CHAPTER 1
Assessment in Counseling
B
y their very nature, humans are complex and the more pieces of the human puz-zle clinicians can access, the more likely that they will have a more complete pic-ture. As with a jigsaw puzzle, if counselors have only a few pieces of the puzzle, they will have a hard time determining what the whole picture is. Formal and informal as-sessment techniques can assist counselors in gathering “puzzle pieces,” thus facilitat-ing a more comprehensive view of clients. Counselors with numerous methods for accessing client information have more material to use in a therapeutic manner than do those who have limited assessment skills.As a counselor, you will regularly assess clients. This assessment may address what the client’s issues are, the magnitude of his or her problems, the client’s strengths and level of motivation, or whether counseling can be beneficial. Assessing people is prob-ably not entirely new to you. Chances are, you have been doing assessment on an in-formal basis for many years. When you walk into a class for the first time, you may begin to casually assess your fellow classmates. You may have assessed personalities or interests of people at a social gathering. Assessing other individuals is part of everyday life; it is also part of the counseling process. Although in the 1930s and 1940s, coun-seling and assessment were virtually synonymous (Hood & Johnson, 2002), most clin-icians do not currently see counseling and assessment as synonymous. However, client assessment does continue to play a crucial role in the counseling process.
What Is Assessment?
Before pursuing the topic of assessment in counseling, it is important to discuss the precise meaning of assessment.A term closely associated with assessment is psycholog-ical test, which Anastasi and Urbina (1997) defined as an objective and standardized
measure of a sample of behavior. Cronbach’s (1990) definition is similar, with a test being a systematic procedure for observing behavior and describing it with the aid of numerical scales or fixed categories. As these two similar definitions suggest, there are some commonalities among all the definitions of assessment. They all discuss getting a
measure or using some type of measurement. In assessment, counselors often want an indication of quantity (e.g., How depressed is the client? Are the test scores high enough to get into Harvard?). In simple terms, many test questions are related to whether there is a lot of “something” or just a little.
The issue of quantity leads to the next topic: the “something” that is being mea-sured. In counseling, practitioners are often interested in human constructs such as emotions, intelligence, personality factors, self-esteem, and aptitudes. These con-structs, however, cannot be directly measured. For example, individuals cannot give a pint of emotions in the same way they can a pint of blood. Humans, for the most part, indicate their emotions by their behavior, their statements, or even the answers they give on a questionnaire. It is important to remember that speaking and respond-ing to a questionnaire are behaviors. Even when people take a test, their behavior is sampled in a certain area. Thus, for most of the areas about which counselors want to gather information, all that they can truly gather are samples of behavior(although in very rare instances, a clinician may use a physiological measure, such as pulse rate as a measure of anxiety). Hence, when assessing clients, counselors observe a sample of behavior and then infer certain meanings from that sample. When working with clients, a counselor must consider this sample of behavior and then reflect on two im-portant questions: first, is the sample of behavior indicative of how the person usu-ally behaves, and second, are the inferences being made correct?
If the intent is to obtain a sample of behaviors and make some inferences or clinical decisions, then it makes sense for counselors to be careful about the manner in which they obtain the behavior samples. This is even more important when counselors are comparing individuals for selection, placement, or other purposes. This care is related to the third common point in the definitions of assessment—an objective or systematic measure of behavior. For example, if a counselor wants to work only with motivated clients, then she would need to gather samples of behaviors that reflect each client’s level of motivation. The counselor might decide that a direct approach is good, so she would ask each client about level of motivation. To the first client, she might ask, “Are you mo-tivated to try some different things in counseling?” To the second client, she might ask, “Are you motivated?” With the third client, she might say, “You do not seem very moti-vated.” This counselor’s way of gathering samples of behavior will probably affect the behaviors of the clients, so that their answers may be different depending on the way she asks the question. This illustrates how important it is that, in assessment, the man-ner of gathering behavior samples needs to be objective, standardized, and systematic.
Although this book’s focus is on assessment and appraisal in counseling, it does adhere to the traditional definition of psychological assessment. To be fair to the clients, assessment needs to be systematic and objective. With assessment in counsel-ing, clinicians are, in essence, gathering samples of client behaviors and making infer-ences based on those behaviors. Therefore, when evaluating available assessment tools, clinicians should focus on the methods or procedures used for gathering the samples of behavior. For example, a counselor interviewing a client should consider what behaviors are being sampled and whether these behaviors are typical of the
client. The counselor also needs to consider the inferences he makes about the client and the evidence (or validity) of those inferences.
The final aspect of assessment is measurement. When assessing a client, a coun-selor is attempting to measure some aspect of the client. Even if the question is whether or not the client has some attribute, the assessment involves measurement. For instance, determining whether a client is suicidal involves measuring the degree to which suicidal indicators are present.
A distinction is sometimes made among the words assessment, appraisal, and testing. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Mea-surement in Education, 1999), which is one of the primary authoritative sources, dis-tinguishes between the terms testand assessment. It defines assessment as “a broader term, commonly referring to a process that integrates test information with information from other sources (e.g., information from the individual’s social, educational, employ-ment, or psychological history)” (p. 3). In this book, the terms assessmentand appraisal
are used interchangeably, based on the opinion that they both include the use of formal and informal techniques, not just standardized tests. Assessmentand appraisal are ap-plicable not just to formal psychological evaluation; in this book, they are defined as procedures for gathering client information that is then used to facilitate clinical deci-sions and provide information to clients. A distinction does need to be made between testsand instruments. The term testis often reserved for an individual instrument in which the focus is on evaluation, such as test in a class that is graded. Many instruments that counselors use, such as scales, checklists, and inventories designed to provide in-formation, are not evaluative. In this book, the term instrumentincludes tests, scales, checklists, and inventories. In this book, there may be terms with which you are unfa-miliar; in this case, the glossary at the end of the book may be helpful.
