LCSW--Psych Testing

[psycholytic]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi

Is anyone a LCSW and does psychometric testing in private practice?

I am just curious, since I heard that it is a myth that only psychologists can do that.

I was told, as long as you take appropriate classes and use it correctly it can be included in your scope of practice.

Please give your input.

Thanks😉

 

[50960]

If they are it is against the law, and similar to me doing surgery as a medical psychologist.

 

[psycholytic]

Please, can you let me know where I can read up on that law?
I went to the Board of Behavioral Sciences and cannot find anything that says:" LCSW's are prohibited from utilizing psychometrics".

I am searching for an explicit statement on a reputable site. I would be thankful for recommendations.

 

[psycholytic]

If you would have the training to do surgery would you feel incompetent to do so?

 

[50960]

Yes, because it is outside my scope of practice as testing is outside the scope of practice for LCSW's. The "law" is usually in state codes that specify scope of practice for every professional requiring a license to practice, so there is not one place to refer you to. What state are you in?

LCSW's probably can legally "do" some testing under the supervision of a psychologist, but I am not aware of any state that allows independent administration and interpretation rights to LCSW's.

 

[psycholytic]

I am in California as you are and according to the Board of B.Science and their "scope of practice " allowance it does not say anywhere that testing would be prohibited. Look at the following vague and therefore non-restricted outlines that tell you what you can do but not what is prohibited , since scope of practice and expertise entail what a person has furthered his or her education in.--->
Compare and Contrast the Scopes of Practice for the LMFTs, LCSWs, and Licensed Psychologists:

Marriage and Family Therapists
Business and Professions Code 498002
For the purpose of this chapter, the practice of marriage, family and child counseling shall mean that service performed with individuals, couples, or groups wherein interpersonal relationships are examined for the purpose of achieving more adequate, satisfying, and productive marriage and family adjustments. This practice includes relationship and premarriage counseling.

The applications of marriage, family, and child counseling principles and methods includes but is not limited to, the use of applied psychotherapeutic techniques, to enable individuals to mature and grow within marriage and the family, and the provision of explanations and interpretations of the psychosexual and psychosocial aspects of relationships.

Clinical Social Workers
Business and Professions Code 4996.5
The practice of clinical social work is defined as a service in which a special knowledge of social resources, human capabilities, and the part that unconscious motivation plays in determining behavior, is directed at helping people to achieve more adequate, satisfying, and productive social adjustments. The application of social work principles and methods includes, but is not restricted to, counseling and using applied psychotherapy of a nonmedical nature with individuals, families, or groups; providing information and referral services; providing or arranging for the provision of social services; explaining or interpreting the psychosocial aspects in the situations of individuals, families, or groups; helping communities to organize, to provide, or to improve social or health services; or doing research related to social work.

Psychotherapy, within the meaning of this chapter, is the use of psychosocial methods within a professional relationship, to assist the person or persons to achieve a better psychosocial adaptation, to acquire greater human realization of psychosocial potential and adaptation to modify internal and external conditions which affect individuals, groups, or communities in respect to behavior, emotions, and thinking, in respect to their intrapersonal and interpersonal processes.

Psychologists
Business and Professions Code 2903
No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself to be a psychologist, within a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. The practice of psychology is defined as rendering or offering to render for a fee to individuals, groups, organizations or the public any psychological service involving the application of psychological principles, methods, and procedures of understanding, predicting, and influencing behavior, such as the principles pertaining to learning, perception, motivation, emotions, and interpersonal relationships; and the methods and procedures of interviewing, counseling, psychotherapy, behavior modification, and hypnosis; and of constructing, administering, and interpreting tests of mental abilities, aptitudes, interests, aptitudes, personality characteristics, emotions, and motivations.

The application of such principles and methods includes, but is not restricted to: diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and amelioration of psychological problems and emotional and mental disorders of individuals and groups.

Psychotherapy within the meaning of this chapter means the use of psychological methods in a professional relationship to assist a person or persons to acquire greater human effectiveness or to modify feelings, conditions, attitudes and behavior which are emotionally, intellectually, or socially ineffectual or maladjustive.

