Psychological Assessments

learning objectives 4

·   4.1 What are the basic elements in assessment?

·   4.2 What is involved in the assessment of the physical organism?

·   4.3 What is psychosocial assessment?

·   4.4 How do practitioners integrate assessment data?

·   4.5 What is the process for classifying abnormal behavior?

The assessment of the personality and motivation of others has been of interest to people since antiquity. Early records show that some individuals used assessment methods to evaluate potential personality problems or behaviors. There are documented attempts at understanding personality characteristics in ancient civilizations. Hathaway ( 1965 ) points out that one of the earliest descriptions of using behavioral observation in assessing personality can be found in the Old Testament. Gideon relied upon observations of his men who trembled with fear to consider them fit for duty; Gideon also observed how soldiers chose to drink water from a stream as a means of selecting effective soldiers for battle. In ancient Rome, Tacitus provided examples in which the appraisal of a person’s personality entered into their leader’s judgments about them. Tacitus (translated by Grant,  1956 , p. 36) points out that Emperor Tiberius evaluated his subordinates in his meetings by often pretending to be hesitant in order to detect what the leading men were thinking.

Psychological assessment is one of the oldest and most widely developed branches of contemporary psychology, dating back to the work of Galton ( 1879 ) in the nineteenth century (Butcher,  2010 ; Weiner & Greene,  2008 ). We will focus in this chapter on the initial clinical assessment and on arriving at a clinical diagnosis according to  DSM-5.  Psychological assessment  refers to a procedure by which clinicians, using psychological tests, observation, and interviews, develop a summary of the client’s symptoms and problems.  Clinical diagnosis  is the process through which a clinician arrives at a general “summary classification” of the patient’s symptoms by following a clearly defined system such as  DSM-5 or ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases), the latter published by the World Health Organization.

Assessment is an ongoing process and may be important at various points during treatment, not just at the beginning—for example, to examine the client’s progress in treatment or to evaluate outcome. In the initial clinical assessment, an attempt is usually made to identify the main dimensions of a client’s problem and to predict the probable course of events under various conditions. It is at this initial stage that crucial decisions have to be made—such as what (if any) treatment approach is to be offered, whether the problem will require hospitalization, to what extent family members will need to be included as coclients, and so on. Sometimes these decisions must be made quickly, as in emergency conditions, and without critical information. As will be seen, various psychological measurement instruments are employed to maximize assessment efficiency in this type of pretreatment examination process (Harwood & Beutler,  2009 ).

A less obvious, but equally important, function of pretreatment assessment is establishing baselines for various psychological functions so that the effects of treatment can be measured. Criteria based on these measurements may be established as part of the treatment plan such that the therapy is considered successful and is terminated only when the client’s behavior meets these predetermined criteria. Also, as we will see in later chapters, comparison of posttreatment with pretreatment assessment results is an essential feature of many research projects designed to evaluate the effectiveness of various therapies.

In this chapter, we will review some of the more commonly used assessment procedures and show how the data obtained can be integrated into a coherent clinical picture for making decisions about referral and treatment. Our survey will include a discussion of physical, neurological, and neuropsychological assessment; the clinical interview; behavioral observation; and personality assessment through the use of projective and objective psychological tests. Later in this chapter we will examine the process of arriving at a clinical diagnosis using  DSM-5.

Let us look first at what, exactly, a clinician is trying to learn during the psychological assessment of a client.

The Basic Elements in Assessment

What does a clinician need to know? First, of course, the  presenting problem , or major symptoms and behavior the client is experiencing, must be identified. Is it a situational problem precipitated by some environmental stressor such as divorce or unemployment, a manifestation of a more pervasive and long-term disorder, or some combination of the two? Is there any evidence of recent deterioration in cognitive functioning? What is the duration of the current complaint, and how is the person dealing with the problem? What, if any, prior help has been sought? Are there indications of self-defeating behavior and personality deterioration, or is the individual using available personal and environmental resources in a good effort to cope? How pervasively has the problem affected the person’s performance of important social roles? Does the individual’s symptomatic behavior fit any of the diagnostic patterns in the  DSM-5?

The Relationship Between Assessment and Diagnosis

It is important to have an adequate classification of the presenting problem for a number of reasons. Clinically, knowledge of a person’s type of disorder can help in planning and managing the appropriate treatment. Administratively, it is essential to know the range of diagnostic problems that are represented in the client population and for which treatment facilities need to be available. If most clients at a facility have been diagnosed as having personality disorders, for example, then the staffing, physical environment, and treatment facilities should be arranged accordingly, for example, with appropriate security and clearly established rules. In many cases, a formal diagnosis is necessary before insurance claims can be filed to cover the client’s treatment costs. Thus the nature of the difficulty needs to be understood as clearly as possible, including a diagnostic categorization if appropriate (see the section “Classifying Abnormal Behavior” at the end of this chapter).

Taking a Social or Behavioral History

For most clinical purposes, assigning a formal diagnostic classification per se is much less important than having a clear understanding of the individual’s behavioral history, intellectual functioning, personality characteristics, and environmental pressures and resources. That is, an adequate assessment includes much more than the diagnostic label. For example, it should include an objective description of the person’s behavior. How does the person characteristically respond to other people? Are there excesses in behavior present, such as eating or drinking too much? Are there notable deficits, for example, in social skills? How appropriate is the person’s behavior? Is the person manifesting behavior that is plainly unresponsive or uncooperative? Excesses, deficits, and appropriateness are key dimensions to be noted if the clinician is to understand the particular disorder that has brought the individual to the clinic or hospital.

Some patients with cognitive deterioration are difficult to evaluate and to provide health care for, often requiring special facilities.

PERSONALITY FACTORS

Assessment should include a description of any relevant long-term personality characteristics. Has the person typically responded in deviant ways to particular kinds of situations—for example, those requiring submission to legitimate authority? Are there personality traits or behavior patterns that predispose the individual to behave in maladaptive ways? Does the person tend to become enmeshed with others to the point of losing his or her identity, or is he or she so self-absorbed that intimate relationships are not possible? Is the person able to accept help from others? Is the person capable of genuine affection and of accepting appropriate responsibility for the welfare of others? Such questions are at the heart of many assessment efforts.

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT

It is also important to assess the social context in which the individual functions. What kinds of environmental demands are typically placed on the person, and what supports or special stressors exist in her or his life situation? For example, being the primary caretaker for a spouse suffering from Alzheimer’s disease is so challenging that relatively few people can manage the task without significant psychological impairment, especially where outside supports are lacking.

The diverse and often conflicting bits of information about the individual’s personality traits, behavior patterns, environmental demands, and so on must then be integrated into a consistent and meaningful picture. Some clinicians refer to this picture as a “dynamic formulation” because it not only describes the current situation but also includes hypotheses about what is driving the person to behave in maladaptive ways. At this point in the assessment, the clinician should have a plausible explanation for why a normally passive and mild-mannered man suddenly flew into a rage and started breaking up furniture, for example. The formulation should allow the clinician to develop hypotheses about the client’s future behavior as well. What is the likelihood of improvement or deterioration if the person’s problems are left untreated? Which behaviors should be the initial focus of change, and what treatment methods are likely to be most efficient in producing this change? How much change might be expected from a particular type of treatment?

Where feasible, decisions about treatment are made collaboratively with the consent and approval of the individual. In cases of severe disorder, however, they may have to be made without the client’s participation or, in rare instances, even without consulting responsible family members. As has already been indicated, knowledge of the person’s strengths and resources is important; in short, what qualities does the client bring to treatment that can enhance the chances of improvement? Because a wide range of factors can play important roles in causing and maintaining mal-adaptive behavior, assessment may involve the coordinated use of physical, psychological, and environmental assessment procedures. As we have indicated, however, the nature and comprehensiveness of clinical assessments vary with the problem and the treatment agency’s facilities. Assessment by phone in a suicide prevention center (Stolberg & Bongar,  2009 ), for example, is quite different from assessment aimed at developing a treatment plan for a person who has come to a clinic for help (Perry,  2009 ).

Ensuring Culturally Sensitive Assessment Procedures

Increasingly, practitioners are being asked to conduct psychological evaluations with clients from diverse ethnic and language backgrounds. In both clinical and court settings, for example, a psychologist might be referred a client who has limited English language skills and low exposure to American mores, values, and laws. It is critical for the psychologist to be informed of the issues involved in multicultural assessment (often referred to as  cultural competence ) and to use testing procedures that have been adapted and validated for culturally diverse clients (Hays,  2008 ; Hunter et al.,  2009 ).

Psychological assessment of clients from diverse ethnic backgrounds has increased greatly in recent years. The growing number of minorities requiring a clinical or forensic evaluation comes about, in part, from the influx of immigrants or refugees, many of whom encounter adjustment difficulties. The U.S. Census Bureau ( 2011 ) reports that the Hispanic population now makes up 16 percent of the U.S. population. People of Hispanic origin are now the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. African Americans now represent 12.9 percent of the population, Asians 4.5 percent, Native Americans 1.0 percent, and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders less than 0.1 percent. Many immigrants, especially those of color, become members of ethnic minorities when they relocate to North America. They may thus experience racial discrimination or may be further viewed as inferior by the nonminority community due to their lack of political power or lack of adaptive skills arising from their difficulties in acculturation (Green,  2009 ; Hays,  2008 ).

In order to fairly and successfully treat such individuals, the ethics code of the American Psychological Association (APA,  2002 ) recommends that psychologists consider various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as situational, linguistic, and cultural differences, that might affect his or her judgments or reduce the accuracy of his or her interpretations. Thus, psychologists who use tests in a culturally competent manner must bear in mind a range of issues and factors involved with culturally and linguistically diverse clients. These issues involve the importance of ensuring that the characteristics of the test being employed are appropriate across cultures and that potential biasing factors do not interfere with critical thinking in the overall assessment process.

The challenges of understanding clients in multicultural assessment have been described (Butcher, Tsai, et al.,  2006 ; Hays,  2008 ) and involve both test instrument characteristics and socio-cultural factors such as the relationships among culture, behavior, and psychopathology. Psychologists need to ensure that the test procedures they employ are appropriate for the particular client. For example, the psychological equivalence of the test for use with the particular population should be determined. The meaning or cultural significance of test items should be similar across cultural groups (Butcher & Han,  1996 ), and the norms used to compare the client should be appropriate. In using Western-developed tests, users need to take into account the dominant language, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender of their clients. For example, clients from non-English-speaking countries might have insufficient English language skills, which will influence their test performance. When using a translated version of a test, interpreters need to be aware of the possible differences that can be obtained using an adapted version. Thus, it is important for psychologists to be aware of the available research on the instrument’s use with the target population in order to assess whether the adapted version measures the same variables in the new cultures. Finally, test users need to be concerned with the impact and fairness of the instruments they employ with clients from diverse groups—for example, whether there are any possible performance differences on the scales between groups.

The most widely used personality measure, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) (to be discussed later in this chapter), has been widely evaluated both in international applications with translated versions (Butcher & Williams,  2009 ) and in diverse subcultural groups in the United States (Butcher et al.,  2007 ). There are Spanish-language versions of the test. Recent research has provided support for the use of the MMPI-2 with minorities (Robin et al.,  2003 ), and the analyses provided by Hall and colleagues ( 1999 ) support the use of the MMPI-2 with Hispanic clients.

The Influence of Professional Orientation

How clinicians go about the assessment process often depends on their basic treatment orientations. For example, a biologically oriented clinician—typically a psychiatrist or other medical practitioner—is likely to focus on biological assessment methods aimed at determining any underlying organic malfunctioning that may be causing the maladaptive behavior. A psychodynamic or psychoanalytically oriented clinician may choose unstructured personality assessment techniques, such as the Rorschach inkblots or the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), to be described later in the chapter, to identify intrapsychic conflicts or may simply proceed with therapy, expecting these conflicts to emerge naturally as part of the treatment process. A behaviorally oriented clinician, in an effort to determine the functional relationships between environmental events or reinforcements and the abnormal behavior, will rely on such techniques as behavioral observation and self-monitoring to identify learned maladaptive patterns; for a cognitively oriented behaviorist, the focus would shift to the dysfunctional thoughts supposedly mediating those patterns.

The preceding examples represent general trends and are in no way meant to imply that clinicians of a particular orientation limit themselves to a particular assessment method or that each assessment technique is limited to a particular theoretical orientation. Such trends are instead a matter of emphasis and point to the fact that certain types of assessments are more conducive than others to uncovering particular causal factors or for eliciting information about symptomatic behavior central to understanding and treating a disorder within a given conceptual framework.

As you will see in what follows, both physical and psychosocial data can be extremely important to understanding the patient. In the sections that follow we will discuss several assessment instruments and examine in some detail an actual psychological study of a woman who experienced a traumatic situation in the workplace that resulted in severe emotional adjustment problems.

Reliability, Validity, and Standardization

Three measurement concepts that are important in understanding clinical assessment and the utility of psychological tests are reliability, validity, and standardization. These concepts, illustrated throughout this chapter, will be briefly described. A psychological test or measurement construct needs to show reliability in order to be effective.  Reliability  is a term describing the degree to which an assessment measure produces the same result each time it is used to evaluate the same thing. If, for example, your scale showed a significantly different weight each time you stepped on it over a brief period of time, you would consider it a fairly unreliable measure of your body mass. In the context of assessment or classification, reliability is an index of the extent to which a measurement instrument can agree that a person’s behavior fits a given diagnostic class. If the observations are different, it may mean that the classification criteria are not precise enough to determine whether the suspected disorder is present.

