handbook of psychology phần 1 pptx

Although interest in psychological assessment has waxed and waned over the years and various assessment procedures and instruments have come under attack, the premise of this volume is t

of PSYCHOLOGY

of PSYCHOLOGY

of PSYCHOLOGY

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Copyright © 2003 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey All rights reserved.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, e-mail: permcoordinator@wiley.com.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation You should consult with a professional where appropriate Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services If legal, accounting, medical,

psychological or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks In all instances where John Wiley & Sons, Inc is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration.

For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Handbook of psychology / Irving B Weiner, editor-in-chief.

p cm.

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

Contents: v 1 History of psychology / edited by Donald K Freedheim — v 2 Research

methods in psychology / edited by John A Schinka, Wayne F Velicer — v 3 Biological

psychology / edited by Michela Gallagher, Randy J Nelson — v 4 Experimental

psychology / edited by Alice F Healy, Robert W Proctor — v 5 Personality and social

psychology / edited by Theodore Millon, Melvin J Lerner — v 6 Developmental

psychology / edited by Richard M Lerner, M Ann Easterbrooks, Jayanthi Mistry — v 7.

Educational psychology / edited by William M Reynolds, Gloria E Miller — v 8.

Clinical psychology / edited by George Stricker, Thomas A Widiger — v 9 Health psychology /

edited by Arthur M Nezu, Christine Maguth Nezu, Pamela A Geller — v 10 Assessment

psychology / edited by John R Graham, Jack A Naglieri — v 11 Forensic psychology /

edited by Alan M Goldstein — v 12 Industrial and organizational psychology / edited

by Walter C Borman, Daniel R Ilgen, Richard J Klimoski.

ISBN 0-471-17669-9 (set) — ISBN 0-471-38320-1 (cloth : alk paper : v 1)

— ISBN 0-471-38513-1 (cloth : alk paper : v 2) — ISBN 0-471-38403-8 (cloth : alk paper : v 3)

— ISBN 0-471-39262-6 (cloth : alk paper : v 4) — ISBN 0-471-38404-6 (cloth : alk paper : v 5)

— ISBN 0-471-38405-4 (cloth : alk paper : v 6) — ISBN 0-471-38406-2 (cloth : alk paper : v 7)

— ISBN 0-471-39263-4 (cloth : alk paper : v 8) — ISBN 0-471-38514-X (cloth : alk paper : v 9)

— ISBN 0-471-38407-0 (cloth : alk paper : v 10) — ISBN 0-471-38321-X (cloth : alk paper : v 11)

— ISBN 0-471-38408-9 (cloth : alk paper : v 12)

1 Psychology I Weiner, Irving B.

BF121.H1955 2003

150—dc21

2002066380 Printed in the United States of America.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

University of Rhode Island

Kingston, Rhode Island

Theodore Millon, PhDInstitute for Advanced Studies inPersonology and PsychopathologyCoral Gables, Florida

Melvin J Lerner, PhDFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca Raton, Florida

Volume 6 Developmental Psychology

Richard M Lerner, PhD

M Ann Easterbrooks, PhDJayanthi Mistry, PhDTufts UniversityMedford, Massachusetts

Volume 7 Educational Psychology

William M Reynolds, PhDHumboldt State UniversityArcata, California

Gloria E Miller, PhDUniversity of DenverDenver, Colorado

Volume 8 Clinical Psychology

George Stricker, PhDAdelphi UniversityGarden City, New YorkThomas A Widiger, PhDUniversity of KentuckyLexington, Kentucky

Volume 9 Health Psychology

Arthur M Nezu, PhDChristine Maguth Nezu, PhDPamela A Geller, PhDDrexel UniversityPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Volume 10 Assessment Psychology

John R Graham, PhDKent State UniversityKent, Ohio

Jack A Naglieri, PhDGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia

Volume 11 Forensic Psychology

Alan M Goldstein, PhDJohn Jay College of CriminalJustice–CUNY

New York, New York

Volume 12 Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Walter C Borman, PhDUniversity of South FloridaTampa, Florida

Daniel R Ilgen, PhDMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan Richard J Klimoski, PhDGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia

Editorial Board

v

Parents are powerful forces in the development of their sons and daughters In recognition

of that positive influence, we dedicate our efforts on this book to the loving

memory of Craig Parris (1910–2001) and Sam Naglieri (1926–2001)

Handbook of Psychology Preface

Psychology at the beginning of the twenty-first century has

become a highly diverse field of scientific study and applied

technology Psychologists commonly regard their discipline

as the science of behavior, and the American Psychological

Association has formally designated 2000 to 2010 as the

“Decade of Behavior.” The pursuits of behavioral scientists

range from the natural sciences to the social sciences and

em-brace a wide variety of objects of investigation Some

psy-chologists have more in common with biologists than with

most other psychologists, and some have more in common

with sociologists than with most of their psychological

col-leagues Some psychologists are interested primarily in the

be-havior of animals, some in the bebe-havior of people, and others

in the behavior of organizations These and other dimensions

of difference among psychological scientists are matched by

equal if not greater heterogeneity among psychological

practi-tioners, who currently apply a vast array of methods in many

different settings to achieve highly varied purposes

Psychology has been rich in comprehensive

encyclope-dias and in handbooks devoted to specific topics in the field

However, there has not previously been any single handbook

designed to cover the broad scope of psychological science

and practice The present 12-volume Handbook of

Psychol-ogy was conceived to occupy this place in the literature.

