handbook of psychology phần 10 potx

Child Mental Health 581Adult Mental Health 581 Behavioral Approaches 587 Projective Approaches 588 Self-Report Approaches 589 CONCLUDING ISSUES IN Assessment psychology is “concerned wit

is readily understood Stated simply, psychopathology is

un-desirable 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

ex-tratest 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

re-liance 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

as-sess and, in some instances, correct for the effects of protocol

invalidating test-taking approaches (e.g., the MMPI-2

valid-ity 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

in-struments (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 dent of behavior to wonder whether it is not the aim of the per-sonality testers to get as far away from any unsanitary contactwith the organism as possible Part of this trend no doubt reflectsthe lack of clinical experiences of some psychologists who con-cern themselves with personality testing (p 526)

stu-Acting on this concern, Hathaway and McKinley rated 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 Psychoneurotic Inventory (derived from of the original Personal Data Sheet) to assess juvenile incorrigibility and incorporated negatively worded repeated items in the re- vised inventory to examine respondents’ “reliability.” Maller (1932) included items in his Character Sketches measure de- signed 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

incorpo-“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 for- mal 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 in- clude 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 chopathology assessment Self-report inventories are used commonly and routinely in various applied assessment tasks, and they have been the focus of thousands of empirical in- vestigations 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

psy-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

re-search in SRI-based approaches to assessing personality and

psychopathology.

Approaches to SRI Scale Score Interpretation

Two primary approaches to SRI scale score interpretation,

em-pirically grounded and content-based, were identified in this

re-view Not surprisingly, much of the research in this area has

focused on empirically grounded SRI scale score

interpreta-tion This is understandable because, by definition,

empiri-cally 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 the validity of content-based SRI scale score

interpre-tation Such investigations should explore the content validity

of content-based measures (i.e., the extent to which they

ade-quately canvass the relevant content domain) and the criterion

and ultimately construct validity of content-based

interpreta-tion Moreover, as detailed earlier, content-based and

empiri-cally 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 empirically grounded SRI scale score

in-terpretation also require further elaboration As reviewed

pre-viously, 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

devel-oping 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 validity of their products There has 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 technology available to test

con-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

inter-views) 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 ap- proach 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 at- tention in the industrial/organizational (I/O) assessment liter-

ature, the question of validity generalization: Under what

circumstances are empirical correlates identified in one ting likely to apply to others? Following the seminal work of I/O researchers Schmidt and Hunter (1977), I /O psycholo- gists 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, simi- lar research in this area is clearly needed.

set-Configural interpretation (examination of patterns among SRI scale scores; as distinguished from linear interpreta- tion, which involves independent consideration of SRI scale scores) is another aspect of criterion-validity-based SRI appli- cation 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 va- lidity or by sharpening their discriminant validity Research is needed to evaluate the extent to which configural interpreta- tion 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 ity adequately as an interpretive source Most empirically grounded SRI scale score interpretation is guided by the sim- ple, 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 psy- chological 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 theo- retically grounded nomological networks.

valid-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 the normal

personality assessment literature has generated an empirical

lit-erature 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

assess-ment tasks have met with limited success These difficulties,

however, appear largely to be a product of limitations in tests

designed to measure the FFM (e.g., questions about the clinical

utility of the NEO-PI-R related to its authors’ decision not to

measure potential threats to protocol validity; 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 in normative sampling may result in 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

sys-tematic sampling errors, population changes, and application

changes described previously might compromise their

norma-tive 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

informa-tion in SRI scale score interpretainforma-tion 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

screen-ing; 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

indi-viduals being screened for public safety positions or

depres-sion 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 scor- ing services For example, many automated scoring services currently include a graphic printout of the individual’s stan- dard 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 individ- ual’s scores compare with both the general normative stan- dard and with relevant comparison groups without obscuring the effects of group deviations from the mean.

Assessing Threats to Protocol Validity

Several types of threats to SRI protocol validity were identified

in this chapter Existing instruments vary in the extent to which they provide interpreters information regarding these threats’ presence in a given protocol Most SRIs provide means for as- sessing 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 re- sponding 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 dif- ferentiation among intentional versus unintentional random responding, intentional versus unintentional over- or under- reporting, exaggeration versus fabrication, or minimization versus denial Some of these distinctions may only be possi- ble through consideration of extratest data; however, further research is needed to explore whether configural interpreta- tion 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 tions and early criticisms of self-report measures, current issues and challenges in SRI interpretation, and needs for

founda-References 575

future research in this area A great deal of progress has been

made in developing this technology’s conceptual and

empiri-cal foundations Over the past 50 years, the challenges

articu-lated 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

litera-ture, in particular the chapters by Garb on clinical versus

sta-tistical prediction, Bracken and Wasserman on psychometric

characteristics of assessment procedures, and Reynolds and

Ramsey on cultural test bias Chapters on assessment in

vari-ous settings include reviews of more setting-specific aspects

of the SRI literature Overall, these chapters indicate that

as-sessment 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

personal-ity (pp 361– 401) New York: Springer.

Ben-Porath, Y S., & Butcher, J N (1991) The historical

develop-ment of personality assessdevelop-ment 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

per-sonality description Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.

Burisch, M (1984).Approaches to personality inventory construction:

A comparison 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

differ-ences 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

assess-ment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory

Costa, P T., & McCrae, R R (1992c) Revised NEO Personality

Inventory PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory FFI) professional manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess-

(NEO-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

psy-chological tests Psypsy-chological 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

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

personal-ity 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 discriminaprescrip-tion? 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 ality Schedule (Minnesota): I Construction of the schedule

Person-Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254.

Hathaway, S R., & McKinley, J C (1942) A Multiphasic ality Schedule (Minnesota): II The measurement of sympto-

Person-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; Depart(Depart-ment ofthe Air Force AFM 160 -145) Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting 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 chologie auf grund einer massenunterschung [Contribution of

psy-psychological specialists to personality analysis] Zeitschrift fur

Psychologie, 43, 81–127.

Hoch, A., & Amsden, G S (1913) A guide 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 Journal of 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 inthe 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 for use with the MMPI Baltimore:

Williams and Wilkins

Maruish, M E (1999) The use of psychological testing for treatment

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

theoret-ical 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

anx-iety and unipolar mood disorders Annual Review of Psychology,

49, 377–412.

Morey, L C (1991) Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional

manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment 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 evance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report In

rel-A H Tuma & J D Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety

disor-ders (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 simulation under standard and social desirability instruction

dis-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

per-sonality assessment Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Woodworth, R S (1920) Personal data sheet Chicago: Stoeling.

Child Mental Health 581

Adult Mental Health 581

Behavioral Approaches 587 Projective Approaches 588 Self-Report Approaches 589

CONCLUDING ISSUES IN

Assessment psychology is “concerned with methods of

iden-tifying similarities and differences among people in their

per-sonal characteristics and capacities” (see chapter by Weiner in

this volume) This important branch of psychology has

be-come 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 with testing, assessment involves much more than

ad-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

deter-mine 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 de- veloped 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 Lewis Terman and further adapted in part by the U.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.

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% of their

time conducting psychological assessments (Groth-Marnat,

1999), but by 1998 psychologists in similar clinical settings

were spending only 16% of their time conducting

psycholog-ical 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 of assessment procedures A recurring 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

psy-chologists 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

instru-ments They also reported less emphasis on comprehensive

assessments of general psychological functioning and more

emphasis on techniques that were directly responsive to

spe-cific 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 of standardized 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 im- portant role for assessment psychologists will be to further de- velop 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 con- cluded 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 depres- sion 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 demon- strated empirically The PAWG concluded that “formal psy- chological assessment is a vital element in psychology’s professional heritage and a central part of professional prac- tice today” and that there is “very strong and positive evi- dence 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 as- sessment 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

men-tal health settings illustrates the importance that

psychologi-cal assessment services have in intake evaluation, treatment

planning, and subsequent outcome review His chapter

espe-cially 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

associ-ated 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

dis-cussion 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

envi-ronment that can be complicated by problems such as

co-morbidity 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

psy-chologists 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 standards in the profession He also

notes that recent 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 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 as- sessment of youth adjustment, but more research is needed.

fam-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 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 incre- mental 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.

ac-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 con- cerning 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 assess- ments 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 tions of the categorical approach to diagnosis underlying

limita-the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV ), Bagby et al believe that instru-

ments 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

tools and make their interpretations of the resulting data

using the best available empirical evidence They echo the

opinion expressed by Garb (in his chapter in this volume) that

judgments more closely tied to empirical data will be more

accurate than those based on clinical experience and clinical

impressions They also believe that multiple data sources are

necessary for reliable and valid inferences to be made about

patients and clients They prefer more structured interviews

and more objective instruments, because in their judgment

these approaches are more clearly supported by empirical

evidence.

Geriatric

Edelstein noted in his chapter in this volume that the

pop-ulation of the United States is aging rapidly Compared with

the 1900 census data, the 75–84-year-old group is 16 times

larger, and the 85 and older group is 33 times larger Data

sug-gest that approximately 80% of older adults suffer from some

chronic health problem and about one fourth meet criteria for

a diagnosable mental disorder Thus, assessment of older

adults will become more and more important over time.

Although there are many similarities in the assessment of

younger and older adults, there also are some unique

consid-erations when assessing older adults Older adults may have

deficits in vision, hearing, or cognitive processes that make

completion of standard assessment procedures difficult or

im-possible The presentation of major psychological disorders

for older adults is often different from that for younger adults.

