PSYCHOLOGY 671

Introduction to Assessment I

Fall 2008

Prof. Elaine M. Heiby

Web: www2.hawaii.edu/~heiby/

Class meetings: Thursdays  9:30 - noon;  Gartley 217

Office and hours: Gartley 204B; by appointment [office 956-6289; residence 942-0738; heiby@hawaii.edu; email is best]

 

Domain of course:  The history, theory, and methodology involved

in the development and evaluation of psychological measurement devices with an emphasis on cognitive-intellectual functioning, neuropsychological functioning,  personality constructs, and somewhat stable specific adaptive and maladaptive behaviors. 

 

Required Readings:

 

Allen, M.J. & Yen, W.M.  (2002). Introduction to measurement theory.  Prospect Heights, IL:  Waveland Press.  (AY)

 

Groth-Marnat, G. (2003).  Handbook of psychological assessment.  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and sons, Inc. (G)

 

Wood, J.M., Nezworski, T., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Garb, H.N. (2003). What Ôs wrong with the Rorschach?  San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Imprint. (WNLG)

 

Reading Lists (R)      * = required (others recommended)

 

Grading:

 

1 - Midterm consisting of an in-class essay examination covering classical test theory. Open books, readings, handouts, and notes.  Use of laptops to type answers will be permitted only if the entire class agrees. Otherwise, answers will be handwritten.

(100 points)

 

2 - Class presentation on the psychometric status of one of the psychological tests listed on the Course Schedule.  Each presentation should be 70 minutes in length. The presenter should provide the class with any handouts/slides and a list of references used in APA style. Also submit to the instructor lecture notes, references, and any handouts/slides in both hardcopy and electronic versions. The class presentations should follow the attached Overview of Psychometric Theory and should summarize relevant assigned readings as well as a broader literature review so that essential psychometrics of the tests are critically evaluated.  Presentations should also provide a brief description of test administration, scoring, and score interpretation. (100 points)

 

 

TOTAL POINTS =  200:  181 - 200 A; 161-180 B;  < 161 C

TENTATIVE COURSE SCHEDULE

Week # & date

Topics

Readings

1- 8/28

Introductions; psychological test taking

 

2-9/4

Definitions, approaches, ethics, diversity

 AY 1, 2; G 1,2;14, 15 R-I

 

3-9/11

Classical test theory

 AY  3-10; R-II

4-9/18

Classical test theory

           

5-9/25

Classical test theory

 

6-10/2

Classical test theory

 AY 11

7-10/9

MIDTERM

 

8-10/16

Overview of intellectual and neuropsychological assessment

 G 5, 6;  R-III, G 12;  R-IV

9-10/23

Overview of objective and projective personality assessment

G 3,  7, 8, 10 11,13,; R-V, R-VI

10-10/30

Rorschach Inkblot Test CLASS DISCUSSION

WNLG 1 – 12; G 10

11-11/6

WAIS-III PRESENTATION;

WISC-IV PRESENTATION

 

12-11/13

WMS-III PRESENTATION;

LNNB (and screening form) PRESENTATION

 

13-11/20

MMPI-2 and MMPI-A PRESENTATION;

MCMI-III PRESENTATION 

 

 

14-11/27

HOLIDAY (Thanksgiving)

 

15-12/4

NEO PRESENTATION ;

SCID-I and SCID-II PRESENTATION

 

16-12/11

K-SADS and  DISC PRESENTATION;

CBCL PRESENTATION;

Course evaluations

 

 

 

 

READING LIST I—Issues, ethics, diversity

 

*  Butcher, J., Perry, J.N.,  &  Atlis, M.M. (2000).  Validity and utility of computer-based test interpretation.  Psychological Assessment, 12, 6-18.

SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Camara, WJ, Nathan, JS, Puente, AE (2000).  Psychological test usage:  Implications in professional psychology Professional Psychology:  Research and Practice, 31, 141  - 154.

 

*  Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education (2004).  Washington, D.C.: Joint Committee on Testing Practices. http://www.apa.org/science/fairtestcode.html

 

                        *  Dahlstrom, W.G. (1993).  Tests: Small samples, large consequences.  American Psychologist, 48, 393-399.