Leading national and international scholars and practitioners

have collaborated to produce 297 authoritative and detailed

chapters covering all fundamental facets of the discipline,

and the Handbook has been organized to capture the breadth

and diversity of psychology and to encompass interests and

concerns shared by psychologists in all branches of the field

Two unifying threads run through the science of behavior

The first is a common history rooted in conceptual and

em-pirical approaches to understanding the nature of behavior

The specific histories of all specialty areas in psychology

trace their origins to the formulations of the classical

philoso-phers and the methodology of the early experimentalists, and

appreciation for the historical evolution of psychology in all

of its variations transcends individual identities as being one

kind of psychologist or another Accordingly, Volume 1 in

the Handbook is devoted to the history of psychology as

it emerged in many areas of scientific study and applied

technology

A second unifying thread in psychology is a commitment

to the development and utilization of research methodssuitable for collecting and analyzing behavioral data Withattention both to specific procedures and their application

in particular settings, Volume 2 addresses research methods

in psychology

Volumes 3 through 7 of the Handbook present the

sub-stantive content of psychological knowledge in five broadareas of study: biological psychology (Volume 3), experi-mental psychology (Volume 4), personality and social psy-chology (Volume 5), developmental psychology (Volume 6),and educational psychology (Volume 7) Volumes 8 through

12 address the application of psychological knowledge infive broad areas of professional practice: clinical psychology(Volume 8), health psychology (Volume 9), assessment psy-chology (Volume 10), forensic psychology (Volume 11), andindustrial and organizational psychology (Volume 12) Each

of these volumes reviews what is currently known in theseareas of study and application and identifies pertinent sources

of information in the literature Each discusses unresolved sues and unanswered questions and proposes future direc-tions in conceptualization, research, and practice Each of thevolumes also reflects the investment of scientific psycholo-gists in practical applications of their findings and the atten-tion of applied psychologists to the scientific basis of theirmethods

is-The Handbook of Psychology was prepared for the

pur-pose of educating and informing readers about the presentstate of psychological knowledge and about anticipated ad-vances in behavioral science research and practice With this

purpose in mind, the individual Handbook volumes address

the needs and interests of three groups First, for graduate dents in behavioral science, the volumes provide advancedinstruction in the basic concepts and methods that define thefields they cover, together with a review of current knowl-edge, core literature, and likely future developments Second,

stu-in addition to servstu-ing as graduate textbooks, the volumesoffer professional psychologists an opportunity to read andcontemplate the views of distinguished colleagues concern-ing the central thrusts of research and leading edges of prac-tice in their respective fields Third, for psychologists seeking

to become conversant with fields outside their own specialty

ix

x Handbook of Psychology Preface

and for persons outside of psychology seeking

informa-tion about psychological matters, the Handbook volumes

serve as a reference source for expanding their knowledge

and directing them to additional sources in the literature

The preparation of this Handbook was made possible by

the diligence and scholarly sophistication of the 25 volume

editors and co-editors who constituted the Editorial Board

As Editor-in-Chief, I want to thank each of them for the

plea-sure of their collaboration in this project I compliment them

for having recruited an outstanding cast of contributors to

their volumes and then working closely with these authors to

achieve chapters that will stand each in their own right as

valuable contributions to the literature I would like finally toexpress my appreciation to the editorial staff of John Wileyand Sons for the opportunity to share in the development ofthis project and its pursuit to fruition, most particularly toJennifer Simon, Senior Editor, and her two assistants, MaryPorterfield and Isabel Pratt Without Jennifer’s vision of the

Handbook and her keen judgment and unflagging support in

producing it, the occasion to write this preface would nothave arrived

IRVINGB WEINER

Tampa, Florida

The title of this volume, Assessment Psychology, was

deliber-ately chosen to make the point that the assessment activities of

psychologists constitute a legitimate and important

subdisci-pline within psychology The methods and techniques

devel-oped by assessment pioneers were central in establishing a

professional role for psychologists in schools, hospitals, and

other settings Although interest in psychological assessment

has waxed and waned over the years and various assessment

procedures and instruments have come under attack, the

premise of this volume is that assessment psychology is

alive and well and continues to be of paramount importance

in the professional functioning of most psychologists In

addition, assessment psychology contributes greatly to the

well-being of the thousands of individuals who are assessed

each year

A primary goal of this volume is to address important

is-sues in assessment psychology Some of these isis-sues have

been around a long time (e.g., psychometric characteristics of

assessment procedures), whereas others have come on the

scene more recently (e.g., computer-based psychological

as-sessment) The volume also has chapters devoted to the

unique features of assessment in different kinds of settings

(adult and child mental health, schools, medical centers,

busi-ness and industry, forensic and correctional, and geriatric)

Other chapters address assessment in various domains of

functioning (e.g., cognitive and intellectual, interests,

person-ality and psychopathology) Still other chapters address

various approaches used in the assessment process (e.g.,

interviews, behavioral methods, projective approaches, and

self-report inventories) The final chapter summarizes the

major conclusions reached by other authors in the volume

and speculates about the future of assessment psychology

We should also state clearly what this volume does not

in-clude Although many specific tests and procedures are

described (some in greater detail than others), the volume is

not intended as a practical guide for the administration and

interpretation of tests and other procedures There are other

excellent interpretive handbooks already available, and many

of these are referenced in the various chapters of this volume

It is our hope that the detailed and insightful consideration

of issues and problems will provide a strong foundation forall who are part of the discipline of assessment psychology,regardless of the specific techniques or instruments that theyemploy We view this volume as having been successful if itraises the sensitivity of assessment psychologists to the im-portant issues inherent in the use of assessment procedures in

a wide variety of settings and to the strengths and weaknesses

of the various approaches and instruments

This volume is intended for several audiences Graduatestudents in psychology, education, and related disciplinesshould find the chapters informative and thought provoking

as they master the assessment process Psychologists whoengage in psychological assessment, either routinely or on amore limited basis, should find the various chapters to be en-lightening Finally, those who use the results of psychologi-cal assessment (e.g., medical and social work professionals,teachers, parents, clients) should become more informed con-sumers after reading the chapters in this volume

We want to thank those who contributed to the completion

of this volume Of course, the most important contributorsare those who wrote the individual chapters Their effortsresulted in informative and thought-provoking chapters Theeditor-in-chief of the series of which this volume is a part,Irv Weiner, deserves considerable credit for his organiza-tional skills in making the project happen as planned and forhis specific contributions to each of the chapters in this vol-ume We also want to thank Alice Early and Brian O’Reillyfor their editorial contributions The Department of Psychol-ogy at Kent State University and the Department of Psy-chology and the Center for Cognitive Development at GeorgeMason University supported this project in various ways

