6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

Psychological evaluation
Psychological evaluation is defined as a way of assessing an individual's behavior, personality, cognitive abilities, and
several other domains.[1] The purpose behind many modern psychological evaluations is to try to pinpoint what is
happening in someone's psychological life that may be inhibiting their ability to behave or feel in more appropriate or
constructive ways; it is the mental equivalent of physical examination. Other psychological evaluations seek to better
understand the individual's unique characteristics or personality to predict things like workplace performance or customer
relationship management.[2]

Contents
History
Ancient psychological evaluation
Modern psychological evaluation
Formal and informal evaluation
Modern uses
Personality Assessment
MMPI
History
MMPI-2
MMPI-A
NEO Personality Inventory
HEXACO-PI
Pseudopsychology (pop psychology) in assessment
Ethics
See also
Notes and references
Further reading

History
Modern Psychological evaluation has been around for roughly 200 years, with roots that stem as far back as 2200 B.C.[3]
It started in China, and many psychologists throughout Europe worked to develop methods of testing into the 1900s. The
first tests focused on aptitude. Eventually scientists tried to gauge mental processes in patients with brain damage, then
children with special needs.

Ancient psychological evaluation

Earliest accounts of evaluation are seen as far back as 2200 B.C. when Chinese emperors were assessed to determine their
fitness for office. These rudimentary tests were developed over time until 1370 A.D. when an understanding of classical
Confucianism was introduced as a testing mechanism. As a preliminary evaluation for anyone seeking public office,
candidates were required to spend one day and one night in a small space composing essays and writing poetry over

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 1/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

assigned topics. Only the top 1% to 7% were selected for higher evaluations, which required three separate session of three
days and three nights performing the same tasks. This process continued for one more round until a final group emerged,
comprising less than 1% of the original group, became eligible for public office. The Chinese failure to validate their
selection procedures, along with widespread discontent over such grueling processes, resulted in the eventual abolishment
of the practice by royal decree.[3]

Modern psychological evaluation

In the 1800s, Hubert von Grashey developed a battery to determine the abilities of brain-damaged patients. This test was
also not favorable, as it took over 100 hours to administer. However, this influenced Wilhelm Wundt, who had the first
psychological laboratory in Germany. His tests were shorter, but used similar techniques. Wundt also measured mental
processes and acknowledged the fact that there are individual differences between people.

Frances Galton established the first tests in London for measuring IQ. He tested thousands of people, examining their
physical characteristics as a basis for his results and many of the records remain today.[3] James Cattell studied with him,
and eventually worked on his own with brass instruments for evaluation. His studies led to his paper "Mental Tests and
Measurements" ,one of the most famous writings on psychological evaluation. He also coined the term "mental test" in
this paper.

As the 1900s began, Alfred Binet was also studying evaluation. However, he was more interested in distinguishing
children with special needs from their peers after he could not prove in his other research that magnets could cure
hysteria. He did his research in France, with the help of Theodore Simon. They created a list of questions that were used to
determine if children would receive regular instruction, or would participate in special education programs. Their battery
was continually revised and developed, until 1911 when the Binet-Simon questionnaire was finalized for different age
levels.

After Binet's death, intelligence testing was further studied by Charles Spearman. He theorized that intelligence was made
up of several different subcategories, which were all interrelated. He combined all the factors together to form a general
intelligence, which he abbreviated as "g".[4] This led to William Stern's idea of an intelligence quotient. He believed that
children of different ages should be compared to their peers to determine their mental age in relation to their
chronological age. Lewis Terman combined the Binet-Simon questionnaire with the intelligence quotient and the result
was the standard test we use today, with an average score of 100.[4]

The large influx of non-English speaking immigrants into the US brought about a change in psychological testing that
relied heavily on verbal skills for subjects that were not literate in English, or had speech/hearing difficulties. In 1913, R.H.
Sylvester standardized the first non-verbal psychological test. In this particular test, participants fit different shaped
blocks into their respective slots on a Seguin form board.[3] From this test, Knox developed a series of non-verbal
psychological tests that he used while working at the Ellis Island immigrant station in 1914. In his tests, were a simple
wooden puzzle as well as digit-symbol substitution test where each participant saw digits paired up with a particular
symbol, they were then shown the digits and had to write in the symbol that was associated with it.[3]

