There are many times when assessment tests
will be administered in order to measure certain mental and/or behavioral
characteristics of a client. Two specific techniques that can be used by a
clinician during this process are known as informal and formal assessment. Choosing
which to use may also be based on the information that is needed, how much time
is available, and funding.
There are also specific types of informal
and formal methods that clinicians may use more frequently when conducting an
assessment. Since this is the case, my ultimate goal for this work will be to
provide a better understanding of these concepts by first discussing three
specific types of informal methods that may be used more often than others. These
include observation, records and personal documents, and performance based techniques.
In order to explain how informal methods can affect the assessment process, I will
also address some of the strengths and weaknesses that are associated with these
methods when used in different settings.
The next section of this work will address
formal assessment methods by first discussing three specific types which include the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children (WISC), Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV), and Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test (WIAT). In order to
better explain how these methods can affect the assessment process, I will also
provide information about their overall purpose, the specific population that
each is intended for and previous research that addresses reliability and
validity measures. Furthermore, I will discuss some additional factors
that should be considered which include the participant’s educational background,
ethnicity, socio-economic status, and ensuring that all ethical and legal
obligations are considered and applied during the overall process.
Informal Assessments
Methods
Informal assessment methods are subjective
and there are many times when they may be designed to meet the specific needs
of a clinician. This is because it gives the clinician an opportunity to measure
certain individual performance with casual techniques versus using methods that
may require high participant involvement. Once, these measures are obtained the
clinician can then implement performance objectives that may improve the
overall behavior that was observed. Since, these methods are often developed to
meet specific assessment needs, they will also normally require less time,
money and expertise than nationally developed techniques (Neukrug &
Fawcett. 2010).
One
specific informal assessment method that may be frequently used by a clinician
is observation. This is a popular method within the psychology field because
observers have an opportunity to casually observe the “behaviors of an
individual in order to develop a deeper understanding of one or more specific
behaviors.” When this method is used, the observer will normally also conduct time
sampling, event sampling, and/or event and time sampling during the overall
process. Time sampling is when behaviors are observed during a limited and set
amount of time, while, event sampling is the observation of a targeted behavior
with no regard for time. However, there are also occasions when a combination
of event and time sampling will be conducted to observe behavior/s for a set
amount of time (Neukrug & Fawcett. 2010. p. 308).
A second informal method that may be
frequently used by a clinician is records and personal documents. This is
because it gives the clinician an opportunity to assess an individual’s
behaviors, beliefs, and values by examining items such as diaries, autobiographies,
genograms, school records, biographical inventories, or personal journals. This
information can also be extremely useful because it may give the clinician a
better understanding of the clients overall personal views and/or thought
processes (Neukrug & Fawcett. 2010).
A third informal method that may be used frequently
by a clinician is called performance based assessment. This gives the clinician
an opportunity to evaluate an individual by using various informal assessment
procedures that are normally based on real world responsibilities. One
particular type of performance based assessment that is widely used in several
different settings is portfolios. This is a collection of an individual’s work that
can be acquired over time and covers specific areas of content and performance (Neukrug
& Fawcett. 2010).
Strengths
and Weaknesses of Informal Assessment Methods
There are also strengths and weaknesses associated
with informal methods like observation, records and personal documents, and
performance based assessments when they are used in different settings. For
example, when these methods are used in private practice and educational
facilities, the clinician will be able to measure the current and progressive
skills or abilities of a client over time. While, a second strength of informal
methods within these settings is that the scores can be added to standardized
tests that lack crucial information about the client. This is important because
a client’s behavior must be accurately measured before any beneficial treatment
or intervention can occur. Furthermore, a third strength of using informal
methods within these settings is that they may be less intrusive (Neukrug, E.S
& Fawcett, R.C. (2010).
Even though these strengths exist, there
are certain weaknesses associated with informal methods when used in different
settings. For example, if these are used in private practice and educational
facilities, there may be more cross-cultural issues and inadequate levels of reliability
and validity. This is because vital factors like these may not be addressed with
informal methods as extensively as well established formal methods (Neukrug,
E.S & Fawcett, R.C. (2010).
