This article summarizes evidence and issues associated with psychological assessment. Data from more than 125 meta-analyses on test validity and 800 samples examining multimethod assessment suggest 4 general conclusions: (a) Psychological test validity is strong and compelling, (b) psychological test validity is comparable to medical test validity, (c) distinct assessment methods provide unique sources of information, and (d) clinicians who rely exclusively on interviews are prone to incomplete understandings. Following principles for optimal nomothetic research, the authors suggest that a multimethod assessment battery provides a structured means for skilled clinicians to maximize the validity of individualized assessments. Future investigations should move beyond an examination of test scales to focus more on the role of psychologists who use tests as helpful tools to furnish patients and referral sources with professional consultation.

Psychological Testing and Psychological Assessment: A Review of Evidence and Issues.

Series Preface. One: Introduction to Psychological Tests and Their Uses. Two: Essential Statistics for Testing. Three: Essentials of Test Score Interpretation. Four: Essentials of Reliability. Five: Essentials of Validity. Six: Essential Test Item Considerations. Seven: Essentials of Test Use. Appendix A: Commercially Available Tests. Appendix B: Addresses of Test Publishers and Distributors. Appendix C: Table of Areas and Ordinates of the Normal Curve. References. Index. Acknowledgments. About the Author.

Essentials of Psychological Testing

Although projective techniques continue to be widely used in clinical and forensic settings, their scientific status remains highly controversial. In this monograph, we review the current state of the literature concerning the psy- chometric properties (norms, reliability, validity, incremental validity, treatment utility) of three major projective instru- ments: Rorschach Inkblot Test, Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and human figure drawings. We conclude that there is empirical support for the validity of a small number of indexes derived from the Rorschach and TAT. However, the substantial majority of Rorschach and TAT indexes are not empirically supported. The validity evidence for human figure drawings is even more limited. With a few exceptions, projective indexes have not consistently demonstrated incremental validity above and beyond other psychometric data. In addition, we summa- rize the results of a new meta-analysis intended to examine the capacity of these three instruments to detect child sexual abuse. Although some projective instruments were better than chance at detecting child sexual abuse, there were virtually no replicated findings across independent investigative teams. This meta-analysis also provides the first clear evidence of substantial file drawer effects in the projectives literature, as the effect sizes from published studies markedly exceeded those from unpublished studies. We conclude with recommendations regarding the (a) construction of projective techniques with adequate validity, (b) forensic and clinical use of projective techniques, and (c) education and training of future psycholo- gists regarding projective techniques.

/pdf/the-scientific-status-of-projective-techniques-54ailb4lzl.pdf

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

There has been insufficient effort in most areas of applied psychology to evaluate incremental validity. To further this kind of validity research, the authors examined applicable research designs, including those to assess the incremental validity of test instruments, of test-informed clinical inferences, and of newly developed measures. The authors also considered key statistical and measurement issues that can influence incremental validity findings, including the entry order of predictor variables, how to interpret the size of a validity increment, and possible artifactual effects in the criteria selected for incremental validity research. The authors concluded by suggesting steps for building a cumulative research base concerning incremental validity and by describing challenges associated with applying nomothetic research findings to individual clinical cases.

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pas/15/4/446.pdf

The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues.

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the DSM-IV Global Assessment of Functioning Scale and two experimental DSM-IV axis V global rating scales, the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale. METHOD: Forty-four patients admitted to a university-based outpatient community clinic were rated by trained clinicians on the three DSM-IV axis V scales. Patients also completed self-report measures of DSM-IV symptoms as well as measures of relational, social, and occupational functioning. RESULTS: The Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale, and Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale all exhibited very high levels of interrater reliability. Factor analysis revealed that the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale are each more related to the Global Assessmen...

Reliability and validity of DSM-IV axis V.

The authors reviewed the other articles in the special section and commented on the use of psychological assessment to plan treatment. They call this view of assessment the information-gathering paradigm, because the goal is to collect data that will aid in communication and decision making about clients. This contrasts with the therapeutic model of assessment, in which the major goal is to produce positive change in clients. The authors summarized evidence of the efficacy of assessment as a brief therapy and discussed its possible therapeutic mechanisms. The information-gathering and therapeutic models of assessment are complementary rather than mutually exclusive, and both speak to the utility of assessment. The current crisis in the clinical use of psychological assessment may be due in part to an overemphasis on the information-gathering model.

Information-gathering and therapeutic models of assessment: Complementary paradigms.

This study investigated the benefits of sharing Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) test results verbally with clients. Ss were randomly selected from a college counseling center's waiting list: 32 received test feedback according to a collaborative model developed by Finn (1990) and 29 received only examiner attention. Groups did not differ on age, sex, days between examiner contact, and initial levels of distress and self-esteem

Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-2 test feedback to college students awaiting therapy.

Therapeutic Assessment is a semi‐structured form of collaborative psychological assessment that grew out of efforts to make psychological assessment a positive and beneficial experience for clients. Although we developed this approach without being highly informed about humanistic psychology, gradually our work with clients led us toward more humanistic techniques and principles. We describe some of these techniques and their relationship to the efficacy of Therapeutic Assessment. This article describes the links between Therapeutic Assessment and humanistic psychology, detailing how humanistic practices were gradually incorporated into the methods of Therapeutic Assessment and highlighting those aspects that are clearly compatible with humanistic principles.

Mary E. Tonsager

Papers

Information-gathering and therapeutic models of assessment: Complementary paradigms.

Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-2 test feedback to college students awaiting therapy.

How therapeutic assessment became humanistic