When the United States moved into World War I, Robert M. Yerkes convinced the government that they should be testing
all of the recruits they were receiving into the Army. The results of the tests could be used to make sure that the "mentally
incompetent" and "mentally exceptional" were assigned to appropriate jobs. Yerkes and his colleagues developed the
Army Alpha and Army Beta tests to use on all new recruits.[3] These tests set a precedent for the development of
psychological testing for the next several decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 2/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

After seeing the success of the Army standardized tests, college administration quickly picked up on the idea of group
testing to decide entrance into their institutions. The College Entrance Examination Board was created to test applicants
to colleges across the nation. In 1925, they developed tests that were no longer essay tests that were very open to
interpretation, but now were objective tests that were also the first to be scored by machine. These early tests evolved into
modern day College Board tests, like the Scholastic Assessment Test, Graduate Record Examination, and the Law School
Admissions Test.[3]

Formal and informal evaluation

Formal psychological evaluation consists of standardized batteries of tests and highly structured clinician-run interviews,
while informal evaluation takes on a completely different tone. In informal evaluation, assessments are based on
unstructured, free-flowing interviews or observations that allow both the patient and the clinician to guide the content.
Both of these methods have their pros and cons. A highly unstructured interview and informal observations provide key
findings about the patient that are both efficient and effective. A potential issue with an unstructured, informal approach
is the clinician may overlook certain areas of functioning or not notice them at all.[5] Or they might focus too much on
presenting complaints. The highly structured interview, although very precise, can cause the clinician to make the mistake
of focusing a specific answer to a specific question without considering the response in terms of a broader scope or life
context.[5] They may fail to recognize how the patient's answers all fit together.

There are many ways that the issues associated with the interview process can be mitigated. The benefits to more formal
standardized evaluation types such as batteries and tests are many. First, they measure a large number of characteristics
simultaneously. These include personality, cognitive, or neuropsychological characteristics. Second, these tests provide
empirically quantified information. The obvious benefit to this is that we can more precisely measure patient
characteristics as compared to any kind of structured or unstructured interview. Third, all of these tests have a
standardized way of being scored and being administered.[5] Each patient is presented a standardized stimulus that serves
as a benchmark that can be used to determine their characteristics. These types of tests eliminate any possibility of bias
and produce results that could be harmful to the patient and cause legal and ethical issues. Fourth, tests are normed. This
means that patients can be assessed not only based on their comparison to a "normal" individual, but how they compare to
the rest of their peers who may have the same psychological issues that they face. Normed tests allow the clinician to make
a more individualized assessment of the patient. Fifth, standardized tests that we commonly use today are both valid and
reliable.[5] We know what specific scores mean, how reliable they are, and how the results will affect the patient.

Most clinicians agree that a balanced battery of tests is the most effective way of helping patients. Clinicians should not
become victims of blind adherence to any one particular method.[6] A balanced battery of tests allows there to be a mix of
formal testing processes that allow the clinician to start making their assessment, while conducting more informal,
unstructured interviews with the same patient may help the clinician to make more individualized evaluations and help
piece together what could potentially be a very complex, unique-to-the-individual kind of issue or problem .[6]

Modern uses
Psychological assessment is most often used in the psychiatric, medical, legal, educational, or psychological clinic
settings. The types of assessments and the purposes for them differ among these settings.

In the psychiatric setting, the common needs for assessment are to determine risks, whether a person should be admitted
or discharged, the location the patients should be held, as well as what therapy the patient should be receiving.[7] Within
this setting, the psychologists need to be aware of the legal responsibilities that what they can legally do in each situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 3/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

Within a medical setting, psychological assessment is used to find a possible underlying psychological disorder, emotional
factors that may be associated with medical complaints, assessment for neuropsychological deficit, psychological
treatment for chronic pain, and the treatment of chemical dependency. There has been greater importance placed on the
patient’s neuropsychological status as neuropsychologists are becoming more concerned with the functioning of the
brain.[7]

Psychological assessment also has a role in the legal setting. Psychologists might be asked to assess the reliability of a
witness, the quality of the testimony a witness gives, the competency of an accused person, or determine what might have
happened during a crime. They also may help support a plea of insanity or to discount a plea. Judges may use the
psychologist's report to change the sentence of a convicted person, and parole officers work with psychologists to create a
program for the rehabilitation of a parolee. Problematic areas for psychologists include predicting how dangerous a person
will be. There are currently no accurate measure for this prediction, however there is often a need for this prediction to
prevent dangerous people from returning to society.[7]

