Table of Contents
Introduction and Overview………………………………………………………………………..3
Tests of Intelligence……………………………………………………………………………….5
Tests of Achievement……………………………………………………………………………..9
Tests of Ability……………………………………………………………………………………12
Neuropsychological Testing……………………………………………………………………..14
Personality Testing……………………………………………………………………………….17
Industrial, Occupational, and Career Assessment………………………………………………..19
Forensic Assessment……………………………………………………………………………..21
Testing Elementary School-Aged Children……………………………………………………...23
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….25
References………………………………………………………………………………………..27
Introduction and Overview
Greetings Readers,
This guide has been designed to help you, the reader, understand the underpinnings of psychological testing and assessment in an overall effort to ensure you are making informed decisions when considering psychological testing and assessment for you or your family members. While many guides focus on solitary aspects of psychological testing, this guide will cover a wide range of facets to provide the reader with a more comprehensive perspective of psychological testing and assessment.
We begin by defining what a “test” is. When psychologists refer to tests and testing, what they are essentially talking about is formal tests, more commonly described as “norm-referenced tests.” Examples of norm-referenced tests would include checklists and/or questionnaires. Norm-referenced tests are more or less uniform, in that test-takers are evaluated in a similar fashion regardless of where the test-taker resides or who administers the test (APA, 2017; Gregory, 2014). Conversely, when we refer to psychological assessment, we are talking about several items. For instance, psychological assessment can include formal and informal tests and/or surveys, clinical interviews, medical evaluations, school records, etc. (APA, 2017). Such assessments can assist professionals in identifying learning disorders, competency to stand trial, or even how well a person would do in a specific career or job position. Worth noting here, however, is that psychological tests and assessments do not come in a “one size fits all” format, rather they are often tailored to each individual patient. Additionally, most tests and assessments can only be administered and interpreted by licensed psychologists and/or other trained individuals (Gregory, 2014).
There are a wide variety of tests; however, they can be largely grouped into two sites: Individual and Group tests. Individual tests are administered one-on-one, while Group tests are administered to large groups of individuals at the same time (Gregory, 2014). The primary types of psychological tests include: “Intelligence Tests, Aptitude Tests, Achievement Tests, Creativity Tests, Personality Tests, Interest Inventories, Behavioral Procedures, and Neuropsychological Tests” (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 1, section 1.4). Additionally, when it comes to psychological assessment, some of the primary domains for assessment include: clinical interviews, personality assessment, behavioral assessment, and IQ (Intellectual Functioning) assessment. With the amount of tests and assessments available, a pertinent question to ask here is how reliable and valid these tests and assessments truly are. Without a doubt there are tests and assessments that are more valid and reliable than others. But what does “valid” and “reliable” exactly mean? Well, reliability is the extent to which a test and/or assessment generates consistent results, whereas validity refers to the level to which the test and/or assessment evaluates that which it is intended to measure (Gregory, 2014). When tests and assessments have strong psychometric properties (e.g., reliability and validity), they provide professionals with a sound foundation for diagnosing patients. Further, testing and assessment are utilized to help conceptualize a client’s issues and subsequently enables professionals to come up with effective treatment plans. When it comes to assessment specifically, this is one of the primary steps in gathering comprehensive data to make the diagnosis and/or diagnoses. In general, psychological assessment is a well-established and effective diagnostic tool that aids specialists in providing tentative and/or definitive diagnoses to patients and their families. Once a proper diagnosis has been reached, the assessment helps in devising a plan of action/treatment that is tailored to the individual patient’s needs.
As aforementioned, typically, a licensed psychologist will administer and interpret tests. However, there are instances where a psychologist’s intern will conduct psychological evaluations under the supervision of the licensed psychologist. There are a variety of psychologists that can administer and interpret assessments, to include: clinical psychologists, industrial organizational psychologists, forensic psychologists, etc.
