Editorial: Role of Assessment and Diagnosis in Counseling

Assessing Diagnostic Expertise of Counselors Using the Cochran–Weiss–Shanteau (CWS) Index

“…We believe that the task we used in this study is relevant to the assessment of clinical judgment (see also Hauser, Spada, Rummel, & Meier, 2006). Counselors are required to classify their clients’ complaints in a DSM‐IV‐TR category, not so much because clients ask them to do so but because they are told to do so by their institutions and certainly by insurance companies, whose refunds are based on such classifications (Hohenshil, 1996).…”

Best Practices in the Multidisciplinary Assessment of Emotional Disturbances: A Primer for Counselors

“…Children may benefit when school counselors are knowledgeable about the DSM-IV-TR criteria because it may assist school counselors in knowing when children should be referred to outside mental health agencies. This understanding of the DSM-IV-TR criteria can also be beneficial to both school counselors and community counselors because it allows for increased communication between the two groups of professionals (Hohenshil, 1996). Collaboration between the school and outside mental health agencies can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the child, which can assist the school in determining eligibility for services and can allow for the development of more effective interventions.…”

The Pros and Cons of Viewing Formal Diagnosis From a Social Constructionist Perspective

“…There are at least three posited pros to seeing diagnoses as objective facts: The first is that they aid official communication; the second is that they point to the best care; and the third is that they give a basis for forming prognoses (Morrison, 1995;Rabinowitz & Efron, 1997;Seligman, 1996), but doubts have been raised about each one of these supposed positives. For example, the power of diagnosis to aid official communication depends on agreement by those so trained on its use, and there are studies dealing with this issue that uphold both sides (Caplan, 1995;Hohenshil, 1996;Kutchins & Kirk, 1997). One side cites the field studies that tested if two or more trained persons could agree on a diagnosis, arguing that they shore up the idea that diagnosis does in fact aid official communication (Hinkle, 1994;Hohenshil, 1996).…”

“…For example, the power of diagnosis to aid official communication depends on agreement by those so trained on its use, and there are studies dealing with this issue that uphold both sides (Caplan, 1995;Hohenshil, 1996;Kutchins & Kirk, 1997). One side cites the field studies that tested if two or more trained persons could agree on a diagnosis, arguing that they shore up the idea that diagnosis does in fact aid official communication (Hinkle, 1994;Hohenshil, 1996). The other side, however, argues that the field studies in fact show just the opposite because the cited field studies are badly flawed (Kirk & Kutchins, 1992).…”

“…The second posited gain of seeing diagnoses as objective facts lies in their value in pointing to the best care to give (Hohenshil, 1993(Hohenshil, , 1996Morrison, 1995;Seligman, 1996). Those in favor argue that diagnosis can lead to the best help; by contrast, critics argue there are few reasons to think that specific diagnoses are vital to choosing the best kind of help.…”