Empirical support for psychological assessment in clinical health care settings.

Abstract

Psychologists in health care settings today find it increasingly difficult to obtain authorization and appropriate reimbursement for psychological assessments from 3rd party payers. Authorization and reimbursement denials often are based on allegations that empirical support for the utility and validity of psychological tests is nonexistent or limited. This article reviews a sample of the considerable empirical support that exists for the utility and validity of a variety of psychological tests for a wide range of clinical health care applications. Informed by data such as these, psychologists should become more effective in their abilities to seek authorization and reimbursement for assessment and overturning denials. Obtaining authorization and reimbursement for psychological assessments from third party payers has become increasingly difficult for psychologists (Eisman et al., 2000; Piotrowski, Belter, & Keller, 1998). Difficulty obtaining preanthorization, limitations in instrument selection and time, and reduced or nonexistent remuneration for psychological assessments have become the norm. As a result, psychologists now use psychological assessment less frequently than in the past (Eisman et al., 2000; Piotrowski et al., 1998). Eisman et al. (2000) described a variety of reasons for these developments. One is the erroneous belief among third party payers and others that psychological assessment lacks empirical support for its validity and utility in clinical health care settings and provides nothing more than can be gained by a clinical

Do personality traits predict outcome of psychodynamically oriented psychosomatic inpatient treatment beyond initial symptoms?

“…Although patient personality plays an important role within clinical settings (Kubiszyn et al, 2000;Piper, 1994), there are only a few studies investigating the predictive association between NEO-FFI personality traits and outcome of psychotherapeutic treatment. The purpose of our study was to examine the FFM dimensions as predictors of outcome of psychodynamically oriented inpatient treatment.…”

A Process Dissociation Approach to Objective-Projective Test Score Interrelationships

“…Following the delineation of Campbell and Fiske's (1959) multitrait-multimethod matrix, a central goal of test development during the 1960s and 1970s was to maximize the intercorrelations of scores on objective and projective measures of any given variable (e.g., Mischel, 1972;Scott & Johnson, 1972). Findings like these led the American Psychological Association Psychological Assessment Working Group to recommend replacing the terms objective and projective with self-report and performance-based (Kubiszyn et al, 2000). The "textbook" solution to this problem was to identify potential flaws in the weakly intercorrelated measures, then modify one or both tests until these flaws were corrected, and acceptably high levels of test score intercorrelation were ob-48 BORNSTEIN 1 Consistent with longstanding convention in the psychometric literature, I use the term objective to describe paper-and-pencil tests with unambiguous scoring criteria, and the term projective to describe tests that ask respondents to provide open-ended responses to ambiguous stimuli (e.g., inkblots).…”

Object relations and real life relationships: A cross method assessment

“…In this study we chose two different well validated and widely used methods for the assessment of OR – the Social Cognition & Object Relations Scale‐Global Rating Method (SCORS‐G) ratings of Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) narratives (Westen, ) and the Bell Object Relations and Reality Testing Inventory (BORRTI; Bell, ; Bell, Billington & Becker, ). The rationale behind choosing these two different measurement methods together was in the difference between them‐ the one, SCORS‐G is based on narrative data (in this research, the TAT), and as such is a projective (which will be referred to as performance based, following Kubiszyn, Meyer, Finn et al ., ) measure while the other, the BORRTI is a self‐report measure.…”