The psychological test or classification system must also be valid.  Validity  is the extent to which a measuring instrument actually measures what it is supposed to measure. In the context of testing or classification, validity is the degree to which a measure accurately conveys to us something clinically important about the person whose behavior fits the category, such as helping to predict the future course of the disorder. If, for example, a person is predicted to have or is diagnosed as having schizophrenia, we should be able to infer the presence of some fairly precise characteristics that differentiate the person from individuals who are considered normal or from those with other types of mental disorder. The classification or diagnosis of schizophrenia, for example, implies a disorder of unusually stubborn persistence, with recurrent episodes being common.

Normally, the validity of a mental health measure or classification presupposes reliability. If clinicians can’t agree on the class to which a person with a disorder’s behavior belongs, then the question of the validity of the diagnostic classifications under consideration becomes irrelevant. To put it another way, if we can’t confidently pin down what the diagnosis is, then whatever useful information a given diagnosis might convey about the person being evaluated is lost. On the other hand, good reliability does not in itself guarantee validity. For example, handedness (left, right, ambidextrous) can be assessed with a high degree of reliability, but handedness accurately predicts neither mental health status nor countless other behavioral qualities on which people vary; that is, it is not a valid index of these qualities (although it may be a valid index for success in certain situations involving the game of baseball, for example). In like manner, reliable assignment of a person’s behavior to a given class of mental disorder will prove useful only to the extent that the validity of that class has been established through research.

Standardization  is a process by which a psychological test is administered, scored, and interpreted in a consistent or “standard” manner. Standardized tests are considered to be more fair in that they are applied consistently and in the same manner to all persons taking them. Many psychological tests are standardized to allow the test user to compare a particular individual’s score on the test with a reference population, often referred to as a normative sample. For example, comparing a particular individual’s test score on a distribution of test scores from a large normative population can enable the user to evaluate whether the individual’s score is low, average, or high along the distribution of scores (referred to as a  T score distribution ).

Trust and Rapport Between the Clinician and the Client

In order for psychological assessment to proceed effectively and to provide a clear understanding of behavior and symptoms, the client being evaluated must feel comfortable with the clinician. In a clinical assessment situation, this means that a client must feel that the testing will help the practitioner gain a clear understanding of her or his problems and must understand how the tests will be used and how the psychologist will incorporate them into the clinical evaluation. The clinician should explain what will happen during assessment and how the information gathered will help provide a clearer picture of the problems the client is facing.

Clients need to be assured that the feelings, beliefs, attitudes, and personal history that they are disclosing will be used appropriately, will be kept in strict confidence, and will be made available only to therapists or others involved in the case. An important aspect of confidentiality is that the test results are released to a third party only if the client signs an appropriate release form. In cases in which the person is being tested for a third party such as the court system, the client in effect is the referring source—the judge ordering the evaluation—not the individual being tested. In these cases the testing relationship is likely to be strained and developing rapport is likely to be difficult. Of course, in a court-ordered evaluation, the person’s test-taking behavior is likely to be very different from what it would be otherwise, and interpretation of the test needs to reflect this different motivational set created by the person’s unwillingness to cooperate.

People being tested in a clinical situation are usually highly motivated to be evaluated and like to know the results of the testing. They generally are eager for some definition of their discomfort. Moreover, providing test feedback in a clinical setting can be an important element in the treatment process (Harwood & Beutler,  2009 ). Interestingly, when patients are given appropriate feedback on test results, they tend to improve—just from gaining a perspective on their problems from the testing. The test feedback process itself can be a powerful clinical intervention (Finn & Kamphuis,  2006 ; Finn & Tonsager,  1997 ). When persons who were not provided psychological test feedback were compared with those who were provided with feedback, the latter group showed a significant decline in reported symptoms and an increase in measured self-esteem as a result of having a clearer understanding of their own resources.

in review

·  • What is the difference between clinical diagnosis and psychological assessment? What components must be integrated into a dynamic formulation?

·  • Describe the important elements in a social or behavioral history.

·  • What does it mean to use culturally fair assessments?

·  • What is the impact of professional orientation on the structure and form of a psychological evaluation?

·  • Does providing test feedback to clients aid them in their adjustment?

Assessment of the Physical Organism

In some situations and with certain psychological problems, a medical evaluation is necessary to rule out the possibility that physical abnormalities may be causing or contributing to the problem. The medical evaluation may include both a general physical examination and special examinations aimed at assessing the structural (anatomical) and functional (physiological) integrity of the brain as a behaviorally significant physical system (Fatemi & Clayton,  2008 ).

The General Physical Examination

In cases in which physical symptoms are part of the presenting clinical picture, a referral for a medical evaluation is recommended. A physical examination consists of the kinds of procedures most of us have experienced when getting a “medical checkup.” Typically, a medical history is obtained, and the major systems of the body are checked (Fatemi & Clayton,  2008 ; LeBlond et al.,  2004 ). This part of the assessment procedure is of obvious importance for disorders that entail physical problems, such as a psychologically based physical condition, addictive, and organic brain syndromes. In addition, a variety of organic conditions, including various hormonal irregularities, can produce behavioral symptoms that closely mimic those of mental disorders usually considered to have predominantly psychosocial origins. Although some long-lasting pain can be related to actual organic conditions, other such pain can result from strictly emotional factors. A case in point is chronic back pain, in which psychological factors may sometimes play an important part. A diagnostic error in this type of situation could result in costly and ineffective surgery; hence, in equivocal cases, most clinicians insist on a medical clearance before initiating psychosocially based interventions.

The Neurological Examination

Because brain pathology is sometimes involved in some mental disorders (e.g., unusual memory deficits or motor impairments), a specialized neurological examination can be administered in addition to the general medical examination. This may involve the client’s getting an  electroencephalogram (EEG)  to assess brain wave patterns in awake and sleeping states. An EEG is a graphical record of the brain’s electrical activity (O’Sullivan et al.,  2006 ). It is obtained by placing electrodes on the scalp and amplifying the minute brain wave impulses from various brain areas; these amplified impulses drive oscillating pens whose deviations are traced on a strip of paper moving at a constant speed. Much is known about the normal pattern of brain impulses in waking and sleeping states and under various conditions of sensory stimulation. Significant divergences from the normal pattern can thus reflect abnormalities of brain function such as might be caused by a brain tumor or other lesion. When an EEG reveals a  dysrhythmia , or irregular pattern, in the brain’s electrical activity (for example, recent research has supported a link between resting frontal EEG asymmetry and depression, see Stewart et al.,  2010 ; and anxiety, see Thibodeau et al.,  2006 ), other specialized techniques may be used in an attempt to arrive at a more precise diagnosis of the problem.

ANATOMICAL BRAIN SCANS

An EEG is a graphical record of the brain’s electrical activity. Electrodes are placed on the scalp, and brain wave impulses are amplified. The amplified impulses drive oscillating pens whose deviations are traced on a strip of paper moving at a constant speed. Significant differences from the normal pattern can reflect abnormalities of brain function.

Radiological technology, such as a  computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan , is one of these specialized techniques (Mishra & Singh,  2010 ). Through the use of X rays, a CAT scan reveals images of parts of the brain that might be diseased. This procedure has aided neurological study in recent years by providing rapid access, without surgery, to accurate information about the localization and extent of anomalies in the brain’s structural characteristics. The procedure involves the use of computer analysis applied to X-ray beams across sections of a patient’s brain to produce images that a neurologist can then interpret.

CAT scans have been increasingly replaced by  magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) . The images of the interior of the brain are frequently sharper with MRI because of its superior ability to differentiate subtle variations in soft tissue. In addition, the MRI procedure is normally far less complicated to administer, and it does not subject the patient to ionizing radiation.

Essentially, MRI involves the precise measurement of variations in magnetic fields that are caused by the varying amounts of water content of various organs and parts of organs. In this manner the anatomical structure of a cross section at any given plane through an organ such as the brain can be computed and graphically depicted with astonishing structural differentiation and clarity. MRI thus makes possible, by noninvasive means, visualization of all but the most minute abnormalities of brain structure. It has been particularly useful in confirming degenerative brain processes as shown, for example, in enlarged areas of the brain. Therefore, MRI studies have considerable potential to illuminate the contribution of brain anomalies to nonorganic psychoses such as schizophrenia, and some progress in this area has already been made (Mathalondolf et al.,  2001 ).

Still, the MRI can be problematic. For example, some patients have a claustrophobic reaction to being placed into the narrow cylinder of the MRI machine that is necessary to contain the magnetic field and block out external radio signals. In addition, a recent evaluation and critique of the MRI approach in medicine was published by Joyce ( 2008 ), who interviewed physicians and MRI technologists and also conducted ethnographic research at imaging sites and attended radiology conferences. In her critique, she demonstrated that current beliefs about MRI draw on cultural ideas about technology and are reinforced by health care policies and insurance reimbursement practices. However, her review raises questions about the work practices of many physicians and technologists and suggests that MRI scans do not reveal the truth about the body that many medical practices often hold. For example, she concludes that MRI studies do not always lead to better outcomes for patients.

PET SCANS: A METABOLIC PORTRAIT

Another scanning technique is the  positron emission tomography (PET) scan . Whereas a CAT scan is limited to distinguishing anatomical features such as the shape of a particular internal structure, a PET scan allows for an appraisal of how an organ is functioning (Kumano et al.,  2007 ). The PET scan provides metabolic portraits by tracking natural compounds, such as glucose, as they are metabolized by the brain or other organs. By revealing areas of differential metabolic activity, the PET scan enables a medical specialist to obtain more clear-cut diagnoses of brain pathology by, for example, pinpointing sites responsible for epileptic seizures, trauma from head injury or stroke, and brain tumors. Thus the PET scan may be able to reveal problems that are not immediately apparent anatomically. Moreover, the use of PET scans in research on brain pathology that occurs in abnormal conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease may lead to important discoveries about the organic processes underlying these disorders and aid in the treatment of dementia (Saykin et al.,  2006 ). PET scans have, however, been of somewhat limited value thus far because of the low-fidelity pictures obtained (Fletcher,  2004 ; Videbech et al.,  2003 ) and their cost, since they require a very expensive instrument nearby to produce the short-lived radioactive atoms required for the procedure.

THE FUNCTIONAL MRI

The technique known as  functional MRI (fMRI)  has been used in the study of psychopathology for a number of years. As originally developed and employed, the MRI could reveal brain structure but not brain activity. For the latter, clinicians and investigators remained dependent upon PET scans. Improving on these techniques, fMRI most often measures changes in local oxygenation (i.e., blood flow) of specific areas of brain tissue that in turn depend on neuronal activity in those specific regions (Bandettini,  2007 ). Ongoing psychological activity, such as sensations, images, and thoughts, can thus be “mapped,” at least in principle, revealing the specific areas of the brain that appear to be involved in their neurophysiological processes. For example, one study (Wright & Jackson,  2007 ) examined the task of judgment of serve direction among tennis players and found that different patterns produce different responses in the brain.

A pattern of increased activity in the anterior cingulated cortex (ACC) and the right ventral prefrontal cortex (RVPFC), shown here in persons who were excluded from participating in a game, are similar to cortical activity of persons experiencing physical pain.

Because the measurement of change in this context is critically time dependent, the emergence of fMRI required the development of high-speed devices for enhancing the recording process, as well as the computerized analysis of incoming data. (See photo below.) These improvements are now widely available and will likely lead to a marked increase in studying people with disorders using functional imaging. Optimism about the ultimate value of fMRI in mapping cognitive processes in mental disorders is still strong. The fMRI is thought by some to hold more promise for depicting brain abnormalities than currently used procedures such as the neuropsychological examination (see next section).

A number of published studies have provided support for this optimism (MacDonald & Jones,  2009 ). Research using fMRI has explored the cortical functioning that underlies various psychological processes; for example, one recent study showed that psychological factors or environmental events can affect brain processes as measured by fMRI. Eisenberger, Lieberman, and Williams ( 2003 ) found that participants who were excluded from social participation showed a similar pattern of brain activation (in the right ventral prefrontal cortex) as participants experiencing physical pain. (See photo on p. 106.) Longe and colleagues ( 2010 ) found that fMRI was effective at detecting neural correlates for self-critical thinking. Some researchers have pointed out that fMRI has a high potential for contributing to a treatment approach in mental health care (Schneider et al.,  2009 ). Although some research has suggested that fMRI can be an effective procedure at detecting malingering or lying (Langleben et al.,  2005 ), one court has recently ruled against the use of fMRI as a lie detector (Couzin-Frankel,  2010 ).

Other studies have addressed problems in abnormal behavior. One study showed that the impaired time estimation found in schizophrenics might result from dysfunction in specific areas of the brain, thalamus, and prefrontal cortex (Suzuki et al.,  2004 ), while others addressed cortical functioning in auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia (Shergill et al.,  2000 ); effects of neuroleptic medication with schizophrenics (Braus et al.,  1999 ); and the neuroanatomy of anxiety (Paulesu et al.  2010 ) and depression (Brody et al.,  2001 ). Finally, Whalley and colleagues ( 2004 ) found that fMRI technique has the potential of adding to our understanding of the early development of psychological disorder. One study of treatment for  aphasia , a disorder in which there is a loss of ability to communicate verbally (Meinzer et al.,  2007 ), showed that changes in behavioral performance and the brain activation pattern were disclosed as affecting the brain’s reorganization.

The functional MRI (fMRI), like the MRI, allows clinicians to “map” brain structure. The exciting breakthrough in fMRI technology gives clinicians the ability to measure brain activities underlying such things as sensations, images, and thoughts, revealing the specific areas of the brain involved.