For example, clinically depressed older adults are more likely

than younger adults to present with somatic instead of

psycho-logical symptoms All of these issues present significant

chal-lenges in assessing older adults that may best be met through

the development of techniques and instruments tailored to the

differing abilities and problems of the older adult.

Edelstein concludes that it is more important to assess the

adaptive functioning of older adults than to describe clinical

syndromes Instruments and procedures for assessing the

ac-tivities of daily living (ADLs; e.g., dressing, bathing) and

instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs; e.g., meal

preparation, money management) will become more

impor-tant as the population continues to age Also, because of an

increasing awareness of the importance of social support

(real and perceived) to the well-being of older adults,

instru-ments and techniques for effective assessment of social

sup-port will become increasingly imsup-portant.

Industrial/Organizational

In their chapter in this volume on assessment in industrial/

organizational settings, Klimoski and Zukin describe the

important work psychologists have done to aid companies in their attempts to improve performance by better understand- ing how people think and behave As is the case with other settings in which assessment is important, psychologists working in this field initially used tests developed by the U.S military (also discussed by Wasserman in his chapter in this volume) to measure ability as well as for personnel selection, evaluation of social competence, and prediction of behaviors such as absenteeism Many of the tests used in industrial/ organizational settings today were translated or adapted by former military officers who went into the private sector after military service (e.g., Otis and Wechsler) Although versions

of these early methods are still in use today (e.g., Army Beta test), Klimoski and Zukin’s chapter also provides informa- tion about the enlargement of the assessment batteries This is especially important within the context of political consider- ations, including accommodation for disability and equal op- portunities for employment, that must be taken into account

in industrial decision-making processes.

Assessment in industrial/organizational settings, like sessment in educational settings (see Braden’s chapter in this volume), has been influenced by the social context within which the measures and procedures are used Not only have society’s views of assessment issues shaped how assessment

as-is conducted, but federal and state laws and regulations have also had a major impact on the field In today’s industrial/ organizational settings these considerations can be as impor- tant as psychometric issues such as reliability and validity, es- pecially as they relate to problems such as job discrimination (fairness based on race, sex, ethnicity, age, or disability), equal opportunity, neutrality of decision-makers, and so on The role of psychologists as assessors within the industrial/ organizational setting has also been influenced by the demand for these valuable professionals Business leaders have seen the advantages to industry provided by psychologists who can assist with selection, promotion, and career planning deci- sions so that the best people for specific jobs may be found This has led psychologists to study and utilize a variety of instruments in addition to tests of intelligence and personality,

to evaluate things like teamwork and interpersonal skills, cific knowledge and skills pertinent to the job, honesty and integrity, ability to learn, the five-factor structure of personal- ity, and ratings of actual job performance.

spe-Klimoski and Zukin discuss challenges facing the field of industrial/organizational psychology These include research

on determining the best prediction and criterion variables Some researchers have argued that job performance itself is the best criterion, but definition of job performance can be difficult Similarly, although researchers have found that fac- tors such as ability and personality play an important role in

Assessment Settings 583

overall job performance, many times the instruments selected

were not developed for the purposes for which they are applied.

For example, researchers have questioned the application of a

test of personality like the MMPI in industrial/organizational

settings because it was not developed for this purpose How

can a test like the MMPI be used to determine suitability

for a particular job when it was developed to measure

psy-chopathology, not personality factors associated with how

well a person can perform a specific task? Another challenge

facing industrial/organizational psychologists, and almost

every other person in the assessment field, is the movement

to-ward on-line testing, computer adaptive tests, and other

ad-vances that result from the use of the World Wide Web These

developments further illustrate the unique demands of those

who work in the industrial/organizational field—an

environ-ment 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 principles

of psychology to legal questions and issues Although

psy-chologists have been involved in offering expert testimony

in court since the early 1900s, It was not until 1962 that the

U.S District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

in Jenkins v U.S clearly recognized psychologists as

ex-perts in court In 2001 the Council of Representatives of the

American Psychological Association voted to recognize

forensic psychology as a specialty area in psychology.

Because the primary task of forensic psychologists as

ex-perts typically is to evaluate the extent to which individuals

meet various legal standards and criteria (e.g., competency to

stand trial, insanity), assessment is one of the most important

tasks that forensic psychologists perform Several factors

have limited the contributions that psychologists have made

in this area Many psychologists, including some who

prac-tice forensic psychology on a regular basis, have not been

trained in forensic psychological assessment Although there

are similarities between clinical and forensic assessments,

there are also important differences Ogloff and Douglas

point out that forensic constructs and questions rarely map

di-rectly onto traditional psychological constructs Thus,

per-sons not adequately trained in forensic assessment will not be

able to understand and specify the legal principles and

stan-dards relevant to a particular assessment issue In addition,

traditional assessment instruments (e.g., MMPI, Wechsler

scales) were not developed within legal contexts and

accord-ing to legal principles, so they are far less useful in forensic

than in clinical evaluations.

Ogloff and Douglas believe that the role of psychologists

in conducting assessments in the legal arena will continue to increase However, several important changes are indicated if psychologists are to make significant contributions in forensic settings First, formal forensic training programs need to be developed Most psychologists currently conducting forensic evaluations have no formal training in forensic psychology Second, formal procedures for credentialing and certifying forensic psychologists must be expanded Currently, only nine states in the United States have certification procedures Although the American Board of Forensic Psychology has procedures for establishing credentials for forensic psycho- logical practice, relatively few psychologists undergo this voluntary evaluation process Third, more research is needed

to determine the extent to which traditional psychological sessment instruments and procedures can be used to address specific forensic constructs Finally, psychologists should use their expertise in test construction and statistical methodolo- gies to develop forensic psychological instruments designed specifically to address forensic questions and issues Al- though Ogloff and Douglas state that “we have accomplished

as-a greas-at deas-al in as-a relas-atively short time in forensic psychology,” there are significant issues associated with training and instru- ment development that remain to be addressed.

Medical

In their chapter in this volume, Sweet, Tovian, and Suchy state that assessment activities of psychologists in medical settings have become so commonplace that they are taken for granted Recently trained physicians expect to have psychological as- sessment resources available in the settings where they prac- tice In general, psychological assessments in medical settings should contribute to a broader understanding of the patient More specifically, assessments should document patients’ re- sponse to disease and changes (both positive and negative) associated with medical procedures and treatments.

Traditional assessment procedures (e.g., MMPI-2, Rorschach) may contribute significantly to the understanding

of patients’ psychological status and personality tics, but the validity of traditional measures to do so must be demonstrated in medical settings The issue of using general population norms versus norms for particular medical popu- lations is a complex one that is dependent on the purpose for which the assessments are conducted For example, if the re- ferral question is whether or not a patient’s emotional distress

characteris-is severe enough to warrant intervention, general population norms are likely to provide the most useful information However, if the referral question concerns a patient’s adjust- ment to a specific illness at a particular stage in comparison

to that of the typical patient, then illness-specific norms may

be more appropriate.

In applied medical settings, the efficiency and cost

effec-tiveness of assessment procedures are being increasingly

em-phasized Psychologists must be in a position to demonstrate

that psychological assessments contribute significantly to

ef-fective treatment programs for patients and that they do so in

a cost-effective manner Economic considerations have

re-sulted in the development of many brief, narrow-band

assess-ment instruassess-ments Although such instruassess-ments can be quite

valuable, matters of efficiency and cost-effectiveness often

overshadow more traditional issues such as reliability and

va-lidity in evaluating them There is likely to be a concomitant

emphasis on actuarial judgments over clinical ones Sweet,

Tovian, and Suchy concluded in their chapter that both

clini-cal and actuarial judgments make significant contributions in

medical settings.

Correctional

In his chapter in this volume, Megargee points out that more

than 5.7 million men and women in the United States are

under some form of correctional supervision (i.e., jail, prison,

probation, parole) The number of persons in jails and prisons

has increased 667% since 1970 With such large numbers of

persons to service with limited resources, assessment and

classification in correctional settings are extremely

impor-tant In 1973 the National Advisory Commission on Criminal

Justice Standards and Goals called for immediate

implemen-tation of comprehensive classification at all levels of the

criminal justice system In the case of Palmigiano v Garrahy

(1977), the courts agreed that accurate classification is

essen-tial to the operation of safe prisons.

In his chapter Megargee discusses in detail the purposes

for which assessments are conducted in correctional settings

and the instruments and procedures that have been used.

There clearly has been a move away from using offense data

for classification and toward consideration of individual

needs, including psychological ones, of those assessed Often

instruments and procedures developed for use in other (e.g.,

mental health) settings have been employed in correctional

settings The validity of such applications has not often been

studied, but available research indicates little support for the

routine use of clinical instruments for correctional

assess-ment Many instruments and scales have been developed

specifically for use in correctional settings, but the

method-ologies used have typically been inadequate and data

con-cerning validity for the intended purposes lacking.

One of the most promising approaches to psychological

assessment and classification in corrections settings has been

the MMPI–MMPI-2 system developed by Megargee and his colleagues (Megargee, Carbonell, Bohn, & Sliger, 2001) In a technique based on cluster analytic procedures, subtypes of inmates were identified using MMPI scores, and classifica- tion rules, which can be applied by computers, were devel- oped to assign inmates to types Megargee has demonstrated that his system is appropriate for local, state, and federal prison systems, with large proportions of inmates being clas- sified in the various settings External correlates, including institutional adjustment and postrelease behaviors, have been established for many of the Megargee types.