JOHNR GRAHAM

JACKA NAGLIERI

Volume Preface

xi

Handbook of Psychology Preface ix

3 PSYCHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES 43

John D Wasserman and Bruce A Bracken

4 BIAS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: AN EMPIRICAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67Cecil R Reynolds and Michael C Ramsay

5 TESTING AND ASSESSMENT IN CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY 95

8 ETHICAL ISSUES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 165

Gerald P Koocher and Celiane M Rey-Casserly

9 EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 181

Leonard Handler and Amanda Jill Clemence

Contents

xiii

xiv Contents

PA RT T W O

ASSESSMENT SETTINGS

10 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH SETTINGS 213

R Michael Bagby, Nicole Wild, and Andrea Turner

11 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN CHILD MENTAL HEALTH SETTINGS 235

David Lachar

12 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN SCHOOL SETTINGS 261

Jeffery P Braden

13 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN MEDICAL SETTINGS 291

Jerry J Sweet, Steven M Tovian, and Yana Suchy

14 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN INDUSTRIAL/ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS 317Richard J Klimoski and Lori B Zukin

15 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN FORENSIC SETTINGS 345

James R P Ogloff and Kevin S Douglas

16 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN CORRECTIONAL SETTINGS 365

Edwin I Megargee

17 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN GERIATRIC SETTINGS 389

Barry A Edelstein, Ronald R Martin, and Lesley P Koven

PA RT T H R E E

ASSESSMENT METHODS

18 ASSESSMENT OF INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING 417

John D Wasserman

19 ASSESSMENT OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING 443

Kenneth Podell, Philip A DeFina, Paul Barrett, AnneMarie McCullen, and Elkhonon Goldberg

20 ASSESSMENT OF INTERESTS 467

Rodney L Lowman and Andrew D Carson

21 ASSESSING PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY WITH INTERVIEWS 487Robert J Craig

22 ASSESSMENT OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY WITH BEHAVIORAL APPROACHES 509William H O’Brien, Jennifer J McGrath, and Stephen N Haynes

Contents xv

23 ASSESSING PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY WITH PROJECTIVE METHODS 531

Donald J Viglione and Bridget Rivera

24 ASSESSING PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY WITH SELF-REPORT INVENTORIES 553Yossef S Ben-Porath

25 CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF ASSESSMENT PSYCHOLOGY 579

Jack A Naglieri and John R Graham

Author Index 593

Subject Index 615

West Side VA Medical Center and

Illinois School of Professional Psychology

Tampa, Florida

Barry A Edelstein, PhD

Department of PsychologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantown, West Virginia

Howard N Garb, PhD

Veterans Administration PittsburghHealthcare System and Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Kurt F Geisinger, PhD

Office of Academic Affairs andDepartment of PsychologyThe University of St ThomasHouston, Texas

Elkhonon Goldberg, PhD

Department of NeurologyNew York University School of MedicineNew York, New York

John R Graham, PhD

Department of PsychologyKent State UniversityKent, Ohio

Leonard Handler, PhD

Department of PsychologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville, Tennessee

Contributors

xvii

West Virginia University

Morgantown, West Virginia

David Lachar, PhD

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

University of Texas Houston Health Science Center

Houston, Texas

Rodney L Lowman, PhD

College of Organizational Studies

Alliant International University

San Diego, California

Ronald R Martin, PhD

Department of Psychology

West Virginia University

Morgantown, West Virginia

Bowling Green State University

Bowling Green, Ohio

Fairfax, Virginia

William H O’Brien, PhD

Department of PsychologyBowling Green State UniversityBowling Green, Ohio

Kenneth Podell, PhD

Department of PsychiatryHenry Ford Health SystemDetroit, Michigan

North Chicago, Illinois

Jerry J Sweet, PhD

Evanston Northwestern Healthcare andDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesNorthwestern University Medical School

Chicago, Illinois

Contributors xix

Steven M Tovian, PhD

Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Northwestern University Medical School

Department of Psychology and

Center for Cognitive Development

George Mason University

Lori B Zukin, PhD

Booz Allen HamiltonMcLean, Virginia

PA R T O N E

ASSESSMENT ISSUES

INTERPRETING ASSESSMENT INFORMATION 11

UTILIZING ASSESSMENT INFORMATION 20

REFERENCES 23

Assessment psychology is the field of behavioral science

con-cerned with methods of identifying similarities and

differ-ences among people in their personal characteristics and

capacities As such, psychological assessment comprises a

variety of procedures that are employed in diverse ways to

achieve numerous purposes Assessment has sometimes been

equated with testing, but the assessment process goes beyond

merely giving tests Psychological assessment involves

inte-grating information gleaned not only from test protocols, but

also from interview responses, behavioral observations,

col-lateral reports, and historical documents The Standards for

Educational and Psychological Testing (American

Educa-tional Research Association [AERA], American

Psychologi-cal Association, and National Council on Measurement in

Education, 1999) specify in this regard that

the use of tests provides one method of collecting information

within the larger framework of a psychological assessment of an

individual A psychological assessment is a comprehensive

ex-amination undertaken to answer specific questions about a client’s

psychological functioning during a particular time interval or to

predict a client’s psychological functioning in the future (p 119)

The diverse ways in which assessment procedures are

employed include many alternative approaches to obtaining

and combining information from different sources, and the

numerous purposes that assessment serves arise in response to

a broad range of referral questions raised in such companion

fields as clinical, educational, health, forensic, and industrial/

organizational psychology Subsequent chapters in this volume

elaborate the diversity of assessment procedures, the nature

of the assessment questions that arise in various settings, andthe types of assessment methods commonly employed to ad-dress these questions

This introductory chapter sets the stage for what is to follow

by conceptualizing assessment as a three-stage process

com-prising an initial phase of information input, a subsequent phase of information evaluation, and a final phase of informa- tion output Information input involves collecting assessment

data of appropriate kinds and in sufficient amounts to addressreferral questions in meaningful and useful ways Information

evaluation consists of interpreting assessment data in a manner

that provides accurate descriptions of respondents’ ical characteristics and behavioral tendencies Information out-

psycholog-put calls for utilizing descriptions of respondents to formulate

conclusions and recommendations that help to answer referralquestions Each of these phases of the assessment process re-quires assessors to accomplish some distinctive tasks, and eachinvolves choices and decisions that touch on critical issues inconducting psychological assessments