There are some clear methodological limitations that can influence fMRI results. For example, both MRI and fMRI are quite sensitive to instrument errors or inaccurate observations as a result of slight movements of the person being evaluated (Davidson et al.,  2003 ). Additionally, the results of fMRI studies are often difficult to interpret. Even though group differences emerge between a cognitively impaired group and a control sample, the results usually do not provide much specific information about the processes studied. Fletcher ( 2004 ) provides a somewhat sobering analysis of the current status of fMRI in contemporary psychiatry, noting that many professionals who had hoped for intricate and unambiguous results might be disappointed with the overall lack of effective, pragmatic methodology in fMRI assessment of cognitive processes. At this point the fMRI is not considered to be a valid or useful diagnostic tool for mental disorders; however, investigators are optimistic that this procedure shows great promise for understanding brain functioning (MacDonald & Jones,  2009 ). The primary value of this procedure continues to be research into cortical activity and cognitive processes.

The Neuropsychological Examination

The techniques described so far have shown success in identifying brain abnormalities that are very often accompanied by gross impairments in behavior and varied psychological deficits. However, behavioral and psychological impairments due to organic brain abnormalities may manifest before any organic brain lesion is detectable by scanning or other means. In these instances, reliable techniques are needed to measure any alteration in behavioral or psychological functioning that has occurred because of the organic brain pathology. This need is met by a growing cadre of psychologists specializing in  neuropsychological assessment , which involves the use of various testing devices to measure a person’s cognitive, perceptual, and motor performance as clues to the extent and location of brain damage (Snyder, Nussbaum, & Robins,  2006 ).

In many instances of known or suspected organic brain involvement, a clinical neuropsychologist administers a test battery to a patient. The person’s performance on standardized tasks, particularly perceptual-motor tasks, can give valuable clues about any cognitive and intellectual impairment following brain damage (Cullum & Lacritz,  2009 ; Lezak,  1995 ; Horton,  2008 ; Reitan & Wolfson,  1985 ). Such testing can even provide clues to the probable location of the brain damage, although PET scans, MRIs, and other physical tests may be more effective in determining the exact location of the injury.

Many neuropsychologists prefer to administer a highly individualized array of tests, depending on a patient’s case history and other available information. Others administer a standard set of tests that have been preselected to sample, in a systematic and comprehensive manner, a broad range of psychological competencies known to be adversely affected by various types of brain injury (Gass,  2009 ). The use of a constant set of tests has many research and clinical advantages, although it may compromise flexibility. Consider the components of one such standard procedure, the Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological test battery. The Halstead-Reitan battery is composed of several tests and variables from which an “index of impairment” can be computed (Horton,  2008 ; Reitan & Wolfson,  1985 ). In addition, it provides specific information about a subject’s functioning in several skill areas. The Halstead-Reitan battery for adults is made up of a group of tests such as the following:

·  1.  Halstead Category Test: Measures a subject’s ability to learn and remember material and can provide clues as to his or her judgment and impulsivity. The subject is presented with a stimulus (on a screen) that suggests a number between 1 and 4. The subject presses a button indicating the number she or he believes was suggested. A correct choice is followed by the sound of a pleasant doorbell, an incorrect choice by a loud buzzer. The person is required to determine from the pattern of buzzers and bells what the underlying principle of the correct choice is.

·  2.  Tactual Performance Test: Measures a subject’s motor speed, response to the unfamiliar, and ability to learn and use tactile and kinesthetic cues. The test surface is a board that has spaces for 10 blocks of varied shapes. The subject is blindfolded (never actually seeing the board) and asked to place the blocks into the correct grooves in the board. Later, the subject is asked to draw the blocks and the board from tactile memory.

·  3.  Rhythm Test: Measures attention and sustained concentration through an auditory perception task. It includes 30 pairs of rhythmic beats that are presented on a tape recorder. The subject is asked whether the pairs are the same or different.

·  4.  Speech Sounds Perception Test: Determines whether an individual can identify spoken words. Nonsense words are presented on a tape recorder, and the subject is asked to identify the presented word in a list of four printed words. This task measures the subject’s concentration, attention, and comprehension.

·  5.  Finger Oscillation Task: Measures the speed at which an individual can depress a lever with the index finger. Several trials are given for each hand.

In summary, the medical and neuropsychological sciences are developing many new procedures to assess brain functioning and behavioral manifestations of organic disorder. Medical procedures to assess organic brain damage include EEGs and CAT, PET, and MRI scans. The new technology holds great promise for detecting and evaluating organic brain dysfunction and increasing our understanding of brain function. Neuropsychological testing provides a clinician with important behavioral information on how organic brain damage is affecting a person’s present functioning. However, in cases where the psychological difficulty is thought to result from nonorganic causes, psychosocial assessment is used.

in review

·  • Compare and contrast five important neurological procedures. What makes each one particularly valuable?

·  • What is the difference between a PET scan and an fMRI?

·  • Describe the use of neuropsychological tests in evaluating the behavioral effects of organic brain disorders.

Psychosocial Assessment

Psychosocial assessment attempts to provide a realistic picture of an individual in interaction with his or her social environment. This picture includes relevant information about the individual’s personality makeup and present level of functioning, as well as information about the stressors and resources in her or his life situation. For example, early in the process, clinicians may act as puzzle solvers, absorbing as much information about the client as possible—present feelings, attitudes, memories, demographic facts—and trying to fit the pieces together into a meaningful pattern. Clinicians typically formulate hypotheses and discard or confirm them as they proceed. Starting with a global technique such as a clinical interview, clinicians may later select more specific assessment tasks or tests. The following are some of the psychosocial procedures that may be used.

Assessment Interviews

An assessment interview, often considered the central element of the assessment process, usually involves a face-to-face interaction in which a clinician obtains information about various aspects of a client’s situation, behavior, and personality (Berthold & Ellinger,  2009 ; Craig,  2009 ; Meers,  2009 ). The interview may vary from a simple set of questions or prompts to a more extended and detailed format (Kici & Westhoff,  2004 ). It may be relatively open in character, with an interviewer making moment-to-moment decisions about his or her next question on the basis of responses to previous ones, or it may be more tightly controlled and structured so as to ensure that a particular set of questions is covered. In the latter case, the interviewer may choose from a number of highly structured, standardized interview formats whose reliability has been established in prior research.

STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

Although many clinicians prefer the freedom to explore as they feel responses merit, the research data show that the more controlled and  structured assessment interview  yields far more reliable results than the flexible format. There appears to be widespread overconfidence among clinicians in the accuracy of their own methods and judgments (Taylor & Meux,  1997 ). Every rule has exceptions, but in most instances, an assessor is wise to conduct an interview that is carefully structured in terms of goals, comprehensive symptom review, other content to be explored, and the type of relationship the interviewer attempts to establish with the person.

During an assessment interview, a clinician obtains information about various aspects of a patient’s situation, behavior, and personality makeup. The interview is usually conducted face-to-face and may have a relatively open structure or be more tightly controlled, depending on the goals and style of the clinician.

Structured interviews follow a predetermined set of questions throughout the interview. For example, “Have you ever had periods in which you could not sleep lately?” and “Have you experienced feeling very nervous about being in public?” The beginning statements or introduction to the interview follow set procedures. The themes and questions are predetermined to obtain particular responses for all items. The interviewer cannot deviate from the question lists and procedures. All questions are asked of each client in a preset way. Each question is structured in a manner so as to allow responses to be quantified or clearly determined. On the negative side, structured interviews typically take longer to administer than unstructured interviews and may include some seemingly tangential questions. Clients can sometimes be frustrated by the overly detailed questions in areas that are of no concern to them.

Unstructured assessment interviews  are typically subjective and do not follow a predetermined set of questions. The beginning statements in the interview are usually general, and follow-up questions are tailored for each client. The content of the interview questions is influenced by the habits or theoretical views of the interviewer. The interviewer does not ask the same questions of all clients; rather, he or she subjectively decides what to ask based on the client’s response to previous questions. Because the questions are asked in an unplanned way, important criteria needed for a  DSM-5 diagnosis might be skipped. Responses based on unstructured interviews are difficult to quantify or compare with responses of clients from other interviews. Thus, uses of unstructured interviews in mental health research are limited. On the positive side, unstructured interviews can be viewed by clients as being more sensitive to their needs or problems than more structured procedures. Moreover, the spontaneous follow-up questions that emerge in an unstructured interview can, at times, provide valuable information that would not emerge in a structured interview.

The reliability of the assessment interview may be enhanced by the use of  rating scales  that help focus inquiry and quantify the interview data. For example, the person may be rated on a 3-, 5-, or 7-point scale with respect to self-esteem, anxiety, and various other characteristics. Such a structured and preselected format is particularly effective in giving a comprehensive impression, or “profile,” of the subject and her or his life situation and in revealing specific problems or crises—such as marital difficulties, drug dependence, or suicidal fantasies—that may require immediate therapeutic intervention.

Clinical interviews can be subject to error because they rely on human judgment to choose the questions and process the information. Evidence of this unreliability includes the fact that different clinicians have often arrived at different formal diagnoses on the basis of the interview data they elicited from a particular client. It is chiefly for this reason that recent versions of the  DSM (that is, III, III-R, IV, and IV-TR) have emphasized an “operational” assessment approach, one that specifies observable criteria for diagnosis and provides specific guidelines for making diagnostic judgments. “Winging it” has limited use in this type of assessment process. The operational approach leads to more reliable psychiatric diagnoses, perhaps at some cost in reduced interviewer flexibility.

The Clinical Observation of Behavior

One of the traditional and most useful assessment tools that a clinician has available is direct observation of a client’s characteristic behavior (Hartmann et al.,  2004 ). The main purpose of direct observation is to learn more about the person’s psychological functioning by attending to his or her appearance and behavior in various contexts. Clinical observation is the clinician’s objective description of the person’s appearance and behavior—her or his personal hygiene and emotional responses and any depression, anxiety, aggression, hallucinations, or delusions she or he may manifest. Ideally, clinical observation takes place in a natural environment (such as observing a child’s behavior in a classroom or at home), but it is more likely to take place upon admission to a clinic or hospital (Leichtman,  2009 ). For example, a brief description is usually made of a subject’s behavior upon hospital admission, and more detailed observations are made periodically on the ward.

Some practitioners and researchers use a more controlled, rather than a naturalistic, behavioral setting for conducting observations in contrived situations. These  analogue situations, which are designed to yield information about the person’s adaptive strategies, might involve such tasks as staged  role-playing , event reenactment, family interaction assignments, or think-aloud procedures (Haynes et al.,  2009 ).

In addition to making their own observations, many clinicians enlist their clients’ help by providing them instruction in  self-monitoring : self-observation and objective reporting of behavior, thoughts, and feelings as they occur in various natural settings. This method can be a valuable aid in determining the kinds of situations in which maladaptive behavior is likely to be evoked, and numerous studies also show it to have therapeutic benefits in its own right. Alternatively, a client may be asked to fill out a more or less formal self-report or a checklist concerning problematic reactions experienced in various situations. Many instruments have been published in the professional literature and are commercially available to clinicians. These approaches recognize that people are excellent sources of information about themselves. Assuming that the right questions are asked and that people are willing to disclose information about themselves, the results can have a crucial bearing on treatment planning.

RATING SCALES

As in the case of interviews, the use of rating scales in clinical observation and in self-reports helps both to organize information and to encourage reliability and objectivity (Aiken,  1996 ; Garb, 2007). That is, the formal structure of a scale is likely to keep observer inferences to a minimum. The most useful rating scales are those that enable a rater to indicate not only the presence or absence of a trait or behavior but also its prominence or degree. The following item is an example from such a rating scale; the observer would check the most appropriate description.

Sexual Behavior

·  ___  1. Sexually assaultive: aggressively approaches males or females with sexual intent.

·  ___  2. Sexually soliciting: exposes genitals with sexual intent, makes overt sexual advances to other patients or staff, and masturbates openly.

·  ___  3. No overt sexual behavior: not preoccupied with discussion of sexual matters.

·  ___  4. Avoids sex topics: made uneasy by discussion of sex, becomes disturbed if approached sexually by others.

·  ___  5. Excessive prudishness about sex: considers sex filthy, condemns sexual behavior in others, becomes panic-stricken if approached sexually.

Ratings like these may be made not only as part of an initial evaluation but also to check on the course or outcome of treatment. One of the rating scales most widely used for recording observations in clinical practice and in psychiatric research is the  Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS)  (Overall & Hollister,  1982 ; Serper et al.,  2004 ). The BPRS provides a structured and quantifiable format for rating clinical symptoms such as over-concern with physical symptoms, anxiety, emotional withdrawal, guilt feelings, hostility, suspiciousness, and unusual thought patterns. It contains 24 scales that are scored from ratings made by a clinician following an interview with a patient. The distinct patterns of behavior reflected in the BPRS ratings enable clinicians to make a standardized comparison of their patients’ symptoms with the behavior of other psychiatric patients. The BPRS has been found to be an extremely useful instrument in clinical research (e.g., see Davidson et al.,  2004 ), especially for the purpose of assigning patients to treatment groups on the basis of similarity in symptoms. However, it is not widely used for making treatment or diagnostic decisions in clinical practice. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), a similar but more specifically targeted instrument, is one of the most widely used procedures for selecting clinically depressed research subjects and also for assessing the response of such subjects to various treatments (see Beevers & Miller,  2004 ; Brown et al.,  2007 ).

Psychological Tests

There are a wide variety of psychological tests that measure the intellectual abilities of children. The researcher in this photo is measuring this child’s cognitive development by evaluating how she classifies and sorts the candy.