Assessment Is Integral to Counseling
Some counseling students wonder if they really need training in assessment. Consider for a moment the counseling process and the essential steps included in counseling. Although the counseling process is quite complex, it encompasses the following four broad steps:
1. Assessing the client problem(s)
2. Conceptualizing and defining the client problem(s) 3. Selecting and implementing effective treatment(s) 4. Evaluating the counseling
In the initial stage of counseling, a counselor needs to assessthe client problem be-cause there is no one-size-fits-all approach in the therapeutic process. It is important that counselors skillfully assess the client’s problem; if the assessment process is incom-plete or inaccurate, the entire counseling process can be negatively affected. Further-more, if counselors have limited assessment skills, they may miss or underestimate im-portant client problems. Assessment skills, however, are not needed in only this first stage of counseling; they are important throughout the entire therapeutic process.
A counselor may be extraordinarily skilled at conceptualizing a problem, but if she is using limited information, the process will be hampered. During conceptualiz-ing, the second stage of the process, counselors need to continually assess a client to be sure they are adequately understanding and defining the client’s problem. Distin-guishing between simple and complex problems is critical to the selection of treat-ment and the effectiveness of the counseling. Mohr (1995) found that one of the best predictors of negative outcomes in counseling and psychotherapy is the clinician under-estimating the severity of the client’s problems. Once again, assessment skills are nec-essary for adequately conceptualizing the client’s concerns, identifying contextual factors that may be contributing to the problems, and ascertaining factors that may be helpful in the treatment phase of counseling.
The third step of implementing treatment is based on the previous assessments; however, assessment does not stop once implementation begins. Rather, the assessment process continues throughout the treatment phase of counseling. Counselors need to continually monitor whether they have comprehensively understood the client and the client’s situation. Furthermore, practitioners need to scrutinize whether progress is being made and adjust the counseling process if the client is not making progress toward the therapeutic goals. Because the matching of effective treatment to specific clients is not always an easy task, counselors must continually reassess the client and the efficacy of the counseling services they are providing.
Finally, once the treatment is provided, counselors need to assess or evaluate whether it was effective. Once again, just as counselors need effective communication skills to help clients, they also need effective assessment and appraisal skills. Assess-ing clients is an integral part of the counselAssess-ing process; it is not a distinct area in which counselors simply administer tests.
Do Counselors Ever Use Formal
Assessment Strategies?
Numerous research studies indicate that counselors in a variety of settings (e.g., schools, community agencies, mental health facilities) view formal assessment strate-gies as a significant aspect of their work. Elmore, Ekstrom, and Diamond (1993) sur-veyed members of two divisions (the American School Counselor Association and the Association for Assessment in Counseling) of the American Counseling Association (ACA). They found that 73% of the respondents indicated that tests are very impor-tant or imporimpor-tant in helping them carry out their work. In a more recent survey of these groups, only 9% of the respondents indicated they are never involved in ac-tivities related to interpreting scores from tests and assessments or never use the in-formation in counseling (Elmore, Ekstrom, Shafer, & Webster, 1998). Giordano and Schwiebert (1997) found that school counselors most frequently use the Wechsler In-telligence Scale for Children—Revised (WISC-R); with the Career Occupational Pref-erence Survey/Career Ability Placement Survey/Career Orientation Placement and Evaluation Survey (COPS/CAPS/COPES) and the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) tied for the second most frequently used instruments.
Counselors in different settings often use many of the same assessment instru-ments. For example, Bubenzer, Zimpfer, and Mahrle (1990) found that community mental health counselors were most likely to use the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised (WAIS-R), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), and the WISC-R. In the survey, school counselors indicated that they were most likely to use the WISC-R, the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT), the California Achievement Test (CAT), the Differential Aptitude Tests, and the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (Elmore et al., 1993). Thus, it appears that counselors working in diverse settings need to be competently trained in the use of these commonly used instruments. In a more re-cent study, Frauenhoffer, Ross, Gfeller, Searight, and Piotrowski (1998) found mental health counselors use a more restrictive pool of instruments as compared to psycholo-gists; however, they do frequently use the MMPI-2, Beck Depression Inventory, WISC-III, WAIS-R, some projective tests (e.g., House-Tree-Person, human figure drawings, sentence completion tests), and the Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (WRAT3).
Why Should Counselors Be Competent in Assessment?
Meeting Expectations of Professionalism
Although counselingand assessment are no longer synonymous, there are expectations for counselors to be competent in the area of assessment. Within the American Coun-seling Association’s (1995) Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice an entire section (Section E) is devoted to evaluation, assessment, and interpretation. Furthermore, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2001) stipulated that there are eight common core areas required of all students in accredited programs, one of which is assessment. Hence, there are professional ex-pectations that all counselors have training and knowledge in assessment and in the appropriate use of assessment instruments and techniques.