COLLECTING ASSESSMENT INFORMATION

The process of collecting assessment information begins with

a formulation of the purposes that the assessment is intended

to serve A clear sense of why an assessment is being ducted helps examiners select tests and other sources ofinformation that will provide an adequate basis for arriving

con-4 The Assessment Process

at useful conclusions and recommendations Additionally

helpful in planning the data collection process is attention to

several examiner, respondent, and data management issues

that influence the nature and utility of whatever findings are

obtained

Formulating Goals

Psychological assessments are instigated by referrals that

pose questions about aspects of a person’s psychological

functioning or likely future behavior When clearly stated and

psychologically relevant, referral questions guide

psycholo-gists in determining what kinds of assessment data to collect,

what considerations to address in examining these data, and

what implications of their findings to emphasize in their

re-ports If referral questions lack clarity or psychological

rele-vance, some reformulation is necessary to give direction to

the assessment process For example, a referral in a clinical

setting that asks vaguely for personality evaluation or

differ-ential diagnosis needs to be specified in consultation with the

referring person to identify why a personality evaluation is

being sought or what diagnostic possibilities are at issue

As-sessment in the absence of a specific referral question can

re-sult in a sterile exercise in which neither the data collection

process nor the psychologist’s inferences can be focused in a

meaningful way

Even when adequately specified, referral questions are not

always psychological in nature Assessors doing forensic

work are frequently asked to evaluate whether criminal

de-fendants were insane at the time of their alleged offense

Sanity is a legal term, however, not a psychological term.

There are no assessment methods designed to identify

insan-ity, nor are there any research studies in which being insane

has been used as an independent variable In instances of this

kind, in order to help assessors plan their procedures and

frame their reports, the referral must be translated into

psy-chological terms, as in defining insanity as the inability to

distinguish reality from fantasy

As a further challenge in formulating assessment goals,

specific and psychologically phrased referral questions may

still lack clarity as a consequence of addressing complex and

multidetermined patterns of behavior In employment

evalu-ations, for example, a referring person may want to know

which of three individuals is likely to perform best in a

posi-tion of leadership or executive responsibility To address this

type of question effectively, assessors must first be able to

identify psychological characteristics that are likely to make

a difference in the particular circumstances, as by

proceed-ing, in this example, in the belief that being energetic,

deci-sive, assertive, self-confident, and reasonably unflappable

contribute to showing effective and responsible leadership

Then the data collection process can be planned to measurethese characteristics, and the eventual report can be focused

on using them as a basis for recommending a hiring decision

Selecting Tests

The multiple sources of assessment information previouslynoted include the results of formal psychological testing withstandardized instruments; responses to questions asked instructured and unstructured interviews; observations of be-havior in various types of contrived situations and natural set-tings; reports from relatives, friends, employers, and othercollateral persons concerning an individual’s previous lifehistory and current characteristics and behavioral tendencies;and documents such as medical records, school records, andwritten reports of earlier assessments Individual assessmentsvary considerably in the availability and utility of these di-verse sources of information Assessments may sometimes

be based entirely on record reviews and collateral reports,because the person being assessed is unwilling to be seen di-rectly by an examiner or is for some reason prevented fromdoing so Some persons being assessed are quite forthcomingwhen interviewed but are reluctant to be tested; others find itdifficult to talk about themselves but are quite responsive totesting procedures; and in still other cases, in which bothinterview and test data are ample, there may be a dearth ofother information sources on which to draw

There is little way to know before the fact which sources ofinformation will prove most critical or valuable in an assess-ment process What collateral informants say about a person

in a particular instance may be more revealing and reliablethan what the person says about him- or herself, and in someinstances historical documents may prove more informa-tive and dependable than either first-person or collateralreports Behavioral observations and interview data maysometimes contribute more to an adequate assessment thanstandardized tests, or may even render testing superfluous;whereas in other instances formal psychological testing mayreveal vital diagnostic information that would otherwise nothave been uncovered

The fact that psychological assessment can proceedeffectively without psychological testing helps to distinguish

between these two activities The terms psychological ment and psychological testing are sometimes used synony-

assess-mously, as noted earlier, but psychological testing is only oneamong many sources of information that may be utilized

in conducting a psychological assessment Whereas testing

refers to the administration of standardized measuring

instru-ments, assessment involves multiple data collection

proce-dures leading to the integration of information from diversesources Thus the data collection procedures employed in

Collecting Assessment Information 5

testing contribute only a portion of the information that is

typi-cally utilized in the complex decision-making process that

constitutes assessment This distinction between assessment

and testing has previously been elaborated by

Fernandez-Ballesteros (1997), Maloney and Ward (1976, chapter 3), and

Matarazzo (1990), among others

Nonetheless, psychological testing stands out among the

data collection procedures employed in psychological

assess-ment as the one most highly specialized, diverse, and in need

of careful regulation Psychological testing brings numerous

issues to the assessment process, beginning with selection of

an appropriate test battery from among an extensive array of

available measuring instruments (see Conoley & Impara,

1995, and Fischer & Corcoran, 1994; see also chapters 18–24

of the present volume) The chief considerations that should

determine the composition of a test battery are the

psycho-metric adequacy of the measures being considered; the

rele-vance of these measures to the referral questions being

addressed; the likelihood that these measures will contribute

incremental validity to the decision-making process; and the

additive, confirmatory, and complementary functions that

individual measures are likely to serve when used jointly

Psychometric Adequacy

As elaborated by Anastasi and Urbina (1997), in the

Stan-dards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA,

et al., 1999, chapters 1, 2, & 5), and in the chapter by

Wasserman and Bracken in this volume, the psychometric

adequacy of an assessment instrument consists of the

ex-tent to which it involves standardized test materials and

ad-ministration procedures, can be coded with reasonably good

interscorer agreement, demonstrates acceptable reliability,

has generated relevant normative data, and shows valid

corollaries that serve the purposes for which it is intended

Assessment psychologists may at times choose to use tests

with uncertain psychometric properties, perhaps for

ex-ploratory purposes or for comparison with a previous

exami-nation using these tests Generally speaking, however, formal

testing as part of a psychological assessment should be

lim-ited to standardized, reliable, and valid instruments for which

there are adequate normative data

Relevance

The tests selected for inclusion in an assessment battery

should provide information relevant to answering the

ques-tions that have been raised about the person being examined

Questions that relate to personality functions (e.g., What kind

of approach in psychotherapy is likely to be helpful to this

person?) call for personality tests Questions that relate to

educational issues (e.g., Does this student have a learning disability?) call for measures of intellectual abilities and

