Eighth Edition

Assessment Procedures
for Counselors and
Helping Professionals
This page intentionally left blank
 Eighth Edition

Assessment Procedures
for Counselors and
Helping Professionals
Robert J. Drummond
Late of University of North Florida

Carl J. Sheperis
Lamar University

Karyn Dayle Jones

University of Central Florida

Boston  Columbus  Indianapolis  New York  San Francisco  Hoboken

Amsterdam  Cape Town  Dubai  London  Madrid  Milan  Munich  Paris  Montréal  Toronto
Delhi  Mexico City  São Paulo  Sydney  Hong Kong  Seoul  Singapore  Taipei  Tokyo
Vice President and Editorial Director: Jeffery W. Johnston
Vice President and Publisher: Kevin M. Davis
Editorial Assistant: Marisia Styles
Executive Field Marketing Manager: Krista Clark
Senior Product Marketing Manager: Christopher Barry
Project Manager: Lauren Carlson
Procurement Specialist: Deidra Skahill
Senior Art Director: Diane Ernsberger
Cover Designer: Cenveo
Cover Art: Purestock/Getty Images
Full-Service Project Management: Kailash Jadli, iEnergizer Aptara®, Ltd.
Composition: iEnergizer Aptara®, Ltd.
Printer/Binder: Courier - Westford
Cover Printer: Phoenix Color - Hagerstown
Text Font: Palatino

Credits and acknowledgments for material borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in
this textbook appear on the appropriate page within the text.

Every effort has been made to provide accurate and current Internet information in this book. However, the
Internet and information posted on it are constantly changing, so it is inevitable that some of the Internet
addresses listed in this textbook will change.

Copyright © 2016, 2010, 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Manufactured in
the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. For information regarding
permissions, request forms, and the appropriate contacts within the Pearson Education Global Rights &
Permissions department, please visit www.pearsoned.com/permissions.

PEARSON and ALWAYS LEARNING are exclusive trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries owned by
Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Drummond, Robert J.
  Assessment procedures for counselors and helping professionals / Robert J. Drummond, Carl J. Sheperis,
Karyn D. Jones.—Eighth edition.
  pages cm
   ISBN 978-0-13-285063-6—ISBN 0-13-285063-X
  1. Psychological tests.  2. Educational tests and measurements.  3. Counseling.  I. Sheperis, Carl.  II. Jones,
Karyn Dayle.  III. Title.
  BF176.D78 2016
 150.28’7—dc23
2015009259

 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN 10:   0-13-285063-X

ISBN 13: 978-0-13-285063-6
The eighth edition is dedicated to my children who bring light to my world:
Ellis, Jake, Joe Lee, Emily, and Laura Beth

—CJS
 Preface

In Assessment Procedures for Counselors and Helping Professionals, our goal is to help
­current and future school counselors, marriage and family therapists, mental health
counselors, career counselors, and other helping professionals become better consum-
ers of the various methods and procedures used in the process of assessment. Assess-
ment occurs in many settings, such as schools, mental health clinics, career counseling
centers, substance abuse treatment centers, private practice, psychiatric hospitals, and
vocational rehabilitation centers. Assessment is an integral part of the counseling pro-
cess in which the counselor and client work together to gain a better understanding of
the client’s problems. We believe that effectiveness and accuracy in assessment are
essential to effective counseling. Throughout the text, we stress that assessment is
more than simply giving tests. Assessment involves collecting and integrating infor-
mation about an individual from multiple methods and multiple sources. Throughout this
textbook, our aim is to provide students with an overview of the many approaches
to assessment so they can become competent and ethical practitioners in our multicul-
tural society.
This textbook has three goals. The first goal is to supply foundational information
about assessment, which includes an overview of the various methods and sources of
assessment information. In addition, students must learn some basic principles of
measurement in order to understand the applications and issues in assessment. Thus,
we also provide foundational information about statistical concepts, test scores, and
the psychometric aspects of assessment (e.g., validity and reliability). The second goal
of this textbook is to present an overview of the general areas in which assessment is
commonly utilized, such as in assessing intellectual ability, achievement, aptitude,
career interests and skills, and personality. The third goal is to provide students with
information about specific assessment applications and issues, such as clinical assess-
ment, communicating assessment results, assessment with diverse populations, and
ethical and legal issues.
To meet these goals, the textbook is divided into three parts that provide a balance of
theory and practice information as well as coverage of the assessment instruments and
strategies commonly used in school counseling, clinical mental health counseling, and
vocational or career counseling settings. These sections include Principles and Founda-
tions of Assessment, Overview of Assessment Areas, and Applications and Issues.

Principles and Foundations of Assessment

Part One of this textbook, Principles and Foundations of Psychological and Educa-
tional Assessment, focuses on the underlying principles and foundations of all forms
of psychological and educational assessment. We designed this section to provide
counselors with the essential concepts of measurement and evaluation that they need
to engage in the assessment process. Chapter 1 introduces assessment and provides
historical information that has influenced assessment practice. Chapter 2 focuses on
the assessment process, emphasizing the importance of collecting data by using multi-
ple methods from multiple sources. The chapter provides detailed information about
vi
 vii
Preface

formal and informal data-collection methods (e.g., interviews, tests, observations) as

well as the sources of assessment information (e.g., the client, parents, significant oth-
ers, teachers, health professionals). Chapter 3 presents basic statistical concepts associ-
ated with tests and assessment. Chapter 4 presents information about types of scores
and standards for scoring and interpreting assessment instruments. Chapters 5 and 6
supply information about the key psychometric considerations that are essential in
assessment: reliability and validity. Chapter 7 integrates the elements of the assess-
ment process by presenting information about selecting, administering, scoring, and
reporting assessment results.

Assessment Areas
Part Two of the textbook, Overview of Assessment Areas, builds on the Principles and
Foundations section by exploring specific assessment areas. Chapter 8 supplies infor-
mation about assessing intellectual ability, including the major theories of intelli-
gence, the major tests of intelligence (e.g., the Wechsler scales, the Stanford–Binet, the
Kaufman tests), and special issues in intelligence testing. Chapter 9 covers assessment
of achievement, including achievement test batteries, individual achievement tests,
diagnostic achievement tests, subject-area tests, and other types of achievement tests.
Chapter 10 presents information about aptitude assessment. Extensive changes in
U.S. social and economic conditions may result in more counselors working with cli-
ents on career-related issues; thus, Chapter 11 provides important information about
career and employment assessment. The last chapter in this section, Chapter 12,
focuses on personality assessment and the many types of personality instruments and
techniques.

Applications and Issues

The chapters in Part Three, Applications and Issues Related to Assessment, center on
the applications and issues related to specific assessment areas. The main focus is the
effective, competent, and ethical application of assessment methods in various settings
and with diverse populations. For example, a primary purpose of assessment is for
diagnosing client issues and problems. Thus, Chapter 13 focuses exclusively on clinical
assessment and the use of assessment procedures to diagnose mental disorders,
develop treatment plans, monitor counseling progress, and evaluate outcome. Chapter
14 presents information about assessment issues in education, such as the assessment
activities of school counselors, the types of assessment instruments used in schools,
assessing specific learning disabilities and giftedness, test preparation and perfor-
mance, environmental assessment in the schools, and assessment competencies for
school counselors. Because assessment strategies are applied to diverse populations,
Chapter 15 supplies important information about multicultural assessment, including
social and cultural factors related to assessing individuals, groups, and specific popu-
lations, as well as the competencies and standards required for assessing individuals
from diverse backgrounds. Chapter 16 presents information about communicating
assessment results. Finally, Chapter 17 focuses on the important ethical and legal
issues related to assessment.
viii Preface

Changes in the EIGhTH Edition

First published in 1988, this textbook has become a classic among assessment textbooks
designed specifically for counselors. The eighth edition hosts extensive changes in the
content of the text; we have updated all of the chapters and strived to provide the most
accurate, up-to-date assessment information. At the same time, we have endeavored to
maintain the original appeal of the text by retaining an easy-to-read format and continuing
to emphasize assessment information that is most useful and relevant for school counse-
lors, marriage and family therapists, mental health counselors, and other helping profes-
sionals. Throughout the text, we provide information and examples about widely used
assessment instruments in order to help students become familiar with these well-known
tests. This edition has been completely revised to align with the 2014 standards for educa-
tional and psychological testing.
Key revisions in this edition include the following:
• Chapter 1, Introduction to Assessment, consists of revised and expanded information
about assessment in counseling. This introductory chapter provides an overview of
the purpose for assessment as well as new information about the assessment process.
• Chapter 2, Methods and Sources of Assessment Information, has been revised to
describe current information about the multiple methods and sources of data collec-
tion used in the assessment process. This chapter encompasses information about
formal and informal assessment instruments and strategies divided into three broad
categories: interviews, tests, and observation. Information about the importance of
using collateral sources in assessment is also presented.
• The chapters on statistical concepts, understanding scores, and reliability and validity
(Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6) have been extensively reorganized and revised. Chapter 5
provides expanded information on sources of measurement error.
• Chapter 7 summarizes the assessment process by focusing on the procedures for
selecting, administering, scoring, and interpreting assessment results. It includes
information about the steps involved in selecting appropriate assessment instru-
ments and strategies; the various sources of information about instruments; the pro-
cess of evaluating assessment instruments; and procedures for administration,
scoring, and interpretation.
• We have updated and improved all of the chapters in Part Two, Overview of Assess-
ment Areas, to include the most current information about specific assessment strate-
gies and instruments. All chapters in this section (Chapters 8 through 12) supply
up-to-date information about the most widely used instruments and strategies. For
example, Chapter 8, Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability, includes infor-
mation about the latest revisions of key intelligence tests as well as expanded infor-
mation on the contemporary and emerging theories of intelligence.
• Chapter 13, Clinical Assessment, has been restructured to include a broad presenta-
tion of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)
and its use in clinical assessment. In addition, we have added new information about
the mental status exam, suicide risk assessment, and behavioral observation used in
clinical assessment.
• We have updated Chapter 14, Assessment in Education, including updated informa-
tion about school assessment programs. We have also added specific information
about the common assessment activities performed by school counselors and updated
 ix
Preface

information about conducting needs assessments, assessing specific learning disabil-

ities, assessing giftedness, and environmental assessment in the schools.
• Chapter 15, Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations, has been extensively
revised. We expanded the discussion of measurement bias to align with the concept
of fairness in testing, as described in the 2014 edition of the Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing. We restructured the section on assessing individuals with
disabilities to encompass assessment of individuals with visual impairment, hearing
impairment, intellectual disability, and other disabilities.
• Chapter 16, Communicating Assessment Results, has also been extensively revised.
Because counselors often orally communicate assessment results to clients, parents,
and other professionals, we expanded the section on the use of feedback sessions to
report results. Furthermore, we updated and improved the information provided
about written assessment reports.
• In Chapter 17, Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment, we have updated the over-
view of ethical codes from professional organizations relevant to assessment. We also
have updated and expanded the section on statutes and regulations that have impli-
cations for assessment.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my publisher, Kevin Davis, for believing in me and giving me the
chance to revise such an esteemed book. This book influenced me during my graduate
training, and now I have the privilege to revise it for the eighth edition. Thanks to the late
Robert Drummond for his many contributions to the assessment world and for authoring
such a foundational textbook. I would also like to thank Melinda Rankin for her excellent
copyediting skills. She has an amazing eye for detail and a gentle way of helping me to see
my own writing errors. Finally, I would like to thank the following colleagues, whose
reviews improved this edition: Donald Deering, Oakland University and University of
Phoenix; Josué R. Gonzalez, Clinical Psychologist—San Antonio, Texas; Dawn C. Lorenz,
Penn State University; Diane Kelly-Riley, Washington State University; and Anthony
Tasso, Farleigh Dickinson University.
CJS
 About the Authors

Robert J. Drummond
Dr. Robert Drummond passed away on March 14, 2005. He was a retired professor and
counselor educator at the University of North Florida for 20 years. He was foremost in the
field of assessment, and he specialized in educational and psychological testing, career
development, models for evaluation, educational research, and personality theory and
measurement. Dr. Drummond wrote the first edition of this text in 1988. Now in its eighth
edition, the book remains a popular assessment textbook in counseling.

Carl J. Sheperis
Dr. Carl J. Sheperis serves as Chair of the Department of Counseling and Special Popula-
tions at Lamar University. He is a past president of the Association for Assessment and
Research in Counseling, associate editor for quantitative research for the Journal of Coun-
seling and Development, and a director for the National Board for Certified Counselors. He
has worked with the American Counseling Association as the chair of the Research &
Knowledge Committee and has served as the editor of the Journal of Counseling Research
and Practice.
In addition to this textbook, Dr. Sheperis is an author of Research in Counseling: Quan-
titative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods; Clinical Mental Health Counseling: Fundamentals of
Applied Practice; DSM Disorders in Children and Adolescents; and The Peace Train. He is also
published in various textbooks, academic journals, and reference volumes. A frequent
speaker and presenter at professional conferences and workshops as well, Carl Sheperis
has appeared at such recent events as the American Counseling Association World Con-
ference, The International Autism Conference, the Association for Counselor Education
and Supervision Conference, the National Assessment Conference, and the National Head
Start Conference.

Karyn Dayle Jones

Dr. Karyn Dayle Jones is an associate professor in counselor education at the University of
Central Florida. She has over 20 years of experience in the counseling profession and has
been a counselor educator for over 15 years. Jones is coauthor of Introduction to the Profes-
sion of Counseling, has authored or coauthored several book chapters and refereed publica-
tions, and has made numerous professional presentations. Her primary areas of research
are assessment and diagnosis. She is the past president of the Association for Humanistic
Counseling, a division of the American Counseling Association. Jones is a Florida Licensed
Mental Health Counselor and a National Certified Counselor, and she has worked as a
counselor in mental health agencies, schools, and private practice.

x
 Brief Contents

Part One Principles and Foundations of Psychological and

Educational Assessment
Chapter 1    Introduction to Assessment  1
Chapter 2    Methods and Sources of Assessment Information   20
Chapter 3    Statistical Concepts  46
Chapter 4    Understanding Assessment Scores  70
Chapter 5    Reliability/Precision  91
Chapter 6    Validity  110
Chapter 7    Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting
Assessment Results  130

Part Two Overview of Assessment Areas

Chapter 8    Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability   158
Chapter 9    Assessment of Achievement  195
Chapter 10    Assessment of Aptitude  223
Chapter 11    Career and Employment Assessment   243
Chapter 12    Personality Assessment  271

Part Three Applications and Issues Related to Assessment

Chapter 13    Clinical Assessment  303
Chapter 14    Assessment in Education   332
Chapter 15    Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations   356
Chapter 16    Communicating Assessment Results  375
Chapter 17    Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment   395
Appendix I    Standards for Multicultural Assessment
Fourth Revision, 2012   412
Appendix II   Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests
(RUST; 3rd ed.)   417
Name Index  422
Subject Index  429

xi
 Contents

Part One Principles and Foundations of Psychological

and Educational Assessment
Chapter 1 Introduction to Assessment   1
What Is Assessment?  2
The Purposes of Assessment   3
Multiple Methods and Multiple Sources   5
The Assessment Process   7
Competencies Required for Assessment   9
Historical Perspectives  11
Assessment and Technology  15
Computer-Based Assessment   15
Internet-Based Assessment   16
Controversial Issues in Assessment   17
Summary  17  •  Moving Forward  18  •  Questions for Discussion   18  •  
Suggested Activities  18  •  References  18

Chapter 2 Methods and Sources of Assessment Information   20

Assessment Methods and Sources   20
Formal and Informal Assessment Instruments
and Strategies   22
The Initial Interview   23
Degrees of Structure in Interviews   24
Interview Guidelines   26
Tests  27
Categories of Tests   29
Observation  34
Formal and Informal Observation   35
Direct and Indirect Observation   35
Natural and Contrived Settings   36
Unobtrusive and Participant Observation   36
Methods of Recording Observations   36
Self-Monitoring   41
Collateral Sources  41
Summary  43  •  Questions for Discussion   43  •  
Suggested Activities  43  •  References  44
xii
 xiii
Contents

Chapter 3 Statistical Concepts  46

Statistical Concepts for Assessment   46
Scales of Measurement   48
Nominal Scale   48
Ordinal Scale   49
Interval Scale   49
Ratio Scale   50
Describing Scores  50
Frequency Distributions   50
Measures of Central Tendency   55
Measures of Variability   57
The Normal Curve   60
Measures of Relationship   61
Summary  68  •  Questions for Discussion   68  •  
Suggested Activities  68  •  References  69

Chapter 4 Understanding Assessment Scores   70

Assessment Scores  70
Criterion-Referenced Scores  71
Norm-Referenced Scores  72
Norm Group   73
Types of Norm-Referenced Scores   75
Qualitative Assessment  84
Tables and Profiles   85
Norm-Referenced, Criterion-Referenced, or Both?   87
Summary  89  •  Questions for Discussion   89  •  
Suggested Activities  89  •  References  90

Chapter 5 Reliability/Precision  91
Reliability  92
Measurement Error   93
Sources of Measurement Error   93
Methods of Estimating Reliability/Precision   95
Test-Retest   97
Alternate Form   98
Internal Consistency Reliability   99
Interrater Reliability   102
Selecting a Reliability Coefficient   103
Evaluating Reliability Coefficients   103
Standard Error of Measurement   104
xiv Contents

Confidence Intervals   106

Increasing Reliability/Precision   107
Summary  108  •  Questions for Discussion   108  •  
Suggested Activities  108  •  References  109

Chapter 6 Validity  110
The Nature of Validity   111
Revisiting Construct   112
Threats to Validity   112
Validity and Reliability/Precision   113
Sources of Validity Evidence   114
Test Content Validity Evidence   114
Evidence Based on Internal Structure   116
Relations to Other Variables Evidence   118
Evidence of Homogeneity   121
Convergent and Discriminant Evidence   121
Evidence Based on Consequences of Testing   125
Evidence Based on Response Processes   126
Summary  126  •  Questions for Discussion   127  •  
Suggested Activities  127  •  References  128

Chapter 7 Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting

Assessment Results  130
Selecting Assessment Instruments and Strategies   130
Identify the Type of Information Needed   131
Identify Available Information   131
Determine the Methods for Obtaining Information   131
Search Assessment Resources   133
Evaluate and Select an Assessment Instrument or Strategy   137
Administering Assessment Instruments  145
Before Administration   147
During Administration   148
After Administration   151
Scoring Assessment Instruments  151
Scoring Performance Assessment   152
Scoring Errors   153
Standards for Scoring Assessment Instruments   153
Interpreting Assessment Results  154
Summary  155  •  Questions for Discussion   156  •  
Suggested Activities  156  •  References  157
 xv
Contents

Part Two Overview of Assessment Areas

Chapter 8 Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability   158
Defining Intelligence  158
Theories of Intelligence   160
Spearman’s Two-Factor Theory   161
Thurstone’s Multifactor Theory   162
Vernon’s Hierarchical Model   163
Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc Theory   164
Guilford’s Structure-of-Intellect Model   164
Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development   165
Luria’s Model   166
Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence   166
Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences   167
Carroll’s Three-Stratum Model of Human Abilities   167
Planning-Attention-Simultaneous-Successive Theory
of Cognitive Processing   168

Cattell–Horn–Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model   168

Intelligence Tests  170
Ability, Intelligence, Achievement, and Aptitude   172
Individual Intelligence Tests   172
Group Intelligence Tests   185
Specialized Tests   187
Interviews and Observations   188
Issues in Assessing Intelligence   189
Summary  191  •  Questions for Discussion   191  •  
Suggested Activities  191  •  References  192
Chapter 9 Assessment of Achievement   195
Assessing Achievement  195
Standardized Achievement Tests  196
Achievement Test Batteries   197
Individual Achievement Tests   202
Diagnostic Tests   205
Subject-Area Tests   210
Adult Achievement Tests  211
Other Types of Achievement Assessment Instruments   211
Criterion-Referenced Tests and Minimum-Level Skills Tests   211
State Achievement Tests   213
National Assessment of Educational Progress   213
xvi Contents

Curriculum-Based Assessment and Curriculum-Based

Measurement   214
Performance Assessment   214
Portfolio Assessment   215
Factors Affecting Student Achievement   215
Analysis of Class Profile   217
Summary  221  •  Questions for Discussion   221  •  
Suggested Activities  222  •  References  222

Chapter 10 Assessment of Aptitude   223

Aptitude Tests  223
Multiple-Aptitude Test Batteries   224
Specialized Aptitude Tests   230
Admissions Tests   235
Readiness Tests   239
Summary  240  •  Questions for Discussion   240  •  
Suggested Activities  241  •  References  241

Chapter 11 Career and Employment Assessment   243

Career Assessment  243
Interest Inventories   244
Work Values Inventories   250
Personality Inventories   252
Abilities and Skills Assessment   253
Career Development Inventories   256
Combined Assessment Programs   257
Interviews   257
Employment Assessment  258
Selection Interviews   258
Biographical Information   259
Tests   260
Job Analysis   262
Assessment Centers   265
Guidelines for Employee Selection   266
Trends in Employment Assessment   266
Summary  267  •  Questions for Discussion   268  •  
Suggested Activities  268  •  References  269

Chapter 12 Personality Assessment  271

Defining Personality  271
Traits, States, and Types   272
 xvii
Contents

Personality Inventories  274
Approaches to Personality Inventory Development   274
Categories of Personality Inventories   276
Structured Personality Inventories   276
Projective Instruments and Techniques   285
Personality Inventories with a Positive Focus   294
Response Styles   297
Summary  298  •  Questions for Discussion   298  •  
Suggested Activities  299  •  References  300

Part Three Applications and Issues Related to Assessment

Chapter 13 Clinical Assessment  303
Fundamentals of Clinical Assessment   303
Political Issues in Diagnosis   304
Determining a Diagnosis   304
DSM-5   305
Interviews in Clinical Assessment   308
Mental Status Exam   310
Instruments Used in Clinical Assessment   311
Suicide Risk Assessment    317
Observation and Clinical Assessment   319
Neuropsychological Assessment  326
Cultural Considerations in Clinical Assessment   329
Summary  329  •  Questions for Discussion   330  •  
Suggested Activities  330  •  References  330
Chapter 14 Assessment in Education   332
School Assessment Programs  333
Planning a School Assessment Program   333
Instruments Used in School Assessment Programs   334
Assessment Activities of School Counselors   336
Needs Assessments   337
Assessing Specific Learning Disabilities   337
Assessing Giftedness   340
Consulting with Teachers   346
Environmental Assessment in the Schools   346
Competencies in Assessment and Evaluation for School Counselors   347
Assessment Issues in Education   348
Test Preparation and Performance   349
xviii Contents

Coaching   350
Test-Wiseness   350
Test Anxiety   351
Summary  352  •  Questions for Discussion   353  •  
Suggested Activities  353  •  References  353

Chapter 15 Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations   356

Multicultural Assessment  357
Measurement Bias   357
Multicultural Perspectives in Assessment   360
Acculturation   361
Strategies   361
Assessment of Linguistically Diverse Individuals   361
Assessment of Individuals with Disabilities   363
Assessment of Individuals with Visual Impairment   365
Assessment of Individuals with Hearing Impairment   366
Assessment of Individuals with Intellectual Disability   367
Assessment of Individuals with Neuropsychological Impairment   369
Assessment of Individuals with Communication Disorders   369
Assessment of Children with Disabilities   369
Standards for Assessment with Diverse Populations   372
Summary  372  •  Questions for Discussion   373  •  
Suggested Activities  373  •  References  373

Chapter 16 Communicating Assessment Results   375

Feedback Sessions  376
Group Feedback Sessions   378
Problem Areas   378
Feedback Sessions with Parents   381
Assessment Reports  383
Qualities of Well-Written Reports   384
The Assessment Report Format   385
Communicating Assessment Results to Other Professionals   390
Communicating Assessment Results to the Public   390
Summary  392  •  Questions for Discussion   392  •  
Suggested Activities  392  •  References  393

Chapter 17 Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment   395

Professional Standards and Codes of Ethics   395
American Counseling Association Code of Ethics   396
 xix
Contents

AERA, APA, and NCME Standards for Educational

and Psychological Testing   396

American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of

Psychologists and Code of Conduct   398
Association for Assessment and research in Counseling
Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests, Third Edition   399
Joint Committee on Testing Practices Code of Fair Testing Practices
in Education   399

National Council on Measurement in Education Code of Professional

Responsibilities in Educational Measurement   400
Ethical Issues in Assessment   400
Professional Training and Competence   400
Test-User Qualifications   402
Client Welfare Issues   404
Legal Issues in Assessment   404
Statutes and Regulations   405
Judicial Decisions   408
Summary  410  •  Questions for Discussion   410  •  
Suggested Activities  410  •  References  411

Appendix I Standards for Multicultural Asessment Fourth Revision, 2012   412

Appendix II Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests (RUST; 3rd ed.)   417
Name Index  422
Subject Index  429
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER

1 Introduction to Assessment

Imagine being asked by a child welfare agency to conduct an assessment that would deter-
mine a child’s potential for transitioning from foster care status to adoption within a family.
As part of the assessment, you might visit the home of the potential parents to determine
the appropriateness of the environment and to have a realistic sense of the family function-
ing. You would also have to evaluate the social and emotional development of the child and
the readiness for adoption. For example, it would be necessary to consider the child’s ability
to bond with a new family, any developmental issues that may be present, and any poten-
tial barriers that might impact the success of the adoption process. In order to gather enough
information to make this type of determination, you might interview the parents, observe
the child playing and interacting, and conduct evaluation using standardized assessment
instruments (e.g., the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development). ­Consider how
important this assessment process would be to the children and the parents. The overall
assessment process would be quite involved, and the results would have incredibly high
stakes. The final assessment report would include information about any developmental
concerns, an evaluation of the family environment, an interpretation of standardized scores,
and a final recommendation based on the data. Based on the assessment results, the child
welfare agency would make a decision about finalizing the adoption.
It is a privilege to play such a role in people’s lives, and the privilege should be hon-
ored with careful attention to best practices and a wealth of knowledge about the assess-
ment process. Although the results of assessment do not always lead to happy outcomes,
this example provides some insight into where your journey through this book will lead.
Assessment has long been regarded as a fundamental component of all helping profes-
sions and the cornerstone of the counseling process. Simply put, assessment is the process
of gathering information about a client and determining the meaning of that information.
It is through assessment that counselors can uncover the nature of a client’s problems or
issues; the magnitude of these problems and how they are impacting the client’s life; how
the client’s family, relationships, or past experiences are affecting the current problem; the
client’s strengths and readiness for counseling; and whether counseling can be beneficial
to the client. Assessment is also critical for establishing the goals and objectives of coun-
seling and for determining the most effective interventions. Assessment occurs in all coun-
seling settings, including schools, mental health clinics, career counseling centers, substance
abuse treatment centers, private practice, psychiatric hospitals, and vocational rehabilita-
tion centers. In practice, counselors are always assessing. Assessment is an ongoing, fluid,
and dynamic process that continues throughout the course of the helping relationship.

1
2 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment

Although students in the helping professions often initially question the need for assess-
ment training, competency in assessment is integral to successful counseling practice
(Whiston, 2012).
The purpose of this textbook is to help current and future school counselors, mental
health counselors, career counselors, marriage and family therapists, and other helping
professionals recognize the integral role between assessment and counseling, understand
the process of assessment, develop an awareness of the applications of assessment, and
understand the legal and ethical issues specific to assessment. We believe that competency
in assessment is essential to positive outcomes in counseling. In order to be competent in
assessment, you will need to seek supervised practice opportunities in addition to learning
the content in this textbook. Each chapter in this book will help you build upon your ability
to integrate assessment into your practice as a professional counselor.
Throughout the textbook, we use the term assessment rather than testing. It is impor-
tant to understand that testing is just one component of the assessment process and that
the scope of assessment activities is far beyond the exclusive use of standardized tests.
Although we will present information about important and widely used educational and
psychological tests throughout the text, we stress that assessment is more than simply giv-
ing tests. Assessment involves collecting and integrating information about an individual
from multiple methods (e.g., interviews, observations, tests) and multiple sources (e.g., the
client, family members, teachers, physicians). Corroborating data from multiple assess-
ment methods and sources helps create a more comprehensive and accurate understand-
ing of the client and his or her presenting concerns.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Define assessment.
JJ Describe the various purposes of assessment.
JJ Describe the broad categories of data collection methods and the various sources of

assessment information.
JJ Explain the importance of integrating multiple methods and multiple sources of

assessment information.
JJ List and describe the steps in the assessment process.

JJ Describe the competencies required by counselors for the effective use of assessment

instruments.
JJ Describe the historical context of assessment.

JJ Describe the application of computer technology in the field of assessment.

What is Assessment?
Before we can talk about the assessment process, it is important to understand our defini-
tion of assessment. The term assessment refers to any systematic procedure for collecting
information that is used to make inferences or decisions about the characteristics of a per-
son (American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological
­Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), 2014).
Assessment encompasses a broad array of data collection methods from multiple sources
 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment 3

to yield relevant, accurate, and reliable information about an individual. In counseling and
other helping professions, assessment is considered a process, because it is the continual
practice of gathering information. Some hold to a traditional (yet erroneous) belief that
assessment is limited to the first meeting with an individual; in reality, assessment is an
ongoing process that may begin even before the first face-to-face contact with the indi-
vidual and that continues throughout the course of the helping relationship.
Many disciplines employ the activity of assessment, including psychology, coun-
seling, education, social work, health, military, and business and industry. Educators and
other school personnel use assessment to identify learning or behavioral or emotional
problems in students and to determine appropriate interventions and educational plans.
Psychologists and other mental health professionals utilize assessment to help in diagnos-
ing mental disorders, treatment planning, and monitoring and evaluating treatment pro-
gress. Career counselors engage in assessment to evaluate individuals’ vocational interests
and aptitudes. Because numerous types of professionals engage in assessment, we will
refer to those individuals as counselors, test users, assessors, examiners, or simply professionals
throughout the textbook. Similarly, we will refer to individuals who participate in the
assessment process as clients, test takers, assessees, or examinees.
Assessment is often equated with testing, and the two terms are often confused or
erroneously used interchangeably. Even today, many published textbooks hardly distin-
guish between assessment and testing. As Cohen, Swerdlik, and Sturman (2012) noted,
testing has been a catch-all phrase for the entire testing process rather than just the admin-
istration of a test. However, assessment goes beyond merely giving tests. It is a compre-
hensive process that involves the integration of information from multiple data collection
methods (e.g., interviews, tests, observations). Therefore, tests are now considered to be
one aspect of the overall assessment process (American Educational Research Association
(AERA) et al., 2014). The fact that assessment can proceed effectively without testing helps
to distinguish between these two activities (Weiner, 2013).
The methods for collecting assessment information can be grouped into three broad
categories: interviews, tests, and observations. Each category comprises a wide array of
formal and informal instruments and strategies, such as unstructured interviews, rating
scales, standardized tests, projective drawings, checklists, questionnaires, and so on.
Assessment also involves obtaining information from various sources, which may include
the client, family members, spouses or partners, teachers, physicians, mental health profes-
sionals, and other professionals. The assessment process varies from assessment to assess-
ment, depending upon the purpose for assessment, the setting in which the assessment
takes place, the needs of the client, and the availability and utility of the methods and
sources of information (Weiner, 2013). We emphasize the importance of using multiple
methods in most assessments, because the results of a single assessment instrument should
never be the sole determinant of important decisions about clients.

The Purposes of Assessment

Now that we have defined assessment, it is important to explore the rationale for conduct-
ing assessment in counseling and other helping professions. Why do counselors assess?
The short answer to this question is to gather information about a client. However, the
information that counselors need to collect about a client depends a great deal on the
­purpose or reason for assessment. The research literature contains at least four general
4 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment

­ urposes of assessment, including screening, identification and diagnosis, intervention

p
planning, and progress and outcome evaluation (Erford, 2012; Sattler & Hoge, 2006;
Selborn, Marion, & Bagby, 2013).

