Computer utilization and clinical judgment in psychological assessment reports

Abstract

The process of assessment report writing is a complex one, involving both the statistical evaluation of data and clinical methods of data interpretation to appropriately answer referral questions. Today, a computer often analyzes data generated in a psychological assessment, at least in part. In this article, the author focuses on the interaction between the decision-making processes of human clinicians and the test interpretations that are computer-based. The benefits and problems with computers in assessment are highlighted and are presented alongside the research on the validity of automated assessment, as well as research comparing clinicians and computers in the decision-making process. The author concludes that clinical judgment and computer-based test interpretation each have weaknesses. However, by using certain strategies to reduce clinicians' susceptibility to errors in decision making and to ensure that only valid computer-based test interpretations are used, clinicians can optimize the accuracy of conclusions that they draw in their assessment report.

Evidence-based clinical psychological assessment (EBCPA): Review of current state of the literature and best practices.

“…The process of EBCPA is a complex and nuanced one, and professional clinical judgment is necessary to appropriately apply test data, situate it within an individual’s personal and cultural context, and use the data to make clinical decisions (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2011; Lichtenberger, 2006; Silzer & Jeanneret, 2011). Clinical judgment occurs at multiple points throughout the assessment process, including how to structure the clinical interview, what tests and measures to use, interpreting data, arriving at conclusions, and making appropriate recommendations (Howard, 2017; Wright, 2020).…”

Clinical Guide to Mental Disability Evaluations

“…Instead, evaluators should always exercise discernment about which test results, and which portions of CBTI narratives, are accurate, partially accurate, or erroneous as they pertain to a particular evaluee (EPPCC Standard 9.06; American Psychological Association 2002; Lichtenberger 2006). Instead, evaluators should always exercise discernment about which test results, and which portions of CBTI narratives, are accurate, partially accurate, or erroneous as they pertain to a particular evaluee (EPPCC Standard 9.06; American Psychological Association 2002; Lichtenberger 2006).…”

Psychometric testing of immigrants and natives in an acute psychiatry facility

“…Both clinical judgments and computerized reading of psychometric tests have their pitfalls. 9 Many clinicians seem to rely only on the former alternative.…”