Megargee points out that there has been inadequate tion to the role of situational variables in predicting behaviors

atten-in correctional settatten-ings Rather, many psychologists assume that personality variables, as assessed by traditional psycho- logical tests, are the best predictors of such behaviors While probably of great importance, the interaction of situational and personality variables also has been understudied Although the standards of the American Association of Correctional Psychologists and other organizations have rec- ommended minimal qualifications for mental health workers providing services in correctional settings, there are few pro- cedures for establishing that psychologists conducting as- sessments in correctional settings are adequately trained and competent to do so Uniform standards and procedures for credentialing and certifying correctional psychologists are badly needed.

Educational

In the chapter in this volume on assessment psychology in educational settings, Braden begins by distinguishing psy- chological assessment in the schools from psychological assessment in other settings He carefully describes how as- sessment in schools is conducted for screening and diagnostic purposes, for example, for the identification of children with special education needs Other purposes of assessment in educational settings include the design of educational inter- ventions as well as evaluation, selection, and certification functions Braden also reviews more specific methods such as interviews and reviews of student records, observational sys- tems, and response-to-intervention approaches More specific checklists and self-report techniques, projective techniques, and standardized tests are also included.

Braden also provides a summary of methods used to assess academic achievement particularly because of the importance these tests play in identification of children’s academic defi- ciencies and the role such tests play in psychoeducational di- agnosis The relationships between the use of these tests and educational accountability and standards-based educational

Types of Assessment 585

reforms are also discussed Braden’s chapter concludes with

the suggestion that assessment tools need to be in line with

current scientific and technical advances and educational

standards of learning Additionally, assessments must be

ap-propriate for diverse learners and have utility for instructional

interventions.

TYPES OF ASSESSMENT

Cognitive/Intellectual

Wasserman’s chapter in this volume provides a review of how

the assessment of intelligence has had a long history in

psy-chology and can be credited with being one of the most

influ-ential constructs in psychology and education IQ tests have

provided a structured method of evaluating ability that has

been used in most settings within which psychologists work.

Wasserman provides a discussion of how IQ tests have been

used, but, more importantly, he also provides important

his-torical facts on the origins of these tests as well as a

discus-sion of their utility Like the Reynolds and Ramsay chapter in

this volume, which discusses the most controversial topic

surrounding IQ tests (the question of bias), Wasserman’s

cov-erage of the more politically focused issues gives the reader

a greater understanding of the complexities of this topic.

Controversies notwithstanding, the contributions intelligence

tests have made to our field are reflected in the many settings

within which tests are used (schools, hospitals, clinics,

indus-try, etc.) as well as the purposes for which they have been

used (diagnosis of learning disorders, giftedness, mental

retardation, attention deficits, etc.).

Wasserman emphasizes the importance of understanding

the history behind conventional IQ tests, which goes back to

the Army Mental Testing Program (Yoakum & Yerkes, 1920)

so that instruments can be seen in perspective He argues that

the study of intelligence can be “characterized by the best and

worst of science—scholarly debates and bitter rivalries,

re-search breakthroughs and academic fraud, major assessment

paradigm shifts, and the birth of a commercial industry that

generates hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue.”

He makes the important suggestion that the study of

intelli-gence has yet to claim status as a mature clinical science,

despite some signs of progress.

Wasserman’s view that the study of intelligence needs an

evolutionary step is based on the recognition that this

technol-ogy (like others in psycholtechnol-ogy) is dominated by tests created

before 1930 He recognizes the tremendous advances in

elec-tronic scoring, analysis, and reporting of test results, but these

advances are based on instruments that are close to 100 years

old (e.g., Wechsler and Binet scales) Wasserman suggests that if the past provides the best prediction of the future, then

by about 2050 we may expect seventh-edition revisions of the Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) His discussion begs the question “Are these tests so valid that they should remain psychologists’ primary tools in the twenty-first century?”

Wasserman argues that changes in fundamental ment paradigms are needed so that psychological assessment results for a child referred for learning problems, for example, will (a) give information about how learning occurs, (b) de- scribe the relevant impaired cognitive abilities or processes, (c) assess the degree to which the child’s ability or process profile resembles that obtained by specific diagnostic groups (e.g., learning disability or attention deficit hyperactivity dis- order), and (d) prescribe interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness for children with similar test score profiles He concludes that “the combination of a well-developed theory, valid and reliable tests, a cognitive diagnostic nomenclature related to abilities and processes, and effective interventions linked to assessment may one day enable the field of in- telligence assessment to become a mature applied clinical science.”

assess-Interests

The chapter on interests by Lowman and Carson begins with

an important recognition of the fact that psychologists have not reached a consensual definition of what interests are, how they develop, and how best to classify them As in the sit- uation described by Wasserman in the intelligence testing chapter in this volume, although the field has not arrived at an accepted definition, the lack of consensus has not blocked the creation of a number of assessment tools for measuring inter- ests, and the test publishing industry has evolved into a flour- ishing business This has resulted in a situation in which the measures used to assess interests have defined the field, espe- cially in the eyes of those professionals who use the invento- ries Again, as in the situation in intelligence testing, Lowman and Carson see assessment of interests as an important field

in psychology that is comparable in scope and importance to abilities and personality traits The problems they discuss in the assessment of interests also parallel those found in the as- sessment of intelligence as it relates to issues of gender, age, race, and ethnic factors that may affect the validity of inter- pretations 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

suggest that high heritability would be expected because of

the stability of interests across the life cycle and the

effi-ciency with which people seem to self-select occupations that

fit their characteristics, they note that further research is

needed in this area They also recognize the need to study 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

mea-sures, empirically based coding of occupations, and the

spe-cific empirical nature of interdomain relationships Finally,

having established that interests and personality are highly

related, they indicate that more work is needed to determine

ability-interest and ability-interest-personality relationships.

This area, like others in assessment psychology, is ripe with

ample research opportunities.

Neuropsychology

The chapter on neuropsychological assessment in this

vol-ume by Podell, De Fina, Barrett, McCullen, and Goldberg is

unique because neuropsychology has undergone

consider-ably more advancement than many disciplines in psychology,

especially in the assessment methods used As the authors

reflect on the history of the field, it becomes clear that most of

neuropsychology is based on the large amount of clinical

in-formation obtained from studying World War II veterans who

experienced brain damage Psychologists used the

under-standing of the relationships between brain injury and

perfor-mance deficits to help determine the likelihood and possible

location of brain damage and associated cognitive

impair-ments in a wide variety of clients since WWII Recent

ad-vances in cutting-edge neuroimaging technology, such as

functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and

magne-toencephalography (MEG) enable today’s

neuropsycholo-gists to study the brain’s functioning more directly These

advances have allowed much greater evaluative ability than

ever before and have revolutionized how neuropsychologists

perform their job.

Despite the considerable advances these technologies

have provided, economic factors have also had a substantial

influence on the current and future status of

neuropsychol-ogy The current health care system has had a significant

im-pact on the development of neuropsychology as a clinical

discipline, as it has influenced others in the private practice

arena Reduction in funding opportunities has led to fewer

graduate and postgraduate training programs, which

reduc-tion in turn reflects the reduced availability of well-paying

jobs in neuropsychology The shrinking health care dollar has also caused neuropsychologists to reexamine how they administer services and to consider alternative employment opportunities such as forensic and sports neuropsychology.

In the latter setting, for example, neuropsychologists have found a new and important role in helping teams assess and manage sports-related concussions They have been helpful

in evaluating the effect of a concussion and using this mation to help the team trainer and physicians determine when an athlete is able to return to play This opportunity is,

infor-of course, an expansion infor-of the field that reflects changes in health care delivery more than advancements in technology These economic stressors along with new technologies have transformed neuropsychology into a more diverse and sci- entific subspecialty of psychology.

Podell et al illustrate how the subspecialty of chology 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 meth- ods (e.g., Wechsler scales), it has experienced a widening through the inclusion of assessment tools that have made some rather significant impacts in advancing neuropsychology, for example, in the areas of computerized assessment and the development of novel assessment techniques Computerized testing techniques, such as the Automated Neuropsychologi- cal Assessment Metrics and the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing approaches, allow for effective evaluation of a variety of factors (e.g., working memory, reaction time, concussion symptomatology) Novel assessment techniques have included those that blend neu- ropsychology with educational psychology as well as combin- ing complex theoretical models of cognition to measure critical cognitive abilities such as attention and executive con- trol (Cognitive Assessment System; Naglieri & Das, 1997), which is also discussed in the chapter in this volume by Wasserman These new methods, combined with traditional tests, new neuroimaging techniques, and the changing eco- nomic situations, have facilitated the advancement of the dis- cipline of neuropsychology in important ways Not only is neuropsychology in an important transition period, as are all other health-care related fields, but it is also in the midst of historical changes from external forces, and it must be able to withstand new challenges to survive as a strong and viable clinical service.

neuropsy-Personality and Psychopathology

The assessment of personality and psychopathology has long been a part of psychology, and the techniques and meth- ods used in assessment have been quite varied Projective

Types of Assessment 587

approaches (see the Viglione and Rivera chapter in this

vol-ume) have involved human figure drawings, responses to

inkblots, and stories about ambiguous pictures Self-report

measures (also see the Ben-Porath chapter in this volume)

have been constructed to assess normal personality (e.g.,

California Psychological Inventory) and psychopathology

(e.g., MMPI-2) As Craig notes in his chapter in this volume,

interviews of various kinds have been widely used for years

by psychologists and members of other professions.

Much has been said and written about the assumptions

un-derlying the various assessment approaches and their relative

advantages and disadvantages in assessing personality and

psychopathology Virtually every technique for assessing

personality and psychopathology has been criticized by some

and defended by others, and examples abound Criticisms that

the MMPI clinical scales measure only acquiescence or social

desirability response sets (Edwards, 1957, 1964; Messick &

Jackson, 1961) were rebutted by Block (1965) and others.

