Jump to content

User:Slp1/draft3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources ordered by date[edit]

Analysis and quotes regarding "proof", "evidence", "hypothesis testing", "empirical data" etc are in italics below each listed article... (also a very few tangential comments made for my own future purposes related to PAS vs PA)

1985[edit]

  • Gardner, RA (1985). "Recent Trends in Divorce and Custody Litigation". Academy Forum. 29 (2): 3–7. Retrieved 2009-03-31.
" Although this syndrome certainly existed in the past, it is occurring with such increasing frequency at this point that it deserves a special name."

1994[edit]

"PAS testimony should not be admitted in court because of the causation [361] and evidentiary [362] problems with the theory" quoting one court decision saying it is "an unproved hypothesis in an isolated experiment which has yet to gain general acceptance in its field"
recognizes and uses the term PAS; however, argues that alienated parent often contributes to the alienation.

1996[edit]

uses term PAS but states that "Gardner's conceptualization of the problem and the dynamics underlying the problem proved at best incomplete, if not simplistic and erroneous".
takes no position but " noted the lack of data to support so-called "parental alienation syndrome", and raised concern about the term's use

1998[edit]

"No data are provided by Gardner to support the existence of the syndrome and its proposed dynamics. In fact, the research and clinical writing of other professionals leads to a conclusion that some of its tenets are wrong and that other tenets represent a minority view."
  • Myers, John E. B. (1998). Legal issues in child abuse and neglect practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp. 276. ISBN 0-7619-1666-0.
"PAS has not, to my knowledge, been subjected to empirical study. Nor to my knowledge, has it been published in peer-reviewed journals. Rather the syndrome represents Gardner's personal views."
  • Gould, Jonathan W. (1998). Conducting scientifically crafted child custody evaluations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp. 166. ISBN 0-7619-1101-4.
"When the concept of PAS is presented in a court of law, one must ask, Upond what empirical foundation does the syndrome exist? The answer is that to date there is little, if any, research establishing the empirical foundation for the existence of PAS. Thus, the use of the PAS concept may not be admissible scientific testimony because there is no underlying theory of science, its psychometric characteristics have yet to be demonstrated, there are no established protocols to follow when attempting to measure it, and it has not shown to be falsifiable."

1999[edit]

"Frustration over bitter custody battles should not tempt the legal system to blindly accept unproven theories such as PAS."

2000[edit]

  • Sturge, C (2000). "Contact and domestic violence – the experts' court report". Family Law - Bristol. 615. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Does not really address issue of proof per se, but "fully agrees" with the "highly reputable" Faller's (1998) "elegant rebuttal" (see above). Considers PAS an unhelpful concept because it lacks a dynamic interactional approach.

2001[edit]

" Initially, many were dubious about the existence of the disorder, some even considering my descriptions a caricature. Generally, the dubious were those who were not directly involved in working with families embroiled in child-custody disputes. By the late 1980s I was no longer hearing this criticism, so obvious was it that the disorder was widespread."
"Although the concept of PA was initially greeted with enthusiasm by mental health and legal professionals in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it should be used today as nothing more than a descriptor due to the lack of valid research in the area."
Generally supportive of PAS but acknowledges that "Future empirical research should help resolve some of the current controversies by providing data on the reliability and validity of PAS, the effectiveness of various interventions and the long-term course of PAS."

2002[edit]

PAS has "neither a logical nor a scientific basis. It is rejected by responsible social scientists and lacks solid grounding in psychological theory and research."
"Gardner's unsubstantiated theory has been raised in a number of custody disputes…"
  • Gardner, RA (2002). "Parental Alienation Syndrome vs. Parental Alienation: Which diagnosis should evaluators sue in Child-Custody disputes". American Journal of Family Therapy. 30 (2): 93–115. doi:10.1080/019261802753573821.
Does not address the issue per se; assumes the syndrome exists.
"Due to this purity the PAS lends itself well to research studies, because the population to be studied can easily be identified. Furthermore, I believe that this purity will be verified by interrater reliability studies."c

2003[edit]

  • Fortin, Jane (2003). Children's Rights and the Developing Law. Cambridge University Press. pp. 263. ISBN 9780521606486.
does not address the issue, but writes approvingly of Sturge and Glasers' rejection of the existence of the issue.
"PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law."