In addition, another aspect of psychological testing and assessment that needs attention is cultural considerations. Because the United States is a major “mixing bowl,” physicians must acknowledge and account for different cultures expressing themselves in diverse fashions, wherein symptomatology is likely to differ as a function of culture (Mezzich & Caracci, 2008). Therefore, though it has been argued extensively that diagnosis can be beneficial in treatment development, it can also result in misdiagnosis of culturally subjugated groups when psychologists fail to consider ethnic, cultural, and gender divergences wholly (Rose & Cheung, 2012; Eriksen & Kress, 2005, 2006, 2008; Kress, Eriksen, Rayle, & Ford, 2005; Madesen & Leech, 2007). Thus, the American Psychological Association has worked diligently to combat some of these prevailing cultural issues by imploring psychologists be more aware of and acknowledge ethnically derived divergences in symptoms (APA, 2013).
Tests of Intelligence
In this section of the guide, we will discuss some of the most prominent assessments of intelligence that many individuals encounter when having their IQ measured. Intelligence has been defined in a number of ways; however, a more simplistic explanation of intelligence is that it is our ability to obtain and utilize knowledge and acquired skills. When first originated, tests of intelligence appraised an extensive array of skills in an effort to approximate a person’s overall degree of intelligence (Gregory, 2014). The Binet-Simon scales are an example of early established IQ measures. Around the time of WWII, group intelligence tests, such as the Army Alpha, came in handy; this test measured diverse skills like reasoning, practical judgment, etc. (Gregory, 2014). Contemporary IQ tests model past measures in that they test for a broad selection of aptitudes regarded as essential in our culture. As maintained by Gregory (2014), “In general, the term intelligence refers to a test that yields an overall summary score based on results from a heterogeneous sample of items” (Ch. 1, section 1.4). One of the most prominent tests of intelligence was developed by David Wechsler. Before he began creating his IQ tests, Wechsler spent his time working for E. G. Boring scoring Army Alpha exams. He was later trained in administering individual IQ tests, such as the Stanford-Binet and Yerkes’ nonverbal measures. (Kaufman, n.d.). There are a number of Wechsler Intelligence Scales; however, the most commonly utilized measure when testing individual IQ is the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale for adults and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children for school-aged individuals. Wechsler’s intelligence scales were designed to represent a broad assortment of fundamental abilities to calculate a global capacity of intelligence (Gregory, 2014). Further, Wechsler found it imperative to look at intelligence not in terms of capacity, rather in terms of performance. More simply stated, the Wechsler IQ scales do not aim to measure the quantity of one’s IQ, instead they measure one’s IQ performance. IQ performance is calculated from a multidimensional construct, which essentially means that it isn’t measuring or conceptualizing IQ as a single characteristic, rather it is measuring myriad types of intellectual functioning (Kaufman, n.d.).
Just as with anything in life, tests must be used and interpreted in responsible ways to ensure no harm comes to test-takers. IQ tests have the great potential to measure working memory, processing speed, reasoning aptitude, etc. This could be highly beneficial in providing diagnostic insight when an individual shows discrepancies in certain functions; thus, enabling clinicians to employ appropriate interventions. IQ testing can also help with things like identifying highly gifted individuals, more specifically children. Sometimes behavioral issues or a lack of motivation in performing academically can be because the material is not at the gifted individual’s learning level. By being able to identify this through IQ testing, administrative staff can come up with more enriched educational curriculum to keep the gifted motivated and engaged in the learning process. While IQ tests have many great aspects, they also have some cons. IQ tests can be biased, especially in terms of culture and special populations like the deaf and American Sign Language (ASL) community (Mason, 2005). They can be harmful when scores are utilized to label the individual, especially when scores are low and the label “learning disabled” gets tossed around. This could cause a person to believe that their IQ defines them and their overall potential, resulting in a lack of motivation and severe diminishment in self-esteem. Ultimately, an individual’s IQ score is not a measurement of their overall ability and should never be used as such.
A major component in measuring IQ is culture. Rattan, Savani, Naidu, & Dweck (2012) illustrate that most beliefs about intelligence are culturally shaped. Sociocultural issues that should be considered are things like ethnic values, behaviors, belief systems, etc. Assessment answers may not truly reflect a person's intelligence, especially if from a minority group. The culture we identify with often influences the way we see ourselves and situations within society. Thus, with most assessments being primarily from Anglo-American psychologists, it is important to take into account sociocultural factors that may or may not have influenced a test-takers responses.