Psychologists may also be called on to assess a variety of things within an education setting. They may be asked to assess
strengths and weaknesses of children who are having difficulty in the school systems, assess behavioral difficulties, assess
a child’s responsiveness to an intervention, or to help create an educational plan for a child. The assessment of children
also allows for the psychologists to determine if the child will be willing to use the resources that may be provided.[7]

In a psychological clinic setting, psychological assessment can be used to determine characteristics of the client that can be
useful for developing a treatment plan. Within this setting, psychologists often are working with clients who may have
medical or legal problems or sometimes students who were referred to this setting from their school psychologist.[7]

Some psychological assessments have been validated for use when administered via computer or the Internet.[8] However,
caution must be applied to these test results, as it is possible to fake in electronically mediated assessment.[9] Many
electronic assessments do not truly measure what is claimed, such as the Meyers-Briggs personality test. Although one of
the most well known personality assessments, it has been found both invalid and unreliable by many psychological
researches, and should be used with caution.[10][11]

Within clinical psychology, the "clinical method" is an approach to understanding and treating mental disorders that
begins with a particular individual's personal history and is designed around that individual's psychological needs. It is
sometimes posed as an alternative approach to the experimental method which focuses on the importance of conducting
experiments in learning how to treat mental disorders, and the differential method which sorts patients by class (gender,
race, income, age, etc.) and designs treatment plans based around broad social categories.[12][13]

Taking a personal history along with clinical examination allow the health practitioners to fully establish a clinical
diagnosis. A medical history of a patient provides insights into diagnostic possibilities as well as the patient's experiences
with illnesses. The patients will be asked about current illness and the history of it, past medical history and family history,
other drugs or dietary supplements being taken, lifestyle, and allergies.[14] The inquiry includes obtaining information
about relevant diseases or conditions of other people in their family.[14][15] Self-reporting methods may be used, including
questionnaires, structured interviews and rating scales.[16]

Personality Assessment
Personality traits are an individual's enduring manner of perceiving, feeling, evaluating, reacting, and interacting with
other people specifically, and with their environment more generally.[17][18] Because reliable and valid personality
inventories give a relatively accurate representation of a person's characteristics, they are beneficial in the clinical setting
as supplementary material to standard initial assessment procedures such as a clinical interview; review of collateral
information, e.g., reports from family members; and review of psychological and medical treatment records.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 4/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

MMPI

History
Developed by Starke R. Hathaway, PhD, and J. C. McKinley, MD, The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI) is a personality inventory used to investigate not only personality, but also psychopathology.[19] The MMPI was
developed using an empirical, atheoretical approach. This means that it was not developed using any of the frequently
changing theories about psychodynamics at the time. There are two variations of the MMPI administered to adults, the
MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF, and two variations administered to teenagers, the MMPI-A and MMPI-A-RF. This
inventory's validity has been confirmed by Hiller, Rosenthal, Bornstein, and Berry in their 1999 meta-analysis.
Throughout history the MMPI in its various forms has been routinely administered in hospitals, clinical settings, prisons,
and military settings.[20]

MMPI-2
The MMPI-2 consists of 567 true or false questions aimed at measuring the reporting person's psychological wellbeing.[21]
The MMPI-2 is commonly used in clinical settings and occupational health settings. There is a revised version of the
MMPI-2 called the MMPI-2-RF (MMPI-2 Restructured Form).[22] The MMPI-2-RF is not intended to be a replacement
for the MMPI-2, but is used to assess patients using the most current models of psychopathology and personality.[22]

MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Scales[23][24]

Number Number
Version of of Scale Categoties
Items Scales
Validity Indicators, Superlative Self-Presentation Subscales, Clinical Scales,
Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, Content Scales, Content Component
MMPI-2 567 120
Scales, Supplementary Scales, Clinical Subscales (Harris-Lingoes and Social
Introversion Subscales)
Validity, Higher-Order (H-O), Restructured Clinical (RC), Somatic, Cognitive,
MMPI-2-
338 51 Internalizing, Externalizing, Interpersonal, Interest, Personality
RF
Psychopathology Five (PSY-5)

