Some effects of combining psychological tests on clinical inferences.

Golden, Mark

doi:10.1037/h0047724

Cited by 58 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, psychologists did not become more accurate when: (a) the Rorschach was added to demographic data (e.g., Gadol, 1969), (b) a test battery that included the Rorschach and a Sentence Completion Test was added to demographic data (e.g., Cochrane, 1972), and (c) the Rorschach was added to other test results or biographical information (e.g., Bilett, Jones, & Whitaker, 1982;Golden, 1964;Perez, 1976;Whitehead, 1985). In fact, in several studies, validity decreased when the Rorschach was added to other information (e.g., Gadol, 1969;Golden, 1964;Sines, 1959;Whitehead, 1985). Nevertheless, the results from clinical judgment studies are not definitive.…”

Section: Incremental Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

605

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-AlthoughControversy has been no stranger to the field of personality assessment, and no issue in this field has been more controversial than the scientific status of projective techniques. Indeed, the novice reader attempting to make sense of the sprawling and bewilderingly complex literature on projective techniques is immediately confronted with a striking paradox. On the one hand, during the past four decades a litany of personality assessment researchers (e.g., Anastasi, 1982;Gittelman Klein, 1986;Dawes, 1994) have come forth to decry the reliability and validity of most projective techniques (see Lilienfeld, 1999). Jensen's (1965) famous quotation, although 35 years old, still captures the sentiments of many contemporary scientists toward the Rorschach Inkblot Test and numerous other projective techniques: ". . . the rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well be measured by the speed and thoroughness with which it gets over the Rorschach" (p. 238). On the other hand, clinicians in the United States and to a lesser extent those abroad continue to use projective techniques with great regularity, and many contend that these techniques are virtually indispensable to their daily practice (Watkins, Campbell, Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995). The crux of this paradox was incisively summed up by Anastasi (1982), who observed that "Projective techniques present a curious discrepancy between research and practice. When evaluated as psychometric instruments, the large majority make a poor showing. Yet their popularity in clinical use continues unabated" (p. 564).Indeed, despite the sustained and often withering criticisms directed at projective techniques during the past several decades (Dawes, 1994;Lowenstein, 1987), numerous surveys demonstrate that such techniques continue to enjoy widespread popularity among clinicians. Durand, Blanchard, and Mindell (1988) reported that 49% of the directors of clinical psychology graduate programs and 65% of the directors of clinical psychology internships believed that formal training in projective techniques is important. Watkins et al. (1995) found that 5 projective techniques, including the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), were among the 10 instruments most frequently used by clinical psychologists. For example, 82% of clinical psychologists reported that they administered the Rorschach at least "occasionally" in their test batteries and 43% reported that they "frequently" or "always" administered it. There is some indication, however, that the popularity of certain projective techniques may be waning. In a recent survey of practicing clinicians, Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998) reported that several projective techniques, including the Rorschach and TAT, have been abandoned by a sizeable minority of users. Some authors (e.g., Piotrowski et al., 1998; Piotrowski & Belter, 1989) have attributed the recent decline in the popularity of projective techniques to the advent of managed care, although at least some of this decline may al...

show abstract

Section: Incremental Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

605

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research has shown that clinicians who consider large amounts of data, attempt to weigh these data differentially, and look for interrelationships during the data integration phase of assessment are not significantly more accurate in their predictions/diagnoses than clinicians who consider relatively few criteria in a simple sequential decision-making process (Golden, 1964;Wedding, 1983).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the severity of behavior disorders: Rankings based on clinical and empirical criteria

Clarizio

Klein

1995

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

School psychologists need to assess the severity of behavior disorders accurately to facilitate comprehensive diagnosis, to provide appropriate intervention, to enlighten research efforts, and to be in compliance with state and federal guidelines. Although clinicians in fields such as mental retardation categorize severity of behavior to make diagnostic and general treatment decisions, school psychologists rarely attempt to assess severity in any systematic or comprehensive way. The primary purpose of this study is to see how 92 practicing school psychologists rank 11 variables in their assessments of SED in school-age children. A secondary purpose is to examine the extent of school psychologists' reliance upon clinical and empirical criteria in assessing the seventy of SED. It is concluded that school psychologists agree in their rankings of variables from most to least important and that they do not consider empirical criteria more important than clinically based criteria when assessing SED. Implications for practice are presented.The accurate assessment of the severity of behavior disorders by school psychologists is necessary to facilitate comprehensive diagnosis, to provide appropriate intervention, to enlighten research efforts, and to be in compliance with state and federal guidelines. Children who exhibit more severe behavior often need additional or more intensive services. Epstein, Detwiler, and Reitz (1985) pointed out that higher quality interventions will not be forthcoming until the behaviors of children now classified as seriously emotionally disturbed (SED) or behavior disordered (BD) are more accurately assessed. Assessing the severity of behavior is also necessary to satisfy the least restrictive environment (LRE) and appropriate education requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990). School psychologists cannot recommend appropriate placements and treatment plans for children with SED until an accurate measure of severity is obtained. Unfortunately, there is little systematic mention of assessing for severity of behavior disorders in texts on child psychopathology (Achenbach,

show abstract

“…) Modeling studies have produced two startling results. First, if one examines instances in which models and judges disagree and compares their conclusions to actual outcomes, the models usually prove more accurate than the judges (e.g., Dawes & Corrigan, 1974;Goldberg, 1970). This seeming paradoxmodels outperforming the very judges upon whom they are based-may be explained by the former's perfect consistency.…”

Section: Modeling Clinicians' Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…One example is "confirmatory bias," that is, the tendency to seek supportive data for one's hypotheses and to underweight or disregard nonsupportive data (for reviews, see Greenwald, Pratkanis, Leippe, & Baumgardner, 1986;Nisbett & Ross, 1980). This strategy simplifies decision making by focusing on data selectively.…”

Section: Direct Study Of Capacities To Identify Configural Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%