Measuring Parental Alienation
Decades ago when the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated on the question of what constitutes pornography, it was suggested that one doesn’t have to rely upon a complex definition. The guideline offered, “you know it when you see it,” may be applicable to the task of detecting parental alienation. As discussed in my February 28, 2015 blog, the alienated child expresses negative feelings and beliefs about a parent that are disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent, and his rejection is intense, total and intended to be permanent.
Over the past 20 years, in conducting scores of child custody/parenting plan evaluations, I have interviewed and observed many children who seemed to fit such description. Their attitudes about each parent were vividly reflected in their interview comments, and responses on various self-report tests and questionnaires. Their feelings towards and levels of attachment with each parent were readily observed during conjoint parent-child play and/or interaction interviews. Some helpful measurement tools that I’ve used include, the Child Self-Report Data Questionnaire, the “Would” Questionnaire and the Perception of Relationships Test (PORT), all developed by Barry Bricklin, Ph.D. The Children’s Sentence Completion Test has also been an invaluable resource.
Another potential window for detecting parental alienation may be provided by portions of the Gries Assessment of Psychological Permanence (GAPP). Developed 20 years ago, the GAPP was intended primarily for use with pre-adoptive and adopted children, to assess the extent to which unresolved relationship issues with family of origin and/or with adoptive family may be impeding the chances for successful adoption. Part l of the GAPP addresses family of origin issues, and Part ll addresses adoptive family issues. Preliminary reliability and validity findings were reported in the attached Gries Assessment of Psychological Permanence (GAPP): A Pilot Study (Unpublished, 2005). The study, based upon testing of 56 pre-adoptive children in foster care, revealed some interesting findings, as well as limitations inherent in the measure. Because of the very small sample size, the “normative” data that was gathered cannot be assumed to be reflective of the general pre-adoptive foster care population. Of interest is how so many of the Part ll items were significantly correlated with various measures of child behavioral and emotional well-being, whereas Part l items yielded mixed and unexpected results. It was concluded that whereas GAPP Part l “appears to offer entry into areas of adoption related, inner conflict which are not tapped by other available clinical measures … (it seems to offer) more in the form of a structured interview with heuristic opportunities for identifying unresolved adoption issues, than as a psychometric instrument yielding meaningful predictive scores…”
With minor modifications, portions of the GAPP may offer a comparable opportunity for identifying the alienated child, when conducting child custody/parenting plan evaluations. Instead of family of origin parents being the frame of reference in Part l, those items would pertain to the “rejected parent.” Instead of adoptive family being the frame of reference in Part ll, those items would pertain to the “favored parent”, who may or may not turn out to be an alienating parent. The 14 Part ll items would otherwise remain intact, with the child being asked to rate how close to the ideal his/her relationship with favored parent is. It would be expected that an alienated child would obtain a total Part ll score that is very close to the ceiling score of 98. On the other hand, only some of the six Part l items appear applicable for tapping a child’s estrangement or alienation from a “rejected parent.” Specifically, the Betrayal, Understanding (Confusion with) Birth Parent, Forgiveness (Obsession with Victimization), and Future Outlook items would be used. It would be expected that the most alienated children would obtain very low scores (i.e. approaching basal score of 5 or 6) on the Betrayal, Understanding and Forgiveness items, and very high scores (i.e. approaching ceiling score of 30) on the Future Outlook item. Findings from the GAPP could be compared with findings from the aforementioned Bricklin questionnaire and test measures, as well as from observations during conjoint parent-child interaction interviews. Convergent findings can strengthen the basis for concluding that the child in question is either substantially estranged or alienated. Additional data would be needed to see if there is evidence of alienating behaviors on the part of the “favored parent”.
Research is needed to determine whether a battery of interview techniques, tests and questionnaires can be used to reliably assess for the presence or absence of child alienation. This may be a doctoral dissertation waiting to happen within a forensic clinical psychology program. Your comments are invited.
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D.