MMPI-A
The MMPI-A was published in 1992 and consists of 478 true or false questions.[25] This version of the MMPI is similar to
the MMPI-2 but used for adolescents (age 14-18) rather than for adults. The restructured form of the MMPI-A, the MMPI-
A-RF, was published in 2016 and consists of 241 true or false questions that can understood with a sixth grade reading
level.[26][27] Both the MMPI-A and MMPI-A-RF are used to assess adolescents for personality and psychological disorders,
as well as to evaluate cognitive processes.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 5/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

MMPI-A and MMPI-A-RF Scales[28][29]

Number Number
Verson of of Scale Categories
Items Scales
Validity Indicators, Clinical Scales, Clinical Subscales (Harris-Lingoes and
MMPI-A 478 105 Social Introversion Subscales), Content Scales, Content Component Scales,
Supplementary Scales
Validity, Higher-Order (H-O), Restructured Clinical (RC), Somatic/Cognitive,
MMPI-A-
241 48 Internalizing, Externalizing, Interpersonal, Personality Psychopathology Five
RF
(PSY-5)

NEO Personality Inventory

The NEO Personality Inventory was developed by Paul Costa Jr. and Robert R. McCrae in 1978. When initially created, it
only measured three of the Big Five personality traits: Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, and Extroversion. The
inventory was then renamed as the Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Inventory (NEO-I). It was not until 1985 that
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were added to the personality assessment. With all Big Five personality traits being
assessed, it was then renamed as the NEO Personality Inventory. Research for the NEO-PI continued over the next few
years until a revised manual with six facets for each Big Five trait was published in 1992.[18] In the 1990s, now called the
NEO PI-R, issues were found with the personality inventory. The developers of the assessment found it to be too difficult
for younger people, and another revision was done to create the NEO PI-3.[30]

The NEO Personality Inventory is administered in two forms: self-report and observer report. It consists of 240
personality items and a validity item. It can be administered in roughly 35–45 minutes. Every item is answered on a Likert
scale, widely known as a scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. If more than 40 items are missing or more than
150 responses or less than 50 responses are Strongly Agree/Disagree, the assessment should be viewed with great caution
and has the potential to be invalid.[31] In the NEO report, each trait's T score is recorded along with the percentile they
rank on compared to all data recorded for the assessment. Then, each trait is broken up into their six facets along with raw
score, individual T-scores, and percentile. The next page goes on to list what each score means in words as well as what
each facet entails. The exact responses to questions are given in a list as well as the validity response and amount of
missing responses.[32]

When an individual is given their NEO report, it is important to understand specifically what the facets are and what the
corresponding scores mean.

Neuroticism
Anxiety
High scores suggest nervousness, tenseness, and fearfulness. Low scores suggest feeling relaxed and calm.
Angry Hostility
High scores suggest feeling anger and frustration often. Low scores suggest being easy-going.
Depression
High scores suggest feeling guilty, sad, hopeless, and lonely. Low scores suggest less feeling of that of
someone who scores highly, but not necessarily being light-hearted and cheerful.
Self-Consciousness
High scores suggest shame, embarrassment, and sensitivity. Low scores suggest being less affected by
others' opinions, but not necessarily having good social skills or poise.
Impulsiveness
High scores suggest the inability to control cravings and urges. Low scores suggest easy resistance to such
urges.
Vulnerability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 6/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

High scores suggest inability to cope with stress, being dependent, and feeling panicked in high stress
situations. Low scores suggest capability to handle stressful situations.
Extraversion
Warmth
High scores suggest friendliness and affectionate behavior. Low scores suggest being more formal, reserved,
and distant. A low score does not necessarily mean being hostile or lacking compassion.
Gregariousness
High scores suggest wanting the company of others. Low scores tend to be from those who avoid social
stimulation.
Assertiveness
High scores suggest a forceful and dominant person who lacks hesitation. Low scores suggest are more
passive and try not to stand out in a crowd.
Activity
High scores suggest a more energetic and upbeat personality and lead a quicker paced lifestyle. Low scores
suggest the person is more leisurely, but does not imply being lazy or slow.
Excitement-Seeking
High scores suggest a person who seeks and craves excitement and is similar to those with high sensation
seeking. Low scores seek a less exciting lifestyle and come off more boring.
Positive Emotions
High scores suggest the tendency to feel happier, laugh more, and are optimistic. Low scorers are not
necessarily unhappy, but more so are less high-spirited and are more pessimistic.

