handbook of psychology phần 10 potx

572 Assessing Personality and Psychopathology With Self-Report Inventories is readily understood. Stated simply, psychopathology is undesirable. Ask a group of persons to identify SRI items that reflect undesirable characteristics, and, if they are included in the pool, participants will undoubtedly generate a list of items describing negative psychological characteristics. Edwards’s assumption that individuals’ responses to such items reflect a substantively meaningless response style proved subsequently to be unwarranted and was refuted by Block’s (1965) analyses. Nonetheless, Edwards and some followers continued to raise these arguments. For example, relying (like Edwards) on scales that reflected desirability judgments, Jackson, Fraboni, and Helmes (1997) criticized the MMPI-2 Content Scales (Butcher et al., 1990) for being highly saturated with social desirability. As Edwards failed to do before them, these authors did not explain how scales that they concluded were highly saturated with irrelevant stylistic variance could account significantly for a wide range of extratest personality and psychopathology variables (Butcher et al., 1990). Implications of Threats to Protocol Validity The issues discussed and highlighted in this section illustrate the crucial role played by respondents’ test-taking approaches in determining the interpretability of SRI scale scores. Allport (1937) and Ellis (1946) foresaw accurately that reliance on an individual’s willingness and ability to generate an accurate self-portrayal when responding to test items was the among the greatest challenges facing SRI developers and users. Subsequent decades of research and practice have illu- minated a host of threats to protocol validity (just described), all manifestations of the kinds of concerns identified early on by Allport and Ellis. Self-report inventory developers have responded to these threats in various ways, ranging from the development of validity scales, SRI measures designed to assess and, in some instances, correct for the effects of protocol invalidating test-taking approaches (e.g., the MMPI-2 validity scales; Butcher et al., 2001), to declaration and attempts to demonstrate that these threats do not really amount to much (Costa & McCrae, 1992a; Piedmont et al., 2000) and the con- sequent decision not to include validity scales on some instruments (e.g., the NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992c). Commenting on the then-prevalent paucity of efforts by SRI developers to address threats to protocol validity, Meehl and Hathaway (1946) observed: It is almost as though we inventory-makers were afraid to say too much about the problem because we had no effective solution for it, but it was too obvious a fact to be ignored so it was met by a polite nod. Meanwhile the scores obtained are subjected to varied “precise” statistical manipulations which impel the stu- dent of behavior to wonder whether it is not the aim of the personality testers to get as far away from any unsanitary contact with the organism as possible. Part of this trend no doubt reflects the lack of clinical experiences of some psychologists who concern themselves with personality testing (p. 526) Acting on this concern, Hathaway and McKinley incorporated two validity scales, L and F, in their original MMPI development efforts. The MMPI was not the first SRI to make validity scales available to its users. Cady (1923) modified the Woodworth PsychoneuroticInventory(derived from of the original Personal Data Sheet) to assess juvenile incorrigibility and incorporated negatively worded repeated items in the revised inventory to examine respondents’ “reliability.” Maller (1932) included items in his Character Sketches measure designed to assess respondents’ “readiness to confide.” Humm and Wadsworth (1935), developers of the Humm-Wadworth Temperament Scales, incorporated scales designed to identify defensive responding to their SRI. Ruch (1942) developed an “honesty key” for theBPI, the most widely used SRI prior to the MMPI. Hathaway and McKinley’s inclusion of validity scales on the original MMPI was thus consistent with growing recog- nition among SRI developers of the need to incorporate formal means for assessing and attempting to correct for threats to protocol validity. In describing their efforts to develop and apply the MMPI K scale and K-correction, Meehl and Hathaway (1946) articulated the conceptual and empirical underpinnings of MMPI approaches to assessing threats to protocol validity. As MMPI use and research proliferated throughout the latter part of the twentieth century, Hathaway, McKinley, and Meehl’s emphasis on assessing threats to protocol validity was continued through efforts to develop a variety of additional MMPI and MMPI-2 validity scales. Fol- lowing in this tradition, most (but not all) modern SRIs include measures designed to provide information regarding threats to protocol validity. FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SELF-REPORT INVENTORY RESEARCH Self-report measures play a vital role in personality and psychopathology assessment. Self-report inventories are used commonly and routinely in various applied assessment tasks, and they have been the focus of thousands of empirical investigations. Considerable progress was made in developing this technology over the course of the twentieth century, and many of the concerns identified early on by Allport (1937) and Ellis (1946) have been addressed in modern self-report Future Directions for Self-Report Inventory Research 573 measures. Three primary aspects of SRI-based assessment were reviewed and analyzed in this chapter: approaches to SRI scale score interpretation, standard score derivation for SRIs, and threats to protocol validity. As discussed earlier, modern SRIs offer a variety of solutions to the challenges posed in each of these areas. However, this review has also pointed out needs for further research-based refinement in each of these aspects of SRI-based assessment. The final part of this chapter highlights needs and directions for further research in SRI-based approaches to assessing personality