Screening  Screening is a quick process, usually involving a single procedure or instru-

ment, used to determine whether an individual has a high risk of having a specific problem
and needs more in-depth assessment at that time. The screening process is not comprehen-
sive, and the instruments used for screening are often held to lower standards of psycho-
metrical soundness (Erford, 2012). Screening does not necessarily detect a specific problem
or disorder an individual might have or how serious it might be; rather, it provides coun-
selors with preliminary information that identifies those individuals with a high probabil-
ity of having a particular problem. If an individual is identified as having a high risk for a
disorder through the screening process, then further assessment is warranted. For exam-
ple, many colleges have depression screening days in which students are given the oppor-
tunity to complete a questionnaire or instrument that detects a risk for depression. If the
results of the instrument indicate a high risk for depression, then the student is referred to
the counseling center for further evaluation and, if needed, counseling.

Identification and Diagnosis  In counseling, assessment is often conducted as a means

of identifying or diagnosing problems, symptoms, or disorders. Diagnosis can be defined as
a “detailed analysis of an individual’s strengths and weaknesses, with the general goal of
arriving at a classification decision” (Erford, 2006, p. 2). The assessment process for diag-
nosis typically encompasses the use of a series of instruments and strategies to identify a
client’s problem areas that need to be targeted for intervention. Many counselors are
required to diagnose individuals using a classification system called the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Associa-
tion (APA), 2013). Mental disorders are behavioral or psychological patterns that impair an
individual’s cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning. In mental health counseling
settings, depression and anxiety are examples of problems commonly diagnosed using the
DSM-5. In school settings, identifying students who may be experiencing delays or learn-
ing problems is an important objective of assessment.

Intervention Planning  Intervention planning (i.e., treatment planning) involves deciding on

a course of action that facilitates client change and helps improve the client’s outcome. In most
cases, an individual is referred for counseling because he or she is struggling and needs spe-
cific psychological, educational, or behavioral interventions to improve his or her situation
(Lichtenberger, Mather, Kaufman, & Kaufman, 2005). In these cases, the purpose of assess-
ment is to gather information to determine the most effective interventions that address and
resolve the client’s specific areas of concern. There are innumerable interventions that a coun-
selor can choose from, and the interventions decided upon are based on the client’s problems
and the reason for referral. In addition, the setting in which the assessment takes place (such
as a school, hospital, community mental health agency, private practice, or vocational center)
will influence the types of interventions recommended (Lichtenberger et al., 2005).

Progress and Outcome Evaluation  Once interventions have been implemented, coun-
selors may use various assessment instruments and strategies to monitor a client’s pro-
gress and evaluate outcome. By periodically monitoring a client’s progress, counselors can
 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment 5

determine if the interventions are positively impacting the client. If an intervention is

­having no positive effects, then counselors may reevaluate the client and make new inter-
vention plans. When an intervention program is completed, counselors may conduct an
outcome evaluation to determine if the particular intervention was effective and if the cli-
ent achieved his or her goals at the end of counseling. The first step in progress and outcome
evaluation is establishing a baseline measure of the client’s condition. This usually takes place
during the initial meeting for assessment and can involve the use of formal or informal
assessment instruments or strategies. For example, an informal method would be to ask
the client to rate his or her feelings of depression on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating
a complete absence of depressive symptoms and 10 indicating feeling intensely depressed.
An example of a formal assessment instrument designed specifically for progress and out-
come evaluation is the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45), which measures adult clients’
psychological symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety), interpersonal functioning, and social
role functioning. The assessment methods used to collect baseline data are periodically
readministered to monitor the client’s progress over the course of intervention. To assess
the outcome of the intervention, the same instruments are also administered after the cli-
ent has completed the intervention. Results from the outcome assessment are analyzed to
determine if there has been a change from the baseline score.

Multiple Methods and Multiple Sources

You are likely beginning to see that assessment is a complex but essential process. Counse-
lors using best practices conduct assessment by using multiple methods and multiple
sources. Imagine having a complex jigsaw puzzle that you need to put together without
having an idea of what the puzzle is supposed to look like when it is completed. You might
attempt to use different approaches to determine some direction for solving the puzzle,
you might get others to give you input about the process and outcome, and you might
apply some problem-solving methods to the task. Conducting a thorough assessment is a
similar process. As counselors and helping professionals, we often are unaware of what
the end picture will look like for a client, but we have to begin to piece together the parts
that will aim toward a solution to the presenting problems.
Selecting and utilizing multiple methods of data collection, which may be referred to as
a multimodal approach to assessment, is essential in order to have checks and balances for
information gathered. The methods utilized to collect assessment information can be
broadly categorized as interviews, tests, and observations. Within each category is a wide
array of formal (e.g., standardized tests, structured interviews, formal observation) and
informal (e.g., unstructured interviews, projective techniques, checklists, questionnaires,
anecdotal reports) instruments and strategies. The sources of assessment information may
include the client, parents, spouses or partners, teachers, physicians, and mental health
professionals, to name just a few. Figure 1.1 illustrates the various methods and sources
that may be utilized in the assessment process. In most assessments, using multiple meth-
ods and multiple sources is important for obtaining information that is thorough enough
to produce an in-depth understanding of the individual. Counselors should never rely
solely on the results of a single assessment instrument or strategy to make important deci-
sions about clients. In this section, we will present an overview of the methods (i.e., inter-
views, tests, observations) and sources of assessment information. Chapter 2 more fully
describes each of these assessment methods and sources.
6 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment

Assessment

Methods Sources

1. Interviews 1. The Client

Unstructured interviews
Semistructured interviews 2. Collateral Sources
Structured interviews
Personal Sources
2. Tests (spouses/partners, parents, other
family members)
Standarized tests and inventories
Teacher- or counselor-made tests
Professional Sources
Checklists
(teachers/other school personnel,
Questionnaires
mental health professionals,
Projective drawings
medical professionals)
Work samples
Records (mental health records,
3. Observations
school records, medical records,
Rating scales department of social services
Event recording records/reports, court records,
Duration recording military records, criminal
Time sampling history records)
Raw notes
Anecdotal records

FIGURE 1.1  Multiple methods and multiple sources of the assessment process.

It may seem like an obvious point, but meeting face-to-face (or via camera) with a
client is critical for gaining a complete picture from the assessment process. The interview
is a face-to-face meeting of the assessment professional and the client. Interviewing may
include such diverse techniques as unstructured interactions, semistructured interactions,
and highly formal structured interactions. Its primary purpose is to gather background
information relevant to the reason for assessment. The interview can be considered the
single most important method of gathering information about the client’s presenting prob-
lem and background information. Without interview data, information from tests and
observations is without context and meaningless. In many settings, the interview is the
primary (and sometimes only) assessment method used to collect data.
Tests are instruments designed to measure specific attributes of an individual, such
as knowledge or skill level, intellectual functioning, aptitude, interests or preferences, val-
ues, personality traits, psychological symptoms, level of functioning, and so on. Counse-
lors may use data collected from formal and informal tests, checklists, questionnaires, or
inventories for several purposes, such as screening for emotional, behavioral, or learning
problems; classifying or diagnosing certain attributes, problems, or disorders; selecting or
placing individuals into training, educational or vocational programs, or employment
opportunities; assisting in planning educational or psychological interventions; or evaluat-
ing the effectiveness of specific interventions or educational programs. Test results are
 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment 7

particularly useful in assessment, because they may reveal vital diagnostic information
that would not have been uncovered through other assessment methods.
Observation is an assessment method that involves watching and recording the behav-
ior of an individual in a particular environment. It is a way of seeing what a person actu-
ally does, rather than relying on others’ perceptions of behavior. Observation is useful for
collecting information about an individual’s emotional responses, social interactions,
motor skills, and job performance and for identifying specific patterns of behavior. Obser-
vation can be formal, involving the use of standardized rating scales and highly structured
procedures, or informal, with the counselor taking raw notes regarding a client’s verbal
and nonverbal behavior during the assessment.
In addition to multiple methods, counselors use multiple sources of information. The
client is usually the primary source of information during the assessment process. Other
sources of information (called collateral sources) include personal sources, such as parents,
spouses or partners, and others close to the individual being evaluated, and professional
sources, such as teachers, physicians, mental health professionals, and other professionals.
Information from collateral sources is valuable, because it is typically more objective and
reliable than information obtained directly from examinees. Another source of assessment
information comes from client records, such as school grades or attendance, previous psy-
chological or educational assessment reports, mental health treatment plans or summaries,
court documents, records from social services agencies, and so on.
There is no set standard as to the number of methods or sources that should be used
in assessment. The methods and sources chosen for the assessment process typically depend
upon the nature of the referral questions, the reason for assessment, and available assess-
ment resources. The client interview is considered the cornerstone of assessment and is
employed in almost all cases. However, utilizing additional methods and sources of infor-
mation leads to a more complete and accurate picture of the individual being evaluated. For
example, say that a mental health counselor working in an outpatient counseling center
conducts unstructured interviews with clients to determine the reason they are seeking
counseling and to collect relevant background information. The counselor also asks clients
to complete a self-report checklist of psychological symptoms. From the checklist, the coun-
selor discovers that a particular client has many symptoms of depression, which the client
did not disclose during the interview. In this example, the use of the checklist provided
essential information that was not uncovered by the interview alone. The client profile also
might be more clearly detailed with the administration of some standardized tests; how-
ever, the counselor might not have access to these tests in his work setting.

The Assessment Process

Now that we have defined assessment and discussed methods and sources, it is important
to reemphasize that the assessment process is more than simply giving a test. Assessment
is a complex, problem-solving process that necessitates collecting and analyzing informa-
tion about an individual in order to make decisions or inferences about that person. The
first and most important step in the assessment process is to identify the client’s problem(s)
to be addressed and the reason for assessment (Urbina, 2014). A clear sense of why an
assessment is being conducted helps counselors select the methods and sources of infor-
mation that will provide an adequate basis for arriving at useful conclusions and recom-
mendations (Weiner, 2013). In most instances, the process of assessment ends with a verbal
8 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment

or written report that contains the assessment results and recommendations. In between
the beginning and end points of the assessment process are other additional actions
directed at collecting relevant client information. Although the process of assessment
might appear overwhelming now, it can be broken down into the following four manage-
able steps (Hardwood, Beutler, & Groth-Marnat, 2011):
1. Identify the Problem  The first step in the assessment process is identifying the pre-
senting problem—that is, the reason that the individual is being assessed. Because
assessment is so clearly linked to counseling, the reason for assessment and the rea-
son for counseling are often one and the same. Reasons for assessment and/or coun-
seling can stem from a variety of problems or concerns, such as academic or vocational
performance, cognitive abilities, behavioral problems, or emotional and social func-
tioning (Lichtenberger et al., 2005). In order to proceed to the next step in the assess-
ment process, the counselor must have a clear idea about what the problem is and the
reasons for which the client is being seen.
Clients may be self-referred for assessment, or they may be referred by another
source, such as a family member, teacher, judge, physician, or human resources man-
ager. Referral sources can help clarify the nature and severity of the client’s problem
through the specific questions they want answered about the client. Thus, referral
questions are often directly linked to the problem being addressed in assessment. The
following are examples of referral questions that help define the client’s problem:
• Does this student have a learning disability? If so, does he or she qualify for special
education or related services?
• Is this child ready to begin kindergarten?
• Does this child’s problematic behavior indicate a diagnosis of Attention Deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)?
• Is this individual suicidal?
• Does this adult have Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?
• Does this parent have a mental disorder that might interfere with parenting?
• What are this individual’s vocational interests?
• How well can this employee be expected to perform if promoted to a management
position?
2. Select and Implement Assessment Methods  After counselors determine the nature
of the problem that needs to be appraised in the assessment process, the next step
involves selecting and implementing methods for collecting data (e.g., interviews,
tests, observation) and determining the sources of assessment information. Counse-
lors choose from among numerous formal and informal assessment instruments
and strategies based on the reason for referral, the context in which the assessment
takes place, and the adequacy of the instruments and procedures they will use.
Interviews are used in almost every assessment to obtain background information
about an individual, including family history, work and education background,
social history, and other relevant cultural and environmental factors. Counselors
may administer tests to evaluate a person’s cognitive functioning, knowledge, skills,
abilities, or personality traits. Observation may be used to record or monitor a cli-
ent’s behavior in a particular setting. Collateral information also may be obtained
from family members, spouses or partners, and others close to the individual being
evaluated. Although there are no set guidelines for which or how many assessment
 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment 9

instruments or strategies to use, in general, the more methods used to collect data,
the more accurate and objective the information obtained.
3. Evaluate the Assessment Information  A key task for counselors is evaluating assess-
ment information, which involves scoring, interpreting, and integrating information
obtained from all assessment methods and sources to answer the referral question.
To be competent in evaluating assessment information, counselors need knowledge
and skills in basic statistical concepts, psychometric principles, and the procedures
for interpreting assessment results. Evaluating assessment information is a difficult
step, because the counselor is often confronted with a dizzying array of information
gathered during the assessment process. To organize this data, counselors can use
the following steps (Kamphaus & Frick, 2010; Sattler & Hoge, 2006):
a. Document any significant findings that clearly identify problem areas.
b. Identify convergent findings across methods and sources.
c. Identify and explain discrepancies in information across methods and sources.
d. Arrive at a tentative formulation or hypothesis of the individual’s problem.
e. Determine the information to include in the assessment report.
4. Report Assessment Results and Make Recommendations  The final step in the assess-
ment process is reporting results and making recommendations. This involves
(a) describing the individual being assessed and his or her situation, (b) reporting gen-
eral hypotheses about the individual, (c) supporting those hypotheses with assessment
information, and (d) proposing recommendations related to the original reason for
referral (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2002; Ownby, 1997; Sattler, 2008). The general
hypotheses are the counselor’s descriptive or clinical impressions of the individual that
are based on multiple methods and sources of assessment data. When reporting these
hypotheses, make sure to provide enough assessment data to support your conclusion.
Making recommendations involves identifying specific ways to resolve the pre-
senting problem or referral question by addressing the assessment’s key findings
about the individual (Lichtenberger et al., 2005). Counselors recommend strategies
and interventions that are designed to facilitate change and improve outcomes based
on the individual and his or her assessment results (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2002).
Because individuals are referred for assessment for a variety of reasons, recommen-
dations vary depending on the referral questions. In addition, the setting in which
the assessment takes place (such as a school, hospital, mental health clinic, college, or
vocational training center) will influence the type and number of recommendations
(Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2002). For example, in school settings, most referrals for
assessment involve students’ problems that affect their academic performance. In
this situation, recommendations typically focus on behavioral interventions, instruc-
tional strategies, or other appropriate educational services (Lichtenberger et al.,
2005). Assessments at mental health centers are requested generally for diagnosing
mental disorders, treatment planning, and monitoring treatment progress; thus, rec-
ommendations may include a variety of clinical interventions and techniques.

Competencies Required for Assessment

Just like professional counseling, you need both knowledge and skills to be competent in
assessment. Although a course in measurement and assessment might provide you with
the foundational knowledge of assessment, you would need supervised practice to be
10 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment

competent. Because some people have underestimated the complexity of assessment, prac-
ticed beyond the scope of their training, or attributed too much meaning to a single test
score, the public has developed a degree of skepticism in relation to assessment. As a
result, several governing bodies and professional associations related to assessment have
set explicit guidelines for the selection, use, administration, and interpretation of assess-
ment instruments. Those guidelines can be translated into the following competencies:
1. Understand the basic statistical concepts and define, compute, and interpret meas-
ures of central tendency, variability, and relationship.
2. Understand basic measurement concepts, such as scales of measurement, types of
reliability, types of validity, and norm groups.
3. Compute and apply measurement formulas, such as the standard error of measure-
ment and Spearman–Brown prophecy formula.
4. Read, evaluate, and understand instrument manuals and reports.
5. Follow exactly as specified the procedures for administering, scoring, and interpret-
ing an assessment instrument.
6. List and describe major assessment instruments in their fields.
7. Identify and locate sources of information about assessment instruments.
8. Discuss as well as demonstrate the use of different systems of presenting data in
tabular and graphic forms.
9. Compare and contrast different types of scores and discuss their strengths and
weaknesses.
10. Explain the relative nature of norm-referenced interpretation in interpreting indi-
vidual scores.
11. Help teach clients to use tests as exploratory tools and in decision making.
12. Present results from assessment instruments both verbally (using feedback sessions)
and in written form.
13. Pace a feedback session to enhance the client’s knowledge of the test results.
14. Use strategies to prepare clients for testing to maximize the accuracy of the test
results.
15. Explain assessment results to clients thoughtfully and accurately, but in language
they understand.
16. Use effective communication skills when presenting assessment results to individu-
als, groups, parents, students, teachers, and professionals.
17. Shape the client’s reaction to and encourage appropriate use of assessment
­information.
18. Be alert to the verbal and nonverbal cues expressed by the client throughout the
assessment process.
19. Use appropriate strategies with clients who perceive assessment results as negative.
20. Be familiar with the interpretation forms and computerized report forms so as to
guide the client to the information and explanation.
21. Be familiar with the legal, professional, and ethical guidelines related to assessment.
22. Be aware of the client’s rights and the professional’s responsibilities as a test admin-
istrator and counselor.
23. Have knowledge of the current issues and trends in assessment.
The Association for Assessment in Counseling (now the Association for Assessment
and Research in Counseling) published Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests
 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment 11

(­Association for Assessment in Counseling, 2003), which describes the qualifications that
professionals must have in order to provide valuable, ethical, and effective assessment ser-
vices to the public. Qualifications to use standardized tests depend on at least four factors:
1. Purposes of Testing  A clear purpose for using an assessment instrument should be
established. Because the purpose of an instrument directly affects how the results are
used, qualifications beyond general competencies may be needed to interpret the
results.
2. Characteristics of Tests  Counselors should understand the strengths and limita-
tions of each instrument used.
3. Settings and Conditions of Test Use  Counselors should evaluate the levels of knowl-
edge and skill required for using a particular assessment instrument prior to imple-
menting the instrument.
4. Roles of Test Selectors, Administrators, Scorers, and Interpreters  The education,
training, and experience of test users determine which instruments they are qualified
to administer and interpret.

Historical Perspectives
Part of being competent in assessment involves having a working knowledge of the his-
tory of assessment. Assessment is not a new concept. Even though the test movement in
the United States began only at the turn of the 20th century (see Table 1.1), tests actually
have been used for thousands of years. Around 2200 b.c., the Chinese used essay examina-
tions to help select civil service employees. The philosophies of Socrates and Plato empha-
sized the importance of assessing an individual’s competencies and aptitudes in vocational
selection. Throughout the centuries, philosophers and educators have devised certain
scales or items to provide teachers and parents with useful information to help their chil-
dren. Anthony Fitzherbert (1470–1538) identified some items to screen individuals with
retardation from those without—for example, being able to count to 20 pence, being able
to tell one’s age, and being able to identify one’s father or mother.
Juan Huarte (1530–1589) was probably the first author to suggest formal intelligence
testing. His book title was translated as The Trial of Wits: Discovering the Great Differences of
Wits among Men and What Sorts of Learning Suit Best with Each Genius. Jean Esquirol
(1772–1840), a French physician, proposed that there are several levels of intellectual defi-
ciencies and that language is a valid psychological criterion for differentiating among lev-
els. Eduardo Seguin (1812–1880) also worked with individuals with intellectual disabilities
and believed that these people should be trained in sensory discrimination and in the
development of motor control.
The Victorian era marked the beginning of modern science and witnessed the influ-
ence of Darwinian biology on the studies of individuals. In 1879 in Leipzig, Wilhelm
Wundt (1832–1920) founded the first psychological laboratory. His work was largely con-
cerned with sensitivity to visual, auditory, and other sensory stimuli and simple reaction
time. He followed scientific procedures and rigorously controlled observations. He influ-
enced the measurement movement by using methodology that required precision, accu-
racy, order, and reproducibility of data and findings. The interest in the exceptional
individual broadened to include personality and behavior. Sigmund Freud, Jean Martin
Charcot, and Philippe Pinel were interested in individuals with personal and social
12 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment

TABLE 1.1  Major Events in the Test Movement

1900–1909 • Graduate Record Examinations
• Jung Word Association Test • Wechsler Bellevue Intelligence Scale
• Binet and Simon Intelligence Scale • 1937 revision of the Stanford–Binet Intelli-
• Standardized group tests of achievement gence Scale
• Stone Arithmetic Test • Murray’s Thematic Apperception Test
• Thorndike Handwriting, Language, Spelling, • Bernreuter Personality Inventory
and Arithmetic Tests • Leiter International Performance Scale
• Spearman’s measurement theory • Kuder Preference Scale Record
• Pearson’s theory of correlation • Lindquist’s Iowa Every-Pupil Test
• Thorndike’s textbook on educational • Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test
­measurement • Marino’s Sociometric Techniques
• Goddard’s translation of Binet into English • Piaget’s Origins of Intelligence
• Tiegs and Clark’s Progressive Achievement Test
1910–1919
• Gesell Maturity Scale
• Army Alpha and Army Beta Tests
• Stenquist Test of Mechanical Abilities 1940–1949
• Porteous Maze Test • Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
• Seashore Measures of Musical Talents • Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
• Spearman’s Factors in Intelligence • U.S. Employment Service’s General Aptitude
• Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale Test Battery
• Otis Absolute Point Scale • Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale
• Stern’s concept of mental quotient
1950–1959
• Woodworth Personal Data Sheet
• Lindquist’s electronic test scoring
1920–1929 • Technical Recommendations for Psychological
Tests and Diagnostic Techniques
• Founding of the Psychological Corporation
• Technical Recommendations for Achievement
• Goodenough Draw-a-Man Test
Tests
• Strong Vocational Interest Blank
• Guilford’s The Nature of Human Intelligence
• Terman, Kelley, and Ruch’s Stanford
• Stevenson’s The Study of Behavior:
Achievement Test
O-Technique and Its Methodology
• Clark’s Aptitude Testing
• Osgood’s semantic differential
• Spearman’s The Abilities of Man: Their
• National Defense Education Act
­Nature and Measurement
• Frederikson’s In-Basket Assessment Technique
• Morrison’s School Mastery Tests
• Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
• Rorschach Ink Blot Test
• Hartshorne and May’s Character Education 1960–1969
Inquiry • National Assessment of Educational Progress
• Kohs’s Block Design Test • Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
­Intelligence
1930–1939
• 1960 revision of the Stanford–Binet Intelli-
• Thurstone’s primary mental abilities gence Scale
• Buros’s First Mental Measurements Yearbook • Standards for Educational and Psychological
• Johnson’s test-scoring machine Testing
 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment 13

Table 1.1  Major Events in the Test Movement (Continued)

• Jensen’s How Much Can We Boost IQ and • Differential Ability Scales
Scholastic Achievement? • Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test
• Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 1–3
• Kuder Occupational Interest Survey • Bayley Scale of Infant Development
• Cattell’s Theory of Fluid and Crystallized • Computer-adaptive and computer-assisted
Intelligence tests
• Bayley Scales of Infant Development
1990–2000
1970–1979 • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act • Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
of 1974 Act of 1996
• New York State Truth in Testing Act • Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve
• Education of All Handicapped Children Act • Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire,
(became the Individuals with Disabilities Fifth Edition
Education Act [IDEA]) • Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition
• Self-Directed Search • Revision of the Standards for Educational and
• System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment Psychological Testing
• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children— • Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Revised • Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition
• Revision of the Standards for Educational • Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can
and Psychological Testing Matter More than IQ
• Rokeach Value Survey • Baron’s Emotional Quotient Inventory
• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test • Internet-based tests
• Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory
• McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities 2001–Present
• Use of computers in testing • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
• Individuals with Disabilities Education
1980–1989 ­Improvement Act of 2004
• Thorndike, Hagen, and Stattler’s revision of • Newly revised Strong Interest Inventory
the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale • Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth
• Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act Edition
of 1984 • Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
• Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children ­Intelligence, Third Edition
• Revision of the Standards for Educational • Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second
and Psychological Testing ­Edition
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, • Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth
Second Edition ­Edition
• Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised • Standards for Educational and Psychological
• Nader & Nairn’s The Reign of ETS: The Testing (2014)
­Corporation that Makes Up Minds (Ralph • International Test Commission Standards
Nader’s report on the Educational Testing
Service)
14 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment

j­udgment problems. Early interest in measuring intelligence also dates back to the late 19th
century, when Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911), cousin to Charles Darwin, applied Darwin’s
evolutionary theory to attempt to demonstrate a hereditary basis for intelligence. In 1905,
French psychologist Alfred Binet (1857–1911) constructed the first intelligence test (the
Binet–Simon scale) that measured children’s cognitive ability to learn school-type tasks or
educational attainments, focusing on language, memory, judgment, comprehension, and
reasoning (Binet & Simon, 1916). Binet claimed that his scale provided a crude means of
differentiating between those children who could function in the regular classroom and
those who could not.
The assessment of children rapidly expanded to the assessment of adults when
the United States entered World War I in 1917 (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). During this time,
the armed services developed a group intelligence test called the Army Alpha to use in the
selection and classification of military personnel. The original purpose of the army test was
to identify those recruits whose lower intelligence would create problems for the military
organization. A similar test was created for use with illiterate or non-English-speaking
recruits, called the Army Beta. At the end of World War I, there was also an interest in
screening recruits for psychosis and other emotional disabilities. The army once again
developed a new test, called the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet, which was a forerunner
of modern personality tests.
The successful use of tests by the armed services led to widespread adoption of tests
in education and industry. Other factors also contributed to the acceptance of tests. Growth
in population, free public education, compulsory school attendance laws, and the increase
in students going on to institutions of higher education all were factors that changed the
philosophy and practice of testing.
In addition, the egalitarian, political, and philosophical movements that championed
integration, women’s rights, rights of individuals with disabilities, and cultural group
heritage influenced how people viewed tests. Tests were criticized for cultural bias, gender
bias, unfairness to minority groups, and unfairness to groups with disabilities. These criti-
cisms led to improved review procedures for the selection of test items and the selection of
norming samples.
In recent years, however, the prevailing educational policy in the United States has
changed from an open, humanistic education to back-to-basics and accountability-based
approaches. The current use of high-stakes tests in the U.S. educational system can impact
a student’s educational paths or choices, such as whether a student is promoted or retained
at a grade level, graduated, or admitted into a desired program.
Despite the changes in the social and political climate, the use of tests in the United
States increased dramatically in the 20th and 21st centuries and continues to grow. It is
estimated that Americans take anywhere from 143 million to nearly 400 million standard-
ized tests yearly for education alone, 50 million to nearly 200 million job tests for business
and industry, and several million more for government and military jobs (Sacks, 1999).
The test industry has been greatly affected by technology. Computer-based tests repre-
sent a great advancement from the time when test usage was time-consuming and labori-
ous in terms of administering, scoring, and interpreting tests, as well as writing up test
results (Cohen et al., 2012). Today, most test publishers offer computer software for
administering, scoring, and/or interpreting tests. Technological advances make the use
of tests in the assessment process more convenient and affordable, further increasing the
growth in test usage.
 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment 15

Assessment and Technology

The assessment process has changed dramatically since the development of Wundt’s first
laboratory in 1879. Although observation is still an important component of the assess-
ment process, we have now developed more efficient means to administer assessments,
collect information, analyze data, and write reports. To say the least, counselors have seen
tremendous growth in the use of technology in assessment. In today’s world of counseling
practice, computers are an essential component of the assessment process, and many
assessment instruments can be administered via the Internet.

Computer-Based Assessment
The use of computers has been viewed as a way to enhance and advance the field of assess-
ment. In all areas of assessment (e.g., personality, intellectual ability, achievement, career
and employment assessment), computer-based assessment instruments and strategies are
available. With dynamic visuals, sound, user interactivity, and near-real-time score report-
ing, computer-based assessment vastly expands assessment possibility beyond the limita-
tions of traditional paper-and-pencil instruments (Scalise & Gifford, 2006). Although
initially computers were used only in the processing of test data, computer-based assess-
ment now encompasses a broad range of operations and procedures, such as the following:
• Computer Administration of Assessment Instruments  Administering tests, ques-
tionnaires, and interviews via the computer is one of the most common computer
assessment applications. This response format has many advantages over traditional
paper-and-pencil methods, such as increased delivery, potential time savings, and
the ability for items to be adapted or tailored based on the test taker’s response to a
previous item.
• Automated Test Scoring  Computer-based assessment provides automated scoring
of responses, thereby giving test takers almost immediate feedback and their overall
score. Computer scoring reduces the possibility that respondents would make errors
while filling out handwritten answer sheets and eliminates the errors that clinicians
and technicians would make while hand-scoring items.
• Computer-Generated Reports and Narratives  Computer-based assessment instru-
ments often provide computer-generated reports or narratives. These reports are
automated interpretations that are generated based on user input and resulting test
scores (Butcher, 2013). The reports may contain very complex and detailed state-
ments or summary statements.
• Computer-Adaptive Tests  Computer-adaptive tests are specifically tailored to an
individual’s ability level. The computer quickly determines the examinee’s ability
level and then tailors the questions to that level. The first question is usually selected
close to the passing level. If the test taker answers the question correctly, then a more
difficult item is presented next. Using a computer-adaptive test, test takers have a
more personalized assessment experience in a controlled environment. Computer-
adaptive tests also provide sensitivity to the needs of users with disabilities, helping
ensure equality and fairness in testing.
• Computer Simulations  Computer simulation is the technique of representing real-
world experiences through a computer program. Interactive software programs
allow individuals to explore new situations, make decisions, acquire knowledge
16 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment

based on their input, and apply this knowledge to control the ever-changing simula-
tion state. Simulations have been in use for many years to assess performance in dif-
ferent environments. In the military, simulation has long been used for assessing the
readiness of individuals to perform military operations, and devices used for com-
puter simulations range from plastic mock-ups to laptop computers to full-motion
aircraft simulators. In education, simulations can be used to investigate problem-
solving skills, allowing students to explore a range of options in a particular problem
scenario. Scenario-based testing is also used for some counseling-related exams, such
as the Clinical Mental Health Counseling Exam (CMHCE).
Computer technology also helps facilitate and improve all phases of measurement
practices. The increased availability of powerful computers and computer software in
recent decades has greatly enhanced the ease of evaluating the reliability (consistency) and
validity (accuracy) of test results. Such statistical operations are routinely carried out with
computer software programs such as SPSS and SAS.
Despite the many advantages of using computer-based assessment, there are several
limitations as well. For example, computer-based test interpretations or narrative reports
should not be viewed as stand-alone clinical evaluations (Butcher, 2013). Computer-based
interpretations are unable to take into account the uniqueness of the test taker and incor-
porate such elements as a client’s personal history, life events, or current stressors. There-
fore, computerized reports are considered broad, general descriptions that should not be
used without the evaluation of a skilled counselor. Whether or not a counselor chooses to
use a computer-based test interpretation, it is the counselor who is ultimately accountable
for the accuracy of interpretations.

Internet-Based Assessment
The Internet is also changing the current landscape and the future of assessment by pro-
viding a profusion of assessment instruments with 24–7 access, ease of use, immediate
scoring, and a more limited need for test administrators, leading to convenience, cost effec-
tiveness, and efficient testing. It is difficult to estimate the number of assessment-related
websites currently available on the Internet, other than to say that the number is large and
increasing (Buchanan, 2002). Internet-based assessment websites vary in content, quality,
and function. Some seek to adhere to high standards of professionalism of assessment,
whereas others appear unprofessional and unconcerned with ethical and security issues.
The motivation for development of many of these sites is easy to understand. Commercial
assessment sites can make more money, because the Internet offers easy access to large
numbers of participants. Researchers benefit from Internet-based assessment because they
have access to large numbers of participants; the costs associated with traditional assess-
ment methods, such as publishing and distributing paper surveys, mailing materials to
study participants, and data collection and entry, are eliminated; and the costs to develop,
publish, and maintain web-based surveys are significantly lower.
The expansion of assessment instruments on the Internet has brought about a num-
ber of issues. Concerns about the reliability and validity of the data collected through the
Internet remain, although previous research indicates no significant difference between
traditional and Internet-based testing. Another concern is that although many people have
access to the Internet, not everyone does, which can be a confounding variable in a research
study in terms of population sample. Questions regarding test security remain, and it is
 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment 17

difficult to positively identify a person taking an online assessment if the test is not taken
at a special site. Another issue involves providing feedback or results to participants—­
specifically, the inability to have human contact with a clinician or researcher while the
participant is receiving and processing test results.