Interviews and behavioral observation are relatively direct attempts to determine a person’s beliefs, attitudes, and problems. Psychological tests are a more indirect means of assessing psychological characteristics. Scientifically developed psychological tests (as opposed to the recreational ones sometimes appearing in magazines or on the Internet) are standardized sets of procedures or tasks for obtaining samples of behavior. A subject’s responses to the standardized stimuli are compared with those of other people who have comparable demographic characteristics, usually through established test norms or test score distributions. From these comparisons, a clinician can then draw inferences about how much the person’s psychological qualities differ from those of a reference group, typically a psychologically normal one. Among the characteristics that these tests can measure are coping patterns, motive patterns, personality characteristics, role behaviors, values, levels of depression or anxiety, and intellectual functioning. Impressive advances in the technology of test development have made it possible to create instruments of acceptable reliability and validity to measure almost any conceivable psychological characteristic on which people may vary. Moreover, many procedures are available in a computer-administered and computer-interpreted format (see the Developments in Practice box).

developments in PRACTICE: The Automated Practice: Use of the Computer in Psychological Testing

Perhaps the most dramatic innovation in clinical assessment during the last 40 years has been the increasing use of computers in individual assessment. Computers are effectively used in assessment both to gather information directly from an individual and to assemble and evaluate all the information that has been gathered previously through interviews, tests, and other assessment procedures. By comparing the incoming information with data previously stored in its memory banks, a computer can perform a wide range of assessment tasks (Butcher et al.,  2009 ; Butcher,  2009 ). It can supply a probable diagnosis, indicate the likelihood of certain kinds of behavior, suggest the most appropriate form of treatment, predict the outcome, and print out a summary report concerning the subject. In many of these functions, a computer is actually superior to a clinician because it is more efficient and accurate in recalling stored material (Epstein & Klinkenberg,  2001 ; Olson,  2001 ).

With the increased efficiency and reliability of the use of computers in clinical practice, one might expect a nearly unanimous welcoming of computers into the clinic. This is not always the case, however, and some practitioners we know even resist using such “modern” techniques as e-mail, fax machines, and computerized billing in their practices (McMinn et al.,  1999 ). Some clinicians are reluctant to use computer-based test interpretations in spite of their demonstrated utility and low cost. Even though many clinics and independent practitioners use microcomputers for record keeping and billing purposes, a smaller number incorporate computer-based clinical assessment procedures into their practice. Possible reasons for the underutilization of computer-based assessment procedures include the following: (1) Practitioners who were trained before the widespread use of computers may feel uncomfortable with them or may not have time to get acquainted with their use; (2) they may limit their practice to psychological treatment and do not use extensive pretreatment assessments in their practice; (3) they may have little interest in, or time for, the systematic evaluation of treatment efficacy that periodic formal assessments facilitate; or (4) they may feel that the impersonal and mechanized look of the booklets and answer sheets common to much computerized assessment is inconsistent with the image and style of warm and personal engagement they hope to convey to clients.

Although psychological tests are more precise and often more reliable than interviews or some observational techniques, they are far from perfect tools. Their value often depends on the competence of the clinician who interprets them. In general, they are useful diagnostic tools for psychologists in much the same way that blood tests, X-ray films, and MRI scans are useful to physicians. In all these cases, pathology may be revealed in people who appear to be normal, or a general impression of “something wrong” can be checked against more precise information. Two general categories of psychological tests for use in clinical practice are intelligence tests and personality tests (projective and objective).

INTELLIGENCE TESTS

A clinician can choose from a wide range of  intelligence tests . The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-IV) (see Weiss et al.,  2006 ) and the current edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Kamphaus & Kroncke,  2004 ) are widely used in clinical settings for measuring the intellectual abilities of children (Wasserman,  2003 ). Probably the most commonly used test for measuring adult intelligence is the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-IV) (Benson et al.,  2010 ; Lichtenberger & Kaufman,  2009 ). It includes both verbal and performance material and consists of 15 subtests. A brief description of two of the subtests will serve to illustrate the types of functions the WAIS-IV measures.

·  •  Vocabulary (verbal): This subtest consists of a list of words to define that are presented orally to the individual. This task is designed to evaluate knowledge of vocabulary, which has been shown to be highly related to general intelligence.

·  •  Digit Span (performance): In this test of short-term memory, a sequence of numbers is administered orally. The individual is asked to repeat the digits in the order administered. Another task in this subtest involves the individual’s remembering the numbers, holding them in memory, and reversing the order sequence—that is, the individual is instructed to say them backward (Lichtenberger & Kaufman,  2009 ).

Individually administered intelligence tests—such as the WISC-IV, the WAIS-IV, and the Stanford-Binet—typically require 2 to 3 hours to administer, score, and interpret. In many clinical situations, there is not enough time or funding to use these tests. In cases where intellectual impairment or organic brain damage is thought to be central to a patient’s problem, intelligence testing may be the most crucial diagnostic procedure in the test battery. Moreover, information about cognitive functioning or deterioration can provide valuable clues to a person’s intellectual resources in dealing with problems (Kihlstrom,  2002 ). Yet in many clinical settings and for many clinical cases, gaining a thorough understanding of a client’s problems and initiating a treatment program do not require knowing the kind of detailed information about intellectual functioning that these instruments provide. In these cases, intelligence testing is not recommended.

David Wechsler (1896–1981) served in the military, testing army recruits during World War I. He came to believe that the ways in which psychologists viewed and measured “intelligence” was inadequate. In 1934 he began construction of the most widely used adult intelligence test battery, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), which set the standard for practical measurement of intelligence.

PROJECTIVE PERSONALITY TESTS

There are a great many tests designed to measure personal characteristics other than intellectual ability. It is customary to group these  personality tests  into projective and objective measures.  Projective personality tests  are unstructured in that they rely on various ambiguous stimuli such as inkblots or vague pictures rather than on explicit verbal questions, and in that the person’s responses are not limited to the “true,” “false,” or “cannot say” variety. Through their interpretations of these ambiguous materials, people reveal a good deal about their personal preoccupations, conflicts, motives, coping techniques, and other personality characteristics. An assumption underlying the use of projective techniques is that in trying to make sense out of vague, unstructured stimuli, individuals “project” their own problems, motives, and wishes into the situation. Such responses are akin to the childhood pastime of seeing objects or scenes in cloud formations, with the important exception that the stimuli are in this case fixed and largely the same for all subjects. It is the latter circumstance that permits determination of the normative range of responses to the test materials, which in turn can be used to identify objectively deviant responding. Thus projective tests are aimed at discovering the ways in which an individual’s past learning and personality structure may lead him or her to organize and perceive ambiguous information from the environment. Prominent among the several projective tests in common use are the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and sentence completion tests.

The Rorschach The  Rorschach Inkblot Test  is named after the Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach (1884–1922), who initiated the experimental use of inkblots in personality assessment in 1911. The test uses 10 inkblot pictures, to which a subject responds in succession after being instructed as follows (Exner,  1993 ):

·   People may see many different things in these inkblot pictures; now tell me what you see, what it makes you think of, what it means to you.

The following excerpts are taken from a subject’s responses to one of the actual blots:

·   This looks like two men with genital organs exposed. They have had a terrible fight and blood has splashed up against the wall. They have knives or sharp instruments in their hands and have just cut up a body. They have already taken out the lungs and other organs. The body is dismembered … nothing remains but a shell … the pelvic region. They were fighting as to who will complete the final dismemberment … like two vultures swooping down ….

The extremely violent content of this response was not common for this particular blot or for any other blot in the series. Although no responsible examiner would base conclusions on a single instance, such content was consistent with other data from this subject, who was diagnosed as an antisocial personality with strong hostility.

Use of the Rorschach in clinical assessment is complicated and requires considerable training (Exner & Erdberg,  2002 ; Weiner & Meyer,  2009 ). Methods of administering the test vary; some approaches can take several hours and hence must compete for time with other essential clinical services. Furthermore, the results of the Rorschach can be unreliable because of the subjective nature of test interpretations. For example, interpreters might disagree on the symbolic significance of the response “a house in flames.” One person might interpret this particular response as suggesting great feelings of anxiety, whereas another interpreter might see it as suggesting a desire on the part of the patient to set fires. One reason for the diminished use of the Rorschach in projective testing today comes from the fact that many clinical treatments used in today’s mental health facilities generally require specific behavioral descriptions rather than descriptions of deep-seated personality dynamics, such as those that typically result from interpretation of the Rorschach Test.

In the hands of a skilled interpreter, however, the Rorschach can be useful in uncovering certain psychodynamic issues, such as the impact of unconscious motivations on current perceptions of others (Weiner, 2013). Furthermore, there have been attempts to objectify Rorschach interpretations by clearly specifying test variables and empirically exploring their relationship to external criteria such as clinical diagnoses (Exner,  1995 ). The Rorschach, although generally considered an open-ended, subjective instrument, has been adapted for computer interpretation (Exner,  1987 ). In a study of the reliability of conclusions drawn from the computer intepretation system, Meyer and colleagues ( 2005 ) found that clinicians tended to draw the same conclusions from Rorschach responses as the computer system did.

Some researchers, however, have raised questions about the norms on which the Exner Rorschach Comprehensive System, a scoring and interpretation system, is based (Shaffer et al.,  1999 ; Wood et al.,  2001 ). The Rorschach was shown to “overpathologize” persons taking the test—that is, the test appears to show psychopathology even when the person is a “normal” person randomly drawn from the community. The extent to which the Rorschach provides valid information beyond what is available from other, more economical instruments has not been demonstrated. Although some researchers have rallied support for the Comprehensive System (Hibbard,  2003 ; Weiner & Meyer,  2009 ), the Rorschach test has also been widely criticized as an instrument with low or negligible validity (Garb et al.,  1998 ; Hunsley & Bailey,  1999 ). The use of the test in clinical assessment has diminished somewhat (Piotrowski et al.,  1998 ), in part because insurance companies do not pay for the considerable amount of time needed to administer, score, and interpret the test. However, the Rorschach remains one of the most frequently used instruments in personality assessment—even in some personnel assessment settings, as described by Del Guidice ( 2010 )—and research today.

The Thematic Apperception Test The  Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)  was introduced in 1935 by its authors, C. D. Morgan and Henry Murray of the Harvard Psychological Clinic. It still is widely used in clinical practice (Rossini & Moretti,  1997 ) and personality research (Teglasi,  2010 ). The TAT uses a series of simple pictures, some highly representational and others quite abstract, about which a subject is instructed to make up stories. The content of the pictures, much of them depicting people in various contexts, is highly ambiguous as to actions and motives, so subjects tend to project their own conflicts and worries onto it (see Morgan,  2002 , for a historical description of the test stimuli).

Several scoring and interpretation systems have been developed to focus on different aspects of a subject’s stories such as expressions of needs (Atkinson,  1992 ), the person’s perception of reality (Arnold,  1962 ), and the person’s fantasies (Klinger,  1979 ). It is time-consuming to apply these systems, and there is little evidence that they make a clinically significant contribution. Hence, most often a clinician simply makes a qualitative and subjective determination of how the story content reflects the person’s underlying traits, motives, and preoccupations. Such interpretations often depend as much on “art” as on “science,” and there is much room for error in such an informal procedure.

An example of the way a subject’s problems may be reflected in TAT stories is shown in the following case, which is based on Card 1 (a picture of a boy staring at a violin on a table in front of him). The client, David, was a 15-year-old boy who had been referred to the clinic by his parents because of their concern about his withdrawal and poor work at school.

David’s TAT Response David was generally cooperative during the testing, although he remained rather unemotional and unenthusiastic throughout. When he was given Card 1 of the TAT, he paused for over a minute, carefully scrutinizing the card.

“I think this is a … uh … machine gun … yeah, it’s a machine gun. The guy is staring at it. Maybe he got it for his birthday or stole it or something.” [Pause. The examiner reminded him that he was to make up a story about the picture.]

“OK. This boy, I’ll call him Karl, found this machine gun … a Browning automatic rifle … in his garage. He kept it in his room for protection. One day he decided to take it to school to quiet down the jocks that lord it over everyone. When he walked into the locker hall, he cut loose on the top jock, Amos, and wasted him. Nobody bothered him after that because they knew he kept the BAR in his locker.”

It was inferred from this story that David was experiencing a high level of frustration and anger in his life. The extent of this anger was reflected in his perception of the violin in the picture as a machine gun—an instrument of violence. The clinician concluded that David was feeling threatened not only by people at school but even in his own home, where he needed “protection.”

This example shows how stories based on TAT cards may provide a clinician with information about a person’s conflicts and worries as well as clues as to how the person is handling these problems.

The TAT has been criticized on several grounds (Lilienfeld et al.,  2001 ). There is a “dated” quality to the test stimuli: The pictures, developed in the 1930s, appear quaint to many contemporary subjects, who have difficulty identifying with the characters in the pictures. Subjects often preface their stories with, “This is something from a movie I saw on the late-night movies.” Additionally, the TAT can require a great deal of time to administer and interpret. As with the Rorschach, interpretation of responses to the TAT is generally subjective, which limits the reliability and validity of the test.

A review (Rossini & Moretti,  1997 ) pointed out an interesting paradox: Even though the TAT remains popular among practicing clinicians, clinical training programs have reduced the amount of time devoted to teaching graduate students about the TAT, and relatively few contemporary training resources (such as books and manuals) exist. Again, we must note that some examiners, notably those who have long experience in the instrument’s use, are capable of making astonishingly accurate interpretations with TAT stories. Typically, however, they have difficulty teaching these skills to others. On reflection, such an observation should not be unduly surprising, but it does point to the essentially “artistic” element involved at this skill level.

Sentence Completion Test  Another projective procedure that has proved useful in personality assessment is the  sentence completion test  (Fernald & Fernald,  2010 ). A number of such tests have been designed for children, adolescents, and adults.