and psychopathology. Approaches to SRI Scale Score Interpretation Two primary approaches to SRI scale score interpretation, empirically grounded and content-based, wereidentifiedinthisre- view. Not surprisingly, much of the research in this area has focused on empirically grounded SRI scale score interpretation. This is understandable because, by definition, empirically grounded interpretation is research-dependent. However, content-based interpretation can and should be subjected to rig- orous empirical scrutiny. Specifically, research is needed to examine thevalidity of content-based SRI scale score interpretation. Such investigations should explore the content validity of content-based measures (i.e., the extent to which they adequately canvass the relevant content domain) and the criterion and ultimately construct validity of content-based interpretation. Moreover, as detailed earlier, content-based and empirically grounded approaches are not mutually exclusive, and research is needed to guide SRI users regarding optimal ways to combine them in scale score interpretation. Several aspects of empiricallygroundedSRI scale score interpretation also require further elaboration. As reviewed previously, empirically keyed interpretation has garnered limited support in the SRI literature to date. It is unclear whether this is a product of limitations inherent in the external approach to SRI scale construction, in which case further efforts at developing empirically keyed interpretative approaches should be abandoned, or whether the problem rests more in deficiencies of previous efforts at external scale construction that attenu- ated the validityof their products.Therehas been no extensive effort at external scale construction since the original MMPI clinical scales were developed. Considerable progress has since been made in other approaches to diagnostic classifica- tion (e.g., development of structured diagnostic interviews) and in the methodologies and technologyavailable to testcon- structors. It is possible (if not likely) that a comprehensive effort to develop SRI scales keyed to differentiate empirically between reliably (with the aid of structured diagnostic interviews) diagnosed classes of individuals will yield diagnostic indicators that are more valid than the original MMPI clinical scales. As noted previously, most empirically grounded SRI scale score interpretation has followed the empirical correlate approach. Much of the research in this area has focused on the direct, simple inference level afforded by knowledge of a scale score’s criterion validity. Limited attention has been paid in this literature to an issue that receives prominent attention in the industrial/organizational (I/O) assessment literature, the question of validity generalization: Under what circumstances are empirical correlates identified in one setting likely to apply to others? Following the seminal work of I/O researchers Schmidt and Hunter (1977), I/O psychologists have developed various techniques to appraise validity generalization for their assessment instruments. In light of the particularly prominent role of criterion validity in SRI- based assessment of personality and psychopathology, similar research in this area is clearly needed. Configural interpretation (examination of patterns among SRI scale scores; as distinguished from linear interpretation, which involves independent consideration of SRI scale scores) is another aspect of criterion-validity-based SRI application requiring further examination. As discussed earlier, the primary assumption underlying configural interpretation (that there is something about the pattern of scores on a set of SRI scales that is not captured when they are interpreted linearly) has seldom been tested empirically. Moreover, in the rare cases in which it has been tested, configural interpretation has not demonstrated incremental validity in reference to linear approaches. Configural approaches may improve upon linear interpretation either by enhancing the scales’ convergent validity or by sharpening their discriminant validity. Research is needed to evaluate the extent to which configural interpretation adds (beyond linear interpretation) to either or both. Finally, with respect to scale score interpretation, research has yet to mine adequately the prospects of construct validity. As a result, SRI users are unable to rely on construct validity adequately as an interpretive source. Most empirically grounded SRI scale score interpretation is guided by the simple, direct inference level afforded by criterion validity data. Concurrent with the move in psychiatry toward a descriptive, atheoretical nosology, research on clinical applications of SRIs has similarly focused narrowly on their scales’ criterion validity. Cronbach and Meehl’s (1955) admonition that psychological tests be used to identify and elucidate the nature of major constructs, and that the resulting enhancement in our understanding of these constructs guide our interpretation of test scores, has not been followed. We remain largely inca- pable of interpreting SRI scale scores in the context of theoretically grounded nomological networks. 574 Assessing Personality and Psychopathology With Self-Report Inventories A potential exception to this trend is the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, which focuses on five core personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroti- cism, and openness/intellect. Although not without its critics (e.g., Block, 1995;Loevinger, 1994),this product of thenormal personality assessment literaturehasgeneratedan empirical literature base that can be used to elucidate a rich, theoretically grounded nomological network associated with its five core constructs (e.g., John & Srivastava, 1999). Unfortunately, efforts to date to apply this rich framework to clinical assessment tasks have met with limited success. These difficulties, however, appear largely to be a product of limitations in tests designed tomeasure the FFM (e.g., questions about theclinical utility of the NEO-PI-R related to its authors’ decision not to measure potential threats to protocolvalidity;Costa&McCrae, 