16th Symposium on Child Custody: Workshop 7 Evaluation

Riddle Me This: How to Explore and Document Alternative Hypotheses in Parenting Plan Evaluations

Do you know about the importance of alternative hypotheses but find it difficult to effectively identify such hypotheses from the beginning of your work with a family? Do you then struggle with how best to document those hypotheses, your testing of those hypotheses, and your findings in your evaluation? If so, then this workshop is for you. Join two seasoned evaluators for an entertaining, yet practical, discussion about how to identify, explore, and clearly document alternative hypotheses in a way that supports best practice.

Question Title

* 1. Based on the content of this session, I am able to (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree):

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Identify alternative hypotheses in their parenting plan evaluations.	1. Identify alternative hypotheses in their parenting plan evaluations. 1	1. Identify alternative hypotheses in their parenting plan evaluations. 2	1. Identify alternative hypotheses in their parenting plan evaluations. 3	1. Identify alternative hypotheses in their parenting plan evaluations. 4	1. Identify alternative hypotheses in their parenting plan evaluations. 5
2. Apply strategies for clearly documenting the alternative hypotheses, the testing of these hypotheses, and the findings in the evaluation report in a manner beneficial to the trier of fact and other readers of the report.	2. Apply strategies for clearly documenting the alternative hypotheses, the testing of these hypotheses, and the findings in the evaluation report in a manner beneficial to the trier of fact and other readers of the report. 1	2. Apply strategies for clearly documenting the alternative hypotheses, the testing of these hypotheses, and the findings in the evaluation report in a manner beneficial to the trier of fact and other readers of the report. 2	2. Apply strategies for clearly documenting the alternative hypotheses, the testing of these hypotheses, and the findings in the evaluation report in a manner beneficial to the trier of fact and other readers of the report. 3	2. Apply strategies for clearly documenting the alternative hypotheses, the testing of these hypotheses, and the findings in the evaluation report in a manner beneficial to the trier of fact and other readers of the report. 4	2. Apply strategies for clearly documenting the alternative hypotheses, the testing of these hypotheses, and the findings in the evaluation report in a manner beneficial to the trier of fact and other readers of the report. 5

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Victoria Harvey, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

	1	2	3	4	5
Level of knowledge and expertise	Level of knowledge and expertise 1	Level of knowledge and expertise 2	Level of knowledge and expertise 3	Level of knowledge and expertise 4	Level of knowledge and expertise 5
Teaching ability	Teaching ability 1	Teaching ability 2	Teaching ability 3	Teaching ability 4	Teaching ability 5
Maintained my interest	Maintained my interest 1	Maintained my interest 2	Maintained my interest 3	Maintained my interest 4	Maintained my interest 5
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 1	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 2	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 3	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 4	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 5

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Christy Bradshaw Schmidt, MA, LPC (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

	1	2	3	4	5
Level of knowledge and expertise	Level of knowledge and expertise 1	Level of knowledge and expertise 2	Level of knowledge and expertise 3	Level of knowledge and expertise 4	Level of knowledge and expertise 5
Teaching ability	Teaching ability 1	Teaching ability 2	Teaching ability 3	Teaching ability 4	Teaching ability 5
Maintained my interest	Maintained my interest 1	Maintained my interest 2	Maintained my interest 3	Maintained my interest 4	Maintained my interest 5
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 1	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 2	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 3	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 4	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 5

Question Title

* 4. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the symposium brochure

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

16th Symposium on Child Custody: Workshop 7 Evaluation

Question Title

* 1. Based on the content of this session, I am able to (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree):

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Victoria Harvey, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Christy Bradshaw Schmidt, MA, LPC (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 4. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the symposium brochure

Question Title

* 5. Please rate this session presentation overall (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 6. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? (1=Very little, 5=Great deal)

Question Title

* 7. Information presented in this session reflected the most current evidence on this topic (1=Disagree, 5=Agree)

Question Title

* 8. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development (1=Not useful, 5=Extremely useful)

Question Title

* 9. Additional Comments