IQ test are typically scored on a bell-shaped curve with the average mean score of 100. People with a score of 100 are considered to have average intelligence. Those individuals who score below 100 are considered below intelligence, whereas scores above 100 are considered above intelligence (Rimm, 2010). They are normally distributed and results can be given as a percentile rank along with the scaled score. If you would like to know more about IQ scores, please refer to the following link: https://www.verywell.com/how-are-scores-on-iq-tests-calculated-2795584. Another interesting link that explicates what parents should know about IQ testing can be found here: http://www.sylviarimm.com/article_intelligence.html.
Additionally, while group intelligence tests can provide helpful information about an individual’s intelligence quotient (IQ), strengths and weaknesses, and even learning styles, it is more beneficial to have IQ tests administered individually by a trained psychologist. This ensures that the administration and interpretation process is carried out in an appropriate and ethical fashion. It also enables the examiner the ability to observe the examinee and come up with sound hypotheses for why there may be discrepancies in overall IQ score.
Tests of Achievement
Unlike intelligence tests, which measure extensive mental abilities, achievement tests are designed to evaluate what an individual has learned within academia or some other additional course of study (Gregory, 2014). Individual achievement tests are designed to measure learning issues in a one-on-one atmosphere. Conversely, group achievement tests are administered via paper-and-pencil and are given to large student populations at the same time. Some examples of achievement tests that you may or may not be familiar with include: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-II (KTEA-II), Mini-Battery of Achievement (MBA), Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II (WIAT-II), and the Wide Range Achievement Test-4 (WRAT-4) (Gregory, 2014). The KTEA-II is an individual achievement measure that tests educational achievement in children 4 ½ to 25 years of age. While there is a shorter version that can be broadened to include people aged 90+, when used for diagnostic purposes, such as assessing individuals for learning problems, the comprehensive form is ideal (Gregory, 2014). This test is comprised of eight subtests within four primary areas, which are reading, mathematics, written language, and oral language. Along with providing scores on each of the eight subtests, the test yields three composite scores (reading, math, and written language), as well as a total battery composite (Gregory, 2014). In older child populations, the test takes approximately 80 minutes, whereas it takes an estimated 30 minutes for the younger youth populations. This test employs unique entry and exit rules for every subtest to guarantee that test-takers are only presented with items of suitable complexity. Further, the scoring of this test is both objective and reliable, with raw scores being altered into standard scores for every subtest, along with composite and TBC scores. In addition, the psychometric properties (e.g., reliability and validity) of this test appear exceptionally strong, though this can vary depending on school system and most accented areas of achievement (Gregory, 2014).
When it comes to group tests, there are numerous tests that examine abilities, aptitudes, and achievement. Due to the vast array of measures, we will just be focusing on group achievement tests to save time and stay on track. Group achievement tests usually present themselves in the educational setting. These tests have a wide range of uses, but they chiefly help with identifying learning problems and are utilized to monitor schoolwide achievement levels (Gregory, 2014). These tests are administered via pencil-and-paper and to all age groups. The questions are typically multiple choice and the results are objectively scored electronically. The scores are generally provided in percentage form or an interval format (Gregory, 2014). However, worth noting is that just because group tests enable professionals to measure large groups of people at one time, it comes at a cost.
When it comes to the pros and cons of individual versus group assessment of ability, we know that group assessment allows for examiners to test a large group of people in one sitting in a fraction of the time it would take to test them all individually. Moreover, as maintained by Gregory (2014), "group testing poses two interrelated risks: (1) some examinees will score far below their true ability, owing to motivational problems or difficulty following directions and (2) invalid scores will not be recognized as such, with undesirable consequences for these atypical examinees" (Ch. 6, section 6.1). In additional instances of group testing there could be issues with high-performing students feeling at a disadvantage, as well as low-performing students being placed at a disadvantage. Though, in theory, these sort of groupings are designed to help challenge and motivate students, they can also create things like exclusion and anxiety. Additionally, when it comes to individual tests of achievement, test interpretation should be presented in such a way that steers clear of labeling the individual. Labeling and/or mislabeling any person from any age group can have strong adverse implications. While some labels may be beneficial and help individuals within this age group become more motivated to achieve goals, labels can also result in low self-esteem, peer issues, lower degrees of motivation and performance, etc. Labeling not only shapes our perception of people, but it influences how others see themselves. Often times, labels that we ascribe to people become self-fulfilling prophecies and provoke stereotypes, which can be quite detrimental in some instances. Take for instance the stereotype that males are better at math than females. While there is no substantial and empirical evidence to support such a claim, it remains a dominant viewpoint in our society (Stewart et al., 2017). A study utilizing the KTEA-3 achievement test revealed that there was no significant divergence in math achievement and aptitude between male and female participants. While males scored higher on high-stakes standardized tests, females outperformed males on math computation (Stewart et al., 2017), signifying that male and females can perform mathematics relatively equally and one gender is not superior to the other in ability. Thus, while labels are often utilized to place value on people; this is more of a detriment than anything because humans are of distinct worth. There are so many intangible qualities and characteristics of human beings that are vast and immeasurable, many of which are influenced by culture.