As used in this chapter, "fee" means any charge, monetary or otherwise, whether paid directly or paid on a prepaid or capitation basis by a third party, or a charge assessed by a facility, for services rendered.

I am awaiting the reply of the board on that very issue.

 

[psycholytic]

Sorry, I thought you were in CA but saw that it is CO

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

From everything i've read, they should NOT be administering and intepreting testing. Anyone can administer something like a BDI, but where do you draw the line? How do you quantify training/competence? The administration of an assessment can be tricky, in regard to the interpretation of the answer....understanding when to querry (sp?), etc. ). The scoring can be tough, and then the overall interpretation (which is obviously important).

-t

 

[pingouin]

LCSW in private practice here.. do NOT do psych testing and other than this board, have never heard of anyone other than a doctoral-level psychologist doing it. psychometricians administering, yes, but only psychologists interpreting.

that said, I recently got something from NASW which had a little blurb about new CPT codes for LCSWs doing testing. I'm away for the holidays, but when I get home next weekend, I'll look into it.

but I have to say- I'm with the psychologists on this one, and I've gone on the record with my opinion before- LCSWs have no business doing testing. it's outside the scope of practice.

 

[psycholytic]

That is where training comes in. I agree that nobody should administer and interpret tests w/o the appropriate additional training. But, can you please explain what the difference between having a psychologist, MFT or LCSW would be, if all three would have the same training? Sounds like the protection of turf to me. I can also understand that LCSW's might feel intimidated doing testing and side with psychologists on this one, if they never received that training and do not know what testing and interpretation entails, but so far, I still haven't seen any proof to the prohibition of testing as written by any code of law.

Look at this:

Workshop L
Social Workers and Psychological Testing
Arthur Flax, LCSW-C, BCD, LCPC, LCADC, Director Compressive Psychosocial Services, Baltimore, MD

Yes, social workers can conduct psychological testing!! This workshop addresses the issue of the LCSW-C using psychological tests in the context of practice; assessment and screening instruments vs. testing; and types of tests. Emphasis will be placed on the training and experience necessary to use psychological tests. Finally, we will discuss the Social Work Practice Act and testing, NASW and testing, and reimbursement for testing.

And

http://www.ssw.umich.edu/shared/course_outlines/20072/sf614-001f06.pdf

 

[psycholytic]

And where is the restriction by law?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

That is where training comes in. I agree that nobody should administer and interpret tests w/o the appropriate additional training. But, can you please explain what the difference between having a psychologist, MFT or LCSW would be, if all three would have the same training?

They don't.

An MFT or LCSW do not receive classes remotely the same as doctoral level clinicians: advanced statistics classes, multiple assessment classes, etc.

Look at this:

Workshop L
Social Workers and Psychological Testing
Arthur Flax, LCSW-C, BCD, LCPC, LCADC, Director Compressive Psychosocial Services, Baltimore, MD

Workshops do NOT equal clinical training. They may teach you the basics, but that probably won't be enough. I've already seen people go to 1 CE, and then declare they are 'experts' and/or they can practice competently in XYZ. (At all training levels)

 

[pingouin]

I second the statement that the MSW is never and will never be the same as a PhD/PsyD. The term "turf protection" was thrown out, and it is indeed that. MSW programs offer no neuroscience classes (of which I'm aware, but feel free to prove me wrong) to provide the necessary background, and no formal training or supervision in instrument development, application, scoring, or interpretation.

Consider that in the states which have rx privileges for psychologists, those clinicians are held to very specific standards of education, training, supervision before being allowed anywhere near a rx pad. Were SWs to pursue testing privileges, similar standards would need to be in place, and they are not. And as I just went to NASW's website and searched for "psychological testing" and came up with nothing other than a poll from 2002, it does not appear that there is a national push to get this done. Perhaps some individual states are pursuing it? None in my area are.

"The application of social work principles and methods includes, but is not restricted to, ..... " from the CA statutes does not imply that "therefore SWs should do psychological testing". The CA psychologist statutes which were also posted explicitly include testing within the psychologists' scope of practice. I would be VERY interested to see whether my malpractice insurance would cover me doing testing of any kind, and I have a hunch it would not.

