Stejskal, W. J., & McKinsey, R. K. (2001). Problems of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach in forensic settings: Recent developments. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 89-103.
60. Yanez, Y. T., & Fremouw, W. (2004). The application of the Daubert standard to parental capacity measures. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22, 5-28.