2004[edit]

Asks "What evidence does Gardner offer that PAS represents a real entity?" and then goes on in very critical mode.
"In summary, we find no convincing evidence to support Gardner’s one-dimensional PAS theory-that an alienating parent is primarily responsible for a child’s alienation.""Proponents of PAS continue to insist, without adequate empirical evidence, that a brainwashing parent is the primary causal agent and ignore or minimize the role of all other agents of a child’s alienation."
"Interrater-reliability studies are needed to help resolve the controversy over the term syndrome, but those who hold that we cannot properly use the term syndrome until such studies have been completed are requiring a standard not yet satisfied by most of the diagnoses in DSM-IV".
  • Walker, Leonore E. A.; et al. (2004). "A critical Analysis of Parental Alienation Syndrome and its Admissibility in the Family Courth". 1 (2). Journal of Child Custody: 47–74. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
"Researchers and practitioners would do well to examine Gardner's PAS theory with skepticism and be cautious about integrating it in testimony or evaluations. Gardner's attempts to produce a predictive instrument have yielded evidence from empirical studies that that the tests lack reliability.(Campbell 1997, Kelly and Johnston, 2001)"
  • Johnson, Sharon (2004). Therapist's guide to clinical invervention: the 1-2-3's of treatment planning. Boston: Academic Press. pp. 202+. ISBN 0-12-386588-3.
Does not address issue; uncritical acceptance of PAS
  • Rueda, Carlos (2008). "An inter-rater reliability study of Parental Alienation Syndrome". 32 (5). The American Journal of Family Therapy: 391–403. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
A pro-PAS researcher; accepts syndrome and urges that it "gain recognition as a true syndrome and strengthen its credibility in the legal and scientific community. Notes that "Another significant limitation [to his study] was the resistance the researcher encountered from colleagues in the field. Due to the newness of this concept and the controversy it has created, there is a thread of opposition to PAS as a syndrome and as a valid concept in general."

2005[edit]

Not available online
Enough said about this one
"Gardner (2004) also claims that PAS can be‘‘diagnosed’’ reliably and validly by expert evaluators, alt.hough he offers no explicit criteria for doing so or objective evidence to support his claim....the scientific status of PAS is, to be blunt, nil."
  • Myers, John E. B. (2005). Myers on evidence in child, domestic, and elder abuse cases. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers. pp. 415. ISBN 0-7355-5668-7.
Does not address the issue directly, but quotes Bruch, Faller 's critical stance on existence approvingly.
PAS is "widely discredited"; Includes discussion of PAS in a chapter called "Mental Health Quackery"

2006[edit]

"Considerable controversy abounds over whether or not the phenomenon even exists...Some concerns focused on the term syndrome as unjustifiable implying a level of scientific support that does not exist"
"As a hypothetical “proposed syndrome” without supporting empirical evidence, PAS remains “unsupported speculation” rather than “scientific knowledge.”"
"Although the term "PAS" is used and recognized by a number of clinicians, it clearly is not universally accepted or respected. As there is no specific criteria used to diagnose these factors a syndrome and not a specific diagnosis. There also is no date available to establish incidence rates or to deal with the prognosis. There are a number of excellent clinicians who would argue that PAS does not occur.."
"There is no empirical evidence for “Parental Alienation Syndrome” as a diagnostic category".
  • Burrill, Janelle (2006). "Reluctance to verify PAS as a legitimate syndrome". In Gardner, Richard A.; Sauber, S. Richard; Lorandos, Demosthenes (ed.). The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, Clinical And Legal Considerations. Charles C. Thomas. pp. 323–330. ISBN 978-0398076474.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
Very supportive of PAS, but notes "The psychology community denounces PAS as not being a valid syndrome" but states that this is unjustified.

