Financial efficacy of clinical assessment: Rational guidelines and issues for future research

Abstract

Whereas the financial efficacy of assessment has been well documented in industrial/organizational settings, there is no comparable literature within the field of clinical assessment. This has become a significant issue due to the increasing cost-consciousness of managed health care organizations. A rational means of increasing the financial efficacy of assessment is outlined, which includes the following: (a) focus on domains most relevant to treatment planning and outcome; (b) use formal assessment for risk management; (c) target problems most likely to result in cost savings (i.e., dissociation, somatization, panic); (d) increase the use of computer-assisted assessment; (e) use time-efficient instruments; (f) more closely link assessment, feedback, and therapy; and (g) integrate treatment planning, monitoring progress, and evaluating outcome. Issues and strategies for developing a research program include clearly defining what should be considered a cost, enumerating possible outcome variables, optimal follow-up time frame, selection of instruments, and the function of assessment.

Evidence-Based Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children and Adolescents

“…If, however, the examiner wants to evaluate achievement under supportive conditions, to see how well the child is potentially capable of performing, then the computer-administration format may be preferable (Ozonoff, South, & Provencal, 2005). Computer administration is also more time-and cost-efficient, so when evaluators face such practical constraints, as they often do (Groth-Marnat, 1999), it may be an acceptable choice.…”

Collaborative Therapeutic Neuropsychological Assessment

“…Although testing has always been assumed to be a part of the psychologist's repertoire, in reality, there is very little information on the effectiveness of psychological testing in the enhancement of patient care. Additional criticisms included a lack of reliability and validity of testing in regard to patient outcomes and improvement in well-being (Groth-Marnat, 1999b). Essentially, health-care administrators, providers, and other funding bodies were asking two questions, ''What good is testing?''…”

“…Luria discouraged the use of highly static and standardized methods of investigation. The current Luria Nebraska Neuropsychological Examination was developed by Charles Golden and colleagues and reflects more of a Western, quantitative approach to neuropsychological assessment that was rejected by Christensen and colleagues (Christensen, 1975;Christensen & Caetano, 1999a, 1999b). …”

Validity of the Butcher Treatment Planning Inventory as a Measure of Negative Treatment Attitudes

“…Standardized assessment inventories were originally developed to help speed up the assessment process by providing clinicians with more reliable and valid information in a shorter amount of time (Groth-Marnat, 1999). Yet in an effort to reduce mental health expenditures, managed care companies have come to view the use of psychological assessment as too time-consuming and expensive (Ben-Porath, 1997;Piotrowski, 1999).…”