No abstract

No abstract

Twelve-item (short) forms of Loevinger's Sentence Completion Tests of Ego Development for males and females were administered to a probability sample of American youths, ages 16-26, and scored according to Loevinger's recommended procedures. Levels of observer agreement, as measured by percentage and by intraclass correlations, were at least as good as those reported by Loevinger; and the internal consistency of the short forms, accurately predicted by the Spearman-Brown formula, was quite adequate for group data. Analyses of other data indicate that the short forms are representative samples of the full Washington University Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development. National norms are presented in terms of Total Protocol Ratings (TPR) and item sums; the modal type is the so-called Self-Aware. The discussion raises questions about the nature of this hitherto neglected type and about the relative utility of TPR and item sum as overall scores. Jane Loevinger's two books have provided psychology with both an important integration of a body of developmental theory, which goes back to the beginning of the 20th century (Loevinger, 1976), and a useful instrument for measuring a person's level of what she calls ego development (Loevinger, Wessler, & Redmore, 1970). This Washington University Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development (WUSCTED) is not copyrighted but has been made freely available by its

ECENT years have seen a series of retreats by the once proud legions of personality assessment in general and of diagnostic testing with projective techniques in particular. Interest in the diagnostic function of the clinical psychologist has lagged; the general level of university training in clinical assessment has gone steadily down, and along with it probably the average level of competence in assessing personalities. Nonclinical psychologists increasingly take a patronizing attitude to the clinical assessment enterprise, implying if they do not state outright that it is a quixotic pursuit for a first-rate person since it has allegedly been proved to be unreliable and invalid. The main evidence cited against the diagnostic tester-thrown into his face might better capture the emotional tone of many exchanges-is the rout of clinicians by exponents of statistical and actuarial prediction. For it is the impression of most psychologists, I believe (though I have no hard survey data to back me up), that clinical prediction has so consistently failed to match the achievements of statistical prediction that the exceptions may be neglected.It is high time for a counterattack! We psychodiagnosticians do not have to hang our heads, and we ought to speak up for ourselves so forcefully that our nonclinical colleagues begin to realize that we do indeed have a valuable discipline with a great deal to contribute to psychology. A strategic

No abstract