One important point to consider when the evaluator selects a task for the parent-child interaction is that the task should not be biased toward either parent. If one parent happens to be an artist and an expert at drawing and the other is not, it would be unfair to have each parent to teach the child how to draw during the interaction period. Normally, tasks like teaching the child something new, playing a game or solving a problem are suitable indicators. It is not unusual at all to read an evaluator's report covering the interview and test data and then find that the recommendations being made have no logical connection to the aforementioned data. The recommendation section should provide a clear and valid justification as to why one parent should be named the primary custodial parent and the other should not.
Evaluators do make errors in logic.
To award primary custody to the mother, purely because the father has one test score suggesting an elevation in depression, represents an inadequate justification in itself. Any father who has been deprived of seeing his children would certainly exhibit some form of depression. Any custody evaluator that fails to provide a thoroughly convincing and compelling argument for their interpretation of their interviews, test data and observations is doing no one any good, family or court. Be aware of evaluators who misrepresent the value of their recommendations. If an evaluator noted in his report to the court that the method they used to conduct their evaluation was the same method used by the president of the American Custody Evaluator's Association, that would be an attempt to imply that their report has merit.