Such tests consist of the beginnings of sentences that a person is asked to complete, as in these examples:

·  1. I wish ________________________________________

·  2. My mother ____________________________________

·  3. Sex __________________________________________

·  4. I hate ________________________________________

·  5. People _______________________________________

Sentence completion tests, which are related to the free-association method, a procedure in which the client is asked to respond freely, are somewhat more structured than the Rorschach and most other projective tests. They help examiners pinpoint important clues to an individual’s problems, attitudes, and symptoms through the content of her or his responses. Interpretation of the item responses, however, is generally subjective and unreliable. Despite the fact that the test stimuli (the sentence stems) are standard, interpretation is usually done in an ad hoc manner and without benefit of normative comparisons.

In sum, projective tests have an important place in many clinical settings, particularly those that attempt to obtain a comprehensive picture of a person’s psychodynamic functioning and those that have the necessary trained staff to conduct extensive individual psychological evaluations. The great strengths of projective techniques—their unstructured nature and their focus on the unique aspects of personality—are at the same time their weaknesses because they make interpretation subjective, unreliable, and difficult to validate. Moreover, projective tests typically require a great deal of time to administer and advanced skill to interpret—both scarce quantities in many clinical settings.

Starke R. Hathaway (1903–1984), clinical psychologist, was a pioneer in physiological psychology and personality assessment. In 1940, he and J. C. McKinley published the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) for evaluating symptoms and behavior of psychiatric and medical patients. The MMPI became the most widely used personality assessment instrument in use, and its revised version (MMPI-2) is the most frequently used personality measure today.

J. C. McKinley (1891–1950), a neuropsychiatrist at the University of Minnesota Hospital, coauthored the MMPI with Starke Hathaway and conducted research on the MMPI with both medical and psychiatric populations.

OBJECTIVE PERSONALITY TESTS

Objective personality tests  are structured—that is, they typically use questionnaires, self-report inventories, or rating scales in which questions or items are carefully phrased and alternative responses are specified as choices. They therefore involve a far more controlled format than projective devices and thus are more amenable to objectively based quantification. One virtue of such quantification is its precision, which in turn enhances the reliability of test outcomes.

There are a large number of available personality assessment measures for use in personality and clinical assessment. For example, the NEO-PI (Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Personality Inventory) provides information on the major dimensions in personality and is widely used in evaluating personality factors in normal-range populations (Costa & Widiger,  2002 ). There are also many objective assessment instruments developed to assess focused clinical problems. For example, the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III; see Choca,  2004 ) was developed to evaluate the underlying personality dimensions among clients in psychological treatment. In this chapter, we will focus primarily upon the most widely used personality assessment instrument, the MMPI-2.

The MMPI One of the major structured inventories for personality assessment is the  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) , now called the MMPI-2 for adults after a revision in 1989 (Butcher,  2011 ; Greene,  2011 ). We focus on it here because in many ways it is the prototype and the standard of this class of instruments.

Several years in development, the MMPI was introduced for general use in 1943 by Starke Hathaway and J. C. McKinley; it is today the most widely used personality test for clinical and  forensic —court related—assessment and in psycho-pathology research in the United States (Archer et al.,  2006 ; Lally,  2003 ). It is also the assessment instrument most frequently taught in graduate clinical psychology programs (Piotrowski & Zalewski,  1993 ). Over 19,000 books and articles on the MMPI instruments have been published since the test was introduced. Moreover, translated versions of the inventory are widely used internationally (the original MMPI was translated over 150 times and used in over 46 countries; Butcher,  2010 ). International use of the revised inventory is increasing rapidly; over 32 translations have been made since it was published in 1989 (Butcher & Williams,  2009 ).

The Validity and Clinical Scales of the MMPI The original MMPI, a self-report questionnaire, consisted of 550 items covering topics ranging from physical condition and psychological states to moral and social attitudes. Typically, clients are encouraged to answer all of the items either “true” or “false.” The pool of items was originally administered to a large group of normal individuals (affectionately called the “Minnesota normals”) and several quite homogeneous groups of patients with particular psychiatric diagnoses. Answers to all the items were then item-analyzed to see which ones differentiated the various groups. On the basis of the findings, the 10 clinical scales were constructed, each consisting of the items that were answered by one of the patient groups in the direction opposite to the predominant response of the normal group. This rather ingenious method of selecting scorable items, known as “empirical keying,” originated with the MMPI and doubtless accounts for much of the instrument’s power. Note that it involves no subjective prejudgment about the “meaning” of a true or false answer to any item; that meaning resides entirely in whether the answer is the same as the answer deviantly given by patients of varying diagnoses. Should an examinee’s pattern of true and false responses closely approximate that of a particular pathological group, it is a reasonable inference that he or she shares other psychiatrically significant characteristics with that group—and may in fact “psychologically” be a member of that group. (See the MMPI-2 profile in  Table 4.1 .)

TABLE 4.1 The Scales of the MMPI-2

Validity Scales
Cannot say score (?)	Measures the total number of unanswered items
Infrequency scale (F)	Measures the tendency to falsely claim or exaggerate psychological problems in the first part of the booklet; alternatively, detects random responding
Infrequency scale (FB)	Measures the tendency to falsely claim or exaggerate psychological problems on items toward the end of the booklet
Infrequency scale (Fp)	Measures the tendency to exaggerate psychological problems among psychiatric inpatients
Lie scale (L)	Measures the tendency to claim excessive virtue or to try to present an overall favorable image
Defensiveness scale (K)	Measures the tendency to see oneself in an unrealistically positive way
Superlative Self-Presentation scale (S)	Measures the tendency for some people to present themselves in a highly positive manner or superlative manner. The S scale contains 5 subscales that address ways in which the person presents in an overpositive manner.
Response Inconsistency scale (VRIN)	Measures the tendency to endorse items in an inconsistent or random manner
Response Inconsistency scale (TRIN)	Measures the tendency to endorse items in an inconsistently true or false manner
Clinical Scales
Scale 1 Hypochondriasis (Hs)	Measures excessive somatic concern and physical complaints
Scale 2 Depression (D)	Measures symptomatic depression
Scale 3 Hysteria (Hy)	Measures hysteroid personality features such as a “rose-colored glasses” view of the world and the tendency to develop physical problems under stress
Scale 4 Psychopathic deviate (Pd)	Measures antisocial tendencies
Scale 5 Masculinity-femininity (Mf)	Measures gender-role reversal
Scale 6 Paranoia (Pa)	Measures suspicious, paranoid ideation
Scale 7 Psychasthenia (Pt)	Measures anxiety and obsessive, worrying behavior
Scale 8 Schizophrenia (Sc)	Measures peculiarities in thinking, feeling, and social behavior
Scale 9 Hypomania (Ma)	Measures unrealistically elated mood state and tendencies to yield to impulses
Scale 0 Social introversion (Si)	Measures social anxiety, withdrawal, and overcontrol
Special Scales
Scale APS Addiction Proneness scale	Assesses the extent to which the person matches personality features of people in substance-use treatment
Scale AAS Addiction Acknowledgment scale	Assesses the extent to which the person has acknowledged substance-abuse problems
Scale MAC-R MacAndrew Addiction scale	An empirical scale measuring proneness to become addicted to various substances
Scale MDS Marital Distress scale	Assesses perceived marital relationship problems
Hostility scale (Ho)	Addresses hostility or anger control problems
Posttraumatic Stress scale (Pk)	Assesses a number of symptoms and attitudes that are found among people who are experiencing posttraumatic stress problems

Each of these 10 clinical scales thus measures tendencies to respond in psychologically deviant ways. Raw scores on these scales are compared with the corresponding scores of the normal population, many of whom did (and do) answer a few items in the critical direction (suggesting psychological problems), and the results are plotted on the standard MMPI profile form. By drawing a line connecting the scores for the different scales, a clinician can construct a profile that shows how far from normal a patient’s performance is on each of the scales. To reiterate the basic strategy with an example, the Schizophrenia scale is made up of the items that patients diagnosed with schizophrenia consistently answered in a way that differentiated them from normal individuals. People who score high (relative to norms) on this scale, though not necessarily schizophrenic, often show characteristics typical of that clinical population. For instance, high scorers on this scale may be socially inept, may be withdrawn, and may have peculiar thought processes; they may have diminished contact with reality and, in severe cases, may have delusions and hallucinations.

The MMPI also includes a number of validity scales to detect whether a patient has answered the questions in a straightforward, honest manner. For example, there is one scale that detects lying by one’s claiming of extreme virtue and several scales that detect possible malingering or faking of symptoms. Extreme endorsement of the items on any of these scales may invalidate the test, whereas lesser endorsements frequently contribute important interpretive insights. In addition to the validity scales and the 10 clinical scales, a number of additional scales have been devised—for example, to detect substance abuse, marital distress, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

Clinically, the MMPI is used in several ways to evaluate a patient’s personality characteristics and clinical problems. Perhaps the most typical use of the MMPI is as a diagnostic standard. As we have seen, the individual’s profile pattern is compared with profiles of known patient groups. If the profile matches a group, information about patients in this group can suggest a broad descriptive diagnosis for the patient under study.

Revision of the Original MMPI The original MMPI, in spite of being the most widely used personality measure, has not been without its critics. Some psychodynamically oriented clinicians felt that the MMPI (like other structured, objective tests) was superficial and did not adequately reflect the complexities of an individual taking the test. Some behaviorally oriented critics, on the other hand, criticized the MMPI (and in fact, the entire genre of personality tests) as being too oriented toward measuring unobservable “mentalistic” constructs such as traits. A more specific criticism was leveled at the datedness of the MMPI.

In response to these criticisms, the publisher of the MMPI sponsored a revision of the instrument. The scales listed on the standard original MMPI-2 profile form are described in  Table 4.1 . This revised MMPI, designated “MMPI-2” for adults, became available for general professional use in mid-1989 (Butcher,  2011 ; Butcher, Graham, et al.,  2001 ), and the MMPIA for adolescents (see Williams & Butcher,  2011 ) was published in 1992. The original 10 clinical scales were kept on the revised version. The revised versions of the MMPI have been validated in many clinical studies (Butcher et al.,  2000 ; Graham, Ben-Porath, & McNulty,  1999 ; Greene,  2011 ).

Research has provided strong support for the revised versions of the MMPI (Greene et al.,  2003 ). The clinical scales, which, apart from minimal item deletion or rewording, have been retained in their original form, seem to measure the same properties of personality organization and functioning as they always have. A comparable stability of meaning is observed for the standard validity scales (also essentially unchanged), which have been reinforced with three additional scales to detect tendencies to respond untruthfully to some items.

Advantages and Limitations of Objective Personality Tests Self-report inventories such as the MMPI have a number of advantages over other types of personality tests. They are cost effective, highly reliable, and objective; they also can be scored and interpreted (and, if desired, even administered) by computer. A number of general criticisms, however, have been leveled against the use of self-report inventories. As we have seen, some clinicians consider them too mechanistic to portray the complexity of human beings and their problems accurately. Also, because these tests require the subject to read, comprehend, and answer verbal material, patients who are illiterate or confused cannot take the tests. Furthermore, the individual’s cooperation is required in self-report inventories, and it is possible that the person might distort his or her answers to create a particular impression. The validity scales of the MMPI-2 are a direct attempt to deal with this last criticism.

Because of their scoring formats and emphasis on test validation, scientifically constructed objective personality inventories lend themselves particularly well to automated interpretation. The earliest practical applications of computer technology to test scoring and interpretation involved the MMPI. Over 50 years ago, psychologists at the Mayo Clinic programmed a computer to score and interpret clinical profiles. Computerized personality assessment has evolved substantially over the past few years, and other highly sophisticated MMPI and MMPI-2 interpretation systems have been developed (Butcher et al.,  2004 ). Computer-based MMPI interpretation systems typically employ powerful  actuarial procedures (Grove et al.,  2000 ). In such systems, descriptions of the actual behavior or other established characteristics of many subjects with particular patterns of test scores have been stored in the computer. Whenever a person has one of these test score patterns, the appropriate description is printed out in the computer’s evaluation. Such descriptions have been written and stored for a number of different test score patterns, most of them based on MMPI-2 scores.

The accumulation of precise actuarial data for an instrument like the MMPI-2 is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. This is in part because of the complexity of the instrument itself; the potential number of significantly different MMPI-2 profile patterns is legion. The profiles of many subjects therefore do not “fit” the profile types for which actuarial data are available. Problems of actuarial data acquisition also arise at the other end: the behaviors or problems that are to be detected or predicted by the instrument. Many conditions that are of vital clinical importance are relatively rare (for example, suicide) or are psychologically complex (for example, possible psychogenic components in a patient’s physical illness). Thus it is difficult to accumulate enough cases to serve as an adequate actuarial database. In these situations, the interpretive program writer is forced to fall back on general clinical lore and wisdom to formulate clinical descriptions appropriate to the types of profiles actually obtained.

Sometimes the different paragraphs generated by the computer have inconsistencies resulting from the fact that different parts of a subject’s test pattern call up different paragraphs from the computer. The computer simply prints out blindly what has been found to be typical for people making similar scores on the various clinical scales and cannot integrate the descriptions it picks up. At this point the human element comes in: In the clinical use of computers, it is always essential that a trained professional further interpret and monitor the assessment data (Atlis et al.,  2006 ).

Computerized personality assessment is no longer a novelty but an important, dependable adjunct to clinical assessment. Computerized psychological evaluations are a quick and efficient means of providing a clinician with needed information early in the decision-making process. Examples of computer-generated descriptions for the case of Andrea C., presented in the next section, appear in the evaluations reprinted in the Developments in Practice box starting on page 118.

The Case of Andrea C.: Experiencing Violence in the Workplace

Andrea C., a 49-year-old divorced woman, was employed as a manager in a firm whose office was located in a somewhat isolated section of the community. Her responsibilities included opening the office building at 6:00 a.m. and preparing the office activities for the day. She felt somewhat unsafe in opening up the office alone and had complained to upper management about the lack of security in the building. One morning, as she was opening the door to the building, she was accosted by a stranger who hit her on the head, knocking her unconscious, breaking her nose, and cutting her face and neck. The assailant stabbed her several times in her leg and attempted to sexually assault her but ran away with her purse as car lights came on the street.