1992c). Alternative conceptualizations (e.g., Harkness and McNulty’s PSY-5 model; 1994), developed from the clinical rather than normal personality perspective, may ultimately prove more fruitful. In any event, enhancing SRI interpreters’ ability to rely on their construct validity should be a major goal of further research efforts in this area. Standard Score Derivation for SRIs Two primary needs for further research exist with respect to standard score derivation for SRIs. First, as reviewed earlier, various problems innormative sampling may resultin over- or underestimation of an individual’s standing on SRI-measured constructs. Current and future SRIs need to be scrutinized carefully to determine whether, and to what extent, the systematic sampling errors, population changes, and application changes described previously might compromise their normative samples’adequacy. A second aspect of standard score derivation for SRIs that should be the focus of further research efforts relates to the advisability and feasibility of using special norms when ap- plying SRIs to specific subpopulations or setting types. Some approaches to incorporating population subsegment information in SRI scale score interpretation involve developing sep- arate norms for use in these applications (e.g., Roberts et al.’s approach to using the PAI in public safety personnel screening; 1999). However, as discussed earlier, use of so-called special norms may obscure features shared commonly by members of a population subsegment or by individuals tested under similar circumstances (e.g., defensiveness among individuals being screened for public safety positions or depression in people tested in clinical settings). An alternative method for considering how an individual’s SRI scale scores compare with those of population subseg- ments is to provide interpreters data on group members’ means and standard deviations on the relevant scales. Such data could be provided in professional publications or along with individual test scores generated through automated scoring services. For example, many automated scoring services currently include a graphic printout of the individual’s standard scores on a profile sheet. Group mean profiles, along with their associated standard deviations or errors plotted as confidence intervals, could be added to these printouts. This would allow the test interpreter to learn how the individual’s scores compare with both the general normative standard and with relevant comparison groups without obscuring the effects of group deviations from the mean. Assessing Threats to Protocol Validity Several types ofthreats to SRIprotocol validity were identified in thischapter. Existing instruments varyin the extent to which they provide interpreters information regarding these threats’ presence in a given protocol. Most SRIs provide means for assessing at least some of the categories of threats outlined in Table 24.1. The recently updated MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001) contains scales designed to tap each of the types and subtypes of threats described earlier. Within the category of Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding, nonresponding is assessed by the Cannot Say scale; random responding by the Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN) scale; and fixed responding is measured by the True Response Inconsistency (TRIN) scale. In the category of Content-Based Invalid Re- sponding, overreporting is gauged by the infrequency scales F (Infrequency), Fb (Back Infrequency), and Fp (Infrequency psychopathology), and underreporting is assessed by the defensiveness indicators L (Lie), K (Defensiveness), and S (Superlative). Existing validity scales fall short, however, in their ability to differentiate meaningfully among threats within these subtypes. For example, existing scales do not allow for differentiation among intentional versus unintentional random responding, intentional versus unintentional over- or underreporting, exaggeration versus fabrication, or minimization versus denial. Some of these distinctions may only be possible through consideration of extratest data; however, further research is needed to explore whether configural interpretation of existing validity scales or development of additional validity scales may allow SRI interpreters to more finely dis- tinguish among the various threats and levels of threats to protocol validity. CONCLUSION This chapter provided an overview of the historical foundations and early criticisms of self-report measures, current issues and challenges in SRI interpretation, and needs for References 575 future research in this area. A great deal of progress has been made in developing this technology’s conceptual and empirical foundations. Over the past 50 years, the challenges articulated early on by Allport (1937) and Ellis (1946) have been addressed (with varying degrees of success) by subsequent SRI developers and researchers. These efforts have been documented in an elaborate body of scholarly literature that, of course, goes well beyond the scope of this chapter. Other chapters in this volume cover additional aspects of this literature, in particular the chapters by Garb on clinical versus statistical prediction, Bracken and Wasserman on psychometric characteristics of assessment procedures, and Reynolds and Ramsey on cultural test bias. Chapters on assessment in various settings include reviews of more setting-specific aspects of the SRI literature. Overall, these chapters indicate that assessment of personality and psychopathology by self-report rests on solid foundations that leave this technology well positioned for future research and development efforts. REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1928). A test for ascendance-submission. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 23, 118–136. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychosocial interpretation. New York: Henry Holt. Anastasi, A. (1985). Some emerging trends in psychological measurement: A fifty year perspective. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 212–138. Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1994). The MMPI and MMPI-2: Fifty years of differentiating normal and abnormal personality. In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality. (pp. 361–401) New York: Springer. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1991). The historical development of personality assessment. In C. E. Walker (Ed.), Clinical psychology: Historical and research foundations (pp. 121–156) New York: Plenum Press. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Waller, N. G. (1992). “Normal” personality inventories in clinical assessment: General requirements and potential for using the NEO Personality Inventory. Psychologi- cal Assessment, 4, 14–19. Bernreuter, R. J. (1933). Theory and construction of the personality inventory. Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 387–405. Black, J. D. (1953). The interpretation of MMPI profiles of college women. Dissertation Abstracts, 13, 870–871. Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets: Unconfounding meaning, acquiescence, and social desirability in the MMPI. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Block, J. (1995).A contrarian view of the five factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215. Burisch, M.(1984).Approachestopersonalityinventory construction: Acomparison of merits.American Psychologist, 39, 214–227. Butcher, J. N. (1996). International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation (Revised ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Williams, C. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1990). Development and use of the MMPI-2 content scales. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J. N., & Pancheri, P. (1976). Handbook of cross-national MMPI research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J. N., & Rouse, S. V. (1996). Personality: Individual differences and clinical assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 87–111. Cady, V. M. (1923). The estimation of juvenile incorrigibility. Elementary School Journal, 33, 1–140. Camara, W. J., Nathan, J. S., & Puente, A. E. (2000). Psychological test usage implications in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 141–154. Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore: Penguin Books. Cattell, R. B. (1979). Personality and learning theory (Vol. 1). New York: Springer. Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. (1993). Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire, fifth edition. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psy- chological Assessment, 4, 5–13. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. ( 1992b). Normal personality inventories in clinical assessment: General requirements and the potential for using the NEO Personality Inventory. A reply. Psy- chological Assessment, 4, 20–22. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992c). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO- FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess- ment Resources. Craig, R. J. (1999). Interpreting personality tests: A clinical manual for the MMPI-2, MCMI-III, CPI-R, and 16PF. New York: Wiley. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. Dahlstrom, W. G. (1992). The growth in acceptance of the MMPI. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 345–348. Dahlstrom, W. G., Welsh, G. S., & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1972). An MMPI handbook, Vol. 1: Clinical interpretation (Revised ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 576 Assessing Personality and Psychopathology With Self-Report Inventories Dorfman, W. I., & Hersen, M. (2001). Understanding psychological assessment. Dordecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Downey, J. E. (1923). The will-temperament and its testing. New York: World Book. Dubois, P. L. (1970). A history of psychological testing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Duckworth, J. C. (1991). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: A review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 564–567. Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden. Edwards, A. L. (1970). The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston. Ellis, A. (1946). The validity of personality questionnaires. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 43, 385–440. Ellis, A. (1953). Recent research with personality inventories. Jour- nal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 45–49. Eysenck, J. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Finger, M. S., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Psychometric equivalence of the computer and booklet forms of the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 11, 58–66. Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 42, 179–185. Gilberstadt, H., & Duker, J. (1965). A handbook for clinical and actuarial MMPI interpretation. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Diagnosticians versus diagnostic signs: The diagnosis of psychosis versus neurosis from the MMPI. Psycho- logical Monographs, 79(Whole No. 602). Groth-Marnat, G. (1997). Handbook of psychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Guthrie, G. M. (1952). Common characteristics associated with frequent MMPI profile types. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8, 141–145. Gynther, M. D. (1972). White norms and black MMPIs: A prescrip- tion for discrimination? Psychological Bulletin, 78, 386–402. Halbower, C. C. (1955). A comparison of actuarial versus clinical prediction of classes discriminated by the MMPI. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Minneapolis, MN. Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994). The Personality- Psychopathology Five: Issues from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary. In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 291–315). New York: Springer. Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales. Psychologi- cal Assessment, 7, 104–114. Hathaway, S. R. (1956). Scales 5 (Masculinity-Femininity), 6 (Para- noia), and 8 (Schizophrenia). In G. S. Welsh & W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine (pp. 104–111). