Premium
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT SELECTION SHOULD BE GUIDED BY VALIDITY ANALYSIS NOT PROFESSIONAL PLEBISCITE: RESPONSE TO A FLAWED SURVEY
Author(s) -
Martindale David A.,
Tippins Timothy M.,
BenPorath Yossef S.,
Wittmann Jeffrey P.,
Austin William G.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
family court review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.171
H-Index - 4
eISSN - 1744-1617
pISSN - 1531-2445
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01466.x
Subject(s) - psychology , distraction , test (biology) , reliability (semiconductor) , child custody , selection (genetic algorithm) , law , social psychology , applied psychology , political science , computer science , criminology , neuroscience , paleontology , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , artificial intelligence , biology
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. Key Points for the Family Court Community:• Assessment procedures and instruments used by psychologists in family law matters must be selected based upon their demonstrated reliability and validity. • As it pertains to assessment procedures and instruments, survey data that reflect frequency of use are a distraction, since the selection by test users of several of the often‐used instruments is attributable to impressive marketing, not to psychometric attributes.