Child Custody Evaluations

There are several concerns with the interpretation provided above. The first is that the test scores do not tell the evaluator much about the particular person who has taken the test. The actual number provided by the computer-scoring program tells the evaluee's score compared with other people in the standardization or normative group. This score must be interpreted by the evaluator

Since the MMPI-2 results describe how a person's score on a scale compares with other people who have previously taken the test, the proper language is to explain that the score obtained from the mother suggests that she may have characteristics similar to other people with similar scores. For example, an elevated score on the Depression scale of the MMPI-2 suggests that the subject may have similar characteristics to other people who obtained elevated scores on this scale. While a high score suggests there may be depressive symptoms, this alone does not mean that this particular parent has depressive symptoms. It only means that they scored similarly to people who may have depressive symptoms.

The distinction between describing a mother as depressed and describing her score as similar to others who have been characterized as depressed is important, and not just a semantic difference with little meaning. Test results such as those obtained from the administration of the MMPI-2 do not tell us anything definitive about the person taking the test. Results tell us something about the likelihood that the person taking the test may have behavioral and/or emotional characteristics that are similar to people who are known to possess those behavioral and/or emotional characteristics. Without additional investigation, it is impossible for the evaluator to know whether or not the parent taking the MMPI-2 is, in fact, displaying the characteristics of interest. A report should include the test interpretation as described above, as well as other information that the evaluator has that either suppors or refutes the test interpretation.

Raw Data vs. the Parent/ Child Relationship

That brings us to our next point, which is critical to an attorney's understanding of how best to use psychological test results: It is not enough for an evaluator to describe a parent as depressed based upon test scores. We would also argue that it is not enough to describe a parent as depressed based upon interview data, whether it is self-reported or collateral interview data. There must be a link between the depression diagnosis or symptoms of depression and how depression affects this parent's parenting of these particular children.

In a recent seminar on the topic of the use of psychological tests in child custody evaluations, judges and attorneys were asked: Did the custody evaluations they reviewed in their cases find that the evaluator discussed the psychological test results in terms of hypotheses developed about the effects of depression on parenting? No hands were raised in the audience. Not one judge in the audience had read an evaluation in which the evaluator generated hypotheses about how this parent's depression may affect parenting of these particular children. Similarly, only two of the several dozen attorneys who attended the seminar indicated having read an evaluation that attempted to draw a link between test scores and parenting behavior.

There is a wealth of empirical research describing how specific psychological problems may affect parenting. Depressed parents are known to be at higher risk for use of corporal punishment, and display higher levels of irritability. Depressed parents also tend to be poorer supervisors of their children. These are just a few behavioral correlates associated with depression. Furthermore, children of depressed parents are also more likely than other children to exhibit a variety of psychological or behavioral difficulties. Evaluators need to not only describe the research regarding the impact of the psychological problem on parenting, and its effects on children, but also be able to describe how this particular parent's psychological difficulty impacts each of their children.

Results from empirical research most often describe group data. Using the example of parental depression as described above, there is research indicating that parents with depression are more likely to display higher levels of irritability. However, this does not mean that every parent who is depressed is irritable. It only means that, on average, parents with depression are more irritable than parents without depression. The depression finding becomes a hypothesis to be investigated further. In a sense, a hypothesis drawn from psychological test interpretation is a sign that says, “Look here.” Hypotheses generated from interpretation of test results are guideposts indicating that the evaluator should look in specific areas. The evaluator should not be limited by the hypotheses, but should recognize the usefulness of developing areas of further investigation based upon these test results and interpretation.

Based on the test results alone, the evaluator does not know whether or not the parent being evaluated in this case is displaying higher levels of irritability that adversely affect his or her children. The evaluator must investigate further by obtaining collateral information: from the children, from the parents, from direct observation of parent-child interactions, and from review of records. Evaluators should not cite only the research or only the test interpretation, but must describe what other independent data they have gathered that supports the opinion that this particular parent is displaying a level of irritability that adversely affects his or her children.

Conclusion

The take-away is that attorneys need to demand from their evaluators that, if the evaluator administers psychological tests, the results of those tests will be interpreted properly and used to generate hypotheses about parenting behavior that has an empirical foundation in the peer-reviewed literature. Finally, even if evaluators interpret the test results properly and tie the interpretation of result to empirical research, the evaluator must still address how the psychological difficulty can or does impact this parent, this parent's child or children, and/or this parent's communication with the other parent.

*****
Jonathan Gould, Ph.D, ABPP, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a board-certified forensic psychologist specializing in family law matters at the Charlotte Psychotherapy & Consultation Group, Charlotte, NC. He can be reached at [email protected]. Sol R. Rappaport, Ph.D., ABPP, is the President of the Illinois Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and is a Board Certified Clinical and Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychologist specializing in family law matters. He can be reached at [email protected].

Child custody evaluations often include administration, scoring, and interpretation of psychological tests. Custody evaluators who present results and interpretation of psychological test scores often discuss only their interpretation of the scores. For example, a parent is administered the MMPI-2. This test is scored using a computer-scoring program, which provides a series of numbers that are interpreted by the evaluator to suggest that the parent is depressed and highly anxious. Evaluators often fail to provide test scores in the report, making it difficult to determine whether the score is actually at a high level.

