Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. Hunsley, J., Lee, C. M., Wood, J. M., & Taylor, W. In Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, 2nd ed, pages 42–82. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, US, 2015. ZSCC: 0000145abstract bibtex The past decade has seen many important developments in the field of clinical assessment. These include (1) statistical approaches for exploring consistency and variability in reliability estimates, (2) theoretical and methodological advances in conceptualizing construct validity, (3) a renewed focus on the utility of assessment data in the clinical enterprise, (4) a compelling, empirically based rationale for routinely monitoring the impact of clinical interventions, and (5) initial attempts to delineate the nature and implications of an evidence-based approach to assessment. Despite this progress, there is widespread use of clinical assessment practices and instruments that lack a strong scientific foundation. In this chapter, we first provide introductory comments on key scientific elements of clinical assessment, and then we examine a subset of commonly used instruments whose use is not justified by scientific evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
@incollection{hunsley_controversial_2015,
address = {New York, NY, US},
title = {Controversial and questionable assessment techniques},
isbn = {978-1-4625-1789-3 978-1-4625-1751-0 978-1-4625-1759-6},
abstract = {The past decade has seen many important developments in the field of clinical assessment. These include (1) statistical approaches for exploring consistency and variability in reliability estimates, (2) theoretical and methodological advances in conceptualizing construct validity, (3) a renewed focus on the utility of assessment data in the clinical enterprise, (4) a compelling, empirically based rationale for routinely monitoring the impact of clinical interventions, and (5) initial attempts to delineate the nature and implications of an evidence-based approach to assessment. Despite this progress, there is widespread use of clinical assessment practices and instruments that lack a strong scientific foundation. In this chapter, we first provide introductory comments on key scientific elements of clinical assessment, and then we examine a subset of commonly used instruments whose use is not justified by scientific evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)},
booktitle = {Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, 2nd ed},
publisher = {The Guilford Press},
author = {Hunsley, John and Lee, Catherine M. and Wood, James M. and Taylor, Whitney},
year = {2015},
note = {ZSCC: 0000145},
keywords = {Best Practices, Evidence Based Practice, Intervention, Psychological Assessment, Sciences},
pages = {42--82},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"vZsxfefh79ekzd9nT","bibbaseid":"hunsley-lee-wood-taylor-controversialandquestionableassessmenttechniques-2015","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Hunsley, J.","Lee, C. M.","Wood, J. M.","Taylor, W."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"incollection","type":"incollection","address":"New York, NY, US","title":"Controversial and questionable assessment techniques","isbn":"978-1-4625-1789-3 978-1-4625-1751-0 978-1-4625-1759-6","abstract":"The past decade has seen many important developments in the field of clinical assessment. These include (1) statistical approaches for exploring consistency and variability in reliability estimates, (2) theoretical and methodological advances in conceptualizing construct validity, (3) a renewed focus on the utility of assessment data in the clinical enterprise, (4) a compelling, empirically based rationale for routinely monitoring the impact of clinical interventions, and (5) initial attempts to delineate the nature and implications of an evidence-based approach to assessment. Despite this progress, there is widespread use of clinical assessment practices and instruments that lack a strong scientific foundation. In this chapter, we first provide introductory comments on key scientific elements of clinical assessment, and then we examine a subset of commonly used instruments whose use is not justified by scientific evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)","booktitle":"Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, 2nd ed","publisher":"The Guilford Press","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hunsley"],"firstnames":["John"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Lee"],"firstnames":["Catherine","M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Wood"],"firstnames":["James","M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Taylor"],"firstnames":["Whitney"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2015","note":"ZSCC: 0000145","keywords":"Best Practices, Evidence Based Practice, Intervention, Psychological Assessment, Sciences","pages":"42–82","bibtex":"@incollection{hunsley_controversial_2015,\n\taddress = {New York, NY, US},\n\ttitle = {Controversial and questionable assessment techniques},\n\tisbn = {978-1-4625-1789-3 978-1-4625-1751-0 978-1-4625-1759-6},\n\tabstract = {The past decade has seen many important developments in the field of clinical assessment. These include (1) statistical approaches for exploring consistency and variability in reliability estimates, (2) theoretical and methodological advances in conceptualizing construct validity, (3) a renewed focus on the utility of assessment data in the clinical enterprise, (4) a compelling, empirically based rationale for routinely monitoring the impact of clinical interventions, and (5) initial attempts to delineate the nature and implications of an evidence-based approach to assessment. Despite this progress, there is widespread use of clinical assessment practices and instruments that lack a strong scientific foundation. In this chapter, we first provide introductory comments on key scientific elements of clinical assessment, and then we examine a subset of commonly used instruments whose use is not justified by scientific evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)},\n\tbooktitle = {Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, 2nd ed},\n\tpublisher = {The Guilford Press},\n\tauthor = {Hunsley, John and Lee, Catherine M. and Wood, James M. and Taylor, Whitney},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tnote = {ZSCC: 0000145},\n\tkeywords = {Best Practices, Evidence Based Practice, Intervention, Psychological Assessment, Sciences},\n\tpages = {42--82},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Hunsley, J.","Lee, C. M.","Wood, J. M.","Taylor, W."],"key":"hunsley_controversial_2015","id":"hunsley_controversial_2015","bibbaseid":"hunsley-lee-wood-taylor-controversialandquestionableassessmenttechniques-2015","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Best Practices","Evidence Based Practice","Intervention","Psychological Assessment","Sciences"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"bibtype":"incollection","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/6447874/collections/DULVZUCV/items?key=1xJJ2s3yy2w168iSiTEPAeXC&format=bibtex&limit=100","creationDate":"2020-08-23T01:16:39.863Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["best practices","evidence based practice","intervention","psychological assessment","sciences"],"search_terms":["controversial","questionable","assessment","techniques","hunsley","lee","wood","taylor"],"title":"Controversial and questionable assessment techniques","year":2015,"dataSources":["bwPZM9JsWanZLaoSc","eTsH756eicg6vxuG3","AePvmKAczbmbEoiJB","36e8dyqnuMgmMfSnj"]}