Controversial Issues in Assessment

A field as complex and long-standing as assessment cannot exist without controversy. As
you might guess, some of the controversy has been among assessment professionals them-
selves, and other controversies have been between the public and the assessment commu-
nity. Some of the issues involved are recurrent and will be discussed again in other
chapters. It is imperative that counselors who conduct assessment be aware of ongoing
controversies and the impact on their scope of practice with regard to assessment. Contro-
versy can drive changes in practice. As such, counselors should maintain awareness of
legal and ethical guidelines related to the assessment process and should be certain to
apply those guidelines to their practice. The following statements reflect some of the cur-
rent issues, complaints, and controversies:
• Assessment is an invasion of privacy.
• There is too much reliance on test scores for decision making, without enough con-
sideration for an individual’s background history.
• Tests are biased; they are unfair and discriminate against diverse groups.
• Tests may be self-incriminating, and individuals should have the right to rebuttal.
• Intelligence tests are not measuring the right constructs.
• We cannot rely on grades and diplomas; we must have demonstration of competen-
cies on objective tests.
• Multiple-choice tests need to be replaced by authentic and performance assessment.
• There is too much pressure on students, teachers, and parents because of high-stakes
testing.

Summary
Many disciplines (e.g., psychology, counseling, are relevant to the assessment results and the
education, social work, health, military, busi- referral question.
ness or industry) employ the activity of assess- Having knowledge of the history of assess-
ment for such purposes as screening, ment can help with understanding current
identification and diagnosis, intervention plan- assessment issues and practices. The testing
ning, and progress evaluation. The assessment movement is about 100 years old. Some tests
process encompasses multiple data collection were constructed in the 19th century, but the
methods from multiple sources to yield rele- majority of test development occurred in the
vant, accurate, and reliable information about 20th century. Many of the innovations and
an individual. A key task of assessment profes- changes of the test movement resulted from
sionals is to analyze and integrate information major national crises and social and political
obtained from all assessment methods and movements. The use of computer-based and
sources to answer the referral question. Profes- Internet-based assessment continues to become
sionals must then make recommendations that more prevalent in the assessment field.
18 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment

Moving Forward
This textbook is divided into three parts (Part I, your ability to be competent in the area of
Principles and Foundations of Assessment; Part assessment. Chapter 1 introduced you to the
II, Overview of Assessment Areas; and Part III, principles and foundations of assessment. You
Applications and Issues) that provide a balance will continue to explore this area in Chapters 2
of theory and practice information as well as through 7. Chapters 8 through 12 provide an
coverage of the assessment instruments and overview of assessment areas, and the remain-
strategies commonly used in the various areas der of the book focuses on applications and
of counseling (e.g., school counseling, clinical issues. As you read each chapter, contemplate
mental health counseling, vocational or career questions for discussion, and complete related
counseling settings). Although each section has activities, you should consider how each chap-
a different focus, it is important to remember ter fits within the framework we have provided
that all of the components of the textbook are and work to integrate the information into your
interrelated and that each section builds upon epistemology of counseling practice.

Questions for Discussion

1. What tests have you taken during your lifetime? 4. Should knowledge of the historical foundations
For what purposes were they given? How were of testing be a competency required by workers
the test results used? What type of feedback did in the helping professions? Why or why not?
you get about the results? 5. In what ways are computer-based assessment
2. Do you believe assessment is an integral part of instruments and traditional assessment instru-
the counseling process? Why or why not? ments alike? In what ways are they different?
3. Explain the importance of integrating multiple
methods and multiple sources of assessment
information.

Suggested Activities
1. Interview individuals who are working in the occurred over the last 5 years that have impacted
helping professions to find out what assessment assessment.
instruments or strategies they regularly use. 3. Discuss the assessment issue you think is most
2. Review media sources (e.g., websites, newspa- important for counselors to address.
pers), and identify three events that have

References
American Educational Research Association (AERA), Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing
American Psychological Association (APA), & (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
National Council on Measurement in Education Association for Assessment in Counseling. (2003).
(NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psy- Responsibilities of users of standardized tests (RUST).
chological testing. Washington, DC: Authors. Alexandria, VA: Author.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intel-
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders ligence in children (E. Kit, Trans.). Baltimore, MD:
(5th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author. Williams & Wilkins.
 Chapter 1  •  Introduction to Assessment 19

Buchanan, T. (2002). Online assessment: Desirable or Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive
dangerous? Professional Psychology: Research and foundations (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M.
Practice, 33, 148–154. Sattler Publisher Inc.
Butcher, J. N. (2013). Computerized psychological Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of
assessment. In J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), children: Behavioral, social, and clinical foundations
Handbook of psychology: Assessment psychology (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler
(2nd ed., pp. 165–191). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & ­Publisher Inc.
Sons. Scalise, K., & Gifford, B. (2006). Computer-based
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2012). assessment in e-learning: A framework for con-
Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction structing “intermediate constraint” questions and
to tests and measurement (8th ed.). Boston, MA: tasks for technology platforms. Journal of Technol-
McGraw-Hill. ogy, Learning, and Assessment. Retrieved from
Erford, B. T. (Ed.). (2006). The counselor’s guide to clini- http://www.jtla.org
cal, personality, and behavioral assessment. Boston, Selborn, M., Marion, B. E., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). Psy-
MA: Houghton Mifflin/Lahaska Press. chological assessment in adult mental health set-
Erford, B. T. (2012). Assessment for counselors. Boston, tings. In J. R. Graham, J. A. Naglieri, & I. B. Weiner
MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Assessment psychol-
Hardwood, T.M, Beutler, L. E., & Groth-Marnat, G. ogy (2nd ed., Vol. 10, pp. 241–260). Hoboken, NJ:
(2011). Integrative assessment of adult personality John Wiley & Sons.
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Sturman, E. D., Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2013).
Kamphaus, R. W., & Frick, P. J. (2010). Clinical assess- Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction
ment of child and adolescent personality and behavior to tests and measurement (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. McGraw-Hill.
Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2002). Assess- Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing.
ing adolescent and adult intelligence (2nd ed.). B
­ oston, (2nd ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
MA: Allyn & Bacon. Weiner, I. B. (2013). The assessment process. In J. R.
Lichtenberger, E. O., Mather, N., Kaufman, N. L., & Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psy-
Kaufman, A. S. (2005). Essentials of assessment chology: Assessment psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 10,
report writing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 3–25). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ownby, R. L. (1997). Psychological reports: A guide to Whiston, S. C. (2012). Principles and applications of
report writing in professional psychology (3rd ed.). assessment in counseling (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
New York, NY: Wiley. Brooks/Cole.
Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of
America’s testing culture and what we can do to change
it. New York, NY: Da Capo Press.
 CHAPTER

2 Methods and Sources

of Assessment Information

The assessment process involves collecting relevant, accurate, and reliable information
about an individual that can be used to make inferences or decisions about that person. To
collect data that is thorough enough to produce an in-depth understanding of a client,
counselors typically use multiple methods for collecting assessment information. These
methods can be grouped into three broad categories: interviews, tests, and observations.
Each category contains a wide array of formal and informal instruments and strategies,
such as unstructured interviews, rating scales, standardized tests, projective drawings,
checklists, questionnaires, and so on. Assessment also involves obtaining information
from various sources, which may include the client, family members, spouses or partners,
teachers, physicians, and other professionals. This chapter provides an overview of meth-
ods used in the assessment process and the sources of assessment information.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Identify and describe the data collection methods used in assessment.

JJ Identify and describe the various sources of assessment information.

JJ Explain the difference between formal and informal assessment instruments and

strategies.
JJ Explain the importance of using multiple methods and multiple sources of information

in assessment.
JJ Describe the initial interview and explain its purpose in the assessment process.
JJ Explain the differences among structured, semistructured, and unstructured
interviews.
JJ Describe the categories and characteristics of tests used in the assessment process.

JJ Define observation and describe the various observation strategies and approaches used

in the assessment process.

Assessment Methods and Sources

The assessment process utilizes diverse data collection methods from different sources to
obtain relevant client information that serves as a basis for formulating conclusions and
recommendations. The methods of data collection can be broadly categorized as inter-
views, tests, or observations. In each of these three categories, counselors may choose from

20
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 21

a multitude of formal and informal instruments and strategies to collect information.

Although the client is usually the primary source of information, information also may be
obtained from relatives, friends, teachers, health professionals, and other relevant collat-
eral sources. Information may also come from documents, such as medical records, school
records, and written reports of earlier assessments.
The methods and sources of information can vary considerably from assessment to
assessment, depending upon the purpose for assessment, the setting in which the assess-
ment takes place, the needs of the client, and the availability and utility of the methods and
sources of information (Weiner, 2013). Some assessments may be based entirely on infor-
mation obtained from interviews, particularly if a client is quite forthcoming and open to
the assessment process. If a client is reluctant to disclose information, then the assessment
may primarily include information from collateral sources and records. In a clinical set-
ting, it is often difficult to predict which methods and sources of information will prove
most critical or valuable in the assessment process before meeting the client. Behavioral
observation and standardized testing can both provide excellent information. Each may
prove more useful than the other in certain cases. For example, a classroom assessment of
disruptive behavior might best be served by observation strategies, whereas an assessment
of pathology might be best served by standardized testing. In some cases, standardized
test results could provide information that might not be evident through observation or
interview (Weiner, 2013). As an example, imagine conducting a risk assessment for a col-
lege student who threatened a professor. Observation or interview alone would probably
not provide enough information to arrive at a reliable estimate of the danger or lack thereof.
In this case, the addition of data from a standardized assessment of psychopathology (e.g.,
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI-2] and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory [MCMI-III]) would allow for a more thorough analysis of the individual’s poten-
tial for harm.
Regardless of whether observation or standardized assessment is used, the initial
interview is almost always required in the assessment process to obtain relevant back-
ground information about the client and the client’s perceptions of his or her problems and
strengths. When working with children, it is important to also interview parents or guard-
ians, teachers, and other caregivers who can provide relevant information that will aid in
your assessment of the child. We recommend for most assessments that counselors use
more than one method and source of assessment information. Corroborating information
from a number of methods and sources helps create a more comprehensive and accurate
understanding of the client and his or her presenting concerns. We caution counselors
against using the results of a single assessment instrument or strategy to make important
decisions about clients.
We also recommend that counselors collect assessment data across settings when
possible. Consider a child who is displaying disruptive behavior problems in school.
Although a parent can provide the best insight about a child’s behavior in many cases, it
would also be important to have the teacher’s perspective on this particular behavior.
Imagine that you conduct observations in clinic, home, and school settings and discover
that the behavior only occurs in a single teacher’s classroom. The intervention you design
would be setting specific, and you would attempt to determine the purpose (i.e., function)
of the behavior in that setting. If at the onset you accept the behavior to be global and fail
to evaluate behavior across settings, then you might limit the potential for success.
22 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

Formal and Informal Assessment Instruments and Strategies

Our examples thus far have demonstrated the complexity of assessment and the potential
consequences of obtaining limited data. However, it is important to note that the complex-
ity of the assessment process depends on the purpose of assessment. In some cases, coun-
selors use an informal assessment process to gain some basic information. Assessment
methods that are informal include the use of instruments and strategies that are developed
without proven reliability and validity. There is no standardization of administration, scor-
ing procedures, or interpretation. Furthermore, informal methods typically draw upon a
counselor’s professional judgment for determining hypotheses about the client, interpret-
ing instrument results, and making recommendations. There are a variety of informal
assessment procedures that counselors may use, including unstructured interviews, infor-
mal observation, projective drawings, checklists, work samples, teacher- or counselor-
made tests, and questionnaires. An example of an informal assessment is the use of a
feeling chart that describes the differences in emotional states to help clients identify their
own emotional responses.
Methods of assessment that are categorized as formal generally involve the use of
assessment instruments that are standardized. These formal assessment methods have
structured materials, uniform administration procedures, and consistent methods for scor-
ing and interpretation. A standardized instrument has undergone extensive instrument
development, which involves the writing and rewriting of items, hundreds of administra-
tions, the development of reliability and validity data, administrations to what are some-
times very large groups (i.e., thousands) of examinees, and the development of clearly
specified administration and scoring procedures (Salkind, 2012). The primary purpose for
standardizing an assessment instrument is to make sure that all the variables that are
under the control of the examiner are as uniform as possible so that everyone who takes
the test will be taking it in the same way (Urbina, 2014). Formal assessment instruments
can include standardized psychological or educational tests, structured interviews, or
structured behavior observations. As counselors, we use standardized tests for a variety of
reasons. Counselors often use instruments such as the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck,
Steer, & Brown, 1996) to diagnose and classify levels of depression in clients. The Beck
Depression Inventory (BDI-II) is the most frequently used standardized instrument for the
assessment of depression and provides a score that can indicate the severity of depression.
Although this is a formal assessment instrument, it contains only 21 items and takes
approximately ten minutes to complete.
An instrument that is standardized implies a level of technical quality or that the
instrument is psychometrically sound. Psychometrics can be defined as the field of study
concerned with educational and psychological measurement. An instrument that has psy-
chometric soundness generally has proven reliability (or consistency of scores) and validity
(the accuracy to measure what the instrument is designed to measure) and is standardized
on a relevant norm group (i.e., a reference group of people who participated in the stand-
ardization of the test to which researchers and professionals can compare the performance
of their subjects or clients). Psychometric aspects of assessment instruments will be dis-
cussed further in Chapters 4, 5, and 6.
Although throughout this textbook we have categorized assessment methods into
three general categories (interviews, tests, and observations), it is important to remember
that within each category there are many instruments and procedures that can be classified
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 23

TABLE 2.1  Examples of Formal and Informal Assessment Instruments and Strategies
Method Formal Informal

Interviews Structured interviews Unstructured interviews

Semistructured interviews Semistructured interviews
Tests Standardized tests and inventories Teacher- or counselor-made tests
Checklists
Questionnaires
Projective drawings
Work samples
Observations Rating scales Raw notes
Event recording Anecdotal records
Duration recording

as either formal or informal (see Table 2.1). Using a combination of formal and informal
assessment tools is recommended to provide an in-depth evaluation of clients, but the
right mix of formal and informal assessment methods will vary from assessment to assess-
ment. Chapter 7 will provide information on the process of selecting appropriate assess-
ment instruments and strategies.

The Initial Interview

Now that we have reviewed the elements of the assessment process, it is important to con-
duct a more in-depth exploration of each element. As we stated earlier, interviews are
typically included in all forms of assessment and are one of the most important means of
collecting information in the assessment process. The practice of interviewing covers a
broad range, from totally unstructured interactions to semistructured interactions to
highly formal structured interviews. The primary purpose of interviews is to gather back-
ground information relevant to the client’s current problems. Obtaining background infor-
mation often helps counselors understand the context for the client’s current concerns,
determine the longevity of problems and symptoms, and tailor plans for interventions to
the client’s specific context (Erford, 2013).
The interview generally begins prior to other assessment methods, and interview
information often serves as a basis for selecting other instruments and strategies in the
assessment process. Although counselors gather the majority of interview data at the onset
of assessment, interview data is continually collected throughout the assessment and/or
counseling process (Hardwood, Beutler, & Groth-Marnat, 2011). Interview data is inte-
grated with other assessment data to describe the individual, make predictions or deci-
sions about the individual, or both. The initial interview is considered the cornerstone of
assessment: without interview data, there is no context in which to interpret results from
other assessment methods.
During the initial interview, a client might discuss some symptoms of depression. In
order to understand the symptoms more clearly, a counselor might use an informal assess-
ment process, such as the SAD PERSONS Scale. This instrument is an informal scale that
24 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

provides a rating of suicide potential based on categories such as sex, age, depression, and
previous attempts at suicide. If the client has a moderate or high score on the SAD PER-
SONS Scale, then the counselor might decide to use the BDI-II to corroborate the informa-
tion and determine a more formal assessment of depression severity. The questions from
the SAD PERSONS Scale could be woven into the interview process seamlessly.

Degrees of Structure in Interviews

The degrees of structure in interviews vary. Interviews can have little structure, allowing
counselors to freely drift from one topic to the next, or be highly structured and goal ori-
ented. The degree of structure depends on the purpose of the interview, the population
(e.g., child, adult), the setting (e.g., school, research institute, outpatient counseling center,
psychiatric hospital), and the skill of the counselor (e.g., ability to relate data to a decision
tree for the diagnostic process). Based on the degree of structure, interviews can be catego-
rized as structured, semistructured, or unstructured. Each approach has benefits and draw-
backs, but the primary purpose of all three types is to obtain relevant background
information about the individual being interviewed (see Table 2.2 for a summary of inter-
view types).

Structured Interviews  Structured interviews are the most rigorous and the least flexible
interview format. As a formal assessment procedure, structured interviews consist of spe-
cific questions formulated ahead of time. They are commercially available standardized
instruments that have specific instructions and guidelines for administering, scoring, and
interpreting results. Using a structured interview, counselors are required to ask each cli-
ent exactly the same questions in the same manner and not deviate from the text. Although
all counselors can use structured interviews, they are especially helpful to those counselors
who are beginning to learn the process of interviewing. The advantages of structured
interviews are that (a) they ensure that specific information will be collected from all inter-
viewees; (b) they do not require as much training, because interviewers simply read from
a list of questions in a prescribed order; and (c) because of the standardization, they sub-
stantially improve the reliability of the assessment process (Erford, 2006). Because of the

TABLE 2.2  Summary of Interview Types

Unstructured interviews Very flexible
Informal (nonstandardized)
Interviewer may follow a general format
Widely used
Semistructured interviews More flexible
Not completely standardized
Interviewers may probe and expand interviewee responses
Structured interviews Less flexible
Formal (standardized)
No deviation in procedure
Often used in research settings
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 25

consistency of the information obtained through structured interviews, they are invaluable
tools in research settings. Because counselors are not allowed to deviate from the text, the
use of structured interviews is often criticized for potentially damaging rapport with a cli-
ent and preventing the therapeutic alliance between counselor and client from being estab-
lished (Craig, 2005). It is important to note that structured interviews can be quite
time-consuming. As such, counselors in clinical settings may see structured interviews as
impractical because of time constraints.

Semistructured Interviews  Although counselors might find structured interviews

impractical because of the time requirement, there is still a need for interview tools that
have structure and provide a means for gathering detailed information. Like structured
interviews, semistructured interviews consist of a scripted set of questions; however, inter-
viewers are allowed a degree of flexibility in the process. Interviewers may deviate from
the text, change the wording of questions, or change the order in which questions are
asked (Opie, 2004). Furthermore, interviewers are allowed to probe and expand on the
interviewee’s responses (Craig, 2009; Hersen & Turner, 2012). Semistructured interviews
may be either standardized or nonstandardized instruments.

Unstructured Interviews  As an informal assessment strategy, the unstructured inter-

view is the most frequently used type of interview among practicing counselors and psy-
chologists (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2008). It is considered unstructured
because it does not rely on a set of specified questions. The counselor is free to ask ques-
tions about whatever he or she considers to be relevant, and there is no predetermined
order to questions. However, unstructured interviewing is not an agendaless process
(Erford, 2013). Interviewers typically assess several general domains, including the pre-
senting problem, family background, social and academic history, medical history, and
previous counseling or psychiatric experiences (see Table 2.3). Counselors need to have a
clear idea of why the individual is being interviewed ahead of time, because the kinds of
questions asked depend on the types of decisions to be made after the interview.
Unstructured interviews have many similarities with counseling or psychotherapy
(Jones, 2010). Both interviewers and counselors must establish rapport between them-
selves and interviewees or clients, which requires interviewers and counselors to be warm,
genuine, respectful, and empathic. Interviewers and counselors must establish an atmos-
phere of safety and acceptance in order for interviewees or clients to feel comfortable with
self-disclosure. In addition, interviewers and counselors both need effective listening
skills, such as effective questioning, probing, and reflecting skills. Unlike counseling ses-
sions, however, the primary goal of the interview is to obtain relevant client information.
Although the interview can certainly be a therapeutic experience for the client, that is sec-
ondary to gathering information needed for determining the client’s problems or concerns
and formulating hypotheses about the client.
The unstructured interview has several advantages compared to other types of
interviews: The interviewer is free to pursue important but unanticipated topics, the
interviewee has more choice in deciding what to talk about, and there is more opportu-
nity for building rapport, which is important to the success of counseling. Because of the
flexibility of this method, counselors are able to adapt the interview to pursue certain
problems or topics in depth while limiting focus on topics deemed unproblematic. A pri-
mary limitation of this method involves reliability and validity: Because every c­ ounselor’s
26 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

TABLE 2.3  General Domains of Unstructured Interviews

I. Identifying information Name, address, phone number, age, gender, date of birth,
workplace, relationship status, and referral source
II. Presenting problem The client’s primary problems or concerns
III. Family history Information about the client’s family background, including
information about first-degree relatives (parents or siblings),
the composition of the family during the client’s childhood and
­adolescence, and the quality of relationships with family mem-
bers both past and present
IV. Relationship history The client’s current living situation, current and previous marital
or nonmarital relationships, children, and social support
V. Developmental history Significant developmental events that may influence current
problems or circumstances
VI. Educational history Schools attended, educational level attained, and any
­ rofessional, technical, and/or vocational training
p
VII. Employment history Current employment status, length of tenure on past jobs,
military service (rank and duties), job performance, job losses,
leaves of absence, and occupational injuries
VIII. Medical history Previous and current medical problems (major illnesses and
injuries), medications, hospitalizations, and disabilities
IX. Previous psychiatric or Previous psychiatric or counseling services in inpatient or
­counseling experiences ­ utpatient settings; also, any psychiatric medications
o

interview is different in terms of which questions are asked and how questions are
worded, it is difficult to evaluate the reliability or validity of the information obtained
during the interview.

Interview Guidelines
Successful interviews rely on the interviewer’s ability to communicate and understand the
communications of interviewees (Sattler & Hoge, 2006). Professionals should consider the
following general guidelines before and during an interview (Groth-Marnat, 2009;
­Morrison, 2008; Young, 2012):
1. Be concerned about the physical setting or environment for the interview. Interviews
will be better if the environment is quiet and comfortable. If the room is noisy or has
poor lighting, then it may detract from the quality of the information gained. Seating
should be arranged so that the interviewer and the interviewee are appropriately
spaced, with no physical barriers (such as desks) between seats.
2. Explain the purpose of the interview and how the session will proceed. Explain how
the interview information will be used.
3. Describe the confidential nature of the interview and the limits of confidentiality. In
addition, explain that the client has the right not to discuss any information he or she
does not wish to disclose.
4. When conducting a standardized semistructured or structured interview, abide by
the published administration procedures.
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 27

5. When conducting an unstructured interview, begin with open-ended questions, and

use more direct (closed) questions to fill in gaps. Avoid “why” questions, because
they may increase interviewee defensiveness.
6. Be alert to the nonverbal as well as verbal behavior of the interviewee. How a person
says something may be as important as what is said.

Tests
Although assessment is an accepted practice in all helping professions, testing can be a
controversial process and creates a level of suspicion in the public eye. The use of tests in
the United States increased dramatically during the 20th century and continues to grow
into the new millennium. It is estimated that Americans take anywhere from 143 million to
nearly 400 million standardized tests yearly for education alone, 50 million to nearly 200
million job tests for business and industry, and several million more for government and
military jobs (Sacks, 2001). Many test results can have a large impact on an individual’s life
path. These types of tests are often referred to as High Stakes. When tests impact the poten-
tial to obtain a job, graduate from public school, or become admitted into college, or affect
other large life events, the scrutiny of testing becomes even more significant. We discuss
these issues in more depth in Chapters 15 and 17.
As a counselor using testing as part of the assessment process, it is important to
understand the elements of a test and have competency in the administration of tests. A
test may be defined simply as a measurement process. In the helping professions, educa-
tional and psychological tests are used to provide a measure of various individual attrib-
utes, such as cognitive functioning, knowledge, skills, abilities, or personality traits. Test
data is integrated into the overall assessment in a way that helps counselors better under-
stand clients and make decisions in their best interests. Tests are utilized in assessment for
a variety of purposes, including screening for emotional, behavioral, or learning problems;
classifying an individual into a certain descriptive category (e.g., introvert); selecting or
placing individuals into certain training, educational, or vocational programs; assisting in
the diagnosis of a mental disorder; assisting in intervention or treatment planning; evalu-
ating the effectiveness of a particular intervention or course of action (i.e., progress and
outcome evaluation); and hypothesis testing in research studies.
Literally thousands of tests are available in education and psychology, and it is nearly
impossible for counselors to be familiar with every test. Tests may differ on a number of
features, such as content, format, administration procedures, scoring and interpretation
procedures, and cost (Cohen, Swerdlik, & Sturman, 2012). The content (subject matter) of a
test varies depending on the purpose or focus of the particular test. Some tests are compre-
hensive, with content covering a broad range of subject areas. For example, the California
Achievement Test (CAT/6) measures several areas of achievement, including reading,
language, math, study skills, science, and social studies. In contrast, some tests have a
more narrow focus and contain content only on a single subject area, such as the SAT Sub-
ject Test in Biology.
The format of a test pertains to the type, structure, and number of items on the test. Test
items can be classified as either selected-response or constructed-response items. Selected-
response items (also called forced-choice items) require respondents to indicate which of two or
more statements is correct. Multiple-choice, true/false, and matching items are all examples
of selected-response items. Rating scales are also considered a type of selected-response
28 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

f­ormat in which items are answered using a scale of successive intervals (rating scales are
discussed in more detail in the Observation section later in this chapter). In contrast to
selected-response items, constructed-response items require test takers to supply their own
responses (rather than selecting a given response). These include fill-in-the-blank items, sen-
tence completion, essay questions, verbal responses, performance tasks, portfolios, draw-
ings, and so on. Selected-response items are typically preferred over constructed-response
items, because they cover a broader range of content and can be answered and scored more
quickly. However, selected-response items constrain test takers to a single appropriate
answer and are subject to guessing, whereas constructed-response items allow individuals
to demonstrate more in-depth understanding and more freedom and creativity in their
responses. Figure 2.1 provides examples of some selected-response and constructed-response
formats. Tests vary widely in the number of items and the length of test-taking time: a test
can consist of 10 or 15 items and take 10 minutes to complete, it can encompass hundreds of
items and take several hours to complete, or it can consist of anything in between.
Although it is important to understand all elements of testing, it is an ethical require-
ment that counselors only use tests for which they received training and that counselors

Format Type Sample Item

Selected response

True/false I have the time of my life at parties. True False

Multiple choice At a grocery store, a customer hands the cashier a $20 bill to pay for a
bottle of soda that costs $1.36. How much change should the cashier
give back to the customer?
A. $17.64
B. $18.36
C. $18.64
D. $18.74
E. $19.36

Rating scale I value work environments that are flexible and do not require a
specific time schedule
Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree

    

Constructed response

Sentence completion I often wish ___________________________________________________

Verbal responses Spell this word for me: solemn.

Drawings Draw as good a person as you can.

FIGURE 2.1  Examples of item-response formats.

 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 29

have competency in the administration of tests (American Counseling Association, 2014).

Test administration procedures vary widely. Tests can be administered individually (i.e.,
given to one individual at a time) by a very active, very knowledgeable test examiner or
administered to a group of individuals at the same time. Tests can also be self-administered,
in which case the examinee reads the instructions alone and takes the test. Other forms of
test administration include computer-administered tests, video or audio administration,
and nonverbal administration. The complexity of the test will dictate the level of training
required to become competent in administration.
Tests may differ in the procedures for scoring and interpretation. Tests may be hand
scored, computer scored, sent to the publisher for scoring, or self-scored by the client.
Some test scores are based on the number of items answered correctly, whereas others
simply elicit information about one’s opinions, preferences, and so forth. Tests that are
scored on the basis of correctness are usually used to measure some aspect of a person’s
knowledge, skills, or abilities. Tests that are not evaluative are usually grouped under the
rubric of personality tests (Urbina, 2014).
After tests are scored, the process of interpretation involves making sense out of test
scores by converting test data into meaningful information. For example, raw scores can be
converted to other types of scores (such as percentiles or standard scores), which are used
to help describe and interpret an examinee’s performance. Although published tests often
have available software for computer-generated interpretations, the examiner is ultimately
responsible for scoring, interpreting, and explaining test results to examinees.
The cost of tests varies widely. Most standardized tests must be purchased from test
publishers, and tests prices can range from under $100 to thousands of dollars. The cost of
a test is often broken down by components. For example, many publishers charge sepa-
rately for the test manual, test booklets, scoring sheets, computer software, and other
items. Some test publishers offer a starter kit that includes all of the test materials for one
set price. Also, some test booklets are reusable, requiring examiners to purchase only
answer sheets for another testing. Some tests are offered through computer software and
can have single-use or subscription costs. Some tests are available free of charge in pub-
lished research journals or textbooks.

Categories of Tests
Because there are thousands of tests, it is useful to have a way to classify tests into catego-
ries. However, because tests differ from each other in a variety of ways, there is no uni-
formly accepted system of classification (Domino & Domino, 2006). Instead, tests can be
categorized based on a variety of aspects, such as the area of assessment, whether or not
the test is standardized, how scores are interpreted, how the test is administered, and item
type. As with most practices in assessment, professionals use different terminology to cat-
egorize tests, depending on their particular training, experience, and the settings in which
they work. We will review some of the common approaches to classifying tests.

Area of Assessment  Tests can be classified according to the area of assessment, such as the
following:
• Intellectual Ability Tests  Assess variables related to intelligence and cognitive abili-
ties, such as verbal ability, numeric ability, reasoning, memory, and processing
speed.
30 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

• Aptitude Tests  Estimate a person’s potential to succeed in an activity requiring cer-

tain skills.
• Achievement Tests  Measure an individual’s level of knowledge in a particular area.
• Career or Employment Inventories  Assess an individual’s interests and help classify
those interests in terms of jobs and careers.
• Personality Inventories  Measure a wide range of stable and unique personality
traits, states, and attitudes, as well as emotional problems or psychological disorders.

Standardized and Nonstandardized Tests  Tests may be broadly categorized as stand-

ardized (formal) or nonstandardized (informal). Standardization implies uniformity of
procedures in administering and scoring the test; thus, standardized tests are those that have
structured test materials, specific instructions for administration, and specific scoring
methods. Test users are expected to follow carefully the standardized procedures for
administering, scoring, and interpreting tests, as described in the test manual. The scores
on standardized tests have generally proven reliability (i.e., consistency) and validity (i.e.,
the inferences based on test scores are sound and appropriate). Standardized tests are also
presumed to have relevancy to the population for which they were intended. This means
that they were typically developed using a large, representative norm group. Because of
their validity, reliability, and norming data, standardized tests are frequently of higher
quality than nonstandardized tests.
In contrast to standardized tests, nonstandardized tests are informally constructed tests
without proven reliability or validity and have limited use and application. Examples of
nonstandardized tests include teacher-made tests, projective drawings, checklists, and
questionnaires.

Individual and Group Tests  Tests can be categorized based on how they are adminis-
tered. For example, individual tests are designed for administration to only a single exam-
inee at a time. Group tests are administered to multiple individuals simultaneously.
Individual tests are typically used for diagnostic decision making and generally require
examiners to meet and establish rapport with examinees. They allow examiners to observe
verbal and nonverbal behaviors during the test administration, enabling examiners to
gain more insight about the source of the examinee’s problems. Usually, administering
­individual tests requires competency. This means that a counselor should have special
training, expertise, familiarity with materials, and practice with timing procedures. A
­competent test user, according to the International Test Commission (intestcom.org/
Guidelines/Test+Use.php), must have full understanding of the tests to use them appro-
priately; users must also respect all involved in the testing process by acting professionally
and appropriately.
Group tests are typically more efficient than individual tests. They are usually less
expensive than individually administered tests, they minimize the time needed for admin-
istration and scoring, and they require less examiner skill and training. Group tests usually
contain items that can be scored objectively, usually by a computer, which reduces or elim-
inates the scoring errors commonly found in individual tests.

Maximum-Performance and Typical-Performance Tests  In assessment, some tests eval-

uate test-taker responses on the basis of correctness (i.e., right/wrong, pass/fail). These
types of tests, called maximum-performance tests, are usually used to appraise some aspect
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 31

of a person’s knowledge, skills, or abilities. For example, an achievement test generally

measures maximum performance. However, many instruments used in psychological
assessment are not evaluative and do not have items with correct or incorrect answers.
These types of instruments, called typical-performance tests, simply elicit information about
one’s opinions and preferences and are used to appraise an individual’s motivations, atti-
tudes, interests, and opinions. For example, when a counselor is helping someone to iden-
tify career choices, he or she might administer a career interest inventory. This type of
assessment instrument simply helps an individual to determine areas of the work world
that are more interesting than others. There are no right or wrong responses to these types
of assessment instruments.