 

[pingouin]

HB 614: Uses and Implications of Psychological Testing in Social Work
Subject: Human Behavior
Credits: 3
PreReq: None
Applies To & Method Type: Elective, HBSE
Offered: SS'07, W'07, F'06, SS'06, W'06, F'05, SS'05, W'05, F'04, SS'04, W'04, F'03, SS'03, W'03, F'02, SS'02, W'02, F'01, SS'01, W'01, F'00, SS'00, W'00, F'99
This course presents psychological testing as applied in educational, mental health, and employment settings. It covers the historical development of testing in social functions, the technology of testing, tests commonly used in schools, clinics, and employment-related settings. Social consequences of testing, and constitutional and public policy issues are also covered. This course emphasizes intelligence testing, testing of learning disabled and handicapped pupils, psycho-diagnostic testing and selection in education and employment.

nowhere in here does it indicate that SWs are taught to administer, score, and interpret the tests which will be discussed.

 

[psycholytic]

Yeah, that would be interesting, espacially when followed through and actually contact the insurance to ask. I , for my part, will do that, but I will not forget to mention that the appropriate training will be in place by the time I would do testing. By the way; when the CA code for psychologists includes testing, it does not mean that it excludes the very same thing for others.

I will suspend this discussion for right now since there seems to be no hard evidence out there . I will get all necessary info and then come back and post it.

Thanks to everyone.

 

[psycholytic]

The whole class is about psych testing. I don't understand what you are referring to?

 

[psycholytic]

The whole class is about psych testing. I don't understand what you are referring to?

 

[psycholytic]

The whole class is about just that. I don't understand what you are referring to? Why do you think it is being thaught?

OOOPppsss !!

Came out 3x ???

 

[psycholytic]

Please read correctly.

The workshop simply enlightens on a certain topic, which is testing in SW practice. It does not intend to teach testing.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Ah, ok. I misread the seminar part.

I was reading in the Psychiatry forum, and somone was talking about the importance of stats and research classes when evaluating studies. They made some great points about the nuances of statistics, and how they play an intrical part of understanding the published research. This is important bc assessments are tied in heavily with research, and it is vital you understand not only the actual assessment tool, but the research and work that is behind it.

I've read some very slick research (on the outside), only to realized after reviewing the structure of the research and the methods used....that it was poorly designed, and the 'results' were shotty at best. If you applied something like this to a new assessment coming out....would you know what research to trust, and what research is a red flag?

It is more than just taking a few research/stats classs, or a few assessment classes. It is also working with the assessments under supervision, doing research about the assessments to really understand the strengths and weaknesses of the tools you are using, and being able to properly interpret and extrapolate what the raw data actually means in clinical terms. (Anecdotal evidence) I've worked with a number of LCSWs, and there have been some excellent therapists and great facilitators....but the research/stats portion has always been an weaker area. It isn't suprising since an LCSW is more focused on the applied clinical work, and much less on the research/stats, which tends to be in the domain of doctorates. I wouldn't want to take away from the clinical training to add the necessary research, stats, assessment, and supervision training hours to make assessment appropriate. This would push it towards a much longer program.

RxP has run into similar issues, which is why you can't just get by on a few courses. Instead, you have a full set of additional classes, additional training, and then residency hours, etc. Maybe an option like this could be developed, but it seems like a significant undertaking.

-t

 

[Psyclops]

I'm going to have to agree with jlw and T4C here. I think that psych assessment and testing should remain the domain of PhD psychologists. I will also agree with psycholytic in that appropriately trained people should be able to administer and more importantly interpret tests. But I know of no other training model that gives appropriate training.

For an article discussing the imporntance of psych testing and the dangers involved with poor administration and scoreing please see the most recent issue of the Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 355-357 for an article titled Standards for education and training in psychological assessment: Position of the society for personality assessment.

I think T4C makes the most important point though in niting the training for adequate interpretation is more involved than a few courses. Measures such as the WAIS, MMPI, MCMI, Rorschach all require extensive training and understanding to interpret ethically and usefully. This is to say nothing of the neuropsych measures which require an additional set of skills an understandings. Further, I can't stress enough that a very good understanding of the statistics and psychometrics involved in test development, construction , and validation is paramount to understanding the measures and emerging research. Poorly used statistics can be pure evil in the hands of someone who doesn't understand them (see Herrnstein & Murray, 1994 for a review).