Finally, some important questions to ask regarding achievement tests include: What are these tests measuring exactly? How do the results impact the examinee? Are the tests fair to all test-takers? What is the standard error of measurement? Questions such as these will help you better understand the nature of the test you are considering for yourself or a family member. Being knowledgeable about different forms of assessment and testing will help you, the reader, and your family members make better informed decisions about whether or not the assessment you are considering is the right one or not. So ask questions!
Tests of Ability
In this section we will discuss tests of ability. What is “ability?” Simply put, ability is the means or skill by which we are capable of doing something. Perhaps you have the strong ability to play an instrument, or the ability to juggle three balls at once while hopping on one foot and blowing bubbles with bubble-gum. Jokes aside, tests of ability measure skills in a number of domains. There are general ability tests that measure things like verbal, numerical, and perceptual potential, along with ability tests that specifically measure certain skills, such as mechanical ability, spatial ability, abstract reasoning, et cetera. Tests of ability more or less assess what intellectual potential we harness, rather than measuring what intelligence we already have (Gregory, 2014).
Ability tests are typically administered under exam conditions, are strictly timed, multiple choice format, and can be given by either paper and/or computer. The results of the ability tests will be compared with a control group so that judgements and conclusions can be made about test-takers’ general and/or specific abilities. There are ability measures that assess individuals of all ages and for a variety of reasons (e.g., education, career, etc.). It is important to note that while there are definitely aptitude tests that harness strong and sound psychometric properties, there are others that lack validity due to their ambiguity in what they are measuring. A perfect example of this is the Minnesota Clerical Test (MCT), which endeavors to measure numerical and verbal acuity. While its reliability appears consistent, this tests validity has been criticized due to the measures ambiguous nature. Thus, it is important to consider asking administrators how valid and reliable your tests results will be upon completing the test, and asking them specific questions about what the test is going to be measuring and how the results will be utilized. Remember, however, that one measure does NOT define your overall intelligence and/or aptitude. We emphasize this point throughout this guide to ensure that readers understand that although these tests can give an indication of degree of intelligence, aptitude, achievement, etc., tests are not without their limitations and there are many factors outside of the measures that must be taken into consideration when interpreting test-takers results.
As maintained by Cucina & Howardson (2017), a prime factor structure of intellectual abilities is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model. The CHC model was built on the theory that intelligence is comprised of widespread, general, and limited abilities that are organized hierarchically (Gregory, 2014). These categories include Stratum III, II, and I (Cucina & Howardson, 2017; Gregory, 2014). The most widespread level is Stratum III, wherein a solitary general factor, the g factor, governs all cognitive performance. Stratum II consists of numerous important and ingrained abilities, and Stratum I is comprised of around 70 narrow abilities that were distinguished by Carroll (Gregory, 2014). These narrowed abilities are consistently being adjusted and developed as research is an enduring process.
When it comes to validity, this theory is supported on the basis that CHC has been illustrated to be unchanged across factors like gender, age, ethnicity, so on and so forth. As stated by Gregory (2014), “practitioners praise the CHC approach to partitioning intelligence because the broad and narrow abilities are empirically verified and possess meaningful real-world implications” (Ch. 5, section 5.6). This is especially important when it comes measuring individuals from diverse cultures, as it helps in avoiding test bias.