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A Multiphasic Person- ality Schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1942). A Multiphasic Person- ality Schedule (Minnesota): II. The measurement of sympto- matic depression. Journal of Psychology, 14, 73–84. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Mul- tiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hathaway, S. R., & Meehl, P. E. (1951). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. In Military clinical psychology (Depart- ment of the Army Technical Manual TM 8:242; Department of the Air Force AFM 160-145). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Heidbreder, E. (1926). Measuring introversion and extraversion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 120–134. Helmes, E., & Reddon, J. R. (1993). A perspective on developments in assessing psychopathology: A critical review of the MMPI and MMPI-2. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 453–471. Heymans, G., & Wiersma, E. (1906). Beitrage zur spezillen psychologie auf grund einer massenunterschung [Contribution of psychological specialists to personality analysis]. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 43, 81–127. Hoch,A., &Amsden, G. S. (1913).Aguide to the descriptive study of personality. Review of Neurology and Psychiatry, 11, 577–587. Humm, D. G., & Wadsworth, G. W. (1935). The Humm-Wadsworth temperament scale. American Journalof Psychiatry, 92, 163–200. Jackson, D. N. (1989). Basic Personality Inventory manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems. Jackson, D. N., Fraboni, M., & Helmes, E. (1997). MMPI-2 content scales: How much content do they measure? Assessment, 4, 111– 117. Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1962). Response styles on the MMPI: Comparison of clinical and normal samples. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 285–299. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press. Keller, J., Hicks, B. D., & Miller, G. A. (2000). Psychophysiology in the study of psychopathology. In J. T. Caciopo & L. G. Tassinary (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 719–750). New York: Cambridge University Press. Loevinger, J. (1994). Has psychology lost its conscience? Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 2–8. Maller, J. B. (1932). The measurement of conflict between honesty and group loyalty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 23, 187– 191. Marks, P. A., & Seeman, W. (1963). The actuarial description of abnormal personality: An atlas foruse withthe MMPI.Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Maruish, M. E. (1999). The useof psychological testing fortreatment planning and outcomes assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. References 577 McKinley, J. C., & Hathaway, S. R. (1940). A Multiphasic Person- ality Schedule (Minnesota): II. A differential study of hypochon- driasis. Journal of Psychology, 10, 255–268. McKinley, J. C., & Hathaway, S. R. (1942). A Multiphasic Personality Schedule (Minnesota): IV. Psychasthenia. Journal of Applied Psychology, 26, 614–624. McKinley, J. C., & Hathaway, S. R. (1944). A Multiphasic Per- sonality Schedule (Minnesota): V. Hysteria, Hypomania, and Psychopathic Deviate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 153– 174. Meehl, P. E. (1945). The dynamics of “structured” personality tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 296–303. Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and review of the evidence. Minneapolis: Univer- sity of Minnesota Press. Meehl, P. E. (1956). Wanted—A good cookbook. American Psy- chologist, 11, 263–272. Meehl, P. E., & Dahlstrom, W. G. (1960). Objective configural rules for discriminating psychotic from neurotic MMPI profiles. Jour- nal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 375–387. Meehl, P. E., & Hathaway, S. R. (1946). The K factor as a suppres- sor variable in the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 525–564. Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 377–412. Morey,L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources. Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self- reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582–593. Roberts, M. D., Thompson, J. R., & Johnson, W. (1999). The PAI Law enforcement, corrections, and public safety selection report: Manual for the professional report service. Odessa, FL: Psycho- logical Assessment Resources. Ruch, F. L. (1942). A technique for detecting attempts to fake performance on a self-inventory type of personality test. In Q. McNemar & M. A. Merrill (Eds.), Studies on personality (pp. 61–85). New York: Saunders. Schinka, J. A., & LaLone, L. (1997). MMPI-2 norms: Comparisons with a census-matched subsample. Psychological Assessment, 9, 307–311. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529–540. Starck, S., & Lorr, M. (1994). Differentiating normal and abnormal personality. New York: Springer. Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Person- ality Questionnaire. Minneapolis, MN: Unpublished document. Tellegen, A. (1985). Structure of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681–706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thurstone, L. L. (1930). A neurotic inventory. Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 3–30. Travis, R. C. (1925). The measurement of fundamental character traits by a new diagnostic test. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 18, 400–425. Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234–254. Wells, F. L. (1914). The systematic observation of the personality— In its relation to the hygiene of the mind. Psychological Review, 21, 295–333. Wiggins, J. S. (1959). Interrelations among MMPI measures of dis- simulation under standard and social desirability instruction. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23, 419–427. Wiggins, J. S. (1966). Substantive dimensions of self-report in the MMPI item pool. Psychological Monographs, 80(22, Whole No. 630). Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Woodworth, R. S. (1920). Personal data sheet. Chicago: Stoeling. CHAPTER 25 Current Status and Future Directions of Assessment Psychology JACK A. NAGLIERI AND JOHN R. GRAHAM 579 BRIEF HISTORY 579 CURRENT STATUS 580 ASSESSMENT SETTINGS 581 Child Mental Health 581 Adult Mental Health 581 Geriatric 582 Industrial/Organizational 582 Forensic 583 Medical 583 Correctional 584 Educational 584 TYPES OF ASSESSMENT 585 Cognitive/Intellectual 585 Interests 585 Neuropsychology 586 Personality and Psychopathology 586 Interviews 587 Behavioral Approaches 587 Projective Approaches 588 Self-Report Approaches 589 CONCLUDING ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT PSYCHOLOGY 589 FUTURE OF ASSESSMENT PSYCHOLOGY 591 REFERENCES 591 Assessment psychology is “concerned with methods of iden- tifying similarities and differences among people in their personal characteristics and capacities” (see chapterby Weiner in this volume). This important branch of psychology has become so well researched and established that it can now be considered a subdiscipline within the field of psychology. Although psychological assessment has sometimes been equated withtesting, assessment involvesmuch more thanad- ministering tests. It involves the collection and integration of information, not only from psychological tests, but also from interviews, behavioral observations, collateral reports, and historical documents so that a more complete picture of a person is obtained. BRIEF HISTORY Assessment psychology can be dated to as early as 2200 B.C. when the Chinese emperor examined individuals to determine their fitness for public office (DuBois, 1970). In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, civil service tests, patterned after those of the Chinese, were introduced in Europe. In 1883 the United States endorsed the use of tests for the screening of applicants for Civil Service jobs (Graham & Lilly, 1984). At about the same time, Sir Francis Galton’s work on the genetic transmission of characteristics required the development of measures to quantify the characteristics under study. The simple sensorimotor tasks that Galton developed were later introduced in the United States by James McKeen Cattell. Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, working in France, adapted some of these sensorimotor tasks and added others when they developed methods for assessing ability in school children. Their scales were modified for use in the United States by LewisTerman and further adaptedin part by theU.S. Army for evaluation of military personnel. David Wechsler’s dissatisfaction with the Binet scales in his work with psy- chiatric patients led to the development of the first of the Wechsler intelligence scales. The availability of standardized methods for assessing intellectual ability provided American psychologists with unique skills that helped to establish their professional identity in clinical and educational settings. 580 Current Status and Future Directions of Assessment Psychology Moreover, these tools to measure ability have had tremendous impact on our society and the practice of psychology. CURRENT STATUS The proportion of psychologists’ time spent conducting psychological assessments has declined over time. In 1959 psychologists practicing in clinical settings spent 44% oftheir time conducting psychological assessments (Groth-Marnat, 1999), but by 1998 psychologists in similar clinical settings were spending only 16% of their time conducting psychological assessments (Phelps, Eisman, & Kohout, 1998). How- ever, assessment is still a very important and viable specialty within psychology, especially among professionals working in educational and clinical settings. Earlier chapters in this volume elucidated some of the factors that have affected the use ofassessment procedures. Arecurring theme has been that economic factors, most currently represented by managed care programs, have had significant impact on assessment practices. Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998) surveyed psychologists listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology and found that 70% saw managed care as negatively affecting psychological assessment. Psy- chologists reported less reliance on procedures requiring much clinician time and more emphasis on briefer instruments. They also reported less emphasis on comprehensive assessments of general psychological functioning and more emphasis on techniques that were directly responsive to specific referral questions. Unfortunately, the validity of many of the specific and abbreviated procedures currently being used has not been adequately demonstrated. Economic pressures have also forced psychologists to demonstrate that assessment activities contribute significantly to positive outcomes in a variety of settings (e.g., mental health, medical, business, education). Other chapters in this volume offer evidence concerning these contributions. For example, in his chapter in this volume Maruish presents some convincing arguments that assessment procedures can fa- cilitate effective psychological interventions. An especially promising area is the development ofstandardized assessment procedures for documenting the effectiveness of treatment interventions. Likewise, the chapters in this volume by Sweet, Tovian, and Suchy and by Podell, DeFina, Barrett, McCullen, and Goldberg document the contributions of psychological assessment in relation to a variety of medical procedures including surgical interventions, organ transplantation, and physical conditions (e.g., neuropsychological dysfunction). Similarly, in his chapter in this volume Wasserman highlights new advances in assessment of cognitive processing that have been shown to be relevant to academic interventions. An important rolefor assessment psychologistswill be to further develop effective ways to assess patients’ psychological coping and adjustment to their diseases and also to show relevance to treatment. The Board of Professional Psychology of the American Psychological Association (APA) constituted the Psycholog- ical Assessment Work Group (PAWG) to examine the current status of psychological assessment and to make recommen- dations concerning its future. The work group documented the impact of managed care on