ABSTRACT
This study entails the use of meta-analytic techniques to calculate and analyze 18 independent and 52 nonindependent effect sizes across 17 published studies of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention. In this sample of studies, which involves 1,496 participants, a significant overall Cohen's d effect size of 0.423 (95% CI [0.321, 0.525]) was found, whereby 66% of treatment group means fell above the control and comparison group means. When categorical variables were taken into account, significant treatment group effects were found for therapy process variables (d = 1.117, [0.679, 1.555]), therapy outcomes (d = 0.367, [0.256, 0.478]), and combined process/outcome variables (d = 0.547, [0.193, 0.901]). These findings appear to be robust on the basis of fail-safe N calculations. Taken together, they suggest that psychological assessment procedures-when combined with personalized, collaborative, and highly involving test feedback-have positive, clinically meaningful effects on treatment, especially regarding treatment processes. They also have important implications for assessment practice, training, and policy making, as well as future research, which are discussed in the conclusion of the article.
Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/therapy , Psychological Tests , Psychotherapy/methods , Humans , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
In this empirical, mixed methods study, we explored test feedback training, supervision, and practice among psychologists, focusing specifically on how feedback is provided to clients and whether feedback skills are taught in graduate programs. Based on a 48.5% return rate, this national survey of clinical, counseling, and school psychologists' suggests psychologists provide test feedback to clients but inconsistently. Most respondents, 91.7%, indicated they give verbal feedback at least some of the time, whereas 35% do so every time. However, 2.8% indicated they never give feedback. A negative correlation exists for clinical psychologists between years since graduation and providing verbal feedback. Of particular interest, approximately one third of respondents indicated predoctoral coursework, practica, and internship were of little-to-no help in preparing them to provide feedback. Also, feedback training in predoctoral coursework, practica, and internship was not correlated to actually providing feedback. There was, however, a significant correlation between postdoctoral training and providing feedback. Consistent with existing ethical exceptions, the most frequent reason for not providing feedback was using assessments in forensic settings. Individuals who indicated their training was not helpful cited "trial and error" and self-instruction as ways in which they learned feedback skills. We discuss implications and suggestions for feedback training, research, and practice.
Subject(s)
Feedback , Psychological Tests , Psychology/education , Data Collection , Education, Graduate , Female , Humans , Male , Professional-Patient Relations , United StatesABSTRACT
Research on breaking bad news has involved undergraduates, medical students, and physicians. However, to date, no studies have examined how, or whether, psychologists are trained to break bad news, as well as their current practice of breaking bad news. This mixed methods study explored the training and practice of 329 licensed psychologists/APA members in breaking bad news, using the MUM effect as a theoretical backdrop. Results suggest (1) psychologists are, as hypothesized, significantly more reluctant to break bad news than good news, (2) anxiety accounts for 30.6% of the variance in their reluctance, and (3) three-out-of-four psychologists break bad news "to some extent" or more, most typically related to a patient's psychological health, major Axis I diagnosis, or learning disability. Results also suggest most psychologists are not trained to break bad news, with only 2.7% being familiar with existing recommendations and guidelines; and anxiety, concerns for self/other, context, and norms play an important role in the bad news breaking process. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed and a training model is proposed.