Verbal and Nonverbal Tests  Tests can be classified as either verbal or nonverbal. Verbal
tests rely heavily on language usage, particularly oral or written responses. These tests
may involve grammar, vocabulary, sentence completion, analogies, and following verbal
instructions. Because verbal tests require examinees to understand the meaning of words
and the structure and logic of language, they discriminate very heavily toward native
speakers of the language in which the test was developed. In contrast to verbal tests, non-
verbal tests reduce or completely eliminate the need for examinees to use language when
taking the test. Nonverbal tests provide opportunities for examinees to comprehend direc-
tions with little or no language, have limited linguistic content, and allow examinees to
respond to items nonverbally. For example, a nonverbal test may require a test taker to
respond to pictorial materials rather than verbal items. An example of a nonverbal test is
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th edition; Dunn & Dunn, 2007) or the PPVT. The
PPVT is a norm-referenced test that is individually administered. The normative sample
for the test included national representation for cultural diversity and special education.
Thus, the PPVT can be used to address some of the issues relative to English as a second
language and special education issues specific to speech production.

Objective and Subjective Tests  A common way to distinguish tests is based on the types
of items on the test. An objective test (i.e., structured test) contains selected-response items
(e.g., multiple choice, true/false), each of which contains a single correct or best answer. It
is considered objective, because scoring consists of matching the test taker’s item responses
to previously determined correct answers; there are no subjective or judgmental decisions
involved in the scoring process. In contrast, subjective tests consist of constructed-response
items (e.g., essay questions, performance tasks, portfolios) that require the examiner to
make judgmental decisions to score the test.

Other Terminology  Strictly speaking, the term test should be used only for those proce-
dures in which test takers’ responses are evaluated based on their correctness or quality
(Urbina, 2014). Such instruments are usually maximum-performance tests that measure a
person’s knowledge, skills, or abilities. Tests that do not evaluate individuals on the basis of
correct and incorrect item responses (i.e., typical-performance tests) may be referred to by
several different names, such as inventories, questionnaires, surveys, checklists, schedules, or pro-
jective techniques. These instruments typically elicit information about an individual’s moti-
vations, preferences, attitudes, interests, opinions, and emotional makeup (Urbina, 2014).
The term scale is commonly used in connection with tests. Scales can refer to any of the
following (Urbina, 2014): (a) a whole test made up of several parts (e.g., the Stanford–Binet
32 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

Intelligence Scale); (b) a whole test focusing on a single characteristic (e.g., the Internal–
External Locus of Control Scale); (c) a subtest, which is a set of items within a test that meas-
ures specific characteristics (e.g., the depression scale of the MMPI-2); (d) a group of subtests
that share some common characteristic (e.g., the verbal scales of the Wechsler intelligence
tests); or (e) a numerical system used to rate or categorize some measured dimension (e.g.,
a rating scale).
Battery is another term that we often see in assessment. A battery is a group of tests
or subtests administered to one person at one time (Urbina, 2014). For example, in assess-
ing achievement, test batteries may be administered that consist of separate tests that
measure such areas as reading, mathematics, and language.

Participants in the Testing Process  There are many stakeholders involved in the test
industry, and therefore the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing were
developed to provide guidelines for developing and evaluating tests, standards for con-
ducting assessment, and methods of validating the interpretation of assessment data
(American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Associa-
tion (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), 2014). As such, it
is important to clarify the various parties and their roles in the testing industry. For exam-
ple, test developers are usually, but not always, academicians or investigators who are
mainly interested in research. They are interested in developing a test that accurately
measures the intended construct and will conduct research studies to support their claims.
Test developers provide documentation (in the test manuals) for test users to make sound
judgments about the nature and quality of the test (American Educational Research Asso-
ciation (AERA) et al., 2014). Test publishers are the organizations or corporations that pub-
lish, market, and sell tests. They also sometimes provide scoring services. Test users are the
individuals or agencies that select tests for some purpose. They may also be involved in
administering and scoring tests and using test results to make decisions. Test users are
most interested in the appropriateness of the tests for their purposes, whereas test publish-
ers are naturally more inclined toward profit margins (Urbina, 2014). Test takers are the
individuals who take the test by choice, direction, or necessity. Table 2.4 summarizes the
various parties and their roles.

TABLE 2.4  Participants Involved in the Testing Process

Test developers The people or organizations that construct tests. They should provide
information and supporting evidence that test users need to select
­appropriate tests.
Test publishers The organizations or corporations that publish, market, and sell tests.
Test users The people or agencies that select tests that meet their purposes and are
appropriate for the intended test takers. Test users may also be involved in
administering, scoring, and interpreting tests or making decisions based on
test results.
Test takers The individuals who take the tests.
Test reviewers The individuals who conduct a scholarly review to critically evaluate a test
based on its psychometric and practical qualities.
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 33

Computer-Based Tests  Computers were first introduced to the field of psychology in the
1950s. Since that time, and particularly in the last few decades, the use of computers in
assessment has grown exponentially. Advancements in computer technology and the con-
tinued integration of this technology into educational, psychological, and counseling prac-
tice are changing the way professionals conduct assessment. Computer-based testing refers
to using computers for test administration, scoring, and interpretation and for generating
narratives and written reports (Butcher, 2003). Computer-based testing has dramatically
changed the practice of assessment from an overwhelmingly complex process involving
face-to-face administration, extensive preparation time, hand scoring using overlay tem-
plates and hand calculations, manual interpretation, and manual report writing (Cohen
et al., 2012). Today, with the help of computers test takers can respond to test items on a
computer monitor, and the computer program scores the test, analyzes the results, and
even provides some form of interpretive report or narrative (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2012).
Needless to say, computer-based testing saves test users a great deal of time and has
made the process of testing much more convenient. Computer-based tests offer other
advantages over traditional paper-and-pencil tests through immediate scoring and report-
ing of test results, test administration efficiency, flexible test administration schedules,
greater test security, and reduced costs. Computer-based testing also allows for the use of
innovative item types that are not feasible in the paper-and-pencil format, such as audio-
and video-based test items (Parshall, Spray, Kalohn, & Davey, 2002).
During the past 25 years, more than 400 studies have investigated whether results
from computer-based tests could be used interchangeably with paper-and-pencil test
results. Increasingly, tests are being adapted for computerized administration and have
scores comparable to paper-and-pencil administration of the same tests (Boo & Visopel,
2012). It is important to note that some tests have not been adapted effectively for com-
puter-based administration. Counselors should review the psychometric properties of the
test in relation to the mode of administration prior to selecting a computerized version.
Although some limits to computer-based testing still exist, the process continues to expand,
and more tests are becoming available via computer administration. One test that is of
interest to many counselors is the National Counselor Exam (NCE). This 200-item, multi-
ple-choice test is available in both paper-and-pencil and computer-based administrations.
The NCE is the exam required to become a National Certified Counselor and also the exam
required for licensure in many states.
One type of computer-based test commonly used in achievement testing is computer-
adaptive tests. A computer-adaptive test is a test that tailors (or adapts) test questions to the
ability of each test taker. Each time a test taker answers a question, the computer adjusts to
the individual’s responses when determining what question to present next. For example,
a computer-adaptive test will start with a question that is moderately difficult. If the ques-
tion is answered correctly, then the next question will be more difficult. If it is answered
incorrectly, then the next question will be easier. This process continues until all questions
are answered, at which point the computer will determine the test taker’s ability level.
Because the computer scores each item before selecting the next one, only one question is
presented at a time, and the test takers may not skip, return to, or change responses to
previous questions. One example of a computer-adaptive test is the Graduate Manage-
ment Admission Test (GMAT), which is used as part of the admission process for a gradu-
ate degree in business. The GMAT computer-adapted test begins with the assumption that
the test taker has an average score and thus begins with an item of medium difficulty.
34 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

Based on performance on the first question, the difficulty level and points of the exam are
adjusted by the computer.

Observation
So far, we have covered two methods of assessment: interviews and tests. The third method
is observation, which is widely used in psychological and educational assessment. Observa-
tion is monitoring the actions of others or oneself in a particular context and making a record
of what is observed (Aiken & Groth-Marnat, 2006). It is a way of seeing what a person actu-
ally does in situations, rather than simply making inferences about behavior based on infor-
mation from interviews or test results. Behavioral observation can provide professionals
with information about an individual’s functioning, such as emotional responses, social
interactions, motor skills (i.e., body movements), and job performance, to name just a few
(Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005). It is particularly useful for identifying patterns of behav-
ior—that is, identifying the immediate behavior, its antecedents (what happened just before
the behavior), and its consequences (what happened afterward). The process of identifying
behavior patterns is often employed in P–12 schools through an approach called functional
behavior assessment (FBA), which seeks to identify the problem behavior of a student and
determine the function or purpose of the behavior. Counselors can use the results of an FBA
to develop interventions or teach acceptable alternatives to the behavior.
Understanding the function of behavior is not limited to the P–12 system. Counselors
working with children and adolescents in any area should have an understanding of
behavioral observation and FBA. In many cases, counselors can help parents, schools, res-
idential facilities, or inpatient settings to develop behavioral interventions for children and
adolescents. Understanding the elements of observation and behavioral function are criti-
cal for this task. For example, imagine a child who is disrupting an activity because he does
not want to participate. The function (purpose) of his behavior in this case is probably to
escape the activity. If you used time out as a consequence and removed the child from the
activity, then the child would actually be removed from the activity, and get what he
wanted. This would reinforce his behavior rather than change it. One of the more appro-
priate actions in this scenario would be to ignore the behavior or to find opportunities to
reinforce the appropriate actions of others.
Counselors may use formal assessment instruments (e.g., standardized rating scales
and computer-based observation software) or informal strategies (e.g., raw notes) to con-
duct observations. Observations can be a one-shot affair or consist of several samplings
over a longer time span. Observers may center on specific behaviors that are objective and
measurable or on general, overall behavior or adjustment. Depending on the context and
the age of the client, observations can be made and recorded by professionals, significant
others, any other person acquainted with the client, or the client himself or herself. Exam-
ples of observation include the following:
• A school counselor observes a child interacting with his classmates on the school
playground to evaluate his social skills.
• A family therapist views a videotape of parents and children playing together to
assess parenting skills.
• An adult who wants to change his eating patterns records his thoughts and feelings
prior to feeling an urge to overeat.
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 35

• While administering a structured clinical interview, a counselor observes and notes

the client’s disposition, conversational skills, and overall mood.
There are a variety of strategies and approaches used for observation. We will pre-
sent information about informal and formal observation, direct and indirect observation,
the settings of observation, and unobtrusive and participant observation. Furthermore, we
will discuss the various ways of recording data obtained through observation.

Formal and Informal Observation

Formal and informal methods of observation differ primarily in the degree of structure
required. Formal observation is a highly structured process in which the observer decides
ahead of time who will be observed, what behavior will be observed, when and where the
observation will take place, and how the behavior will be recorded. The process requires
the use of trained observers and sophisticated procedures for recording, analyzing, and
interpreting data. Formal observation often relies on the use of standardized instruments
for recording data, such as published rating scales. However, in recent years a large num-
ber of software applications have been developed to assist in the observation process.
These observation applications have standard observation processes for various behavio-
ral issues, timers, and observation schedules. The results of the observations can be pre-
sented in graph or table format. In addition to allowing for standard observations, the
programs are also customizable.
In contrast, informal observation is much less structured and occurs whenever pro-
fessionals make notes of a client’s behavior. They may take rough notes of any behavior
they observe, which is usually not predetermined, and write a more elaborate summary
after the observation. For example, during an interview a counselor may notice that the
client appears sluggish in movement, does not make eye contact, and has slowed speech.
These behaviors are often indicative of an individual with depressive symptoms. By
recording these observations and considering them with information obtained from the
interview and other assessment data, the counselor can determine if the client is indeed
depressed. It is important to note that although informal observation provides rich data for
understanding an individual’s problem, it is not sufficient by itself for diagnosing a prob-
lem or determining an effective intervention plan. As is the case with formal observations,
there are also software applications for informal observations. Some software programs
provide the opportunity to conduct both forms of observation in a single application.

Direct and Indirect Observation

Direct observation is a firsthand account of actual behavior as it occurs. As the term implies,
observations of behavior are not filtered through the perceptions of some informant: The
individual’s behaviors are observed directly (Kamphaus, Barry, & Frick, 2005). In contrast,
professionals using indirect observation rely on reported observations of behaviors by oth-
ers who have direct contact with the individual. In direct observation, an observer may use
a checklist or other instrument to record the presence and frequency of specific behaviors,
or the observer can simply watch and record as much as possible of whatever appears to
be useful or important. In addition to tracking target behaviors, direct observations can be
used to identify a pattern of certain events or stimuli that consistently precede the behav-
ior’s occurrence.
36 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

Natural and Contrived Settings

Observations that take place in naturally occurring settings, such as an individual’s work
or school, are called naturalistic observations. For example, a school-based mental health
counselor may use naturalistic observations to assess a child’s behaviors (such as leaving
his seat) in a classroom, or a child who fights during recess may be observed at school dur-
ing recess. Observations may also occur in a laboratory or other contrived setting (also
known as analogue assessment). This type of observation aims to evaluate behavior in a
theoretical situation that is developed to mimic a real-life (natural) situation (Hersen,
2006). For example, a researcher may observe an individual performing a particular task in
a simulated work environment.

Unobtrusive and Participant Observation

Observations are said to be unobtrusive when there is no interaction between the observer
and those being observed and when the individual’s behavior is not affected by the obser-
vation itself. Observers can monitor an individual unobtrusively through the use of a one-
way mirror or video recording. For example, a clinical supervisor may use video recordings
to observe a counselor trainee’s counseling skills. In contrast, participant observation entails
the observer both watching and interacting with the individual as part of the observational
situation. Participant observation is commonly used in qualitative research studies and
enables researchers to provide more detailed and accurate information about the people
they are studying.

Methods of Recording Observations

Because the purpose of observation is to identify and record behaviors, many methods are
available for documenting observations. The method of observation selected depends on
whether the counselor uses formal or informal observation. In formal observation, struc-
tured methods of data recording are used, such as event recording, duration recording,
time sampling, and rating scales. For informal observation, counselors may use anecdotal
records or raw notes of clients’ behaviors. Although there are affordable software applica-
tions available to record all types of observations, it is important to understand the basic
principles of observation before using the software. In order to illustrate these principles,
we discuss observation using paper-and-pencil procedures.

Event Recording  Event recording (also called frequency recording) is the simplest of the
observation data collection methods. It requires an observer to observe, count, and record
the number of times a behavior has occurred. Event recording is best suited to recording
occurrences of low-rate behaviors, which are behaviors that have a definite beginning and
ending and do not often occur (e.g., a student leaving his or her seat; Shapiro, 1987). A tally
sheet listing the behaviors to be observed and counted is useful: When the observer sees
the behavior of interest, he or she simply makes a tick mark on the sheet (see Figure 2.2).
After the observation, the tick marks can be totaled.

Duration Recording  Duration recording is used when it is more important to know for
how long a behavior occurs rather than the frequency of the behavior. In duration record-
ing, the length of time of a behavior from beginning to end is tracked. It is most applicable
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 37

Date(s) 2 /1 to 2/5
Name _________________________________
Observer ______________________________
Description of Behavior: Leaving seat during science class

Days Tallies Total Count

Monday //////// 8
Tuesday ////////// 10
Wednesday /////// 7
Thursday //////////// 12
Friday /////////////// 15
Average = 10.4

FIGURE 2.2   Tally sheet used to record the frequency of behavior.

for recording sustained behaviors that have a clear beginning and a clear ending; it is not
recommended for behaviors that occur at a very high rate. Crying, temper tantrums, and
thumb sucking are examples of behaviors that can be documented using duration record-
ing (see Figure 2.3; Shapiro, 1987). Duration recording usually requires a watch or clock so
that a precise measurement of the behavior can be recorded.

Time Sampling  In both event and duration recording techniques, all occurrences of the
behaviors are documented during the observational period. However, some behaviors
occur too frequently to obtain accurate counts or have no clear beginning or ending, which
prevents effective event and duration recording (Kamphaus, Barry, & Frick, 2005). In these
cases, time sampling is a more appropriate data collection method. Time sampling (some-
times referred to as interval recording, interval sampling, or interval time sampling) divides
observation periods into specific time intervals; then, behaviors are simply coded as being

Date(s) 10/5 to 10/8

Name _________________________________
Observer ______________________________
Description of Behavior: Crying

Date Time episode started Time episode ended Duration of episode

10/5 9:15 a.m. 9:26 a.m. 11 minutes
10/5 9:45 a.m. 9:57 a.m. 12 minutes
10/6 9:05 a.m. 9:11 a.m. 6 minutes
10/7 9:03 a.m. 9:09 a.m. 6 minutes
10/8 9:15 a.m. 9:20 a.m. 5 minutes

FIGURE 2.3   Record of the duration of behavior.

38 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

Problem 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’
Total
Behaviors 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30” 30”
Inappropriate
Movement

Inattention

Inappropriate
Vocalizations
Repetitive
Motor
Movements

Aggression

FIGURE 2.4   Sample items from the BASC-2 student observation scale.

Note: Quotation marks (“) refer to seconds. Apostrophes (‘) refer to minutes.
Source: Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2). Copyright © 2004 by NCS Pearson, Inc.
Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.

either present or absent during each time interval. Interval length varies, depending on the
frequency of the behavior, the amount of time allowed for the observation, and the skill of
the observer in monitoring and recording child behavior (Nock & Kurtz, 2005). As an
example, the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus,
2001) is a published, comprehensive system that assesses children’s behavior. It includes a
time-sampling method for observing students in which observers code behaviors (such as
responses to the teacher, peer interactions, or working on school subjects) repeatedly dur-
ing 3-second intervals spaced 30 seconds apart for a total of 15 minutes. The percentage of
intervals during which a given behavior occurred can be calculated to provide information
about the frequency of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors. An example of the BASC-2
Student Observation Scale is shown in Figure 2.4.

Rating Scales  In observation, rating scales are used to describe and evaluate an indi-
vidual’s specific behaviors. Rating scales often appear as preprinted sheets on which the
observer rates each behavior to indicate either its quality or how often the behavior
occurred. Rating scales are an efficient means of collecting information about a variety of
behaviors, from general functioning to such specific behaviors as social skills, aggressive
behavior, anxiety, and hyperactivity, to name a few. They can be used repeatedly and
across settings and can be completed by various sources (e.g., the client, teachers, par-
ents, counselors).
Rating scales usually list the important dimensions of the behaviors being rated and
quantify those dimensions in some way to convey meaning (Rutherford, Quinn, & Mathur,
2007). A few commonly used rating scale formats in observation include Likert scales,
graphic scales, and semantic differential scales. The Likert scale (named after the psycholo-
gist who developed it) consists of a series of written statements to which respondents
indicate how much they agree or disagree (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor
disagree, agree, strongly agree). The graphic rating scale is similar to the Likert scale, except
that it presents respondents with a graphic 5- or 7-point continuum ranging from never to
always or from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Verbal anchors are typically placed at
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 39

Likert scale I take a positive attitude toward myself.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree

    

Graphic scale The child’s aggressive behavior occurs following a request to perform a
difficult task.

1 2 3 4 5

Never Seldom Sometimes Generally Always

Semantic Place an “X” on the line to represent your current mood.

differential scale

anxious_______________________________________________calm
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

depressed________________________________________________cheerful
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FIGURE 2.5   Examples of rating scales.

various points along the scale. Semantic differential rating scales consist of bipolar adjectives
separated by a 7-point scale on which respondents select one point to indicate their
response. These rating scales are illustrated in Figure 2.5.
An important issue in using rating scales is the identity of the informant (i.e., source
of information) who completes the scale. Typically, informants are teachers, parents, or oth-
ers who know the individual being assessed or the individual himself or herself. Some
informants are in a better position to rate certain behaviors; for example, parents are more
likely to be knowledgeable about a child’s sleep patterns, sibling interactions, eating
behaviors, and so forth (Rutherford et al., 2007). Some published rating scales may be
designed for only one informant (e.g., parents only, children only), and some have sepa-
rate forms for multiple informants (e.g., teachers, parents, child). For example, the Achen-
bach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) includes a series of rating scales
designed to assess children’s behavior problems and social competencies by using sepa-
rate rating forms for parents, teachers, and children (see Figure 2.6 for a sample from the
Teacher’s Report Form [TRF] for Ages 6–18; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). The best prac-
tice in using rating scales is to employ multiple informants across situations and settings
(Rutherford et al., 2007). This provides a more complete view of an individual’s behavior
across situations and settings.
The most significant criticism of rating scales involves rater (informant) bias, which
can affect the validity of the instrument. Table 2.5 provides a list of common rating errors.

Anecdotal Records  An anecdotal record is a brief, descriptive narrative of an individual’s

behavior that is recorded after the behavior occurs. An anecdotal record may be a running
40 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

VIII. Compared to typical 1. Much 2. Some- 3. Slightly 4. About 5. Slightly 6. Some- 7. Much
pupils of the same age: less what less average more what more
less more

1. How hard is he/she

working?       
2. How appropriately
is he/she behaving?       
3. How much is he/she
learning?       
4. How happy is he/she?       

FIGURE 2.6   Sample of the Teacher’s Report Form for Ages 6–18.

Source: Reprinted with permission from Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles, by T. M. Achenbach
& L. A. Rescorla, 2001, Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.

account of what an individual says and does during a particular period of time, or it may
be a single record of a significant incident (e.g., critical incident report). As a method of
informal observation, anecdotal records may consist of notes written on index cards or in
a log, which are more fully elaborated upon and summarized after the observation. As a
formal observation method, anecdotal records can be very detailed accounts written on
formal record forms. They typically include the name of the individual observed; the name
of observer; the date, time, and setting of the observation; the anecdote (i.e., the description

TABLE 2.5  Rating Scale Errors

Leniency or generosity Ratings tend to always be at the top of the range.
Severity Ratings tend to always be at the lower end of the range.
Central tendency Ratings tend to fall consistently in the middle or average range.
Response acquiescence Rater tends to agree with each item.
Response deviance Rater tends to respond in a deviant, unfavorable, uncommon, or
unusual way.
Social desirability Test responses are interpreted to provide the most favorable view of
the examinee.
Halo effect Ratings tend to be influenced by good impressions of the examinee.
High ratings on some traits are generalized to others.
Negative halo Ratings tend to be influenced by bad impressions of the examinee.
Logical error Ratings are similar on characteristics the rater feels are logically related.
Contrast error Ratings on the current candidate are influenced by the previous
­candidate.
Proximity error Ratings made on items that are printed close together tend to be rated
the same.
Most recent Ratings are influenced by the person’s most recent performance rather
performance error than his or her usual level of performance.
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 41

of the observation); and a reflection on or interpretation of the observation. The following

are procedural suggestions for recording behavior anecdotes:
• Focus on a single specific incident.
• Be brief but complete.
• Objectively describe specific behaviors using examples.
• Use phrases rather than sentences.
• List the behaviors in the sequence in which they occurred.
• Include direct quotations whenever possible and significant.
• Record both positive and negative statements.
• Write the anecdote immediately after the observation occurs.

Self-Monitoring
Self-monitoring (also called self-assessment) is one of the most commonly used assessment
approaches in research and practice (Hersen, 2006). Self-monitoring is a process by which
an individual tracks and records their own specific behaviors and related (Cohen et al.,
2012). It can be successfully employed to monitor and record the frequency, antecedents,
and consequences of problematic behaviors (e.g., social anxieties, phobias, social skills
problems, habits). For example, individuals with anger-management problems may use
self-monitoring to record the date, time, and location of an anger episode and the events,
thoughts, and feelings that preceded the episode.
Self-monitoring can be used for both assessment and intervention. Simply gaining
awareness about one’s patterns of behavior can affect the frequency with which behaviors
occur. However, the usefulness of self-monitoring depends a great deal on the individual’s
compliance in recording his or her behavior. Self-monitoring requires individuals to be
aware that they are engaging in the behavior and to have a timely and efficient means of
logging behavior occurrences. Behaviors can be recorded using frequency marks, check-
lists, or other means. To help with recording behaviors in a timely fashion, various devices
are available, such as golf wrist score counters and digital timers or alarms.
Self-monitoring can also include the use of autobiographies, diaries, journals, letters,
stories, and poems. These approaches help provide insight into an individual’s behavior,
attitudes, and personality dimensions.

Collateral Sources
Typically, the primary source of information is the individual who is being evaluated—but
not always. Sometimes, a wellspring of information can come from people who know the
individual best. Any third party who provides information is considered a collateral source
(Table 2.6 provides a list of potential collateral sources). Family members, spouses or part-
ners, and others close to the individual being evaluated are useful personal sources of
information. Information can also be obtained from professional sources involved with the
individual, such as teachers, physicians, and mental health professionals. Collateral infor-
mation is generally obtained from interviews with the third party, either face-to-face or by
telephone (Heilbrun, Warren, & Picarello, 2003). Although family and friends often want
to give opinions, information should focus primarily on behavior descriptions (i.e., what
the informant has personally observed or witnessed). Rating scales completed by collateral
sources are often an effective means for obtaining behavioral descriptions of the client.
42 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

TABLE 2.6  Sources of Collateral Information

Personal sources Spouses or partners
Family members
Roommates
Employers or coworkers
Neighbors
Professional sources Mental health professionals
Teachers or other school personnel
Medical professionals
Social services workers
Guardians ad litem
Probation or parole officers
Records Mental health records
School records
Medical records
Department of Social Services records or reports
Court records
Military records
Criminal history records

Another valuable source of collateral information can be found in records (Craig, 2009),
which can include school grades or attendance, previous psychological or educational
assessments, mental health treatment plans or summaries, court documents, and letters
from medical providers, to name just a few. In general, information from collateral sources,
especially from more neutral professional sources, can be considered more objective and
reliable than information obtained directly from examinees (Austin, 2002).
The extent to which a counselor uses collateral information depends on the purpose
of the evaluation, the complexity of the client’s presentation, and the intervention goals. It
is particularly important in cases involving individuals with impaired insight into their
problems, such as those with substance-abuse problems or cognitive disabilities (American
Psychiatric Association, 2006). For example, in a psychiatric crisis center, collateral infor-
mation may be crucial to understanding a client’s acute mental health problems. When
assessing children, counselors regularly obtain information from parents about the child’s
behavior at home, or they may contact the child’s teacher to obtain information about the
child’s functioning at school.
Collateral information is considered a necessary component in all forensic evaluations,
which are evaluations that address a given legal issue (e.g., child custody evaluations;
Cavagnaro, Shuster, & Colwell, 2013; Ertelt & Matson, 2013). Information from third par-
ties may offset the potential bias of the examinee’s self-report. For example, it can be
expected that the parents in a child custody evaluation may intentionally or unintention-
ally distort, exaggerate, or minimize the information they present during an interview so
that the examiner will view them favorably. In this case, collateral information from
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 43

­ rofessional sources can help evaluators scrutinize the credibility of data obtained from
p
parents (Patel & Choate, 2014).
An important issue in obtaining information from collateral sources is the confiden-
tiality of the individual being evaluated. Permission must be obtained through consent
forms signed by the client (or the client’s parent) before professionals can request informa-
tion or contact third parties.

Summary
In this chapter, we provided an overview of the formal or informal instruments and strategies.
three types of assessment. We will continue to Although the client is usually the primary
integrate information about interviews, tests, source of information, collateral information is
and observations throughout the remainder of often gathered from relatives, friends, teach-
the textbook. It is important to note that counse- ers, health professionals, and other relevant
lors and other helping professionals need super- parties. Information may also come from docu-
vised training on each type of assessment in ments, such as medical records, school records,
order to achieve competency. In addition to and written reports of earlier assessments.
covering the types of assessment, we also intro- Counselors are required to integrate informa-
duced you to types of data and sources of infor- tion from multiple data collection methods
mation used to obtain a complete and accurate and multiple sources to form impressions and
picture of the individual being evaluated. make recommendations about the individual
Regardless of the type of assessment, being assessed.
counselors may choose from a wide array of

Questions for Discussion

1. What is the difference between formal and infor- 3. How does the use of multiple assessment instru-
mal methods of assessment? ments and strategies (as opposed to using just
2. Among the methods of assessment (i.e., inter- one method) benefit the assessment process?
views, tests, observation), which one do you 4. If you were engaged in the assessment process,
think yields the most valuable information about which sources of assessment information would
a client? you use? What would your decision be based on?

Suggested Activities
1. Write a brief essay on the subject of assessment. brainstorm and construct as many questions as
Discuss your thoughts on assessment in general possible for each domain.
and your beliefs about its purpose in the helping 4. Using the semistructured interview developed in
professions. the previous activity, role-play an interview in
2. Interview a school counselor, mental health which one student is the counselor, one is the cli-
counselor, or marriage and family therapist. ent, and one is an observer. The counselor asks the
Inquire about which assessment instruments and client the questions that were developed for the
strategies he or she uses on a regular basis. semistructured interview. After the interview, all
3. In triads, develop a semistructured interview. three may then discuss the following: How did
Use the general domains listed in Table 2.3, and the counselor feel asking questions? How much
44 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information

did the client respond to questions? Were some 6. Search the Internet for behavior observation
questions harder to ask or answer than other charts. Select three different charts to compare
questions? What counselor and client behaviors and contrast. In small groups, discuss the three
did the observer notice throughout the interview? charts and the types of observations for which
5. In a small group, develop a behavior rating scale they might be designed. Determine a behavior
that evaluates counseling skills. To do this, you that the group would want to observe, and dis-
must first determine the specific counseling skills cuss which form might be the best choice. What
to be evaluated and then decide on the type of modifications would the group have to make in
scale (numerical scales, graphic scales, or seman- order to conduct the observation?
tic differential scales) used to measure the skills.