Neuropsychological Testing
The term/phrase neuropsychological testing can be intimidating to people who do not understand what it means and/or entails. When we hear or read the term “neuro,” most individuals know that is has something to do with our brain. So what, then, does neuropsychological testing involve, and why is it important to understand? Let’s break it down…when we refer to “neuropsychology,” we are referring to the study of the overall structure and performance/operation of the brain as they relate to certain mental processes and behaviors. Simply stated, it is a field of psychology that examines how cognition and behavior are influenced by how our brain is structured and functions. Neuropsychological testing concerns tests that have been designed to assess psychological functions that are associated with a specific brain structure. These tests appraise processes of memory, language, intelligence, motor function. etc., and help doctors acquire data about why a person is potentially experiencing deficiencies in these particular areas. This obtained data can then assist in a diagnosis, localization of the abnormality in the central nervous system (CNS), and finally an effective treatment plan to help the patient.
A great many neuropsychological tests examine neurological syndromes like dementia (Alzheimer’s disease), brain injury (Traumatic Brain Injury), or Parkinson’s disease (Gregory, 2014). Moreover, they measure categories, such as sensory input, attention and concentration, learning and memory, language, spatial and manipulatory aptitude, executive functions, and motor production (Gregory, 2014). Many of the assessments given are scored utilizing percentiles. Test scores are generally plotted on a normal curve, “When all of the ordinate values at or below this test score are summed, the resulting value is the percentile associate with that test score” (Strauss, Sherman, and Spreen, 2006, p. 4). When it comes to psychometric properties of neuropsychological assessments, it should be noted that just as with all other forms of assessment, these measurements are not perfectly exact, instead they are approximations of overall abilities and functions and each accompanied with some kind of measurement error (Strauss, Sherman, and Spreen, 2006). Also worth considering when thinking about any kind of assessment is that the level of exactitude diverges to some extent across diverse populations, as well as test-use locations.
Neuropsychological tests are usually administered as a battery of measures to maintain appropriate use. It would be inappropriate to employ a solitary measure to form a clinical diagnosis. Thus, doctors administer numerous assessments to come to sound and reliable conclusions about a patient’s neuropsychological issues. A more recent and largely promising assessment battery is the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB), which can be given to adults aged 18 to 97. It is a comprehensive assessment that includes 24 individual tests in five integrated domains: “attention, language, memory, spatial and executive functions” (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 10, section 10.21). This assessment can be given via fixed administration (about three hours) or flexible administration. Scores are mechanically computed and reported as standard scores or T-scores for subtests (Gregory, 2014). Overall, this assessment battery is both reliable and harnesses adequate validity. In terms of test interpretation, once findings have been established, doctors take great measures to interpret results to the patient in a language that is easy to understand and is culturally relevant. It is important to discuss results with the patient in a way that avoids labeling the patient and/or communicating to them that their results define who they are.
Personality Testing
One of the most fundamental questions within the realm of personality testing is: How is personality hypothesized? Well, when we break it down, personality is often seen in terms of the combination of qualities and characteristics that mold our individual character. Although we as individuals are steady in that we harness consistent traits and patterns of action, we are also distinct from others in that our behavior diverges from that of others (Gregory, 2014). There are many theories that make up the foundation of personality testing, to include psychoanalytic theory, type theory, phenomenological theories, social and behavioral theories, trait theory, etc. (Gregory, 2014). Many of the personality tests given to patients can be divided into objective and projective measures. The term objective in objective personality assessment essentially signifies the approach being utilized to score an individual’s responses, and is relatively free of administrator bias. It is a term that means measurable, observable, and evidence/fact-based. Objective methods measure personality characteristics in such a manner that is not influenced by examiners’ beliefs; thus, objective tests are believed to be largely independent of rater bias. Objective methods of personality assessment are applicable in a number of diverse settings. They are employed in an effort to learn more about overall personality traits. Traits are essentially core components of who we are and play a key role in how we act, behave, and respond in any given situation. Three examples of objective approaches include: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), NEO personality inventory revised (NEO-Pi-R), and Cattell’s 16 factor theory of personality (16PF). The MBTI measures psychological predilections in how individual’s observe, understand, and make sense of the world, which ultimately influences decision-making. The NEO-Pi-R measures five chief personality domains, along with six factors that characterize each domain. The 16PF assesses individuals and provides data about personal style and behavior in a number of settings, which in turn exposes a person’s potential or areas of probable developmental needs (Hughes, 2008).