 SEE PsycARTICLES

 

Dawes, RM (1994) House of cards:  Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth New York:  The Free Press

 

 

*  Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. (2002). www.apa.org/ethics/  (esp. see section 9)

 

 

Hayes, SC, Follette, VM, Dawes, RM, & Grady, KE (1995). Scientific standards of psychological practice:  Issues and recommendations. Reno, NV: Context Press

 

 

http://kspope.com (RESOURCE FOR ASSESSMENT ISSUES)

 

 

*  Matarazzo, J.D. (1986).  Computerized clinical psychological test interpretations: Unvalidated plus all mean and no sigma.  American Psychologist., 41, 14-24.

SEE PsycARTICLES

 

*  Meehl, P. (1973).  Why I do not attend case conferences.  Psychodiagnosis Selected Papers, TN: Kingsport Press. http://www.tc.umn.edu/~pemeehl/pubs.htm

 

 

*  Nelson-Gray, R.O. (2003).  Treatment utility of psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 521-531. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1992).  Psychological testing in applied settings: A literature review from 1982-1992. The Journal of Training and Practice in Professional Psychology, 2, 74-82.

 

Piotrowski, C. & Zalewski, C. (1993).  Training in psychodiagnostic testing in APA-approved PsyD and PhD clinical psychology programs.  Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 394-405.

 

 * www.apa.org/science/testing.html

 

 

READING LIST II- psychometrics

 

Campbell, D.T. (1996).  Unresolved issues in measurement validity:  An autobiographical overview.   Psychological Assessment, 8, 363-368.

 

 

*  Embretson, S.E. (1996).  The new rules of measurement.  Psychological Assessment, 8, 341-349. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

Embretson, S.E. & Reise, S. P. (2000).  Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

 

Elwood, R.W. (1993).  Psychological tests and clinical discriminations: Beginning to address the base rate problem. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 409-419.

 

*Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. (1995).  Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286-299. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

Foster, S.L., & Cone, J.D. (1995).  Validity issues in clinical assessment.  Psychological Assessment, 7, 248-260.

 

*  Garb, H. N. (2003). Incremental validity and the assessment of psychopathology in adults Psychological Assessment,15, 508-520 SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

*Haynes, S.N., Richard, D.C.S., & Kubany, E.S. (1995).  Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.  Psychological Assessment, 7, 238-247. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

*  Johnston, C. &  Murray, C. (2003). Incremental validity in the psychological assessment of children and adolescents. Psychological Assessment,15, 496-507.

SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

Reckase, M.D. (1996).    Test construction in the 1990Õs:  Recent approaches every psychologist should know.   Psychological Assessment, 8, 354-359.

 

Schmitt, N. (1996).  Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha.   Psychological Assessment, 8, 350-353.

 

*  Shavelson, R.J., Webb, N.M., & Rowley, G.L. (1989).  Generalizability theory.  American Psychologist, 44, 922-932. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

* Smith, G.T. (2005).  On construct validity:  Issues of method and measurement. Psychological Assessment, 17, 396-408. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Taylor, H.C. &  Russell, J.T. (1939).  The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection: Discussion and tables.  Applied Psychology.,23, 565-578.

 

 

 

 

 

 

READING LIST III-intellectual assessment

 

* Aylward, G.P. (2004).  Measures of infant and early childhood development. In G. Goldstein & S.R. Beers (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 1:  Intellectual  and neuropsychological assessment.Hoboken:  NJ:  Wiley (pp. 87 - 97)

 

Daley, T.C., Whaley, S.E., Sigman, M.D., Espinosa, M.P., & Neumann, C. (2003).  IQ on the rise:  The Flynn effect in rural Kenyan children.  Psychological Science,14, 215-219

 

Elliot, R. (1988).  Tests, abilities, race, and conflict. Intelligence, 12, 333-350.

 

Flynn, J.R. (1984).  The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978.  Psychological Bulletin, 9-5, 29-51.

 

Flynn, J.R. (1999).  Searching for justice:  The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist, 54, 5-20.

 

Garlick, D. (2002).  Understanding the nature of the general factor of intelligence:  The role of individual differences in neural plasticity as an explanatory mechanism.  Psychological Review, 109, 116-136.

