Laypersons, including lawyers and judges, may attempt to misuse or misinterpret psychological testing in court in several ways. Testing can present an aura of complete objectivity and can seem to be the most important piece of data rather than an integrated part of a whole evalua-tion. In particular, computerized reports may give a false sense of scientific certainty and may be unduly impressive to a nonclinician. Attorneys sometimes try to use individ-ual responses or tests selectively. For example, an often-encountered line of questioning in testimony about the MMPI-2 involves asking how a client responded to partic-ular items. Clinicians who fail to correct this approach support a mistaken view that a single scale or score, taken out of context, can be considered meaningful. It is the responsibility of clinicians to do their best to see that those involved understand the proper use of testing.
CASE EXAMPLE EPILOGUES
Case Example 1
The psychologist prepares an extensive report that includes a separate section on test results and inte-grates the results with the rest of the information
gathered. On the basis of her familiarity with the laws of her state regarding termination of parental rights, she concludes that the children have extensive, seri-ous, and complicated problems that will require intensive attention and monitoring by a parent, as well as long-term treatment. She concludes that the mother’s concern about her children seems only to reflect her own needs. Her drug problem and long-standing interpersonal difficulties do not allow her to provide the level of care required by her children, and the psychologist recommends termination of parental rights.
Case Example 2
The psychologist in this case has gone far beyond the test data by making speculative statements that have little grounding in objective data. His use of interpre-tations of the projective tests and drawings as clear-cut signs of an actual occurrence is inappropriate. On the basis of these insufficient and faulty data, the court moves to cut off the father’s access to his chil-dren. The children are extremely upset at this and begin to show symptoms of depression and anxiety.
The father’s attorney calls in a new evaluator, who does extensive interviewing and testing of the father, but who is denied access to the mother or the children now in her custody. The new evaluator concludes that there is an insufficient basis to arrive at a finding of sexual abuse in this case. The judge, having ruled, is not swayed; citing the earlier court-ordered evaluation of all parties, parenting time with the father is not reinstated. The father files a malpractice suit and an ethics complaint against the first psychologist.
Case Example 3
The psychologist carefully reviews the previous test battery given to the son. She notes that there was some concern about the boy’s social skills and that his level of anxiety appears to have increased. The con-cerns about body integrity and danger so prominent in the current assessment were not apparent in the ear-lier testing. Academic functioning has shown marked impairment; as tests show, he has fallen behind his classmates in most areas. She and the psychiatrist can identify no other life events that may have contrib-uted to this change, and they conclude that what the child is experiencing appears to have occurred after being burned. Neither interview nor test data support a claim of damage to the daughter, who appears to be dealing successfully with the accident and is function-ing normally.
ACTION GUIDELINES
A. Know the law.
B. Use a qualified evaluator.
C. Select and administer appropriate tests.
1. Give a battery of tests.
2. Use tests appropriate to ages of children and to issues involved in the evaluation.
3. Administer tests uniformly to all parties.
4. Administer tests in a standardized fashion within protocols provided by manuals.
5. Use tests that are well researched and docu-mented.
6. Avoid tests without adequate validation or that too clearly telegraph their intent.
D. Interpret cautiously.
1. Integrate data with other clinical findings and doc-umentation.
2. Do not rely solely on computerized interpreta-tions.
3. Avoid overinterpretation of single scores or responses.
4. Keep interpretations close to the data, avoiding remote inferences.
E. Report responsibly.
1. Provide a balanced view of each party.
2. Include all relevant data, even data that do not support conclusions and recommendations.
3. Assume subjects will have access to the report.
REFERENCES
Abidin RR: Parenting Stress Index. Odessa, FL, Psychological Assessment Resources, 1995
Achenbach R: Conceptualizations of developmental psycho-pathology, in Handbook of Developmental Psychopatholo-gy. Edited by Lewis M, Miller S. New York, Plenum, 1991, pp 3–14
Ackerman MJ, Schoendorf K: ASPECT: Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody—Manual. Los An-geles, CA, Western Psychological Services, 1992
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1994
Barkley RA: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, 2nd Edi-tion. New York, Guilford, 1998
Bayley N: Bayley Scales of Infant Development—2nd Edition.
