Humanistic Testing and Assessment

Abstract

Humanistic psychology’s tradition of controversy regarding the worth of psychological testing and assessment is reviewed. Assessment is defined as a process involving qualitative professional judgments integrating information from various sources and necessarily guiding all professional activities, whether performed explicitly or implicitly. Testing, as delineated from assessment, is just one potential source of assessment input that may provide formally gathered qualitative and/or quantitative information. Arguments against testing and assessment as legitimate activities within humanistic psychological practice are countered, concluding that testing and assessment can be congruent with humanistic ideals when focused on growth, subjectivity, agency, the centrality of the role of both the assessor and client as coparticipants, and a view of the person as a whole with inherent value.

Strength‐based assessment in clinical practice

“…Although strength-based assessment finds its contemporary thrust in positive psychology and solution-focused therapy, humanistic psychology has long advocated that psychological assessment should accommodate core elements, such as growth orientation, personal agency, subjective experience, and the development of personhood (Friedman & MacDonald, 2006). Similarly, Marie Jahoda (1958) made a persuasive argument that well-being should be assessed on six processes: acceptance of oneself, growth/becoming, integration of personality, autonomy, accurate perception of reality, and environmental mastery.…”

Pedagogical Consciousness Formation of Future University Educators in the Process of Teaching English

“…As to motivation and value criterion we determined a high level of formation of values and value orientations by the humanistic orientation test (Friedman, & MacDonald, 2006) that is 5% higher in EG than in CG (55% and 50%) and by the questionnaire measuring spiritual needs (Bryant, Wickliffe, Mayhew & Behringer, 2009) that is 57% in EG and 52% in CG. These results confirm the results fixed by the author's diagnostic method to identify the significance of indicators of pedagogical consciousness concerning spiritual and moral norms.…”

“…In developing the scientific and methodical tool to assess the level of pedagogical consciousness formation we used the fragments of known test methods adapted for the purpose of the research as well as author diagnostic methods according to the content and activity criterion: expert assessment of future university educators' professional knowledge, practical skill questionnaire, author diagnostic methods to identify the students' perceptions of the concept of "pedagogical consciousness", the significance of characteristics of pedagogical consciousness, the knowledge of healthy psychological climate formation, self-assessment test of the level of pedagogical consciousness; motivation and value criterion: the humanistic orientation test (Friedman, & MacDonald, 2006), the expert and self-assessment test to study the professionally important qualities, the questionnaires measuring spiritual needs ( We used the scientific and methodical tool as the single complex that is due to the pedagogical consciousness complicated structure and a wide range of indicators that we can fix and assess (qualitatively and quantitatively) and also analyze the relevant criteria formation, it provided the control of the level of pedagogical consciousness formation on the principal indicators. The use of the listed methods as the complex is determined by the nature of pedagogical consciousness as an integrated system.…”

Validation Study of the Orientation Model: A Dual‐Process Assessment Framework

“…Among active practitioners, there appears to be a high prevalence of test use but at a very low average frequency, while counselors‐in‐training feel largely unprepared to conduct assessments in the field (Mellin, Hunt, & Nichols, ). The elusive qualities of psychological experience and human behavior have made objective assessments a vital part of counseling and counselor preparation (Scholl, McGowan, & Hansen, ), yet assessment practices are widely “viewed as incongruent with the qualitative, postmodernist perspective underlying human science methodologies” (Friedman & MacDonald, , p. 512). Among many practitioners, insight into subjective client experience tends to be favored over objective analysis, which is often construed as figuratively reducing the client to a set of circumscribed categories or labels (Clark, ; Hansen, ; Scholl, Ray, & Brady‐Amoon, ).…”