When I began performing forensic psychological evaluations, my practice was guided by the sobering realization that my words could profoundly impact someone’s life.
That’s what led me to start a special file. I call it the “Oh No!” file.
It’s filled with psychological evaluations I have reviewed that are filled with procedural or even ethical errors by my peers. I browse through the “Oh No!” file from time to time to remind myself that preparing a solid, relevant and reliable forensic evaluation is a tough job. My review also reminds me that some of my reports belong in the file, too.
Humility and diligence are important factors in the work that I perform as a forensic psychologist.
Over the years, I’ve learned that many attorneys struggle to determine the factors that make a “good” or “bad” psychological evaluation. Occasionally, a report is so biased or flawed that it’s obviously unreliable. But often, mistakes that lead to a flawed report are subtle. As you read this series on psychological report errors, you’ll learn how to accurately scrutinize the next psychological evaluation that comes across your desk.
Mistake #1: Unclear Orders
The court has a specific concern when it orders a psychological evaluation. An order with a clear referral question provides clarity to me about the information that the court desires, and structures my evaluation.
Here is an example of a clear order and referral questions: “It is therefore ordered that Dr. James Davidson be appointed to conduct a psychological evaluation of John Doe. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to assess the extent to which John Doe exhibits behavior relating to a risk of family violence, or has any psychological condition that would raise concern about his ability to safely care for his minor child.” The resulting evaluation would focus on the risk of intimate partner and family violence as well as parenting factors.
A recent case illustrates the mistake of preparing an evaluation based on an unclear order from the court. Here’s an example: “It is therefore ordered that Dr. James Davidson is appointed to interview, examine, evaluate and consult with John Doe.” That was it! No referral question. No focus. It’s an open invitation to go hunting for psychological jackalopes.
Since it was entirely unclear what kind of information the court was seeking, I requested clarification of the order by the judge and with notification of the attorneys. After everyone provided their thoughts, the final order read as follows: “It is therefore ordered that James Davidson Ph.D. is appointed to interview, examine, evaluate and consult with John Doe to prepare a psychological evaluation. The scope of the evaluation shall be to assess the psychological, emotional, sexual or physical risk, if any, of John Doe’s contact with or proximity to the minor child, ABC.”
Notice how much more clear and concise the revised order is?
Court orders in family law should be specific to the psychological issue at hand, which may include visitation, access, emotional stability or risk of intimate partner violence. The Texas Administrative Code (465.18(e)(3) states “A general psychological evaluation has no focus and no defined scope. Results from such an evaluation would add nothing to any determination that would address the best interest of the child.”
A clear referral question serves the court in three ways. First, the referral question defines questions to be addressed and the scope of the evaluation. Second, the question guides the methods used for the psychological evaluation. Third, the final report provides information that accurately responds to the referral question, and thus leads to testimony that is relevant, reliable and trustworthy (General Electric v Joiner and Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals).
Forensic psychology is guided by “best practice” standards that address the importance of clear judicial orders. In addition to the Texas Administrative Code cited above, the need for clear orders and referral questions are addressed by the Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations of the Association of Family and Conciliation Court, the Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology of the APA.
The next time you request a psychological evaluation, provide the court with clear referral questions. Then see if the psychological evaluation addressed the referral questions. A good report can provide reliable and relevant information to the court. A bad report—one that doesn’t provide reliable and relevant information—should simply be rejected by the court.