The term projective in projective personality assessments refers to an unconscious transfer of emotions, desires, fears, et cetera. As maintained by Gregory (2014), “In a projective test the examinee encounters vague, ambiguous stimuli and responds with his or her own constructions” (Ch. 8, section 8.7). Moreover, the projective hypothesis proposes that subjective understanding of inexplicit stimuli essentially exposes unconscious desires, drives, and conflicts of examinees. Overall, what this more or less means/entails is if an individual is asked to describe and/or interpret vague stimuli—things that can be understood numerous ways—the responses given will be influenced by nonconscious feelings, desires, and experiences. Three examples of projective assessments include the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and the Draw-A-Person test.
Personality tests are carried out in a number of ways, some of which include surveys and self-questionnaires, formal and informal interviews, and observation methods. Testing time will vary depending on what form of personality assessment is given and while there are quick personality tests that can be taken online, it is more beneficial to be tested by a professional so that results can be explained in ways that are culturally relevant and that avoid bias and overgeneralizations. It is imperative to keep in mind that “Ecologies shape cultures; cultures influence the development of personalities” (Triandis and Suh, 2002, p. 133). Cross-battery assessment, which means taking more than just one assessment, is likely one of the most appropriate ways to establish reliability and validity in personality assessment, as it seemingly enables professionals to draw important correlations in response patterns and aides in making more definitive conclusions.
Industrial, Occupational, and Career Assessment
Another area where assessment takes place is within occupational and vocational settings. Tests are given to make complex decisions about personnel in areas of “hiring, placement, promotion and evaluation” (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 11); this process is more commonly referred to as personnel selection. These assessments are widely administered via paper-and-pencil and examine things like autobiographical information, cognitive ability, personality and temperament, level of motivation, sensory, physical, and dexterity, integrity, so on and so forth (Gregory, 2014). General ability tests, like the Wonderlic Personnel Test-Revised, measure mental abilities like vocabulary, logical induction, arithmetic problem solving, sentence reorganization, et cetera in adults 30 and older (Gregory, 2014). This measure is a speed test (12-minute time limit), is both strongly reliable and valid, with validity measures exceeding .91, and is available to both men and women. However, there are limitations with this assessment, as it is only available in English, which presents issues with individuals whose native tongue is not English. This puts them at an unfair disadvantage (Gregory, 2014). Multiple Aptitude Test Batteries, like the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), aim to measure cognitive ability, trainability, arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, and the like. This is an assessment that has been utilized extensively through the years to help place incoming military personnel in a position they would likely thrive in when serving in the military. This is administered in paper-and-pencil form or computer to individuals aged 16 and up and from mixed ethnicities. It takes approximately 3 hours to complete and is scored manually by MEPS personnel. The assessment has strong psychometric properties; however, its biggest limitation is that it is in English only putting non-native English speakers at a huge disadvantage (Military.com, 2017). Clerical Tests like the Minnesota Clerical Test (MCT) aim to assess perceptual speed and accuracy relevant to clerical work. This test appraises cognitive ability in two domains: clerical number checking test and clerical name checking test (Gregory, 2014). It is available to males and females of mixed ethnicity above the age of 18. It is given via paper-and-pencil and is scored manually. It is a speed test and takes about 15 minutes. Though reliable, it lacks substantial validity due to the ambiguity of what is actually being measured. Nevertheless, it is still widely utilized (Gregory, 2014; Salmon, 1962).
There are numerous other assessments that are employed in the industrial, occupational, and career setting. Some have strong reliability and validity, yet are lacking in areas like sociocultural considerations. Some, like the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test, can be both biased and sexists and in dire need of revamping/revisions. An important thing to remember with any assessment is to ask questions. Questions can include things like: How will my results impact my life? What will the test be looking at/measuring? How can I prepare myself for the test? What do my results mean? How can I use my results to better my life and situation?