Openness to Experience
Fantasy
Those who score high in fantasy have a more creative imagination and daydream frequently. Low scores
suggest a person who lives more in the moment.
Aesthetics
High scores suggest a love and appreciation for art and physical beauty. These people are more emotionally
attached to music, artwork, and poetry. Low scorers have a lack of interest in the arts.
Feelings
High scorers have a deeper ability to experience emotion and see their emotions as more important than
those who score low on this facet. Low scorers are less expressive.
Actions
High scores suggest a more open-mindedness to traveling and experiencing new things. These people prefer
novelty over a routine life. Low scorers prefer a scheduled life and dislike change.
Ideas
Active pursuit of knowledge, high curiosity, and the enjoyment of brain teasers and philosophical are common
of those who score high on this facet. Those who score lower are not necessarily less intelligent, nor does a
high score imply high intelligence. However, those who score lower are more narrow in their interests and
have low curiosity.
Values
High scorers are more investigative of political, social, and religious values. Those who score lower and more
accepting of authority and honor more traditional values. High scorers are more typically liberal while lower
scorers are more typically conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 7/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

Agreeableness
Trust
High scores are more trusting of others and believe others are honest and have good intentions. Low scorers
are more skeptical, cynical, and assumes others are dishonest and/or dangerous.
Straightforwardness
Those who score high in this facet are more sincere and frank. Low scorers are more deceitful and more
willing to manipulate others, but this does not mean they should be labeled as a dishonest or manipulative
person.
Altruism
High scores suggest a person concerned with the well-being of others and show it through generosity,
willingness to help others, and volunteering for those less fortunate. Low scores suggest a more self-centered
person who is less willing to go out of their way to help others.
Compliance
High scorers are more inclined to avoid conflict and tend to forgive easily. Low scores suggest a more
aggressive personality and a love for competition.
Modesty
High scorers are more humble, but not necessarily lacking in self-esteem or confidence. Low scorers believe
they're more superior than others and may come off as more conceited.
Tender-Mindedness
This facet scales one's concern for others and their ability to empathize. High scorers are more moved by
others' emotions, while low scorers are more hardheaded and typically consider themselves realists.

Conscientiousness

Competence

High scores suggest one is capable, sensible, prudent, effective, and are well-prepared to deal with whatever
happens in life. Low scores suggest a potential lower self-esteem and are often unprepared.
Order

High scorers are more neat and tidy, while low scorers lack organization and are unmethodical.
Dutifulness

Those who score highly in this facet are more strict about their ethical principles and are more dependable.
Low scorers are less reliable and are more casual about their morals.
Achievement Striving

Those who score highly in this facet have higher aspirations and work harder to achieve their goals. However,
they may be too invested in their work and become a workaholic. Low scorers are much less ambitious and
perhaps even lazy. They are often content with their lack of goal-seeking.
Self-Discipline

High scorers complete whatever task is assigned to them and are self-motivated. Low scorers often
procrastinate and are easily discouraged.
Deliberation

High scorers tend to think more than low scorers before acting. High scorers are more cautious and deliberate
while low scorers are more hasty and act without considering the consequences.

HEXACO-PI
The HEXACO-PI, developed by Lee and Ashton in the early 2000s, is a personality inventory used to measure six different
dimmensions of personality which have been found in lexical studies across various cultures. There are two versions of the
HEXACO: the HEXACO-PI and the HEXACO-PI-R which are examined with either self reports or observer reports. The
HEXACO-PI-R has forms of three lengths: 200 items, 100 items, and 60 items. Items from each form are grouped to
measure scales of more narrow personality traits, which are them grouped into broad scales of the six dimensions: honesty
& humility (H), emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness to experience

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 8/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

(O).The HEXACO-PI-R includes various traits associated with neuroticism and can be used to help identify trait
tendencies. One table which give examples of typically high loaded adjectives on the six factors of HEXACO can be found
in Ashton's book "Individual Differences and Personality"