academic aptitude and achievement Questions that relate to

neuropsychological functions (e.g., Are there indications

of memory loss?) call for measures of cognitive functioning,

with special emphasis on measures of capacities for learningand recall

These examples of relevance may seem too obvious tomention However, they reflect an important and sometimesoverlooked guiding principle that test selection should be jus-tifiable for each measure included in an assessment battery.Insufficient attention to justifying the use of particular mea-sures in specific instances can result in two ill-advised as-sessment practices: (a) conducting examinations with a fixedand unvarying battery of measures regardless of what ques-tions are being asked in the individual case, and (b) usingfavorite instruments at every opportunity even when theyare unlikely to serve any central or unique purpose in a par-ticular assessment The administration of minimally usefultests that have little relevance to the referral question is awasteful procedure that can result in warranted criticism ofassessment psychologists and the assessment process Like-wise, the propriety of charging fees for unnecessary proce-dures can rightfully be challenged by persons receiving orpaying for services, and the competence of assessors whogive tests that make little contribution to answering the ques-tions at issue can be challenged in such public forums as thecourtroom (see Weiner, 2002)

Incremental Validity

Incremental validity in psychological assessment refers to the

extent to which new information increases the accuracy of aclassification or prediction above and beyond the accuracyachieved by information already available Assessors payadequate attention to incremental validity by collectingthe amount and kinds of information they need to answer

a referral question, but no more than that In theory, then, miliarity with the incremental validity of various measureswhen used for certain purposes, combined with test selectionbased on this information, minimizes redundancy in psycho-logical assessment and satisfies both professional and scien-tific requirements for justifiable test selection

fa-In practice, however, strict adherence to incremental ity guidelines often proves difficult and even disadvan-tageous to implement As already noted, it is difficult toanticipate which sources of information will prove to be mostuseful Similarly, with respect to which instruments to include

valid-in a test battery, there is little way to know whether the tests ministered have yielded enough data, and which tests havecontributed most to understanding the person being examined,

ad-6 The Assessment Process

until after the data have been collected and analyzed In most

practice settings, it is reasonable to conduct an interview and

review previous records as a basis for deciding whether formal

testing would be likely to help answer a referral question—

that is, whether it will show enough incremental validity to

warrant its cost in time and money Likewise, reviewing a set

of test data can provide a basis for determining what kind of

additional testing might be worthwhile However, it is rarely

appropriate to administer only one test at a time, to choose

each subsequent test on the basis of the preceding one, and to

schedule a further testing session for each additional test

ad-ministration For this reason, responsible psychological

as-sessment usually consists of one or two testing sessions

comprising a battery of tests selected to serve specific additive,

confirmatory, and complementary functions

Additive, Confirmatory, and Complementary

Functions of Tests

Some referral questions require selection of multiple tests

to identify relatively distinct and independent aspects of a

person’s psychological functioning For example, students

receiving low grades may be referred for an evaluation to

help determine whether their poor academic performance is

due primarily to limited intelligence or to personality

charac-teristics that are fostering negative attitudes toward achieving

in school A proper test battery in such a case would include

some measure of intelligence and some measure of

personal-ity functioning These two measures would then be used in an

additive fashion to provide separate pieces of information,

both of which would contribute to answering the referral

question As this example illustrates, the additive use of tests

serves generally to broaden understanding of the person

being examined

Other assessment situations may create a need for

con-firmatory evidence in support of conclusions based on test

findings, in which case two or more measures of the same

psychological function may have a place in the test battery

Assessors conducting a neuropsychological examination to

address possible onset of Alzheimer’s disease, for example,

ordinarily administer several memory tests Should each of

these tests identify memory impairment consistent with

Alzheimer’s, then from a technical standpoint, only one of

them would have been necessary and the others have shown

no incremental validity Practically speaking, however, the

multiple memory measures taken together provide

confirma-tory evidence of memory loss Such confirmaconfirma-tory use of tests

strengthens understanding and helps assessors present

con-clusions with confidence

The confirmatory function of a multitest battery is

espe-cially useful when tests of the same psychological function

measure it in different ways The advantages of multimethodassessment of variables have long been recognized in psy-chology, beginning with the work of Campbell and Fiske(1959) and continuing with contemporary reports by theAmerican Psychological Association’s (APA’s) PsychologicalAssessment Work Group, which stress the improved validitythat results when phenomena are measured from a variety ofperspectives (Kubiszyn et al., 2000; Meyer et al., 2001):

The optimal methodology to enhance the construct validity of nomothetic research consists of combining data from multiple methods and multiple operational definitions Just as effec- tive nomothetic research recognizes how validity is maximized when variables are measured by multiple methods, particularly when the methods produce meaningful discrepancies the quality of idiographic assessment can be enhanced by clinicians who integrate the data from multiple methods of assessment (Meyer et al., p 150)

Such confirmatory testing is exemplified in applications ofthe Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI,MMPI-2) and the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM), whichare the two most widely researched and frequently used per-sonality assessment instruments (Ackerman & Ackerman,1997; Butcher & Rouse, 1996; Camara, Nathan, & Puente,2000; Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark, 1995)

As discussed later in this chapter and in the chapters byViglione and Rivera and by Ben-Porath in this volume, theMMPI-2 is a relatively structured self-report inventory,whereas the RIM is a relatively unstructured measure ofperceptual-cognitive and associational processes (see alsoExner, 2003; Graham, 2000; Greene, 2000; Weiner, 1998).Because of differences in their format, the MMPI-2 andthe RIM measure normal and abnormal characteristics in dif-ferent ways and at different levels of a person’s ability andwillingness to recognize and report them directly Should aperson display some type of disordered functioning on boththe MMPI-2 and the RIM, this confirmatory finding becomesmore powerful and convincing than having such informationfrom one of these instruments but not other, even thoughtechnically in this instance no incremental validity derivesfrom the second instrument

