Psychiatric impressions of psychological reports

Moore, Christopher A.; Boblitt, William E.; Wildman, Robert W.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(196807)24:3<373::aid-jclp2270240329>3.0.co;2-s

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A form that addressed the content areas examined by Green (1982) was used to rate both the traditional and MAPI reports. An additional domain, clarification of psychodynamics, was added because of its identified importance to consumers (Moore et al, 1968). In addition, each rater provided a rating of his or her own level of knowledge of the patient in each content area.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of traditional and computer-generated psychological reports in an adolescent inpatient setting

Rubenzer

1992

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although individual personality tests and occasionally test batteries have been the focus of considerable research, the psychological report itself has largely escaped direct scrutiny. This study examined the perceived accuracy, utility, and specificity of traditional psychological reports and compared these values with those obtained for the computer‐generated report for the Million Adolescent Personality Inventory (MAPI). Analyses indicated no difference in rated accuracy by either therapists or nursing staff. Both reports were judged as mediocre in accuracy and usefulness. The MAPI was judged to offer more specific interpretations than was the traditional psychological report and to be superior in quality of writing. A variety of substantive and extraneous variables were examined and found not to alter these results.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of traditional and computer-generated psychological reports in an adolescent inpatient setting

Rubenzer

1992

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Are the theoretical bases from which the referral source and psychologists operate the same? Moore et al (1968) surveyed a random sample of psychiatrists practicing in the southeastern United States. Their questionnaire return rate was poor (34%), which may in itself reflect some values held by the sampled population.…”

Section: ) Intensifying His Argument Weiner Objectedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertain status of psychological tests in clinical psychology.

Ivnik¹

1977

Professional Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The status of psychological tests is reviewed both in terms of the theoretical disputes about their value and in terms of the previous research regarding their use and importance. The results of several prior studies are rethought in light of their implications for professional psychology and (hopefully) from a more accurate viewpoint. Theoretically unbiased, empirical evaluations of psychodiagnostic procedures are identified as essential to the correct delineation of the utility and validity of psychological tests in clinical practice.The value of psychodiagnostic endeavors has been debated among psychologists for the past 20 years. Opinions about psychological tests vary so greatly that disagreement, sometimes heated, occurs among professionals who otherwise agree that overall psychodiagnosis is or is not important. The term psychodiagnosis is vague as to the activities included within its domain. In some discussions it is primarily reserved for the use of psychological tests. In others it encompasses a variety of assessment activities that either precede or coincide with the institution of a treatment plan. The most frequent focus of disagreement, however, is on the value of psychological tests.Authors on each side of the dispute (Breger, 1968;Holt, 1967;Rosenwald, 1963) agree that historically psychological tests have been intertwined with the clinical psychologist's professional identity. Slightly more than 20 years ago psychological testing came into prominence. Tests provided an assessment procedure that differentiated the psychologist from other mental health professionals. Testing also defined a unique domain of professional functioning wherein the psychologist was the unquestioned expert.Unfortunately for some, the testing boon soon became the clinical psychologist's bane. Holt (1967) observed that because testing became the psychologist's primary function, it was inevitable that it would lose its appeal as psychology expanded and more diverse activities came within its

show abstract

“…During the 10-year period under consideration, the psychology staff produced over 100 papers and articles published in psychological journals, making the department one of the most productive clinical agencies in the country in terms of research activity (Wildman, 1962). These research efforts were distributed among many areas relevant to clinical psychology, including evaluation (e.g., Dinoff, Paterson, Hannon, & Morris, 1967;Hannon & Kicklighter, 1970;Huff, 1965), treatment (e.g., Bernard, Kinzie, Tollman, & Webb, 1965Elliott, Smith, & Wildman, 1972;Varnadoe & Merritt, 1971), professional problems (e.g., Moore, Boblitt, & Wildman, 1968;Stewart & Harsch, 1966;Wildman & Wildman, 1967), and general experimental psychology (e.g., Ascough & Sipprelle, 1968;Bernard & Eisenman, 1967;Eisenman, 1965).…”

Section: An Empirical Clinical Psychology Departmentmentioning

confidence: 99%