{4:00 minutes to read} In our last article, we discussed psychological testing as a tool that forensic evaluators can utilize for the purpose of combating the bias inherent in the interview of the parties who present with their own agenda (e.g., in child custody evaluation, the overt agenda is proving that one is the better parent).

In this article, we look at another way to minimize the negative effects of biased parties’ presentation through the use of collateral data. Like psychological testing, collateral data is designed to provide evidence of convergent validity.

The type of collateral data needed will vary, depending on the nature of the evaluation. There are two main sources of collateral data: third-party interviews and review of records.

Third-party collaterals, along with psychological testing, are part of a multidimensional strategy report designed to ensure that the conclusions reached in the report are accurate and that the report integrates various and diverse sources of data.

Sources for collateral interviews can include individuals who are familiar with the individual being evaluated, such as family members, roommates, friends, and neighbors. They could also include professionals, such as:

• Employers
• Police
• Counselors/mental health professionals
• Teachers
• Probation officers

Review of records, or archival data, refers to documents such as:

• Court transcripts
• Police reports
• Journals/diaries
• Prior forensic reports
• Therapist’s reports
• School reports
• Jail/prison records
• Medical records
• Criminal records
• Employment records
• Military records
• Financial records

The critical piece to be gathered from collateral interviews of third parties is behavior that bears on the construct being assessed. For example, in a custody evaluation, the construct that is being assessed is that of parenting, so the evaluator would need data on specific behavior pertaining to the individual’s parenting skills.

Differences between third-party interviews and archival data

With third-party collateral interviews, the evaluator has the advantage of talking to a person, which allows the evaluator to ask a broader range of questions and be guided on the basis of the response to the questions asked what thread to follow next. In other words, this is a fluid, dynamic process.

In contrast, archival records require the evaluator to rely on written information alone, not allowing the evaluator the opportunity to ask follow-up questions. However, the advantage of archival records is that they provide black-and-white data, as opposed to potentially biased recollections given in a phone conversation.

In assessing family members, friends, etc. of the individual being evaluated, the evaluator can safely assume some inherent presence of bias—simply by virtue of the personal nature of the relationship. When interviewing professional third parties, one could theoretically expect less bias, keeping in mind that professionals, such as therapists, may inherently be biased toward their client by virtue of their relationships. Evaluators should also be mindful of their own potential biases they bring to the table when interviewing collateral sources.

For third-party collaterals, interviews may be conducted in person or over the phone. One significant drawback of phone interviews is the evaluator’s loss of critical nonverbal cues (e.g., facial and motor cues); the advantage is the gained flexibility with respect to time and place.

When interviewing a collateral source, it is important to advise the source of the purpose and nature of the evaluation, and how the information that is being collected will be used in the forensic report. It is also critical for the evaluator to inform collateral sources that their disclosure is non-confidential in nature.

In a good forensic evaluation, the evaluator will ideally utilize both archival records and third-party interviews as they complement each other.

In our next article, we will examine 5 potential problems an evaluator might encounter when gathering collateral data—and how to manage them.

Please contact me at nycforensics@gmail.com.

Dr. Alberto Yohananoff
NYC Forensics
dryohananoff@nycforensics.com
P: (646) 284-5600
F: (212) 706-9136

Posted in Forensic Evaluations