Formal
Assessment Methods
Formal assessment methods are considered to be more objective and they can be used in clinics, schools, private
practices and residential treatment facilities in conjunction with other
measures to aide with eligibility issues, diagnosis, educational placement, and
decisions regarding intervention processes. Normally, formal assessment methods get used to acquire
evidence that supports conclusions that are made from the test. One example of
this could be if a clinician uses this method to confirm that a client’s reading
ability is below average. This could also be accomplished because there would
be visible evidence to support the fact that the clients scores fell in a below
average range for that particular age group.
Many
people also refer to formal methods as standardized measures because the
collected data are mathematically computed and summarized using percentiles, standard
scores, or stanines. Since, this process is completed, these methods are also used
more frequently in research and publishing to aide fellow professionals and
students within the field. This is important to consider because it supports
the idea that formal methods may be more test-worthy, reliable and valid than informal
techniques (Cohen & Swerdlik. 2010).
One specific formal assessment method that
may be used frequently is the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC/WISC-IV). The purpose of this 15
subtest is to measure overall intelligence by analyzing a client’s
ability [to acquire and apply knowledge, reason logically, plan-effectively,
infer perceptively, make sound judgments and solve problems, grasp and
visualize concepts, pay attention, be intuitive, find the right words and
thoughts with facility, and cope with, adjust to, and make the most of new
situations]. This can also be accomplished by acquiring 5 composite scores that
represent an individual’s Verbal IQ
(VIQ), Performance IQ (PIQ), Processing Speed Index (PSI), Working Memory Index
(WMI) and Full Scale IQ (FSIQ). The population that this test is designed for also
includes children between 7 and 16 years of age, and it takes 65–80 minutes to complete
(Cohen & Swerdlik 2010. p. 277).
There
are also previous studies that have been conducted to examine this methods
overall level of reliability and validity. One major study consisted of a standardization
sample of 2,200 children who were between the ages of 6 and 16 years and within
special group samples. The results indicated that adequate levels of
reliability were present. Equivalency studies also supported evidence of
convergent and discriminant validity when comparing the results to those
acquired with similar methods. Furthermore, evidence of construct validity was also
present after conducting numerous confirmatory factor-analytic and exploratory
studies, along with mean comparisons when using matched samples of children (Cohen
& Swerdlik 2010).
A second formal assessment method that
may be used frequently is the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) and it “is the latest version
in a long line of Wechsler products dating back to the Wechsler–Bellevue
Intelligence Scale.” It also consists
of 15 subtests like the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children, but is designed to measure intelligence with those who are 16 to 90 years of age versus 7 to 16 years of
age. (Benson,
Hulac & Kranzler. 2010. p. 121).
One particular
study measured the overall level of reliability and validity of this by using a
standardized sample of age appropriate participants over a two to twelve week period.
The results indicated that this method establishes a fairly high level of internal
consistency, with test-retest scores ranging from 0.70 (7 subscales) to 0.90 (2
subscales). When examining inter-scorer reliability the coefficients were also
very high with scores above 0.90. Furthermore, this study also acquired a score
of 0.88 when correlated with a similar method known as the Stanford-Binet IV (Benson,
Hulac & Kranzler. 2010).
A third formal assessment method that
may be used frequently is the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test Second Edition (WIAT-II). The purpose of this test is to assess a client’s level of achievement
by measuring skills like writing, spelling, reading and mathematics. The population that this test is designed for includes
clients between 4 and 85 years of age and it can “be administered
by psychologists, educational diagnosticians, special education teachers, and
anyone else trained in the administration of individual tests” (Treloar. 1994. p. 1).
There are also
three types of reliability that have been regularly measured by using a
standardized sample of participants. The first type is internal
consistency reliability which is the “consistency of an item within a
measure-that is, how consistently all the items measure the same construct” (Zechmeister, Zechmeister & Shaughnessy.
2001. p. 119). The average
reliability co-efficients for this test are also generally high and range from
.80 to .98.