Confirmatory evidence of this kind often proves helpful

in professional practice, especially in forensic work Asdescribed by Blau (1998), Heilbrun (2001), Shapiro (1991),and others, multiple sources of information pointing in thesame direction bolsters courtroom testimony, whereas con-clusions based on only one measure of some characteristiccan result in assessors’ being criticized for failing to conduct

a thorough examination

Should multiple measures of the same psychological acteristics yield different rather than confirmatory results,

char-Collecting Assessment Information 7

these results can usually serve valuable complementary

func-tions in the interpretive process At times, apparent lack of

agreement between two purported measures of the same

characteristic has been taken to indicate that one of the

measures lacks convergent validity This negative view of

di-vergent test findings fails to take adequate cognizance of the

complexity of the information provided by multimethod

as-sessment and can result in misleading conclusions To

con-tinue with the example of conjoint MMPI-2 and RIM testing,

suppose that a person’s responses show elevation on indices

of depression on one of these measures but not the other

Inasmuch as indices on both measures have demonstrated

some validity in detecting features of depression, the key

question to ask is not which measure is wrong in this

in-stance, but rather why the measures have diverged

Perhaps, as one possible explanation, the respondent has

some underlying depressive concerns that he or she does not

recognize or prefers not to admit to others, in which case

de-pressive features might be less likely to emerge in response to

the self-report MMPI-2 methodology than on the more

indi-rect Rorschach task Or perhaps the respondent is not

partic-ularly depressed but wants very much to give the impression

of being in distress and needing help, in which case the

MMPI-2 might be more likely to show depression than the

RIM Or perhaps the person generally feels more relaxed and

inclined to be forthcoming in relatively structured than

rela-tively unstructured situations, and then the MMPI-2 is more

likely than the RIM to reveal whether the person is depressed

As these examples show, multiple measures of the same

psychological characteristic can complement each other

when they diverge, with one measure sometimes picking up

the presence of a characteristic (a true positive) that is missed

by the other (a false negative) Possible reasons for the false

negative can contribute valuable information about the

re-spondent’s test-taking attitudes and likelihood of behaving

differently in situations that differ in the amount of structure

they provide The translation of such divergence between

MMPI-2 and RIM findings into clinically useful diagnostic

inferences and individual treatment planning is elaborated by

Finn (1996) and Ganellen (1996) Whatever measures may be

involved in weighing the implications of divergent findings,

this complementary use of test findings frequently serves to

deepen understanding gleaned from the assessment process

Examiner Issues

The amount and kind of data collected in psychological

as-sessments depend in part on two issues concerning the

exam-iners who conduct these assessments The first issue involves

the qualifications and competence of examiners to utilize the

procedures they employ, and the second has to do with ways

in which examiners’ personal qualities can influence how ferent kinds of people respond to them

dif-Qualifications and Competence

There is general consensus that persons who conduct logical assessments should be qualified by education and

psycho-training to do so The Ethical Principles and Code of duct promulgated by the APA (1992) offers the following

Con-general guideline in this regard: “Psychologists provide vices, teach, and conduct research only within the boundaries

ser-of their competence, based on their education, training, pervised experience, or appropriate professional experience”(Ethical Code 1.04[a]) Particular kinds of knowledge andskill that are necessary for test users to conduct adequate as-

su-sessments are specified further in the Test User Qualifications

endorsed by the APA (2001) Finally of note with respect to

using tests in psychological assessments, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 1999)

identify who is responsible for the proper use of tests: “Theultimate responsibility for appropriate test use and interpreta-tion lies predominantly with the test user In assuming thisresponsibility, the user must become knowledgeable about

a test’s appropriate uses and the populations for which it issuitable” (p 112)

Despite the clarity of these statements and the considerable

detail provided in the Test User Qualifications, two persistent

issues in contemporary assessment practice remain solved First, adequate psychological testing qualifications aretypically inferred for any examiners holding a graduate degree

unre-in psychology, beunre-ing licensed unre-in their state, and presentunre-ingthemselves as competent to practice psychological assessment

Until such time as the criteria proposed in the Test User fications become incorporated into formal accreditation proce-

Quali-dures, qualification as an assessor will continue to be conferredautomatically on psychologists obtaining licensure Unfortu-nately, being qualified by license to use psychological tests

does not ensure being competent in using them Being tent in psychological testing requires familiarity with the latest

compe-revision of whatever instruments an assessor is using, with rent research and the most recent normative data concerningthese instruments, and with the manifold interpretive complex-ities they are likely to involve Assessment competence alsorequires appreciation for a variety of psychometric, interper-sonal, sociocultural, and contextual issues that affect not onlythe collection but also the interpretation and utilization of as-sessment information (see Sandoval, Frisby, Geisinger, &Scheuneman, 1990) The chapters that follow in this volumebear witness to the broad range of these issues and to the steadyoutput of new or revised measures, research findings, and prac-tice guidelines that make assessment psychology a dynamic

cur-8 The Assessment Process

and rapidly evolving field with a large and burgeoning

lit-erature Only by keeping reasonably current with these

devel-opments can psychological assessors become and remain

competent, and only by remaining competent can they fulfill

their ethical responsibilities (Kitchener, 2000, chapter 9;

Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 1998; Weiner, 1989)

The second persistent issue concerns assessment by

per-sons who are not psychologists and are therefore not bound by

this profession’s ethical principles or guidelines for practice

Nonpsychologist assessors who can obtain psychological

tests are free to use them however they wish When easily

ad-ministered measures yield test scores that seem transparently

interpretable, as in the case of an elevated Borderline scale on

the Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory–III (MCMI-III;