 

Holmes, C.T. & Matthews, K.M. (1984).  The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis.  Review of Educational Research, 54, 225-236.

 

Jensen, A.R. (1992).  The Cyril Burt Scandal, research taboos, and the media.  The General Psychologist , 28, 16-21.

 

Jensen, A.R. (1993).  Test validity: g versus "tacit knowledge".  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 9-1-10.

 

*  Kamphaus, R.W. & Petoskey, M.D. (2000).  Current trend s in psychological testing of children.  Professional Psychology:  Research and Practice, 31, 155 - 164.

SEE PsycARTICLES

 

Kramer, J.H. (1993).  Interpretation of individual subtest scores on the WISC-III.  Psychological Assessment, 5, 193-196.

 

Lipsitz, J.D., Dworkinf R.H., & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (1993).  Wechsler comprehension and picture arrangement subtests. Psychological Assessment, 5, 430-437.

 

* Longman, R. S. (2004).  Values for Comparison of WAIS-III Index Scores With Overall Means. Psychological Assessment. 16(3), 323-325.

SEE PsycARTICLES

 

*Longman, R.S., Saklofske, D.H., & Fung, T.S. (2007). WAIS-III percentile scores by education and sex for U.S. and Canadian populations. Assessment, 14(4), 426 - 432. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

McClelland, D.C. (1993).  Intelligence is not the best predictor of job performance.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 5-6.

 

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Jalpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996).  Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns.  American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.

 

* Nelson, P.A., Dial, J.G., &  Joyce, A. (2002).  Validation of the Cognitive Test for the blind as an assessment of intelligence.  Rehabilitation Psychology, 47, 184-193.

SEE PsycARTICLES

           

* Ramsay, M.C. & Reynolds, C.R. (2004).  Relations between intelligence and achievement tests.  In G. Goldstein & S.R. Beers (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 1:  Intellectual  and neuropsychological assessment.Hoboken:  NJ:  Wiley. (pp. 25 - 50)

 

            Sattler, J.M. (2002).  Assessment of Children:  WAIS-III Supplement.  La Mesa, CA:  Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher

 

            Sattler, J.M. (2001).  Assessment of Children: Cognitive applications. La Mesa, CA:  Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher

 

            Segal, N.L. (2000).  Vitual twins:  New findings on within-family environmental influences on intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 442-448.

 

 

Sue, S. &  Okazaki, S. (1990).  Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-920.

 

*Tulsky, D. S.; Price, L. R. (2003). The joint WAIS-III and WMS-III factor structure: Development and cross-validation of a six-factor model of cognitive functioning. Psychological Assessment,  15, 149-162. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Watkins, M.W. (2006).  Orthogonal higher order structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth  edition.  Psychological Assessment, 18, 125 – 125. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

* Zhu, J, Weiss, L.G., Prifitera, A, & Coalson, D. (2004).  The Wechsler intelligence scales for children and adults. In G. Goldstein & S.R. Beers (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 1:  Intellectual  and neuropsychological assessment.Hoboken:  NJ:  Wiley (pp. 51 - 76).

 

 

READING LIST IV-neuropsychological assessment

 

Basso, M.R., Lowery, N., Neel, J., Purdie, R., & Bornstein, R.A. (2002).  Neuropsychological impairment among  manic, depressed, and mixed-epsiode inpatients with bipolar disorder.  Neuropsychology, 16, 84-91.

 

Butler, M., Retzlaff, P. & Vanderploeg, R. (1991).  Neuropsychological test usage.  Professional Psychology:  Research and Practice, 22 ,510-512.

 

* Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975).  ÒMini-mental stateÓ:  A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.  Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.  SEE ALSO

http://classes.kumc.edu/som/amed900/assessment/AgingGame/MMSE.htm

 

 

 

 

* Golden, CJ & Freshwater, SM (2001). Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. In WI Dorfman & M. Hersen (Eds.). Understanding psychological assessment.  New York:  Kluwer Academic/Plenum

 

 

* Demakis, G. J. (2003). A meta-analytic review of the sensitivity of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test to frontal and lateralized frontal brain damage.