The second
type that is regularly measured is test-retest reliability. This is the
consistency of individual responses over a period of time and previous results
indicate that the average stability co-efficients are high and range from .85
to .98. When measuring interscorer reliability which is the
degree of overall agreement between the scorers, the results often range from .94 to .98 with an overall reliability score
of .94.
Furthermore, when assessing overall validity, corresponding subtests from the
WIAT and WIAT-II are strongly correlated with a score above .80 (Zechmeister, Zechmeister & Shaughnessy.
2001).
When
conducting a formal assessment, the overall purpose, intended population,
and levels of overall reliability and validity are also critical components to
consider prior to beginning the overall process. Two reasons for this are
because if a test is administered to measure a construct other than what it is
intended to measure, or administered to those who are not in the intended
population, any results may be considered less reliable and valid. When this
occurs, the client may also not receive the proper techniques and/or services
that are needed to successfully address specific target behavior/s and
therefore, the current level will likely remain unchanged (Zechmeister, Zechmeister & Shaughnessy.
2001).
Additional Factors to
Consider When Using Formal Assessment Methods
When conducting assessments, the clinician normally addresses a variety
of questions which are often based on an open awareness of their client’s
individualized needs and overall psychological state. However, in order to complete
this process in the best manner possible, the clinician must address all factors
that can affect the results. Some factors can also cause issues throughout all stages
of the process, so it is crucial to address these immediately upon occurrence (Lezak,
Howieson, & Loring. 2004).
One specific factor that can affect the results is varying educational
backgrounds among clients. This is important because if the clinician
administers a test that a client cannot comprehend due to a lack of education,
the results will not be as reliable and/or valid. On the same note, the
clinician must also be trained to properly read and interpret the results of
the test. This is important because if a clinician cannot complete this step
due to a lack of comprehension, then there may be reliability or validity
concerns, and it could be a waste of the time, money and resources that are
needed to complete a formal assessment (Lezak,
Howieson, & Loring. 2004).
A second factor that can affect the results of an assessment is the ethnicity
of each client. For example, if a client can only read Spanish but is given a test
that is written in English then the results will not reflect true measures.
Furthermore, there may also be times when a clinician possesses certain bias or
prejudice feelings toward one or more participants and the results won’t be
accurate because scores could be acquired or “fudged” based on this negative way
of thinking (Lezak, Howieson, & Loring. 2004).
A third factor that can affect the results of a formal assessment is the
socio-economic status of each client. One reason for this is because when
adults and children come from a low income household, they may not be able to
pay for formal methods, so less costly ones will be used. Many times, these
methods can lack the crucial information that is needed to offer a proper
diagnosis or provide a specific service. Furthermore, previous research has also
indicated that children who live in low-income neighborhoods may experience
higher levels of abnormal motor development, malnutrition, and/or emotional instability
due to lack in parental knowledge or not having access to needed services.
Therefore, it will be crucial to address these issues before using specific methods
so the results will be more accurate (Lezak, Howieson, &
Loring. 2004).
Ethical Codes That Could Apply When
Using Formal Assessment Methods
The
American Psychological Association (APA) also created a set of ethical standards
that must be applied during the entire duration of most assessment processes.
This is because following these standards can prevent unethical or harmful treatment
from occurring.
One specific ethical standard that may
apply when using testing methods is confidentiality. This is because it helps
protect the rights of all participants by mandating that personal information
can only be released under specific circumstances. Following this law is also
important because it helps ensure that no harm occurs due to personal
information being released in a malicious or damaging manner to third party
members. However, the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (2004) has
determined that a professional can disclose confidential information when it is
mandated by law or for a valid purpose. Some examples of this are if a
professional needs to provide service for an individual or organization,
acquire payment for services that were previously rendered or if a client is
considered a danger to himself or others.
A second standard that may apply when using formal methods is cross-cultured
sensitivity. This is because it states that psychologists must be aware of
their potential biases when administering, selecting, and interpreting results
as well as acknowledgment of potential effects due to differences in age,
cultural background, ethnicity, disability, gender, religion, socioeconomic
status, and sexual orientation (Behavior Analyst
Certification Board. 2004).