Adjective relating to the six factors within the HEXACO structure

Personality
Narrow Personality Traits Related Adjectives
Factor
Sincere, honest, faithful/loyal, modest/unassuming, fair-minded
Sincerity, fairness, greed-
Honesty-Humility versus sly, deceitful, greedy, pretentious, hypocritical, boastful,
avoidance, modesty
pompous
Emotional, oversensitive, sentrimental, fearful, anxious,
Fearfulness, anxiety,
Emotionality vulnerable versus brave, tough, independenct, self-assured,
depenence, sentimentality
stable
Social self-esteem, social Outgoing, lively, extraverted, sociable, talkative, cheerful, active
Extraversion
boldness, sociability, liveliness versus shy, passive, withdrawn, introverted, quiet, reserved
Forgivingness, gentleness, Patient, tolerant, peaceful, mild, agreeable, lenient, gentle
Agreeableness
flexibility, patience versus ill-tempered, quarelsome, stubborn, choleric
Organization, diligence, Organized, disciplined, diligent, careful, thorough, precise verus
Conscientiousness
perfectionism, prudence sloppy, negligent, reckless, lazy, irresponsible, absent-minded
Aesthetic appreciation,
Openess to Intellectual, creative, unconventional, innovative, ironic versus
inquisitiveness, creativity,
Experience shallow, unimaginative, conventional
unconventionality

One benefit of using the HEXACO is that of the facet of neurotocism within the factor of emotionality: trait neurotocism
has been shown to have a moderate positive correlation with people with anxiety and depression. The identification of
trait neuroticism on a scale, paired with anxiety, and/or depression is beneficial in a clinical setting for introductory
screenings some personality disorders. Because the HEXACO has facets which help identify traits of neuroticism, it is also
a helpful indicator of the dark triad.[33][34]

Pseudopsychology (pop psychology) in assessment

Although there have been many great advancements in the field of psychological evaluation, some issues have also
developed. One of the main problems in the field is pseudopsychology, also called pop psychology. Psychological
evaluation is one of the biggest aspects in pop psychology. In a clinical setting, patients are not aware that they are not
receiving correct psychological treatment, and that belief is one of the main foundations of pseudopsychology. It is largely
based upon the testimonies of previous patients, the avoidance of peer review (a critical aspect of any science), and poorly
set up tests, which can include confusing language or conditions that are left up to interpretation.[35]

Pseudopsychology can also occur when people claim to be psychologists, but really lack qualifications.[36] A prime
example of this is found in quizzes that can lead to a variety of false conclusions. These can be found in magazines, online,
or just about anywhere accessible to the public. They usually consist of a small number of questions designed to tell the
participant things about themselves. The problem is, they’re usually written by people who know nothing about
psychological assessment, and have no research or evidence to back up any diagnosis made by the quizzes.[36] These types
of things can tarnish the reputation for true psychological assessment.

Ethics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 9/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

Concerns about privacy, cultural biases, tests that have not been validated, and inappropriate contexts have led groups
such as the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the American Psychological Association (APA) to
publish guidelines for examiners in regards to assessment.[7] The American Psychological Association states that a client
must give permission to release any of the information that may come from a psychologist.[37] The only exceptions to this
are in the case of minors, when the clients are a danger to themselves or others, or if they are applying for a job that
requires this information. Also, the issue of privacy occurs during the assessment itself. The client has the right to say as
much or little as they would like, however they may feel the need to say more than they want or even may accidentally
reveal information they would like to keep private.[7]

Guidelines have been put in place to ensure the psychologist giving the assessments maintains a professional relationship
with the client since their relationship can impact the outcomes of the assessment. The examiner's expectations may also
influence the client’s performance in the assessments.[7]

The validity and reliability of the tests being used also can affect the outcomes of the assessments being used. When
psychologists are choosing which assessments they are going to use, they should pick one that will be most effective for
what they are looking at. Also, it is important for the psychologists are aware of the possibility of the client, either
consciously or unconsciously, faking answers and consider use of tests that have validity scales within them.[7]

See also
Psychoanalysis
Corresponding evaluations in related fields

Neurological examination in neurology

Mental state examination in psychiatry
Physical examination in medicine
Therapeutic assessment

