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!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4866-cb3573d4c36393329350c3a158389cf699224e0e43cd7318ac5860badd6d90243
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4866-cb3573d4c36393329350c3a158389cf699224e0e43cd7318ac5860badd6d90243
container_end_page 507
container_issue 3
container_start_page 502
container_title Family court review
container_volume 50
creator Martindale, David A.
Tippins, Timothy M.
Ben-Porath, Yossef S.
Wittmann, Jeffrey P.
Austin, William G.
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01466.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wiley_istex</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_istex_primary_ark_67375_WNG_PKF8TQ04_P</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20200416028732</informt_id><sourcerecordid>FCRE1466</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4866-cb3573d4c36393329350c3a158389cf699224e0e43cd7318ac5860badd6d90243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkM1um0AURlHVSk3TvsO8AHT-GKCLSsQebNQpUAYSeXU1AZzgJrEFSHU2ffYOdptNN-1s5pPu_Y50j-Mggj1i38edRwLOXSJI4FFMqIcJF8I7vnIuXgavbfYZcSnn_lvn3TjusN30_fDC-RlrLbX-KrMKpZmuyvoUtVRyUaV5hvQ6r9USXUm0qtOltGmDrmOVLtNqg-IsVhudapTlFSrKPLEoW4oVKpS8SvUireQnVEpd5JmWqMpRjBIV31iMrstruXnvvNmah7H78Pu_dOpEVou1q_JVuoiV2_BQCLe5ZX7AWt4wwSLGaMR83DBD_JCFUbMVUUQp73DHWdMGjISm8UOBb03bijbClLNLJzxzm2E_jkO3hcPQP5rhGQiG2SPsYNYFsy6YPcLJIxxt9fO5-qN_6J7_uQfJopRztAB1BgyP_QTmrh8PE9xP02GE1kwG-qft_jTaD3fQ7vsZzRgRf1YpphhzIjANA0Ytbv03buzM0Nz_P8o9o_px6o4vp5nhO4iABT7cZCsoviRh9Q1zKNgvJYmwpA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT SELECTION SHOULD BE GUIDED BY VALIDITY ANALYSIS NOT PROFESSIONAL PLEBISCITE: RESPONSE TO A FLAWED SURVEY</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Martindale, David A. ; Tippins, Timothy M. ; Ben-Porath, Yossef S. ; Wittmann, Jeffrey P. ; Austin, William G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Martindale, David A. ; Tippins, Timothy M. ; Ben-Porath, Yossef S. ; Wittmann, Jeffrey P. ; Austin, William G.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1531-2445</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1744-1617</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01466.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>Family court review, 2012-07, Vol.50 (3), p.502-507</ispartof><rights>2012 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4866-cb3573d4c36393329350c3a158389cf699224e0e43cd7318ac5860badd6d90243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4866-cb3573d4c36393329350c3a158389cf699224e0e43cd7318ac5860badd6d90243</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Martindale, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tippins, Timothy M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ben-Porath, Yossef S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittmann, Jeffrey P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Austin, William G.</creatorcontrib><title>ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT SELECTION SHOULD BE GUIDED BY VALIDITY ANALYSIS NOT PROFESSIONAL PLEBISCITE: RESPONSE TO A FLAWED SURVEY</title><title>Family court review</title><description>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.</description><subject>admissibility</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>CHILD CUSTODY</subject><subject>custody evaluation practices</subject><subject>Custody of children</subject><subject>Domestic relations</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>EVIDENCE</subject><subject>evidentiary standards</subject><subject>FAMILY LAW</subject><subject>LEGAL SYSTEM</subject><subject>Psychologists</subject><subject>selection of assessment instruments</subject><subject>survey data</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><issn>1531-2445</issn><issn>1744-1617</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqVkM1um0AURlHVSk3TvsO8AHT-GKCLSsQebNQpUAYSeXU1AZzgJrEFSHU2ffYOdptNN-1s5pPu_Y50j-Mggj1i38edRwLOXSJI4FFMqIcJF8I7vnIuXgavbfYZcSnn_lvn3TjusN30_fDC-RlrLbX-KrMKpZmuyvoUtVRyUaV5hvQ6r9USXUm0qtOltGmDrmOVLtNqg-IsVhudapTlFSrKPLEoW4oVKpS8SvUireQnVEpd5JmWqMpRjBIV31iMrstruXnvvNmah7H78Pu_dOpEVou1q_JVuoiV2_BQCLe5ZX7AWt4wwSLGaMR83DBD_JCFUbMVUUQp73DHWdMGjISm8UOBb03bijbClLNLJzxzm2E_jkO3hcPQP5rhGQiG2SPsYNYFsy6YPcLJIxxt9fO5-qN_6J7_uQfJopRztAB1BgyP_QTmrh8PE9xP02GE1kwG-qft_jTaD3fQ7vsZzRgRf1YpphhzIjANA0Ytbv03buzM0Nz_P8o9o_px6o4vp5nhO4iABT7cZCsoviRh9Q1zKNgvJYmwpA</recordid><startdate>201207</startdate><enddate>201207</enddate><creator>Martindale, David A.