More recently, the validity of many Rorschach

Comprehen-sive System scores and indexes and the adequacy of its norms

have been called into question (Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb,

2000; Shaffer, Erdberg, & Haroian, 1999) and subsequently

defended by Bornstein (2001), Meyer (2000), Meyer and

Archer (2001), and Weiner (2000, 2001) Unfortunately, the

controversies surrounding assessment of personality and

psy-chopathology have not led to constructive conclusions about

validity or subsequent changes or modifications in the way

the assessment techniques are used Despite the criticisms,

as-sessment of personality and psychopathology remains a

hall-mark of assessment psychology.

Interviews

Interviewing is the oldest and most widely used assessment

method, with almost every psychological evaluation

includ-ing some kind of interview data Unstructured clinical

inter-views are more commonly used than structured interinter-views in

applied clinical settings Structured diagnostic interviews,

such as the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I

Disorders (SCID) or Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS),

are widely used in research studies In his chapter in this

vol-ume, Craig points out that structured interviews generally lead

to more reliable inferences and judgments than unstructured

interviews However, he also acknowledges that diagnoses

re-sulting from one structured interview do not necessarily agree

with those resulting from other structured interviews.

Craig concludes that relatively little information exists

about the validity of interviewing as an assessment method,

largely because interview-based data typically are used as

cri-terion measures against which other methods are evaluated.

This is especially true with structured diagnostic interviews, which often are seen as the gold standard Craig maintains that a basic problem that limits the reliability and validity of interview-based judgments is the lack of clear and explicit definitions and criteria for determining the presence and ex- tent of specific personality characteristics and symptoms of psychopathology.

Craig points out that there is an increasing use of computer-assisted interviewing, and some of the structured diagnostic interviews were designed specifically for comput- erized use Computerized interviews utilize less professional time and therefore are more cost-effective It is interesting to note that most people have a positive reaction to the comput- erized interview format and are more likely to acknowledge problems and symptoms in a computerized interview than in

a clinician-conducted interview Computerized interviews generally lead to more reliable inferences or judgments about patients than do clinician-conducted interviews In addition, they are likely to reduce sources of error associated with interviewer biases.

deter-O’Brien et al indicate that intuitive and statistical dures can be used to evaluate hypothesized causal functional relationships, but intuitive evaluation is often inaccurate (also see Garb’s chapter in this volume) They urge the use of sta- tistical approaches that can provide better information on the strength of functional relationships, and they suggest that practitioners use conditional probability analyses because they require only a modest amount of data, are easily under- stood, and are convenient to use They note, however, that

proce-this approach is limited to the evaluation of only a few

vari-ables and appears to be incompatible with typical clinical

settings.

O’Brien and his coauthors suggest a number of avenues

for future research, including the examination of the

treat-ment utility of behavioral assesstreat-ment They suggest that it

will be especially important to examine the extent to which

individualized treatments based on behavioral assessment

outperform other treatment protocols They strongly urge

researchers to determine the treatment utility of behavioral

assessment in relation to idiographic treatment design and

standardized treatment-client matching Their chapter, like

others in this volume, illustrates the evolution of behavioral

methods and the increasing recognition of the complexities of

human performance.

Projective Approaches

Projective techniques have long been a part of psychological

assessments, although recent surveys suggest that their

popu-larity in most settings has been declining somewhat (e.g.,

Camara, Nathan, & Puente, 2000) In fact, the Rorschach

inkblots are almost synonymous with psychology in the

minds of many laypersons As Viglione and Barker discuss in

their chapter in this volume, various approaches to the

inter-pretation of projective data have been developed and

em-ployed In most settings, content analysis, in which responses

are seen as a reflection of a person’s unconscious, has given

way to more empirically based approaches (e.g., Exner’s

Comprehensive System) Although these more empirical

ap-proaches have become quite popular, critics have raised

ques-tions about the reliability and validity of interpretaques-tions based

on the scoring systems and about the norms used to generate

interpretive statements.

Lilienfeld et al (2000) reviewed literature

concern-ing the validity of inferences based on three major projective

techniques (human figure drawings; Thematic Apperception

Test, or TAT; Rorschach) They concluded that there is no

consistent empirical support for the relationship between

specific drawing characteristics and either personality or

psy-chopathology Although they found some support for using

global scoring methods to distinguish psychopathological

in-dividuals from nonclinical persons, they point out that the

effects of artistic ability have not been taken into account

ad-equately and that there are no consistent research findings

suggesting that human figure drawings possess incremental

validity above and beyond that associated with demographic

information and with other psychometric data.

Lilienfeld et al (2000) concluded that there is modest

support for the construct validity of several TAT scoring

schemes, particularly those assessing need for achievement and object relations However, survey data have suggested that few clinicians who use the TAT use any of these scoring schemes, relying instead on subjective, content-based inter- pretations, which tend to lead to the overpathologizing of re- spondents (e.g., Pinkerman, Haynes, & Keiser, 1993; Wade & Baker, 1977).

Although many clinicians believe that Exner’s hensive System (CS) for the Rorschach has improved its va- lidity, Lilienfeld et al (2000) concluded that the scientific status of the CS is less than convincing They maintained that the norms used for some Rorschach variables lead to mis- classification of many normal individuals as psychopatholog- ical, that the interrater and test-retest reliabilities of many of the CS variables are weak or unknown, and that there is at best limited support for the validity of most CS variables and indexes They cite research supporting the use of some Rorschach variables for the identification of schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, and perhaps schizotypal per- sonality disorder and bipolar disorder Other Rorschach variables seem to be correlated with thought disturbance, psychotherapy prognosis, and dependency Lilienfeld et al (2000) concluded that most of the variables for which there is empirical support are not part of the CS and are not routinely scored or interpreted by Rorschach users However, Weiner (1996) described what he maintained to be four demonstrably valid uses of the Rorschach, and all involve indexes included

Compre-in the CS.

Supporters of the Rorschach and other projective niques have responded to the criticisms of Lilienfeld et al by pointing out methodological deficiencies in many of the stud- ies reviewed (e.g., use of untrained examiners, unrepresenta- tive samples) and suggesting that the review is not objective and scientific (Meyer, 2000; Weiner, 2000, 2001) They also point out that the review of individual Rorschach variables does not do justice to the complex and interactive ways in which variables are conceptualized in the CS Exner (2002) reported some preliminary data for a contemporary norma- tive sample involving representative sampling and use of trained examiners He concluded that these data support the appropriateness of the original CS norms.

tech-The issues being debated by critics and supporters of jective techniques are quite complex and not readily resolved.

pro-It is beyond the scope of this chapter to reach conclusions about these issues However, it seems clear to us that we need less emotional approaches to the issues and methodologically sophisticated research studies designed to address specific issues.

In their chapter in this volume, Viglione and Barker suggest that the debate about the relative validity of objective and

Concluding Issues in Assessment Psychology 589

projective approaches to assessment may reflect differences

between psychologists in academic and applied settings They

see academic psychologists as needing to promote their

scien-tific status and doing so by attacking projective techniques.

They see psychologists in clinical settings as being rather

uncritical in their acceptance of the validity and usefulness

of a wide variety of assessment and therapeutic techniques.

Viglione and Barker see the continuing debate as

philosophi-cal and moral, not scientific They emphasize that each

assess-ment approach has its strengths and weaknesses and that we

all should be trying to determine how they could be combined

to achieve a better understanding of those we evaluate In

their chapter Viglione and Barker describe an approach to

Rorschach interpretation that views a projective test as

involv-ing a new and unfamiliar situation in which one organizes

in-complete, contradictory, and ambiguous material without any

direct feedback from observers or authorities How

respon-dents complete this problem-solving task should have

impli-cations for how they deal with many important tasks in their

real lives Of course, relationships between problem-solving

in responding to projective test stimuli and problem-solving in

real-life situations need to be demonstrated empirically.

Self-Report Approaches

Self-report approaches in psychological assessment typically

involve asking respondents to indicate whether—and

some-times to what extent—particular symptoms, behaviors, and

personality descriptors are characteristic of them Survey

data indicate that self-report inventories generally, and the

MMP-2 specifically, are the most widely used methods of

psychological assessment in the United States (Camara et al.,

2000).

In his chapter in this volume Ben-Porath traces the use of

self-report measures over more than seven decades, pointing

out the major strengths and weakness of this assessment

ap-proach Self-report inventories have been developed to assess

various dimensions of psychopathology as well as normal

personality functioning Early scales were constructed using

empirical procedures and gave little attention to the content

of items More contemporary scales (e.g., MMPI-2 content

scales) have emphasized the selection of items based on the

relevance of their content to the constructs being assessed.

Ben-Porath indicates that it is important to demonstrate the

content validity (i.e., the extent to which items adequately

cover the relevant content domain for the constructs being

as-sessed) and the empirical and eventually the construct

valid-ity of these content-based scales.

In his chapter Ben-Porath discusses criticisms of

self-report inventories (especially the MMPI/MMPI-2) by those

convinced that their scales measure only response sets such

as social desirability and acquiescence (e.g., Edwards, 1964; Messick & Jackson, 1961) and the rebuttals by those who demonstrated empirically that the scales account for valid variance even when the effects of these response sets are re- moved (e.g., Block, 1965) It is extremely difficult to de- termine to what extent the manner in which respondents approach self-report inventories represents error variance as opposed to valid variance in the constructs being assessed One advantage of some self-report inventories (e.g., MMPI-2, Personality Assessment Inventory) is that they in- clude scales and indexes for assessing tendencies of respon- dents to over- or underreport problems and symptoms to create the impression of being more adjusted or maladjusted that they really are Much evidence has accumulated, for example, suggesting that the validity scales of the MMPI-2 can detect malingering and defensiveness even when respon- dents have been given information about the disorders to be feigned or denied and the validity scales designed to detect their invalid responding.