Notes and references

1. Framingham, J. (2011). What is Psychological Assessment?. Psych Central. Retrieved on November 11, 2013, from
http://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-psychological-assessment/0005890
2. C., Ashton, Michael (2013). Individual differences and personality (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
ISBN 9780124160095. OCLC 835227535 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/835227535).
3. Gregory, R. J. (2010). Psychological testing: history, principles, and applications. (7th ed., pp. 1-29 inclusive). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
4. Fancher, R., & Rutherford, A. (2012). Pioneers of psychology. (4th ed., pp. 563-601 inclusive). New York, NY: W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc.
5. Meyer, G., Finn, S., & Eyde, L. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist,
56(2), 128-165.
6. Fernandez-Ballesteros, R. (2003). Encyclopedia of psychological assessment. (Vol. 1, pp. 173-175). London: Sage
Publications.
7. Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of Psychological Assessment. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
8. Briones, Elizabeth M.; Benham, Grant (23 February 2016). "An examination of the equivalency of self-report
measures obtained from crowdsourced versus undergraduate student samples". Behavior Research Methods. 49 (1):
320–334. doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0710-8 (https://doi.org/10.3758%2Fs13428-016-0710-8). ISSN 1554-3528 (https://
www.worldcat.org/issn/1554-3528). PMID 26907746 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26907746).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 10/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

9. Grieve, Rachel; Elliott, Jade (10 April 2013). "Cyberfaking: I Can, So I Will? Intentions to Fake in Online Psychological
Testing". Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 16 (5): 364–369. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0271 (https://d
oi.org/10.1089%2Fcyber.2012.0271). ISSN 2152-2715 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2152-2715). PMID 23574347 (h
ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574347).
10. Pittenger, David (December 1993). "The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator". American Educational Review
Association. 63 (4): 467–488. doi:10.3102/00346543063004467 (https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543063004467).
11. Michael, James (February 2003). "Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Tool for Leadership Development?
Apply With Caution". Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 10: 68–81.
doi:10.1177/107179190301000106 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F107179190301000106).
12. S K Mangal (1 August 2013). General Psychology (https://books.google.com/books?id=MHPS5CGoA70C&pg=PA37).
Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. p. 37. ISBN 978-81-207-0798-6.
13. Stephen Babu (22 December 2014). Psychology for Nurses (https://books.google.com/books?id=XzITBwAAQBAJ&p
g=PA10). Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 10. ISBN 978-81-312-3791-5.
14. Jevon, Jevon, Phil, Philip (31 January 2011). Clinical Diagnosis. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. pp. 1–6.
ISBN 9781444335163.
15. McGrath, JJ; et al. (22 July 2014). "The association between family history of mental disorders and general cognitive
ability" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4119227). Translational Psychiatry. 4 (7): e412.
doi:10.1038/tp.2014.60 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Ftp.2014.60). PMC 4119227 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti
cles/PMC4119227). PMID 25050992 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25050992).
16. Barker, Pistrang, Elliott, 1. Chris, 2. Nancy, 3. Robert (11 December 2015). Research Methods in Clinical Psychology.
Print: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. p. 116. ISBN 9781118773208.
17. McCrae, Robert R.; Costa, Paul T. (1997). "Personality trait structure as a human universal". American Psychologist.
52 (5): 509–516. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.5.509 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.52.5.509). ISSN 1935-990X
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1935-990X).
18. C., Ashton, Michael (13 June 2017). Individual Differences and Personality (3rd ed.). ISBN 9780128098455.
OCLC 987583452 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/987583452).
19. Framingham, Jane (17 May 2016). "Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) | Psych Central" (https://psy
chcentral.com/lib/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-mmpi/). Psych Central. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
20. "MMPI History — University of Minnesota Press" (https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/bibliography/mmpi-histor
y). www.upress.umn.edu. Retrieved 24 March 2018.
21. Drayton, M. (1 March 2009). "The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)" (https://academic.oup.co
m/occmed/article/59/2/135/1387433). Occupational Medicine. 59 (2): 135–136. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqn182 (https://d
oi.org/10.1093%2Foccmed%2Fkqn182). ISSN 0962-7480 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0962-7480).
PMID 19233834 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19233834).
22. "MMPI-2-RF Expert Interviews — University of Minnesota Press" (https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/MMPI-2-
RF/mmpi-2-rf-expert-interviews). www.upress.umn.edu. Retrieved 25 April 2018.
23. "MMPI-2 Scales — University of Minnesota Press" (https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mmpi-2/mmpi-2-scales).
www.upress.umn.edu. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
24. "MMPI-2-RF Scales — University of Minnesota Press" (https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/MMPI-2-RF/mmpi-2-
rf-50-scales). www.upress.umn.edu. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
25. "Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory®-Adolescent" (https://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/10
0000465/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-adolescent-mmpi-a.html). www.pearsonclinical.com. Retrieved
3 May 2018.
26. "Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent-Restructured Form™" (https://www.pearsonclinical.com/psy
chology/products/100001762/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventoryadolescent-restructured-form-mmpi-a-rf.htm
l). www.pearsonclinical.com. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
27. "Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - Definition, Purpose, Description, Risks, Key terms" (http://www.healtho
fchildren.com/M/Minnesota-Multiphasic-Personality-Inventory.html). www.healthofchildren.com. Retrieved 3 May
2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 11/12
6/15/2019 Psychological evaluation - Wikipedia