Forensic Assessment
Forensic Assessment deals specifically with the application of psychology within the legal system. More specifically, forensic assessment evaluates the state of mind of a defendant, offender, or a witness with the intention of informing the court. This form of assessment widely measures an individual’s capability to stand trial (Gregory, 2014). However, there are a few reasons for why a psychological examiner might be asked to traverse the legal system, some include: assessment of potential malingering, evaluating the mental status for an insanity plea, determining ability to stand trial, appraisal of personal injury, and specialized forensic personality assessment (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 12, section 12.5). Interesting to note here is the differences between traditional assessment and forensic assessment. Whereas traditional assessment is broader and comprehensive, forensic assessment is narrower in focus. Another divergence is seen in the client’s role in the overall process of assessment. In traditional assessment, the client must provide informed consent and volunteer to take the assessment…in forensic assessment, the examinee has no choice in the affair. Additionally, the threats to validity are also largely different between traditional and forensic assessment. While in the traditional setting, there may be individuals who try to case themselves in a “good light” by distorting the truth a bit in responses, in forensic assessment there is often a “blatant faking of psychopathology (malingering)” (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 12, section 12.5).
Forensic assessments for issues of malingering include the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Both of these measures harness some unique strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the SIRS assessment reside in its strong reliability, with interrater reliability ranging from .89 to 1.00. Its weaknesses reside in low validity validation, primarily because it lacks research in populations within the criminal justice system (Gregory, 2014). The TOMM harnesses substantial value in forensic assessment, as it is applicable in a wide-range of settings (e.g., clinic-referred, juvenile offenders, Spanish-speaking populations, etc.) (Gregory, 2014).
The Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS) is a strong tool used in evaluating the mental status of an individual for the insanity plea. This assessment demonstrates strong psychometric properties, with the validity being confirmed by Rogers and Sewell’s reanalysis of 413 insanity cases, wherein it was revealed that this measure aided considerably to the determination of criminal responsibility (Gregory, 2014). When evaluating competency to stand trial, a promising instrument utilized is the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA). As specified by Gregory (2014), “The psychometric properties of the MacCAT-CA were evaluated in a study of 729 felony defendants. The researchers found good internal consistency for the three subscales, with coefficient alphas of .81 to .88. The construct validity of the instrument is well supported” (Ch. 12, section 12.5). Finally, there are times when psychologists are required to provide specialized personality assessments within forensic settings. In instances such as these, a psychologist might employ the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). This measure is designed to “assess the qualities of psychopathic personality in a quantitative and empirical fashion” (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 12, section 12.5). There is a great deal of research signifying this measures compelling reliability and validity; thus, making this a go-to personality assessment in the forensic atmosphere.
Testing Elementary School-Aged Children
Psychological testing in elementary school-aged children is seemingly on the rise. Perhaps some of you readers are familiar with such testing, especially when it comes to learning and behavioral difficulties. Statistics reveal that around 4 to 5 percent of all school-aged children obtain a diagnosis of learning disabilities, with a leading one being dyslexia (Gregory, 2014). According to Snowling and Hulme (2012), dyslexia is characterized by “a specific difficulty with decoding print” (p. 27). While group achievement tests may be the thing that raises suspicion of a learning disability, practitioners rely on individual achievement tests, like the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-II (KTEA-II), to for definitive assessment and diagnosis (Gregory, 2014). As previously mentioned, individual assessments are administered one-on-one with the assessor sitting across from the examinee and asking structured inquiries and problems. While the test alone would most certainly produce normative data, in one-on-one assessments, the assessor can observe the “clinical details of deficient (or superior) performance and form hypotheses about the cognitive capacities of the examinee” (Gregory, 2014, Ch. 5, section 5.22).
As parents, it is our duty to ensure that we are giving our children the best chance possible to be successful in all aspects of their lives. This can become quite challenging when our child presents with a possible learning disability. If you suspect that your child has a learning disability, before getting them evaluated, some important questions to ask yourself include: What behaviors have I witnessed that have raised some questions and/or concerns? What area(s) do I believe my child may be experiencing a learning disability in? What information do I possess that might be helpful to the professional evaluator? How do I hope to utilize the information? Some questions that would be beneficial to ask the evaluating specialists include: What experience do you have in testing students my child’s age? What types of tests will you use? Will you be evaluating my child’s emotional, social, and/or psychological status? How should I prepare my child for the evaluation? How long with the evaluation process take? How soon can I expect the evaluation results and when will you review the results with me? Such questions will enable you to choose the right specialist to evaluate your child. Once the evaluation process has concluded and you have been given the results, you can then take the necessary steps to come up with an effective treatment plan for your child. This can include in-school and out-of-school interventions.