San Antonio, TX, Psychological Corporation, 1993 Bellak L: The Thematic Apperception Test, the Children’s
Ap-perception Test, and the Senior ApAp-perception Technique in Clinical Use. Orlando, FL, Academic Press, 1986
Bricklin B, Elliot G: Critical Child Custody Evaluation Issues:
Questions and Answers. Test Manual Supplement for the BPS, PORT, PASS, PPCP. Furlong, PA, Village Publishing, 1997
Briere J: Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children. Odessa, FL, Psychological Assessment Resources, 1996
Burns RC: Self-Growth in Families: Kinetic Family Drawings Research and Application. New York, Brunner/Mazel, 1982
Butcher JN, William CL: Essentials of MMPI-2 and MMPI-A Interpretation. Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1992
Cattell RB, Cattell AK, Cattell HEP: Sixteen Personality Fac-tors Questionnaire. San Antonio, TX, Psychological Cor-poration, 1993
Cohen M: Children’s Memory Scale. San Antonio, TX, Psycho-logical Corporation, 1997
Costa PT, McCrae RR: NEO PI Manual. Odessa, FL, Psycholog-ical Assessment Resources, 1992
Costantino G, Malgady RG, Rogler LH: Tell-Me-A-Story: Man-ual. Los Angeles, CA, Western Psychological Association, 1988
Exner JE: The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System, Vols I–III.
New York, Wiley, 1995
Friedrich WN: Psychotherapy of Sexually Abused Children and Their Families. New York, Norton, 1990
Friedrich WN: Child Sexual Behavior Inventory. Odessa, FL, Psychological Assessment Resources, 1997
Gardner RA: Family Evaluation in Child Custody Litigation.
Caskill, NJ, Creative Therapeutics, 1982
Gerard AB: Parent-Child Relationship Inventory. Los Angeles, CA, Western Psychological Services, 1994
Golden CJ: Manual for the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Children’s Revision. Los Angeles, CA, Western Psychological Services, 1986
Goodenough FL, Harris DB: Studies in the psychology of chil-dren’s drawings: II. Psychol Bull 47:369–433, 1950 Gough HG: The California Psychological Inventory
Adminis-trator’s Guide. Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press, 1987
Greenberg SA, Shuman DW: Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Re-search and Practice 28:50–57, 1997
Grisso T: Instruments for Assessing, Understanding, and Ap-preciation of Miranda Rights. Sarasota, FL, Professional Resource Press, 1998
Heinze MC, Grisso T: Review of instruments assessing parent-ing competencies used in child custody evaluations. Behav-ioral Sciences and the Law 14:293–313, 1996
Kaufman AS, Kaufman HL: Interpretive Manual for the Kauf-man Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), 1983 Lachar D: Personality Inventory for Children. Los Angeles, CA,
Western Psychological Services, 1989
Lachar D, Gruber CT: Personality Inventory for Youth. Los An-geles, CA, Western Psychological Services, 1995
Lynn DB: Structured Doll Play Test Manual of Instructions.
Boulder, CO, Test Developments, 1959
Miller LJ: Miller Assessment for Preschoolers. San Antonio, TX, Psychological Corporation, 1982
Millon T: MACI Manual. Minneapolis, MN, NCS, 1993 Millon T: MCMI-III Manual. Minneapolis, MN, NCS, 1994 Milner JS: The Child Abuse Potential Inventory: Manual.
Web-ster, NC, Psytec, 1986
Murray HA: Thematic Apperception Test Manual. Los Angeles, CA, Western Psychological Services, 1971
Palmer JO: The Psychological Assessment of Children, 2nd Edi-tion. New York, Wiley, 1983
Reitan RM, Davison LA: Clinical Neuropsychology: Current Status and Applications. Washington, DC, Winston, 1974 Reynolds CR, Bigler ED: Test of Memory and Learning. Austin,
TX, Pro-Ed, 1994
Reynolds CR, Kamphaus RW: Handbook of Psychological and Education Assessment of Children, Vol I: Intelligence and Achievement; Vol II: Personality, Behavior and Context.
New York, Guilford, 1990
Roberts GE: Interpretive Handbook for the Roberts Appercep-tion Test for Children. Los Angeles, CA, Western Psycho-logical Services, 1994
Sparrow SS, Balla DA, Cicchetti DV: Vineland Adaptive Behav-ior Scales: Survey Form Manual. Circle Pines, MN, Amer-ican Guidance Service, 1984
Wechsler D: Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelli-gence—Revised. San Antonio, TX, Psychological Corpora-tion, 1989
Wechsler D: WAIS-III Administration and Scoring Manual. San Antonio, TX, Psychological Corporation, 1997
Wechsler D: Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—Second Edition Manual. San Antonio, TX, Psychological Corpora-tion, 2001
Wilkinson GS: Wide Range Achievement Test—3 Administra-tion Manual. Wilmington, DE, Wide Range, 1993 Woodcock RW, Johnson MB: Manual for the
Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery—Revised. Allen, TX, DLM Teaching Resources, 1989
59