UNDERSTANDING INFORMAL AND FORMAL CONSENT METHODS

     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. (2^nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

Lezak, M., Howieson, D., Loring, D. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4^th 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.