Search

In this article, the author addresses the ethical questions and decision evaluators associated with the writing of psychological assessment reports. Issues related to confidentiality, clinical judgment, harm, labeling, release of test data, and computer usage are addressed. Specific suggestions on how to deal with ethical concerns when writing reports are discussed, as well as areas in need of further research. Keywords: ethics: report writing: assessment

A summary of the most frequent controversies in report writing is covered. These include length, readability, acknowledging use of poorly validated measures, use of computer-based narratives, inclusion of test scores, degree of integration, inclusion of client strengths, and development of a feedback report. Available research is summarized along with suggestions for future research. Keywords: psychological report: controversies

Borrowing from B. A. Wright's (1991) suggestions, a balanced approach is advocated for gathering information and writing the subsequent report. Specifically, it is suggested that the clinician attend to four aspects of an interviewee: (a) the strengths in the client's psychological makeup, (b) the weaknesses in the client's psychological makeup, (c) the strengths in the client's environment, and (d) the weaknesses in the client's environment. Additionally, using hope theory (C. R. Snyder, 1994) as a framework, the importance of including information about client goals, along with the routes to those goals (pathways thinking) and the motivation to use those pathways (agency thinking), is described. Furthermore, the implications of using this framework in conducting a diagnostic interview and writing the ensuing report are provided. Finally, the advantages of including human strengths to achieve a balanced interview and report are discussed. Keywords: psychological assessments; client reports; report writing; balanced assessment approach; hope theory; positive psychology

The process of assessment report writing is a complex one, involving both the statistical evaluation of data and clinical methods of data interpretation to appropriately answer referral questions. Today, a computer often analyzes data generated in a psychological assessment, at least in part. In this article, the author focuses on the interaction between the decisionmaking processes of human clinicians and the test interpretations that are computer-based. The benefits and problems with computers in assessment are highlighted and are presented alongside the research on the validity of automated assessment, as well as research comparing clinicians and computers in the decision-making process. The author concludes that clinical judgment and computer-based test interpretation each have weaknesses. However, by using certain strategies to reduce clinicians' susceptibility to errors in decision making and to ensure that only valid computer based test interpretations are used, clinicians can optimize the accuracy of conclusions that they draw in their assessment report Keywords: psychological assessment report; computer utilization; clinical judgment; report writing

Counselors of all types need an understanding of and an ability to work with issues described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The traditional approach to the DSM-IV tends to locate the problem in the client, whereas a developmental approach focuses on the client in social and historical context. Specific recommendations for organizing a comprehensive treatment plan are represented. The authors endorse an educational and developmental role for counselors.

A reaction to Ivy and Ivy (1998) is offered by a counselor educator and practitioner. Mental disorders, diagnosis, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV: American Psychiatric Association, 1994), and the medical model versus the developmental model are discussed in relation to counselor education and training, diagnostic bias, and the future identity of professional counselors.

This study investigated the factor structure of the expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) on a sample of severe mentally ill homeless individuals. A confirmatory factor analysis using the Oblique Multiple Group method supported the typical five factor solution found in previous studies with the original BPRS. The five factors were labeled Thinking Disorder, Withdrawal, Anxiety-Depression, Hostility-Suspicion, and Activity. Alpha coefficients for four of the scales ranged from .73 to .81; however, the alpha coefficient for the Hostility-Suspicion scale was only .49.