Abstract: The role of the custody evaluator is perhaps one of the most controversial and risky endeavors in clinical practice. Complaints filed with licensing boards regarding a child-custody evaluation constitute the second most common reason for such an event. Although the evaluator is expected to answer for the family-law court what is in the “best interest of the child,” there is a lack of clarity on how to establish this in any empirically validated manner. Hence, practitioners must contend with a nebulous framework in formulating their methodological procedures that inherently places them at risk in an already litigious context. This study sought to qualitatively investigate patterns of practice among doctoral practitioners conducting child custody evaluations in the area of Southern California. Ten psychologists were interviewed who devoted between 25 and 100% of their California private practice to custody work. All held Ph.D. degrees with a range of eight to 36 years of experience in custody work. Semi-structured interviews were used to investigate assessment practices, ensure adherence to guidelines, risk management, and qualities of evaluators. Forty-three Specific Themes were identified using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Seven Higher Order Themes clustered on salient factors such as use of Ethics, Law, Guidelines; Parent Variables; Child Variables; Psychologist Variables; Testing; Literature; and Trends. Evaluators were aware of the ever-present reality of a licensure complaint and thus presented idiosyncratic descriptions of risk management considerations. Ambiguity about quantifying and validly tapping parenting abilities was also reviewed. Findings from this study suggested a high reliance on unstructured and observational methods in child custody practices.
Abstract: The psychological profile has become one of the most important sources of information when it comes to individual selection and the hiring process in any organization. Psychological instruments are used to collect data about variables that are considered critically important for performance in work. However, because of conceptual chaos in organizational psychology, most of the information provided by psychological testing is not directly useful for Mexican human resources professionals to take hiring decisions. The aims of this paper are 1) to underline the lack of conceptual precision in theoretical testing foundations in Mexico and 2) presenting a reliability and validity analysis of a frustration tolerance instrument created as an alternative to a heuristically conduct individual assessment in organizations. First, a description of assessment conditions in Mexico is made. Second, an instrument and a theoretical framework is presented as an alternative to the assessment practices in the country. A total of 65 Psychology Iztacala Superior Studies Faculty students were assessed. Cronbach´s alpha coefficient was calculated and an exploratory factor analysis was carried out to prove the scale unidimensionality. Reliability analysis revealed good internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.825). Factor analysis produced 4 factors for the scale. However, factor loadings and explained variation give proof to the scale unidimensionality. It is concluded that the instrument has good psychometric properties that will allow human resources professionals to collect useful data. Different possibilities to conduct psychological assessment are suggested for future development.