Neuropsychology, 17, 255-264. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Franzen, M.D. (2004). Behavioral neuropsychology.  In S.N. Haynes &  E.M. Heiby (Eds.). Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment Volume 3:  Behavioral Assessment. Hoboken, NJ:  Wiley.

 

* Golden, C.J. (2004).  The Adult Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. In G. Goldstein & S.R. Beers (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 1:  Intellectual  and neuropsychological assessment.Hoboken:  NJ:  Wiley (pp. 133 - 146)

 

 

 Guilmette, T.J. & Faust, D. (1991).  Characteristics of neuropsychologists who prefer the Halstead-Reitan or the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychology Battery.  Professional Psychology:  Research and Practice, 22,8 0-83.

 

 

Hartman, M.,Bolton, E. & ; Fehnel, S. E. (2001). Accounting for age differences on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Decreased working memory, not inflexibility. Psychology & Aging, 16, 385-399.

 

 

* Hedden, T., Park, D.C., Nisbett, R., Ji, L., Jing, Q., & Shulan, J. (2002).  Cultural variation in verbal versus spatial neuropsychological function across the life span.  Neuropsychology, 16, 65-73. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

* Ivnik, R.J., Smith, G.E., Petersen, R.C., Boeve, B.F., Kokmen, E., & Tangalos, E.G. (2000).  Diagnostic accuracy of four approaches to interpreting neuropsychological test data.  Neuropsychology, 14, 163-177. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

Kane, R. et al. (1981).  Comparative diagnostic accuracy of the Halstead-Reitan and standardized Luria-Nebraska neuropsychological batteries in a mixed psychiatric and brain damaged population.  JCCP, 49, 484-483.

 

Kane, R.L., Parsons, O.A., Goldstein, G., & Moses, J. (1987).  Diagnostic accuracy of the Halstead-Reitan and Luria Nebraska neuropsychological batteries: Performance of clinical raters.  JCCP, 551 783-784.

 

Lezak, M.D. (1995; 3rd Ed.).   Neuropsychological assessment. New York:  Oxford Press

 

* Leark, R.A. (2004).  The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Version. In G. Goldstein & S.R. Beers (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 1:  Intellectual  and neuropsychological assessment.Hoboken:  NJ:  Wiley (pp. 147 - 156)

 

 

Olin, J.T. & Zelinski, E.M. (1991).  The 12-month reliability of the Mini Mental State Exam.  Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 427-432.  

 

 

* Puente, A.E. & Agranovich, A.V. (2004).  The cultural in cross-cultural neuropsychology. In G. Goldstein & S.R. Beers (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 1:  Intellectual  and neuropsychological assessment.Hoboken:  NJ:  Wiley (pp. 321 - 332)

           

* Reitan, R.M. & Wolfson, D. (2004). Theoretical, methodological, and validational bases of the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. In G. Goldstein & S.R. Beers (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 1:  Intellectual  and neuropsychological assessment.Hoboken:  NJ:  Wiley (pp. 105 - 131)

 

Roger, R., Harrel, E.H., & Liff, C.D. (1993).  Feigning neuropsychological impairment: A critical review of methodological and clinical considerations.  Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 255-274.

 

 

* Tombaugh, T.N., McDowell, I., Kristjansson, B. & Hubley, A.M. (1996).  Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Modified MMSE (3MS):  A psychometric comparison and normative data.  Psychological Assessment, 8, 48-59. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

READING LIST V-objective personality  assessment     

 

* Arbisi, P.A. & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1998).  The ability of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 validity scales to detect fake-bad responses in psychiatric patients.  Psychological Assessment, 10, 221-228. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

* Baer, R.A. & Miller, J. (2002).  Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2:  A meta-analytic review.  Psychological Assessment, 14, 16-26. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

* Baer, R.A. &  Rinaldo, J.C. (2004).  The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A). In M. J. Hilsenroth &  D.L. Segal (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken: NJ:  Wiley (pp. 213 - 223).

