The views of psychologists, lawyers, and judges on key components and the quality of child custody evaluations in Australia

Alison T. O'Neill; Kay Bussey; Christopher J. Lennings; Katie Seidler

doi:10.1111/fcre.12323

The views of psychologists, lawyers, and judges on key components and the quality of child custody evaluations in Australia

Alison T. O'Neill, Kay Bussey, Christopher J. Lennings, Katie Seidler

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This study aimed to understand the expectations of and the agreement between professional groups regarding the quality of single‐expert reports written by psychologists (known as child custody evaluations in the United States). 13 psychologists, 18 family lawyers, 26 children's lawyers, and 8 judges (N = 65) in New South Wales, Australia, rated the overall quality of reports and the quality of various components of them. Interprofessional congruence on importance ratings allowed key components to be derived. The results revealed that the overall quality of reports was rated positively, however, significant discrepancies were found between importance and quality ratings on the various components, indicating that reports fall short of expectations in many areas.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	64-78
Number of pages	15
Journal	Family court review
Volume	56
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12323
Publication status	Published - Jan 2018

Keywords

child custody evaluations
judges
lawyers
psychologists
report components
report quality
single- expert reports
survey

Access to Document

10.1111/fcre.12323

Cite this

@article{9cab240262c84a9db3902e0584be100c,

title = "The views of psychologists, lawyers, and judges on key components and the quality of child custody evaluations in Australia",

abstract = "This study aimed to understand the expectations of and the agreement between professional groups regarding the quality of single‐expert reports written by psychologists (known as child custody evaluations in the United States). 13 psychologists, 18 family lawyers, 26 children's lawyers, and 8 judges (N = 65) in New South Wales, Australia, rated the overall quality of reports and the quality of various components of them. Interprofessional congruence on importance ratings allowed key components to be derived. The results revealed that the overall quality of reports was rated positively, however, significant discrepancies were found between importance and quality ratings on the various components, indicating that reports fall short of expectations in many areas.",

keywords = "child custody evaluations, judges, lawyers, psychologists, report components, report quality, single- expert reports, survey",

author = "O'Neill, {Alison T.} and Kay Bussey and Lennings, {Christopher J.} and Katie Seidler",

year = "2018",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1111/fcre.12323",

language = "English",

volume = "56",

pages = "64--78",

journal = "Family court review",

issn = "1531-2445",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The views of psychologists, lawyers, and judges on key components and the quality of child custody evaluations in Australia

AU - O'Neill, Alison T.

AU - Bussey, Kay

AU - Lennings, Christopher J.

AU - Seidler, Katie

PY - 2018/1

Y1 - 2018/1

N2 - This study aimed to understand the expectations of and the agreement between professional groups regarding the quality of single‐expert reports written by psychologists (known as child custody evaluations in the United States). 13 psychologists, 18 family lawyers, 26 children's lawyers, and 8 judges (N = 65) in New South Wales, Australia, rated the overall quality of reports and the quality of various components of them. Interprofessional congruence on importance ratings allowed key components to be derived. The results revealed that the overall quality of reports was rated positively, however, significant discrepancies were found between importance and quality ratings on the various components, indicating that reports fall short of expectations in many areas.

AB - This study aimed to understand the expectations of and the agreement between professional groups regarding the quality of single‐expert reports written by psychologists (known as child custody evaluations in the United States). 13 psychologists, 18 family lawyers, 26 children's lawyers, and 8 judges (N = 65) in New South Wales, Australia, rated the overall quality of reports and the quality of various components of them. Interprofessional congruence on importance ratings allowed key components to be derived. The results revealed that the overall quality of reports was rated positively, however, significant discrepancies were found between importance and quality ratings on the various components, indicating that reports fall short of expectations in many areas.

KW - child custody evaluations

KW - judges

KW - lawyers

KW - psychologists

KW - report components

KW - report quality

KW - single- expert reports

KW - survey

U2 - 10.1111/fcre.12323

DO - 10.1111/fcre.12323

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 64

EP - 78

JO - Family court review

JF - Family court review

SN - 1531-2445

IS - 1

ER -

The views of psychologists, lawyers, and judges on key components and the quality of child custody evaluations in Australia

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this