Andrea suffered a number of physical injuries and recurring symptoms from the assault and was hospitalized for 8 days following the attack. Her symptoms included a fractured skull, fractured nose, multiple stab wounds on her body, facial injuries, dizziness, impaired balance, wrist pain, residual cognitive symptoms from being unconscious, poor memory, intense anxiety, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. After recovery from the physical injuries she was fearful to return to work, and she applied for disability as a result of her injuries. The company for which she worked rejected her request, and she filed a lawsuit for personal injury disability.

A psychological evaluation was requested by the company’s insurer to determine the legitimacy of Andrea’s disability claim. As a central part of the evaluation, the MMPI-2 was administered by the psychologist hired by the defense to appraise Andrea’s personality and symptoms (see the validity, clinical, and supplementary profiles shown in  Figures 4.1  and  4.2 ). The MMPI-2 clinical scale pattern shows clear mental health problems. Her clinical scale pattern with the high scores on the D (Depression) scale, the Hs (Hypochondriasis), and Pt (Anxiety) scales, along with the high score obtained on the PTSD scale, indicate that she is experiencing mental health symptoms related to stressful life events. A full description of this symptom picture is presented in the computer-based interpretive report shown in the Developments in Practice box.

FIGURE 4.1 Profile of the MMPI-2 Validity Scales for Andrea C.

Source:  Excerpted from The Minnesota Report™ : Adult Clinical System-Revised, 4th Edition by James N. Butcher.

FIGURE 4.2 Profile of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales and Supplementary Scales for Andrea C.

Source: Excerpted from  The Minnesota Report™ : Adult Clinical System-Revised, 4th Edition by James N. Butcher.

Interestingly, the insurance company psychological expert recommended against Andrea’s receiving compensation based on his interpretation of a controversial psychological scale (referred to as the Fake Bad Scale, or FBS) that was designed to assess “malingering.” After an initial hearing to examine the validity and acceptability of the FBS, the judge in the case prohibited the use of the scale as a measure of effort, malingering, or over-reporting of symptoms to bolster his opinion.

The case went to trial, and Andrea’s attorneys relied upon the medical evidence and results of the MMPI-2 to support her claim of physical damages and posttraumatic adjustment problems. The jury awarded Andrea substantial damages as a result of the injuries and the trauma that she experienced from the assault.

EVALUATING ANDREA’S COMPUTER-GENERATED MMPI-2 REPORT

The narrative report of the computer-based MMPI-2 interpretation contains technical test information to assist the assessment psychologist in interpreting the test results. The report is considered a professional-to-professional consultation and is not recommended for release to patients. The computer report for Andrea contains detailed data about the relative frequency of the test pattern’s occurrence in relevant clinical settings and in the normative or standardized population. For example, the report provides information as to how Andrea’s elevated clinical scale scores compare with persons being evaluated in an outpatient clinical setting as well as the frequency of the score in the MMPI-2 general normative sample of women. Her test results indicated that her highest score, the Depression scale score, typically occurs in 18.7 percent of the outpatient women. Moreover, only 4.4 percent of women in the normative sample obtain this high elevation on the Depression scale. Thus, this high Depression scale elevation is considered to be a relatively common symptom among women seeking outpatient mental health services.

developments in PRACTICE: Computer-Based MMPI-2 Report for Andrea C .

PROFILE VALIDITY

This client endorsed a number of psychological problems, suggesting that she is experiencing a high degree of stress. Although the MMPI-2 clinical scale profile is probably valid, it may show some exaggeration of symptoms. In addition, please note that the client’s approach to the MMPI-2 items was somewhat inconsistent. She endorsed items in a pattern that suggests some carelessness or inattention to content.

SYMPTOMATIC PATTERNS

Her profile configuration, which incorporates correlates of Hs and D, is not as clearly defined as those of many other clients from this clinical setting. In interpreting the profile, the practitioner should also consider any prominent clinical scale elevations that are close in elevation to the prototype. This client’s profile presents a broad and mixed picture in which physical complaints and depressed affect are likely to be salient features. The client is exhibiting much somatic distress and may be experiencing a problem with her psychological adjustment. Her physical complaints are probably extreme, possibly reflecting a general lack of effectiveness in life. There are likely to be long-standing personality problems predisposing her to develop physical symptoms under stress. She is probably feeling quite tense and nervous, and she may be feeling that she cannot get by without help for her physical problems. She is likely to be reporting a great deal of pain, and she feels that others do not understand how sick she is feeling. She may be quite irritable and may become hostile if her symptoms are not given “proper” attention.

Many individuals with this profile have a history of psychophysiological disorders. They tend to overreact to minor problems with physical symptoms. Ulcers and gastrointestinal distress are common. The possibility of actual organic problems, therefore, should be carefully evaluated. Individuals with this profile report a great deal of tension and a depressed mood. They tend to be pessimistic and gloomy in their outlook.

In addition, the following description is suggested by the client’s scores on the content scales. She endorsed a number of items suggesting that she is experiencing low morale and a depressed mood. She reports a preoccupation with feeling guilty and unworthy. She feels that she deserves to be punished for wrongs she has committed. She feels regretful and unhappy about life, and she seems plagued by anxiety and worry about the future. She feels hopeless at times and feels that she is a condemned person. She has difficulty managing routine affairs, and the items she endorsed suggest a poor memory, concentration problems, and an inability to make decisions. She appears to be immobilized and withdrawn and has no energy for life. She views her physical health as failing and reports numerous somatic concerns. She feels that life is no longer worthwhile and that she is losing control of her thought processes.

According to her response content, there is a strong possibility that she has seriously contemplated suicide. She feels somewhat self-alienated and expresses some personal misgivings or a vague sense of remorse about past acts. She feels that life is unrewarding and dull, and she finds it hard to settle down. The client’s response content suggests that she feels intensely fearful about a large number of objects and activities. This hypersensitivity and fearfulness appear to be generalized at this point and may be debilitating to her in social and work situations.

Long-term personality factors identified by other scale elevations may help provide a clinical context for the symptoms she is presently experiencing. She apparently holds some unusual beliefs that appear to be disconnected from reality. Her high score on one MMPI-2 scale, the PSYC (Psychoticism) scale, suggests that she often feels alienated from others and might experience unusual symptoms such as delusional beliefs, circumstantial and tangential thinking, and loose associations. She also shows a meager capacity to experience pleasure in life. Persons with high scores on another MMPI-2 scale, the INTR (Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality), tend to be pessimistic.

PROFILE FREQUENCY

Profile interpretation can be greatly facilitated by examining the relative frequency of clinical scale patterns in various settings. The client’s high-point clinical scale score (D) occurred in 7.0 percent of the MMPI-2 normative sample of women. However, only 4.4 percent of the women had D scale peak scores at or above a T score of 65, and only 2.1 percent had well-defined D spikes. Her elevated MMPI-2 profile configuration (1-2/2-1) is rare in samples of normals, occurring in 1.0 percent of the MMPI-2 normative sample of women.

This high-point MMPI-2 score is the most frequent clinical scale score in various samples of outpatient women. In the Pearson outpatient sample, the high-point clinical scale score on D occurred in 18.7 percent of the women. Moreover, 17.1 percent of the outpatient women had the D scale spike at or above a T score of 65, and 9.0 percent had well-defined D spikes. Her elevated MMPI-2 profile configuration (1-2/2-1) occurred in 2.9 percent of the women in the Pearson outpatient sample.

PROFILE STABILITY

The relative elevation of her clinical scale scores suggests that her profile is not as well defined as many other profiles. There was no difference between the profile type used to develop the present report (involving Hs and D) and the next highest scale in the profile code. Therefore, behavioral elements related to elevations on Pt should be considered as well. For example, intensification of anxiety, negative self-image, and unproductive rumination could be important in her symptom pattern.

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

She appears to be somewhat passive-dependent in relationships. She may manipulate others through her physical symptoms, and she may become hostile if sufficient attention is not paid to her complaints.

She is a very introverted person who has difficulty meeting and interacting with other people. She is shy and emotionally distant. She tends to be very uneasy, rigid, and overcontrolled in social situations. Her shyness is probably symptomatic of a broader pattern of social withdrawal. Personality characteristics related to social introversion tend to be stable over time. Her generally reclusive behavior, introverted lifestyle, and tendency toward interpersonal avoidance may be prominent in any future test results.

The client’s scores on the content scales suggest the following additional information concerning her interpersonal relations. She appears to be an individual who has rather cynical views about life. Any efforts to initiate new behaviors may be colored by her negativism. She may view relationships with others as threatening and harmful.

DIAGNOSTIC CONSIDERATIONS

Individuals with this profile type are often seen as neurotic and may receive a diagnosis of somatoform disorder. Actual organic problems such as ulcers or hypertension might be part of the clinical picture. Some individuals with this profile have problems with abuse of pain medication or other prescription drugs.

TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Her view of herself as physically disabled needs to be considered in any treatment planning. She tends to somatize her difficulties and to seek medical solutions rather than deal with them psychologically. She seems to tolerate a high level of psychological conflict and may not be motivated to deal with her problems directly. She is probably not a strong candidate for psychotherapy treatment approaches that require self-scrutiny, insight development, and high motivation for change. Psychological treatment may progress more rapidly if her symptoms are dealt with through behavior modification techniques. However, with her generally pessimistic attitude and low energy resources, she seems to have little hope of getting better.

The client’s scores on the content scales seem to indicate low potential for change. She may feel that her problems are not addressable through therapy and that she is not likely to benefit much from psychological treatment at this time. Her apparently negative treatment attitudes may need to be explored early in therapy if treatment is to be successful.

She harbors many negative work attitudes that could limit her adaptability in the workplace. Her low morale and lack of interest in work could impair future adjustment to employment, a factor that should be taken into consideration in treatment.

Source: Excerpted from  The Minnesota Report™ : Adult Clinical System-Revised, 4th Edition by James N. Butcher.

The reader should also note that there are some scales mentioned in the computer narrative report for Andrea that are not listed in  Table 4.1 . There are a number of other MMPI-2 scales in the literature and in common use with the MMPI-2 that are not listed due to space restrictions in this book. For example, there are 15 MMPI-2 content-based scales, that is, scales that are comprised of homogeneous content themes (such as Negative Work Attitudes, Family Problems, and Type-A Behavior). These scales address specific problem themes in mental health patients. In addition, there are five scales, referred to as the Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) scales that address the personality disorder content domains that are referred to as the “Big 5” personality dimensions. These personality dimensions include Aggressiveness, Psychoticism, Disconstraint, Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism, and Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality.

in review

·  • Distinguish between structured and unstructured clinical assessment interviews.

·  • What are the assumptions behind the use of projective personality tests? How do they differ from objective tests?

·  • What advantages do objective personality tests offer over less structured tests?

·  • What is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2)? Describe how the scales work.

The Integration of Assessment Data

As assessment data are collected, their significance must be interpreted so that they can be integrated into a coherent working model for use in planning. Clinicians in individual private practice normally assume this complicated task on their own. In a clinic or hospital setting, assessment data are often evaluated in a staff conference attended by members of an interdisciplinary team (perhaps consisting of a clinical psychologist, a psychiatrist, a social worker, and other mental health personnel) who are concerned with the decisions to be made regarding treatment. By putting together all the information they have gathered, they can see whether the findings complement each other and form a definitive clinical picture or whether gaps or discrepancies exist that necessitate further investigation.

In a clinic or hospital setting, assessment data are usually evaluated in a staff conference attended by members of an interdisciplinary team—including, for example, a clinical psychologist, a psychiatrist, a social worker, and a psychiatric nurse. A staff decision may determine whether a severely depressed person will be hospitalized or remain with his or her family or whether an accused person will be declared competent to stand trial. Because these decisions can have such great impact on the lives of the clients, it is critical that clinicians be well aware of the limitations of assessment.

This integration of all the data gathered at the time of an original assessment may lead to agreement on a tentative diagnostic classification for a patient. In any case, the findings of each member of the team, as well as the recommendations for treatment, are entered into the case record so that it will always be possible to check back and see why a certain course of therapy was undertaken, how accurate the clinical assessment was, and how valid the treatment decision turned out to be.

New assessment data collected during the course of therapy provide feedback on its effectiveness and serve as a basis for making needed modifications in an ongoing treatment program. As we have noted, clinical assessment data are also commonly used in evaluating the final outcome of therapy and in comparing the effectiveness of different therapeutic and preventive approaches.

Ethical Issues in Assessment

The decisions made on the basis of assessment data may have far-reaching implications for the people involved. A staff decision may determine whether a severely depressed person will be hospitalized or remain with her or his family, or whether an accused person will be declared competent to stand trial. Thus a valid decision, based on accurate assessment data, is of far more than theoretical importance. Because of the impact that assessment can have on the lives of others, it is important that those involved keep several factors in mind in evaluating test results:

·  1.  Potential Cultural Bias of the Instrument or the Clinician: There is the possibility that some psychological tests may not elicit valid information for a patient from a minority group (Gray-Little,  2009 ; Wen-Shing & Streltzer,  2008 ). A clinician from one sociocultural background may have trouble assessing objectively the behavior of someone from another background. It is important to ensure—as Greene, Robin, Albaugh, Caldwell, and Goldman ( 2003 ) and Hall, Bansal, and Lopez ( 1999 ) have shown with the MMPI-2—that the instrument can be confidently used with persons from minority groups.