2007[edit]

  • Baker, AJL (2007). "Knowledge and Attitudes About the Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Survey of Custody Evaluators". American Journal of Family Therapy. 35: 1–19. doi:10.1080/01926180600698368.
"One contributing factor to the debate is the lack of sufficient empirical data regarding construct validity. The current literature is only about 20 years old and, thus, still in its relative infancy. Moreover, the majority of books and articles on the topic of parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation are theoretical, descriptive, or proscriptive."
Very supportive of PAS, but notes "There are many areas in the field of PAS that urgently require empirical exploration" (and goes on to list them, p. 281 onwards) including "the legal system is in need of evidence of the validity of the construct of PAS".
  • Brown, T (2007). Child Abuse and Family Law: Understanding the Issues Facing Human Service and Legal Professionals. Allen & Unwin. pp. 11-12. ISBN 9781865087313. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
does not really tackle the subject but mentions that PAS "lack grounding in or reference to any rigorous research." per Faller and Dallam.
Does not deal specifically with the issue of empirical data of PAS, but suggests approvingly that the Kelly and Johnston's PA dynamic multi-factorial model has some empirical support.
"a pseudo-scientific diagnosis which many evaluating psychologists are all too willing to support."

2008[edit]

Discusses PAD, a variant of PAS where alienating behaviours by the preferred parent MAY occur, and that the alienated parent may have weak parenting skills etc. cf Gardner's definition which puts insists that alienating behaviours by a parent are part of the profile and makes no mention of the other parent"
" Because of its lack of peer review, rigorous research, an error rate, and its lack of serious and independent publication, science could conclude that PAS is more pseudoscience than science."
  • Ellis, Elizabeth (2008). "A Stepwise Approach to Evaluating Children for Parental Alienation Syndrome". Journal of Child Custody. 4 (1): 55–78. doi:10.1300/J190v04n01_03.
Accepts existence of PAS, but agrees that "There are no data establishing incidence rates, familial patterns, course of the problem over time, sex differences, or prognosis."
  • Ottaman, A (2008). "Fathers' rights movement". In Edleson JL; Renzetti, CM (ed.). Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence. SAGE Publications. pp. 252. ISBN 978-1412918008. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
makes argument that while presented as a "credible theory, it is recognized as deeply flawed."
  • Rohrbaugh, Joanna Bunker (2008). A comprehensive guide to child custody evaluations: mental health and legal perspectives. Berlin: Springer. pp. 413. ISBN 978-0-387-71893-4.
"using a new label is not going to solve the many conceptual and empirical problems associated with PAS, however. Nor it is going to address the Daubert requirements that expert testimony is only admissible if scientific theory or technique is testable, supported by peer review, has a known error rate and has general acceptance in the field. Though PAS may be testable, none of the other criteria for admissibility have been met."

2009[edit]

  • Drozd, L (2009). "Rejection in cases of abuse or alienation in divorcing families". In Galatzer-Levy RM; Kraus L & Galatzer-Levy J (ed.). The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 403-416. ISBN 9780470038581.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
"Gardner provided little evidence to support its existence, and subsequent investigation has failed to reveal any regularly recurring pattern of associated signs and symptoms that supports the use of the term "syndrome""
  • Bow, James N.; Gould, Jonathan W.; Flens, James R. (2009). "Examining Parental Alienation in Child Custody Cases: A Survey of Mental Health and Legal Professionals". The American Journal of Family Therapy. 37 (2): 127–145. doi:10.1080/01926180801960658.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
"The vast majority of respondents indicated their awareness of the controversies surrounding the term “parental alienation” and perceived a lack of empirical research to support the concept....Respondents did not view parental alienation as a “syndrome” as defined by Dr. Richard Gardner."
does not really the issue of proof etc
  • Stanley B. Messer Phd; PhD Jonathan W. Gould Phd ABPP (2009). The Art and Science of Child Custody Evaluations. New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 319. ISBN 978-1-60623-261-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"describes the lack of empirical evidence given by others. Prefers Kelly and Johnston's version."

References[edit]


test edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Slp1/draft3&oldid=1168405864"