Assessment / testing on clinical psychologists?

[futureapppsy2]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi all,

I was wondering if--or to what degree--it's considered valid to use protected assessment tools (e.g., TAT, Rorschach, MMPI, WAIS, etc.) on people who have been trained to administer and score them, as such people would obviously have "inside knowledge" and be able to consciously or unconsciously skew their results. Seeing the Rorschach thread bumped up again made me think about this, and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on it or, even better, any articles on topic.

Just curious.

Thanks.

 

[erg923]

I have tested (npsych) several psychiatrists, but never a psychologist.

However, my current supervisor has, on a couple of occassions, been refered clinical psychologists (one neuropsychologist even) for npsych evaluation. She informed me that while it can get complicated, you simply have to ask them what they are familiar with and then use the best alternates you can find. In one case she used the Memory Assessment Scales (MAS) in place of WMS and a RIAS in place of the WAIS since the person wasnt familiar with them. The person also said they werent familiar with the DKEFS, so she was able to use that as well. I dont think an indepth assessment of personality/psychopathology was necessary in that case, so not sure what she gave, if anything, in that case. The MMPI-2 is solid, but I would still be weary about giving to a clinical psychologist if there was any question about secondary gain. Obvioulsy the rorschach would be out.....

 

[KillerDiller]

It becomes very easy to score higher on the WAIS after you've administered and scored it. For example, one of my classmates did a practice session with a volunteer who was a school psychologist and very familiar with the test. The person scored something like 150 full scale IQ. This is mostly due to subtests like vocab that tap crystallized intelligence.

I don't know much about the TAT, but I assume it's like the Rorshach in that once you hear others' responses, you can easily mimic those in order to manipulate your scores. It may not even require true manipulation. For example, now that I have administered the blots several times, can see whales and volcanoes where previously I could not.

The MMPI would be harder to cheat because of the validity scales, but I imagine it would be possible for someone who was familiar with all the questions and the scoring.

 

[krisrox]

It becomes very easy to score higher on the WAIS after you've administered and scored it. For example, one of my classmates did a practice session with a volunteer who was a school psychologist and very familiar with the test. The person scored something like 150 full scale IQ. This is mostly due to subtests like vocab that tap crystallized intelligence.

I memorize our assessments unconsciously, too! I gave the digit span once after 2 years of administering it and only had to look down for the last couple groups.

I think it could be "dangerous" to give some batteries to professionals who are familiar with the tests, and this risk probably does heighten for projective tests. Let's face it, that's the problem with the more subjective tests.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I memorize our assessments unconsciously, too! I gave the digit span once after 2 years of administering it and only had to look down for the last couple groups.

I'm starting to get there with DS too; same with the Rey, the the distraction list I still need to pay attention to. 😀

 

[JockNerd]

Yeah, the IQ tests are out the window (you can never unlearn what the last assembly is, or the block design trick near the end, or how comprehension answers are scored). And since you'd know the psychotic interpretations for the projectives, I'm pretty sure those would be no good. I could see the MMPI-2 staying useful because it's not hand-scored and given the length and the basis for item development.

There are always alternatives, though. Just give the Stanford-Binet instead of the WAIS, etc.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think they referring question would dictate how problematic their training will be in accurately assessing their current state/level of functioning. In many of my assessments there are so many confounding issues, that most of the time my reports are a minimal estimate of the various areas anyway....and that is without training.

I've given some basic assessments to some related healthcare/counseling professionals (social worker, nurse, physician, etc), and generally it wasn't an issue outside of the screeners. There was a passing familiarity, but thankfully not enough to invalidate the findings (in my and my supervisor's eyes at least).

I agree with JN about the IQ testing, while a change to a different assessment may help, often the sub-tests are similar enough the person will know what to look for. This issue is quite present in the non-professional population too, as I had someone that recognized the block design task when I administered a WAIS-III, and he cited a similiar task on the Cognistat he took a month previously.

 

[cara susanna]

I asked my assessment prof this very question and he said you'd probably just have to find really, really obscure instruments most people wouldn't be trained in.