7. Processing data
• The end product of assessment should be a description of the client’s
present level of functioning, considerations relating to etiology, prognosis,
and treatment recommendations.
• Etiologic descriptions should avoid simplistic formulas and should instead
focus on the influence exerted by several interacting factors. These factors
can be divided into primary, predisposing, precipitating, and reinforcing
causes, and a complete description of etiology should take all of these into
account.
• Further elaborations may also attempt to assess the person from a systems
perspective in which the clinician evaluates patterns of interaction, mutual
two-way influences, and the specifics of circular information feedback
8. • An additional crucial area is to use the data to develop an effective
plan for intervention (see Beutler & Clarkin, 1990; Beutler, Clarkin, &
Bongar, 2000; Jongsma & Peterson, 1995).
• Clinicians should also pay careful attention to research on, and the
implications of, incremental validity and continually be aware of the
limitations and possible inaccuracies involved in clinical judgment. If
actuarial formulas are available, they should be used when possible.
9. • These considerations indicate that the description of a client should
not be a mere labeling or classification, but should rather provide a
deeper and more accurate understanding of the person.
• This understanding should allow the examiner to perceive new facets
of the person in terms of both his or her internal experience and his
or her relationships with others.
10. • To develop these descriptions, clinicians must make inferences from
their test data.
• Although such data is objective and empirical, the process of
developing hypotheses,obtaining support for these hypotheses, and
integrating the conclusions is dependent on the experience and
training of the clinician.
• This process generally follows a sequence of developing impressions,
identifying relevant facts, making inferences, and supporting these
inferences with relevant and consistent data.
11. • Maloney and Ward (1976) have conceptualized a seven-phase
approach (Figure 1.1) to evaluating data.
• They note that,in actual practice, these phases are not as clearly
defined as indicated in Figure 1.1, but often occur simultaneously.
• For example, when a clinician reads a referral question or initially
observes a client, he or she is already developing hypotheses about
that person and checking to assess the validity of these observations.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. Communicating the results.
• Psychologists should ordinarily give feedback to the client and referral source
regarding the results of assessment (Lewak & Hogan, 2003; also see Pope, 1992
for specific guidelines and responsibilities).
• This should be done using clear, everyday language. If the psychologist is not the
person giving the feedback, this should be agreed on in advance and the
psychologist should ensure that the person providing the feedback presents the
information in a clear, competent manner.
• Unless the results are communicated effectively, the purpose of the assessment
is not likely to be achieved. This involves understanding the needs and vocabulary
of the referral source, client, and other persons, such as parents or teachers, who
may be affected by the test results
17. • Initially, there should be a clear explanation of the rationale for testing and the
nature of the tests being administered.
• This may include the general type of conclusions that are drawn, the limitations
of the test, and common misconceptions surrounding the test or test variable. If a
child is being tested in an educational setting, a meeting should be arranged with
the school psychologist, parents, teacher, and other relevant persons. Such an
approach is crucial for IQ tests, which are more likely to be misinterpreted, than
for achievement tests.
• Feedback of test results should be given in terms that are clear and
understandable to the receiver. Descriptions are generally most meaningful when
performance levels are clearly indicated along with behavioral references.
18. • For example, in giving IQ results to parents, it is
• only minimally relevant to say that their child has an IQ of 130 with relative strengths in
• spatial organization, even though this may be appropriate language for a formal psycho
• logical evaluation. A more effective description might be that their child is “currently
• functioning in the top 2% when compared with his or her peers and is particularly good
• at organizing nonverbal material such as piecing together puzzles, putting together a bi
• cycle, or building a playhouse.”
19. • In providing effective feedback, the clinician should also consider the personal characteristics of the
receiver, such as his or her general educational level, relative knowledge regarding psychological
testing, and possible emotional response to the information. The emotional reaction is especially
important when a client is learning about his or her personal strengths or shortcomings. Facilities
should be available for additional counseling, if needed. If properly given, feedback is not merely
informative but can actually serve to reduce symptomatic distress and enhance self-esteem
(Armengol, Moes, Penney, & Sapienza, 2001; Finn & Tonsager, 1992; Lewak & Hogan, 2003).
Thus, providing feedback can actually be part of the intervention process itself Because
psychological assessment is often requested as an aid in making important life decisions, the
potential impact of the information should not be underestimated. Clinicians are usually in positions
of power, and with that comes responsibility in that the information thatclients receive and the
decisions they make based on this information is often with themfor many years.