That’s A Wrap!
If you have made it this far, I want to extend my personal thanks to you, the reader. We covered a great deal of information pertaining to psychological testing and assessment. We went over a number of diverse categories of assessment and testing in an effort to assist readers in understanding the unique dynamics of the various tests and assessments available in a wide-range of settings. Overall, we come to understand that psychological testing and assessment helps in examining a person and drawing inferences about their behavior, capabilities, and personality. These inferences can then be used to come up with effective treatment plans, find a good career fit, and even help the judicial system make important decisions regarding the accused. Psychological testing and assessment has a great many uses and in a number of settings. I hope this guide has brought more clarity and understanding to the field of psychology, as well as to the readers who may or may not be considering undergoing psychological testing. For a more in-depth review of psychological testing and assessment, you can visit the following link: https://www.scribd.com/doc/130959760/Psychological-Testing-and-Assessment-An-Introduction-to-Tests-and-Measurement.
Thank you.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association (2017). Understanding Psychological Testing and Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/assessment.aspx
Cherry, K. (2016). How Are Scores on IQ Tests Calculated? Retrieved from https://www.verywell.com/how-are-scores-on-iq-tests-calculated-2795584
Cohen-Swerdlik (2009). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurements. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/doc/130959760/Psychological-Testing-and-Assessment-An-Introduction-to-Tests-and-Measurement
Cucina, J. M., & Howardson, G. N. (2017). Woodcock-Johnson-III, Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC), and Differential Ability Scales (DAS) support Carroll but not Cattell-Horn. Psychological Assessment, 29(8), 1001-1015. doi:10.1037/pas0000389
Eriksen, K., & Kress, V. (2005). Beyond the DSM story: Ethical quandaries, challenges, and best practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eriksen, K., & Kress, V. (2006). The DSM and the professional counseling identity: Bridging the gap. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 28, 202–217.
Eriksen, K., & Kress, V. (2008). Gender and diagnosis: Struggles and suggestions for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86, 152–162.
Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological Testing: History, principals, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hughes, G. (2008). Personality assessment (objective). In G. J. Towl, D. Farrington, D. Crighton, & et. al. (Eds.), Dictionary of forensic psychology. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Kaufman, A. S. (n.d.) In Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, NY.
Kress, V., Eriksen, K., Rayle, A., & Ford, S. (2005). The DSM-IV-TR and culture: Considerations for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 97–104.
Madesen, K., & Leech, P. (2007). The ethics of labeling in mental health. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland & Company.
Mason, T. C. (2005). Cross-Cultural Instrument Translation: Assessment, Translation, and Statistical Applications. American Annals of the deaf, Vol 150 (1), 67-72.
Mezzich, J. E., & Caracci, G. (Eds.) (2008). Cultural formation: A reader for psychiatric diagnosis. Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
Military.com (2017). ASVAB Test Explained. Retrieved from http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/asvab/asvab-test-explained.html
Rattan, A., Savani, K., Naidu, N. V. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Can everyone become highly intelligent? Cultural differences in and societal consequences of beliefs about the universal potential for intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 787-803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029263
Rimm, S. (2010). What Parents Should Know About Intelligence and IQ Testing. Retrieved from http://www.sylviarimm.com/article_intelligence.html
Rose, A. L., & Cheung, M. (2012). DSM-5 research: Assessing the mental health needs of older adults from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work: Innovation in Theory, Research & Practice, 21, 144–167. doi:10.1080/15313204.2012.673437
Salmon, E. N., (1962). Clerical Aptitude in Library Employment. College and Research Libraries, 311-322. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/37547/crl_23_04_311_opt.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2012). Interventions for Children's Language and Literacy Difficulties. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(1), 27-34.
Stewart, C., Root, M. M., Koriakin, T., Choi, D., Luria, S. R., Bray, M. A., Sassu, K., Maykel, C., O’Rourke, P., and Courville, T. (2017). Biological Gender Differences in Students’ Errors on Mathematics Achievement Tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol 35(1-2), 47-56.
Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., and Spreen, O. (2006). A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Triandis, H. C., and Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural Influences on Personality. Annual Reviews Psychology, 53, 133-160.
All picture graphics retrieved from Creative Commons filters through the “Online Pictures” tab in Word document.
Kommentare