 

[50960]

Another important point that has not been made, is that a test is just a test, it is the knowledge base to interpret the test results that is important. I am not really even referring to stats, test creation etc, but extensive knowledge of human psychology in the area of personality, pathology etc. It takes no skill for your doctor to order a CBC, thyroid panel etc.., but quite a bit of skill to know when to order it, and how to interpret it in light of all they know about clinical medicine. I would argue psychologists should be the only users of tests and assessment because of our training in test development, stats, assessment etc.., but moreso because we have a significantly more robust knowledge base in clinical psychology.

 

[psycholytic]

You just made my point!

I stated the whole time that it comes down to training and not to a title, no matter what.

Another good example is that even within PhD areas of psychology (developmental, forensic, cognitive, I/O, etc.) the testing skills widely vary from those of a clinical psychologist, but even then it depends where that person got his or her education.

I am still waiting for the Boards answer, so bare with me.😉

Another important point that has not been made, is that a test is just a test, it is the knowledge base to interpret the test results that is important. I am not really even referring to stats, test creation etc, but extensive knowledge of human psychology in the area of personality, pathology etc. It takes no skill for your doctor to order a CBC, thyroid panel etc.., but quite a bit of skill to know when to order it, and how to interpret it in light of all they know about clinical medicine. I would argue psychologists should be the only users of tests and assessment because of our training in test development, stats, assessment etc.., but moreso because we have a significantly more robust knowledge base in clinical psychology.

 

[LM02]

You just made my point!

I stated the whole time that it comes down to training and not to a title, no matter what.

But the question is where are you going to get the training?

Although a course such as the UM course you posted is a good place to start, it is not the equivalent of the courses taught in doctoral level training. For example, I took an entire semester on psychopathology/personality assessment and a separate semester on intellectual assessment when I was a graduate student. Within a MSW curriculum, there is probably not enough time for that level of detail. In the course you posted, there is one lecture on the WISC.

Further, as part of the required corresponding practica, we were required to administer several tests under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. Sitting in a classroom and learning the material is part of the training, but supervised administration and report writing is a large (and, in my opinion, more significant) part of the training.

Finally, another thing to consider is that tests are protected. You need to demonstrate your degree and level of training to the testing company, and they will evaluate whether or not you are qualified to even purchase the test. My understanding is that some test publishers will not sell certain tests to master's level clinicians.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

...I took an entire semester on psychopathology/personality assessment and a separate semester on intellectual assessment when I was a graduate student. Within a MSW curriculum, there is probably not enough time for that level of detail. In the course you posted, there is one lecture on the WISC.

Further, as part of the required corresponding practica, we were required to administer several tests under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. Sitting in a classroom and learning the material is part of the training, but supervised administration and report writing is a large (and, in my opinion, more significant) part of the training.

Very true. I had whole semesters on projective, personality, intelligence, etc. Those were just the nuts and bolts, and then you had to use them. Report writing is definitely vital. If you do not understand the nuances of each assessment, you cannot write an effective integrated report....which is usually what you need if you are doing assessmens for people. Whether it is for a court case, school assessment, etc.

My understanding is that some test publishers will not sell certain tests to master's level clinicians.

I believe they have the assessments graded into groups. I was looking up he WAIS-III awhile back, and I believe it was spec. to doctoral level people (C-level in their terminology?). Of course, I think someone on here posted an article that was talking about the test publisher trying to push intelligence testing int Masters level therapists. I think a search would pop up that thread.

 

[pingouin]

But the question is where are you going to get the training?
Although a course such as the UM course you posted is a good place to start, it is not the equivalent of the courses taught in doctoral level training. For example, I took an entire semester on psychopathology/personality assessment and a separate semester on intellectual assessment when I was a graduate student. Within a MSW curriculum, there is probably not enough time for that level of detail. In the course you posted, there is one lecture on the WISC.

LM-

Thanks for reiterating what I was trying to say.