Self-report inventories lend themselves readily to computer administration, scoring, and interpretation In his chapter in this volume Butcher describes ways in which computer tech- nology contributes to psychological assessment Ben-Porath stresses the need to demonstrate that norms based on stan- dard administration of tests are applicable to computer- administered versions, and Butcher emphasizes the importance

of determining empirically the validity of computer-generated inferences and statements Many self-report inventories, in- cluding the MMPI and MMPI-2, have come to be used in set- tings quite different from those in which the instruments were developed and normed As Ben-Porath stresses in his chapter, future research should focus on determining the extent to which 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 the field is now in need of finition The considerable base of knowledge that has defined the field as a subdiscipline in psychology is both an advantage and a limitation The vast amount of research and knowl- edge in the field provides considerable advantage because

rede-we have been able to better detect and understand various

attributes of people and how these attributes relate to a variety

of factors such as job performance, academic achievement,

personality, job performance, social interactions, and so forth.

The accumulation of information creates a base of knowledge

that has been used by researchers and clinicians alike as the

foundation of their efforts Although this provides a

comfort-able footing for practice, it is not without limitations.

The current state of the art in assessment psychology raises

a variety of important issues For example, procedures are

being used in settings different from those in which they were

developed and normed The MMPI was developed for

diag-nosis in inpatient psychiatric settings, but it is used now in

per-sonnel selection, medical settings, correctional settings, and

so on The adequacy of the original norms and the validity of

inferences in these broader settings must be demonstrated

em-pirically This raises questions about the comparison of

per-formance in a unique setting to the perper-formance in settings

existing in the original normative group The limitation on

generalizability of interpretive inferences in these other

set-tings warrants greater attention Similarly, conventional IQ

tests were originally developed to sort people on the basis of

overall general ability, but now the tests are used for many

types of diagnostic purposes (learning disabilities, attention

deficit disorders, etc.) for which the tests were not intended

and that research has not supported (see Wasserman’s chapter

in this volume).

Another of the more thorny issues in assessment

psychol-ogy involves the debate on clinical versus actuarial

(statisti-cal) decision making The debate continues between those

who advocate practices supported by clinical experience and

those who stress the need for empirically supported

decision-making This issue cuts across many dimensions of

assess-ment psychology and involves most tests and methods For

example, research on clinical judgment (see Garb’s chapter in

this volume) alerts practitioners that they need to know the

empirical support for the methods they use and that they

should not use an instrument or treatment method merely

because it seems to work Similarly, interpretations of subtest

or subscale scores obtained from tests of personality and

in-telligence, for example, that have not been empirically

vali-dated should not be made This tendency is especially evident

in the practice of intelligence test subtest analysis The

limi-tations of assessment psychology have not gone unnoticed by

those who pay for this information, especially the insurance

industry.

The influences of managed care companies and the

result-ing reduction in reimbursements for evaluation and treatment

pose a considerable challenge to assessment psychology

Clin-icians have seen how managed care has encouraged brief,

symptom-focused measures and the need to demonstrate that

assessment contributes to successful outcomes in efficient, cost-effective ways One new effort in assessment psychology that fits some of these needs is the application of computer technology, which can reduce costs by utilizing less expensive methods of administration, scoring, and interpretation of as- sessment 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 vancement of assessment psychology is the conservative na- ture of the industry and of many in the profession, which has led to the overreliance on conventional practices Apparent in many of the chapters in this volume, with some notable ex- ceptions (e.g., neuropsychology), is a strong reliance on tra- ditional instrumentation Clinicians tend to use what they learned in their training programs and are resistant to change For example, despite that fact that the Wechsler scales repre- sent a technology developed in the early 1900s, the instru- ment continues to be widely used in a variety of settings Moreover, training of new graduate students is inadequate, is limited to traditional instruments, and emphasizes tests over

ad-a problem-solving ad-approad-ach thad-at views tests ad-and other evad-alu- ative methods as part of an overall assessment process (see the chapter by Handler and Clemence in this volume) The future development of assessment psychology will deter- mine whether the field can evolve into the mature science described by Wasserman in his chapter in this volume on as- sessment 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 Associ- ation recently approved an assessment psychology section, and the American Board of Assessment Psychology contin- ues to evaluate credentials of assessment psychologists and

evalu-to advocate for assessment as an important part of the science and practice of psychology Despite these successes, there are important challenges ahead for assessment psychology Changes in the way graduate students are educated must occur if assessment psychology is to evolve into a mature science There has been far too much emphasis on traditional instruments and approaches For example the MMPI-2, Wechsler scales, TAT, and Rorschach are still the most widely taught and used assessment instruments, and not enough training has occurred on innovative approaches Some exam- ples of more innovative approaches include the five-factor model of personality and resulting instruments (PSY-5 scales for MMPI-2; Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995), neuroimaging techniques in neuropsychology (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and cognitive processing

References 591

approaches to intelligence (e.g., Cognitive Assessment

System; Naglieri & Das, 1997) These new efforts require

at-tention in training programs, and these programs need to focus

more on the purposes for which the assessments are

con-ducted than on the tests themselves Additionally, there is a

dire need to demonstrate more clearly the link between

assess-ment and intervention, especially as it relates to cognitive

measures and educational interventions as well as

personal-ity measures and treatment planning (e.g., therapeutic

assess-ment work by Finn and colleagues (Finn, 1996) Finally,

credentialing and certification of assessment psychologists

that includes uniform standards and compulsory evaluation of

those conducting assessments should be mandated The future

advancement of assessment psychology will also be related to

how well disputes in the field can be resolved Although there

is very strong and positive evidence on the value of

psycho-logical testing and assessment and much research has been

ac-cumulated, virtually every approach and technique has been

criticized by some and defended by others Some of the

con-troversies (for example, the dispute over projective tests) have

led to conclusions that a particular method should not be used.

Rather than arguing against use of a method, we believe that

the worth of any assessment technique must be determined

empirically through systematic research An important focus

of this type of research is to demonstrate that inferences based

on the technique are related to specific uses that occur in

spe-cific applications of the spespe-cific instrument For example, is

the form quality of responses by adults to inkblots related to

disturbed thinking? Are scores on the Depression content

scale of the MMPI-2 related to symptoms of clinical

depres-sion? Can results for a particular type of projective test (e.g.,

Draw-A-Person) be used for general identification of

emo-tional problems rather than the specific diagnosis of children?

In other words, for what purposes (and in what circumstances)

are various scales and measures valid?

Some argue that advancement in assessment psychology

is limited because the issues involved are so complex Others

suggest that researchers advocating any method or

instru-ment (e.g., behavioral vs projective; MMPI-2 vs Rorschach)

are not very objective Still others contend that we can expect

only limited advances in assessment psychology as long as

we continue to use and study instruments and approaches that

are many decades old Additionally, some argue that

instru-ments and procedures developed for use in one setting have

been employed in other settings without adequate

examina-tion of the validity of such applicaexamina-tions We believe that all of

these factors contribute to limited advancements in

assess-ment psychology It seems that what is needed are

compre-hensive and innovative studies conducted by reasonably

impartial assessment researchers.

Our position is that the validity and usefulness of any chological instrument must be established empirically for the specific purposes and in the specific settings in which the in- struments are to be used This is equally true for interviews, tests of cognitive processes, interest and achievement tests, objective approaches, and projective techniques As Weiner emphasizes in the opening chapter to this volume, and as oth- ers have echoed in subsequent chapters, the most valid and useful psychological assessments are likely to result when data from various sources and instruments are integrated to address important questions and problems.

psy-FUTURE OF ASSESSMENT PSYCHOLOGY

Assessment psychology is alive and well and taking place

in many different settings Although considerable work is needed to demonstrate the validity and cost-effectiveness of assessment, much evidence already exists that psychologists can use to promote assessment Although managed care may

be seen as a threat to assessment psychology, it also provides opportunities and stimulus 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 psy- chology will be more of the same or if innovative approaches will develop and be embraced However, it is clear that al- though traditional instruments and methods have allowed as- sessment psychology to develop into a viable subdiscipline of psychology, they cannot sustain the field for 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 veloped 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.

de-REFERENCES

Block, J (1965) The challenge of response sets: Unconfounding

meaning, acquiescence, and social desirability in the MMPI.

New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts

Bornstein, R F (2001) Clinical utility of the Rorschach Inkblot

Method: Reframing the debate Journal of Personality

Assess-ment, 77, 48–70.

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.

Daw, J (2001) Psychological assessments shown to be as valid as

medical tests APA Monitor, 32(7), 46–47.

DuBois, P H (1970) A history of psychological testing Boston:

Allyn & Bacon

Edwards A L (1957) The social desirability variable in

personal-ity assessment and research New York: Dryden.

Edwards, A L (1964) Social desirability and performance on the

MMPI Psychometrika, 29, 295–308.

Eisman, E J., Dies, R R., Finn, S E., Eyde, L D., Kay, G G.,

Kubiszyn, T W., et al (2000) Problems and limitations in using

psychological assessment in the contemporary health care

deliv-ery system Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,

31, 131–140.

Exner, J E., Jr (2002) A new nonpatient sample for the Rorschach

Comprehensive System: A progress report Journal of

Personal-ity Assessment, 78, 391–404.