References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for Cavagnaro, A. T., Shuster, S., & Colwell, K. (2013).
the ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles. Burling- Classification discrepancies in two intelligence
ton, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center tests: Forensic implications for persons with
for Children, Youth, & Families. developmental disabilities. Journal of Forensic Psy-
Aiken, L. A., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2006). Psychological chology Practice, 13(1), 49–67. doi:10.1080/1522893
testing and assessment (12th ed.). Boston, MA: 2.2013.750968
­Pearson. Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E., & Struman, E. (2012).
American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA Code Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction
of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. to tests and measurement (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
American Educational Research Association (AERA), McGraw-Hill.
American Psychological Association (APA), & Craig, R. J. (2005). The clinical process of interview-
National Council on Measurement in Education ing. In R. J. Craig (Ed.), Clinical and diagnostic inter-
(NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psy- viewing (2nd ed., pp. 21–41). Lanham, MD: Jason
chological testing. Washington, DC: Authors. Aronson.
Hardwood, T. M., Beutler, L. E., & Groth-Marnat, G. Craig, R. J. (2009). The clinical interview. In J. N. Butcher
(2011). Integrative assessment of adult personality. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment
New York: Guilford Press. (pp.  201–225). New York, NY: Oxford University
American Psychiatric Association. (2006). Practice Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195366877.013.0012
guidelines for the psychiatric evaluation of adults Domino, G., & Domino, M. L. (2006). Psychological
(2nd ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. testing: An introduction. New York, NY: Cam-
Austin, W. G. (2002). Guidelines for using collateral bridge University Press.
sources of information in child custody evalua- Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, D. M. (2007). The Peabody Pic-
tions. Family Court Review, 40(2), 177–184. ture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Bloomington, MN:
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Man- NCS Pearson Inc.
ual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Anto- Erford, B. T. (2006). Counselor’s guide to clinical, person-
nio, TX: Psychological Corporation. ality, and behavioral assessment. Boston, MA: Lahaska.
Boo, J., & Vispoel, W. (2012). Computer versus paper- Erford, B. T. (2013). Assessment for counselors. (2nd ed.).
and-pencil assessment of educational develop- Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
ment: A comparison of psychometric features and Ertelt, T., & Matson, K. (2013). Accurately presenting
examinee preferences. Psychological Reports, your forensic examination in a cohesive forensic
111(2), 443–460. doi:10.2466/10.03.11. report. PsycCRITQUES, 58(43). doi:10.1037/
PR0.111.5.443-460 a0034697
Butcher, J. N. (2003). Computerized psychological Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological
assessment. In J. R. Graham, J. A. Naglieri, & I. B. assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Assessment Harwood, R. M., Beutler, L. E., & Groth-Marnat, G.
psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 141–163). New York, NY: (Eds.). Integrative Assessment of Adult Personality
John Wiley & Sons. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
 Chapter 2  •  Methods and Sources of Assessment Information 45

Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health c­ ounselors who are court-appointed as child cus-
assessment (Perspectives in law and psychology, tody evaluators. Journal of Mental Health Coun-
Vol. 12). New York, NY: Kluwer. seling, 36(1), 18–30.
Heilbrun, K., Warren, J., & Picarello, K. (2003). Third- Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2001). Behavior
party information in forensic assessment. In A. M. assessment system for children: Manual. Circle Pines,
Goldstein & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psy- MN: American Guidance Service.
chology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 69–86). Rutherford, R. B., Quinn, M. M., & Mathur, S. R.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. (2007). Handbook of research in emotional and behav-
Hersen, M. (2006). Clinician’s handbook of adult behav- ioral disorders. New York, NY: Guilford.
ioral assessment. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Sacks, P. (2001). Standardized minds: The high price of
Hersen, M., & Turner, S. M. (2012). Adult psychopa- America’s testing culture and what we can do to change
thology and diagnosis (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley it. New York, NY: Da Capo Press.
& Sons. Salkind, N. J. (2012). Tests and measurement for people
International Test Commission. (2013, October 8). who (think they) hate tests and measurement (2nd ed.).
ITC guidelines on test use. Retrieved from http:// Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
www.intestcom.org/upload/sitefiles/41.pdf Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of
Jones, K. (2010). The unstructured clinical interview. children: Behavioral, social, and clinical foundations
Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(2), (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler Pub-
220–226. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00013.x lisher Inc.
Kamphaus, R. W., Barry, C. T., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Shapiro, E. S. (1987). Academic problems. In M.
Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality Hersen & V. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Behavior therapy
and behavior (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. with children and adolescents: A clinical approach
Miller, C. (2009). Interviewing strategies. In M. (pp. 362–384). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Hersen & D. L. Segal (Eds.), Diagnostic interviewing Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R.
(4th ed., pp. 47–66). New York, NY: Kluwer (2008). Clinical interviewing (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
­Academic/Plenum Publishers. John Wiley & Sons.
Morrison, J. (2008). The first interview (3rd ed.). New Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing
York, NY: Guilford. (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2005). Psycho- Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T., & Olson,
logical testing: Principles and applications (6th ed.). J. (2008). Comparability of computer-based and
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. paper-and-pencil testing in K–2 reading assess-
Nock, M. K., & Kurtz, S. M. S. (2005). Direct behavioral ments: A meta-analysis of testing mode effects.
observation in school settings: Bringing science to Educational & Psychological Measurement, 68, 5–24.
practice. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 12, 359–370. Weiner, I. B. (2013). The assessment process. In J. R.
Opie, C. (2004). Doing educational research: A guide to Graham, J. A. Naglieri, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.),
first-time researchers. London: Sage. Handbook of psychology: Assessment psychology
Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2nd  ed., Vol. 10, pp. 3–25). Hoboken, NJ: John
(2002). Practical considerations in computer-based Wiley & Sons.
testing. New York, NY: Springer. Young, M. E. (2012). Learning the art of helping: Build-
Patel, S., & Choate L. (2014). Conducting child cus- ing blocks and techniques (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
tody evaluations: Best practices for mental health River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
 CHAPTER

3 Statistical Concepts

In our experience, students preparing to be counselors and other helping professionals

often cringe when they hear the word statistics. Although numbers can be scary for many,
they play an important role throughout the counseling process. Counselors must be com-
petent consumers of statistics in order to understand research as it applies to practice and
to evaluate change in clients, measure outcomes, demonstrate accountability, and conduct
assessment. In order to be competent in assessment, counselors need knowledge about
statistical concepts in order to evaluate the appropriateness of assessment instruments and
to understand, interpret, and communicate assessment results.
Statistics help counselors to understand assessment data in comparison to larger
populations of people. Statistics also help counselors to evaluate the psychometric
properties (e.g., reliability, validity, standardization) of tests, which is important for
evaluating and selecting tests. Although statistics can be scary, our goal is to provide a
framework for understanding how statistics are used in assessment. In this chapter, we
present the basic statistical concepts required for counselors to be competent in select-
ing, scoring, and interpreting assessment results. By understanding some of these basic
elements, counselors will be able to take an additional step toward competency in the
assessment process.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Describe the use of statistics in assessment.
JJ Describe the scales of measurement, including nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio
scales.
JJ Explain how to construct frequency distributions, histograms, and frequency polygons.

JJ Describe measures of central tendency, including the mean, median, and mode.

JJ Describe measures of variability, including range, variance, and standard deviation.

JJ List and explain the properties of the normal curve.

JJ Describe the various measures of relationship.

Statistical Concepts for Assessment

The field of educational and psychological measurement is based on core statistical prin-
ciples that allow us to summarize, describe, and interpret assessment data and to make
decisions using data. For example, we may want to know the average of a group of test
46
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 47

scores, how frequently certain scores can be obtained, or how spread out scores were
among a group of test takers. Because counselors frequently are involved in the assess-
ment process and in making decisions based on assessment results, they should be famil-
iar and comfortable with some basic statistical concepts. A statistic is a numerical
representation of information. Whenever we quantify or apply numbers to data in order
to organize, summarize, or analyze information, we are using statistical methods. There
are two general classes of statistical methods: descriptive and inferential. Descriptive sta­
tistics play an important role in interpreting instrument scores. They are used to describe
and summarize large amounts of data in a clear and understandable way. In assessment,
the simplest descriptive statistic used is frequency, or the count of the occurrences of a
particular test score. Other descriptive statistics used in assessment include measures of
central tendency (e.g., mean, median, mode), measures of variability (e.g., variance,
standard deviation), and measures of relationship (i.e., correlation). Inferential statistics
are used when we want to make inferences about a large group of people, called a popula­
tion, by examining the characteristics of randomly selected subgroups from the popula-
tion, called samples. Whereas descriptive statistics are used to describe the basic features
of data, inferential statistics are used to reach conclusions that extend beyond the immedi-
ate data alone.
One of the most basic concepts frequently encountered when discussing statistics is
associated with the term variable. A variable is simply anything that can take on more than
one value. Variables can be visible (e.g., gender, hair color) or invisible (e.g., personality,
intelligence, aptitude). Variables can be defined in terms of numerical values (e.g., the
number of children in a family, the average income of individuals in a country) or by dif-
ferent categories (e.g., gender, relationship status; Urbina, 2014). In formal terms, variables
may be classified as quantitative, qualitative, discrete, continuous, observable, or latent
(see Table 3.1). In assessment, we are interested in measuring variables related to educa-
tional or psychological constructs, such as achievement, intellectual ability, interests, and
personality traits.

TABLE 3.1  Types of Variables

Variable Description

Quantitative Have a numerical value (e.g., age, income, numerical test scores)
Qualitative Nonnumeric in nature (e.g., gender, relationship status, political party
­affiliation)
Continuous Quantitative variables that can take on any value and be subdivided infinitely;
a measure of “how much” (e.g., height, weight, time spent completing a
task, degree of anxiety)
Discrete Quantitative variables that consist of a basic unit of measurement that cannot
be subdivided; a measure of “how many” (e.g., the number of people in a
household)
Observable Can be observed and directly measured
Latent Cannot be directly observed or measured, but are inferred from other
­variables that are observed and measured; also called hidden variables, model
parameters, hypothetical variables, or hypothetical constructs
48 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

Scales of Measurement
Any discussion of statistics must begin with an understanding of measurement. Measure­
ment is the process of assigning numbers or symbols to represent objects, traits, or behav-
iors (i.e., variables) according to a set of logical rules. For example, to complete a customer
satisfaction survey, customers must use a specific set of rules to assign numbers that indi-
cate their level of satisfaction. They might rate service on a 10-point scale, where 1 means
very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied.
We use descriptive statistics to describe or summarize measurement data; however,
the way that data can be summarized depends on the scale of measurement. Scales of mea­
surement refers to ways in which variables are defined and categorized. There are four
scales of measurement: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. The type of scale is determined
by the presence or absence of three qualities: (a) magnitude, meaning the inherent order of
numbers from smaller to larger; (b) equal intervals, which means that there are equal dis-
tances between adjacent points on the scale; and (c) the presence of an absolute or true zero,
which refers to the zero point representing the absence of the property being measured
(e.g., no behavior, none correct; see Table 3.2).

Nominal Scale
The simplest scale of measurement is the nominal scale, which is used to describe qualita-
tive variables that can be categorized based on one or more distinguishing characteristics.
Because the nominal scale represents only names, it has none of the three qualities (i.e.,
magnitude, equal intervals, absolute zero). Nominal scale variables are considered discrete
and can be placed into one (and only one) mutually exclusive and exhaustive category. The
following are some examples:
Relationship status:

_____ Single
_____ Married
_____ Widowed
_____ Divorced
_____ Separated

TABLE 3.2  Scales of Measurement

Scales of Measurement Scale Qualities Examples

Nominal None Names, lists of words

Ordinal Magnitude Rank-ordered, Likert scales
Interval Magnitude Temperature
Equal intervals
Ratio Magnitude Age, height, weight
Equal intervals
Absolute zero
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 49

Gender:

_____ Male
_____ Female

Highest educational level completed:

_____ Some high school

_____ High school diploma or GED
_____ Vocational, business, or technical school
_____ Associate’s degree
_____ Bachelor’s degree
_____ Graduate degree

Ordinal Scale
Similar to nominal scales, ordinal scales involve classification of discrete variables. How-
ever, in addition to classification, the scale includes the property of magnitude. This means
that variables are rank-ordered from the greatest to the least or the best to the worst. For
example, on an introversion–extroversion continuum, an extremely introverted individual
might be assigned the lowest rank of 1, whereas an overly extroverted individual might
receive the highest rank. On other scales, students could be placed in rank order on the
basis of such attributes as height (arranged from tallest to shortest), examination results
(arranged from best to worst), or grade point average (arranged from highest to lowest).
Here is another example:
Please rate your degree of competence in the listed behaviors using the following
key: 1 = low, 2 = below average, 3 = average, 4 = above average, 5 = high.
1. Oral communication skills 1 2 3 4 5
2. Written communication skills 1 2 3 4 5
3. Listening skills 1 2 3 4 5
Problems can arise with the ordinal scale, because the size of the intervals can be
unequal. For example, an individual might be extremely strong in certain areas, with min-
ute differences distinguishing those competencies, and extremely weak in others. Prob-
lems can also occur when comparing rankings across groups. Individuals with rankings of
1 in each group might vary tremendously on the variable being ranked. In addition, the
numbers used for rankings do not reflect anything quantitative about the variable being
ranked.

Interval Scale
The interval scale represents a higher level of measurement than the ordinal scale. Not
only does the interval scale consist of ordered categories, but the categories form a series
of equal intervals across the whole range of the scale. Thus, interval scales encompass
qualities of both magnitude and equal intervals. An important characteristic of interval
scales is that there is no absolute zero point; that is, there can be no absence of the variable
50 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

being measured. For instance, the Fahrenheit scale is an interval scale, because each degree
is equal but with no absolute zero point. This means that although we can add and subtract
degrees (100 °F is 10 degrees warmer than 90 °F), we cannot multiply values or create
ratios (100 °F is not twice as warm as 50 °F).

Ratio Scale
In addition to all the qualities of nominal, ordinal, and interval scales, the ratio scale consists of
a true or absolute zero point. This means that it contains all three qualities: magnitude, equal
intervals, and absolute zero. Thus, this scale permits all types of meaningful mathematical
calculations. Age, height, weight, and scores on a 100-point test are examples of ratio scales.

Describing Scores
As stated earlier in the chapter, descriptive statistics are used to describe the basic features
of the data in a clear and understandable way. In this section, we will discuss the basic
descriptive statistics that are used to describe and organize test scores to make them more
manageable and understandable. Let’s begin with a picture of what test scores look like.
Let’s suppose we have administered three tests to 30 youthful offenders who have
been assigned to our cottage in a correctional facility. The scores of the Nowicki–Strickland
Locus of Control Scale, Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT-R3), and the Jesness Inventory are
listed in Table 3.3.
Let’s look first at the scores on the Nowicki–Strickland Locus of Control Scale, given in
the LOC column, which measures children’s locus of control (internal or external) as defined
by Rotter (1966). Individuals with a strong internal locus of control tend to attribute outcomes
of events to their own control, whereas individuals with a strong external locus of control tend
to attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. On the Nowicki–Strickland scale,
low scores indicate internality and high scores indicate externality. With the way that the
scores are listed on the table, it is hard to get a picture of the characteristics of this group of
youths. To visualize the data better, we could arrange the scores from high to low:
15 9, 9, 9 6, 6 3, 3, 3, 3
14 8, 8, 8 5, 5, 5, 5 2, 2, 2
13 7, 7 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 1
We can determine at a glance the highest score and the lowest score, and we can find the
approximate middle. However, when a large number of test scores has a greater range (the
spread between the high and low scores), it is not as easy to organize and record the scores
and see an overall picture. To organize and describe large numbers of scores, researchers
and test developers use several different types of descriptive statistics:
• Frequency distributions
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of variability
• Measures of relationship

Frequency Distributions
A distribution is simply a set of scores. These scores can represent any type of variable and
any scale of measurement. One of the most common procedures for organizing and
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 51

TABLE 3.3  Scores on the Nowicki–Strickland Locus of Control Scale, Slosson Intelligence
Test, and Jesness Inventory*
Youth LOC SIT-R3 AC IS CA SO CO EN RA CM IN SC CS RE FR UN

1 1 110 12 27 24 17 23 18 22 20 13 12 28 37 18 26
2 3 120 18 27 28 23 27 16 20 24 15 18 29 33 19 34
3 5 99 15 30 20 21 28 23 19 21 12 16 31 34 18 27
4 3 95 12 22 23 16 22 18 19 21 19 15 26 33 19 33
5 8 93 12 28 18 17 25 18 22 19 12 15 30 36 18 26
6 3 112 15 24 24 20 20 17 22 22 20 12 24 35 19 29
7 9 108 13 26 16 15 23 15 19 17 19 16 18 34 15 31
8 8 82  9 21 19 16 22 16 14 16 18 11 22 30 11 24
9 2 115 11 30 21 17 23 18 19 24 20 18 25 41 21 26
10 14 70 19 20 19 22 21 18 21 14 14 15 30 40 17 30
11 9 99 20 28 22 25 27 13 25 21 13 16 23 37 21 35
12 5 83  8 24 23 15 18 22 18 18 10 9 24 34 15 17
13 5 88 17 29 19 22 26 20 23 18 16 18 24 29 16 31
14 15 75 12 21 15 15 20 15 17 18 17 11 19 34 18 26
15 6 102 15 25 21 21 29 16 19 16 16 14 28 32 16 32
16 7 76 13 28 16 17 19 13 14 19 17 16 22 32 16 27
17 3 85 16 28 15 21 25 17 16 19 17 17 32 41 19 30
18 2 112 14 29 21 19 24 20 18 21 20 18 25 40 20 32
19 13 79 13 17 20 14 27 17 12 18 15 12 25 18 16 25
20 2 117 16 24 22 22 23 17 15 15 15 15 25 32 16 28
21 4 113 15 27 16 20 23 18 22 17 15 15 29 33 22 27
22 9 91  9 27 17 11 18 14 21 16 15 12 26 32 14 18
23 6 107  9 20 18 15 29 16 18 13 18 15 22 28 14 29
24 5 105 18 28 25 23 24 16 20 20 17 15 25 35 19 26
25 4 109 15 27 22 22 22 19 15 20 17 15 26 39 15 23
26 4 107 18 25 25 22 30 17 17 18 18 19 29 38 18 33
27 7 83 17 27 23 22 21 16 23 21 18 15 27 33 17 28
28 4 111 16 16 16 20 25 8 16 13 11 18 21 34 20 32
29 4 109  9 20 13 13 20 18 14 14 16 12 23 28 13 19
30 8 101 17 27 19 21 26 13 21 10 16 16 28 33 20 27

*LOC = Nowicki–Strickland Locus of Control Scale. SIT-R3 = Slosson Intelligence Test. The Jesness scales are
Anger Control (AC), Insight (IS), Calmness (CA), Sociability (SO), Conformity (CO), Enthusiasm (EN), Rapport
(RA), Communication (CM), Independence (IN), Social Concern (SC), Consideration (CS), R ­ esponsibility (RE),
Friendliness (FR), and Unobtrusiveness (UN).

­ isually presenting scores is by using a frequency distribution. A frequency distribution

v
takes a disorganized set of scores and places them in order (usually in a table or graph),
showing how many people obtained each of the scores. Scores are usually arranged in
vertical columns from the highest to the lowest value, and each individual test score is tal-
lied and the frequency recorded (see Table 3.4). Frequency distributions are useful in
allowing examiners to see (a) the entire set of scores “at a glance,” (b) whether scores are
generally high or generally low, or (c) whether scores are concentrated in one area or
spread out. Frequency distributions are also useful in comparing one person’s test score to
the scores of the entire group.
52 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

TABLE 3.4  Frequency Distribution Table of the Nowicki–

Strickland Locus of Control Scale
Score Tally Frequency

15 / 1
14 / 1
13 / 1
12 0
11 0
10 0
9 /// 3
8 /// 3
7 // 2
6 // 2
5 //// 4
4 ///// 5
3 //// 4
2 /// 3
1 / 1

Sometimes there is a greater range of scores because there are more items on the test
and greater variability of performance among the test takers. In such a situation, it is easier
to make a frequency distribution by using a group or series of scores rather than using each
individual score. That grouping is called a class interval. For example, looking at the Slosson
Intelligence Test (SIT-R3) scores in Table 3.3, we notice that scores range from 70 to 120. To
list each individual score on a frequency distribution table would be much too cumbersome
with 51 different score values. Instead, let’s group the scores into a more manageable size—
say, 10 (the choice of grouping is arbitrary). To construct a table, we need to determine the
size of each of the 10 class intervals—that is, the number of score values to be included in
each class interval. To find the class interval size, use the following formula:

highest score - lowest score

Class interval size =
desired number of class intervals

Putting this all together, the steps for determining the class intervals on the SIT-R3 include
the following:

Step 1 Select the number of class intervals to be used. 10

Step 2 Find the highest score. 120
Step 3 Find the lowest score. 70
Step 4 Calculate the range (subtract the lowest from the highest score). 120 − 70 = 50
Step 5 Divide the range by the size of the class interval selected to 50 ÷ 10 = 5
determine the number of score points to be included
in each interval.
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 53

TABLE 3.5  Group Frequency Distribution on the Slosson

Intelligence Test
Class Interval Tally Frequency

120–124 / 1
115–119 // 2
110–114 ///// 5
105–109 ////// 6
100–104 // 2
 95–99 /// 3
 90–94 // 2
 85–89 // 2
 80–84 /// 3
 75–79 /// 3
 70–74 / 1

As we can see from Table 3.5, the frequency distribution table lists each class interval arranged
from lowest to highest value followed by a tally of the scores that fall into each interval.

Graphic Presentations of Frequency Distributions  Frequency distributions of test

scores can also be illustrated graphically. A graph is a diagram or chart composed of lines,
points, bars, or other symbols that provides a pictorial representation of the distribution of
test scores. Among the most common kinds of graphs are histograms, frequency polygons,
and frequency curves.
A histogram is a type of graph that uses vertical lines and bars to portray the distribu-
tion of test scores. Figure 3.1 shows the histogram of the Slosson Intelligence Test scores

5
Frequencies

1
12 19
9

11 09
4

10 04
4

24
9

11 14
10 99
4
–8

–9
–7

–7

–8

–1
–1
–1

–1
–1
–
85

90
70

75

95
80

5
5
0

0
0

Scores

FIGURE 3.1   Histogram of Slosson Intelligence Test scores.

54 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

5
Frequencies

19
9

09
4

04
4

24
9

14
9
4
–8

–9
–7

–7

–9
–8

–1
–1
–1

–1
–1
85

90
70

75

95
80

5
5
0

0
0
11
10
10

12
11
Scores

FIGURE 3.2   Frequency polygon of Slosson Intelligence Test scores.

using class intervals from Table 3.4. The graph’s horizontal axis (also referred to as the
abscissa or the X axis) represents the class intervals. The vertical axis (also referred to as the
ordinate or the Y axis) represents the frequencies of scores appearing at each class interval.
The intersection of the X and Y axes represents the zero point for each.
A frequency polygon is a variation of a histogram in which the bars are replaced by
lines connecting the midpoint of each class interval. In the frequency distribution of scores
on the Slosson Intelligence Test, a class interval of 5 was used; therefore, the midpoint of
the class interval 70–74 is 72, the midpoint for 75–79 is 78, the midpoint for 80–84 is 82, and
so on. If the class interval consists of an odd number of score points, then the midpoint is
a whole number; if it contains an even number of points, then the midpoint is expressed as
a decimal number, such as 1.5. A frequency polygon of the Slosson Intelligence Test scores
is presented in Figure 3.2.
If there were many more individuals and a greater number of intervals, then the fre-
quency polygon would reflect a smoother curve. A smoothed frequency polygon (or a fre­
quency curve) gives a better idea of the shape of the distribution and the frequency of the
scores. If we made the intervals progressively smaller and increased the number of indi-
viduals tested on the Nowicki–Strickland Locus of Control Scale, then the smoothed fre-
quency polygon might look like that shown in Figure 3.3.
When we create smoothed frequency polygons, we will see that the distributions are
sometimes symmetrical (bell-shaped or normal curve) or asymmetrical (skewed; see F ­ igure 3.4).
In a symmetrical distribution, each side of the curve is a mirror image of the other. This
shows that most of the scores are situated around the mean, with the rest tailing off sym-
metrically away from the mean. A frequency curve that is not symmetrical is called a
skewed curve. In everyday terms, skewed refers to something that is out of proportion or
distorted on one side. In frequency distributions, skewness indicates a lack of symmetry of
the distribution. A distribution with an asymmetrical “tail” extending out to the right is
referred to as positively skewed; this means that the majority of scores fell near the lower end
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 55

Frequencies 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Scores

FIGURE 3.3   Smoothed frequency polygon of Nowicki–Strickland Locus of Control Scale.

of the scale. A distribution with an asymmetrical tail extending out to the left is negatively
skewed. For example, if the majority of students scored poorly on a class midterm, then the
result would be a positively skewed curve with most of the scores concentrated on the left
end of the distribution. If most of the students performed well on the test, then the distri-
bution would be negatively skewed. A skewed curve is not a normal distribution; normal
distributions will be discussed later in the chapter.
Kurtosis is a statistic that reflects the peakedness or flatness of a distribution relative
to a normal distribution. A distribution could be mesokurtic, leptokurtic, or platykurtic
(see Figure 3.5). Kurtosis with a zero value signifies a mesokurtic distribution, which is simi-
lar in height to a normal distribution. Positive values of kurtosis indicate a leptokurtic dis­
tribution that is more peaked than the normal curve, meaning that scores cluster in the
middle of the distribution. Negative values indicate a platykurtic distribution, which is flat-
ter than the normal curve. This means that test scores spread out rather evenly from the
lowest to highest points.

Measures of Central Tendency

When summarizing a group of test scores, we often want to know about the typical or
average performance of the group. Measures of central tendency are ways of describing a
distribution based on the typical or average performance of test scores. Three common
measures of central tendency are the mean, median, and mode.

Negatively skewed Normal curve Positively skewed

FIGURE 3.4   Skewed and normal curves.

56 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

Platykurtic Mesokurtic Leptokurtic

FIGURE 3.5   Kurtosis.

Mean  The mean, the most frequently used measure of central tendency, is the arithmetic
average score in a distribution. It is used with interval or ratio scales and whenever addi-
tional statistical analysis is needed. To calculate the mean, we would total the test scores
and divide the sum by the number of individuals who took the test. The formula for the
mean is as follows:

ΣX
X =
N

where
X = the mean
Σ = sigma, which means summation
X = a test score
N = the number of cases
If we add together the scores of the 30 individuals taking the Nowicki–Strickland, our total
is 178. To compute the mean, we divide 178 by 30; therefore, the mean is 5.93.

Median  The median is the middle score, or the score that divides a distribution in half; 50%
of the scores will fall below the median, and 50% will fall above. When a set of scores con-
sists of an odd number, the median is the middle score. For example, if the scores are 4, 6,
and 8, then the median is 6. With an even number of scores—such as 4, 6, 8, and 10—the
sum of the two middle scores is divided by 2; the median in this case is 7. As a measure of
central tendency, the median can be used with ordinal, interval, or ratio scales or with
highly skewed distributions.

Mode  The mode is the score or numerical value that appears most frequently in a set of
scores. Referring back to the test scores in Table 3.3, the mode of the scores on the
Nowicki–Strickland Locus of Control Scale is 4. For the Anger Control scale on the
Jesness Inventory, try to determine the mode yourself: Is the mode 9, 12, or 15? Some-
times, there is a bimodal or multimodal distribution; in other words, two or more scores
may appear most frequently in the distribution. For example, the distribution of scores
on the Jesness Friendliness scale is multimodal: The same number of individuals had
scores of 16, 18, and 19. The mode is commonly used with variables that are measured at
the nominal level, but it can also provide a quick and easy measure for ordinal, interval,
and ratio variables.
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 57

Median Mean Mode

Median

Median
Mean

Mode

Mode

Mean
FIGURE 3.6   Measures of central tendency with skewed and normal curves.

Comparing Measures of Central Tendency  For symmetrical distributions, the mean,

median, and mode are equal. For the other types of distributions, no single best measure
of central tendency exists. Although the mean is the most common measure of central ten-
dency, extreme scores (known as outliers) can affect it (a few extremely low scores will
move the mean down, and a few extremely high scores will move it up), making it ill-
suited for skewed distributions. In contrast, the median works better with skewed distri-
butions, because it is not impacted by outliers. The mode is the least stable statistic of
central tendency: It can be erratic and not very accurate in smaller groups of scores, and it
is not an accurate measure of central tendency in skewed distributions. Figure 3.6 shows
measures of central tendency with different types of distributions.

Measures of Variability
Whereas measures of central tendency attempt to describe a distribution based on typical
or average performance of scores, variability refers to the degree that scores are spread out
and differ from one another. A distribution of test scores can have the same mean, but the
scores may be scattered or dispersed either widely or narrowly around the mean. Measures
of variability are statistics that describe the dispersion of scores—that is, the typical dis-
tances of scores from the mean. In general, when describing a distribution, we consider
both the central tendency and the variability of the distribution. Figure 3.7 graphically dis-
plays these two important characteristics. Three commonly used measures of variability
are the range, variance, and standard deviation. Of these, the standard deviation is per-
haps the most informative and the most widely used.

Range  A quick measure of the spread of scores can be obtained by computing the range. The
range is computed by subtracting the lowest score from the highest score. In the following
formula, r represents range, h is the highest score in the dataset, and 1 is the lowest score:

r = h - 1

For example, in the distribution of Nowicki–Strickland scores (Table 3.3), the high score
is 15 and the low score is 1, making the range 14 (15 - 1 = 14). On the Slosson ­Intelligence
58 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

Central Tendency

Variability

FIGURE 3.7   Graphical display of central tendency and variability.

Test score distribution, the high score is 120 and the low score is 70, making the range
50 (120 - 70 = 50).
The range is easy to compute. However, an extreme score in the distribution can
make the range a misleading statistic. For example, a test might produce these scores:

1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 40

The range here would be 39, even though all the scores except for the one score of 40 are
grouped closely together.

Variance  The variance is the average amount of variability in a group of scores. It is com-
puted as the average squared deviations of values from the mean. Variance is calculated
using the following formula:

Σ(X - X)2
S2 =
N - 1

where
S2 = the variance
X = a test score
X = the mean of all the test scores
Σ = summation
N = the number of cases
Variance is rarely used as a standalone statistic. Rather, it is used as a step in the cal-
culation of other statistics (e.g., analysis of variance) or, with a slight manipulation,
­transformed into the standard deviation.
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 59

Distribution A Distribution B

Mean

Mean
1 SD

1 SD

FIGURE 3.8   Relationship of size of standard deviation to the type of distribution.

Standard Deviation  The standard deviation is the most frequently used measure of vari-
ability. In practical terms, it is the average distance of test scores from the mean. It is an
important statistic for interpreting the relative position of an individual within a distribu-
tion of test scores. The wider the spread of scores from the mean, the larger the standard
deviation. The smaller the standard deviation, the more scores will tend to cluster around
the mean. To illustrate this, let’s look back at the scores on the Nowicki–Strickland scale
and the Slosson Intelligence Test. Because there is a small range of scores on the Nowicki–
Strickland, just 15 points rather than the 50 points of the Slosson, the standard deviation
on the Nowicki–Strickland will be smaller than the standard deviation on the Slosson.
Figure 3.8 presents a hypothetical illustration.
As a statistic, standard deviation (s) is calculated by taking the square root of the
variance, via the following formula:

Σ(X - X)2
s =
B N - 1

Let’s use this formula for some hands-on experience calculating standard deviation.
Begin with the following students’ test scores:

Student Test Score (X)

1 85
2 92
3 87
4 74
5 62

Using these five test scores, work through the following step-by-step example of how
to compute standard deviation:

Step 1 Compute the mean (X).

ΣX (85 + 92 + 87 + 74 + 62) 400

X = = = = 80
N 5 5
60 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

Step 2 Subtract the mean from each test score.

Student (X − X )
1 85 - 80 = 5
2 92 - 80 = 12
3 87 - 80 = 7
4 74 - 80 = -6
5 62 - 80 = -18
Step 3 Square each individual difference.
Student (X − X ) (X − X )2
1 5  25
2 12 144
3 7  49
4 - 6  36
5 - 18 324
Step 4 Sum the squared differences.
Student (X − X )2
1  25
2 144
3  49
4  36
5 324
Sum = Σ(X - X )2 = 578
Step 5 Divide the sum of the squared differences by the number of test scores minus 1.

Σ(X - X)2 578

= = 144.5
N - 1 4

Step 6 Compute the square root of 144.5.

1144.5 = 12.02

Thus, the standard deviation is 12.02, indicating that the average variation of the test scores
from the mean is 12.02. What does this mean? Because we know that the mean of test scores
is 80, the standard deviation tells us that the majority of test scores that are within -1 or +1
standard deviation of the mean fall between 67.98 (80 - 12.02) and 92.02 (80 + 12.02).

The Normal Curve

Now that we have discussed various ways of describing distributions, including measures
of central tendency and measures of variability, we need to introduce the concept of the
normal curve. The normal curve, also known as the normal distribution or the bell curve, is a
visual representation of an ideal or theoretical distribution consisting of an infinite number
of scores (see Figure 3.9). The curve is based on the probability theory, which assumes that
many chance events, if repeated a sufficient number of times, generate distributions that
approximate a normal curve. Normal curve properties include the following:
• It is bell shaped.
• It is bilaterally symmetrical, which means that its two halves are identical.
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 61

34% 34%

13.5% 13.5%
2% 2%
−3 s −2 s −1 s X +1 s +2 s +3 s

68%
95%
99.5%

FIGURE 3.9   Normal curve.

• The mean, median, and mode are equal to one another.

• The tails are asymptotic, meaning that they approach but never touch the baseline.
• It is unimodal, which means that it has a single point of maximum frequency or
maximum height.
• 100% of the scores fall between -3 and +3 standard deviations from the mean, with
approximately 68% of the scores falling between -1 and +1 standard deviations,
approximately 95% of the scores falling between -2 and +2 standard deviations, and
approximately 99.5% of the scores falling between -3 and +3 standard deviations.
The normal curve is important because many of the measures researched in the social
sciences (e.g., achievement, intelligence, aptitude) yield scores that correspond very closely
to the normal curve. For each of these examples, test scores for most people would fall
toward the middle of the curve, with fewer people at each extreme. However, normal dis-
tributions cannot be assumed for instruments measuring personality, behavior, or learning
or emotional disorders. These instruments typically produce skewed distributions. An
instrument measuring depression, for example, has a skewed distribution, because only
about 6.9% of adult Americans experience depression within a given year (National Insti-
tute of Mental Health, 2014). This means that the majority of scores on a depression inven-
tory in the U.S. population would be low, resulting in a positively skewed distribution.