To the OP- My point in posting the course description from the your link was that you were asking about LCSWs doing psychological testing, and using this link as an example of a training opportunity. My interpretation of the course description is that it's a course designed to help SWs understand testing that has already been done (probably by a psychologist) and use the already-established results to make appropriate recommendations and referrals.

My suspicion is that the target student population for this class are MSW students who plan to do work in school or voc-rehab settings. (And as an aside, don't let ANY of us confuse a psych social worker with a school or voc-rehab social worker. They are totally different entities.) In schools, the test results could be utilized to support getting a child an IEP, or getting the child into an accelerated program. In a voc-rehab setting, the testing would assist in determining what types of training or jobs might be appropriate given the patient's cognitive abilities and limitations. This is obviously not an exhaustive list of how different types of SWs might incorporate testing into their practice. In these settings, it would be crucial that the collaborating SW understands the interpretation of the testing done by the collaborating psychologist in order to best advocate for their client. Therefore- this class and others like it exist.

But as the psychologists have told you, and I have reinforced- the MSW does not provide the training to administer, score, and interpret these tests, and there are no programs in place of which I am aware which offer that type of training for masters-level clinicians (MFT, MA Couns, MSW).

 

[psycholytic]

[email protected] wrote:


Your teacher is correct. You may administer tests as long as you have been
trained to do so.


Kari Frank
Licensing Analyst
(916) 574-7850

======


BBS
WebMaster/BBS/DCA
Notes To

12/26/2006 09:52 cc
AM
Subject
Re: psychometric testing(Document
link: Kari Frank)


Your email has been forwarded to:
Licensing Analyst
for response.



The Board has moved to:
1625 North Market Blvd. Suite S200
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 574-7830
(916) 574-8625 (fax)

Please take a few minutes to complete our simple satisfaction survey. The
survey is accessible from the homepage of the BBS Website: www.bbs.ca.gov

Thank you for contacting the BBS via e-mail.

BBS WebMaster


n.net> cc:
Subject: psychometric testing
12/24/2006 02:37
PM


Hello

I am a NASW student member and I would like to know if I would be allowed
to conduct psychological testing equivalent to any psychologist after
obtaining my LCSW license and having taken the appropriate additional
classes on a Masters level (psych testing for children & adults).
Our program director (MSW -program) who is a LCSW and a PhD in psych, told
me that LCSW's can do testing if they have taken appropriate classes to
back up their knowledge. He stated that it is a myth that only
psychologists can test.

Thank you very much for your reply in advance.

Sincerely,


So, there it is!

I am pretty convinced that some of you will still not believe it or try to convince people in doubt otherwise. For me it is clear enough if it comes from the board instead of a blog and I at least have clarity on the issue. So, I will take additional classes to the ones I already have in testing and neuropsych and then go from there.

Anyone who wants to actually know more about this; please feel free to e-mail me. Everybody who still wants to argue about it please don't. It's a waste of time.

Thanks 😉

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

So, there it is!

I am pretty convinced that some of you will still not believe it or try to convince people in doubt otherwise. For me it is clear enough if it comes from the board instead of a blog and I at least have clarity on the issue.

Uhm....ok, but don't be suprised if you get your butt handed to you if you try and use your 'testing' anywhere official.....like a court of law or a school system. You can 'say' you are licensed to admistered assessments, but you very much aren't, and you will leave yourself liable both in a court of law and in your licensure. Using your example, you would run into very real problems if you claim to be able to administer and interpret neurological testing.

I am posting this not so much for you (you seem to be set on what you wanted to do previous to posting), but to warn others who may not be sure. I would STRONLGY advise checking with your licensing boards and associations and getting it in writing before doing anything. If you get stuck in front of a licensure board review or a judge, saying, "I got an e-mail from so-and-so who said it'd be ok" isn't going to cut it.

So, I will take additional classes to the ones I already have in testing and neuropsych and then go from there.

Anyone who wants to actually know more about this; please feel free to e-mail me. Everybody who still wants to argue about it please don't. It's a waste of time.

Thanks 😉

What classes can you take that would be 'equivilant' to the current doctoral training? It is more than just a class, you should have supervised hours, etc. Would you consider that proper training? As for neuropsych..... I wouldn't touch that with a 10 ft pole...nor should your patients.