There are also public expectations that counselors understand assessment and are able to interpret assessment results. For example, a school counselor can quickly lose credibility with a student’s parents by not being able to interpret the results from an achievement test. Furthermore, both mental health and school counselors work with other professionals in multidisciplinary teams in which other team members (e.g., chologists) will quickly lose respect for a counselor who has limited knowledge of psy-chometric principles and common assessment instruments. Impara and Plake (1995) found that teachers and school administrators typically consider the school counselor the “test expert” with whom they consult if they have questions about testing.
Identifying Problems
According to Duckworth (1990), when appropriate tests are used, a counselor can gain insight into a client more rapidly than by relying on counseling alone. If problems are delineated in an efficient manner, treatment can be initiated sooner. Similar to a physi-cian incorporating medical testing to aid in the healing process, Duckworth asserted that
tests enrich the counseling process in a number of ways. Epperson, Bushway, and War-man (1983) found that clients are more likely to continue in counseling if they and the counselor agree on the nature of the problem. Meyer et al. (2001) compared the empiri-cal evidence concerning psychologiempiri-cal assessments and mediempiri-cal testing and found that psychological assessments are comparable to medical tests in terms of accuracy.
Dawes (1994) presented some compelling evidence that counselors are not al-ways objective in their perceptions and analyses of client issues. There is research supporting the notion that counselors do have a tendency toward confirmatory bias
(Spengler, Strohmer, Dixon, & Shivy, 1995), which entails the tendency to seek evi-dence that confirms an individual’s preferred hypothesis. For example, if a counselor believes that substance abuse is rampant in our society, that clinician may have a ten-dency to perceive many clients’ issues as being related to their abuse of substances. Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, and Nelson (2000) compared clinicaljudgments made by health care and human services personnel with mechanical judgments that involved statistical and actuarial prediction. On average, mechanical predictions were slightly more accurate than clinical predictions. Hood and Johnson (2002) recommended combining different types of assessment data (e.g., formal and informal) to maximize the strengths and minimize the limitations of different strategies. Meyer et al. (2001) found substantial empirical support for the practice of using multimethod assessment batteries and found that clinicians who exclusively use interviewing often have in-complete client information.
Accessing Diverse Client Information
Fredman and Sherman (1987) proposed that clients often benefit from formal assess-ments because they can provide counselors with a different avenue for reaching the client. They contended that counselors should occasionally get away from providing a completely auditory experience and add visual, kinesthetic, and tactile dimensions to their sessions. They suggested that testing can provide a visual experience that often inspires more confidence in the information than do spoken words. In addition, this visual experience often motivates clients to take action about a conflict or prob-lem. Distinct types of assessment strategies have also been found to contribute unique information that is helpful in clinical decision making (Meyer et al., 2001).
Campbell (2000) argued that tests in counseling should provide new information and that counselors can use assessment results to encourage client learning and in-sight. The results of an assessment may introduce topics that a client may otherwise have difficulty discussing in counseling. As an illustration, some clients may be more apt to indicate on an assessment form that they are having suicidal thoughts as com-pared with verbally disclosing that information in an interview.
Assisting Clients in Decision Making
Clients often come to counseling for assistance in making decisions. They may pose questions such as Should I drop out of school? Should I get a divorce? or Should I change careers? Increasing the amount of information a client can use in decision making usually enhances their decision-making process. Selecting instruments that generate information about occupational choices, career interests, and family
dynam-ics can often assist clients in making major decisions. Using assessment information to aid clients in decision making, however, does not always necessitate administering tests. Counselors can often use assessment instruments that clients have taken during previous educational experiences or in other situations. As an example, one client, who had taken the ACT (American College Testing) 2 years earlier, made his decision to pursue a new job after reviewing his scores from that test taken earlier.
Providing assessment information can sometimes provide clients with new per-sonal insights that can have a ubiquitous effect on decision making and problem solv-ing. For example, a female client recently reported that taking an interest inventory at age 31 had a major impact on her personal development. The experience began the process of better understanding herself and discovering that her diverse interests meant she needed to make some changes in her lifestyle. For some clients, instru-ments like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which provides information on how peo-ple perceive and process information, can be helpful because it provides them with an understanding of how they approach decisions about changing their lives.
Verifying Client Strengths and Limitations
Counseling is developmental in its focus and does not simply concentrate on identify-ing psychopathology and areas in need of remediation. Rather than usidentify-ing tests to diag-nose unchangeable personality factors, counselors can use instruments to identify factors that can be altered—factors such as family dynamics, changeable aspects of per-sonality, environmental stresses, coping strategies, and learning styles. Counselors can use instruments not only to identify client limitations but also to reveal strengths that may facilitate the change process. Lopez, Snyder, and Rasmussen (2003) argued that clinicians must strike a vital balance between assessing strengths and limitations. Draw-ing from the substantial research supportDraw-ing positive psychology, these authors con-tended that psychological assessment is currently slanted toward identifying limitations, even though there is compelling empirical evidence that constructs such as hope, resiliency, learned optimism, and courage are intimately tied with well-being and per-formance. Hence, if practitioners want to build on positive processes, outcomes, and environments, then they should also assess the degree to which these positive factors are present. Wright and Lopez (2002) suggested a four-pronged approach to positive psychological assessment. In this approach, counselors should identify (1) undermining characteristics of the client, (2) client strengths and assets, (3) missing and destructive aspects of the client’s environment, and (4) resources and opportunities within the envi-ronment. Counselors can also use positive psychological assessment to chart changes during the counseling process and to measure the development of client strengths.
