Domains, Categories, and Frequencies of Participants’ Attitudes
| Domain and Category | No. of Participants |
|---|---|
| General preferences for affidavits | |
| Format affidavits for easy readability | 9 |
| Provide evidence to support conclusions | 9 |
| Include malingering assessment | 8 |
| Avoid advocacy and legal language | 8 |
| Detail evaluator qualifications | 7 |
| Provide therapeutic recommendations | 5 |
| Describe interview conditions | 4 |
| Roles of affidavits | |
| Provide evidence | 8 |
| Explain manifestations of trauma | 8 |
| Exist in unfair legal system | 7 |
| Streamline court proceedings | 5 |
| Appraisal of sample affidavits | |
| Viewed both affidavits positively | 9 |
| Rated in-person affidavit as stronger | 8 |
| Attitudes toward telephonic evaluations | |
| Concern about limitations of modality | 9 |
| Better than no evaluation | 9 |
| Unfamiliar with modality | 6 |
| Judge’s background informs attitudes | 6 |
| Recommendations for telephonic evaluations | |
| Disclose modality and explain rationale | 9 |
| Describe strategies to overcome limitations | 8 |