Measures of Relationship
Measures of central tendency and measures of variability are not the only descriptive sta-
tistics that can be used to get a picture of what test scores look like. Measures of relationship
can show the degree of relationship (or correlation) between two variables or scores. For
example, height and weight are related: Taller people tend to weigh more than shorter
people. However, the relationship between height and weight is not perfect: Some shorter
62 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

people can weigh more than some taller people and vice versa. Correlation can tell us just
how strongly pairs of variables relate.
Correlation is an important aspect of testing in the helping professions. For example,
we might want to compare the scores from an intellectual ability test and the scores from
an achievement test to see if any relationship exists between the two different results. If the
strength of the relationship is low, we would then begin to interpret the relationship and
attempt to understand the factors that are impacting the differences. Imagine that the intel-
ligence test scores are above average and the achievement scores are below average. This
might be an indication that a student is underperforming. However, we would need a
great deal of additional information before we could arrive at that determination. Another
possible reason could be poor instruction. We wouldn’t know the cause of the discrepancy
without a thorough investigation.
Another example of the use of correlation that you are likely familiar with is the rela-
tionship between admission tests and the potential to be successful in graduate school. The
correlation between GRE scores and first-year grades in graduate school is .3 without cor-
rection for range restriction, which means that the basic correlation is quite low. However,
the interpretation of this correlation is much more complex. Ahead, we provide a more
in-depth discussion of correlation coefficients and how they relate to assessment.

Correlation Coefficients  To measure the correlation, we use a statistic known as the cor­
relation coefficient. There are two fundamental characteristics of correlation coefficients:
direction and strength. In terms of direction, correlation coefficients can be either positive or
negative. A positive correlation indicates that the two variables move in the same direction;
that is, when scores on one variable go up, scores on the other variable go up as well. In
contrast, a negative correlation means that the two variables move in the opposite, or inverse,
direction—when scores on one variable go up, scores on the other variable go down.
In regard to strength, correlation coefficients describe the magnitude of the relation-
ship between two variables. Correlation coefficients range in strength between -1.00 and
+1.00. Thus, a correlation coefficient of +1.00 is considered a perfect positive correlation,
meaning that higher values on one variable are directly related to higher values on the
second variable. In contrast, a coefficient of -1.00 is a perfect negative correlation, indicating
that higher values on one variable are associated with lower values on the second variable.
The closer the coefficient is to either of the two extremes, the stronger the degree of rela-
tionship between the two variables. A coefficient of 0 would indicate the complete absence
of a relationship. Most relationships will fall somewhere between a perfect association and
no association. It is important to remember that correlation is not the same as cause. We
cannot determine from an estimate of correlation that one variable causes the other; we can
simply recognize that an association between the two variables exists.
Different methods of statistical analyses are used to calculate correlation coefficients,
depending on the kinds of variables being studied. For this textbook, we will discuss the
Pearson Product Moment Correlation, Spearman’s rho, and the phi coefficient.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation.  The Pearson Product Moment Correlation, repre-
sented by the small letter r, is used for measuring a linear relationship between two con-
tinuous variables—such as weight and intelligence in children. Continuous variables can
take on any value over a range of values. The example of weight and intelligence in c­ hildren
is perfect to illustrate that correlation does not equal causation. Although a relationship
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 63

might exist between the two, there is no evidence to suggest that weight causes intelligence
or vice versa. Why might a relationship exist? There are a number of reasons that could be
explored, but the most plausible would be that another variable exists that is related to
both and that is impacting the relationship of weight and intelligence. Let’s imagine that
parental intelligence is the variable. The explanation might be that parents with high intel-
ligence produce children with high intelligence. These parents also have better under-
standing of nutrition, and their children have healthy weight levels. Conversely, parents
with less intelligence might produce children with less intelligence. These parents may
also have less understanding of nutrition and subsequently have children who are over-
weight. Although these explanations might seem plausible, they are spurious. While you
might be able to make a case for the connection between weight and intelligence, there are
many other important variables that may impact either or both variables. For example,
people with less intelligence may have lower income potential. As a result, these individu-
als have less money for food. Fast food and high fat foods are often cheaper than healthy
food choices. As a result, the families end up with higher overall weight levels. There are
numerous explanations for a relationship between weight and intelligence, none of which
indicate a causative factor.
To demonstrate Pearson’s r, let’s say we want to compare how a group of students
performed on a reading ability test (Test A) and a writing ability test (Test B). Let’s look at
the following student scores on Test A and Test B:

Student Test A Test B

1 1 3
2 2 2
3 3 4
4 4 6
5 5 5

The formula for the Pearson r is as follows:

N(ΣXY) - (ΣX)(ΣY)
r =
2[N(ΣX2) - (ΣX)2][N(ΣY2) - (ΣY)2]

where
X = the individual’s score on the X variable (in this case, X is assigned to Test A)
Y = the individual’s score on the Y variable (in this case, Y is assigned to Test B)
Σ = summation
N = the number of paired scores
To calculate Pearson’s r, we take the following steps (Table 3.6 provides the data for
steps 1 to 3):

Step 1 Find the sums of X (Test A) and Y (Test B).

Step 2 Square each of the X and Y scores, and find the sum of each column of squared
scores.
Step 3 Multiply each individual X and Y score, and find the sum of all XY scores.
64 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

TABLE 3.6  Data for Calculating Pearson’s r

Student X Y X2 Y2 XY

1 1 3 1 9 3
2 2 2 4 4 4
3 3 4 9 16 12
4 4 6 16 36 24
5 5 5 25 25 25
Sums: 15 20 53 90 68

Step 4 We plug the numbers into the formula and complete the calculation. Because we
have five sets of scores, N = 5.

5(68) - (15)(20)
r =
2[5(55) - (15)2][5(90) - (20)2]
340 - 300 40
= = = .80
2[275 - 225][450 - 400] 50

The correlation of .80 indicates a positive degree of association between the two tests.
This means that a relationship exists between reading and writing levels for the students
who took these tests. Now that we know the correlation, we can have a general idea of the
student’s ability in one area if we have data from the other. For example, if a student only
took the reading test and scored high, then we could estimate that they would also per-
form well on the writing test.
Spearman’s Rho.  Spearman’s rho is a variant of Pearson’s r that is used for finding the
association between two ordinal (rank-ordered) variables. Denoted by the Greek letter r
(rho), it is a nonparametric measure of correlation; that is, it does not require linear rela-
tionships between variables or variables that are measured on interval scales. For example,
Spearman’s rho is frequently used for correlating responses from Likert scales (i.e., rating
scales running from never to always or strongly disagree to strongly agree). For example,
imagine that you provided a couple with a marital satisfaction instrument that contained
a Likert scale and asked both members of the couple to complete it. You would want to
know the relationship between both of their instruments. In other words, you would want
to know the level of agreement about their marital satisfaction. Because the instrument
measured responses in a Likert format, a Spearman’s rho would be the appropriate corre-
lation. Fortunately, many scoring programs for assessment instruments calculate level of
agreement for you.
Phi Coefficient.  The phi coefficient (f) is used to assess the degree of association between
two nominal variables. For example, let’s say that a researcher is interested in studying the
relationship between gender and counseling group program completion. Gender is a nom-
inal scale variable with two categories: male and female. If group completion is also meas-
ured on a nominal scale using yes or no, then a phi coefficient would be the appropriate
statistic to assess the relationship between the two variables.
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 65

6 (4, 6)

5 (5, 5)

4 (3, 4)
Test B

3 (1, 3)

2 (2, 2)

x
1 2 3 4 5 6
Test A

FIGURE 3.10   Scatterplot.

Scatterplots  Calculating the correlation coefficient should be undertaken in conjunction

with a scatterplot of the two variables. A scatterplot is a graphical display consisting of two
axes—X (horizontal) and Y (vertical)—with one axis for each variable. Figure 3.10 shows a
scatterplot of our earlier example, with each data point on the scatterplot representing the
scores on Test A (X axis) and the scores on Test B (Y axis). Most scatterplots consist of large
numbers of data points, and the more the points cluster toward a straight line, the stronger
or more linear the relationship between the two variables. Figure 3.11 provides several
scatterplots graphically displaying various correlation coefficients. As can be seen, a cor-
relation coefficient (r) of +1.00 indicates a perfect positive relationship, and all of the data
points fall on a straight, positive line. A correlation of -1.00 indicates an inverse (or perfect
negative) relationship, and the points fall on a straight line slanted in the opposite direction.
Correlations that are less than perfect, such as +.80, consist of data points that cluster
around, but do not fall directly on, a straight line. A correlation of zero indicates no rela-
tionship, and the data points show no direction on the scatterplot.

Regression  Correlation is used to assess the size and direction of a relationship between
variables. Regression is a statistical method related to correlation but is primarily used for
prediction. Regression is the analysis of relationships among variables for the purpose of
understanding how one variable may predict another. In the helping professions, we often
use regression to determine whether changes in test scores are related to changes in perfor-
mance. For example, do individuals who score better on the Graduate Records Exam
(GRE) perform better in graduate school? Can certain personality tests predict job
66 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

r = +1.00 r = −1.00 r = .00

r = +.80 r = −.80

FIGURE 3.11   Scatterplots graphically displaying various correlation coefficients.

­ erformance? Can IQ measured during high school predict success in later life? Regression
p
is a common statistical analysis used in counseling research, and it is important for you to
understand the basic principles of regression so that you can apply them to practice.
Simple linear regression is a form of regression analysis used to predict the value of one
variable (the dependent or outcome variable) based on the value of another variable (the inde­
pendent or predictor variable). It involves plotting a straight line through a set of points on a
scatterplot with the minimal amount of deviations from the line (see Figure 3.12). This line,
called the regression line or the line of best fit, best represents the association between the two
variables and illustrates the linear relationship between the variables. The deviation of the
points from the line is called error. Once the equation is determined, you can predict the
dependent variable (on the X axis) based on the value of the independent variable (on the Y
axis). The equation for regression is the same as the algebraic equation of a straight line:
Y = a + bX, where a is the Y intercept and b is the slope of the line.
Multiple regression is the same as simple linear regression, except that it attempts to
predict the dependent variable from two or more independent variables. For example, let’s say
that a researcher wants to predict outcomes in counseling from three variables: age, gen-
der, and scores from the MMPI-2. The researcher would use multiple regression analysis
to find the linear combination of the three variables that best predicts counseling success.
The formula for multiple regression is an extension of the simple regression formula
Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + g bnXn.
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 67

Y axis

X axis

FIGURE 3.12   Regression line.

Factor Analysis  The objective of multiple regression is to analyze the relationship among
variables to predict a single dependent variable by a set of independent variables. Factor
analysis also analyzes the relationship among variables, but not for purposes of predicting
a dependent variable. The principal objective of factor analysis is to simplify the descrip-
tion of data by reducing the number of necessary variables. Thus, it is considered a data-
reduction technique used to analyze the relationships among large numbers of variables to
explain the variables by their common underlying dimensions (i.e., factors). The dimensions
that are generated from the process are much fewer in number and are thought to be rep-
resentative of the original variables.
Factor analysis has been used to construct and refine personality tests by condensing
numerous personality traits into fewer dimensions of personality that can then be meas-
ured and evaluated. For example, Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1988) developed the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), which consists of 16 primary factors of personal-
ity that were derived from 18,000 personality trait names using factor analysis. The factor
analytic statistical process that resulted in 16 distinct personality factors from 18,000 traits
is quite complex, but it is important to have a basic understanding of the process, because
many assessment instruments are developed using this technique.
In order to illustrate the concept of factor analysis, think about coin-sorting machines
that are available in grocery stores and other public venues. You can take a jar of coins to
the machine, dump the coins in, and receive a cash payout in paper money. The machine
is designed to weigh the coins and to count the iterations of each coin that weighs the same
amount. For example, the machine determines that a quarter is a different weight from a
dime. Once the machine weighs the coins, it provides a value based on each weight and
produces a final amount. A very similar process is used for factor analysis. As you might
guess, when examining 18,000 personality traits, there are many that are of the same
weight statistically. In other words, the traits measured very similar (if not the same)
68 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts

c­ oncepts. Traits like friendly and gregarious might have overlapped extensively. As a result,
the factor analysis process categorizes these as having the same weight. After all 18,000
traits were examined, the result was only 16 distinct personality factors.
Of course, factor analysis is more complex than the illustration provided. As a con-
sumer of statistics, the preceding example can help you to understand how assessment
instruments are developed. However, the example does not provide you with the knowl-
edge of whether the statistic was used correctly or if the interpretation was appropriate.
Statistical techniques like factor analysis require training beyond the scope of this textbook
to use competently. If you are interested, there are books that discuss factor analysis in
greater detail (see Aron, Aron, & Coups, 2012; Cudeck & MacCallum, 2007; Lomax, 2012).

Summary
To be competent in assessment, counselors need measure: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio.
to understand the statistical concepts pertinent to The type of scale of measurement and the size of
understanding, interpreting, and communicating the sample being tested influence what statistics
assessment results. Statistics provide test devel- are computed. Descriptive statistics are widely
opers and users with a way to summarize, used in the assessment field to describe and sum-
describe, and interpret assessment data. Statistics marize a set of data. There are several different
also help counselors to evaluate the psychometric types of descriptive statistics, such as frequency
properties (e.g., reliability, validity, standardiza- distributions, measures of central tendency,
tion) of tests, which is important for evaluating measures of variability, and measures of relation-
and selecting tests. Any discussion of statistics ship. Inferential statistics are used to draw infer-
begins with an understanding of the four scales of ences on the population being studied.

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the four scales of measurement, and 4. Why are measures of relationship important to
what are the advantages and disadvantages of measurement consumers?
each? Give examples of each type of scale. 5. What are the uses of inferential statistics in meas-
2. How do the various measures of central tendency urement contexts? Discuss the uses of multivari-
compare with each other? ate statistical approaches, such as factor analysis.
3. Why is variability an important construct in testing?
What are the measures of dispersion used in testing?

Suggested Activities
1. Study a test manual, and identify the different 4. Compute a Pearson correlation between the
types of statistics reported. Make an annotated Anger Control and Calmness scores that are
set of cards with definitions and illustrations of included in Table 3.3.
the statistics identified. 5. Construct a frequency distribution of the Socia-
2. Compute the mean, mode, and median of the bility or Conformity scale reported in Table 3.3.
Anger Control and Calmness scores that are Then, make a histogram and frequency polygon
included in Table 3.3. of the scores.
3. Compute the standard deviations and range of
the Anger Control and Calmness scores that are
included in Table 3.3.
 Chapter 3  •  Statistical Concepts 69

References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Coups, E. (2012). Statistics for Lomax, R. G. (2012). Statistical concepts: A second
psychology (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: course (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
­Merrill/Prentice Hall. Associates.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1988). National Institute of Mental Health. (2014). Major
Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Question­ depression among adults. Retrieved from http://
naire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Person- www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics
ality and Ability Testing. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for
Cudeck, R., & MacCallum, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Factor internal versus external control of reinforcement.
analysis at 100: Historical developments and future Psychological Monographs, 80, 609.
directions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing
­Associates. (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
 CHAPTER

4 Understanding Assessment Scores

Because assessment is an integral part of the counseling process, counselors must be able
to interpret the results of tests, rating scales, structured interviews, and various other
instruments and then be able to relay the information from that interpretation in an under-
standable way. For example, a client might complete a depression inventory and obtain a
score of 88. The counselor would have to understand that score in relationship to the norm
group and then be able to explain the score in relation to depression. As another example,
a counselor might need to explain the scores of a career interest inventory to a client and
explain how the client can use the scores to make career decisions. In yet another example,
a school counselor might interpret and explain the scores of an achievement test to stu-
dents or parents. Scores can be expressed in different forms. Sometimes, the meaning of
the various types of scores is confusing to clients, because they have little exposure to the
terminology used in measurement. Therefore, it is crucial that counselors have knowledge
about the different methods of scoring and ways of communicating those scores in a man-
ner that clients can understand.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Describe raw scores and convey their limitations.
JJ Define criterion-referenced and norm-referenced interpretations and explain the distinctions
between the two.
JJ Define norm groups and describe their importance in norm-referenced score
interpretation.
JJ Describe and interpret percentile ranks.

JJ Describe the types of standard scores and their relationship to the normal curve.

JJ Describe grade and age equivalent scores and explain their limitations.

JJ Explain the purpose of qualitative descriptions of assessment scores.

ASSESSMENT SCORES
Because scores reflect the performance of the individual taking an assessment instrument,
having a clear understanding of scores and their meaning is extremely important. Imagine
that you receive a grade of 60 for a midterm exam in one of your university classes. What
does the score mean, and how should you interpret it? By itself, the number has no ­meaning
70
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 71

at all and cannot be interpreted: You cannot determine if it is a perfect score, a failing score,
or anything in between. This would be considered a raw score, which is simply represent-
ing the number of correctly answered questions coded in some specific manner, such as
correct/incorrect, true/false, and so on. By itself, a raw score does not convey any mean-
ing. A score has meaning only when there is some standard with which to compare it; thus,
part of the process of understanding scores is transforming a raw score into some mean-
ingful form. These transformed scores are crucial in helping us interpret test scores. In most
cases, scores can be divided into two general classes: norm-referenced scores and criterion-
referenced scores. This classification provides us with a frame of reference to interpret the
meaning of a given score. With norm-referenced scores, an individual’s test score is com-
pared to the scores of other people who took the same test (i.e., a norm group). With crite-
rion-referenced scores, the individual’s score is measured against a specified level of
performance (i.e., a criterion). We will discuss these concepts further, beginning with crite-
rion-referenced score interpretation.

CRITERION-REFERENCED SCORES
Many tests measure how well individuals master specific skills or meet instructional objec-
tives, and in these situations, test results are interpreted using criterion-referenced scores.
Criterion-referenced score interpretation emphasizes the use of some criterion or standard of
performance (e.g., instructional objectives or competencies) to interpret an examinee’s test
results. For example, most tests and quizzes written by school teachers are criterion-refer-
enced tests. The objective is simply to determine whether or not the student has learned
the class material; thus, knowledge of class material becomes the standard of performance
by which a student’s test results are evaluated. Because the emphasis is on the test taker’s
achievement level or mastery, criterion-referenced test scores are interpreted in absolute
terms, such as the percentages, scale scores, and performance categories. Typically, per-
centages are used to reflect the number of correct responses (e.g., the student correctly
answered 80% of the items on a test). Scale scores are usually three-digit scores that have
been converted from raw scores. The meaning of a scale score varies depending on the test;
however, lower scores typically indicate the ability to do easier work, and higher scores
typically indicate the ability to do more difficult work. Performance categories (also called
achievement levels or proficiency levels) describe an individual’s performance by sorting or
classifying scores into categories based on the quality of performance, such as failing,
basic, proficient, and advanced, or Level 1, Level 2, and so on. Performance categories are
actually specified ranges of a particular score, such as scale scores. For example, the ­Florida
state achievement test—which measures student performance in reading, math, science,
and writing—has five clearly defined proficiency levels that represent a scale score rang-
ing from 100 to 500. On the reading test, Level 1 consists of scale scores that range from 100
to 258, Level 2 scores range from 259 to 283, Level 3 from 284 to 331, Level 4 from 332 to
393, and Level 5 from 394 to 500.
Frequently, criterion-referenced scores involve the use of a cutoff score (i.e., the pass-
ing score), which represents the minimum number of items the examinee must answer
correctly in order to demonstrate mastery. An example of the use of cutoff scores is the
achievement testing of students as a result of the No Child Left Behind legislation. In this
case, the federal government requires students to achieve a minimum proficiency level on
statewide exams (e.g., 75% of items correct in reading) to prove that they have mastered
72 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

certain basic skills. Criterion-referenced instruments are also commonly used for profes-
sional licensure or certification tests in which a cutoff score qualifies an individual for the
job or for appropriate licensure or certification. In these situations, the cutoff score may be
set by using the Angoff method (Angoff, 1971), which is a procedure that requires a panel of
experts to judge each test item based on the probability or likelihood that a candidate with
minimal competency of the material would answer the question correctly. Analysis of the
probability input from the experts is used to generate a cutoff score for the test.
An important consideration with criterion-referenced scores involves the content
domain (i.e., the criterion). Because a score is thought to reflect an individual’s knowledge
of a specific content domain, that domain must be clearly defined. In education, states and
school districts have set standards or competencies for students to meet—for example,
mastery of essential or basic skills. Criterion-referenced tests are commonly used to evalu-
ate mastery of basic skills in classrooms, and the criteria reflect the educational content that
is presented through various learning activities. An example of a well-defined content
domain for second-grade math students is, “Students should understand the relative size
of whole numbers between 0 and 1,000.”

NORM-REFERENCED SCORES
With norm-referenced interpretation, we do not look at a test taker’s mastery of a particular
content area; rather, we compare an individual’s test scores to the test scores of a group of
people (Table 4.1 summarizes the differences between norm-referenced and criterion-­
referenced scores). Norm-referenced score interpretation is used when one wishes to make
comparisons across large numbers of individuals on a particular domain being measured.
For example, it might be reported that a high school student scored higher on an achieve-
ment test than 95% of a national sample of high school students who took the same test.
Thus, with norm-referenced tests, individual performance is determined by relative rank-
ing among the group of individuals who took the test. The group scores to which each
individual is compared are referred to as norms, which provide the basis for interpreting
test scores. As you recall from the previous section, there are only a few different types of
criterion-referenced scores (e.g., percentages, scale scores, performance categories).
­Comparatively speaking, the various types of norm-referenced scores substantially out-
number the types of scores used with criterion-referenced. The numerous and diverse
types of norm-referenced scores will be presented later in the chapter.
Probably the most important issue in norm-referenced score interpretation involves
the relevance of the group of individuals against whom the test taker’s score is weighed.
This group, called the norm group, provides the standard against which a particular

TABLE 4.1  Differences Between Norm-Referenced and Criterion-Referenced Scores

Interpretation Important Considerations

Norm-referenced How well the test taker does in comparison The norm group must be
with other individuals (a norm group). clearly defined.
Criterion-referenced What the test taker knows or does not know The content domain
with respect to a specified content domain. (i.e., the criterion) must be
clearly defined.
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 73

i­ndividual’s performance can be compared; thus, the nature of the interpretation to be

drawn from that comparison is influenced by the composition of the norm group. As such,
the composition of the norm group is critical.

Norm Group
The norm group (also called the normative group, normative sample, norming sample, or stand-
ardization sample) refers to the large group of individuals who took the test and on whom
the test was standardized. It is the norm group’s performance to which the examinee’s
performance is compared and interpreted, and for interpretations to be meaningful, the
norm group must be relevant. For example, on measures of intelligence, test results from
10-year-old children must be compared to results from other 10-year-old children, not to
6-year-old children or 13-year-old children. To determine if the norm group of a particular
instrument is relevant, counselors evaluate whether the norm group is representative, cur-
rent, and has adequate sample size.
Representativeness refers to the extent to which the characteristics of the norm group
correspond to the individual being tested. Norm groups typically include individuals who
represent the age and demographic characteristics of those for whom the test is intended.
For example, if a test is used to assess the math skills of U.S. middle school students in
grades 6 to 8, then the test’s norm group should represent the national population of sixth-,
seventh-, and eighth-grade students in all pertinent areas. To ensure that a norm group is
representative, many test developers select groups from the general population using
stratified sampling procedures. Stratified sampling involves choosing norm groups based
on certain important variables; in the United States, many psychological and educational
tests use national norms that are stratified in accordance with U.S. Census Bureau popula-
tion statistics, which include such variables as gender, age, education, ethnicity, socioeco-
nomic background, region of residence, and community size. For example, the Kaufman
Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-2) was standardized using a stratified normative sample com-
prised of 2,120 individuals (ages 4 to 25) that closely resembled the U.S. population based
on the 2001 U.S. Census Bureau Survey (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). The sample matched
such demographic variables as education level, parental education, race, ethnicity, and
geographic region. Furthermore, in 2001, the Census Bureau reported that 15% of 11-year-
old children in the United States were Hispanic; thus, 15% of the 11-year-old children
within KBIT-2’s norm group were Hispanic.
Another issue in determining the relevance of norm groups involves whether the
sample is current. Over the last few decades, the demographic composition of the U.S.
population has changed dramatically, such as the increasing numbers of minority popula-
tions. These newer demographics may impact test scores that are interpreted using older,
outdated normative samples. For example, the U.S. population is now over 17% Hispanic
(United States Census Bureau, 2014). Thus, the normative sample of the KBIT-2 is out-of-
date. This does not mean that the instrument is no longer useful, but it does mean that the
results should be interpreted with caution and that further research is needed to ensure
that the scores are accurate reflections when testing Hispanic individuals.
Other norm group variables that fluctuate over time include language, attitudes, and
values; even intelligence has been shown to change over time, as evidenced by the steady
increase in intelligence test scores over the past century (read about the Flynn Effect in
Chapter 8). Overall, it is generally preferable to use tests with the most up-to-date norm
74 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

groups, because these test results will be the most representative of the performance of the
test takers. Although no specific guidelines are available to determine whether a norma-
tive group is too old, it is reasonable to expect that instruments will be revised at least
every 10 years and that new norms will accompany the revisions (Thorndike, 2011).
The size of the norm group can vary tremendously depending on the type of test and
population that the norm group represents. For example, broadband achievement tests
developed for use with K–12 students throughout the United States will have norm
groups that number in the thousands. The Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI;
Bardos, 2004) was standardized on over 2,400 students (for Form A), the Wide Range
Achievement Test (WRAT4; Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006) had a norm group of over
3,000 individuals, and the Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford 10; Pearson Inc., 2004)
had a national normative sample of 275,000 students. Instruments with a more narrow
focus that require samples from specialized populations (e.g., individuals from certain
occupational groups, having specific psychiatric disorders, with learning disabilities)
typically have smaller normative samples. For example, the normative sample of the Beck
Depression Inventory (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) consisted of 500 individuals
who were diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders, and the Posttraumatic Stress
Diagnostic Scale (PDS; Foa, 1995) had a normative sample of 248 individuals who were
receiving treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. The size of a norm group holds
importance for a couple of reasons: First, the larger the normative sample, the more likely
it is to represent the population; second, a large norm group increases the stability and
accuracy of statistical analysis.
Because the relevance of the norm group is essential when using norm-referenced
tests, test publishers are responsible for providing detailed information about the norm
group in the test manual. Counselors are also obligated to evaluate the norm group and
determine whether it is suitable for comparison with their client’s scores. Table 4.2 lists
questions needed to evaluate a norm group.

TABLE 4.2  Questions to Evaluate a Norm Group

• Does the norm group include the type of person with whom the test taker should be compared?
• How were individuals identified and selected for the norm group?
• How large is the norm group?
• When (what year) was the sample gathered?
• What is the composition of the norm group in terms of:
• Age?
• Gender?
• Ethnicity?
• Race?
• Language?
• Education?
• Socioeconomic status?
• Geographic region?
• Other relevant variables (e.g., mental health, disabilities, medical problems)?
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 75

Types of Norm-Referenced Scores

It is often useful to have a means for comparing an individual’s performance to others.
Making such a comparison allows for an understanding of the individual’s performance
in relative standing to a reference or norm group. The type of norm-references score
selected is dependent upon the purpose of the test and the use of the results. Some norm-
referenced scores have a stronger basis for interpretation than others (e.g., percentile
ranks, standard scores), and users should have a clear understanding of each type before
applying them in practice.

PERCENTILE RANKS  Percentile ranks are the most common form of scores that expresses the
examinee’s relative position on a norm-referenced test. A percentile rank represents the
percentage of a distribution of scores that falls below a particular test score. For example,
if a test taker has a percentile score of 80, then he or she has performed equal to or better
than 80% of the individuals who took the test. Percentile ranks range from the 1st percen-
tile (lowest) to the 99th percentile (highest), and the 50th percentile normally signifies the
average ranking or average performance. The formula for calculating the percentile rank
for any raw score is as follows:

B
PR = * 100
N

where
PR = percentile rank
B = the number of cases with lower values
N = the total number of cases
To calculate a percentile rank, as an example, say that a math teacher had 10 raw scores on
an exam ranging in value from 10 to 20 (see Table 4.3). From the table, you can see that
Denzel achieved a raw score of 17 on the test. To calculate the percentile rank, sum the total

TABLE 4.3  Raw Scores Ranked in Descending Order

Student ID Name Raw Score

1 Michelle 20
2 Carlos 18
3 Denzel 17
4 Halle 16
5 Dante 16
6 Corrine 15
7 Maria 15
8 Grant 14
9 Monica 13
10 Joe 10
76 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

TABLE 4.4  Percentile Ranks and Percentages

Percentile Ranks
• Scores that reflect the rank or position of an individual’s test performance on a continuum from
0 to 99 in comparison to others who took the test.
• Symbols for percentile rank: PR or %ile.
• Example: Shari scored in the 80th percentile on the test, meaning that Shari scored equal to or
better than 80% of the other individuals who took the test.

Percentages
• A form of raw score that reflects the number of correct responses obtained out of the total
­possible number of correct responses on a test.
• Symbol for percentage score: %.
• Example: Shari scored 70% on her test. This means that she answered 70% of the test items ­correctly.

number of cases that fall below this score of 17; in this case, seven scores have lower values.
Then, calculate the rest of the formula:

7
PR = * 100
10
= 70

Denzel’s score is in the 70th percentile, meaning that he scored equal to or better than 70%
of the students who took the math test.
Percentile ranks should not be confused with percentages. Although the two terms
are similar, they are different concepts conveying different meanings. Table 4.4 describes
the differences between these terms.
Quartiles are another term referred to in percentile measure. Quartiles are similar to
percentile ranks, except that they divide the data set into four equal parts instead of 100
equal parts. The first quartile (also called the lower quartile) is the same as the 25th percen-
tile, the second quartile (median quartile) is the 50th percentile, and the third quartile
(upper quartile) is the 75th percentile. The distance between the first quartile and the third
quartile is called the interquartile range and contains 50% of all values in the distribution.
Many standardized tests report a percentile band rather than a single percentile rank.
A percentile band is the range of percentile values in which a test taker’s “true” percentile
rank would lie. Usually, the band extends one standard error of measurement above and
below the obtained percentile rank. For example, if a test taker had a percentile rank of 35
and the standard error of measurement was 5, then the percentile band would range from
the 30th percentile to the 40th percentile.
Although percentile ranks are the most common way to compare the relative ranking
of an individual’s test score, percentiles are not an equal-interval scale of measurement.
This means that percentile ranks are not equally spaced across all parts of a distribution:
They are compressed near the middle of the distribution (where the majority of scores fall)
and spread out near the tails (where there are fewer scores; see Figure 4.1). This implies
that small differences in percentile ranks near the middle of the distribution may be less
important than differences at the extremes. In addition, without an equal-interval scale,
they do not accurately reflect the differences between scores; for example, the difference
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 77

34% 34%

13.5% 13.5%

−3 s −2 s −1 s X +1 s +2 s +3 s

Percentiles
1 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99

FIGURE 4.1   Percentiles and the normal curve.

between 20th and 30th percentiles is not the same as the difference between the 50th and
60th percentiles. Furthermore, because most meaningful mathematical calculations require
measurement on equal-interval scales, percentiles cannot be added or averaged.