A recently reviewed evaluation contained the following: “The mother's scores on Scale 2 and Scale 7 were elevated. This means that the mother is depressed and anxious. It is likely that the level of depression interferes with her daily functioning. It is also likely that the mother's anxiety score suggests that she is always nervous, easily aroused and emotionally reactive.”

Interpreting the Scores

There are several concerns with the interpretation provided above. The first is that the test scores do not tell the evaluator much about the particular person who has taken the test. The actual number provided by the computer-scoring program tells the evaluee's score compared with other people in the standardization or normative group. This score must be interpreted by the evaluator

Since the MMPI-2 results describe how a person's score on a scale compares with other people who have previously taken the test, the proper language is to explain that the score obtained from the mother suggests that she may have characteristics similar to other people with similar scores. For example, an elevated score on the Depression scale of the MMPI-2 suggests that the subject may have similar characteristics to other people who obtained elevated scores on this scale. While a high score suggests there may be depressive symptoms, this alone does not mean that this particular parent has depressive symptoms. It only means that they scored similarly to people who may have depressive symptoms.

The distinction between describing a mother as depressed and describing her score as similar to others who have been characterized as depressed is important, and not just a semantic difference with little meaning. Test results such as those obtained from the administration of the MMPI-2 do not tell us anything definitive about the person taking the test. Results tell us something about the likelihood that the person taking the test may have behavioral and/or emotional characteristics that are similar to people who are known to possess those behavioral and/or emotional characteristics. Without additional investigation, it is impossible for the evaluator to know whether or not the parent taking the MMPI-2 is, in fact, displaying the characteristics of interest. A report should include the test interpretation as described above, as well as other information that the evaluator has that either suppors or refutes the test interpretation.

Raw Data vs. the Parent/ Child Relationship

That brings us to our next point, which is critical to an attorney's understanding of how best to use psychological test results: It is not enough for an evaluator to describe a parent as depressed based upon test scores. We would also argue that it is not enough to describe a parent as depressed based upon interview data, whether it is self-reported or collateral interview data. There must be a link between the depression diagnosis or symptoms of depression and how depression affects this parent's parenting of these particular children.

In a recent seminar on the topic of the use of psychological tests in child custody evaluations, judges and attorneys were asked: Did the custody evaluations they reviewed in their cases find that the evaluator discussed the psychological test results in terms of hypotheses developed about the effects of depression on parenting? No hands were raised in the audience. Not one judge in the audience had read an evaluation in which the evaluator generated hypotheses about how this parent's depression may affect parenting of these particular children. Similarly, only two of the several dozen attorneys who attended the seminar indicated having read an evaluation that attempted to draw a link between test scores and parenting behavior.

There is a wealth of empirical research describing how specific psychological problems may affect parenting. Depressed parents are known to be at higher risk for use of corporal punishment, and display higher levels of irritability. Depressed parents also tend to be poorer supervisors of their children. These are just a few behavioral correlates associated with depression. Furthermore, children of depressed parents are also more likely than other children to exhibit a variety of psychological or behavioral difficulties. Evaluators need to not only describe the research regarding the impact of the psychological problem on parenting, and its effects on children, but also be able to describe how this particular parent's psychological difficulty impacts each of their children.

Results from empirical research most often describe group data. Using the example of parental depression as described above, there is research indicating that parents with depression are more likely to display higher levels of irritability. However, this does not mean that every parent who is depressed is irritable. It only means that, on average, parents with depression are more irritable than parents without depression. The depression finding becomes a hypothesis to be investigated further. In a sense, a hypothesis drawn from psychological test interpretation is a sign that says, “Look here.” Hypotheses generated from interpretation of test results are guideposts indicating that the evaluator should look in specific areas. The evaluator should not be limited by the hypotheses, but should recognize the usefulness of developing areas of further investigation based upon these test results and interpretation.

Based on the test results alone, the evaluator does not know whether or not the parent being evaluated in this case is displaying higher levels of irritability that adversely affect his or her children. The evaluator must investigate further by obtaining collateral information: from the children, from the parents, from direct observation of parent-child interactions, and from review of records. Evaluators should not cite only the research or only the test interpretation, but must describe what other independent data they have gathered that supports the opinion that this particular parent is displaying a level of irritability that adversely affects his or her children.

Conclusion

The take-away is that attorneys need to demand from their evaluators that, if the evaluator administers psychological tests, the results of those tests will be interpreted properly and used to generate hypotheses about parenting behavior that has an empirical foundation in the peer-reviewed literature. Finally, even if evaluators interpret the test results properly and tie the interpretation of result to empirical research, the evaluator must still address how the psychological difficulty can or does impact this parent, this parent's child or children, and/or this parent's communication with the other parent.

*****
Jonathan Gould, Ph.D, ABPP, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a board-certified forensic psychologist specializing in family law matters at the Charlotte Psychotherapy & Consultation Group, Charlotte, NC. He can be reached at [email protected]. Sol R. Rappaport, Ph.D., ABPP, is the President of the Illinois Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and is a Board Certified Clinical and Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychologist specializing in family law matters. He can be reached at [email protected].