Finn, S E (1996) Manual for using the MMPI-2 as a therapeutic

intervention Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Graham, J R., & Lilly, R S (1984) Psychological testing.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Groth-Marnat, G (1999) Financial efficacy of clinical assessment:

Rational guidelines and issues for future research Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 55, 813–824.

Harkness, A R., McNulty, J L., & Ben-Porath, Y S (1995) The

personality psychopathology five (PSY-5): Constructs and

MMPI-2 scales Psychological Assessment, 7, 104–114.

Lilienfeld, S O., Wood, J M., & Garb, H N (2000) The scientific

status of projective techniques Psychological Science in the

Public Interest, 1, 27–66.

Megargee, E I., Carbonell, J L., Bohn, M J., & Sliger, G L

(2001) Classifying criminal offenders with the MMPI-2: The

Megargee system Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Messick, S., & Jackson, D N (1961) Acquiescence and the

factor-ial interpretation of the MMPI Psychological Bulletin, 58,

299–304

Meyer, G J (2000) On the science of Rorschach research Journal

of Personality Assessment, 75, 46–81.

Meyer, G J., & Archer, R P (2001) The hard science of Rorschach

research: What do we know and where do we go? Psychological

Naglieri, J A., & Das, J P (1997) Cognitive Assessment System.

Itasca, IL: Riverside

Palmigiano v Garrahy, 443 F Supp 956 (D.R.I 1977)

Phelps, R., Eisman, E J., & Kohout, J (1998) Psychological tice and managed care: Results of the CAPP practitioner survey

prac-Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 31–36.

Pinkerman, J E., Haynes, J P., & Keiser, T (1993) Characteristics

of psychological practice in juvenile court clinics American

Journal of Forensic Psychology, 11, 3–12.

Piotrowski, C., Belter, R W., & Keller, J W (1998) The impact of

“managed care” on the practice of psychological testing:

Prelim-inary findings Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 441–447.

Shaffer, T W., Erdberg, P., & Haroian, J (1999) Current nonpatient

data for he Rorschach, WAIS, and MMPI-2 Journal of

Person-ality Assessment, 73, 305–316.

Wade, T C., & Baker, T B (1977) Opinion and use of

psychologi-cal tests American Psychologist, 32, 874–882.

Weiner, I B (1996) Some observations on the validity of the

Rorschach Inkblot method Psychological Assessment, 8, 206–

213

Weiner, I B (2000) Making Rorschach interpretation as good as it

can be Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 164–174.

Weiner, I B (2001) Considerations in collecting Rorschach

refer-ence data Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 122–127 Yoakum, C S., & Yerkes, R M (1920) Army mental tests New

York: Holt

Allen, N B., 403Alley, G., 76Allgulander, C., 502Alliger, R., 458Alliger, R J., 458Allinder, R M., 276Alloy, L B., 36Allport, G W., 15, 397, 555–557, 558, 559,

561, 566, 567, 572–573, 575Almagor, M., 148

Alsop, D C., 457Alter, B., 197Alter, J., 383Alterman, A I., 498Alterman, I S., 404Alves, W M., 445, 446Amason, A C., 329Ambady, N., 29Ambrose, P., Jr., 297American Association for CorrectionalPsychology, Standards Committee,

366, 368, 370, 377, 378American Correctional Association, 365, 366,

367, 371American Educational Research Association,

3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 44, 155, 263, 281, 324,

325, 535, 546American Psychiatric Association, 122, 214,

217, 219, 282, 301, 366, 398, 399, 434,

488, 489, 496, 498, 515American Psychological Association (APA),

3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 48, 59, 121, 155, 166,

168, 169, 170, 176, 177, 178, 196, 200,

261, 262, 281, 324, 325, 346, 347, 349,

366, 375, 547Committee on Ethical Guidelines forForensic Psychologists, 366Committee on Professional Standards, 142Division 12 (Clinical) Presidential TaskForce, 198, 199

Division 33 Editorial Board, 434American Public Health Association, 366Amigo, E., 404

Amin, K., 448Ammerman, R T., 236Amorim, P., 123Amsden, G S., 554

Anastasi, A., 5, 8, 44, 50, 72, 73, 79, 81, 83,

104, 105, 106, 110, 188, 326, 427,531–532, 533, 539, 546, 564Ancill, R J., 151

Ancoli-Israel, S., 399Andersen, S M., 393Anderson, K., 311, 420, 437Anderson, N B., 402Anderson, P E., 145, 497Andreasen, N., 497Andreasen, N C., 458Andreoli, A., 497Andrews, G., 151, 309, 502Andrews, R H., 145Andrews, T J., 271Andrich, D., 56Angel, M., 202Angle, H V., 519Angleitner, A., 566, 572Angoff, W H., 47, 109, 111Annis, S M., 450

Anno, B J., 366, 367, 377Antes, R L., 50

Anthony, N., 33Antonak, R F., 310Appelbaum, P., 298, 372Appelbaum, P S., 31, 167Appelbaum, S A., 124, 213Appelgate, W B., 403Appenzeller, O., 402Applebaum, S., 183Archer, R P., 194, 236, 246, 252, 255,

547, 587Ardila, A., 171Arkes, H R., 32, 35, 36, 517, 524Arkowitz-Westen, L., 216Armbruster, G., 535, 537Arndt, S., 458, 497Arnold, B., 87Arntz, A., 500Aronson, D E., 33, 34, 35Aronow, E., 35, 544Aronson, J., 71, 102Arvey, R D., 332, 468Ary, D., 518, 525Asama, N F., 477Asarnow, J R., 262Asch, R A., 320–321, 336Ashman, A F., 418, 436Ashton, G C., 82Ashworth, S., 328

Barnette, W L., 475Bar-On, R., 204, 205Barona, A., 103Barr, W B., 455, 456Barrera, M., Jr., 404Barrett, G V., 323Barrett, M L., 244Barrett, P., 580, 586Barrick, M., 184Barrick, M R., 328Barrios, B., 396, 405Barrios, B A., 53Barron, J., 217, 229Barry, R J., 450Barsky, A J., 497Barth, J T., 445, 446Bartolucci, A., 298, 450Barton, J., 277Basic, D., 455Basile, I M., 276Bass, S M., 151Bathurst, K., 546Batsche, G M., 272Battista, M., 320–321, 336Baxter, L R., Jr., 458–459Bayless, S., 358

Bayley, N., 48, 49Bazin, B., 457Beaber, R J., 18Bean, J A., 404Beaumont, J G., 145Beck, A J., 365Beck, A T., 13, 122, 253Beck, J C., 393Beck, J G., 398Beck, J S., 253Beck, M D., 382Beck, S J., 254, 537Becker, B C., 173Becker, K A., 420Beebe, D., 203Beebe, F M E., 272Beebe, M E., 271Beehr, T A., 475Beekman, A T F., 393Behuniak, P., 54Beitchman, J H., 268Belar, C., 301, 303Belgrave, L L., 402Bell, C., 31Bell, R., 498Bella, P., 298Bellack, A S., 215, 519, 520Bellak, L., 269, 538Bellak, S S., 269Bell-Dolan, D J., 522Bellgowan, P S F., 457Belter, R., 197, 199Belter, R W., 132, 134, 198, 200, 239, 580

Benbadis, S., 457Bench, C J., 458Benjamin, L., 219Bennett, B E., 185Bennett, R T., 309Benoit, W., 194Ben-Porath, Y., 125Ben-Porath, Y S., 6, 18, 99, 103, 110, 126,

143, 145, 219, 225, 246, 252, 450, 553,

554, 559, 562, 566, 572, 574, 587, 589,590–591

Bensing, J., 214Benton, A., 444Bentson, C., 332Berah, E., 148Berdie, R F., 477Berg, L., 403Berg, M., 187Berg, W., 522Bergan, J R., 266Berger, P., 497Bergloff, P., 167, 297, 312Bergman, G., 305Bergman, K S., 458–459Bergman, M E., 319Berkman, L F., 404Berkowitz, N., 404Berman, K F., 458Berman, S., 194Berndt, D., 198Berney, T P., 244Berninger, V W., 272, 284Bernreuter, R J., 555Bernstein, D A., 516Bernstein, I., 188Bernstein, I H., 405Berren, M., 192, 193Berry, D T., 229Berry, D T R., 18, 448Berry, J W., 96, 97, 98, 103Bersoff, D N., 345, 358Bersoff, N., 358Best, J J., 458Betancourt, H., 113Betz, N E., 470, 475, 478Beutler, L., 192, 193Beutler, L E., 54, 125, 311Beutler, L R., 353Beverly, R F., 372Bhate, S., 244Bhatt, M., 450Bialk, B S., 401Bianchetti, A., 401Bidaut-Russell, M., 244Biederman, J., 237Bienenfeld, D., 305, 393Bigler, E D., 80, 447Bilder, R., 452Billick, S., 298Bilsky, M H., 457Binder, J R., 457Binder, L M., 18, 173, 447, 448

Bowers, K S., 547Bowers, T L., 380Bowers, W., 497Boyd, J H., 398Boyer, D., 449Boykin, A W., 74, 79Boyle, M H., 238Boyle, P., 32Brabender, V., 178, 197Bracken, B A., 5, 44, 49, 51, 55, 56, 57,

101, 103, 105, 172, 188, 268, 270, 323,

421, 429Braden, C J., 310Braden, J P., 269, 277, 275, 280, 282, 283,

582, 584–585Bradford, D C., 405Bradshaw, J L., 444Brady, E U., 238Braff, D., 537Braff, D L., 539, 547Bragaw, D., 277Brammer, R., 34, 37Brandt, J., 448Braun, D L., 498Braver, T S., 458Bray, D W., 318Brayshaw, A., 298Breckenridge, J S., 390, 391Brehmer, B., 35

