This – this report – is considered high-quality standard of practice in forensic psychology.
If an intern gave me a report like that, I’m terminating the intern’s placement at my agency and I’m contacting the graduate school immediately to express my deep-deep concerns about their training program – and I’m not accepting another intern from that school.
That’s for an intern. This is from what’s considered to be a “top professional” in forensic psychology. This is top-quality work product in forensic psychology.
This is not unusual. I run into this level, and worse, routinely.
I am appalled. Standard 1.04 and 1.05 are applicable.
This is a work product sample of what I run across from forensic psychology. I redacted red for the sentences of the Evaluator, and blue for direct quotes.
Notice the extent of direct quotes. She tape recorded the sessions and simply used the transcripts from the sessions as her History and Symptoms. Then she provided three paragraphs in the concluding “Opinions” section of her report, giving her judgement; her decree on the child custody schedule.
When the Checklist for Applied Knowledge is used on her report, her report evidenced the application of no knowledge from any domain of professional psychology. The red-redacted sentences in the body of the report were mostly transitional statements from one block quote to the next in the recorded transcript. Her final three paragraphs were entirely her opinion and judgement recommendations.
Her “Opinions” recommended that because the 12 year-old son didn’t…
View original post 2,703 more words