Formal Assessments Can Influence Credibility
For some clients, formal assessment strategies have an influence above and beyond a counselor’s verbal comments. For these clients, assessment results presented either on a computer screen or printed on paper have greater credibility than what they know themselves or what the counselors may be telling them. For example, I have worked with career counseling clients who could articulate career preferences but who did not see those interests as being legitimate until the results of an interest inventory confirmed
their preferences. Although the research is surprisingly sparse, some studies do indicate that counseling outcomes are enhanced when formal assessment is incorporated into the counseling process (Goodyear, 1990; Sexton, Whiston, Bleuer, & Walz, 1997).
There is considerable support of Strong’s (1968) theory of social influence, which proposes that clients are more likely to accept a counselor’s feedback and less likely to discredit a counselor if they perceive the counselor to be expert, attractive, and trustworthy (Heppner & Claiborn, 1989). Research in this area indicates that several counselor characteristics that contribute to a counselor being perceived as an expert; hence, counselors should consider each client and the factors that may contribute to perceptions that they have credible knowledge and skills. For some clients, con-ducting formal assessment will positively influence their perception of a clinician’s expertness. However, it is important to note that expertness is not the same as author-itarianism, superiority, or self-aggrandizing behavior.
Providing Assessment and Accountability
In the counseling profession, clinicians have often been more interested in helping in-dividuals than in showing that the services they provide are effective. This approach, however, puts many clinicians at risk, because there are increasing demands from leg-islators, administrators, foundations, managed-care providers, clients, and parents for tangible documentation showing that counseling is both helpful and cost-effective. In these times of budgetary constraints, when school counseling programs have the potential to be cut, school counselors need to have accountability information readily available to document their usefulness (Dahir & Stone, 2003; Hughes & James, 2001; Myrick, 2003). Savin and Kiesling (2000) documented the necessity for community agencies and health care organizations to have well-designed accountability systems. In these days of managed care and its effect on mental health services, mental health counselors need multiple skills and knowledge beyond counseling approaches, in-cluding methods for garnering treatment outcome and effectiveness data (Lawless, Ginter, & Kelly, 1999). Accountability information often involves assessing clients; thus, counselors must have knowledge of assessment to meet the accountability de-mands of most counseling settings. Furthermore, sharing outcome assessments with clients that reflect their progress can have a potent effect because some clients put “more stock” in the assessment results than they do in verbal feedback.
What Do Counselors Need
to Know About Assessment?
Because assessment is an integral part of counseling, it is crucial that practitioners be-come competent in this area. Table 1.1 lists the minimum competencies for proper test use (Moreland, Eyde, Robertson, Primoff, & Most, 1995). These competencies can be coalesced into two major themes: (1) knowledge of the test and its limitations and (2) accepting responsibility for the competent use of the test.
Some of the specific elements of the first theme concern acknowledging the need for multiple sources of convergent data, staying abreast of assessment issues,
and consulting with professionals on interpretations. Gathering multiple sources of information is important for appropriate client assessment. It is unwise to base de-cisions on the results from one assessment, because no instrument can perfectly measure complex psychological factors. Also, various circumstances can influence a person’s performance during an assessment. As an example, a client enters counsel-ing and reports that she has been feelcounsel-ing fatigued, guilty, and depressed and she has had some suicidal thoughts. The counselor administers a depression inventory, and the results indicate a very low level of depression. If the counselor had made a ther-apeutic decision based solely on the results of the depression inventory, the client would have been ill-served. In this illustration, the client had been confused by the instructions and reversed the Likert scale that indicated the severity of the symp-toms of depression. Thus, the results did not indicate she was depressed, when, in fact, she was depressed. In this case, the counselor explored why the results on the depression inventory did not match his clinical views and was able to uncover the scoring problem. Using multiple assessment strategies provides more comprehen-sive and clinically rich information, which can be beneficial to therapeutic work with the client.
The second major theme related to test usage identified by Moreland et al. (1995) concerns accepting responsibility for the competent use of the test. Counselors need to learn the skills related to competent assessment and to know the limits of their own competency. To avoid harm to a client, counselors should never administer an assess-ment instruassess-ment without the necessary knowledge and training. Anastasi (1992) sug-gested that the major reason for misuses of tests is inadequate or outdated knowledge about the statistical aspects of testing and about the psychological findings regarding the behavior that the assessment targets. Therefore, counselors must have knowledge about measurement concepts as well as an understanding of the psychological area being assessed and of the specific instrument being used.
1. Avoiding errors in scoring and recording
2. Refraining from labeling people with personally derogatory terms like dishoneston the basis of test scores that lack perfect validity
3. Keeping scoring keys and test materials secure
4. Seeing that every examinee follows directions so that test scores are accurate
5. Using settings for testing that allow for optimum performance by test takers (e.g., adequate room)
6. Refraining from coaching or training individuals or groups on test items, which results in misrepresentation of the person’s abilities and competencies
7. Willingness to give interpretation and guidance to test takers in counseling situations 8. Not making photocopies of copyrighted materials
9. Refraining from using homemade answer sheets that do not align properly with scoring keys 10. Establishing rapport with examinees to obtain accurate scores
11. Refraining from answering questions from test takers in greater detail than the test manual permits 12. Not assuming that a norm for one job applies to a different job (and not assuming that norms for one group
automatically apply to other groups)
Source: Moreland, Eyde, Robertson, Primoff, & Most, 1995,American Psychologist, 50,pp.14–23. © 1995 by the American Psychological Assn. Reprinted by permission.