STANDARD SCORES  Standard scores are a means of presenting the relative position of an indi-
vidual’s test score, assuming a normal distribution. Standard scores are linear transformations
of raw scores. This means that raw scores are converted into a particular standard score using
certain mathematical equations; as such, standard scores retain a direct relationship with the
raw score. There are several types of standard scores: z scores, T scores, deviation IQs, stan-
ines, sten scores, and other standard score scales. Each type of standard score has a set mean
and standard deviation. By using standard deviation units, standard scores reflect the dis-
tance that an individual’s test score falls above or below the mean of the distribution of scores.
Thus, the standard deviation of the test becomes its yardstick. These scores are called “stand-
ard” because no matter what the distribution size or the scale of measurement, standard
scores will always be the same, with a fixed mean and fixed standard deviation (Figure 4.2
shows the various standard scores and their relationship to the normal curve). Remember that
standard scores assume a normal distribution of scores; however, many variables measured
in assessment are not distributed normally. For example, measures of certain psychological
symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety) may deviate substantially from the normal distribution.
In these situations, test developers may elect to use normalized standard scores. Normalized
standard scores are not derived from the linear transformations of raw scores; rather, they are
nonlinearly derived scores that are computed by (a) finding the percentile rank of each raw
score, (b) transforming the percentiles into z scores using a conversion table, and (c) trans-
forming the z score into any other standard score desired. In most situations, normalized
standard scores will be interpreted similarly to other standard scores obtained by linear trans-
formations (e.g., z scores, T scores, deviation IQs); they will have the same mean and standard
deviation as their counterparts. However, they should be identified as normalized standard
scores to alert the test user to the fact that they come from a distribution that was not normal.
78 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

34% 34%

13.5% 13.5%

−3 s −2 s −1 s X +1 s +2 s +3 s

z score
−3 −2 −1 0 +1 +2 +3

T score
20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Deviation IQ
55 70 85 100 115 130 145

Stanine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sten score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SAT/GRE
200 300 400 500 600 700 800

FIGURE 4.2   The normal curve and standard scores.

z Scores.  z scores are the simplest form of standard scores. A z score conveys the value
of a score in terms of how many standard deviations it is above or below the mean of the
distribution. The mean for a distribution of z scores is 0, and the standard deviation is 1.0.
The range of z scores is approximately from -3.0 to +3.0; thus, scores that fall below the
mean will have negative z scores and those that fall above the mean will have positive
z scores. The z score is computed using the following formula:

X - X
z =
s
where
z = the z score
X = the raw score of any individual taking the test
X = the mean of the raw scores
s = the standard deviation of the raw scores
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 79

TABLE 4.5  Raw Scores Transformed to z Scores

Test Raw Score Mean Standard Deviation z score

Reading 100 80 10 +2.00

Mathematics 50 50 15 0.00
Science 45 55 5 -2.00
History 98 82 16 +1.00

For example, if we know that the mean of a test’s raw scores was 80 and the standard
deviation was 10 and that an individual scored 100 on the test, then we have the data to
compute the z score:

100 - 80
z =
10
20
=
10
= +2.00

z scores tell us instantly how large or small an individual score is relative to other scores
in the distribution. Thus, the z score above tells us that the person scored 2 standard devia-
tions above the mean on the exam. Table 4.5 provides more examples of transforming raw
scores into z scores. Because standard scores are linear units, they can be transformed in a
number of ways without having the properties of the original raw score distribution changed.
For example, z scores can be converted into T scores, as described in the next section.
T Scores.  A T score is another commonly used standard score that has a fixed mean of
50 and a fixed standard deviation of 10. Using a predetermined mean and standard devia-
tion eliminates the need for decimals and negative values; thus, T scores will always be
positive whole numbers. The formula is as follows:

T = 10z + 50

The fixed mean of 50 becomes a constant that is added to each score; the fixed standard
deviation of 10 becomes a constant multiplied by each z score. Thus, if we know the z score,
then we can calculate the T score. For example, if a test’s raw score was converted into a
z score, which came to +2.00, then the T score would be computed as follows:

T = 10(2.00) + 50
= 20 + 50
= 70

T scores are very popular in assessment and are often used to report personality test
results (see Table 4.6 for examples of assessment instruments and resulting scores). An
example is the MMPI-2, which uses uniform T scores. The average score on an MMPI-2
scale is 50. Scores on the MMPI-2 are not considered clinically significant until they are 1.5
standard deviations above the mean (i.e., 65 and above). When an individual obtains a
80 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

TABLE 4.6  Examples of Commonly Used Assessment Instruments in Counseling

Category Instrument Type of Score

Initial Assessment Symptom Checklist-90-Revised T scores

Brief Symptoms Inventory T scores
Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation Total score
BDI-II Total score
SASSI-2 T scores
CAGE Total score
Ability Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IQ Scores, Percentile
­Intelligence, Revised (WPPSI-IV)
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ­Children-Fourth IQ Scores, Percentile
­Edition (WISC-IV)
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition IQ Scores
Kaufman Assessment Battery For ­Children, IQ Scores, Percentile
Second Edition (K-ABC-II)
Stanford–Binet, Fifth Edition (SB-5) IQ Scores, Percentile
Achievement/Aptitude Terra Nova, Third Edition National Percentile Rank
Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (WRAT3) IQ Scores, Percentile, Stanine
Kaufman Test of Educational ­Achievement, IQ Scores, Percentile, Stanine
Second Edition (K-TEA-II)
Career Strong Interest Inventory (SII) Transformed standard scores
Self-Directed Search (SDS) Three-letter Holland Code
Campbell Interest and Skills Survey T scores and three-letter
­Holland Code
Kuder System Various scores
Differential Aptitude Tests, Fifth Edition (DAT-5) Percentile, Stanine, and Scaled
Scores
SIGI-PLUS Three-letter Holland Code
Personality Minnesota Multiphasic Personality ­Inventory-2 Uniform T scores
(MMPI-2)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Uniform T scores
­Inventory-Adolescent Version (MMPI-A)
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III, T scores
(MCMI-III)
NEO-PI-R T scores
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) T scores
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Four-letter code
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) STEN
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) Total score
Marriage and Family Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised (MSI-R) T scores
Family Environment Scale (FES) Standard scores
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 81

Transforming Raw Scores to Any Type of Standard Score

In this chapter, we presented formulas for trans- where

forming raw scores into z scores. With this calcu- X′ = the new standard score
lation, you can transform raw scores into any S′ = the standard deviation of the new
type of standard score. We have already shown standard score
how to convert z scores into T scores, but there z = the z score
are alternative standard score systems with dif- X′ = the mean of the new standard score
ferent means and standard deviations to which
one might want to convert a raw score. For example, say that you want to convert
There are two steps for transforming a raw a raw score (X = 95) into a CEEB score (which
score into any type of standard score: has a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of
100, as described later in the chapter). You cal-
Step 1. Convert the raw score to a z score as
culated the standard deviation and mean for the
follows:
raw scores (see Table 4.5) and found the raw
scores’ mean to be 80 and the standard devia-
X - X
z = tion to be 10. Using the preceding steps, the cal-
S culations would be as follows:

where X - X
Step 1. z =
z = the z score S
X = the raw score of any individual taking 95 - 80
the test =
10
X = the mean of the raw scores 15
S = the standard deviation of the raw scores =
10
Step 2. Convert the z score to any standard = +15
score as follows: Step 2. X′ = S′(Z ) + X′
= 100(1.5) + 500
X′ = S′(Z ) + X′ = 650

T score of 65, this means that the score is equal to or higher than 91% of the population.
When using this lens, the score is clearly different from the rest of the norm group. A
T score of 70 is only five points higher than 65 but means that the score is actually equal to
or higher than 98% of the population. Although a difference of 5 points might appear
minimal upon initial inspection, it actually distinguishes the individual from the rest of the
normative group in a significant manner.
Deviation IQs.  The IQ, or intelligence quotient, was originally conceptualized as a
ratio of mental age to chronological age. However, various problems with calculating IQ
in this way were found. For example, it was assumed that mental age was directly corre-
lated with chronological age over time (i.e., mental age increased as chronological age
increased), but in fact mental age increases very slowly after an individual reaches the
chronological age of 16 and then eventually begins to decline. Thus, most intelligence tests
today no longer use the mental age/chronological age formula to compute intelligence;
they use deviation IQ scores instead. Deviation IQ scores have a mean of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15. However, the standard deviations may vary depending on the test; for
example, the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) uses a standard deviation of 16. In general,
most of the major intelligence tests use 15 as the fixed standard deviation.
82 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

CEEB Scores (SAT/GRE).  CEEB scores are standard scores that were developed by the
College Entrance Examination Board (now called the Educational Testing Service [ETS])
and used with tests including the SAT and the GRE. CEEB scores range from 200 to 800
and have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100.
Stanines.  Stanines (short for STAndard NINE) are a type of standard score that convert
raw scores into values ranging from 1 to 9, making it possible to translate various kinds of
information into one-digit scores. Stanines have a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 2,
and they have a constant relationship to percentiles in that they represent a specific range
of percentile scores in the normal curve; that is, a given percentile always falls within the
same stanine. Because they categorize test performance into only nine broad units, stan-
ines provide less detail about an examinee’s performance than other derived scores. In
general, stanines of 1 to 3 are considered below average, stanines of 4 to 6 represent aver-
age performance, and stanines of 7 to 9 are above average. A stanine-to-percentile-rank
conversion table is presented in Table 4.6. Stanines are widely used in education.
Sten Scores.  Sten scores (short for Standard TEN) are normalized standard scores simi-
lar to stanines, but stens range from 1 to 10, have a mean of 5.5, and have a standard
deviation of 2. Sten scores of 4 to 7 are considered average, stens of 1 to 3 fall in the low
range, and stens of 8 to 10 fall in the high range. A sten-to-percentile-rank conversion table
is presented in Table 4.7.

TABLE 4.7  Stanine-to-Percentile-Rank Conversion Table

Stanine Percentile Rank

1 1–4
2 5–11
3 12–23
4 24–40
5 41–59
6 60–76
7 77–88
8 89–95
9 96–99

TABLE 4.8  Sten-to-Percentile-Rank Conversion Table

Sten Percentile Rank

1 1–2
2 3–7
3 8–16
4 17–31
5 32–50
6 51–69
7 70–84
8 85–93
9 94–98
10 99–100
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 83

Normal Curve Equivalent.  The normal curve equivalent (NCE) is a normalized stand-
ard score that ranges from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 21.06.
Used primarily in education, an NCE score of 50 represents the national average of any
grade level at the time of year the test was normed. NCE scores can be used to compute
group statistics, compare the performance of students who take different levels of the same
test, compare student performance across subject matter, and evaluate gains over time. To
interpret NCEs, it is necessary to relate them to other standard scores, such as percentile
ranks or stanines. NCEs may be thought of as roughly equivalent to stanines to one deci-
mal place; for example, an NCE of 73 may be interpreted as a stanine of 7.3. To evaluate a
student’s gains over time, NCE scores should be interpreted as follows: a zero gain indi-
cates that a student made one year of academic progress after one year of instruction, a
positive gain indicates the student made more than one year’s progress, and a negative
gain indicates less than one year’s progress. The main advantage of NCEs is that they are
derived through the use of comparable procedures by the publishers of the various tests
used in federal (i.e., U.S. Department of Education) research projects.

GRADE AND AGE EQUIVALENTS  In addition to percentiles and standard scores, other norm-
referenced scores are used for interpreting test performance. We will discuss two scales
that implicitly compare the test taker’s raw score to the average raw score of people at
various developmental levels: age equivalents and grade equivalents. Although we pre-
sent these forms of test scores in this text, both types have many limitations that make
them subject to misinterpretation. Thus, we do not recommend their use as primary scores.
If you are required to use age or grade equivalents, never base interpretations on them
alone: Always include standard scores and percentile ranks when interpreting test scores.

Grade Equivalents.  Grade equivalents are norm-referenced, developmental scores that

represent the average score for children at various grade levels. They are most frequently
used for achievement tests. Grade equivalents are divided into 10 units that correspond to
the ­September-to-June school year. Thus, 5.0 would represent September of the fifth grade,
and 5.9 would represent May of fifth grade. A grade-equivalent score is intended to repre-
sent a student’s test performance in terms of the grade level at which the “average” stu-
dent’s performance matches that of the examinee. For example, a grade-equivalent score of
4.9 indicates that a student’s performance is similar to the average performance of students
in May of fourth grade. A student who scores above his grade level has performed above
the average for students in his grade; likewise, a student who scores below his grade level
has scored below the average for students in his grade. Because grade equivalent scores
are based on a mean, in a typical grade about half of the students would score below grade
level and half above grade level.
Although grade equivalents appear easy to understand, teachers, parents, and pro-
fessionals must be cautious when interpreting these scores. For example, say that Katy, a
fifth-grade student, receives a grade equivalent score of 7.4 on a fifth-grade math test.
Katy’s parents might assume that this means that she is ready for seventh-grade math
instruction. In reality, the score simply means that Katy knows fifth-grade math better
than most students at her grade level. Specifically, it means that a typical seventh grader in
the fourth month would have received the same score if seventh graders had taken the
fifth-grade math test. Thus, the grade equivalent score doesn’t indicate how well Katy
would perform in seventh-grade math, because she was tested only on fifth-grade math.
Grade equivalent scores are not equal units of measurement; thus, they are not as
84 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

­ ell-suited as standard scores for comparing different scores on the same test or for com-
w
paring scores on different tests.
Counselors should consider the following points about grade equivalent scores:
1. Grade equivalent scores are not an estimate of the grade at which the student should
be placed.
2. The grade equivalent score of one student cannot be compared to the grade equiva-
lent score of another student.
3. Grade equivalent scores cannot be compared with the scores on other tests.
4. Grade equivalent scores on different subtests of the same test cannot be compared. For
example, grade equivalent scores of 4.0 on the reading and math subtests of the same
achievement test do not indicate that the student has equal proficiency in the two areas.
Age Equivalents.  Age equivalent scores represent an examinee’s test performance in
terms of the age at which the “average” individual’s performance matches that of the
examinee. For example, an age equivalent score of 9-3 indicates that a person’s perfor-
mance is similar to the average performance of children 9 years and 3 months old. Although
age equivalents can be used to describe an examinee’s performance in comparison to the
typical performance of test takers of various ages, they have the same limitations as grade
equivalents. In addition, although age equivalents have meaning when the behaviors
being measured have a direct, linear relationship with age, the rate of growth for most
behaviors varies from year to year. Thus, an even progression is not always expressed;
there may be rapid growth during some periods and a plateau or no growth during others.

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
So far, we have presented information about standard scores, focusing primarily on quantita-
tive test scores. However, counselors often collect assessment data that does not lend itself to
quantitative evaluation. Qualitative assessment methods involve interpretive criteria and
descriptions of data. Although our focus in this chapter is on assessment scores, it is impor-
tant to lend attention to alternate types of data produced during the assessment process.
There are many types of qualitative assessment data that can be collected during the assess-
ment process. According to Losardo and Syverson (2011), there are at least nine categories of
qualitative assessment, including naturalistic, ecological, focused, performance, portfolio,
dynamic, authentic, Functional Behavior Analysis (FBA), and informed clinical opinion.
In order to assess the performance of students in a counselor education program, it is
important to examine both quantitative and qualitative data. From a quantitative perspective,
test scores and grades can provide a great deal of insight into learning outcome attainment.
However, examination of student portfolios that include key projects, resumes, field experience
forms, and other materials helps to provide a richer understanding of student performance.
Qualitative data has some limitations on its own, but it can be very useful in combination with
qualitative data. We will discuss qualitative assessment processes in more detail in Chapter 14.
Although quantitative and qualitative assessment can be separate processes, test
developers often provide qualitative descriptors in addition to the assignment of numbers to
test scores. Qualitative descriptors help professionals communicate test results verbally or
in written reports by providing easy-to-understand classifications based on particular
score ranges (Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2008). Qualitative descriptors are widely
used in intelligence and achievement tests. For example, the Wechsler intelligence tests, a
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 85

series of standardized assessments used to evaluate cognitive and intellectual abilities in

children and adults, provide the following descriptive classifications:

IQ Classification
130 and above Very Superior
120–129 Superior
110–119 High Average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low Average
70–79 Borderline
69 and below Extremely Low

A similar approach is used with many of the typical-performance tests (i.e., personal-
ity inventories). Many of these instruments use descriptors such as nonclinical (or normal),
borderline clinical range, and clinical range. In general, scores in the clinical range fall well
above the mean scores, thus indicating the presence of severe psychological symptoms.
Other classification systems divide qualitative descriptors into severe, moderate, and mild
categories. An example of this is the BDI-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996):

Score Level of Depression

29–63 Severe
20–28 Moderate
14–19 Mild
  0–13 No or minimal depression

TABLES AND PROFILES

Often, an instrument will provide results in terms of several different score types. Tables
are often provided to aid in score interpretation. For example, Figure 4.3 shows a summary
report for the BASI, which presents standard scores (with a mean of 100 and a standard

Composite or Subtest SS Confidence Interval %ile GE AE

Reading Total 88 83–94 21
Vocabulary 87 80–96 19 <3.0 8–0
Reading Comprehension 92 85–100 30 <3.0 8–9
Written Language Total 91 85–97 27
Spelling 99 99–107 47 4.6 9–8
Language Mechanics 87 79–97 19 3.6 <8–0
Math Total 126 116–132 96
Math Computation 126 116–132 96 9.1 14–6
Math Application 126 111–130 94 12.8 17–11

SS  Standard Score (mean = 100, SD = 15), %ile Percentile Rank, GE Grade Equivalent,
AE Age Equivalent

FIGURE 4.3   Sample scores for the BASI.

86 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

Exercise 4.1
Interpreting Test Scores: Marisol
Marisol, age 11, is in the fifth grade. The s­ubtests. The composites are Reading
following table contains her scores on the Total, Written Language Total, and Math
BASI, an achievement test battery that Total. The subtests are Vocabulary, Read-
measures math, reading, and language ing Comprehension, Spelling, Language
skills for children and adults. It provides Mechanics, Math Computation, and Math
scores on three composites and six Application.

Composite or Subtest SS Confidence Interval %ile GE AE

Reading Total 88 83–94 21
 Vocabulary 87 80–96 19 63.0 8–0
  Reading Comprehension 92 85–100 30 63.0 8–9
Written Language Total 91 85–97 27
 Spelling 99 91–107 47 4.6 9–8
  Language Mechanics 87 79–97 19 3.6 68–0
Math Total 126 116–132 96
  Math Computation 126 116–132 96 9.1 14–6
  Math Application 123 111–130 94 12.8 17–11
SS = Standard Score (mean = 100, SD = 15), %ile = Percentile Rank, GE = Grade Equivalent, AE =
Age Equivalent

1. Interpret the standard scores on the 4. Interpret the grade equivalent scores
Reading Total, Written Language on the Vocabulary and Math Com-
Total, and Math Total. putation subtests.
2. Interpret the percentile ranks on the 5. Interpret the age equivalent score on
Reading Total, Written Language the Reading comprehension test and
Total, and Math Total. the Math Application subtests.
3. Interpret the stanine scores on the 6. Explain the meaning of the confidence
Reading Total, Written Language intervals for Reading Total, Written
Total, and Math Total. Language Total, and Math Total.

deviation of 15), percentile ranks, growth scale values, grade equivalents, and age equiva-
lents. Results may also include confidence intervals, which indicate the range of standard
scores that likely includes the test taker’s true score (see Chapter 5).
Profiles also help in interpreting results by providing a visual representation of scores.
Guidelines for interpreting charts and profiles include the following:
1. Small differences should not be over interpreted.
2. The normal curve can be used as a frame of reference to interpret standard scores.
3. The standard error of measurement should be used in interpretation.
4. Patterns in the shape of a profile are important (are the scores all high or low?).
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 87

Professional
Business Communication
Clerical
Consumer
Service
Outdoor Science Arts

Skilled
Technology
Economics

FIGURE 4.4   Word Cloud Representation of California Occupational Profile Scales.

NORM REFERENCED, CRITERION REFERENCED, OR BOTH?

In this chapter, we presented the two major approaches for interpreting test scores:
­criterion-referenced and norm-referenced interpretation. Can a test be interpreted using
both approaches? The quick answer is “yes,” but there are some reasons that it is usually
best for tests to be explained using either norm-referenced or criterion-referenced
­interpretation—not both. To understand these reasons, we must first recognize that tests
can be broadly categorized as either maximum-performance tests or as typical-perfor-
mance tests. Maximum-performance tests generally measure one’s best performance. The
test items have correct or incorrect answers, and test takers are directed, at least implic-
itly, to achieve the best or highest score possible. Examples of maximum-performance
tests include aptitude, intelligence, and achievement tests. Typical-performance tests are
designed to measure one’s usual or normal performance; in other words, what a test taker
is really like, rather than his or her ability. Test items do not have right or wrong answers,
and examples of typical-performance tests are personality, attitude, and interest tests.
­N orm-referenced interpretation can be applied to both types. However, because
­criterion-­referenced scores specifically reflect an examinee’s achievement or knowledge
about a particular content area, it makes sense that they be used only with maximum-
performance tests (Reynolds et al., 2008). Let’s use the BDI–II—a type of personality test
that measures an individual’s level of depression—as an example. The test includes cutoff
scores that distinguish various levels of depression; if an individual scores above 29, this
would indicate that he or she is severely depressed. A criterion-referenced interpretation
of this test score would mean that a person has mastered the knowledge and skills to be
88 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

depressed. As you can see, it is just not logical to interpret the score in this way. Criterion-
referenced interpretation lends itself better to educational achievement tests or other tests
designed to measure one’s skills or abilities.
Another reason for choosing either norm-referenced or criterion-referenced interpre-
tation involves the comprehensiveness or breadth of the construct being measured. Some
constructs that assess a broad range of variables, such as intelligence or personality, lend
themselves best to norm-referenced interpretations (Reynolds et al., 2008). In contrast,
criterion-referenced interpretation is often applied to more narrowly defined constructs,
such as educational tests that assess mastery of a single subject area, like math or spelling.
Even the construct of achievement, which is commonly interpreted with criterion-refer-
enced scores, is often better suited for norm-referenced interpretations when achievement
tests cover more extensive knowledge and skill domains.
A comparison of the various types of scores is presented in Table 4.9.

TABLE 4.9  Comparison of Different Types of Scores

Type of Score Advantages Disadvantages

Raw Gives precise number of points scored Cannot be interpreted or compared.

on a test easy to compute.
Percentile rank Shows how the test taker’s score ranks Not an equal-interval scale; uses ordinal units of
in relation to the national or local measurement.
norm. Easily understood by most test Cannot be added or averaged.
takers. Can be confused with percentages.
Standard Show the relative performance of a Inappropriate if data are markedly skewed.
test taker within a group. Derived from Hard to explain to test takers.
­properties of the normal curve.
Equal-interval scale of measurement.
Can be averaged and correlated.
Comparable from test to test if
­reference groups are equivalent.
Stanine One-digit scores. May not provide enough scoring units to
Can be averaged. ­ ifferentiate among scores.
d
Used for simplicity and utility. Insensitive to sizable differences within a stanine.
Misleadingly sensitive to small differences on either
side of the point separating adjacent stanines.
Grade and age Good if area measured is systematically Uses unequal units of measurement.
equivalents related with age or grade level. Leads to score interpretation that is too literal.
Compares an individual’s performance Can mislead in the case of scores that do not
with the average for that age or grade. signify an ability to perform or understand at the
higher grade level.
Has little practical meaning beyond sixth grade
or age 12.
 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores 89

Summary
This chapter presented information about performance level (criterion referenced) or com-
understanding test scores. For counselors to paring it to the scores of a norm group (norm
understand and interpret assessment results, referenced). Standard scores provide a basis to
raw scores need to be transformed using some interpret scores by describing how many stand-
frame of reference to give meaning to test ard deviations an individual’s score is from the
results. In general, scores can be divided into mean. There are numerous types of standard
two broad classifications: criterion-referenced scores, including z scores, T scores, deviation
scores and norm-referenced scores. Interpreting IQs, stanines, sten scores, and other standard
test scores can involve relating the score to a score scales.

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the differences in interpreting norm- 3. If you were developing a new achievement test
referenced and criterion-referenced scores? for college students, how would you select your
2. What are the different types of standard scores norming group? If you were developing a new
used in norm-referenced testing? Discuss when inventory measuring personality types, how
you would use each type of score, and analyze the would you select an appropriate norming group?
strengths and limitations of each type of score.

Suggested Activities
1. Write a position paper on one of the following Scaled Grade
topics: bias in test scoring, use of grade equiva- Subtests Score Percentile NCE Stanine Equivalent
lents, norm-referenced versus criterion-refer- Reading 639 59 54.8 5 5.4
enced interpretation, or selecting appropriate Mathematics 633 57 57.5 5 5.5
norms. Language 610 39 44.1 4 3.5
2. Explain the differences among raw scores, stand-
Spelling 647 73 62.9 6 6.4
ard scores, and normalized standard scores.
Science 643 69 60.4 6 6.3
3. Select any five students from the distribution of
test scores in Table 4.3, and convert their raw Social 607 40 44.7 4 3.5
­Science
scores into percentiles.
4. Jeffrey, a college senior, earned a raw score of 52 Listening 608 35 41.9 4 3.4
on a chemical engineering midterm exam. Thinking 623 56 53.2 5 5.1
Assuming that the mean of scores was 40 and the Skills
standard deviation was 12, convert Jeffrey’s raw
score into a T score. The parent doesn’t understand the types of scores
5. A parent has brought you the following Stanford and the results and wants you to help her inter-
Achievement Test results for her child, who is in pret them. What would you tell her?
fourth grade:

References
Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent Bardos, A. N. (2004). Basic Achievement Skills Inven-
scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational meas- tory (BASI)–comprehensive. Minneapolis, MN:
urement (2nd ed., pp. 508–600). Washington, DC: Pearson Assessments.
American Council on Education.
90 Chapter 4  •  Understanding Assessment Scores

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). BDI-II Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., & Willson, V.
manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. (2008) Measurement and assessment in education
Foa, E. B. (1995). The Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
manual. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments. Thorndike, R. M. (2011). Measurement and evaluation
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). KBIT-2: in psychology and education (8th ed.). Upper Saddle
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (2nd ed.). Circle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Pines, MN: AGS. United States Census Bureau. (2014). USA quick
Losardo, A., & Syverson, A. N. (2011). Alternative facts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census
approaches to assessing young children. Baltimore, .gov/qfd/states/00000.html
MD: Brookes Publishing. Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide Range
Pearson Inc. (2004). Stanford Achievement Test series, Achievement Test 4 professional manual. Lutz, FL:
tenth edition technical data report. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Author.
CHAPTER

5 Reliability/Precision

Reliability/precision is the psychometric property concerned with the consistency,

dependability, and reproducibility of test scores (American Educational Research Asso-
ciation (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on
Measurement in Education (NCME), 2014). For example, if you weighed yourself on the
same bathroom scale five times in succession, would you weigh the same amount each
time? If the scale reads the same weight each time, then the results are said to be reliable
and precise, because the measurement is consistent. However, if the scale fluctuates and
produces different results on each weighing, then the scores are said to be unreliable,
which means that your weight scores were affected by sources of error (i.e., measurement
error) that were irrelevant to how much you actually weighed. As you might guess, con-
sistency and precision are very important aspects of assessment. As counselors, we want
to be sure that an assessment instrument designed to help with the diagnostic process
would produce the same results if, for example, we tested the same person five times in
succession. Thus, it is important to be knowledgeable about the concept of reliability and
how it applies to assessment.
In order to understand reliability/precision, we review a number of formulas and
will likely activate any math phobia that you may have. Although the information may
require additional time for review, the formulas are important for understanding the com-
plexity of reliability. However, as you select assessment instruments or review journal
articles related to assessment, reliability will likely be reported for you. It will be your job
to interpret the reported reliability and determine the acceptable degree of reliability for
the assessment you are performing. If you conduct research on assessment instruments or
develop assessment instruments, then the calculation of reliability becomes more salient.
A variety of statistical methods may be used to evaluate the impact of measurement
error on test score reliability. Reliability of test scores can be estimated across time (test-
retest), across different forms of the same instrument (alternate forms), or across items
within a single instrument (internal consistency). All instruments have some degree of
inconsistency, meaning that there are measurement errors that can reduce the reliability of
test scores.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Define and explain the importance of reliability in assessment.
JJ Define and explain the concept of measurement error.

91
92 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision

JJ Describe and provide examples of the major sources of measurement error.

JJ Identify the major methods of estimating reliability and describe their relationship to
the various sources of measurement error.
JJ Describe the factors that should be considered when selecting a reliability coefficient.

JJ Describe the factors that should be considered when evaluating the magnitude of

reliability coefficients.
JJ Define standard error of measurement and explain its relationship to reliability.

JJ Explain how confidence intervals are calculated and what they mean in psychological

and educational assessment.

JJ Describe the various ways of increasing the reliability of instrument scores.

Reliability
Reliability/precision is one of the most important characteristics of assessment results.
Because many important decisions about individuals are based, wholly or in part, on the
basis of instrument scores, we need to make sure that the scores are reliable. In the context
of measurement, reliability/precision refers to the degree to which test scores are dependa-
ble, consistent, and stable across items of a test, across different forms of the test, or across
repeat administrations of the test. For example, if we administered a test to an individual
on two separate occasions, how consistent would the two scores be? Say that a counselor
administered the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT4) to a client on Monday morning
and discovered that the scores indicated average achievement. If the counselor adminis-
tered the WRAT4 to the same client on Monday afternoon, would the client score the same
way the second time as he did the first time? If the client felt more fatigued in the afternoon
rather than the morning, might that affect his score? What if the client remembered some
of the test questions from the first testing? Would that affect how he performed on the test
the second time? Instead of administering the test twice, what if the counselor used two
separate forms of the test—that is, form A and form B? Would the client perform better on
one test form than the other? What if the counselor asked another counselor to help score
the WRAT4? Would the client receive the same score no matter which counselor scored the
instrument?
As you can see from these examples, numerous factors can affect reliability/precision
and whether a test produces consistent scores. To correctly interpret the results of a test,
we need to have evidence that the scores from the test would be stable and consistent if the
test were repeated on the same individual. In other words, we need to know the degree to
which test scores are reliable.
When referring to reliability/precision in relation to assessment, consider the follow-
ing points:
1. Reliability/precision refers to the results obtained with an assessment instrument,
not the instrument itself (Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2012).
2. An estimate of reliability/precision always refers to a specific type of reliability/precision.
The reliability/precision of instrument scores may be based on certain intervals of
time, the items on the instrument, different raters, and so on. Instrument developers
provide estimates of the specific types of reliability/precision, depending on the use
of test results.
 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision 93

3. Scores on assessment instruments are rarely totally consistent or error free. In fact, all
instruments are subject to some degree of error and fluctuation (Urbina, 2014). Therefore,
counselors must evaluate the evidence to determine whether an instrument’s results
have an adequate degree of reliability/precision.

Measurement Error
A critical issue in assessment is the amount of measurement error in any instrument. We
know that the same individual tested on different occasions would score differently, even on
the same test. This difference is equated with measurement error. In testing, measurement error
may be defined as any fluctuation in scores that results from factors related to the measure-
ment process that are irrelevant to what is being measured (Urbina, 2014). These fluctuations
could result from factors unique to the test taker, flaws in testing procedures, or simply from
random chance. For example, the test taker may guess better during one test administration
than during another, know more of the content on one test form than another, or be less
fatigued or less anxious during one time than another. Alternately, the items on a test may not
adequately represent the content domain being tested, or test takers may get different test
results depending on the person grading the test. These are all factors that can cause measure-
ment errors—that is, changes in an individual’s scores from one occasion to the next. The
greater the amount of measurement error on test scores, the lower the reliability/precision.
Measurement error may also be understood as the difference between an individu-
al’s observed (or obtained) score and his or her true score. The true score is considered the
true, 100% accurate reflection of one’s ability, skills, or knowledge (i.e., the score that
would be obtained if there were no errors; Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013). The
observed score is the actual score a test taker received on a test. If a person could be tested
repeatedly (without carryover or practice effects), the average of the obtained scores would
approximate the true score. The observed score is made up of two components: the true
score and measurement error. This can be represented in a very simple equation:

Observed Score = True Score + Measurement Error

This formula demonstrates that measurement error may raise or lower the observed score.
As stated earlier, error represents any other factor that randomly affects the measurement
process; therefore, the less error, the more reliable the observed score.
The concept of true scores is completely theoretical; we can only hypothesize what a
true score might be. However, we can estimate the score range, or at least the boundaries,
within which a true score may fall. We do this by calculating the standard error of measure-
ment (SEM), which is a simple measure of how much an individual’s test score varies from
the true score. SEM will be discussed later in the chapter.