 

[psycholytic]

Are you saying that the board is lying ?? Hehe
There seems to be , besides you of course, nobody that has the true info?

I don't think you are reading correctly. The post I added came from the board, so what point are you trying to make???????

This reaction was expected, shows where you are coming from and is frankly outright laughable.

And in regards to test interpretation:



Yes they may.


Kari Frank
Licensing Analyst
(916) 574-7850


======


To
[email protected]
12/28/2006 10:13 cc
AM
Subject
Re: psychometric testing


I am sorry to bother you again, but some psych people are still trying to
reject the statement you made, so because they are so ignorant, let me ask you one more question please:

Can LCSW's also interpret the tests that they are trained to administer?

Thank you so much for sending me a response.


As I stated before, people interested can contact me. I will not respond to these types of posts you just made since they have no true value.

 

[pingouin]

OP, you seem to have made up your mind about what you wanted to do prior to creating this thread. For your own professional liability, please consider carefully what everyone on here has told you. Good luck with your endeavors.

I'm out on this one.

 

[psycholytic]

No I had not made my mind up before, but it seems everybody who respondet so far actually had, since there is only talk w/o back-up,---very uninteresting to me.

I try to back up my statements, different than what I have seen so far when it came to provide some evidence for what has been said to the contrary. So what evidence do you have?

And, why are you saying I should be careful? Are you also saying that the Board is full of c...?

So far, much assumption and turf battle, no back-up and no desire to do so. This should leave everyone else with the assumption that , since it is backed by the board, there is no back-up to put out there for anyone who opposes anybody else but psychologists to do testing, even with proper training.

This is unbelievable.

 

[psycholytic]

That's why I took my classes in the psych department. It is possible, you know.

 

[psycholytic]

No, it's not.

 

[LM02]

Your teacher is correct. You may administer tests as long as you have been trained to do so.

You may be surprised to hear me say it, but I accept this response.

However, the question remains: who determines that you are trained to do so? That UM course is clearly insufficient - again, I reference the one lecture on the WISC and the absence of any supervised experience administering and interpreting the test.

You will need to take extensive additional coursework, and I strongly emphasize that you must get supervised experience administering and interpreting the test, in addition to supervised report writing experience. This training will most likely require that you register elsewhere and pay out of pocket - as it is not offered in a typical MSW curriculum.

I also agree that you will be opening yourself up to some serious liability issues. The statement "...as long as you have been trained to do so" is intentionally vague, leaving the onus on you to prove that you have been. Without any objective standard of training in testing for a master's level clinician, you can present yourself as "properly trained," but someone may just reply and say, "no you're not." What do you do at that point? You're stuck.

As for neuropsych, I would think long and hard about that one. Even as a PhD clinical psychologist, I would consider it far outside of my own scope of practice to administer neuropsych testing. Psychometrician is one thing. Reading a report and making sense of it is another. But proper interpretation of a neuropsych battery requires extensive specialized training.

If you are so intent on administering psychological tests, why don't you seek the training to become a clinical psychologist? Perhaps this is the elephant in the room, but I don't understand why nobody has asked.

 

[psycholytic]

Oh, I am sorry. I did not mean taking neuropsych classes so that I would be able to utilizing them for testing,-just for knowledge. That might have come across different than I intended it to.
Yes, extensive course work. I looked up courses in a doctorate program I was interested in, and anything similar to that would be sufficient. According to the board (I also called them) there is, as of today, no law that prohibits any LCSW or MFT for that matter to administer and interpret tests if they have the training. I am not worried about liability since that one can be clarified too simply by calling the liability insurance, which will be my next step.
I am interested in a psych doctorate program but not in paying APA-inflated school fees until I drop dead, that is why. Also, someone asked naively earlier why I do not attend a PhD program that will carry me through and provide stipends, etc. Well, I can't move (for personal reasons) , so I am stuck in a particular area and gaining entrance into such programs just is not that easy anymore even with all the c..p you need to work for and can show off afterwards you might not get in.

 

[Psyclops]

If you are so intent on administering psychological tests, why don't you seek the training to become a clinical psychologist? Perhaps this is the elephant in the room, but I don't understand why nobody has asked.

