Using transpersonal tests in humanistic psychological assessment.

Abstract

Emphasis on holism is a distinguishing quality of humanistic psychology and important for any psychological assessment purporting to be humanistic. To be holistic, assessment should encompass the entire range of human functioning, including the transpersonal dimension, and requires methodological pluralism, including use of psychological tests. Resistances to addressing transpersonal issues in humanistic psychological assessment, and to using tests to gather information about transpersonal concerns, are challenged. Two transpersonal tests that show promise for humanistic assessment are presented.One of the major defining characteristics of humanistic psychology is its emphasis on viewing the person as a whole. We maintain that human functioning cannot be isolated from its context and, consequently, that the boundaries of this whole are amorphous and permeable. In applying this perspective to humanistic psychological assessment, we center our discussion on what we consider to be the largest, most inclusive, context in which a person can be seen-the transpersonal. Lajoie & Shapiro (1992) surveyed and summarized a number of definitions of transpersonal psychology, concluding that their common features include attention to expanded consciousness, ultimate potential, and transcendence of the personal self. Similarly, Walsh and Vaughan (1993) defined the transpersonal as based on experiences in which "the sense of identity or self extends beyond (trans) the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life psyche, and cosmos" (p. 3).Although religion, spirituality and the transpersonal are not equivalent concepts, all overlap and, for purposes of this paper, their interconnectedness is stressed more than their differences. In this regard, religion plays a crucial role in the lives of most Americans, as demonstrated in numerous recent surveys (e.g., Gallup, 1994). Even

The Renewal of Psychedelic Research: Implications for Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology.

“…In this regard, Gatchel (2004) has called for renewed emphasis on a biopsychosocial perspective to resist the growing hegemony of biomedical reductionism within psychology. I also agree with this, as well as a sorely needed extension of this perspective into a "biopsychosocial spiritual and transpersonal" view that would be even more holistic and inclusive of the full range of human potentials (Friedman, 2002;Friedman & MacDonald, 2002).…”

Measures of spiritual and transpersonal constructs for use in yoga research

“…Despite the fact that there are well more than 100 instruments in the published literature, and many more if we include explicit measures of religiousness, we have noted that there is little convergence of test use across studies and, by association, little coherence or cumulativeness of knowledge garnered through spiritual and transpersonal research. [ 29 ] Stated differently, few of the extant measures have been used in a programmatic manner across studies or even across investigators, thus resulting in a disorganized and difficult-to-decipher body of research. Consequently, we believe it important to provide concrete recommendations for how spiritual and transpersonal research involving tests should proceed.…”

Enlightened or Delusional?

“…One measure, however, has been explicitly discussed in terms of potential clinical utility, the Self-Expansiveness Level Form (SELF) (Friedman, 1983;Friedman & MacDonald, 1997, 2002. The SELF provides two subscales, a personal (P) and a transpersonal (T) measure of level of identification, which can be compared to each other to provide a sense of balance between a person's personal and transpersonal self-concept.…”

“…Nevertheless, many mainstream researchers, practitioners, and theorists have recognized the importance of including R/S/T variables in diagnostic clinical work (e.g., Cashwell & Young, 2005;Chirban, 2001;Johnson, Hayes, & Wade, 2007;Sperry & Shafranske, 2005), as have some humanistic psychologists (e.g., Friedman & MacDonald, 1997, 2002. The pertinent question is clearly not whether clinicians should assess these variables, but why mental health professionals do not consistently do this.…”