TABLE 1.1 Minimum competencies needed for proper test use
In 2001, the American Psychological Association Task Force on Test User Qualifi-cations published detailed guidelines on competent and responsible use of psychology tests (Turner, DeMers, Fox, & Reed, 2001). These guidelines include two types of test user qualifications: (1) generic psychometric knowledge and skills that serve as a foun-dation for most tests and (2) specific qualifications for response use of tests adminis-tered in particular settings or for specific purposes. Table 1.2 provides an overview of the core areas that were deemed essential by the American Psychological Association Task Force on Test User Qualifications.
To provide mental health services to clients, counselors must be educated in the area of assessment and properly trained and supervised in the use of specific instru-ments. As Clawson (1997) documented, numerous states have attempted to restrict the use of psychological tests to licensed psychologists. For example, the Louisiana State Board of Examiners in Psychology sued a licensed professional counselor to keep him from using psychological tests. These efforts are likely to increase unless counselors can prove that they are competent and trained in the use of assessment procedures. If coun-selors lose the right to perform assessment, they will also lose the right to be able to di-agnose because assessment is crucial to diagnosis (Clawson, 1997). Most managed health care organizations require that a diagnosis be made before they will reimburse practitioners. Therefore, if counselors lose the right to assess in a particular state, they will be eliminated from the private practice market in that state. Training and compe-tency are the keys central to counselors retaining assessment and diagnosis privileges. If counselors are not well trained in assessment, clients can be harmed.
This book provides an introduction to assessment and is geared toward counselors-in-training. It is designed to encourage counseling students to become well-educated assessment providers. Counselors must be able to evaluate assessment tools and to determine which instruments are appropriate for specific clients. The evaluation process continues even after appropriate instruments have been identified because counselors must also determine the best instruments for specific situations. In addition to evaluation skills, counselors need to know how to use instruments ap-propriately. Competent use of assessment tools involves determining what inferences can be made and understanding how to interpret results appropriately. The intent of
■ Psychometric and measurement knowledge
■ Descriptive statistics
■ Reliability and measurement error
■ Validity and meaning of test scores
■ Normative interpretation of test scores
■ Selection of appropriate test(s)
■ Test administration procedures
■ Ethnic, racial, cultural, gender, age, and linguistic variables
■ Testing individuals with disabilities
■ Supervised experience
Source: Turner, DeMers, Fox, and Reed, 2001,American Psychologist, 56, pp. 1099–1113. © 2001 by the American Psychological Assn. Reprinted by permission.
TABLE 1.2 Test User Qualifications: Generic knowledge and skills
this book is not only to provide selection and evaluation skills but also to provide in-formation on the appropriate use of assessment tools and interventions in counseling. Thus, the book’s focus is two-pronged: to provide a guide for evaluating and selecting assessment tools skillfully and the other concerns using assessment instruments and interventions appropriately.
Types of Assessment Tools
To use assessment tools effectively in counseling, a practitioner needs to understand some of the basic types of assessment instruments. Assessment and testing are topics that often arise when counselors consult with other professionals (e.g., psychologists, social workers, and teachers). The field of mental health is moving more toward a multi-disciplinary team approach to treatment; if counselors want to continue to be a part of this multidisciplinary team, they need to understand the nomenclature of assessment. Although there are many different ways to classify appraisal instruments, the following information provides an overview of some commonly used categories and terms.
Standardized vs. nonstandardized.For an assessment device to be considered a stan-dardized instrument, there must be fixed instructions for administering and scoring the instrument. In addition, the content needs to remain constant and to have been developed in accordance with professional standards. If the instrument is comparing an individual’s performance with that of other individuals, the instrument must be administered to an appropriate and representative sample. A nonstandardized instru-ment has not met these guidelines and may not provide the systematic measure of be-havior that standardized instruments provide.
Individual vs. group.This distinction concerns the administration of the instrument. Some instruments can be given to groups, which is often convenient and takes less time than administering an instrument to one person at a time. With group adminis-tration, however, it is difficult to observe all the examinees and to note all of their be-haviors while they take the instrument. A substantial amount of information can often be gained by administering an instrument individually and by observing a client’s non-verbal behaviors. Some well-known psychological instruments are only administered individually in order to gather relevant clinical information.
Objective vs. subjective.This categorization reflects the methods used to score the as-sessment tool. Many instruments are scored objectively; that is, there are predeter-mined methods for scoring the assessment, and the individual doing the scoring is not required to make any judgments. Subjective instruments, on the other hand, re-quire the individual to make professional judgments in scoring the assessment. For example, many multiple-choice tests are objective instruments, with the scoring com-pleted by noting whether the test-taker’s response is correct or incorrect. Essay tests, however, are usually subjective instruments because the person grading these exams must make some judgments about the quality of the answers. Objectively scored
instruments attempt to control for bias and inconsistencies in scoring. However, counselors are often interested in exploring clients’ issues, which are not easily as-sessed by using only objective methods.
Speed vs. power.This classification concerns the difficulty level of the items in an as-sessment. In power tests, the items in the examination vary in difficulty, with more credit given for more difficult items. A speed test simply examines the number of items completed in a specified time period. The determination of whether an assess-ment is a speed or a power test depends on the purpose of the assessassess-ment. If the aim of an assessment is to determine how quickly people can do a specific task, then a speed test is appropriate. If determining the mathematical abilities of an individual is the goal, then a power test is needed.
