Defenders of process or 'shrink-wrapping'? The critique (Record no. 2196)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02629nab a2200253Ia 4500
001 - CONTROL NUMBER
control field 112857
005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION
control field 20250625151156.0
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 110331s2001 eng
022 ## - INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SERIAL NUMBER
International Standard Serial Number 1350-2778
040 ## - CATALOGING SOURCE
Original cataloging agency WSS
Modifying agency AFV
100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Richards-Ward, Llewelyn
9 (RLIN) 1991
245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Defenders of process or 'shrink-wrapping'? The critique
Statement of responsibility, etc Richards-Ward, Llewelyn
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT)
Place of publication, distribution, etc Wellington
Name of publisher, distributor, etc Butterworths
Date of publication, distribution, etc 2001
365 ## - TRADE PRICE
Price type code 00
Price amount 0
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc This article focuses on issues relating to the testing and creditability of psychological reports requested by the Family Court and asks whether second opinions or critiques of such reports significantly advances the interests of the child. The author acknowledges the need for accountability in the psychologist report writing process, but argues that the testable nature of psychological reports allows well-informed cross-examination, and this is seen as a preferable alternative, both for the child's sake and in avoiding alienation of psychologists as expert witnesses. In discussing psychological reports as testable evidence, the concept of process is defined as the reliability of the data, whether it can be replicated under variables of time, person, place, measure, question and so forth, while the interdependent concept of content relates to data and opinions derived, presented, and examined in the report, such as bonding, parenting capability, and other information requested by the court. Examination of process reveals how enduring data are in relation to various conditions, while review of content reveals how accurate or reflective of an actual or typical state they are. The content of the report is what is being sought, while the process is a mechanism to achieve this, and, the author argues, a valid critique must address some or all aspects of process and content issues. Three incremental steps are put forward to measure the validity of both process and content: content validity, convergent and discriminant validity, and construct validity. The article also discusses guidelines used by psychologists and report writers in assessment of witnesses, time delays for children, and privacy of disclosed information from children. Recommendations for the future of the process are also suggested.
500 ## - GENERAL NOTE
General note Butterfields Family Law Journal 3(12) December 2001 : 303-306
650 27 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Source of heading or term FVC
Topical term or geographic name as entry element CHILDREN
9 (RLIN) 127
650 27 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element FAMILY COURT
9 (RLIN) 241
650 27 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Source of heading or term FVC
Topical term or geographic name as entry element JUSTICE
9 (RLIN) 333
650 27 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Source of heading or term FVC
Topical term or geographic name as entry element SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
9 (RLIN) 562
651 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME
Geographic name NEW ZEALAND
9 (RLIN) 2588
773 0# - HOST ITEM ENTRY
Title Butterfields Family Law Journal 3(12) December 2001 : 303-306
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Source of classification or shelving scheme Dewey Decimal Classification
Koha item type Journal article

No items available.