Brems, C., 308Brennan, A., 305Brennan, D B., 109, 111Brennan, R T., 280Brennan, T., 372, 373, 375Brenner, D., 33

Bressi, S., 459Brett, J M., 516Brewerton, T D., 498Brickner, M., 338Bridgeford, N J., 277Brigham, J., 346Brill, P B., 128Brill, P L., 128Brink, R W., 34Brink, T L., 404Brislin, R W., 97, 98, 99, 103, 104, 106,

107, 108British Psychological Society (BPS), 169Britt, M., 403

Brockway, J P., 457Brody, D., 123Brody, N., 74, 79Broe, G A., 406Brohm, J., 305Brook, L J., 150Brooks, R., 194Brotman, A W., 498Brown, C., 109, 111, 420, 437Brown, G K., 122

Brown, L., 449Brown, L S., 496, 498Brown, R G., 458Brown, R S., 149Brown, R T., 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76Brown, S D., 468, 478

Brown, T E., 254Brown, W., 54Brownell, M T., 276Bruhn, A., 194, 196Bruininks, R H., 56, 267Bruner, J S., 105Brunkan, R J., 326, 327Bryant, B K., 185Bryant, R A., 497Bryson, S E., 238Buchanan, J., 497Buchanan, T., 155Buchheim, P., 497Buchsbaum, S., 216Buckley, J., 184Buckner, R L., 458Budgell, G R., 102, 103, 110Budner, N S., 308

Buffaloe, J D., 145Buigas, R A., 455Buis, T., 455, 546Buissiere, M T., 373Bula, C J., 393Bunderson, C V., 338Bureau of Justice Statistics, 365Burge, D A., 522

Burgert, W., 298Burisch, M., 246, 558, 559Burish, T G., 515Burke, J D., 398Burke, M J., 337Burkhart, B R., 546Burley, T., 191Burlingame, G., 129Burlingame, G M., 134Burman, B., 404Burns, G L., 244Burns, R., 269Buros, O K., 438Burris, L R., 329, 331Burroughs, D., 501Burrows, L., 447Burry, A., 216, 225, 227Bush, D M., 309Bush, G W., 280Bush, J P., 525Bush, M J., 277Butcher, J N., 6, 10, 16, 27, 29, 46, 86, 98,

Butler, R., 390Butler, S F., 500

330, 331, 554, 559Cavanaugh, M A., 468Ceci, S J., 74, 79Chakraborty, D., 230Chalkley, A J., 521Chambless, D L., 125Chan, D., 338Chandler, M J., 33Channabasavanna, S M., 497Chao, L L., 457

Chao, R., 106Chapman, J P., 33, 34, 36, 524Chapman, L J., 33, 34, 36, 524Chartrand, J M., 468

Chastain, R., 74Chatman, S P., 79, 84Chatterjee, A., 298, 450Chauncey, D L., 497Chelune, G J., 453, 455Chen, F., 298

Chen, R S., 244Cherbuliez, T., 497Childs, R., 188Chiodo, A L., 35Chipman, S., 73Chisholm, S M., 126Chistyakov, A., 459Chiswick, A., 458Choca, J., 145Choca, J P., 8Choulamountry, L., 87Chounramany, C., 87Christensen, L., 131, 453, 454Christenson, S L., 267Chua, S E., 458Chudowsky, N., 54Chung, Y B., 476Church, A J., 475, 480Ciarlo, J A., 246Cicchetti, D., 497Cicchetti, D V., 55Cicchetti, P., 267Cigrand, K., 515, 516, 523Ciocco, J E., 525Civil Service Commission, 325Cizek, G J., 280

Claiborn, C., 204Clair, D., 126Clarizio, H F., 276Clark, D A., 371

Clark, D M., 521Clark, K E., 473Clark, L A., 55, 99, 225, 502, 570Clarkin, J., 125

Clarkin, J F., 54, 213–214, 217, 218, 231Clear, T R., 375

Cleary, P D., 497Cleary, T A., 61, 68, 83Cleckley, H., 373Clemence, A., 198Clemence, A J., 590Cleveland, J N., 319, 333Cleveland, L A., 238Clingerman, S., 447, 449Cloninger, C R., 225, 489, 503Clopton, J R., 125, 218Clouse, R E., 395Cody, H A., 450Coe, W C., 30Coffey, P., 309Coffman, W E., 281Cohen, G., 395, 458Cohen, J., 405Cohen, J D., 458Cohen, L., 306, 457Cohen, R., 304Cohen, R J., 381, 382, 423Cohen-Cole, S A., 395Cohen-Mansfield, J., 404Coie, J D., 262, 268Colavito, V A., 535Cole, M., 105Coles, M G H., 516Colligan, S C., 537, 543Collins, A., 277Collins, M., 446Collins, M W., 446, 451Colombo, C., 459Colsher, P., 401Comis, R., 395Committee on Accreditation, 200Committee on Ethical Guidelines for ForensicPsychologists, 346, 347

Compton, W M., 244Comrey, A L., 47Conder, R L., Jr., 448Condon, C A., 45Cone, J D., 44, 57, 396, 510, 511, 520, 521,

522, 539Conforti, D A., 455Conn, D C., 380Connelly, M S., 338Conners, C K., 244, 250, 251, 267Connolly, A J., 273

Conoley, J C., 5Conover, N., 236Constable, R T., 457Constantine, J A., 522Conte, K L., 276Conway, R N F., 436Cook, L., 109, 111Cook, L L., 111

373, 558, 561, 564, 565Dakof, G A., 128

Dalessio, A T., 333Daly, E J., 276Damasio, A R., 445Damasio, H., 445Dammen, T., 503Dana, R., 195Dana, R H., 8, 22, 34, 106, 112, 195, 391, 392Danet, B N., 30, 33

Dang, S T., 497Daniel, J C., 451Daniel, M H., 56Daniels, D D., 178Danis, C., 149Danziger, W L., 403Darzins, P., 298Das, J P., 51, 263, 269, 283, 418, 419, 420,

436, 437, 451, 586, 591Dash, U N., 437

Dashiell, J F., 478DaSilva, R V., 133Date, A., 196Davey, L., 32Davids, E., 32Davidson, A., 96, 97Davies, A D M., 395Davies, C., 395Davies, H P., 447Davies, M F., 149Davis, A., 75Davis, L., 308Davis, R., 46, 50, 499Davis, R D., 417Davis, S E., 501Daw, J., 580Dawis, R., 318, 468, 473, 475Dawes, R M., 14, 15, 28, 32, 35, 142, 214, 215Dawkins, K., 277

Dawson, H., 267Day, D V., 336Day, S X., 474, 476Dean, R S., 82DeAngelis, L M., 457Deardorff, W., 301Deary, I J., 305DeBeurs, E., 393

De Bruyn, E E J., 13Decker, A R., 475Dede, D., 446

Deeg, D J H., 393Deering, C., 196DeFina, P A., 580, 586DeFries, J C., 82DeFruyt, F., 475Delaney, E A., 427

de Leon, M J., 459Delgado, M R., 458DellaPietra, L., 302, 306, 310, 311, 312, 449Del’Osso, L., 498

Delpo, M C., 395DeMaio, T., 401Demakis, G J., 302, 307

de Mey, H., 154Demirovic, J., 404Dempster, I., 197Dempster, R J., 353Denney, D., 383Dennis, W., 195Dent, H E., 73Derby, K M., 515, 516, 523Derksen, J., 148, 154Derogatis, L R., 122, 124, 302, 306, 308, 309,

310, 311, 312Deshields, T L., 306DeShon, R P., 338D’Esposito, M., 457Detre, J A., 457DeVaney, S B., 476DeVellis, R., 304Deysach, R E., 35Diamond, E E., 470, 471Dickens, S E., 18, 220Dickey, B., 119, 129Dickson, D H., 149Dickson, P., 375Dies, R., 182, 185, 194, 203, 297Dies, R R., 6, 122, 126, 580

Di Giulio, G., 35Digman, J M., 337Dikmen, S., 453, 454DiPerna, J C., 268, 283Dittmer, K I., 521Ditton, P M., 365Dodge, K A., 268Doehrman, M., 196Doggett, R A., 266Doherty, M E., 33Doidge, N., 498, 501Dolan, R J., 458Dolliver, R H., 332Domino, G., 97, 105Donabedian, A., 129Donahue, L M., 319, 339Donaldson, D I., 458Donati, D., 500Donders, J., 430, 449Donini, M., 500Donnay, D A C., 469, 475, 478Doren, D M., 379

Dorfman, W I., 133–134, 554Dorsey, M F., 510, 522

Duke University Center for the Study of Aging

and Human Development, 404

406, 582Edens, J F., 355Ediger, M., 277, 280Edkins, G., 133Education Directorate, 200Education Week, 280Edwards, A L., 571–572, 587, 589Edwards, D W., 379

Edwards, R P., 266Eells, K., 75Egan, M., 512Egan, V., 458Ehrhardt, J C., 458Einarsdottir, S., 474Einhorn, H J., 35, 36, 517, 524Eisdorfer, C., 404

Eisen, S V., 134Eisman, E., 122, 126, 132, 182, 185, 194, 199,

203, 297, 580Ekman, P., 35Eldridge, K., 501Ellenberger, H., 202Ellens, B M., 10, 17, 155Ellersten, B., 148Ellingson, J E., 177Elliot, A J., 512Elliot, R., 72, 74Elliott, C D., 56, 269, 420, 421, 422Elliott, S N., 267, 268, 269, 280, 282, 283, 422Ellis, A., 555, 556–558, 559, 561, 566,572–573, 575