Verbal vs. nonverbal.In recent years, counselors have become increasingly aware of the influences of language and culture on assessment. Instruments that require exam-inees to use verbal skills can be problematic for individuals whose primary language is not English. Imagine that you are being tested and you read the following instructions: “Da prodes test ti moras zavoriti ovu knjigu i zafpati.” Many people would flunk this test because they would not be able to read the Bosnian instructions that say, “In order to pass this test, you must close this book and take a nap.” (I know that some readers would be more than willing to oblige with these instructions now that they understand the translation.) Even when a test does not involve verbal skills, if the instructions are given orally or must be read, it is still considered a verbal instrument. Some people prefer the term nonlanguageinstead of nonverbalto denote instruments that require no language on the part of either the examiner or examinee. Another term related to this topic is performance tests, which require the manipulation of objects with minimal verbal influences (e.g., putting a puzzle together, arranging blocks in a certain design). Sometimes there is not a clear distinction between a verbal and a nonverbal test. It is difficult to design instruments that have no language or verbal components; hence, with some clients, the counselor may need to determine the degree to which language and verbal skills influence the results. In multicultural assessment, the practitioner needs to consider the degree to which both culture and language influence the results.
Cognitive vs. affective.Cognitive instruments are those that assess cognition: perceiv-ing, processperceiv-ing, concrete and abstract thinkperceiv-ing, and remembering. Typically there are three types of cognitive tests: intelligence or general ability tests, achievement tests, and aptitude tests. Intelligence tests are sometime called general ability tests be-cause the term general abilitydoes not have the same connotation as intelligence. Intelli-gence/general ability instruments typically measure the ability to think abstractly, solve problems, understand complex ideas, and learn new material—abilities involved in a wide spectrum of activities. Although intelligence is a complex phenomenon, it is es-sentially related to how “smart” the individual is (Sternberg, 1985). Achievement tests, which are measures of acquired knowledge or proficiency, measure the extent to which an individual has “achieved” in acquiring certain information or mastering cer-tain skills. As an example, after individuals have gone through instruction or training, they are often assessed to determine how well they acquired the knowledge or skill.
Classroom tests of a single academic subject are the most common form of achieve-ment tests. Whereas achieveachieve-ment tests measure whether an individual has acquired some knowledge or skill, aptitude tests predict an individual’s performance in the fu-ture. Achievement tests and aptitude tests can be similar in content, but their purposes are different. Aptitude tests do not measure past experiences; rather, they assess an in-dividual’s ability to perform in the future—to learn new material or skills.
Affective instrumentsassess interest, attitudes, values, motives, temperaments, and the noncognitive aspects of personality. Both informal and formal techniques have a dominant role in affective assessment. In the area of formal instruments, practition-ers most frequently use one of two types of ppractition-ersonality tests: structured instruments and projective techniques. Structured personality instruments include the Min-nesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), in which individuals respond to a set of established questions and select answers from the provided alternatives. With projective techniques, individuals respond to relatively ambiguous stimuli, such as inkblots, unfinished sentences, or pictures. The nonstructured nature of the projective techniques provides the examinee with more latitude in responding. It is theorized that these nonstructured responses are projections of the individual’s la-tent traits. Although projective techniques are often more difficult for the examinee to fake, the examiner needs to be extensively trained to use these instruments appropriately.
History
To understand current assessment techniques and instruments, counselors need in-formation about the history of assessment. The goal of this brief excursion into the development of assessment is to provide a context for understanding the current state of the field. Through knowledge about relevant issues and with an understanding of why and how some instruments were developed, counselors can begin the process of becoming informed, competent users of assessments in counseling.
Early Testing
Assessment is not a new phenomenon; testing has been around for many centuries (Anastasi, 1993; Bowman, 1989). There is some evidence that the Greeks might have used testing around 2,500 years ago. The Chinese used a civil services examination 2,000 years ago, and even then, there were discussions of the effects of social class, cheating, and examiner bias (Bowman, 1989). In general, however, the English biolo-gist Francis Galton is credited with launching the testing movement. Galton did not set out to initiate testing, but in his study of human heredity, he wanted a way to measure human characteristics of biologically related and unrelated individuals. Galton believed that he could use sensory discrimination tests to measure individual intelligence. He based this opinion on the premise that all information is conveyed through the senses, and, thus, the more perceptive a person is, the greater the information that is accessible for intelligent judgments and actions. Galton also made a significant contribution in the area of statistics. The commonly used statistical technique of correlation came from his work in heredity and “co-relations.”
Another prominent figure in the early testing movement was American psycholo-gist James McKeen Cattell. Cattell was a student of Wilhelm Wundt, the man credited with founding the science of psychology but who was also interested in measuring psychological constructs. Wundt’s purpose was somewhat different from Galton’s in that Wundt and his colleagues were more interested in identifying factors common to human beings. Drawing from the work of Galton and Wundt, Cattell expanded test-ing to include memory and other simple mental processes. Cattell was the first to use the term mental test,although his mental tests were quite simple in that they were not strongly related to estimates of school achievement or to other criteria now consid-ered indicative of intelligence (Anastasi, 1993).