psychological assessments (Eisman et al., 2000). Although many managed care compa- nies argue that traditional psychological assessments do not add significantly enough to treatment to justify their cost and that less costly interviews are sufficient, the PAWG concluded that these views are not accurate and offered recom- mendations for rebutting them and preserving the stature of psychological assessment in the health care marketplace. In a subsequent report, PAWG offered evidence from the research literature that some psychological assessment procedures are as valid as (and in some cases more valid than) medical procedures that are readily accepted by many as valid and necessary (Daw, 2001; Meyer et al., 2001). For example, the relationship between long-term verbal memory tests and differentiation of dementia from depression was of the same magnitude as the relationship between exercise echocardiography results and identification of coro- nary artery disease (effect size for both about .60). Neither the use of routine ultrasound examinations for predicting successful pregnancies nor the use of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Ego Strength scale scores to predict subsequent psychotherapy outcome can be supported by empirical research findings (effect size for each less than .10). The report emphasized that both psychological and medical procedures have varying degrees of validity and that the validity and utility of each technique has to be demonstrated empirically. The PAWG concluded that “formal psychological assessment is a vital element in psychology’s professional heritage and a central part of professional practice today” and that there is “very strong and positive evidence that already exists on the value of psychological testing and assessment” (Meyer et al., 2001, p. 155). It is the respon- sibility of assessment psychologists, individually and collec- tively, to use existing evidence to support assessment activities in a variety of settings and to generate additional evidence of the validity and efficiency of psychological assessment procedures in health care and other settings (e.g., business, forensic) where assessment is taking place. Assessment Settings 581 ASSESSMENT SETTINGS Child Mental Health Lachar’s chapter in this volume on assessment in child mental health settings illustrates the importance that psychological assessment services have in intake evaluation, treatment planning, and subsequent outcome review. His chapter especially illustrates the interplay of psychology and business, and particularly how delivery of services can be related to a variety of factors including annual institutional budgets from which resources are allocated and the extent to which associated expenses can be reimbursed. These realities of service delivery have considerable impact on children who receive mental health services because of emotional and behavioral adjustment problems. Lachar describes how psychological assessment in child mental health settings focuses on the identification and quan- tification of symptoms and problems that should lead to the development of treatment strategies. There is a detailed discussion of the forms of psychological assessment that can be applied to answer specific diagnostic inquiries. This includes careful analysis of assessment instruments as well as topics such as qualifications of persons who conduct psychological assessment services, supervision issues, and certification and license considerations. Lachar recognizes that well-trained and well-supervised professionals are needed to mange the difficulties of making a diagnosis in an informational environment that can be complicated by problems such as comorbidity and disparate reports from parents. Despite the challenges, psychological assessments ultimately play a piv- otal role in the determination of the nature of the problem and the eventual effectiveness of the treatment. Because of the importance assessment plays in meeting the mental health needs of the client, Lachar notes that proper assessment should make use of multiple methods (e.g., behavioral rating scales, direct observation, interviews) by multiple informants (e.g., parents, teachers, the children themselves) of behavior in multiple settings (e.g., home, school). The ultimate success of treatment is, of course, related to the value of the methods used to obtain information and select treatments. Importantly, Lachar’s discussion of methods used by psychologists in this field, and especially the results of surveys of the assessment tools used in the child mental health arena, have shown that traditional tests of intelligence (e.g., Wechsler scales) and personality (e.g., MMPI; Rorschach; Thematic Apperception Test) remain standardsin the profession. He also notes thatrecent surveys suggest the growing use of parent and teacher rating scales in a variety of areas (from rating scales of depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to fam- ily adjustment scales). Additionally, Lachar notes the influ- ence of managed care in reducing the use of some of the most labor-intensive psychological assessment procedures. Lachar concludes that multidimensional multi-informant objective assessment makes a unique contribution to the assessment of youth adjustment, but more research is needed. He suggests that the validity of objective measures of youth adjustment should be more fully examined and especially the construct and actuarial validity of popular child and adoles- cent adjustment measures. Lachar stresses that validity will be best demonstrated when a measure contributes to the ac- curacy of routine decision-making that occurs in clinical practice (e.g., differential diagnosis or the selection of an optimal treatment plan). Further research is also needed on agreement among informants who have completed rating scales, in particular, the clinical implications of the results obtained from each informant rather than the magnitude of correlations. Additionally, researchers should examine incremental validity obtained from the use of a variety of objective assessment instruments. These and other issues presented by Lachar illustrate the