Ellis, B B., 87Ellis, C G., 497Ellwanger, J., 450Ellwanger, J W., 450Elmore, R F., 364Elstein, A S., 524Elwood, R W., 122, 456Embretson, S E., 43, 44, 49, 55, 57, 109Emery, B L., 254

Endicott, J., 496, 497Engel, G L., 301English, D J., 37English, L., 450English, N., 204Enomoto, K., 106Enri, T., 501Entwistle, S R., 353Epperson, D L., 372Epstein, M K., 244Equal Employment OpportunityCommission, 325Erdal, K., 447

Erdberg, P., 587Erdman, H P., 150, 151Ericsson, K A., 478Erikson, E., 202Eshbaugh, D M., 379Eshleman, S., 398Espadas, A., 245

Esparza, Y B., 391, 392Esters, I G., 53Etchells, E., 298Ethics Code Task Force (ECTF), 166, 167,

170, 172, 175, 177, 178Ettner, S L., 32

Etzweiler, S., 295Evans, A., 510Evans, D R., 22Evans, F J., 151Evans, I M., 510, 516Evenson, R., 501Exner, J E., 35, 142, 532, 533, 535, 536, 537,

543, 544Exner, J E., Jr., 6, 33, 35, 194, 202, 236, 588Eyde, L., 149, 153, 182, 185, 188, 194, 203,

297, 312, 320–321, 336Eyde, L D., 6, 122, 126, 169, 580Eysenck, J J., 554

Eysenck, S B G., 554Ezekial, J., 367Fagan, T K., 261, 264Fairbairn, C G., 497Fairbank, M E., 402Fairbanks, L D., 264Fairman, K A., 35Falvey, J E., 33Famuyiwa, O O., 244Farberman, R., 299Faria, L P., 238Farr, S., 145Farrell, A D., 144Faust, D., 10, 28, 32, 35, 142, 214, 215Faustman, W O., 130

Fava, J L., 262Fava, M., 500Feenan, D., 298Feher, E P., 400Feigenbaum, D., 81, 82Fein, D., 532

Feinsod, M., 459Feldman, C., 148Feldman, S., 281Felger, T., 537Felton, J L., 519Fensterheim, H., 353Fernandez-Ballesteros, R., 5Ferrini, A F., 393, 396Ferrini, R L., 393, 396Ferris, R., 392Ferron, J., 429Ferrucci, L., 393Fibel, B., 497Ficken, J., 131Figlio, D N., 264Figueredo, A J., 310Figueroa, R A., 73Fillenbaum, G., 403Filskov, S B., 33, 34Finch, A J., 238Fine, B., 68

546, 548Frank, M G., 35Frank, R., 445Frankenburg, F R., 497Fray, P J., 150Frazer, D W., 394, 395Frazier, P A., 309Frederick, R., 345, 346Frederick, R I., 448, 449Fredrickson, B L., 403Freedman, M., 532Freeman, R J., 358French, C C., 145French, J A., 457Frensch, P A., 37Freud, S L., 34Frick, P J., 240, 246, 251, 253Fricko, M A., 475

Fried, L P., 393Friedel, L A., 338Friedman, H S., 395Frier, B M., 305Frilis, S., 503Friman, P C., 245Frisbie, D A., 280Frisby, C L., 7Frisoni, G B., 401Friss, P., 453Fristad, M A., 254, 430Friston, K J., 458Fritsche, B A., 327, 330, 332, 471Frost, J A., 457

Fry, P S., 402Fuchs, L S., 274, 275, 276Fulmer, T., 403

Fundudis, T., 244Fuqua, D R., 52Furey, M L., 459Furnham, A., 149Futterman, A., 392Gacono, C., 373, 374Gadol, I., 33, 34Gagnon, W A., 276Galaburda, A M., 445Gallagher, D., 390, 391, 404Gallagher, J J., 435Gallagher-Thompson, D., 392Gallen, R T., 243

Gallo, J J., 403Galton, F., 43, 554Gambrill, E., 214Gandek, B., 134Ganellen, R., 192, 194Ganellen, R J., 7Gansler, D., 298Gansler, D A., 383

Garb, N H., 13, 14, 16, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,

34, 35, 37, 150, 153, 213, 215, 219, 311,

517, 524, 547, 582, 587, 588, 590Garbin, M A., 13

Gardiner, W., 376Gardner, H., 204Gardner, W., 27, 28, 31, 373Garfield, S., 197, 198Garfield, S L., 12, 33Garmoe, W S., 451Garner, A M., 33Garner, W R., 78–79Garrett, W E., 445Gass, C S., 450Gati, I., 454Gatz, M., 389, 391, 398, 400Gaudette, M D., 32Gaugler, B B., 332Gaulier, B., 500Gaver, V., 305Gaynor, S T., 525Gayowski, T., 306Gdowski, C L., 237, 248, 256Gearhart, M., 280

Gearing, M I., 2nd, 379Geddes, J., 214Geffen, L G., 453Geffin, G M., 453Geisinger, K F., 7, 9, 22, 14, 50, 60, 95, 98, 99,

100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 111Geisser, M., 303

Gelfand, M J., 319Genco, K T., 144Gendreau, P., 372Genshaft, J L., 271Gentry, W., 293George, A E., 459George, C., 86George, L., 307George, M S., 458, 459Gerard, A B., 255Gergen, K J., 401Gerhart, B., 327Gerkin, K C., 86Geroldi, C., 401Geyer, M A., 539Ghiselli, E E., 320Ghosh, A., 151Giacomini, E., 457Gianarris, W J., 250Gibbon, M., 219, 496, 497Gifford, E V., 399Gigandet, J., 76Gilberstadt, H., 561Gilbert, B O., 502Gilbert, J A., 343Gilbody, S., 214Gilewski, M J., 400Gill, D S., 458, 459Gill, M., 201Gillam, J H., III, 395Gilliland, S W., 324, 338

123, 125, 218, 230, 246, 252, 306, 355,

373, 378, 450, 546, 559, 562, 564, 565,

572, 574, 579 Grann, M., 374Grant, I., 171, 453, 454, 501Grant, J R., 309

Grant, L., 510Grassi, F., 459Gratton, B., 402Gratz, R C., 404Gray, L., 305Grayson, D A., 406Grebstein, L., 30, 33Greco, M G., 515Green, B F., 337Green, F L., 237Green, M F., 503Green, P., 448Green, S M., 244Greenberg, D B., 395Greencavage, L M., 12Greene, L., 250Greene, R L., 6, 18, 32, 33, 123, 125, 218,

223, 546Greenway, P., 127, 204Greenwood, A., 185Greenwood, C R., 267Greenwood, K M., 523, 525Greist, J H., 150, 151, 501Grenberg, M T., 262Gresham, F M., 263, 266, 267, 271, 272,

283, 436Grice, J W., 430Griffen, D H., 393Griffith, L S., 395Grigg, A E., 33, 34Grimes, J P., 263, 283Grindel, S., 446Grindel, S H., 446Grisell, J L., 252Grisso, T., 31, 167, 298, 345, 346, 356, 358,

360, 361, 372Grissom, G R., 128, 310Griswold, P M., 34Grob, M C., 134Grocott, H., 305Gronwall, D., 447Gross, M., 76Gross, M U M., 435Grossberg, G., 298Grote, C., 312Grote, C L., 170Groth-Marnat, G., 34, 133, 297, 488, 554, 580Grove, W., 311

Grove, W M., 14, 27, 28, 29, 32, 142, 352, 547Gruber, C P., 130, 236, 240, 243, 244,

245, 247Guare, J C., 267Guastello, D., 149Guastello, S J., 148, 149, 150Gude, T., 503

Guevremont, D C., 514, 519Guidubaldi, J., 49

Guilford, J P., 51Guilmette, T J., 32, 35, 448Guimaraes, A R., 458Guion, R M., 50, 322, 323, 329, 336Gulliksen, H., 43, 44, 57

Gullone, E., 238Gunderson, J., 497Gunderson, J G., 216, 217, 219, 497Guralnik, J., 393

Gurian, B., 398Gurland, B., 390Gurland, B J., 398, 401Gurnee, M C., 133Guskiewicz, K M., 445Gustafsson, J.-E., 422, 431Gutentag, S S., 420Guterman, A., 404Guterman, S S., 84Guthrie, G M., 561Gutin, P H., 457Gutkin, T B., 74, 82, 83, 84Guyatt, G., 298

Guze, B H., 458–459Gwynne, J., 85Gynther, M D., 546, 565Haerrop-Griffiths, J., 309Hafemeister, T., 358Hagen, E P., 269, 423, 425, 426, 427Hahn, S R., 123, 308, 310

Hakstian, A R., 373–374Halbfinger, D M., 321Halbower, C C., 561Haley, G., 244Hall, G C N., 450Hall, P., 497Hall, S., 448Halleck, S L., 218, 223, 229, 231Haller, D., 500

Hallmark, R., 6, 487Hallowell, A I., 22Halmi, K A., 498Halpern, E., 451Halpern, E L., 451Hambacher, W O., 402Hambleton, R K., 44, 55, 59, 86, 87, 99, 102,

103, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113Hamburger, M., 151

Hamer, R., 305Hamilton, R M., 150, 151Hamilton, S B., 520Hammeke, T A., 457Hammer, A L., 169, 332, 469