 

* Barthlow, D.L., Graham, J.R., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & McNulty, J.L. (1999).  Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 content scales in an outpatient mental health setting.  Psychological Assessment, 11, 39-47. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Waller, N.G. (1992a).  "Normal" personality inventories in clinical assessment: General requirements and the potential for using the NEO Personality Inventory.  Personality Assessment, 4, 14-19. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Waller, N.G. (1992b).  Five big issues in clinical personality assessment: A rejoinder to Costs and McCrae.  Psychological Assessment, 4, 23-25. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

* Buchanan, T., Johnson, J.A., Goldberg, L.R. (2005). Implementing a Five-Factor Personality Inventory for Use on the Internet. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 21(2), 115-127. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

                   Burns, G.L. (1990).  Affective-cognitive-behavioral

                               assessment: The integration of personality and behavioral

                               assessment.  In G. Eifert & I. Evans (Eds.), Unifying behavior therapy.  New York: Springer.

 

 

* Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1995).  Methodological problems and issues in MMPI, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A research.  Psychological Assessment, 7, 320-329. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Compton, W.M. & Cottler, L.B. (2004).  The Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS). In M. J. Hilsenroth &  D.L. Segal (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken: NJ:  Wiley (pp. 153 - 162)

 

*Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992a).  Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

*Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992b).  Reply to Ben-Porath and Waller.  Psychological Assessment, 4, 20-22. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

* First, M.B. & Gibbon, M. (2004).  The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (SCID-II).  In M. J. Hilsenroth &  D.L. Segal (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken: NJ:  Wiley (pp. 134 - 143)

 

Graham, J.R. (2000).  MMPI-2: Assessing Personality and Psychopathology.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

 

Graham, J.R., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & McNulty, J.L. (1997).  Empirical correlates of low scores on MMPI-2 scales in an outpatient mental health setting.  Psychological Assessment, 9, 386-391.

 

Green, B.A., Handel, R.W., & Archer, R.P. (2006). External correlates of the MMPI-2 content component scales in mental health inpatients.  Assessment, 13, 80-97.

 

* Greenbaum, P.E., Dedrick, R.F., & Lipien, L. (2004).  The Child Behavior Checklist/4 - 18 (CBCL/4-18).  In   M. J. Hilsenroth & D.L. Segal (Eds.). Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken:  NJ:  Wiley (pp. 179 - 191)

 

Greene, R.L. (1991).  The MMPI-2/MMPI: An Interpretative Manual .Boston:  Allyn and Bacon.

 

 

* Grisham, J.R., Brown, T.A., & Campbell,L.A.  The Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV (ADIS-IV). In M. J. Hilsenroth &  D.L. Segal (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken: NJ:  Wiley (pp. 163 - 177).

 

* Hall, G.C.N., Bansal, A, & Lopez, I.R. (1999).  Ethnicity and psychopathology:  A metal-analytic review of 31 years of comparative MMPI/MMPI-2 research.  Psychological Assessment, 11, 186-197. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

Handel, R.W., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Watt, M. (1999).  Computerized adaptive assessment with the MMPI-2 in a clinical setting.  Psychological Assessment, 11, 369-380.

                       

Haynes, S.N. (1993).  Treatment implications of

psychological assessment.  Psychological Assessment, 5, 251-253.

 

Haynes, S.N. (1993).  Identifying causal relationships in clinical assessment.  Psychological Assessment, 5, 281-291.

 

 

* Kaufman, J. & Schweder, A.E. (2004).  The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schzophrenia for School-Age Children:  Presnet and Lifetime version (K-SADS-PL). In M. J. Hilsenroth &  D.L. Segal (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken: NJ:  Wiley (pp. 247 - 255)

 

* Lachar, D. (2004).  The Personality Inventory for Children, Second Edition (PIC-2), Personality Inventory for Youth (PIY), and Student Behavior Survey (SBS). In M. J. Hilsenroth &  D.L. Segal (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken: NJ:  Wiley (pp. 192 - 212)

 

*Lima, E.N., Stanley, S., Kaboski, B. et al. (2005).  The incremental validity of the MMPI-2:  When does therapist access not enhance treatment outcome?  Psychological Assessment, 17, 462- 468. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

Mash, E.J. & Hunsley, J. (1993).  Assessment considerations in the identification of failing psychotherapy: Bringing the negatives out of the dark.  Psychological Assessment, 5, 292-301.

