Re: Evaluating Abuse Cases

["James E. Hord. Jr., Ph.D." <DrHord@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark,
I don't know if we would have a disagreement or not.  My earlier comments
were in response to avoiding certain tests that would be attacked in court.
 I decide, not the opposing attorney, what tests are useful to me.

In responding to referrals of child abusers, you are correct in assuming
that there is no "test" that will answer that question... nor will there
ever be.  My evaluations are focused on the personality adjustment, balance
and stability of the client from which various assumptions may or may not
flow.  Never will such an evaluation provide "clear empirical" findings as
to the risk, but it is as close as we can come.  What I am saying here is
that the specific purpose of such testing is to provide insight about the
individual, in the specific population, but it is not to answere the
valuable, but simplistic question of risk for child abuse.  That knowledge
does not exist.  

Finally, although I would agree that the phrase is bastardized, "clinical
judgement" is always going to be stronger than any test score.

Warmly,
Jim Hord




	If anyone is aware of any empirical evidence that projective tests,
>or any other personality test, offer any incremental predictive validity in
>child abuse cases, I'd love to see it.  In the absence of this, I must
>respectfully disagree with the author who suggested that he could give any
>test he pleases.  My reading of our ethical requirements is that
>psychologists should only use tests which have clear empirical support for
>the specific purposes and with the specific population where they are used.
>I think we owe our clients, our courts, and our CPS systems something better
>than "clincal judgement," regardless of whether or not its haphazardly
>butressed with MMPI's and Rorschachs.
>
>Mark Chaffin, Ph.D.