A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SUITABILITY AND LIMITATIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS IN FAMILY COURT

Family Court Review

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 157-174

  Erickson, Steven K ^a   Lilienfeld, Scott O ^b   Vitacco, Michael J ^c  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Mendota Mental Health Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

child custody; forensic evaluation; objective tests; projective techniques; psychometrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 85165880803     PISSN: 15312445     EISSN: 17441617     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00136.x     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Ackerman, M., & Ackerman, M. (1997). Custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 137–145.
2. Acklin, M. W., McDowell II, C. J., Verschell, M. S., & Chan, D. (2000). Interobserver agreement, intraobserver reliability, and the Rorschach comprehensive system. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74(1), 15.
3. American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
4. American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677–680.
5. Baer, R. A., & Miller, J. (2002). Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 14, 16–26.
6. Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., Radovanovic, H., & Fidler, B. J. (1999). Defensive responding on the MMPI-2 in family custody and access evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11, 24–28.
7. Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9, 205–211.
8. Ball, J. D., Archer, R. P., & Imhof, E. A. (1994). Time requirements of psychological testing: A survey of practitioners. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 239–249.
9. Bartlett-Simpson, B., Kneeshaw, S., & Schaefer, C. (1993). The use of anatomical dolls to assess child sexual abuse: A critical review. International Journal of Play Therapy, 2(2), 35–51.
10. Boat, B. W., & Everson, M. D. (1988). Use of anatomical dolls among professionals in sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12(2), 171–179.
11. Bricklin, B. (1990a). Bricklin Perceptual Scales manual. Furlong, PA: Village Publishing.
12. Bricklin, B. (1990b). Parent Awareness of Skills Survey manual. Furlong, PA: Village Publishing.
13. Bricklin, B. (1993). Tests manuals supplement #9. Furlong, PA: Village Publishing.
14. Bricklin, B., & Elliot, G. (1991). Parent Perception of Child Profile. Furlong, PA: Village Publishing.
15. Burley, T., Handler, L., & Hammer, E. F. (1997). Personality factors in the accurate interpretation of projective tests. In E. F. Hammer (Ed.), Advances in projective drawing interpretation (pp. 359–377). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd.
16. Butcher, J., Dahlstrom, W., Graham, J., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
17. Conte, J. R., Sorenson, E., Fogarty, L., & Rosa, J. D. (1991). Evaluating children's reports of sexual abuse: Results from a survey of professionals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(3), 428–437.
18. Costantino, G., Colon-Malgady, G., Malgady, R. G., & Perez, A. (1991). Assessment of attention deficit disorder using a thematic apperception technique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 87–95.
19. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
20. Dawes, R. M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.
21. Eaton, L. (2004, May 23). For arbiters in custody battles, wide power and little scrutiny. New York Times. Retrieved October 26, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com.
22. Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2006). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: Limited science and a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 1–29.
23. Emery, R. E. (2005). Parental alienation syndrome: Proponents bear the burden of proof. Family Court Review, 43, 8–13.
24. Entwisle, D. (1972). To dispel fantasies about fantasy-based measures of achievement and motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 77(6), 377–391.
25. Erickson, S. (2003). Psychological testimony on trial: Questions arise about the validity of popular testing methods. New York State Bar Journal, 75(6), 19–26.
26. Everson, M., & Boat, B. (1990). Sexualized doll play among young children: Implications for the use of anatomical dolls in sexual abuse evaluations. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(5), 736–742.
27. Exner, J. E. (2002). The Rorschach, basic foundations and principles of interpretation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
28. Fineman, S. (1977). The achievement motive and its measurement. Where are we now? British Journal of Psychology, 68, 1–22.
29. Freedenfeld, R. N., Ornduff, S. R., & Kelsey, R. M. (1995). Object relations and physical abuse: A TAT analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(3), 552–568.
30. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
31. Garb, H. N., Wood, J. M., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Nezworski, T. (2005). Roots of the Rorschach controversy. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 97–118.
32. Grisso, T. (2005). Commentary on “Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations”: What now? Family Court Review, 43, 223–228.
33. Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
34. Grove, W., Barden, C., Garb, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (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.
35. Guarnaccia, V., Dill, C., Sabatino, S., & Southwick, S. (2001). Scoring accuracy using the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 464–474.
36. Hagen, M., & Castagna, N. (2001). The real numbers: Psychological testing in custody evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 269–271.
37. Halon, R. L. (2001). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III: The normal quartet in child custody cases. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19(1), 57–75.
38. Hamel, M., Shaffer, T., & Erdberg, P. (2000). A study of nonpatient preadolescent Rorschach protocols. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 280–294.
39. Hartman-Crouch, T. S. (2000). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 in the context of child custody litigation. (Doctoral Dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts, 61, 2762.
40. Harris, D. (1963). Children's drawings as measures of intellectual maturity. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
41. Heinze, M. C., & Grisso, T. (1996). Review of instruments assessing parenting competencies used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 14, 293–313.
42. Hibbard, S. (2003). A critique of Lilienfeld et al.'s (2000) “The scientific status of projective techniques.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 260–271.
43. Hibbard, S., Farmer, L., Wells, C., & Difillipo, E. (1994). Validation of Cramer's defense mechanism manual for the TAT. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 197–210.
44. Hiller, J. B., Rosenthal, R., Bornstein, R. F., Berry, D. T. R., & Brunell-Neuleib, S. (1999). A comparative meta-analysis of Rorschach and MMPI validity. Psychological Assessment, 11, 278–296.
45. Hunsley, J., Lee, C. M., & Wood, J. M. (2003). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. In S. O. Lilienfeld, J. M. Lohr, & S. J. Lynn (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in contemporary clinical psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
46. John A. v. Bridget M., 791 N.Y.S.2d 421 (2005).
47. Jurow, G., & Schaul, B. (2005). Custody evaluations: Recommendations about recommendations. New York Law Journal, 234, 4–10.
48. Kahill, S. (1984). Human figure drawing in adults: An update of the empirical evidence, 1967–1982. Canadian Psychology, 25, 269–292.
49. Kendall-Tackett, K. A., & Watson, M. W. (1992). Use of anatomical dolls by Boston-area professionals. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 423–428.
50. Koocher, G. P., Goodman, G. S., White, C. S., Friedrich, W. N., Sivan, A. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (1996). Psychological science and the use of anatomically detailed dolls in child sexual-abuse assessments. Psychological Bulletin, 188, 199–222.
51. Lally, S. J. (2001). Should human figure drawings be admitted into court? Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 135–149.
52. Lampel, A. K. (1999). Use of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III in evaluating child custody litigants. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 17, 19–31.
53. Lie, G., & Inman, A. (1991). The use of anatomical dolls as assessment and evidentiary tools. Social Work, 36, 396–399.
54. Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27–66.
55. Loevinger, J. (1987). Paradigms of personality. New York: Freeman.
56. McCann, J. T., Flens, J. R., Campagna, V., Collman, P., Lazzaro, T., & Connor, E. (2001). The MCMI-III in child custody evaluations: A normative study. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 27–44.
57. Medoff, D. (1999). MMPI-2 validity scales in child custody evaluations: Clinical versus statistical significance. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 409–411.
58. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
59. Meyer, G. J. (2001). Evidence to correct misperceptions about Rorschach norms. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 389–396.
60. Millon, T. (1997). Manual for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-Three (MCMI-III) (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
61. Murray, H. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62. Ornduff, S. R., & Kelsey, R. M. (1996). Object relations of sexually and physically abused female children: A TAT analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 91–105.
63. Otto, R. K., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., & Edens, J. F. (2003). Child custody evaluation: Research and practice. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & A. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 179–208). New York: Wiley.