The answer based on another post is ostensibly GRE scores.

Psycholytic, since the onus will be on you to prove your training out in the real world would you feel inclined to share what you (or your "board" contact) would deem appropriate training?

LM02 and T4C have mentioned what their program's training was like, what do you envision appropriate training to be?

In my program we have 3 separate semester long courses, additionally we have a year long practicum. The three courses cover intelligence testing, personality testing, and neuropsych testing. Each course requires the administration of multiple tests to subjects over the course of the semester and the write-up, critique and discussion of the report. Additionally, testing theory is covered. These courses, in addition to the year long practicum prepare me in no way to write a comprehensive report out in the real world.

Assessment of children is separate.

Incidentally, did you look up the article I mentioned? It points out the damage that can be done by bad and how serious psych reports can be.

I'd love to hear your thoughts....

 

[psycholytic]

Answer:

This "game" is becoming increasingly hostile and I think I don't need this.
Last answer in regards to "" and "" or whatever, no, I did not read it , because I knew about it before you came along. And , I consider all courses important that deal with whatever tests I want to administer and decide to work with , which (to proof some others here wrong) I have not made my mind up about yet. If that's not good enough , why don't you get more answers from sites that would "qualify" to talk to you? It seems to interest you, but you rather attack my opinion than discussing the issue. I wonder, how do some of you do research that way? The 2 years of psychological research I participated in pretty much emphasized teamwork and required open-mindedness. Yours don't?

 

[50960]

Well this sure reminds me of the RxP arguments with psychiatry!!! The reason this is hot is because you are trying to take a serious short-cut to being allowed to do what we were trained extensively to do. This is the same view psychiatry has of people like me doing psychopharm. The difference is I have done extensive training in RxP that has been shown to be competent to prescribe, you are charting new territory. I do not think LCSW's should be allowed to do assessment, not because I am afraid of loosing anything, but because it further denegrates testing by putting in non-doctoral level providers hands, LCSW's do not have enough psych training or assessment training to properly use the tests, and it is completely unnecessary in health care today to extend privileges such as these to mid-level providers.

 

[psycholytic]

Can you please clarify how you doing extensive training and then saying psychiatry can't complain about that one, is different than someone doing extensive training in psychometrics and then stating the same about psychology?

By the way, I am not talking about what the MSW program is teaching, I am talking about what I decide to take as an addition to those classes, just like you did with psychpharm.

 

[Psyclops]

Answer:

This "game" is becoming increasingly hostile and I think I don't need this.

Really?

 

[50960]

I already did if you read my post. My training has been PROVEN to be adequate, by the DOD, current laws as well as midlevel prescribers in every state. You are simply trying to capitalize upon the fact that there are not clear enough laws in place to limit you from doing what you are doing. Big difference.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The reason this is hot is because you are trying to take a serious short-cut to being allowed to do what we were trained extensively to do.

LCSW's do not have enough psych training or assessment training to properly use the tests.

General training.....

I actually left the general psych training out of it, but since it was brought up.....at the MS level, you do not have the same clnical training, add on top of that inadequate training for assessment......how does that make you qualified? Where is the track record that shows that what you consider 'proper training' is acceptable? How about the research? We clinicans tend to like research to back up what we do.

Specific assessment training.....

Compare syllabi, it doesn't match up for either section.....so you can't stand on the leg of, 'equality'. How about supervised hours while using the assessment? I think the most important part is the supervision while ADMINISTERING, SCORING, and INTERPRETING the assessment. Ask around, I bet you'll find that most people will say that the learning was truly crystalized when they were in training, and working with the supervisor to discuss real cases, and HOW the data relates back to the patient. Does the data hang together across assessments....are there variances? Which assessment do you trust if there is conflicting data? Are there assessments you shouldn't use bc of pre-existing conditions?

Being able to flush out what the data actually means, and being able to integrate data from multiple assessments to develop a sound Dx, the reasoning behind it, and what all of that means to your patient......that is what assessment is about.

Hypothetical scenario:

Would you trust someone who claims competency, 'because i took some classes'?

