The use of facts and cues in clinical judgments from interviews

Abstract

Previous research ( I ' 2 -4 . 3 . 6 , iiiclicates t,hat valid clinical juclgiiieiits iiiade froni interviews are priniarily based upon the content of the client's responses, while the affect of responses rarely assists and can iiiislead judgnients. Studies ( 4 * 6 , comparing clinical judgnients iiiade froni content cues, in the form of typescripts, with voice cues, in the form of recordings, have been improperly controlled since rate of presentation has riot been controlled for. Specifically, judges have been free to read typescripts at their own pace, while recordings have been presented in continuous fashion, In addition, possible differences in inforniat,ion processes via the two inodes of presenttation have not been controlled for.Research (* ) also indicates t.hat different inodes of presentation could lead to greater or less accuracy of predict'ion relative to various areas of functioning. Evaluat.ion of various areas should be attempted under the different modes of interview presentation. Finally, there has been no direct investigation of the effect of retention of factual inforiliation contained in interviews upon the validity of clinical judgments.This study exaiiiiries these considerations through : (1) A controlled coiiiparison of the use of voice and content cues. (2) A comparison of the validity of judgments of self-reference adjectives of intcllect, eniotions, interpersonal relations and work efficiency froin content,, verbal and affect cues.(3) A test of which of these modes of interview presentation allows for the best retention of the factual inforiiiation the client presents. (4) A test of whether the aiiiount of factual information recalled is related to the accuracy of t,he prcdict,ions of self-descriptions. METHODTen-iiiinutc sc1ect)ioiis froiii tape recorded iiitervicws of three niale psychiatric patients at, a Veterans Administration hospital were selected on the basis of the clients' expressed affect, without, stress on specific et8iological material. Each of thc three clients' inherviews was then prepared under three conditions : (a) Thc original tape-recorded selections, (b) an exact typescript of the interview selections, and (c) t hc select,ion with the clie~it's responses read i n a iiioiiotone voicc.Prior tjo the iiiterviews, the dietits were presented with four groups of tell adjectives taken from the Gough Adjcct,ivc Chcck t.0 be clcscriptive of iutelligcnce, iritcrpcrsoiial rclatio~is, eiiiotioiis or work cfhciciicy. The clieiits wcre instructed to "choose thc four adjeot'ivcs out of each group of ten that dcscribc you best."The pool of di~iical judges was voiiiposctl of 18 1)h.D. cliiiical psychologists, 9 graduate st.udent trairiccs in diriictal psychology aiitl 3 social Each judge was raiitloiiily assigned t,o oric of thrcc cxperinient,al groups. The Ph.L).s, trainees aiid social workers were disl,ribul,cd evcrily aiiiong t,hc three groups. Each group of judges was first prcscritcd the original rccordiiig of one aliciit's intcrview, the typescript of ariothcr client's iritcrv...

Clinical judgment, clinical training, and professional experience.

“…Clinicians consistently failed to make more valid judgments than did graduate students in mental health fields. This was true when clinicians and graduate students were given data from interviews (Anthony, 1968;Grigg, 1958;Schinka& Sines, 1974), observation data (Gamer & Smith, 1976), data from therapy sessions (Brenner & Howard, 1976), biographical information (Oskamp, 1965;Soskin, 1954), projective drawing protocols (Levenberg, 1975;Schaeffer, 1964;Strieker, 1967), Rorschach data (Gadol, 1969;Turner, 1966), MMPI data (Chandler, 1970;Danet, 1965;Goldberg, 1965Goldberg, , 1968Graham, 1967Graham, , 1971 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

“…Clinicians consistently failed to make more valid judgments than did graduate students in mental health fields. This was true when clinicians and graduate students were given data from interviews (Anthony, 1968; Grigg, 1958; Schinka & Sines, 1974), observation data (Garner & Smith, 1976), data from therapy sessions (Brenner & Howard, 1976), biographical information (Oskamp, 1965; Soskin, 1954), projective drawing protocols (Levenberg, 1975; Schaeffer, 1964; Stricker, 1967), Rorschach data (Gadol, 1969; Turner, 1966), MMPI data (Chandler, 1970; Danet, 1965; Goldberg, 1965, 1968; Graham, 1967, 1971; Oskamp, 1962; Walters et al, 1988), neuropsychological testing data (Goldberg, 1959; Goldstein, Deysach, & Kleinknecht, 1973; Heaton, Smith, Lehman, & Vogt, 1978; Leli & Filskov, 1981, 1984; Robiner, 1978), and extensive data (i.e., all of the data that staff members generally have available on a psychiatric inpatient unit; Johnston & McNeal, 1967).…”

“…In most of the studies, clinicians were clinical or counseling psychologists. In other studies, clinicians were described as being psychotherapists (Brenner & Howard, 1976); special education teachers, medical personnel, physical therapists, and occupational therapists (Garner & Smith, 1976); neuropsychologists (Heaton et al, 1978); psychologists, social workers, and an admitting physician (Johnston & McNeal, 1967); and psychologists and social workers (Anthony, 1968).…”