Choca, Shanley, & Van Denberg, 1997) or an elevated

Acqui-escence scale on the Holland Vocational Preference Inventory

(VPI; Holland, 1985), unqualified examiners can draw

super-ficial conclusions that take inadequate account of the

com-plexity of these instruments, the interactions among their

scales, and the limits of their applicability It accordingly

be-hooves assessment psychologists not only to maintain their

own competence, but also to call attention in appropriate

cir-cumstances to assessment practices that fall short of

reason-able standards of competence

Personal Influence

Assessors can influence the information they collect by virtue

of their personal qualities and by the manner in which they

conduct a psychological examination In the case of

self-administered measures such as interest surveys or personality

questionnaires, examiner influence may be minimal

Inter-views and interactive testing procedures, on the other hand,

create ample opportunity for an examiner’s age, gender,

ethnicity, or other characteristics to make respondents feel

more or less comfortable and more or less inclined to be

forth-coming Examiners accordingly need to be alert to instances

in which such personal qualities may be influencing the

na-ture and amount of the data they are collecting

The most important personal influence that examiners

can-not modify or conceal is their language facility Psychological

assessment procedures are extensively language-based, either

in their content or in the instructions that introduce nonverbal

tasks, and accurate communication is therefore essential for

obtaining reliable assessment information It is widely agreed

that both examiners and whomever they are interviewing or

testing should be communicating either in their native

lan-guage or in a second lanlan-guage in which they are highly

profi-cient (AERA et al., 1999, chapter 9) The use of interpreters to

circumvent language barriers in the assessment process rarely

provides a satisfactory solution to this problem Unless aninterpreter is fully conversant with idiomatic expressions andcultural referents in both languages, is familiar with standardprocedures in psychological assessment, and is a stranger tothe examinee (as opposed to a friend, relative, or member ofthe same closely knit subcultural community), the obtained re-sults may be of questionable validity Similarly, in the case ofself-administered measures, instructions and test items must

be written in a language that the respondent can be expected tounderstand fully Translations of pencil-and-paper measuresaccordingly require close attention to the idiomatic vagaries ofeach new language and to culture-specific contents of individ-ual test items, in order to ensure equivalence of measures in thecross-cultural applications of tests (Allen & Walsh, 2000;Dana, 2000a)

Unlike their fixed qualities, the manner in which examinersconduct the assessment process is within their control, and un-toward examiner influence can be minimized by appropriateefforts to promote full and open response to the assessmentprocedures To achieve this end, an assessment typically be-gins with a review of its purposes, a description of the proce-dures that will be followed, and efforts to establish a rapportthat will help the person being evaluated feel comfortable andwilling to cooperate with the assessment process Variations inexaminer behavior while introducing and conducting psycho-logical evaluations can substantially influence how respon-dents perceive the assessment situation—for example, whetherthey see it as an authoritarian investigative process intended toferret out defects and weaknesses, or as a mutually respectfuland supportive interaction intended to provide understandingand help Even while following closely the guidelines for astructured interview and adhering faithfully to standardizedprocedures for administering various tests, the examiner needs

to recognize that his or her manner, tone of voice, and apparentattitude are likely to affect the perceptions and comfort level ofthe person being assessed and, consequently, the amount andkind of information that person provides (see Anastasi &Urbina, 1977; Masling, 1966, 1998)

Respondent Issues

Examiner influence in the assessment process inevitably acts with the attitudes and inclinations of the person being ex-amined Some respondents may feel more comfortable beingexamined by an older person than a younger one, for example,

inter-or by a male than a female examiner, whereas other dents may prefer a younger and female examiner Amongmembers of a minority group, some may prefer to be examined

respon-by a person with a cultural or ethnic background similar totheirs, whereas others are less concerned with the examiner’s

Collecting Assessment Information 9

background than with his or her competence Similarly, with

respect to examiner style, a passive, timid, and dependent

per-son might feel comforted by a warm, friendly, and supportive

examiner approach that would make an aloof, distant, and

mis-trustful person feel uneasy; conversely, an interpersonally

cautious and detached respondent might feel safe and secure

when being examined in an impersonal and businesslike

man-ner that would be unsettling and anxiety provoking to an

inter-personally needy and dependent respondent With such

possibilities in mind, skilled examiners usually vary their

be-havioral style with an eye to conducting assessments in ways

that will be likely to maximize each individual respondent’s

level of comfort and cooperation

Two other respondent issues that influence the data

col-lection process concern a person’s right to give informed

consent to being evaluated and his or her specific attitudes

to-ward being examined With respect to informed consent, the

introductory phase of conducting an assessment must

ordinar-ily include not only the explanation of purposes and

proce-dures mentioned previously, which informs the respondent,

but also an explicit agreement by the respondent or persons

legally responsible for the respondent to undergo the

evalua-tion As elaborated in the Standards for Educational and

Psy-chological Testing (AERA et al., 1999), informed consent can

be waived only when an assessment has been mandated by law

(as in a court-ordered evaluation) or when it is implicit, as

when a person applies for a position or opportunity for which

being assessed is a requirement (i.e., a job for which all

appli-cants are being screened psychologically; see also Kitchener,

2000, and the chapters by Geisinger and by Koocher and

Rey-Casserly in this volume) Having given their consent to be

evaluated, moreover, respondents are entitled to revoke it at

any time during the assessment process Hence, the prospects

for obtaining adequate assessment data depend not only on

whether respondents can be helped to feel comfortable and be

forthcoming, but even more basically on whether they consent

in the first place to being evaluated and remain willing during

the course of the evaluation

Issues involving a respondent’s specific attitudes toward

being examined typically arise in relation to whether the

assessment is being conducted for clinical or for

administra-tive purposes When assessments are being conducted for

clin-ical purposes, the examiner is responsible to the person being

examined, the person being examined is seeking some type of

assistance, and the examination is intended to be helpful to this

person and responsive to his or her needs As common

exam-ples in clinical assessments, people concerned about their

psy-chological well-being may seek an evaluation to learn whether

they need professional mental health care, and people

uncer-tain about their educational or vocational plans may want look

for help in determining what their abilities and interests suitthem to do In administrative assessments, by contrast, exam-iners are responsible not to the person being examined, but tosome third party who has requested the evaluation to assist inarriving at some judgment about the person Examiners in anadministrative assessment are ethically responsible for treat-ing the respondent fairly and with respect, but the evaluation isbeing conducted for the benefit of the party requesting it, andthe results may or may not meet the respondent’s needs orserve his or her best interests Assessment for administrativepurposes occurs commonly in forensic, educational, and orga-nizational settings when evaluations are requested to helpdecide such matters as whether a prison inmate should beparoled, a student should be admitted to a special program, or

a job applicant should be hired (see Monahan, 1980)

