The Art of the File Review: Selecting What Matters Most

In a psychological assessment, the file review section serves as the backbone for understanding a client’s history. It provides the context for all other findings—yet it’s surprisingly easy for this section to become bloated, repetitive, or even misleading.

After more than 30 years of conducting file reviews, I’ve learned that the key is not to summarize everything, but to identify what is truly relevant to the referral question.

Why I Quote Almost Exclusively

One of the most effective ways to maintain accuracy is to quote source material directly, rather than paraphrasing. This avoids the risk of unintentionally altering meaning—a critical safeguard in reports that may later be used in legal or insurance contexts.

Quoting directly also preserves the nuance of the original document. When a specialist wrote that a patient “exhibited mild memory lapses,” I include that exact wording. Changing it to “had some memory problems” may seem harmless, but it subtly alters the impression.

Deciding What to Include

When reviewing a large volume of documents, I ask myself three questions:

Is it directly relevant to the referral question? Does it add new information, or is it already captured elsewhere in the report? Does it clarify, support, or contradict another piece of evidence?

If the answer to all three is “no,” I leave it out—no matter how interesting it might be.

Avoiding Repetition

It’s tempting to repeat information “just in case,” but over-repetition can make a report harder to follow. My approach: each key detail appears once, in the most relevant section. If it must be mentioned again, I reference its location rather than restating it.

The End Goal

A well-crafted file review section does more than list background facts. It creates a concise, trustworthy foundation for the rest of the report—allowing the reader to quickly grasp the client’s history and move on to the analysis and conclusions with confidence.