64. Otto, R. K., & Collins, R. P. (1995). Use of the MMPI-2/MMPI-A in child custody evaluations. In Y. Ben-Porath, J. R. Graham, G. C. Hall, R. D. Hirschman, & M. S. Zaragoza (Eds.), Forensic applications of the MMPI-2 (pp. 222–252). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65. Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F., & Barcus, E. H. (2000). The use of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 312–340.
66. Pistole, D. R., & Ornduff, S. R. (1994). TAT assessment of sexually abused girls: An analysis of manifest content. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 211–222.
67. Posthuma, A. B., & Harper, J. F. (1998). Comparison of MMPI-2 responses of child custody and personal injury litigants. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 437–443.
68. Riethmiller, R. J., & Handler, L. (1997). The great figure drawing controversy: The integration of research and clinical practice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 488–496.
69. Rogers, R., & Ewing, C. (2003). The prohibition of ultimate opinions: A misguided enterprise. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 65–75.
70. Rogers, R., Salekin, R., & Sewell, K. (1999). Validation of the Millon Clinical Mutiaxial Inventory for axis II disorders: Does it meet the Daubert standard? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 425–443.
71. Rossini, E., & Moretti, R. (1997). Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) interpretation: Practice recommendations from a survey of clinical psychology doctoral programs accredited by the American Psychological Association. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 393–398.
72. Sattler, J. M. (1998). Clinical and forensic interviewing of children and families: Guidelines for the mental health, education, pediatric, and child maltreatment fields. La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.
73. Scribner, C. M., & Handler, L. (1987). The interpreter's personality in draw-a-person interpretation: A study of interpersonal style. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 112–122.
74. Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Haroian, J. (1999). Current nonpatient data for the Rorschach, WAIS-R, and MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 305–316.
75. Siegel, J. C. (1996). Traditional MMPI-2 validity indicators and initial presentation in custody evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14, 55–63.
76. Skinner, L. J., & Berry, K. K. (1993). Anatomically detailed dolls and the evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: Psychometric considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 399–421.
77. Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140–154.
78. Strong, D. R., Greene, R. L., Hoppe, C., Johnston, T., & Olesen, T. (1999). Taxometric analysis of impression management and self-deception on the MMPI-2 in child-custody litigants. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 1–18.
79. Tillbrook, C., Mumley, D., & Grisso, T. (2003). Avoiding expert opinions on the ultimate legal question: The case for integrity. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3(3), 77–87.
80. Tippins, T. M. (2005). Custody evaluations, part XI: “Daubert” and the rise of empiricism. New York Law Journal, 3–12.
81. Tippins, T. M., & Wittmann, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43, 193–218.
82. Vitacco, M. J., & Rogers, R. (in press). Psychopathy and response styles in sex offenders. In F. Saleh, A. Grudzinskas, & J. Bradford (Eds.), Sex offenders: Identification, risk assessment, treatment, and legal issues. New York: Oxford University Press.
83. Waller, E. M., & Daniel, A. (2004). Purpose and utility of child custody evaluations: From the perspective of judges. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 32(1), 5–27.
84. Weiner, I. B. (2005). The utility of Rorschach assessment in clinical and forensic practice. Independent Practitioner, 25(2), 76–83.
85. Westen, D. (1991). Clinical assessment of object relations using the TAT. Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 56–74.
86. Winter, D. G., & Stewart, A. J. (1977). Power motive reliability as a function of retest instructions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 436–440.
87. Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Garb, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (2001). Problems with the norms of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: Methodological and conceptual considerations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 397–402.
88. Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Garb, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (in press). The controversy over Exner's Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The critics speak. Independent Practitioner.
89. Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Lilienfeld, S., & Garb, H. (2003). What's wrong with the Rorschach? Science confronts the controversial Inkblot Test. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
90. Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., & Stejskal, W. J. (1996). The Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A critical examination. Psychological Science, 7(1), 3–10.