Assessment Training in Clinical Psychology Doctoral Programs: What Should We Teach? What Do We Teach?

Abstract

All clinical psychology doctoral programs accredited by the American Psychological Association provide training in psychological assessment. However, what the programs teach and how they teach it vary widely. So, also, do beliefs about what should be taught. In this study, program descriptive materials and course syllabi from 84 programs were analyzed. Findings highlight commonalities in basic course content and supervised practice in administering, scoring, and interpreting assessment instruments as well as differences in coverage of psychometric and other assessment-related topics and in the extent to which lectures, labs, and practica are integrated.

Training in psychological assessment: Current practices of clinical psychology programs.

“…Psychometrics, test development, normative data, intelligence, objective personality, child and adult assess ment, feedback, behavioral assessment, clinical interviewing, eth ical issues, treatment and assessment, and multicultural issues were covered by over 60% of programs. These results are similar to Childs and Eyde (2002). Thus, in general, clinical psychology programs are providing content exposure to their students that aligns with core competencies in assessment (Krishnamurthy et al, 2004).…”

“…She completed a postdoctoral fellow ship in child and adolescent psychology at Stanford University School of Medicine and is presently in private practice in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Test (Rorschach), and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) have been among the most popular instruments since 1960 (Childs & Eyde, 2002;Stedman et al, 2001;Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark, 1995). Newer tests that became popular in the 1990s are editions of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI), the Wechsler Memory Scales (WMS), the Beck Depres sion Inventory (BDI), and the Woodcock John Tests of Achieve ment (WJAch) (Childs & Eyde, 2002;Stedman et al, 2001).…”

Current Assessment Practice, Personality Measurement, and Rorschach Usage by Psychologists

“…To better understand assessment approaches, multiple surveys of psychologists' test usage and reviews of assessment training and practice have been conducted over several decades (Agrawal, 2005;Belter & Piotrowski, 2001;Berndt, 1983;Camara, Nathan, & Puente, 2000;Childs & Eyde, 2002;Clemence & Handler, 2001;Durand, Blanchard, & Mindell, 1988;Lubin, Larsen, & Matarazzo, 1984;Mihura & Weinle, 2002;Piotrowski, Belter, & Keller, 1998;Piotrowski & Keller, 1989;Piotrowski, Sherry, & Keller, 1985;Sundberg, 1961;Wade & Baker, 1977;Wade, Baker, Morton, & Baker, 1978;Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark, 1995). Relevant findings from these studies can be categorized into two broad areas including general conclusions about assessment practice and findings related to personality assessment and the Rorschach.…”

“…Psychologists tend to rely on their clinical judgment rather than test findings and may ignore or discount negative research findings related to a particular test (Wade & Baker, 1977;Watkins et al, 1995). Finally, psychologists have reported practicing in accordance with ethical principles and graduate programs have continued to train students in assessment (Belter & Piotrowski, 2001;Berndt, 1983;Childs & Eyde, 2002).…”

Achieving competency in psychological assessment: Directions for education and training

“…These findings suggest that there is a discrepancy between the assessment training provided in graduate programs and the assessment skills expected by directors of internship programs in at least some settings. Childs and Eyde (2002) noted that the guidelines used for accreditation review of graduate programs do not specify the content to be taught or the methods to be used in providing assessment training. Their survey of 84 doctoral clinical psychology training programs illuminated several deficiencies in training.…”