February 19, 2016
Decades ago when the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated on the question of what constitutes pornography, it was suggested that one doesn’t have to rely upon a complex definition. The guideline offered, “you know it when you see it,” may be applicable to the task of detecting parental alienation. As discussed in my February 28, 2015 blog, the alienated child expresses negative feelings and beliefs about a parent that are disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent, and his rejection is intense, total and intended to be permanent.
Over the past 20 years, in conducting scores of child custody/parenting plan evaluations, I have interviewed and observed many children who seemed to fit such description. Their attitudes about each parent were vividly reflected in their interview comments, and responses on various self-report tests and questionnaires. Their feelings towards and levels of attachment with each parent were readily observed during conjoint parent-child play and/or interaction interviews. Some helpful measurement tools that I’ve used include, the Child Self-Report Data Questionnaire, the “Would” Questionnaire and the Perception of Relationships Test (PORT), all developed by Barry Bricklin, Ph.D. The Children’s Sentence Completion Test has also been an invaluable resource.
Another potential window for detecting parental alienation may be provided by portions of the Gries Assessment of Psychological Permanence (GAPP). Developed 20 years ago, the GAPP was intended primarily for use with pre-adoptive and adopted children, to assess the extent to which unresolved relationship issues with family of origin and/or with adoptive family may be impeding the chances for successful adoption. Part l of the GAPP addresses family of origin issues, and Part ll addresses adoptive family issues. Preliminary reliability and validity findings were reported in the attached Gries Assessment of Psychological Permanence (GAPP): A Pilot Study (Unpublished, 2005). The study, based upon testing of 56 pre-adoptive children in foster care, revealed some interesting findings, as well as limitations inherent in the measure. Because of the very small sample size, the “normative” data that was gathered cannot be assumed to be reflective of the general pre-adoptive foster care population. Of interest is how so many of the Part ll items were significantly correlated with various measures of child behavioral and emotional well-being, whereas Part l items yielded mixed and unexpected results. It was concluded that whereas GAPP Part l “appears to offer entry into areas of adoption related, inner conflict which are not tapped by other available clinical measures … (it seems to offer) more in the form of a structured interview with heuristic opportunities for identifying unresolved adoption issues, than as a psychometric instrument yielding meaningful predictive scores…”
With minor modifications, portions of the GAPP may offer a comparable opportunity for identifying the alienated child, when conducting child custody/parenting plan evaluations. Instead of family of origin parents being the frame of reference in Part l, those items would pertain to the “rejected parent.” Instead of adoptive family being the frame of reference in Part ll, those items would pertain to the “favored parent”, who may or may not turn out to be an alienating parent. The 14 Part ll items would otherwise remain intact, with the child being asked to rate how close to the ideal his/her relationship with favored parent is. It would be expected that an alienated child would obtain a total Part ll score that is very close to the ceiling score of 98. On the other hand, only some of the six Part l items appear applicable for tapping a child’s estrangement or alienation from a “rejected parent.” Specifically, the Betrayal, Understanding (Confusion with) Birth Parent, Forgiveness (Obsession with Victimization), and Future Outlook items would be used. It would be expected that the most alienated children would obtain very low scores (i.e. approaching basal score of 5 or 6) on the Betrayal, Understanding and Forgiveness items, and very high scores (i.e. approaching ceiling score of 30) on the Future Outlook item. Findings from the GAPP could be compared with findings from the aforementioned Bricklin questionnaire and test measures, as well as from observations during conjoint parent-child interaction interviews. Convergent findings can strengthen the basis for concluding that the child in question is either substantially estranged or alienated. Additional data would be needed to see if there is evidence of alienating behaviors on the part of the “favored parent”.
Research is needed to determine whether a battery of interview techniques, tests and questionnaires can be used to reliably assess for the presence or absence of child alienation. This may be a doctoral dissertation waiting to happen within a forensic clinical psychology program. Your comments are invited.
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D.
February 19, 2016
Gries Assessment of Psychological Permanence - Pilot Study
| gries_assessment_of_psychological_permanence__a_pilot_study._12.18.2016_2_.pdf |
RSS Feed