Did they cover, in depth, the variety of assessments you provide? (No)
Supervised training hours? (No)
Completed multiple stats and research courses to support the data analysis? (No)

They started giving assessments in a variety of areas.....figured they'd expand and try some new things, they went to a CE and the rep said that it wasn't hard to use. They have the data, they check to see waht the book says...then they write a report saying what the test assessment says. I mean...anyone can do assessments!

Everyone would want that, right?

 

[abraham lcsw]

Hi all...great thread, hope you are still out there

I am a recently licensed lcsw and i happen to have in my possession my father's old InkBlots...he was a clinical psychologist...now deceased

there is no way i would use these things (except on my wife, that's very interesting) without a lot of training that i dont plan to get

the OP says he wants to get the "proper training"...but it seems to me that would entail at least a year of full-load coursework followed by supervised hours...

where are you going to find that outside a psyD or PHD program?

The UM class is specifically designed for people who are NOT administering tests...It wouldnt be appropriate for someone who did testing...




MY sense of OP is that you are experiencing something all therapists should be willing to admit to: A sense of invincibility, hubris, grandiosity that comes with first getting into the profession

administering and interpreting tests is some serious business

so please, i am just asking: Where will you get training outside a doctoral program?

ALSO: for all the psychologists out there: Can MA's in psych administer tests?

thanks, best to all

 

[psychgeek]

I had retired from SDN but was pulled back in by this insanity.

1) The board can tell you if testing is criminal or if it is prohibited by the laws governing your licensure. This does not mean you can or should do it. As a psychologist, rebirthing therapy is not prohibited by my license. but there are a number of civil and criminal statues that could be used to prosecute me if I decided to start smothering kids.
2) You can’t find laws about testing because the laws governing scope of practice are rarely statutory; these matters are decided in case law. Precedents from lawsuits largely determine who is and is not allowed to offer professional services. One particularly important piece of case law for this discussion involves a finding that all who act as a psychologists are held to the standards of psychologists for the purposes of criminal and civil negligence. An LCSW who interpreted a test specifically limited to doctoral level psychologists may find him or herself ipso facto negligent.
3) You also are probably looking in the wrong places. For example, the law governing the release of psychological testing data in Illinois is contained within a seemingly unrelated law passed to address services for children with disabilities. Licensing boards should know about such laws if they exist, but they probably don’t.
4) It doesn’t matter if you can interpret a test without getting fined or arrested; nobody will pay you to do it. Nobody will accept an LCSW as a qualified expert and thus the results produced are useless to anyone but the tester.

For the person who was asking about administering tests, MAs in psych can administer any test provided they are supervised by a licensed clinical psychologist. They can also administer tests they are qualified to use as part of their own clinical practice for their exclusive use. Interpretation is subject to the same restrictions as LCSWs.

 

[PhDCandidate]

Prior to beginning my doctoral education, I worked at a prestigious medical school's psychiatry department as an MSW administering and scoring neuropsychological tests. A trained monkey could administer most psychological tests.

Did I have the competency to interpret most of those tests? Certainly not, although it certainly isn't rocket science. I was trained to do so, although I was supervised by a psychologist. Most LCSWs are not interested in administering and interpreting psych tests anyway, so you guys have nothing to worry about.

 

[50960]

Yes anyone can administer and score them, that is not the issue at all. I can perform an appendectomy, but should I??

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yes anyone can adminiter and score them, that is not the issue at all. I can perform an appendectomy, but should I??

I'm not sure....would you do it for some food and a fiver?!

 

[PhDCandidate]

as building a model airplane is to biomedical engineering.

 

[psycholytic]

as building a model airplane is to biomedical engineering.

I can't believe someone is actually at ease with this topic, eventhough I believe there is a bit more to psych testing than the equivalent of building a model airplane. I am a woman, but I used to build those when I was a little girl all the time; wait! ....maybe that's why?

 

[Psyclops]

as building a model airplane is to biomedical engineering.

Well psisci is either a very talented individual or you are overly deferent to the medical profession.

Remember the knee bone is connected to the leg bone...you do that for a couple of years, then they give you scissors and string just like kindergarten. 😴

Psych testing actually involves some thinking, unlike the apendectomy.