important topics yet to be examined in this vibrant area of assessment psychology. Adult Mental Health In their chapter in this volume concerning assessment in adult mental health settings, Bagby, Wild, and Turner conclude that the main goals of assessment in such settings are providing an accurate description of the client’s problems, determining what interpersonal and environmental factors precipitated and are sustaining the problems, and making predictions concerning outcome with or without intervention. Assessments are also useful in planning treatment programs, evaluating the effectiveness of treatment interventions, and guiding dis- charge and follow-up plans. Bagby et al. believe that assessments need to be comprehensive and that clients and patients are disadvantaged by trends toward abbreviated assessment instruments and procedures. In inpatient settings, assessments often address questions of differential diagnosis. Although they discuss the limitations of the categorical approach to diagnosis underlying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), Bagby et al. believe that instruments that cover a broad array of symptoms (e.g., MMPI-2) are especially useful in addressing diagnostic questions. Bagby et al. believe that assessments in adult mental health settings need to be evidence-based and multimodal. Psychologists conducting assessments should choose their [...]... volume on assessment of intelligence The field has excellent potential, which is perhaps most apparent in its emergence as a viable specialty within the discipline of psychology Division 12 (Clinical Psychology) of the American Psychological Association recently approved an assessment psychology section, and the American Board of Assessment Psychology continues to evaluate credentials of assessment psychologists... may affect the validity of interpretations of interest measures The chapter on interests concludes with suggestions by Lowman and Carson for research on a number of important topics, including the heritability of interests Although they 586 Current Status and Future Directions of Assessment Psychology suggest that high heritability would be expected because of the stability of interests across the... possibility of critical periods in the development of interests, especially to examine whether children have a number of potentially strong interests that become more stable with the development of related skills during a critical time period Other areas of future research include further examination of the commonality and differences of alternative interest measures, empirically based coding of occupations,... transformed neuropsychology into a more diverse and scientific subspecialty of psychology Podell et al illustrate how the subspecialty of neuropsychology has evolved and reinvented itself as the technology and demands of the profession have changed Although this field is still wedded to many traditional instruments and methods (e.g., Wechsler scales), it has experienced a widening through the inclusion of assessment... empirical correlates of scales established in one setting are equally valid in other settings CONCLUDING ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT PSYCHOLOGY Assessment psychology is an important and viable specialty within the discipline of psychology and in many instances is at a defining point in its development Many of the methods of assessment in use today were developed during the early part of the twentieth century,... and interpretation of assessment instruments Another new technology is adaptive testing, which, like others, requires considerable empirical justification, but represents an important evolution in the field of assessment psychology Perhaps the most serious impediment to the future advancement of assessment psychology is the conservative nature of the industry and of many in the profession, which has... the use of the World Wide Web These developments further illustrate the unique demands of those who work in the industrial/organizational field—an environment driven by the intersection of the science of testing, public opinion, and politics, and the culture of the business world Forensic In their chapter in this volume, Ogloff and Douglas state that forensic psychology involves the application of the... to help the profession grow into a more mature science (see Maruish’s chapter in this volume) Only time will tell if the next 100 years of assessment psychology will be more of the same or if innovative approaches will develop and be embraced However, it is clear that although traditional instruments and methods have allowed assessment psychology to develop into a viable subdiscipline of psychology, ... another 100 years because so many of the goals of assessment have changed The assessment needs of today and tomorrow are not the same as those present when traditional tests and methods were developed in the early 1900s Assessment psychology must meet these new demands to continue its evolution into a mature science and a strong subdiscipline of psychology REFERENCES Block, J (1965) The challenge of response... Lenzenweger, M F., 500–501 Leon, S C., 128 Leong, F T L., 477 LePine, J A., 328, 329 Lerner, H., 194, 202 Lerner, P., 194, 202 Lesher, E L., 404 Lesser, I M., 500 Leung, K., 96, 98, 99, 100 , 102 , 103 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110, 111, 113 Leung, S A., 477 Levenberg, S B., 32, 33, 34 Levenson, J., 305 Leventhal, D B., 197 Levey, A B., 514 Levine, D., 549 Levings, C T., 502 Levinson, R., 369, 370, 375, 376 Levitan, . field of assessment psychology. Perhaps the most serious impediment to the future advancement of assessment psychology is the conservative nature of the industry and of many in the profession,. schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1942). A Multiphasic Person- ality Schedule (Minnesota): II. The measurement of sympto- matic depression. Journal of Psychology, . have allowed assessment psychology to develop into a viable subdiscipline of psychology, they cannot sustainthe field foranother 100 years because so many of the goals of assessment have changed. The

Định dạng
Số trang	59
Dung lượng	406,31 KB