1900 to 1920
In 1895, Binet and Henri published an article criticizing most available intelligence tests as being too sensory oriented. Binet was given the opportunity to develop his ideas when the French Minister of Public Instruction appointed him to a commission studying edu-cationally retarded children. The result was the first version of the Binet-Simon scale, published in 1905. The instrument, which was individually administered to examinees, was a simple instrument with only 30 items and a norming group of 50. The Binet-Simon scale was different from previous measures of intelligence in that it focused on as-sessing judgment, comprehension, and reasoning. The instrument was revised in 1908 to incorporate a ratio of mental age level to chronological age level, which was labeled the intelligence quotient(IQ). This method of calculating IQ was used for many years, al-though, as will be discussed in later chapters, there are some problems associated with it. Binet’s instrument was translated and adapted in several countries, including an adapta-tion by L. M. Terman at Stanford University. The revised test became known as the Stanford-Binet scale, which was first published in 1916. The Stanford-Binet scale, which included many new items as well as many revised items from Binet’s work, was then standardized on an American sample of approximately 1,000 children and 400 adults.
While individually administered intelligence tests were being developed, there was also some interest in group testing, particularly military experts in the United States during World War I. Army psychologists worked quickly to develop a group-administered intelligence assessment for use in selection and classification of per-sonnel. The army used a multiple-choice format, which had only recently been introduced by Arthur Otis. These first group-administered intelligence tests were known as Army Alpha, which was used for routine testing, and Army Beta, which was a nonlanguage instrument designed for use with illiterate or non-English-speaking recruits. Shortly after the end of World War I, the army released these two instruments for public use.
Another influential man of this time was Frank Parsons, who is often cited as being the “father of guidance.” Although Parsons did not develop any assessment, he did devise one of the first approaches to career counseling. In his three-step career-counseling model, a counselor would (1) understand the person, (2) understand the world of work, and (3) match the person to the appropriate occupation in the world of work. Some career counselors have accomplished this first step of gaining an un-derstanding of the person by incorporating some of the career assessments that have been developed since Parsons’s time.
1920s and 1930s
During this early period of instrument development, theoretical discussions concern-ing the characteristics of intelligence were also takconcern-ing place. Spearman (1927) proposed that intelligence consisted of two types of factors—one that pertained to general tasks and another that pertained to specific tasks. Thurstone (1938), on the other hand, pro-posed that there is no one general factor of intelligence; rather, there are seven primary mental abilities. With the increased interest in measuring intelligence, there was also continuing debate considering the definition and makeup of intelligence.
Interest in assessment was not restricted to intelligence testing alone. At the end of World War I, there was also an interest in identifying men who were not emotion-ally capable of serving in the armed forces. The army once again developed the pro-totype, but this time the group test, called the Woodworth’s Personal Data Sheet, focused on personality assessment. As with Army Alpha and Army Beta, this self-report inventory was released for civilian use, where it spurred the development of other self-report personality inventories. In 1921, Rorschach described the technique of using inkblots as a tool for diagnostic investigation of the personality. Although his methods did not have an immediate impact, years later his writings had a major in-fluence on clinical assessment.
As private industries began to see that tests could be used for selecting and clas-sifying industrial personnel, special aptitude tests were developed, primarily for use in clerical and mechanical areas. There was also the development of vocational coun-seling instruments, such as the publication in 1927 of the Strong Interest Blank by E. K. Strong. Another individual active in the development of interest inventories for vocational counseling was G. Frederic Kuder, who first published the Kuder Prefer-ence Record—Vocational in 1932.
In 1923, the first standardized achievement battery, the Stanford Achievement Test, was published. This instrument was designed to provide measures of perfor-mance in different school subjects as opposed to testing in only a single subject. These achievement batteries also allowed educators to compare students’ perfor-mances to other students from various parts of the country. In the mid 1800s, there was a move from oral achievement examination to written essay testing. By the 1930s, however, there was considerable evidence concerning the difficulties of writ-ten essay examinations, particularly due to the lack of agreement among teachers in grading essay items. The desire for more objectivity in testing promoted the use of more objective items and the development of state, regional, and national achieve-ment testing programs.
The rapid advancement in many areas of testing during the 1920s and 1930s led to a need for a resource for identifying and evaluating testing instruments. The first edition of the Mental Measurements Yearbook was published in 1939 to fill that need. Oscar Buros established these yearbooks to provide information about instruments as well as to critique the properties of the instruments.
1940s and 1950s
Although there were efforts to produce quality personality assessment tools, there was dissatisfaction with many of these instruments because they were somewhat transparent
and could easily be faked by an examinee. Therefore, projective techniques, such as the Rorschach, began to become more popular. With projective techniques, clients respond to a relatively unstructured task, and their responses are then evaluated. The increased use of projective techniques did not, however, hamper the development of self-report instruments. In the early 1940s, Hathaway and McKinley developed a prominent per-sonality instrument, the Minnesota Multiphasic Perper-sonality Inventory (MMPI), which incorporated validity scales to assess the degree to which individuals portrayed them-selves in an overly positive or negative way. The MMPI also contained items that were empirically selected and keyed to criterion rather than items that appeared to measure different aspects of personality.
Standardized achievement tests were also becoming well established in the pub-lic schools. Although single aptitude tests were already in existence, most of the mul-tiple aptitude batteries appeared after 1940. Mulmul-tiple aptitude batteries could indicate where an individual’s strengths and limitations were (e.g., Did an individual have higher verbal aptitude or higher numerical aptitude?). The development of multiple aptitude batteries came late compared with other assessment areas—a fact that was directly related to the refinement of the statistical technique of factor analysis.
With the increased use of assessment instruments, problems associated with these instruments began to emerge. As criticisms of assessment rose, it became clear that there was a need for standards with respect to the development and use of instru-ments. The American Psychological Association published the first edition of defined standards. In later years, three organizations—the American Educational Research As-sociation (AERA), the American Psychological AsAs-sociation (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)—collaborated on revised editions, ti-tled Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. These standards continue to be revised and serve as a significant resource in the evaluation and appropriate use of ap-praisal instruments.
