Clinical Assessment: Psychodiagnostic Decision Making
Chapter 1 Definition and Introduction
In psychological assessment we analyse the behavior, thoughts and emotions of clients in a
systematic way and based on psychological theories, in order to understand and predict their course.
Four basic question categories:
1. Classification
2. Explanation: how the identified problems arose and how they persist.
3. Prediction and indication: what need to be done (therapy?) and what is expected to be most
beneficial.
4. Evaluation
The assessment process requires theoretical knowledge and professional skills. If the treatment
works, it is not known if this is a placebo effect or not. A ‘gold standard’ is often lacking. And there is
often a lack of feedback. So, configure the assessment process as scientifically as possible.
Scientifically procedure: empirical cycle -> observation, induction (formulating hypothesis),
deduction (formulating predictions based on hypothesis), testing and evaluation. Another
scientifically procedure based on the empiric cycle is the roadmap.
Observation method:
- Most commonly used
- Why? Because it provides a lot of unique information that we cannot always obtain by
questionnaires or tests. And for mapping interaction between client/context.
- Who? Clients can observe themselves; self-registration. Or others observe the behavior of a
client (informants). Be aware of subjectivism of observations.
- Where? Two extremes: Natural context or scientific experiment. Also, intermediate forms.
- What? Standardized (evaluation scales so reduce judgment errors but not always available)
or non-standardized (risks judgment errors, actor-observer effect/fundamental attribution
error)
- When? Time sampling, event sampling.
Clinical interviews:
- Ideographic approach: focus on individual. Concrete and complete description of the
individual is sought. Clinical judgment.
- Nomothetic approach: focus on general laws, and the person is understood through
analytical thinking, theory formation and empirical testing. Statistical judgment.
Statistical judgment leads to better predictions of human behavior than clinical judgment,
because of judgment errors from clinicians. So, recommended is to follow a systematic approach
as a clinician.
Systematic ways of collecting information are semi-structured interviews and psychological
tests.
Semi-structured interviews:
- When using, higher reliability (interrater and test-retest). Also, higher validity.
- Problem of lack of self-insight which is apparent in questionnaires is not apparent here.
- Drawbacks: time consuming, does not always match what the client wants to tell, does not
facilitate development of a therapeutic relationship.
- More problem oriented than person oriented. So, more often used in research practice than
in clinical practice.
1
Chapter 1 Definition and Introduction
In psychological assessment we analyse the behavior, thoughts and emotions of clients in a
systematic way and based on psychological theories, in order to understand and predict their course.
Four basic question categories:
1. Classification
2. Explanation: how the identified problems arose and how they persist.
3. Prediction and indication: what need to be done (therapy?) and what is expected to be most
beneficial.
4. Evaluation
The assessment process requires theoretical knowledge and professional skills. If the treatment
works, it is not known if this is a placebo effect or not. A ‘gold standard’ is often lacking. And there is
often a lack of feedback. So, configure the assessment process as scientifically as possible.
Scientifically procedure: empirical cycle -> observation, induction (formulating hypothesis),
deduction (formulating predictions based on hypothesis), testing and evaluation. Another
scientifically procedure based on the empiric cycle is the roadmap.
Observation method:
- Most commonly used
- Why? Because it provides a lot of unique information that we cannot always obtain by
questionnaires or tests. And for mapping interaction between client/context.
- Who? Clients can observe themselves; self-registration. Or others observe the behavior of a
client (informants). Be aware of subjectivism of observations.
- Where? Two extremes: Natural context or scientific experiment. Also, intermediate forms.
- What? Standardized (evaluation scales so reduce judgment errors but not always available)
or non-standardized (risks judgment errors, actor-observer effect/fundamental attribution
error)
- When? Time sampling, event sampling.
Clinical interviews:
- Ideographic approach: focus on individual. Concrete and complete description of the
individual is sought. Clinical judgment.
- Nomothetic approach: focus on general laws, and the person is understood through
analytical thinking, theory formation and empirical testing. Statistical judgment.
Statistical judgment leads to better predictions of human behavior than clinical judgment,
because of judgment errors from clinicians. So, recommended is to follow a systematic approach
as a clinician.
Systematic ways of collecting information are semi-structured interviews and psychological
tests.
Semi-structured interviews:
- When using, higher reliability (interrater and test-retest). Also, higher validity.
- Problem of lack of self-insight which is apparent in questionnaires is not apparent here.
- Drawbacks: time consuming, does not always match what the client wants to tell, does not
facilitate development of a therapeutic relationship.
- More problem oriented than person oriented. So, more often used in research practice than
in clinical practice.
1