 

* McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1997).  Personality trait structure as a human universal.  American Psychologist, 52, 509-516. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

Miller, J.D., Bagby, R.M., & Pikonis, P.A. A comparison of the validity of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) personality disorder prototypes using FFM self-report and interview measures.  Psychological Assessment, 17,  497-500.

 

                        * Miller, J. D.; Reynolds, S. K.; Pilkonis, P. A. (2004).

The Validity of the Five-Factor Model Prototypes for Personality Disorders in Two Clinical Samples.

 Psychological Assessment. 16(3), 310-322. SEE     PsycARTICLES

 

 

* Okazaki, S. &  Sue, S. (2000). Implications of test revisions for assessment with Asian Americans.  Psychological Assessment, 12, 272-280. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Osberg, T.M. &  Poland, D.L. (2002).  Comparative accuracy of the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-A in the diagnosis of psychopathology in 18 year olds.  Psychological Assessment, 14, 164-169. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

* Paunonen, S.V. (2003).  Big five factors of personality and replicated predictions of behavior.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 411-424. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Quirk, S.W.; Christiansen, N. D.,Wagner, S. H., & McNulty, J.L. (2003).  On the usefulness of measures of normal personality for clinical assessment: evidence of the incremental validity of the revised neo personality inventory. Psychological Assessment,15, 311-325. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Rogers, R., Jackson, R.L., & Cashel, M. (2004).  The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS). In M. J. Hilsenroth &  D.L. Segal (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken: NJ:  Wiley (pp. 144 - 153).

 

* Rourke, K.M. & Reich, W. (2004).  The Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents (DICA). In M. J. Hilsenroth &  D.L. Segal (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken: NJ:  Wiley (pp. 271 - 280)

 

 

* Schoenberg, M. R., Darwin. D., Morgan, , C. (2003). The ability of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory--Third Edition to detect malingering.Psychological Assessment, 15, 198-204. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

 

* Shaffer, D. Fisher, P., & Lucas, C. (2004).  The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC). In M. J. Hilsenroth &  D.L. Segal (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment Volume 2:  Personality assessment.  Hoboken: NJ:  Wiley (pp. 256 - 270)

 

Staats, A.W. (1993).  Personality theory, abnormal psychology, and psychological measurement.  Behavior Modification, 17, 8-42.

 

*Ward, L.C. (2006).  Comparison of factor structure models for the Beck Depression Inventory-II.  Psychological Assessment, 18, 81-88. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

READING LIST VI-projective personality assessment

 

* Garb, H.N. (1998).  Recommendations for training in the use of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT).  Professional Psychology:  Research and Practice, 29, 621-622. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

* Garb, H.N., Wood, J.M., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Nezworski, M.T. (2002).  Effective use of projective techniques in clinical practice:  Let the data help with selection and interpretation.  Professional Psychology:  Research and Practice, 33, 454-463. SEE PsycARTICLES

 

 

Tuerlinckx, F.,  De Boeck, P. & Lens, W. (2002). Measuring needs with the Thematic Apperception Test:  A psychometric study.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 448-461.

 

 Winter, D.G. (1998).  Toward a science of personality psychology:  David McClellandÕs development of empiricaly derived TAT measures.  History of Psychology, 1, 130-153.

 

 

Wood, J.M., Nezworski, T., & Stejskal, W.J. (1996).  The comprehensive system for the Rorschach: A critical examination. Psychological Science, 7, 3-10.