One example of this would be if a psychologist refuses to test a participant
from a foreign country.
A third ethical standard that may apply when using certain testing
methods is informed consent. This is important because it states that
professionals must acquire permission prior to assessing any participant. If
the participant is a minor, a parent or caretaker must give consent before any
testing can occur (Schacter, Gilbert, & Wegner. 2009). This can also be
addressed by ensuring that all pertinent consent forms are collected prior to
beginning the overall process.
A fourth ethical standard that usually applies when using test methods
is protection from harm. This is because it ensures that no psychological or
physical harm will occur to research participants. Therefore, psychologists
will need to determine the safest possible way to use a specific testing method
and if no method is available, the test cannot be completed (Schacter, Gilbert,
& Wegner. 2009). This can also be implemented by
identifying any aspects of testing that may be harmful to one or more
participants. Once these factors are identified, the professional must then
take precautions to prevent this possible harm from ever occurring.
Furthermore, a fifth ethical standard that should be
addressed prior to using most testing methods is test administration. This
states that tests should be administered according to how they were established
and any altercations must be noted and/or adjusted accordingly. This is also
important because it can ensure that the results will reflect measurements for
a specific construct and/or domain. Therefore, it may also be easier to measure
adequate levels of reliability and validity for the specific method that is
used (Schacter, Gilbert, & Wegner. 2009).
Summary
There are many different settings where assessment
tests are administered in order to measure possible mental and/or behavioral
characteristics of a client. Two common methods that can be used by a clinician
to acquire data are informal and formal assessments. A clinician may also
choose which method is best by determining the specific information that needs
to be acquired, the time that is available for data collection, and whether
proper funding is available.
There are also specific types of informal
and formal methods that clinicians may use more frequently when conducting an
assessment. Therefore, my main goal for this work was to first provide a better
understanding of informal methods by discussing three specific types which include
observation, records and personal documents, and performance based techniques.
In order to better explain how these methods can affect the assessment process,
I also discussed the strengths and weaknesses that may be associated with each,
when used in specific settings.
I then addressed what formal assessment
methods are by also discussing three specific types which include the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children (WISC), Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV), and Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test (WIAT). In order to
better explain how these methods can affect the assessment process, I also
provided information about their overall purpose, the specific
population that each is intended for and previous research about reliability and
validity measures. Finally, I addressed certain additional factors
that should always be considered when using formal methods. Some of which include
the participant’s educational background, ethnicity, socio-economic status,
along with ensuring that all ethical and legal obligations are considered and
applied during the overall process.
References:
Behavior Analyst Certification Board (2004). Guidelines for responsible conduct for behavior analysts. Retrieved via Kaplan Online Campus at http://contentasc.kaplan.edu.edgesuite.net/PS502_1004A/images/product/Guidelines%20for%20Responsible%20Conduct.pdf
Benson, N., Hulac, D. M., Kranzler, J.
H. (2010). Independent examination of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth
Edition (WAIS–IV): What does the WAIS–IV measure? Retrieved via the Kaplan
Library at http://ehis.ebscohost.com.lib.kaplan.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a11e34cf-734f-4245-91bc-dc24fe1e6478%40sessionmgr4&vid=9&hid=6
Cohen, R. J.,
& Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological
testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Neukrug, E. S.,
& Fawcett, R. C. (2010). Essentials
of testing and assessment: A practical guide for counselors, social workers,
and psychologists. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage
Learning.
Lezak,
M., Howieson, D., Loring, D. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schacter, D., Gilbert, D., Wegner,
D. (2009). Psychology. New York, NY:
Worth Publishers.
Treloar, J.
M. (1994). Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test (WIAT). Intervention
in school & clinic. Sage
Publications Inc. Retrieved via the Kaplan Library at http://ehis.ebscohost.com.lib.kaplan.edu/eds/detail?vid=4&sid=eae9e6c0-8d36-4912-ac6e99dc6a3699c1%40sessionmgr104&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=f5h&AN=9602291490
Zechmeister, J. S., Zechmeister, E. B., &
Shaughnessy, J. J. (2001). Essentials of
research methods in psychology. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment