Mark L. Goldstein, Ph.D.
There has been an increasing controversy about the use of mental health experts in family court proceedings. In particular, there have been questions about the use of psychological tests in assessing child custody issues. Evidence regarding the use of psychological tests in family court is limited.
Psychologists conducting child custody evaluations are faced with the complex task of applying psychological test data with interviews, observations and collateral information, with the ultimate goal of addressing the best interests of the child. Defensiveness and minimization are common response styles of parents undergoing an evaluation, resulting in underreporting of psychological symptoms and an attempt to portray oneself in a more positive light. This is certainly true of the MMPI-2 and the MCMI-III, the two most widely used objective personality tests used in custody evaluations. In addition, these instruments have additional problems in that there has been minimal research on the utility of the MMPI-II or MCMI-III with family court litigants. These individuals often have an elevation in current stressors, which may impact some scales (e.g. Pd scale). The MCMI-III also has limited construct validity and tends to over-identify psychopathology.
The Rorschach has been criticized for questionable reliability and validity, inaccurate norms and overestimation of psychopathology, particularly with children. Other projective tests, including the TAT and other apperceptive instruments, as well as projective drawings and sentence completion tests have also been criticized for their lack of norms, inability to detect psychopathology, inadequate reliability and validity, lack of standardization and differential administration.
There have also been a number of forensic instruments designed specifically for family court evaluations. The Bricklin Perceptual Scales, Perception of Relationships Test, Parent Awareness of Skills Survey and Parent Perception of Child Profile have been criticized for their psychometric deficits, including absence of or incomplete norms, validity and reliability issues and scoring and administration procedures. Other instruments, including the Parent Child Relationship Inventory, Parenting Stress Index and Family Relationship Inventory have had minimal research.
The best practice appears to utilize a number of measures, including psychological tests. Using psychological tests to corroborate interview data certainly seems reasonable, although psychologists need to be aware of the ethical guidelines and be prepared to defend the use of specific psychological instruments.
Selected References
Archer, P, Buffington-Vollum, J, Stredny, R and Handel, R (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87 (1), 84-94.
Erand, R (2007). Picking cherries with blinders on: a comment on Erickson et al. (2007) regarding the use of tests in family court. Family Court Review, 45, 175-184.
Erickson, S, Lilenfeld, S and Vitacco, M (2007). A critical examination of the suitability and limitations of psychological tests in family court. Family Court Review, 45, 157-174.
Erickson, S, Lilenfeld, S and Vitacco, M (2007). Failing the burden of proof: science and ethics of projective tests in custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 45, 185-192.
Hilsenroth, M and Stricker, G (2004). A consideration of challenges to psychological assessment instruments used in forensic settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83 (2), 141-153.
Shapiro, D and Walker, L (2007). Forensic assessment. Independent Practitioner, Spring, 78-84.
Sultan, S, Andronikof, A, Reveillere, C and Lemmel, G (2006). A Rorschach stability study in a nonpatient adult sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87 (3), 330-348.