Education and Training in Psychological Assessment

Abstract

This chapter concerns key issues in teaching and learning personality assessment, including a discussion of: (1) the difference between “testing” and “assessment”, (2) reasons for teaching and learning assessment, (3) methods of helping students to develop critical thinking skills in the interpretation and integration of data, (4) material on teaching students how to select appropriate assessment batteries, and (5) methods to help students overcome their natural resistance to the application of their assessment knowledge, lest they make errors and injure the patient/client. The chapter focuses on the experience of the student as he or she learns the material and on methods to make assessment more meaningful to the student and the patient/client. It also deals with ethical and political issues in teaching assessment, the influence of cultural diversity on assessment data, and assessment on internship. Several controversies are discussed, such as the preference for self‐report measures or projective measures and whether the academic programs or internship faculty should be primarily responsible for teaching assessment. The chapter concludes with a discussion of new and innovative issues in teaching personality assessment, use of computers and the Internet, therapeutic assessment, assessment of healthy aspects of personality, development of focused personality measures, and an expanded concept of intelligence to include personality variables.

Canadian psychologists’ test feedback training and practice: A national survey.

“…A sizable proportion of Canadian psychologists did not find graduate or postgraduate training helpful in learning TFB, with approximately one third of respondents indicating either neutral or negative experiences. This finding is consistent with Curry and Hanson (2010), and with existing literature suggesting training in psychological assessment is often deficient in instilling assessment and TFB competencies in graduates (Handler & Smith, 2013;Stedman, Hatch, & Schoenfeld, 2000). In the U.S., at least possible explanations include training programs responding to the influence of managed care and limiting the funding available for psychological assessments, and insufficient training program resources (Belter & Piotrowski, 2001;Curry & Hanson, 2010).…”

“…The most likely explanation for this pattern of results is that respondents in this study found experience-based instruction (i.e., learning by doing) more effective than didactic approaches, not only in learning how to provide TFB, but in learning to value the activity (which incidentally is relational in nature), and coming to appreciate its importance, therapeutic utility, and treatment efficacy such that it affected subsequent practice. The stronger association between TFB practice and experience-based learning at the graduate level likely speaks to the variability of instruction methods in graduate training programs (Handler & Smith, 2013;Krishnamurthy et al, 2004), with experience-based instruction being perceived as most helpful. The more consistently experience-based nature of postgraduate training likely accounts for the comparatively weak association between participatory in- Based on the proliferation of TA based approaches in psychological assessment in recent decades (Finn, Fischer, & Handler, 2012), as well as prior research, it was hypothesised that more recently graduated psychologists would provide TFB more consistently.…”

Mental Health Professionals' Use of Drawings in the Assessment of Children

“…Some believe that research frequently blurs the distinction between problems in drawings that are due to pathology and those that are due to artistic quality (Handler & Clemence, 2003). One recommendation has been to use a control figure.…”

“…One recommendation has been to use a control figure. Handler suggests using a drawing of an automobile Handler & Clemence, 2003) and comparing the quality of that with the drawing of the person. If the drawing of the person is of poorer quality than the drawing of the automobile, then those qualities are more likely to be associated with characteristics that can be interpreted rather than being associated with artistic skill.…”

Introduction to the Special Section on Teaching, Training, and Supervision in Personality and Psychological Assessment

“…According to recent reports of graduate training programs, training in psychological assessment has either been stable or increasing in the past 10 years, with the exception of training in projective personality assessment techniques (Ready & Veague, 2014). This is a promising shift after a long period of perceived decline and marginalization of assessment in graduate training programs (Handler & Smith, 2012;Martin, 2009;Stedman, Hatch, & Schoenfeld, 2001) as well as indications that trainees far too often arrive at the predoctoral internship level unprepared to practice personality assessment (Clemence & Handler, 2001;Stedman, 2007). Further, despite the continued threat to assessment by the rise of managed care (Eisman et al, 2000), assessment remains a nontrivial portion of psychologists' clinical activities (Norcross, Karpiak, & Santoro, 2005).…”