28. "MMPI-A Scales — University of Minnesota Press" (https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mmpi-a/mmpi-a-

scales). www.upress.umn.edu. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
29. "MMPI-A-RF Scales — University of Minnesota Press" (https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mmpi-a-rf/mmpi-a-rf
-scales). www.upress.umn.edu. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
30. Costa, P. T.; McCrae, R. R. (1 September 1976). "Age Differences in Personality Structure: a Cluster Analytic
Approach" (https://academic.oup.com/geronj/article-abstract/31/5/564/763267?redirectedFrom=fulltext). Journal of
Gerontology. 31 (5): 564–570. doi:10.1093/geronj/31.5.564 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fgeronj%2F31.5.564).
ISSN 0022-1422 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-1422).
31. "NEO Personality Inventory-3 | SIGMA" (http://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/assessments/neo-personality-inv
entory-3/). SIGMA Assessment Systems. Retrieved 17 March 2018.
32. "NEO-PI-3 Sample Report" (http://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/NEO-PI-3-BRC-
Sample-Report.pdf) (PDF). Sigma Assessment Systems. 2010. Retrieved 17 March 2018.
33. Miller, Joshua D.; Lynam, Donald R. (1 March 2015). "Using Self- and Informant Reports in the Assessment of
Personality Pathology in Clinical Settings—An Easy and Effective 1–2 Combination". Clinical Psychology: Science
and Practice. 22 (1): 20–24. doi:10.1111/cpsp.12090 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fcpsp.12090). ISSN 1468-2850 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/1468-2850).
34. H., Palahang; M., Nikfarjam; A., Salahian (2011). "The efficacy of emotionality factor of HEXACO-PI-R on screening
of depressive and anxiety disorder (mixed) in university students" (http://eprints.skums.ac.ir/3943/).
eprints.skums.ac.ir. Retrieved 16 March 2018.
35. Lilienfeld, S., Lynn, S., & Lohr, J. (2003). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. (1st ed., pp. 1-25
inclusive). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
36. Burtt, Harold Ernest, (1948). Applied psychology, (pp. 38-63). New York, NY, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc, x, 821 pp.
37. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from
http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

Further reading
Anastasi, Anne; Urbina, Susana (1997). Psychological Testing (Seventh ed.). Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall.
ISBN 978-0-02-303085-7. Lay summary (http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Psychological-Testing-7
E/9780023030857.page) (28 July 2010).
Goldstein, Gerald; Beers, Susan, eds. (2004). Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment: Volume I:
Intellectual and Neurological Assessment. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-41611-1. Lay
summary (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471416118,descCd-tableOfContents.html) (23
November 2010).
Gregory, Robert J. (2011). Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications (Sixth ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-78214-7. Lay summary (http://www.pearsonhighered.com/bookseller/product/Psychological-T
esting-History-Principles-and-Applications-6E/9780205782147.page) (7 November 2010).
Groth-Marnat, Gary (2009). Handbook of Psychological Assessment (Fifth ed.). Hoboken (NJ): Wiley. ISBN 978-0-
470-08358-1. Lay summary (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470083581.html) (11 September
2010).
Hogan, Thomas P.; Brooke Cannon (2007). Psychological Testing: A Practical Introduction (Second ed.). Hoboken
(NJ): John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-73807-7. Lay summary (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/product
Cd-EHEP000675.html) (21 November 2010).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_evaluation&oldid=900028988"

This page was last edited on 2 June 2019, at 23:47 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_evaluation 12/12