As assessment became more established, it also became more sophisticated. Indi-viduals began to see that centralized publication of tests would be convenient for con-sumers as well as, quite possibly, profitable for the publishers. For example, the test-ing functions of the College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB), the Carnegie Corporation, and the American Council on Education merged to form the Educa-tional Testing Service. With the centralization of some publishing, electronic scoring became more cost-effective. Electronic scoring reduced scoring errors and allowed for more complicated scoring procedures.
1960s and 1970s
This period is marked by an examination and evaluation of testing and assessment. The proliferation of large-scale testing in the schools, along with the increased use of testing in employment and the military, led to widespread public concern. Numerous magazine articles and books questioned the use of psychological instruments and un-covered misuses of these instruments. Assessment instruments were particularly scru-tinized for ethnic bias, fairness, and accuracy. This scrutiny revealed many limitations of existing instruments, particularly those concerning the use of some instruments with minority clients.
An interesting paradox occurred during the 1970s. Although there was substan-tial concern about the use of tests, there was also a grassroots movement called mini-mum competency testing that encouraged more testing. This movement grew out of concern that high school students were graduating without sufficient skills. Because the public wanted to ensure that children reached a minimal level of competency be-fore they graduated, many states enacted legislation requiring students to pass a mini-mum competency examination before they could be awarded a high school diploma (Lerner, 1981). There was also legislation at the national level that had a significant impact on testing. In 1974, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act was passed, which mandated that parents and children older than 18 had the right to review their own school records. This legislation also specified topics that could not be assessed without parental permission.
As the country was beginning to take advantage of advances in technology, the field of assessment was also changing. Computers began to be used more, particularly for scoring. Near the end of the 1970s, the assessment field began to explore the in-teractive nature of computers and methods for using computers not only to score but also to administer and interpret assessment results.
1980s and 1990s
The use of computers in appraisal really blossomed in the 1980s. With the increased availability of personal computers, clients could take an assessment instrument on a computer and receive the results immediately. Computers could be programmed to adapt the order of items depending on a client’s previous answer. For example, if a client got one item correct, then the next item could be more difficult; but if a client got the item wrong, the next item could be easier. There also was an increase in computer-generated reports, where instead of a psychologist writing a report, the report was written by a computer.
Earlier criticisms of assessment techniques led to many instruments being re-vised. For example, the developers of the MMPI-2 attempted to eliminate many of the shortcomings of the MMPI. The most widely used instrument to assess children’s in-telligence, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised (WISC-R), was re-vised to become the WISC-III. The adult version of the Wechsler scale (WAIS) was revised twice during this period. New instruments designed to be sensitive to cultural diversity were also developed (e.g., Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children). Issues related to cultural bias and sensitivity to multicultural influences that began in the 1960s and 1970s continued to be researched and discussed. Many professional orga-nizations began to realize that standards for multicultural counseling and assessment needed to be developed.
A major testing movement of the 1990s was authentic assessment, the purpose of which is to evaluate using a method consistent with the instructional area and to gather multiple indicators of performance. Authentic assessment had a major influence on teachers’ assessments of students’ academic progress (Fisher & King, 1995). Teachers often use portfolio assessment, where multiple assignments are gathered together and evaluated. Rather than using only one multiple-choice test, teachers evaluate multiple essays, projects, and tests that are designed to represent the material being taught.
2000 to the Present
It is difficult to predict the future issues and trends that will take place in assessment. Technology and the Internet will indubitably have an influence on assessment in counseling, and innovative methods of assessment will be developed. It may be that assessment will not take place as much in the counselor’s office; instead, many clients may take assessments via the Internet at home or other locations. Achievement test-ing in schools does appear to be increastest-ing, with the results of these assessments being used to evaluate students and their schools. The recently published WISC-IV replaces the WISC-III as a widely used individual assessment of children’s intelli-gence. Multicultural issues will certainly be an increasing focus of research in the as-sessment area. Identifying methods of assessing individuals with different cultural backgrounds is complex, and it is hoped that the field will make strides in this area. Indications that counselors will need to be more accountable and provide effective-ness data mean that counselors may need to incorporate outcome measures into their counseling to measure their effectiveness.
Summary
Often the terms assessment and appraisal have different meanings in the helping pro-fession, depending on the situation and context. This book defines both terms as proce-dures, including formal and informal techniques, designed to gather information about clients. Assessment can involve formal tests, psychological inventories, check-lists, scales, interviews, and observations. The degree to which counselors accurately assesses clients will influence the effectiveness of their counseling. Assessment is an integral part of the counseling process, and as such, counselors need to develop profi-cient assessment skills.The history of assessment in counseling indicates that there has been an ebb and flow in assessment strategies. In the United States today, there is considerable interest in various areas of testing, and some environments, such as schools, have seen a signif-icant increase in assessments. Given current social and political influences, it becomes even more important for counselors to understand issues in assessment. Furthermore, because this is a time when counselors’ competencies in assessment are being chal-lenged, they need to demonstrate that they are competent in this area. The development of assessment and appraisal skills involves knowledge of basic measurement tech-niques and methods for evaluating instruments. These skills also involve knowledge of the constructs (e.g., intelligence, personality) being measured and how to use the results in counseling. Assessment results can sometimes have a dramatic effect on a client; therefore, counselors should strive to ensure that appraisal results are used in a professional and ethical manner.