·  2.  Theoretical Orientation of the Clinician: Assessment is inevitably influenced by a clinician’s assumptions, perceptions, and theoretical orientation. For example, a psychoanalyst and a behaviorist might assess the same behaviors quite differently. The psychoanalytically oriented professional is likely to view behaviors as reflecting underlying motives, whereas the behavioral clinician is likely to view the behaviors in the context of the immediate or preceding stimulus situations. Different treatment recommendations are likely to result.

·  3.  Underemphasis on the External Situation: Many clinicians overemphasize personality traits as the cause of patients’ problems without paying enough attention to the possible role of stressors and other circumstances in the patients’ life situations. An undue focus on a patient’s personality, which some assessment techniques encourage, can divert attention from potentially critical environmental factors.

·  4.  Insufficient Validation: Some psychological assessment procedures in use today have not been sufficiently validated. For example, unlike many of the personality scales, widely used procedures for behavioral observation and behavioral self-report and the projective techniques have not been subjected to strict psychometric validation.

·  5.  Inaccurate Data or Premature Evaluation: There is always the possibility that some assessment data—and any diagnostic label or treatment based on them—may be inaccurate or that the team leader (usually a psychiatrist) might choose to ignore test data in favor of other information. Some risk is always involved in making predictions for an individual on the basis of group data or averages. Inaccurate data or premature conclusions may not only lead to a misunderstanding of a patient’s problem but also close off attempts to get further information, with possibly grave consequences for the patient.

in review

·  • What are some ethical issues that clinicians should be aware of when evaluating a patient’s test results?

·  • Are there concerns over cultural biases in some psychological tests?

·  • What is test validity?

Classifying Abnormal Behavior

Classification is important in any science, whether we are studying chemical elements, plants, planets, or people. With an agreed-upon classification system we can be confident that we are communicating clearly. If someone says to you, “I saw a dog running down the street,” you can probably produce a mental image broadly approximating the appearance of that dog—not from seeing it but rather from your knowledge of animal classifications. There are of course many breeds of dogs, which vary widely in size, color, muzzle length, and so on, and yet we have little difficulty in recognizing the essential features of “dogness.” “Dogness” is an example of what psychologists refer to as a “cognitive prototype” or “pattern.”

In abnormal psychology, classification involves the attempt to delineate meaningful subvarieties of maladaptive behavior. Like defining abnormal behavior, classification of some kind is a necessary first step toward introducing order into our discussion of the nature, causes, and treatment of such behavior. Classification makes it possible to communicate about particular clusters of abnormal behavior in agreed-upon and relatively precise ways. For example, we cannot conduct research on what might cause eating disorders unless we begin with a more or less clear definition of the behavior under examination; otherwise, we would be unable to select, for intensive study, persons whose behavior displays the aberrant eating patterns we hope to understand. There are other reasons for diagnostic classifications, too, such as gathering statistics on how common the various types of disorders are and meeting the needs of medical insurance companies (which insist on having formal diagnoses before they will authorize payment of claims).

Keep in mind that, just as with the process of defining abnormality itself, all classification is the product of human invention—it is, in essence, a matter of making generalizations based on what has been observed. Even when observations are precise and carefully made, the generalizations we arrive at go beyond those observations and enable us to make inferences about underlying similarities and differences. For example, it is common for people experiencing episodes of panic to feel they are about to die. When “panic” is carefully delineated, we find that it is not in fact associated with any enhanced risk of death but, rather, that the people experiencing such episodes tend to share certain other characteristics, such as recent exposure to highly stressful events.

It is not unusual for a classification system to be an ongoing work in progress as new knowledge demonstrates an earlier generalization to be incomplete or flawed. It is important to bear in mind, too, that formal classification is successfully accomplished only through precise techniques of psychological, or clinical, assessment—techniques that have been increasingly refined over the years.

Differing Models of Classification

There are currently three basic approaches to classifying abnormal behavior: the categorical, the dimensional, and the prototypal (Widiger & Boyd,  2009 ). The categorical approach, like the diagnostic system of general medical diseases, assumes (1) that all human behavior can be divided into the categories of “healthy” and “disordered,” and (2) that within the latter there exist discrete, nonoverlapping classes or types of disorder that have a high degree of within-class homogeneity in both symptoms displayed and the underlying organization of the disorder identified.

THE DIMENSIONAL APPROACH

The dimensional and prototypal approaches differ fundamentally in the assumptions they make, particularly with respect to the requirement of discrete and internally homogeneous classes of behavior. In the dimensional approach, it is assumed that a person’s typical behavior is the product of differing strengths or intensities of behavior along several definable dimensions such as mood, emotional stability, aggressiveness, gender identity, anxiousness, interpersonal trust, clarity of thinking and communication, social introversion, and so on. The important dimensions, once established, are the same for everyone. People are assumed to differ from one another in their configuration or profile of these dimensional traits (each ranging from very low to very high), not in terms of behavioral indications of a corresponding “dysfunctional” entity presumed to underlie and give rise to the disordered pattern of behavior (Miller, Reynolds, & Pilkonis,  2004 ; Widiger et al.,  2006 ). “Normal” is discriminated from “abnormal,” then, in terms of precise statistical criteria derived from dimensional intensities among unselected people in general, most of whom may be presumed to be close to average, or mentally “normal.” We could decide, for example, that anything above the 97th normative percentile on aggressiveness and anything below the 3rd normative percentile on sociability would be considered “abnormal” findings.

Dimensionally based diagnosis has the incidental benefit of directly addressing treatment options. Because the patient’s profile of psychological characteristics will normally consist of deviantly high and low points, therapies can be designed to moderate those of excessive intensity (e.g., anxiety) and to enhance those that constitute deficit status (e.g., inhibited self-assertiveness).

Of course, in taking a dimensional approach, it would be possible (perhaps even probable) to discover that such profiles tend to cluster together in types—and even that some of these types are correlated, though imperfectly, with recognizable sorts of gross behavioral malfunctions such as anxiety disorders or depression. It is highly unlikely, however, that any individual’s profile will exactly fit a narrowly defined type or that the types identified will not have some overlapping features. This brings us to the prototypal approach.

THE PROTOTYPAL APPROACH

A prototype (as the term is used here) is a conceptual entity (e.g., personality disorder) depicting an idealized combination of characteristics that more or less regularly occur together in a less-than-perfect or standard way at the level of actual observation. Westen, Shedler, and Bradley ( 2006 ), for example, suggest that the  DSM should provide a narrative description of a prototypic case of each personality disorder rather than having a listing of diagnostic criteria as it now has. The diagnostician could indicate on a 5-point scale the extent to which a patient matches this description. The clinician would simply rate the overall similarity or “match” between a patient and the prototype.

As we shall see, the official diagnostic criteria defining the various recognized classes of mental disorder, although explicitly intended to create categorical entities, more often than not result in prototypal ones. The central features of the various identified disorders are often somewhat vague, as are the boundaries purporting to separate one disorder from another. Much evidence suggests that a strict categorical approach to identifying differences among types of human behavior, whether normal or abnormal, may well be an unattainable goal. Bearing this in mind as we proceed may help you avoid some confusion. For example, we commonly find that two or more identified disorders regularly occur together in the same individual—a situation known as  comorbidity . Does this really mean that such a person has two or more entirely separate and distinct disorders? In the typical instance, probably not.

Formal Diagnostic Classification of Mental Disorders

Today, there are two major psychiatric classification systems in use: the  International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) system, published by the World Health Organization, and the  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association. The ICD-10 system is widely used in Europe and many other countries, whereas the  DSM system is the standard guide for the United States. Both systems are similar in many respects, such as in using symptoms as the focus of classification and in dividing problems into different facets (to be described in the section that follows).

Certain differences in the way symptoms are grouped in these two systems can sometimes result in a different classification on the  DSM than on the ICD-10. We will focus on the  DSM system in our discussion of what is to be considered a mental disorder. This manual specifies what subtypes of mental disorders are currently officially recognized and provides, for each, a set of defining criteria in the United States and some other countries. As already noted, the system purports to be a categorical one with sharp boundaries separating the various disorders from one another, but it is in fact a prototypal one with much fuzziness of boundaries and considerable interpenetration, or overlap, of the various “categories” of disorder it identifies.

The criteria that define the recognized categories of disorder consist for the most part of symptoms and signs. The term  symptoms  generally refers to the patient’s subjective description, the complaints she or he presents about what is wrong.  Signs , on the other hand, are objective observations that the diagnostician may make either directly (such as the patient’s inability to look another person in the eye) or indirectly (such as the results of pertinent tests administered by a psychological examiner). To make any given diagnosis, the diagnostician must observe the particular criteria—the symptoms and signs that the  DSMindicates must be met.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE  DSM

The DSM is currently in its fifth edition ( DSM-5), published in 2013 after considerable debate and controversy. This system is the product of more than a six-decade evolution involving increasing refinement and precision in the identification and description of mental disorders. The first edition of the manual ( DSM-I) appeared in 1952 and was largely an outgrowth of attempts to standardize diagnostic practices in use among military personnel in World War II. The 1968  DSM-II reflected the additional insights gleaned from a markedly expanded postwar research effort in mental health sponsored by the federal government. Over time, practitioners recognized a defect in both these early efforts: The various types of disorders identified were described in narrative and jargon-laden terms that proved too vague for mental health professionals to agree on their meaning. The result was a serious limitation of diagnostic reliability; that is, two professionals examining the same patient might very well come up with completely different impressions of what disorder(s) the patient had.  DSM-III (1980) and  DSM-IV-TR (2000) provided further modification and elaboration of disorders with efforts to make the diagnostic classification clearer.  DSM-5, published in 2013, incorporated more theoretical shifts in diagnostic thinking for many years and has been the most controversial alteration to diagnostic thinking to date.

To address this clinical and scientific impasse, the  DSM-III of 1980 introduced a radically different approach, one intended to remove, as much as possible, the element of subjective judgment from the diagnostic process. It did so by adopting an “operational” method of defining the various disorders that would officially be recognized. This innovation meant that the  DSM system would now specify the exact observations that must be made for a given diagnostic label to be applied. In a typical case, a specific number of signs or symptoms from a designated list must be present before a diagnosis can properly be assigned. The new approach, continued in the  DSM-III’s revised version of 1987 ( DSM-III-R) and in the 1994  DSM-IV, clearly enhanced diagnostic reliability and made efforts to incorporate cultural and ethnic considerations. As an example of the operational approach to diagnosis in  DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for Persistent Depressive Disorder (Dysthemia) (see  Chapter 7 ) are reproduced in the box below. Note that the revised diagnostic system combines diagnostic criteria from two diagnoses from  DSM-IV: Chronic Major Depression and Dysthymic Disorder.

DSM-5 criteria for: Persistent Depressive Disorder (Dysthymia)

This disorder represents a consolidation of DSM-IV-defined chronic major depressive disorder and dysthymic disorder.

·   A. Depressed mood for most of the day, for more days than not, as indicated by either subjective account or observation by others, for at least 2 years.  Note: In children and adolescents, mood can be irritable and duration must be at least 1 year.

·   B. Presence, while depressed, of two (or more) of the following:

·   1. Poor appetite or overeating.

·   2. Insomnia or hypersomnia.

·   3. Low energy or fatigue.

·   4. Low self-esteem.

·   5. Poor concentration or difficulty making decisions.

·   6. Feelings of hopelessness.

·   C. During the 2-year period (1 year for children or adolescents) of the disturbance, the individual has never been without the symptoms in Criteria A and B for more than 2 months at a time.

·   D. Criteria for a major depressive disorder may be continuously present for 2 years.

·   E. There has never been a manic episode or a hypomanic episode, and criteria have never been met for cyclothymic disorder.

·   F. The disturbance is not better explained by a persistent schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, delusional disorder, or other specified or unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder.

·   G. The symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition (e.g. hypothyroidism).

·   H. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Note: Because the criteria for a major depressive episode include four symptoms that are absent from the symptom list for persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia), a very limited number of individuals will have depressive symptoms that have persisted longer than 2 years but will not meet criteria for persistent depressive disorder. If full criteria for a major depressive episode have been met at some point during the current episode of illness, they should be given a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Otherwise, a diagnosis of other specified depressive disorder or unspecified depressive disorder is warranted.

Source: Reprinted with permission from the  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, (Copyright 2013). American Psychiatric Association.

The number of recognized mental disorders has increased enormously from  DSM-I to  DSM-5 due both to the addition of new diagnoses and to the elaborate subdivision of older ones. Because it is unlikely that the nature of the American psyche has changed much in the interim period, it seems more reasonable to assume that mental health professionals view their field in a different light than they did 50 years ago. The  DSM system is now both more comprehensive and more finely differentiated into subsets of disorders. Most diagnostic categories in  DSM-5 contain a listing of Subtypes and Specifiers that allow the diagnostician to further refine the diagnosis in order to provide more specific subgroupings of patients.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN DIAGNOSIS .

In the origin and manifestation of mental health symptoms, gender differences have long been noted for some disorders. Some disorders show a higher prevalence rate for male patients (such as antisocial personality) than females; other disorders (such as anorexia) are more prominently found in females. Moreover, males and females who are diagnosed with the same disorder (such as conduct disorder) often show different symptom patterns. Males have a higher rate of fighting and aggression and females have a greater tendency to lie, being truant from school and tend to run away from home. The  DSM-5 allows for gender related differences to be incorporated into the diagnosis.

APPRAISAL OF CULTURAL BACKGROUND IN  DSM-5 .

The United States is a highly diverse society that is comprised of people from multiple language and cultural backgrounds. Increasingly today, mental health practitioners find themselves engaged in a diagnostic evaluation of a client from a diverse background and with marginal or limited English language skill. The client’s ethnicity and cultural background, level of English language comprehension, religious background and the extent of their acclimation to the United States can result in incorrect appraisal of mental health symptoms. People who have not been acculturated to the environment in which they live can appear more psychologically disturbed on tests and interviews than they actually are (Okazaki, Okazaki, & Sue, 2009). It is extremely important for the clinician to carefully appraise the client’s background, including the values and attitudes they might bring to the interview, in order to reduce negative impact on the decision process.

