ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT SELECTION SHOULD BE GUIDED BY VALIDITY ANALYSIS NOT PROFESSIONAL PLEBISCITE: RESPONSE TO A FLAWED SURVEY

In July, 2011, the Family Court Review published an article by Ackerman and Pritzl that purported to provide new data reflecting the current practices of custody evaluators. Regrettably, as a result of flawed methodology and a deficient legal analysis, the data reported, the interpretations offered,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Family court review 2012-07, Vol.50 (3), p.502-507
Main Authors: Martindale, David A., Tippins, Timothy M., Ben-Porath, Yossef S., Wittmann, Jeffrey P., Austin, William G.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
admissibility
Attitudes
CHILD CUSTODY
custody evaluation practices
Custody of children
Domestic relations
Evaluation
EVIDENCE
evidentiary standards
FAMILY LAW
LEGAL SYSTEM
Psychologists
selection of assessment instruments
survey data
Surveys
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In July, 2011, the Family Court Review published an article by Ackerman and Pritzl that purported to provide new data reflecting the current practices of custody evaluators. Regrettably, as a result of flawed methodology and a deficient legal analysis, the data reported, the interpretations offered, and the conclusions provided can only mislead courts, attorneys, and custody evaluators as to the present state of custody evaluation practices. This response will detail the flaws in the Ackerman and Pritzl article and explain why their conclusions should not be accepted either within the custody evaluation community or within the legal system.
ISSN:1531-2445
1744-1617
DOI:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01466.x