Assessment Critique: Hired gun or dispassionate opinion
Assessment Critique: Hired gun or dispassionate
By Gary Direnfeld, MSW, RSW
If a custody/access assessment provides recommendations:
1. That do not make sense in view of the data
2. Have serious procedural issues or
3. May have been compromised by assessor bias
then, an opinion on the reliability and integrity of the assessment report could
If you are dissatisfied with a custody/access assessment, an assessment critique
may turn up legitimate reasons to discredit it, providing an opportunity to
reintroduce your position.
The value of the assessment critique may weigh heavily on the credibility of the
evaluator and the process of evaluation.
While there are no standards by which to critique an assessment, several
professional disciplines do set out minimal standards of practice for actual
custody and access assessments. These various standards of practice should form
the basis of a credible critique as they provide the measure against which the
assessment may in part be weighed. It is important to note that as each
professional discipline has itís own standards of practice; the evaluator should
be familiar with several and report the standards used as the basis of the
evaluation. As well, it can be important that the evaluator review the
assessment against the standard of practice set out specifically by the
assessorís own professional discipline. Using such standards of practice as the
measure improves the view that the evaluator is objective in the undertaking.
Beyond determining that the assessment was conducted in a manner consistent with
standards of practice, the evaluator next considers the data reported with a
view to determining appropriate linkages to stated recommendations. In other
words, the recommendations must make sense in light of the data reported.
Furthermore, the recommendations should be consistent with recent social science
literature concerning matters of attachment, child development, parental
conflict, and other issues like abuse or violence in its various forms. If the
recommendations are not supported by research, the evaluator can introduce
research to support an alternate opinion to that offered by the assessment. The
use of research by the evaluator improves the view that the alternate opinion
offered is dispassionate.
Lastly, the reputation of the evaluator will figure into the credibility of the
opinion provided. If it can be shown that the evaluator has a history of always
finding fault with assessments, this can play into a perception of bias on the
part of the evaluator and diminish the value of the opinion. Whatís more, if it
can be shown that there were several drafts of the evaluatorís report and these
were transferred between the referral source and the evaluator, it may be argued
that the opinion of the evaluator was coached, again diminishing the value of
the opinion as independent.
It is important to distinguish between a solid assessment critique and a case
consultation. If what is requested is a case consultation, than what transpires
between the consultant and the lawyer may remain private and the consultantís
opinion likely wonít be entered at court. The lawyer may benefit from a private
consultation. However, if an assessment critique is requested and there is a
likelihood it will be introduced to the courts, then the integrity thereof
should be as beyond reproach as the actual assessment.
A dispassionate opinion carries greater credibility than a hired gun. Donít
shoot yourself in the foot!