Building confidence in psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention: An empirically based reply to Lilienfeld, Garb, and Wood (2011).

Abstract

Lilienfeld, Garb, and Wood (2011) commented on our recently published meta-analysis (Poston & Hanson, 2010). In their thorough, fine-grained critique, they questioned the study's inclusion criteria, sampling, and results, suggesting the latter are “overstated” (p. 1048). Additionally, they discussed the Barnum effect, suggesting that it accounts, at least partially, for the potential efficacy and/or effectiveness of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention (PATI). In addressing Lilienfeld et al.'s (2011) concerns, we incorporate their suggestions and present new findings based on the original data set, including 15 independent and 56 dependent effect sizes (ESs). Upon reanalysis, a comparable, significant overall Cohen's d ES of 0.403 (95% CI [0.302, 0.503]) was found, thus building confidence in our original results, as well as the overall efficacy of PATI. Given PATI's potential treatment utility, we mention possible change mechanisms, above and beyond Barnum effects. And finally, in hopes of launching the field forward, we offer suggestions for future research and collaboration.

Therapeutic assessment efficacy: A meta-analysis.

“…Using a strict definition of Therapeutic Assessment led us to include a relatively small number of studies, leaving out all published reports that used Therapeutic Assessment with involuntary participants (e.g., Schnabel et al, 2016), those that used approaches that closely resemble Therapeutic Assessment (e.g., CAMS, Comtois et al, 2011), or those that simply provided participants with some kind of personalized feedback (see: Poston & Hanson, 2011).…”

“…Another limitation of our research is that we do not provide formal testing to evaluate how Therapeutic Assessment effect sizes compare with those found in Poston and Hanson (2010) and Hanson and Poston (2011) studies. In fact, the effect sizes among these studies are substantially similar and fall in the moderate to large range.…”

“…Only two studies used a control condition in which feedback was delayed. On the contrary, in the studies meta-analyzed by Poston and Hanson (2010) and Hanson and Poston (2011), the provision of individualized collaborative feedback was compared to no feedback in 8 out of 17 and in 7 out of 14 studies, respectively. Since published research consistently shows that not providing test feedback to clients has negative effects on them (Dahm et al, 2018;Verschuur et al, 2007Verschuur et al, , 2008, the effect sizes reported by Poston and colleagues may be greater because of the number of studies they included in which control groups received no feedback.…”

Effects of Criminogenic Risk–Needs Assessment Feedback During Prerelease Correctional Rehabilitation

“…It may be administered verbally, in writing, or via a combination of the two modalities, and the limited available evidence suggests that a combined method may be most satisfying to clients and may enhance the effects of feedback (Fallows & Hilsabeck, 2013). Meta-analyses have found significant and sizable effects for psychological testing feedback (e.g., for working alliance, client-perceived helpfulness, client understanding, symptoms, hospitalizations, and binge drinking episodes; Hanson & Poston, 2011; Poston & Hanson, 2010). However, no correctional samples were included in these meta-analyses.…”

Novo Modelo de Avaliação Psicológica no Brasil

“…A respeito da eficácia da AT, existem diversas pesquisas, empregando metodologias diferentes, que tem trazido resultados importantes. Dentre elas pode-se citar os ensaios quase-experimentais e clínicos (Ougrin, Ng, & Low, 2008;Smith, Eichler, Norman, & Smith, 2015), ensaios randomizados (De Saeger et al, 2014;Newman, & Greenway, 1997) e meta-análises (Hanson, & Poston, 2011;Poston, & Hanson, 2010). As evidências empíricas acumuladas são muito promissoras e apontam que AT tem beneficiado os clientes de várias maneiras, tais como ajudar na redução de sintomas, no aumento da autoestima, da esperança, da colaboração e adesão ao tratamento, bem como tem facilitado a aliança terapêutica e a psicoterapia simultânea ou subsequente (Blonigen, Timko, Jacob, & Moos, 2015;Del Giudice, Yanovsky, & Finn, 2014;Hilsenroth, Peters, & Ackerman, 2004;Holm-Denoma et al, 2008;Lerner, 2005;Little, & Smith, 2008;Smith et al, 2015;Smith, & George, 2012;Tarocchi, Aschieri, Fantini, & Smith, 2013;Tharinger, & Pilgrim, 2012).…”