</creator><creator>Tippins, Timothy M.</creator><creator>Ben-Porath, Yossef S.</creator><creator>Wittmann, Jeffrey P.</creator><creator>Austin, William G.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201207</creationdate><title>ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT SELECTION SHOULD BE GUIDED BY VALIDITY ANALYSIS NOT PROFESSIONAL PLEBISCITE: RESPONSE TO A FLAWED SURVEY</title><author>Martindale, David A. ; Tippins, Timothy M. ; Ben-Porath, Yossef S. ; Wittmann, Jeffrey P. ; Austin, William G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4866-cb3573d4c36393329350c3a158389cf699224e0e43cd7318ac5860badd6d90243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>admissibility</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>CHILD CUSTODY</topic><topic>custody evaluation practices</topic><topic>Custody of children</topic><topic>Domestic relations</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>EVIDENCE</topic><topic>evidentiary standards</topic><topic>FAMILY LAW</topic><topic>LEGAL SYSTEM</topic><topic>Psychologists</topic><topic>selection of assessment instruments</topic><topic>survey data</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Martindale, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tippins, Timothy M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ben-Porath, Yossef S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittmann, Jeffrey P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Austin, William G.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Family court review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Martindale, David A.</au><au>Tippins, Timothy M.</au><au>Ben-Porath, Yossef S.</au><au>Wittmann, Jeffrey P.</au><au>Austin, William G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT SELECTION SHOULD BE GUIDED BY VALIDITY ANALYSIS NOT PROFESSIONAL PLEBISCITE: RESPONSE TO A FLAWED SURVEY</atitle><jtitle>Family court review</jtitle><date>2012-07</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>502</spage><epage>507</epage><pages>502-507</pages><issn>1531-2445</issn><eissn>1744-1617</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01466.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1531-2445
ispartof Family court review, 2012-07, Vol.50 (3), p.502-507
issn 1531-2445
1744-1617
language eng
recordid cdi_istex_primary_ark_67375_WNG_PKF8TQ04_P
source Wiley
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
title ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT SELECTION SHOULD BE GUIDED BY VALIDITY ANALYSIS NOT PROFESSIONAL PLEBISCITE: RESPONSE TO A FLAWED SURVEY
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T00%3A48%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_istex&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=ASSESSMENT%20INSTRUMENT%20SELECTION%20SHOULD%20BE%20GUIDED%20BY%20VALIDITY%20ANALYSIS%20NOT%20PROFESSIONAL%20PLEBISCITE:%20RESPONSE%20TO%20A%20FLAWED%20SURVEY&rft.jtitle=Family%20court%20review&rft.au=Martindale,%20David%20A.&rft.date=2012-07&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=502&rft.epage=507&rft.pages=502-507&rft.issn=1531-2445&rft.eissn=1744-1617&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01466.x&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_istex%3EFCRE1466%3C/wiley_istex%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4866-cb3573d4c36393329350c3a158389cf699224e0e43cd7318ac5860badd6d90243%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20200416028732&rfr_iscdi=true