 

 

Overview of Psychometric Theory

 

I.               Requirements for a test

A.   Standardization

B.    Meaningful content

C.    Objective; scorable

D.   Score interpretation guidelines

E.    Reliability

F.    Validity

II.             Methods of test construction

A.   Empirical

B.    Rational

C.    Factor Analytic

III.           Test construction

A.   Define purpose

B.    Generate items

C.    Select scaling model

1.     comparative/ipsative

2.     normative/absolute

a.     deterministic monotonic; ordinal scale; Guttman

b.     probability, monotonic; interval assumed; Likert

D.   Consider effects of response bias and response style

IV.          Test reliability (rtt)

A.   Alternate forms  (Pearson r)

B.    Split half   rtt =  2  (rtt)     Spearman – Brown

                          1 + rtt     

                                                                                         N

C.    Coefficient alpha   rtt = a =  N             ( d2 -  S   d 2 Yi )

                                                   ___                     i=1

                          

                                            N-1          _________________

 

                                                                                         d2 x

                                                 or Kuder – Richardson,  replace d2 Yi

with p i  ( 1 - p i ) where p i   is proportion of examinees getting   item i correct

 

D.   Test-retest  (Pearson r)

 

 

 

 

 

E.    Interjudge agreement

k (kappa) = p o  -  pe  

            _________

                       1 - pe_____

where po  is observed proportion agreement and pe is expected proportion agreement by chance.

 

Kappa discounts expected chance agreement and can accommodate dichotomous or multinomial events involving 2 or more observers

 

Or

 

f  (phi) when rating is whether an event is present or absent by 2 raters

 

f  = pc  -  pxpy

 

      ______________

 

      sqroot  px (1 – px)   py  (1 – py)

 

where pc   = proportion rated present by both observers; px  = proportion rated present by first rater; py  =  proportion rated present by second rater

 

 

F.    Consider sources of error

1.     Change in subjects (including practice)

2.     Difference in observers for Kappa

3.     Different content  for examinee or observer (i.e. time sampling)

G.   Consider factors affecting Pearson-r

1.     length of test

2.     heterogeneity of subjects

3.     difficulty/popularity of items

4.     difference scores: error from both pretest and posttest

5.     observer drift

H.   Standard error of measurement: range for true score

                               d meas  =   d t   square root of    1 – r2tt

 

raw score + or – 1 dmeas  68% chance true score is in range; 2dmeas   95%Õ 3dmeas 99%

given normal distribution

 

I.      Item analysis

 

 

V.            Test validity  ( rxy )

A.   Face (judgment; kappa)

B.    Content (judgment; kappa)

C.    Criterion  (Pearson r)

1.     predictive

2.     concurrent

3.     R2xy  coefficient of determination; shared variance w/  test &  criterion

4.     Standard error of estimate;  range for true criterion score

    d est =   dy   square root 1 – r2xy

 

5.     Decision theory

a.     Taylor-Russel tables and incremental validity

1.     base rate [no test; # accepted examinees /# examinees]

2.     hit rate [with test; # correctly accepted examinees/# accepted examinees]

3.     selection ratio [with test;  # accepted examinees / # examinees]

4.     incremental validity [= hit rate – base rate]

6.     Item analysis

7.     Test batteries

D.   Construct validity

1.     convergent and divergent validity

             (multitrait – multimethod:  monotrait-heteromethod high R;               heterotrait-monomethod low R if traits unrelated)

 2.  Factor analysis

 3.  Experiments

                   4.  Discriminant functional analysis

 

                                                            TEST

                                      Y                                                         N

 

                     Y       hit; sensitivity                                      miss; false negative

REALITY

 

                    N        miss; false positive                              hit; specificity

 

 

 

 

 

E. Factors affecting validity

1.     Reliability [caps validity; validity is less than or = to sq.root of reliability]

2.     Whatever affects Pearson r

a.     homogeneity of subjects

b.     curvilinearity

c.     heteroscedasticity

d.     moderator variable

e.     suppressor variable

 

 

 

 

VI.          Score interpretation

A.   Content-referenced (criterion-referenced or client/subject referenced)--raw scores, relation of raw to degree of construct (e.g. higher scores indicateÉ), possible range, % of total, sample means, SD; raw scores in terms of # of SD from sample mean; raw scores in terms of % of total; if M only, convert also to % of total

B.    Norms

1.     Developmental

a.     Age

b.     Grade

2.     Relative Standing

a.     percentiles

b.     linear z scores; z = [(raw score) – (mean score)]/ S.D.

c.     normalized z scores; mean = 0 and S.D. = 1

d.     t-scores   T = 50 + 10Z

e.     deviation IQÕs    IQ = 100 + 15Z

 

                3. Expectancy tables (criterion referenced)