The  DSM-5 provides a structured interview that focuses upon the patient’s approach to problems. The Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) contains sixteen questions that the practitioner can use to obtain information during a mental health assessment about the potential impact the client’s culture can have on mental health care. The interview questions inquire about the patient’s perspectives on their present problems, how they perceive the influence of others in influencing their problems, and ways in which their cultural background can influence their adjustment. Moreover, the interview inquires into what the patient’s experiences have been in seeking treatment for their problems. The interview questions attempt to obtain the client’s perspective without typecasting their problems.

THE PROBLEM OF LABELING

The psychiatric diagnoses of the sort typified by the  DSM system are not uniformly revered among mental health professionals (e.g., MacCulloch,  2010 ; Sarbin,  1997 ). One important criticism is that a psychiatric diagnosis is little more than a label applied to a defined category of socially disapproved or otherwise problematic behavior.

The diagnostic label describes neither a person nor any underlying pathological condition (“dysfunction”) the person necessarily harbors but, rather, some behavioral pattern associated with that person’s current level of functioning. Yet once a label has been assigned, it may close off further inquiry. It is all too easy—even for professionals—to accept a label as an accurate and complete description of an individual rather than of that person’s current behavior. When a person is labeled “depressed” or “schizophrenic,” others are more likely to make certain assumptions about that person that may or may not be accurate. In fact, a diagnostic label can make it hard to look at the person’s behavior objectively, without preconceptions about how he or she will act. These expectations can influence even clinically important interactions and treatment choices. For example, arrival at the diagnosis “persistent depressive disorder” may cut off any further inquiry about the patient’s life situation and lead abruptly to a prescription for antidepressant medication (Tucker,  1998 ), or the application of a label such as “borderline personality” might cause the mental health treatment staff to be less optimistic about the patient’s prognosis (Markham,  2003 ).

Once an individual is labeled, he or she may accept a redefined identity and play out the expectations of that role. (“I’m nothing but a substance abuser. I might as well do drugs—everyone expects me to anyway. Also, this is a condition deemed out of my control, so it is pointless for me to be an active participant in my treatment.”) This acquisition of a new social identity can be harmful for a variety of reasons. The pejorative and stigmatizing implications of many psychiatric labels can mark people as second-class citizens with severe limitations that are often presumed to be permanent (Link,  2001 ; Slovenko,  2001 ). They can also have devastating effects on a person’s morale, self-esteem, and relationships with others. The person so labeled may decide that he or she “is” the diagnosis and may thus adopt it as a life “career.”

Clearly, it is in the person with the disorder’s best interests for mental health professionals to be circumspect in the diagnostic process, in their use of labels, and in ensuring confidentiality with respect to both. A related change has developed over the past 50 years: For years the traditional term for a person who goes to see a mental health professional was patient, a term that is closely associated with medical sickness and a passive stance, waiting (patiently) for the doctor’s cure. Today many mental health professionals, especially those trained in nonmedical settings, prefer the term client because it implies greater participation on the part of an individual and more responsibility for bringing about his or her own recovery. We shall be using these terms interchangeably in this text.

LIMITED USEFULNESS OF DIAGNOSIS

It should be kept in mind that a  DSM diagnosis per se may be of limited usefulness. Arriving at a diagnosis is usually required, at least in the form of a “diagnostic impression,” before the commencement of clinical services. This is necessitated, perhaps unwisely, by medical insurance requirements and long-standing clinical administrative tradition. The additional information required for adequate clinical assessment may be extensive and extremely difficult to unearth. For the most part, in keeping with psychiatric tradition, that process is interview based. That is, the examiner engages the patient (or perhaps a family member of the patient) in a conversation designed to elicit the information necessary to place the patient in one or more  DSM diagnostic categories. The interviewer introduces various questions and probes, typically becoming increasingly specific as she or he develops diagnostic hypotheses and checks them out with additional probes related to the criteria for particular  DSM diagnoses. Physicians in general medical practice do something similar in the course of an examination.

DSM-5 THINKING CRITICALLY about  DSM-5: Completion does not assure acceptance

The development of  DSM-5 was an arduous task, initiated in 2007 by the American Psychiatric Association. The revision program involved obtaining substantial input from numerous mental health professionals, both practitioners and researchers, before it was completed. Although many aspects the  DSM-IV-TR were continued in the  DSM-5 because of their clarity and broad acceptance, some categories were modified, moved to different locations in the system, or even dropped. Moreover, a number of new diagnostic criteria were added.

Prior to the May 2013 release of  DSM-5, numerous articles and books were published detailing problems with the new system (e.g., Alarcón et al.,  2009 ; Batstra & Frances; Frances, 2010a, 2010b; Jones,  2012 ; Greenberg, 2013; Insel, 2013; Kirk, et al., 2013; Kornstein,  2010 ). A number of  DSM-5 critics have complained, for example, that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) was overly secretive in the development process and failed to obtain and use critical viewpoints of diagnostic experts in their process of modifying the  DSM-IV. In his recent publication entitled “The Book of Woe,” Greenberg (2013) details the backstage working of the APA, the  DSM-5 committee, and their critics in the  DSM revision process. Greenberg is highly critical of the APA’s management of the revision process and presents a very skeptical view of psychiatry’s lack of understanding for diagnosing and curing mental health problems, pointing out that psychiatry does not understand the differences between sickness and health. He provides a lengthy description of the contrary views of the  DSM-5 and the views of many critics about the resulting diagnostic manual. For example, he expresses concerns of over-diagnosis of some disorders such as bipolar disorder, expansion of ADHD into adulthood that would likely increase substance abuse problems, and the inclusion of normal behavior such as a natural grief after the death of a loved one in the diagnosis of depression.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), has rejected the use of  DSM-5 in its research studies on mental illness and has re-oriented its diagnostic focus away from using  DSM categories in future research studies (Insel, 2013.) In order to obtain a clearer grouping of underlying causal physical factors in mental illness, the NIMH has undertaken a different approach to categorizing mental health patients in federally sponsored research in lieu of  DSM categories—the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). This approach to categorizing patients in research studies attempts to use, instead of interview/history based symptoms that are employed in  DSM, objective data from genetics, imaging and cognitive science as a basis for the new classification system. Over the past two years, NIMH, through a series of workshops, has attempted to define several major categories for a new classification system for mental health disorders that are biologically based conditions. The RDoC is a system of categories that allow for the collection of genetic, imaging, physiologic, and cognitive data to determine how these variables are related to mental health treatment effects. The RDoC is not recommended for use in clinical assessment but for federally funded research programs.

The diagnostic criteria for mental disorders in the  DSM are not viewed by most mental health professionals as fixed-component systems but as workable criteria that evolve and develop to accommodate new research and practical developments. The periodic remaking of  DSM is never a smooth transition, but the resulting system can be, nevertheless, a valuable conceptual guide that provides an agreed-upon language that students, practitioners, and researchers can employ to enable clear communication about mental disorders. Even critics of  DSM-5, Frances and Widiger ( 2012 ), pointed out that the  DSM system is “imperfect, but it is indispensable.”

In this book, our goal is not to condemn or to champion the revised diagnostic manual but to provide a comprehensive review and evaluation of research and clinical information about mental health problems. We do include in the following chapters a number of  DSM-5 category descriptions and the recommended diagnostic criteria in order to illustrate current thinking about the diagnoses underlying mental health conditions.

UNSTRUCTURED DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEWS

Like the assessment interviews described earlier, diagnostic interviews are of two general types: unstructured and structured. In the unstructured interview, the examiner follows no preexisting plan with respect to content and sequence of the probes introduced. Unstructured interviews, as their name implies, are somewhat freewheeling. The therapist/clinician asks questions as they occur to him or her, in part on the basis of the responses to previous questions. For example, if the patient/client mentions a father who traveled a lot when he or she was a child, the clinician is free to ask, “Did you miss your father?” or (pursuing a different tack), “How did your mother handle that?” rather than being required to ask the next question in a predetermined list. Many clinical examiners prefer this unfettered approach because it enables them to follow perhaps idiosyncratic “leads.” In the above example, the clinician might have chosen to ask about the mother’s reaction on the basis of a developing suspicion that the mother may have been depressed during the client’s childhood years. There is one serious drawback to the freewheeling style, however: The information that an interview yields is limited to the content of that interview. Should another clinician conduct another unstructured interview of the same patient, he or she might come up with a different clinical picture.

STRUCTURED DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEWS

The structured interview probes the client in a manner that is highly controlled (Daniel & Gurczynski,  2010 ). Guided by a sort of master plan (sometimes to the extent of specifying the examiner’s exact wording), the clinician using a structured interview typically seeks to discover whether the person’s symptoms and signs “fit” diagnostic criteria that are more precise and “operational” than in the past. The use of more precise criteria and of highly structured diagnostic interviewing has substantially improved diagnostic reliability, but the structured interview format is still used only sporadically in routine clinical work. Nevertheless, the precision of clinical research, including epidemiological research to be discussed later, has profited enormously from these developments.

There are a number of structured diagnostic interviews that may be used in various contexts. In clinical and research situations, a popular instrument has been the Structured Clinical Interview for  DSMDiagnosis (SCID), which yields, almost automatically, diagnoses carefully attuned to the  DSM diagnostic criteria. Another structured diagnostic instrument, the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN), published by the World Health Organization ( 1994 ), enables the diagnostician to arrive at either an ICD-10 or a  DSM-5 diagnosis.

in review

·  • Why is a classification system needed in abnormal psychology?

·  • What is the meaning of reliability and validity in the context of such a classification system?

·  • What is the difference between dimensional and prototypal classification strategies?

·  • Describe the differences between structured and unstructured diagnostic interviews.

4 summary

·   4.1  What are the basic elements in assessment?

·  • Clinical assessment is one of the most important and complex responsibilities of mental health professionals. The extent to which a person’s problems are understood and appropriately treated depends largely on the adequacy of the psychological assessment.

·  • The goals of psychological assessment include identifying and describing the individual’s symptoms; determining the chronicity and severity of the problems; evaluating the potential causal factors in the person’s background; and exploring the individual’s personal resources that might be an asset in his or her treatment program.

·   4.2  What is involved in the assessment of the physical organism?

·  • Because many psychological problems have physical components, either as underlying causal factors or as symptom patterns, it is often important to include a medical examination in the psychological assessment.

·  • In cases where organic brain damage is suspected, it is important to have neurological tests—such as an EEG; a CAT, PET, or MRI scan; or an fMRI—to help determine the site and extent of organic brain disorder.

·  • For someone with suspected organic brain damage, a battery of neuropsychological tests might be recommended to determine whether or in what manner the underlying brain disorder is affecting her or his mental and behavioral capabilities.

·   4.3  What is psychosocial assessment?

·  • Psychosocial assessment methods are techniques for gathering psychological information relevant to clinical decisions about patients.

·  • The most widely used and most flexible psychosocial assessment methods are the clinical interview and behavior observation. These methods provide a wealth of clinical information.

·  • Psychological tests include standardized stimuli for collecting behavior samples that can be compared with other individuals’ behavior via test norms. Examples include intelligence and personality tests.

·  • Two different personality-testing approaches have evolved: (1) projective tests, such as the Rorschach or the TAT, in which unstructured stimuli are presented to a subject, who then “projects” meaning or structure onto the stimulus, thereby revealing “hidden” motives, feelings, and so on; and (2) objective tests, or personality inventories, in which a subject is required to read and respond to itemized statements or questions.

·  • Objectively scored personality tests, such as the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A, provide a cost-effective means of collecting a great deal of personality information rapidly.

·   4.4  How do practitioners integrate assessment data?

·  • Possibly the most valuable recent innovation in clinical assessment involves the widespread use of computers in the administration, scoring, and interpretation of psychological tests. It is now possible to obtain immediate interpretation of psychological test results, either through a direct computer interactive approach or through an Internet hookup.

·   4.5  What is the process for classifying abnormal behavior?

·  • The formal definition of mental disorder, as offered in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM-5), has certain problems that limit its clarity and results in controversy.

·  • There are problems with the category type of classification system adopted in  DSM-5. Notably, the categories do not always result in within-class homogeneity or between-class discrimination. This can lead to high levels of comorbidity among disorders.

·  • The changes in the diagnostic system has prompted extensive criticism.

·  • For all of its problems, however, knowledge of the  DSM-5 is essential to serious study in the field of abnormal behavior.

key terms

·   actuarial procedures  116

·   aphasia  107

·   Brief Psychiatric Rating

·   Scale (BPRS)  110

·   clinical diagnosis  101

·   comorbidity  122

·   computerized axial tomography

·   (cAT) scan  105

·   cultural competence  103

·   dysrhythmia  105

·   electroencephalogram (eeG)  105

·   forensic  114

·   functional mRi (fmRi)  106

·   intelligence test  111

·   magnetic resonance imaging

·   (mRi)  106

·   minnesota multiphasic Personality inventory (mmPi)  114

·   neuropsychological assessment  107

·   objective personality tests  114

·   personality tests  112

·   positron emission tomography

·   (PeT) scan  106

·   presenting problem  101

·   projective personality tests  112

·   psychological assessment  101

·   rating scales  109

·   reliability  104

·   role-playing  109

·   Rorschach inkblot Test  112

·   self-monitoring  109

·   sentence completion test  113

·   signs  123

·   standardization  104

·   structured assessment interview  108

·   symptoms  122

·   T score distribution  104

·   Thematic Apperception Test

·   (TAT)  113

·   unstructured assessment interviews  109

·   validity  104