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.

Butterfields Family Law Journal 3(12) December 2001 : 303-306