As for their attitudes, respondents being evaluated for ical purposes are relatively likely to be motivated to revealthemselves honestly, whereas those being examined for ad-ministrative purposes are relatively likely to be intent onmaking a certain kind of impression Respondents attempting

clin-to manage the impression they give are likely clin-to show selves not as they are, but as they think the person requestingthe evaluation would view favorably Typically such efforts atimpression management take the form of denying one’s limi-tations, minimizing one’s shortcomings, attempting to putone’s very best foot forward, and concealing whatever might

them-be seen in a negative light Exceptions to this general trend arenot uncommon, however Whereas most persons being evalu-ated for administrative purposes want to make the best possi-ble impression, some may be motivated in just the oppositedirection For example, a plaintiff claiming brain damage in apersonal injury lawsuit may see benefit in making the worstpossible impression on a neuropsychological examination.Some persons being seen for clinical evaluations, despitehaving come of their own accord and recognizing that the as-sessment is being conducted for their benefit, may neverthe-less be too anxious or embarrassed to reveal their difficultiesfully Whatever kind of impression respondents may want tomake, the attitudes toward being examined that they bringwith them to the assessment situation can be expected to influ-ence the amount and kind of data they produce These attitudesalso have a bearing on the interpretation of assessment data,and the further implications of impression managementfor malingering and defensiveness are discussed later in thechapter

Data Management Issues

A final set of considerations in collecting assessment mation concerns appropriate ways of managing the data that

infor-10 The Assessment Process

are obtained Examiners must be aware in particular of issues

concerning the use of computers in data collection; the

re-sponsibility they have for safeguarding the security of their

measures; and their obligation, within limits, to maintain the

confidentiality of what respondents report or reveal to them

Computerized Data Collection

Software programs are available to facilitate the data

col-lection process for most widely used assessment methods

Programs designed for use with self-report questionnaires

typically provide for online administration of test items,

au-tomated coding of item responses to produce scale scores,

and quantitative manipulation of these scale scores to yield

summary scores and indices For instruments that require

ex-aminer administration and coding (e.g., a Wechsler

intelli-gence test), software programs accept test scores entered by

the examiner and translate them into the test’s quantitative

in-dices (e.g., the Wechsler IQ and Index scores) Many of these

programs store the test results in files that can later be

ac-cessed or exported, and some even provide computational

packages that can generate descriptive statistics for sets of

test records held in storage

These features of computerized data management bring

several benefits to the process of collecting assessment

infor-mation Online administration and coding of responses help

respondents avoid mechanical errors in filling out test forms

manually, and they eliminate errors that examiners sometimes

make in scoring these responses (see Allard & Faust, 2000)

For measures that require examiner coding and data entry, the

utility of the results depends on accurate coding and entry, but

once the data are entered, software programs eliminate

exam-iner error in calculating summary scores and indices from

them The data storage features of many software programs

facilitate assessment research, particularly for investigators

seeking to combine databases from different sources, and they

can also help examiners meet requirements in most states and

many agencies for keeping assessment information on file

for some period of time For such reasons, the vast majority of

assessment psychologists report that they use software for test

scoring and feel comfortable doing so (McMinn, Ellens, &

Soref, 1999)

Computerized collection of assessment information has

some potential disadvantages as well, however When

assess-ment measures are administered online, first of all, the

relia-bility of the data collected can be compromised by a lack of

equivalence between an automated testing procedure and the

noncomputerized version on which it is based As elaborated

by Butcher, Perry, and Atlis (2000), Honaker and Fowler

(1990), and Snyder (2000) and discussed in the chapter by

Butcher in the present volume, the extent of such equivalence

is currently an unresolved issue Available data suggest fairlygood reliability for computerized administrations based

on pencil-and-paper questionnaires, especially those used inpersonality assessment With respect to the MMPI, for exam-ple, a meta-analysis by Finger and Ones (1999) of all avail-able research comparing computerized with booklet forms ofthe instrument has shown them to be psychometrically equiv-alent On the other hand, good congruence with the originalmeasures has yet to be demonstrated for computerized ver-sions of structured clinical interviews and for many measures

of visual-spatial functioning used in neuropsychologicalassessment Among software programs available for test ad-ministration, moreover, very few have been systematicallyevaluated with respect to whether they obtain exactly thesame information as would emerge in a standard administra-tion of the measure on which they are based

A second potential disadvantage of computerized data lection derives from the ease with which it can be employed.Although frequently helpful to knowledgeable assessmentprofessionals and thus to the persons they examine, auto-mated procedures also simplify psychological testing for un-trained and unqualified persons who lack assessment skillsand would not be able to collect test data without the aid of acomputer The availability of software programs thus createssome potential for assessment methods to be misused andrespondents to be poorly served Such outcomes are not aninescapable by-product of computerized assessment proce-dures, however They constitute instead an abuse of technol-ogy by uninformed and irresponsible persons

col-Test Security

Test security refers to restricting the public availability of test

materials and answers to test items Such restrictions addresstwo important considerations in psychological assessment.First, publicly circulated information about tests can underminetheir validity, particularly in the case of measures comprisingitems with right and wrong or more or less preferable answers.Prior exposure to tests of this kind and information about cor-rect or preferred answers can affect how persons respond tothem and prevent an examiner from being able to collect a validprotocol The validity of test findings is especially questionablewhen a respondent’s prior exposure has included specificcoaching in how to answer certain questions As for relativelyunstructured assessment procedures that have no right or wronganswers, even on these measures various kinds of responsescarry particular kinds of interpretive significance Hence, thepossibility exists on relatively unstructured measures as wellthat persons intent on making a certain kind of impression can