Training and Consultation in Psychological Assessment With Professional Psychologists: Suggestions for Enhancing the Profession and Individual Practices

Abstract

Once central to the identity and practice of clinical psychology, psychological assessment (PA) is currently more limited in professional practice and generally less emphasized in graduate training programs than in the past. Performance-based personality tests especially are taught and used less, even though scientific evidence of their utility and validity has never been stronger. We review research on training in PA and discuss challenges that contributed to its decreased popularity. We then review continuing education requirements for ethical practice in PA and recommend that PA should be reconceptualized as a specialty best practiced by psychologists who have the resources and time to maintain competency. We offer recommendations about how professional organizations concerned with PA can promote its practice and how individual expert clinicians can assist. We conclude by describing a collaborative model for providing group consultation in PA to practicing psychologists. If implemented widely, this model could help promote PA and raise its standard of practice.

Ética na Avaliação Psicológica: Velhas Questões, Novas Reflexões

“…A busca resgatou 1.496 artigos, mas por meio da leitura dos resumos e palavras-chave, somente em 14 trabalhos foi identificado algum debate entre avaliação psicológica e ética. Desses, seis discutem sobre as novas tecnologias para avaliação e intervenção em Psicologia (Duncan, Velasquez, & Nelson, 2014;Fromberger, Jordan, & Müller, 2018;Luxton, 2014;Luxton, Pruitt, & Osenbach, 2014;Mueller, & Piper, 2014;Prentice, & Dobson, 2014), dois sobre a importância de psicólogos serem treinados para realizar avaliação psicológica (Evans, & Finn, 2016;Ready, & Veague, 2014), um sobre candidatos a cirurgia bariátrica (Rouleau, Rash, & Mothersill, 2016), um sobre coleta de dados com a população idosa (Diniz, & Amado, 2014), um sobre avaliação em contextos multiculturais e com poucos recursos (Laher, & Cockcroft, 2017), um sobre a população surda (Boness, 2016), um sobre dificuldades da atuação do psicólogo (Hazboun, & Alchieri, 2014) e um sobre processos éticos julgados no CFP (Zaia, Oliveira, & Nakano, 2018).…”

“…Esse questionamento surge a partir da complexidade da avaliação psicológica e da necessidade de novos conhecimentos para responder às novas demandas dessa área. Em específico três artigos do levantamento trazem essa reflexão (Evans, & Finn, 2016;Jesus Junior et al, 2007;Ready, & Veague, 2014). No Brasil, a formação em avaliação psicológica é temática constante, o que pode ser identificado, por exemplo, em várias referências citadas nesse texto e que abordam de forma principal ou secundária (se assim podemos dizer, já que a ética, por mais que não esteja explicitamente descrita, é inerente à prática) a temática da ética na avaliação psicológica (Amêndola, 2014;Anache, & Reppold, 2010;Frizzo, 2004;Hazboun, & Alchieri, 2014;Hutz, 2002;2009;2015;Jesus Junior et al, 2007;Noronha et al, 2013;Pellini, & Leme, 2011;Queiroz et al, 2016;Rafalski, & Andrade, 2015;Rodrigues, 2011;Wechsler, 2001;Zaia et al, 2018).…”

Application of Psychological Hint and Crowd Behavior in Risk Management of Public-Private Partnership Project

“…It will be able to strengthen and improve the supply capacity of public products and services while increasing the operation rate of social resources (Foody, Samara, & Carlbring, 2015). However, more and more application of PPP-based projects in urban infrastructure construction may add to the risk in the regard (Evans & Finn, 2017, Milenka & Rade, 2013. The PPP projects involve multiple stakeholders and risk-sharing parties with heavy inputs in the early stage and long return cycle, so that the risk factors in project construction process get more complicated.…”

The status of the Beck inventories (BDI, BAI) in psychology training and practice: A major shift in clinical acceptance

“…Over the past 20 years, managed care and mental health coverage restrictions have prompted reliance on rapid assessment scales and instruments in the evaluation of mental health (Boyle, ; Bufka & Camp, ; Evans & Finn, ; Koocher, Norcross, & Greene, ; Maruish, ; Piotrowski, ,b). Moreover, a steady stream of new brief tests and symptom‐specific scales has proliferated in recent years, quite evident in the extant literature (Piotrowski & Belter, ; Boyle, ; Dumka et al., ; Kunik et al., ; Maruish, ; McCrae & Costa, ; Smith, Combs, & Pearson, ; Turk & Melzack, ; Weiss, Aderka, Lee, Beard, & Bjorgvinsson, ; Youngstrom, Murray, Johnson, & Findling, ) .…”

“…In fact, several recent studies have conducted these types of reviews of the literature in the areas of neuropsychological testing (Piotrowski, ; Rabin, Paolillo, & Barr ) and projective techniques (Piotrowski, ,b). Findings from such a systematic analysis: (a) elucidate, historically, the status of both past and current use of specific tests (b) present a comparative view with regard on where individual tests stand compared with other measures within a specific assessment‐diagnostic domain, and (c) provide a prism into “clinical decision‐making”, and (d) suggest direction for graduate‐level assessment training (Evans & Finn, ; Faith, ; Kohns, ; Stedman, McGeary, & Essery, ).…”