000			02629nab a2200253Ia 4500
001			112857
005			20250625151156.0
008			110331s2001 eng
022			_a1350-2778
040			_aWSS _dAFV
100			_aRichards-Ward, Llewelyn _91991
245			_aDefenders of process or 'shrink-wrapping'? The critique _cRichards-Ward, Llewelyn
260			_aWellington _bButterworths _c2001
365			_a00 _b0
520			_aThis 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.
650	2	7	_2FVC _aCHILDREN _9127
650	2	7	_aFAMILY COURT _9241
650	2	7	_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_2FVC _aSOCIAL WORK PRACTICE _9562
651		4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
500			_aButterfields Family Law Journal 3(12) December 2001 : 303-306
773	0		_tButterfields Family Law Journal 3(12) December 2001 : 303-306
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE
999			_c2196 _d2196