Exit this survey AFCC Denver Symposium: Workshop 12—Preparing for a Daubert Challenge: Report Writing and Testimony Workshop 12—Preparing for a Daubert Challenge: Report Writing and Testimony Question Title * 1. W-12: "Preparing for a Daubert Challenge: Report Writing and Testimony" Based on the content of the institute, I am able to (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree): 1 2 3 4 5 1. Discuss Daubert and Daubert related factors and their relevance to forensic mental health reports and testimony 1. Discuss Daubert and Daubert related factors and their relevance to forensic mental health reports and testimony 1 1. Discuss Daubert and Daubert related factors and their relevance to forensic mental health reports and testimony 2 1. Discuss Daubert and Daubert related factors and their relevance to forensic mental health reports and testimony 3 1. Discuss Daubert and Daubert related factors and their relevance to forensic mental health reports and testimony 4 1. Discuss Daubert and Daubert related factors and their relevance to forensic mental health reports and testimony 5 2. Apply Daubert and Daubert related factors to written forensic evaluations and oral testimony to the court 2. Apply Daubert and Daubert related factors to written forensic evaluations and oral testimony to the court 1 2. Apply Daubert and Daubert related factors to written forensic evaluations and oral testimony to the court 2 2. Apply Daubert and Daubert related factors to written forensic evaluations and oral testimony to the court 3 2. Apply Daubert and Daubert related factors to written forensic evaluations and oral testimony to the court 4 2. Apply Daubert and Daubert related factors to written forensic evaluations and oral testimony to the court 5 3. Critique written reports and oral testimony based upon Daubert and Daubert-Related factors 3. Critique written reports and oral testimony based upon Daubert and Daubert-Related factors 1 3. Critique written reports and oral testimony based upon Daubert and Daubert-Related factors 2 3. Critique written reports and oral testimony based upon Daubert and Daubert-Related factors 3 3. Critique written reports and oral testimony based upon Daubert and Daubert-Related factors 4 3. Critique written reports and oral testimony based upon Daubert and Daubert-Related factors 5 Question Title * 2. Jonathan Gould, PhD, ABPP (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. Nicki Fisher, JD (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 conference brochure Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 5. Please rate this institute overall (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Question Title * 6. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? (1=Very little, 5=Great deal) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Question Title * 7. Information presented in this session reflected the most current evidence on this topic (1=Disagree, 5=Agree) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 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) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Question Title * 9. Please provide any other comments that you think could help AFCC in making selection decisions about these presenters for future conferences: Next