Experts in clinical evaluations of child sexual abuse were studied
using a paradigm that requested them to estimate the likelihood of a
3-year-old child having been sexually molested by her father, as
alleged by her mother, when she was two years old. All of the experts
claimed special qualifications and experience in the field of
diagnosing and treating child sexual abuse victims. Expert-respondents
provided two estimates of the likelihood that the child had been
molested, the first following a detailed presentation of the clinical
case by the actual evaluator of the child (the presentation included
opportunities to ask questions ad libitum beyond the presentation
material), the second following an extensive discussion of the
clinical material with other child experts present. The range of
estimated likelihoods that the child had been molested was extreme
among the expert respondents. The clinical conference format that was
used seemed to provide the experts with no apparent means for
eliminating or reducing differences in their clinical
opinions. Recommendations concerning how the supervising court should
regulate further child-father contacts were similarly varied. The
implications of these findings for judicial acceptance of expert
testimony in cases of alleged child sexual abuse are discussed.