Sources of Measurement Error

As mentioned earlier, some degree of error is inherent in all instrument scores, and there
are various sources of measurement error. In identifying sources of error, we are trying to
answer this question: What causes the difference between an individual’s true score and
his or her actual observed score? The most common forms of measurement error are
­time-sampling error and content-sampling error. These forms, along with other common
sources of measurement error, are presented in this section.
94 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision

Time-Sampling Error  Time-sampling error is associated with the fluctuation in test scores
obtained from repeated testing of the same individual. With time-sampling error, it is
assumed that whatever construct being measured may vacillate over time. In other words,
how an individual performs on an intelligence test today will most likely have a degree of
difference from how he or she performs next time on the same test. How large the differ-
ence is between the intelligence test scores is important. Because of time-sampling error,
we might expect that the scores will differ (either positively or negatively) by only a couple
of points. If an individual scored 100 (50th percentile) one week and then 115 (84th percen-
tile) the next week, we would be quite suspicious of the score differential. Intelligence is
not a construct that changes dramatically.
Constructs differ in their susceptibility to time-sampling error; for example, most
constructs related to personality traits (e.g., introvert/extrovert) and abilities (e.g., verbal
comprehension, spatial reasoning) are usually less prone to fluctuation over time (Urbina,
2014). In contrast, some constructs associated with emotional states (e.g., depression, anxi-
ety) and achievement are more susceptible to the influence of transient conditions and can
vary widely over time. As a rule, we assume that time-sampling error enters into the scores
on tests that are given repeatedly; however, one should expect less time-sampling error in
tests that measure relatively stable traits (Urbina, 2014).
Several specific issues associated with time-sampling error are related to the length
of the time interval between test administrations. If the time interval is too short (e.g., a day
or two), then there is an increased risk of a carryover effect, which occurs when the first test-
ing session influences the scores on the second session (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013). For
example, test takers may remember their answers from the first test administration, thus
inflating their scores on the second test administration. Similar to this is practice effect.
Because some skills improve with practice, when an instrument is given a second time, test
takers’ scores may increase because they have sharpened their skills by having taken the
test the first time. If the length of time between tests is too long, then we may be faced with
test results confounded with learning, maturation (i.e., changes in the test takers themselves
that occur over time), or other intervening experiences (i.e., treatment).

Content-Sampling Error  Assessment instruments typically cannot include every possi-

ble item or question relevant to the specific content area, dimension, or construct being
measured. For example, a spelling test cannot include every word in the dictionary, and a
personality inventory cannot include every one of the thousands of traits or characteristics
that make up the construct of personality. However, each of these instruments can select
items that adequately represent the content domain being measured. Thus, test items can
be thought of as a random sample taken from an infinitely large number of possible items
relevant to a particular content domain.
An instrument that does not include items that adequately represent the content
domain has an increased risk of content-sampling error. Content-sampling error (also called
domain sampling or item sampling) is the term used to label the error that results from select-
ing test items that inadequately cover the content area that the test is supposed to evaluate.
Test items that poorly represent the domain or universe of knowledge on a particular con-
struct increase content-sampling error and decrease reliability/precision. Content-sampling
error is considered the largest source of error in instrument scores. Estimating content sam-
pling errors involves evaluating the extent to which an instrument’s items or components
measure the same construct or content domain. This is achieved by analyzing the
 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision 95

i­nterrelationships among test items and components (e.g., scales, subtests). Methods for
estimating content-sampling error will be discussed later in this chapter.

Interrater differences  Instruments involving observation require the use of raters (i.e.,
observers, scorers, judges) to record and score the behaviors of others. When instrument
results rely heavily on the subjective judgment of the individual scoring the test, it is
important to consider differences in scorers as a potential source of error. For example, say
that two raters are recording the number of times a third-grade student is out of seat in
class. Without a definition of out of seat, it is difficult to accurately observe the behavior. For
example, one rater might classify out of seat as having no contact with the seat and thus
record every occurrence when the student leaves full contact with his seat; another observer
might classify out of seat as any time the student’s bottom is out of contact with the desk.
The difference in definitions could lead to differences in agreement about the out-of-seat
behavior. This lack of agreement results in discrepancies between the student’s true score
and his observed score as recorded by the raters. It is assumed that different raters will not
always assign the same scores or ratings to a given test performance, even if the scoring
directions specified in the test manual are explicit and the raters are conscientious in apply-
ing those directions (Urbina, 2014). To assess interrater differences, we need to estimate the
reliability/precision of the raters, which is usually referred to as interrater reliability (also
called interscorer reliability). This will be discussed later in the chapter.

Other Sources of Error  Content-sampling error and time-sampling error account for
the major proportion of measurement error in all types of instruments, and interrater dif-
ferences are associated with error in instruments involving behavior observations. In
addition to these, other sources may contribute to the random error in test scores, includ-
ing the following:
• Quality of Test Items  Quality of test items refers to how well test items are con-
structed. If items are clear and focused, then they will provide reliable information
about the construct being measured. If items are vague and ambiguous, then they are
open to many interpretations, which may confuse test takers and result in unreliable
test scores.
• Test Length  In general, as the number of items on any test increases, the test repre-
sents the content domain being measured more accurately. Thus, the greater the
number of items, the greater the reliability/precision.
• Test-Taker Variables  Certain test-taker variables can affect reliability/precision by
influencing the individual’s performance on a test. Motivation, fatigue, illness, phys-
ical discomfort, and mood can all be sources of error variance.
• Test Administration  Sources of measurement error that occur during test adminis-
tration may interfere with an individual’s test results, such as the examiner not fol-
lowing specified administration instructions, room temperature, lighting, noise, and
critical incidents occurring during test administration.

Methods of Estimating Reliability/precision

Now that we have described the various sources of measurement error, we will present
several methods of estimating reliability/precision applicable to those sources of error.
Although the psychometric properties (including reliability/precision) of most a­ ssessment
96 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision

instruments are available for review (e.g., Mental Measurements Database, test publishers,
Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling [AARC] test reviews) when you
are selecting an instrument, it is important to understand the manner in which reliability/
precision is calculated so that you can evaluate the reported reliability coefficients. In many
cases, test developers and researchers estimate reliability/precision using more than one
method. The format and nature of the test will dictate the methods of reliability/precision
that are applicable.
As stated earlier, reliability/precision reflects the consistency, dependability, and
reproducibility of scores upon additional test administrations—and those additional test
administrations can take place at different times, involve the use of different forms of the
same test, or some combination of the former and latter. The methods most often used to
estimate reliability/precision involve correlating two sets of test scores to obtain a reliabil-
ity coefficient, which is the same as any correlation coefficient, except that it specifically
represents the reliability/precision of test scores. Conceptually, reliability/precision can
be interpreted as the amount of the variability of the observed scores that is explained by
the variability of the true scores; thus, the reliability/precision coefficient is the ratio of the
true score variance to the observed score variance:

s2T
r =
s2X

where
r = the reliability coefficient
s2T = the variance of the true scores
s2X = the variance of the observed scores
In this formula, the variance of true scores and observed scores is used because we are look-
ing at the score variability of a group of examinees. Thus, reliability coefficients always
relate to a group of test scores, not to an individual score. The closer the reliability coefficient
is to 1.00, the more the observed score approximates the true score, and the better the
­reliability/precision. In other words, the higher the reliability coefficient, the more that
variation in test scores is due to actual differences among the test takers in whatever char-
acteristic or trait is being measured. The closer reliability coefficients are to 0, the more that
test scores represent random error, not actual test-taker performance.
The reliability coefficient can also be thought of as a percentage. If we subtract the
reliability coefficient from 1.00, we have the percentage of the observed variation that is
attributable to random chance or error:

Error = 1 - r

For example, suppose that college students must take an admissions test to be eligible to
enroll in a particular academic program, and the reliability coefficient of the test is .35. This
means that 35% of the variation in scores is explained by real differences, and 65% of the
differences must be attributed to random chance or error, because 1 - .35 = .65. How
likely would you be to accept an admission decision based on this test score? If a test of this
nature was the only criteria for admission, then you would want to have a high degree of
certainty that differences in scores of applicants are due to different ability rather than error.
 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision 97

TABLE 5.1  Methods of Estimating Reliability

Method Procedure Coefficient Sources of Error

Test-Retest Same test given twice with a time Stability Time sampling
interval between testings
Alternate Forms
Simultaneous Equivalent tests given at the same Equivalence Content sampling
­Administration time
Delayed Equivalent tests given with a time Stability and Time sampling and
­Administration interval between testings equivalence content sampling
Internal
­Consistency
Split-Half One test is divided into two Equivalence Content sampling
­comparable halves, and both halves and internal
are given during one testing session consistency
Kuder–Richardson One test given at one time (items Internal Content sampling
Formulas (KR) and compared to other items or to the consistency
Coefficient Alpha whole test)
Interrater One test given, and two individuals Interrater Interrater differences
independently score the test agreement

Reliability/precision is usually estimated using one of four methods: test-retest, alter-

nate forms, internal consistency, and interrater reliability. Each of these methods provides
a reliability coefficient that reflects its particular source(s) of error (e.g., time sampling, con-
tent sampling, interrater differences). No method of estimating reliability/precision is per-
fect; each method has strengths and weaknesses that we will review. Table 5.1 describes the
major methods of estimating reliability.

Test-Retest
The test-retest method is one of the oldest and perhaps one of the most commonly used
methods of estimating the reliability/precision of test scores. Reliability/precision is con-
cerned with the consistency of test scores, and the test-retest method directly assesses the
consistency of test takers’ scores from one test administration to the next (Murphy &
Davidshofer, 2005). An estimate of test-retest reliability is relatively easy to calculate: sim-
ply administer the same instrument on two separate occasions and then correlate the first
set of scores with the second. This correlation is called a coefficient of stability, because it
reflects the stability of test scores over time.
Because test-retest reliability estimates error related to time sampling, the time inter-
val between the two test administrations must be specified, because it will affect the stabil-
ity of the scores. Although there is no fixed time interval that can be recommended for all
tests, we know that if the interval is very short, then such factors as carryover effect and
practice effect could influence scores on the second test administration. On the other hand,
if the interval is very long, then learning, maturation, or intervening experiences may
affect the scores on the second occasion (Resch et al., 2013).
98 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision

The test-retest method is most useful when measuring traits, abilities, or character-
istics that are stable and do not change over time. For example, one would not expect
adult intelligence test scores to change between two separate test administrations,
because intellectual ability typically remains stable through adulthood (assuming that
no unusual circumstances, such as brain injury, affect it). As such, we would expect test-
retest reliability for intelligence test scores to be high; specifically, there would be a
strong correlation between the results of the first test administration and the results of
the second test administration. Instruments that measure variables that are transient and
constantly changing are not appropriate for test-retest evaluation. For example, a mood
state (e.g., an individual’s level of mood at an exact moment in time) can fluctuate from
day to day, hour to hour, and even moment to moment (Furr & Bacharach, 2013). In this
case, the scores on a particular mood-state inventory would not be stable during any
significant time interval. Thus, test-retest reliability on the inventory scores would be
low. This could be mistakenly interpreted as the inventory’s scores not being reliable
when, in reality, the reliability coefficient is reflecting the individual’s change in mood
across the two testing occasions.
Thus, when reviewing test-retest reliability in an instrument manual, it is important
to consider two things: (1) the length of the time interval between test administrations and
(2) the type of construct being tested. Examples of test-retest reliability as reported in test
manuals include the following:
• On the Multidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory (MSEI), the test-retest coefficient on
the Global Self-Esteem scale was .87 over a 1-month interval.
• The subset of 208 college students in a 3-month retest on the five domains of the NEO
Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) resulted in coefficients of .79, .79, .80, .75,
and .83 for neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientious-
ness, respectively.
• The test-retest coefficients on the Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) for a group
of 100 females on the Realistic scale were .79 over 2 weeks, .57 over 2 months, .86 over
1 year, and .58 over 4 years.

Alternate Form
Alternate form reliability, also called parallel forms reliability, helps us determine whether
two equivalent forms of the same test are really equivalent. The two forms use different
items, but the items come from the same content domain. In addition, the forms have
the same number of items, use the same type of format, have almost equal difficulty,
and include the same directions for administering, scoring, and interpreting the test.
There are two procedures for establishing alternate forms reliability: simultaneous
administration and delayed administration (Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2009).
Simultaneous administration involves giving the two forms of the test simultaneously—
that is, to the same group of people on the same day. This procedure eliminates the
problem of memory and practice, which affects test-retest reliability. Delayed administra-
tion involves giving the two forms on two different occasions. Alternate form reliability
based on simultaneous administration is sensitive to sources of error related to content
sampling. The resulting correlation, called a coefficient of equivalence, tells us how closely
the two forms measure the same construct. Alternate form reliability based on delayed
administration reflects both content-sampling and time-sampling errors; it provides
 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision 99

both a coefficient of stability (because an individual’s behavior is measured at two differ-

ent times) and a coefficient of equivalence. The following are examples of alternate
forms reliability as reported in test manuals:
• On the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4), correlations between Form A and
Form B standard scores for five age groups were reported. The alternate form relia-
bilities are very high, falling between .87 and .93.
• With regard to alternate form reliability for the two forms of the WRAT4, correlations
between each form’s raw scores for the Reading, Spelling, and Arithmetic subtests
are .98, .98, and .98, respectively.
A limitation to the alternate forms approach to estimating reliability/precision is
that relatively few tests, standardized or teacher made, have alternate forms (Reynolds,
Livingston, & Willson, 2009). Some of the comprehensive achievement tests and aptitude
batteries may have two or more forms, but most do not. The process of developing an
equivalent test form is time-consuming and requires considerable planning and effort,
because the forms must truly be parallel in terms of content, difficulty, and other factors;
thus, most test developers do not pursue this option.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Internal consistency reliability, as the name implies, is concerned with the interrelated-
ness of items within an instrument. It is another method of estimating reliability/­
precision that reflects errors associated with content sampling; that is, it evaluates the
extent to which the items on a test measure the same ability or trait. This method bases
reliability/precision on the relationship among items within a test; in other words,
internal consistency tells us how well each item relates independently to other items on
a test and how well the items relate to the overall test score. High internal consistency
reliability means that test items are homogeneous, which increases confidence that items
assess a single construct. The concept of internal consistency can be confusing. In order
to illustrate the concept, consider a test of depression that uses a Likert scale. The ques-
tions on the instrument all relate to symptoms of depression and level of depression.
Because the items are all related to depression, you can expect that the items all corre-
late with each other or are consistent. If the items all correlate strongly, then there is a
high degree of internal consistency.
Internal consistency estimates have practical appeal, because they require only a sin-
gle test and a single test administration to gather the initial psychometric property, in
contrast to other reliability/precision methods that require two or more testings or two
forms of the same test. Typical ways of computing internal consistency reliability coeffi-
cients include the split-half method, the Kuder–Richardson (KR) formulas, and the coeffi-
cient alpha. As is the case with most assessment instruments, test publishers typically
provide an estimate of internal consistency in their technical manuals.

Split-Half Reliability  In estimating split-half reliability, a test is divided into two compara-
ble halves, and both halves are given during one testing session. The results on one half of
the test are then correlated with the results on the other half of the test, resulting in a coef-
ficient of equivalence that demonstrates similarity between the two halves. Once again,
this process is often used when test developers and researchers are attempting to evaluate
100 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision

the psychometric properties of an instrument. The split-half reliability estimate is often

reported in a technical manual for a test.
For example, when Ayeni (2012) developed the Social Anxiety Scale, she adminis-
tered it to 464 participants and then evaluated the psychometric properties of the instru-
ment based on the data collected. Based on her research, she was able to estimate that the
total split-half reliability was .87, indicating an acceptable degree of relationship between
halves of the test. What does the split-half coefficient mean in this case? The result indi-
cates consistency in the test: It tells us that one half of the test is consistent with the other
and that the items consistently measure the construct of social anxiety.
There are various ways of dividing tests in half: separate the first half of the test from
the second half, assign test items randomly to one half or the other, or assign odd-­numbered
items to one half and even-numbered items to the other half. The calculation of reliability/
precision is based on the full length of a test. Because we are comparing the relationship
between two halves rather than full-length tests, we use an adjusted formula commonly
referred to as the Spearman–Brown prophecy formula to calculate the coefficient. This for-
mula provides an estimate of what the coefficient would be if each half had been the length
of the whole test. The formula is as follows:

2r
Reliability of Full Test =
1 + r

In this formula, r represents the correlation between the two halves of the test. If the cor-
relation is .60, we can substitute the coefficient in the formula and calculate a reliability/
precision estimate for the full test:

2(.60) 1.20
Reliability of Full Test = = = .75
1 + (.60) 1.60

The reliability coefficient of .75 estimates the reliability/precision of the full test when the
two halves are correlated at .60. When you see a reliability coefficient reported as a
­Spearman–Brown coefficient, you automatically know that reliability/precision has been
assessed using the split-half method.
An advantage of the split-half method of estimating reliability/precision is that it
involves administering a test on a single occasion (Beckstead, 2013). However, because
only one testing is involved, this approach reflects errors due only to content sampling; it
is not sensitive to time-sampling errors.

The Kuder–Richardson Formulas  The Kuder–Richardson formulas (known as the KR 20

and KR 21) are widely used alternatives to the split-half method of estimating internal
consistency. Like other estimates, these are often reported in the professional literature
when discussing psychometric properties of assessment instruments. The KR 20 and KR
21 are special-case calculations for tests that have dichotomous items. In other words, the
KR 20 and KR 21 are used for items that are answered as simply right or wrong, with 0
indicating an incorrect answer and 1 a correct answer. The formulas were developed by
Kuder and Richardson in 1937 to calculate the reliability/precision of a test by using a
single form and a single test administration, without arbitrarily dividing the test into
halves (Kuder & Richardson, 1937). Using the formulas is tantamount to doing a split-half
 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision 101

reliability on all combinations of items resulting from different splits of the test. The KR
20 formula is as follows:

N g rq
r = a1 - 2 b
N - 1 s

where
r = reliability
N = number of items on the test
g = summation
p = percentage of examinees that get each item correct
q = percentage of examinees get each item incorrect
s2 = the variance of the test
To apply this formula, say that you wish to see how well the items on a five-item test are related
to each other. You could begin by calculating the percentage of examinees that got each item
correct and the percentage that got each item incorrect. This could be displayed as follows:

Item 1 2 3 4 5
p .5 .4 .8 .6 .7
q .5 .6 .2 .4 .3
pq .25 .24 .16 .24 .21

This shows that 50% of the examinees answered item 1 correctly, and 50% answered it
incorrectly; 40% of examinees answered item 2 correctly, and 60% answered it incorrectly;
and so on. If we calculate the variance of the test (s2 = 2.00), then we can plug the remain-
ing numbers into the KR 20 formula:

5 .25 + .24 + .16 + .24 + .21

r = a1 - b
5 - 1 2.00
5 1.10
= a1 - b
4 2.00
= 1.25(.45)
= .56

The KR 21 formula is very similar to the KR 20. The KR 21 is used to calculate the
reliability/precision of dichotomous items that are homogeneous or about the same level
of difficulty. The only difference between the KR 20 and KR 21 equations is that instead of
calculating the p’s and q’s for every item and summing the results, we simply use the mean
test score (X). The KR 21 formula is as follows:

X
X a1 - b
N £ N §
r = 1 -
N - 1 s2
102 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision

Suppose we gave an 80-item test, and the mean score (X) was 50, and the variance (S2) was
100. The KR 21 reliability is computed as follows:

50
50a1 - b
80 £ 80 §
r = 1 -
80 - 1 100
80 50(.375)
= c1 - d
79 100
18.75
= 1.013c 1 - d
100
= 1.013[1 - .1875]
= 1.013[0.8125]
= .82

Coefficient Alpha  Another internal consistency method of estimating reliability/precision

is called the coefficient alpha (also called Cronbach’s Alpha; Cronbach, 1951). This method is
used when the items on a test are not scored dichotomously; that is, there are no “right” or
“wrong” answers. An example of this is a rating scale that requires test takers to indicate
whether they strongly disagree, disagree, are neutral, agree, or strongly agree with test items.
The formula for the coefficient alpha is as follows:

N s2 - g s2i
a = a b
N - 1 s2

The coefficient alpha formula is similar to the KR 20 formula, except g rq has been replaced
by g s2i . This new term, s2i , stands for the variance of the individual items (i). This means that
instead of summing the proportion of correct and incorrect answers we sum the individual
item variance. This subtle change in the formula allows us to describe the variance in test
items that have multiple possible responses, not just items with a right/wrong format.
The formula for Cronbach’s Alpha is equal to and produces the same result as KR 20
but is not limited to dichotomous items. As a result, Cronbach’s Alpha has been increas-
ingly used in place of KR 20 as a reliability estimate (Suter, 2012). Although different issues
must be considered when selecting a reliability/precision calculation, coefficient alpha has
become the primary measure. As you begin the process of evaluating instruments for use
in counseling practice, it will be important to have a thorough understanding of Cron-
bach’s Alpha.

Interrater Reliability
As described earlier, tests that require direct observation of behavior rely on use of raters
(i.e., observers, scorers, judges) to record and score the behaviors. A potential source of error
with observations is a lack of agreement (i.e., lack of reliability/precision) among individuals
who score the test. Interrater reliability is the extent to which two or more raters agree. Say that
two raters use a 4-point scale (1 means least effective and 4 means most effective) to rate an
individual’s communication skills. Interrater reliability assesses how consistently the raters
 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision 103

implement the rating scale. For example, if one rater scores a 1 for the individual’s response
and another scores a 4 for the same response, then this would mean that the two raters do not
agree on the score and that there is low interrater reliability.
There are various ways to estimate interrater reliability, but the basic method for
assessing the level of agreement among observers is by correlating the scores obtained
independently by two or more raters. Very high and positive correlations, in the order of
.90 or higher, suggest that the proportion of error that is accounted for by interrater differ-
ences is 10% or less, because 1 - (.90) = .10 (Urbina, 2014). It is important to remember
that interrater reliability does not reflect content-sampling or time-sampling error; rather,
it reflects interrater agreement and is sensitive only to differences due to the lack of agree-
ment between the raters scoring the test.

Selecting a Reliability Coefficient

As we have discussed throughout this chapter, sources of measurement error can dictate
the type of reliability/precision we need to estimate. For example, if a test is designed to
be given more than one time, one would choose test-retest or alternate form reliability with
delayed administration, because both are sensitive to time-sampling errors. Alternately, if
a test involves the use of two or more raters, then interrater reliability would be chosen.
Other conditions beyond error sources should be considered when selecting an estimate of
reliability/precision. For example, one difficulty with internal consistency methods
involves the assumption that test items represent a single trait, construct, domain, or sub-
ject area (i.e., homogeneous items). Measures of internal consistency evaluate the extent to
which the different items on a test measure the same content domain; therefore, if test
items are heterogeneous and designed to measure several constructs, then reliability/­
precision estimates will be low. For example, a test that measures depressed mood assesses
a single content domain and thus contains homogeneous test items. In this case, the KR 20
or the coefficient alpha would be appropriate, because both assess internal consistency by
correlating test items with each other. However, if an instrument measured two separate
constructs (such as depressed mood and anxiety), then the heterogeneity of the test items
would cause the KR 20 and coefficient alpha to underestimate internal consistency reliabil-
ity. In other words, both reliability/precision estimates would assume that the lack of
uniformity of test items was an indicator of content-sampling error, not that the test items
actually measured different constructs. To compute internal consistency reliability for a
test with heterogeneous content, the split-half method would be appropriate, which would
involve dividing the test into two equivalent halves, each one consisting of both depressed
mood items and anxiety items, and correlating the halves. Alternately, the homogeneous
items within the test may be placed into separate groupings in order to compute separate
measures of internal consistency among groups of similar items. For example, the items on
a test measuring both depressed mood and anxiety could be subdivided into two groups
(one measuring depressed mood and one measuring anxiety), and the KR 20 or coefficient
alpha reliability estimates could be calculated for each group.

Evaluating Reliability Coefficients

When selecting a test to be used in individual assessment, the importance of critically exam-
ining the test’s reliability/precision information cannot be overemphasized. The question
becomes, “How large do reliability coefficients need to be?” In general, we want reliability
104 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision

coefficients to be as large as possible (between +.00 and +1.00). We know that a coefficient
of 1.00 means that an observed score is equal to the true score, meaning there is no error
variance. Thus, the closer a reliability coefficient approaches 1.00, the more reliable it is. For
example, a reliability coefficient (r) of .95 would indicate that 95% of the variation in test
scores is explained by real differences, and only 5% (i.e., 1 - .95) of the variation is attrib-
uted to error; the test scores would be considered very reliable. This is infinitely better than
an r of .20, which means that 80% of the score variations are due to error.
Unfortunately, there is no minimum threshold for a reliability coefficient to be con-
sidered appropriate for all tests. What constitutes an acceptable reliability coefficient can
depend on several factors, such as the construct being measured, the way the test scores
will be used, and the method used for estimating reliability (Reynolds, Livingston, &
­Willson, 2009). Because this textbook is concerned with evaluating assessment methods,
we will suggest what level of reliability/precision is sufficient; however, readers must
remember that there is no absolute standard on values that constitute adequate reliability
coefficients. We generally consider that for most assessment instruments reliability coeffi-
cients of .70 or higher are acceptable, reliability/precision estimates below .70 are margin-
ally reliable, and those below .60 are unreliable (Sattler & Hoge, 2006; Strauss, Sherman, &
Spreen, 2006). If a test is being used to make important decisions that significantly impact
an individual (i.e., a high-stakes test), then reliability coefficients should be at least .90
(Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2009; Wasserman & Bracken, 2013). For interrater relia-
bility, coefficients should also be no less than .90 (Smith, Vannest, & Davis, 2011). Table 5.2
provides some general guidelines for evaluating the magnitude of reliability coefficients.

Standard Error of Measurement

Thus far, we’ve presented information about the various methods of estimating reliabil-
ity/precision, which are estimates of the amount of variation due to measurement error.
Recall that reliability coefficients do not represent the score for an individual; they always
relate to a group of scores. How do we get an estimate of the reliability/precision for a
single individual’s observed score? Although it is impractical to administer the same test
many times to the same test takers, it is possible to estimate the amount of variation in test
scores for a single test taker. We use the standard error of measurement.
SEM is a simple measure of an individual’s test score fluctuations (due to error) if he
or she took the same test repeatedly (McManus, 2012). It is an estimation of the accuracy of
an individual’s observed scores as related to the true score had the individual been tested
infinite times. In other words, SEM is like a standard deviation of observed scores about
one’s true score. Although we never know what an individual’s true score is, we assume
that numerous observed scores would cluster about the individual’s true score. We call

TABLE 5.2  Evaluating Reliability Coefficients

Very High 7.90
High .80–.89
Acceptable .70–.79
Moderate/Acceptable .60–.69
Low/Unacceptable 6.59
 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision 105

this group of observed scores the error distribution, which is assumed to be normal, with a
mean of zero and a standard deviation equal to SEM. Furthermore, we consider the mean
of the error distribution to be the true score. If test scores are very reliable, then the observed
scores are close to the true score (the mean of the error distribution); if test scores are not
reliable, then they fall away from the true score.
It is important to understand the differences between SEM and standard deviation.
Unlike standard deviation, which is the measure of the spread of scores obtained by a
group of test takers on a single test, SEM is the measure of the spread of scores obtained by
a single individual if the individual was tested multiple times. SEM is a function of both the
reliability/precision and standard deviation of a test and is calculated using the following
formula:

SEM = s 11 - r

where
SEM = the standard error of measurement
s = the standard deviation
r = the reliability coefficient of the test
Say that we want to calculate SEM for the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) of the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV). The reliability coefficient for the VCI
is .94, the mean is 100, and the standard deviation is 15 (which is the same mean and stand-
ard deviation for all index scores on the WISC-IV). SEM is computed as follows:

SEM = 1511 - .94

= 151.06
= 15(.245)
= 3.67

Now, let’s calculate SEM for the Processing Speed Index (PSI) of the WISC-IV, which
has a reliability coefficient of .88 and a standard deviation of 15:

SEM = 1511 - .88

= 151.12
= 15(.346)
= 5.19

Note that in these examples both tests have the same standard deviation (S = 15); thus,
SEM becomes a function solely of the reliability coefficient. Because the PSI has a lower
reliability coefficient (r = .88) than the VCI (r = .94), the PSI SEM is higher than the SEM
for the VCI.
Because SEM depends on both the standard deviation and the reliability coefficient
of a test, and because different tests have different standard deviations, the SEM cannot be
used by itself as an index of reliability/precision (Urbina, 2014). You must be able to eval-
uate SEM in context. For example, tests that have greater score range and larger standard
106 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision

deviations, such as the SAT (standard deviation = 100), will have much larger SEM num-
bers than tests with small standard deviations, such as the WISC-IV (standard deviation = 3;
Urbina, 2014). Although the standard deviation and SEM may be different, the reliability
coefficients can still be similar. Although we do not use SEM alone to interpret reliability/
precision, we use SEM in creating confidence intervals around specific observed scores,
which can guide score interpretations.

Confidence Intervals
Once we have computed the SEM for a given test score, we can build a confidence interval
around an individual’s observed score so that we can estimate (with a certain level of confi-
dence) his or her true score. Although we will never know what an individual’s true score
is, forming intervals around the individual’s observed score allows us to estimate the
probability that the true score falls within a certain interval. Thus, confidence intervals tell us
the upper limit and lower limit within which a person’s true score will fall. In assessment,
we are interested in confidence intervals at the 68% (within {1 standard deviations from
the mean), 95% (within {2 standard deviations), and 99.5% (within {3 standard devia-
tions) probability levels. The z scores associated with the 68%, 95%, and 99.5% probability
levels are 1.00, 1.96, and 2.58, respectively. We choose the appropriate level or probability
depending on how confident we want to be in our estimate of the test taker’s true score.
We calculate the ranges of the confidence intervals (CI) at the 68%, 95%, and 99.5% levels
as follows:

CI 68% = X { 1.00 SEM

CI 95% = X { 1.96 SEM
CI 99.5% = X { 2.58 SEM

To illustrate this, say that Leticia received a score of 110 on the VCI of the WISC-IV. We
previously calculated the SEM on the VCI as 3.67. Using this information, we would first
compute the ranges of the confidence intervals as follows:

CI 68% = X { 1.00(3.67) = 3.67 (round to the nearest whole number, {4)

CI 95% = X { 1.96(3.67) = 7.19 (round to the nearest whole number, {7)
CI 99.5% = X { 2.58(3.67) = 9.47 (round to the nearest whole number, {9)

Using these score ranges, we could calculate the confidence intervals for Leticia’s VCI
score as follows:

CI 68% = 110 { 4 = 106 - 114

CI 95% = 110 { 7 = 103 - 117
CI 99.5% = 110 { 9 = 101 - 119

These confidence intervals reflect the range in which an individual’s true test score
lies at various probability levels. Thus, based on the information provided previously, we
can conclude that at the 99.5% confidence interval we are 99.5% confident that Leticia’s
true score falls in the range of 101 to 119.
 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision 107

Sidebar 5.1  Increasing Reliability by Increasing Test Length

How much does test length impact reliability/ Next, we apply this to the Spearman–Brown f­ ormula:
precision? If we already know the reliability/pre-
cision of an existing test, we can use the Spear- 5.30
rnew =
man–Brown formula to predict what the new 1 + (5 - 1).30
reliability/precision would be if we increased the 15
number of items: =
1 + (4).30
n * rxx 1.5
rnew = =
1 + (n - 1)rxx 1 + 1.20
1.5
=
where 2.20
rnew = t he new reliability/precision estimate = .68
after lengthening (or shortening)
the test We can see that by increasing the number of
rxx = the reliability/precision estimate of items from 30 to 80, we increased the total test
the original test score reliability/precision from .30 to .68. To fur-
n = the multiplier by which test length is ther illustrate this, the following list of tests begins
to be increased or decreased (the with a 10-item test that has a reliability/precision
new test length divided by the old of .30. You can see how reliability/precision
test length) increases as the number of test items increases:
For example, let’s assume that the rxx for a
10-item test is 0.30. We decide to increase the Number of Items Reliability/precision
test to 50 items. To determine the reliability coef-  10 .30
ficient for the longer test, we first calculate the n:
 20 .46
new test length  50 .68
n = 100 .81
old test length
50 200 .90
= = 5 500 .96
10

Increasing Reliability/Precision
Although measurement error exists in all tests, test developers can take steps to reduce
error and increase the reliability/precision of test scores. Probably the most obvious
approach is simply to increase the number of items on a test (Reynolds, Livingston, &
­Willson, 2009). This is based on the assumption that a larger number of test items can more
accurately represent the content domain being measured, thereby reducing content-sam-
pling error. Sidebar 5.1 illustrates how the reliability/precision of a 10-item test with a
reliability coefficient of .30 can be increased by adding items. Other ways of improving
reliability/precision include writing understandable, unambiguous test items; using
selected-response items (e.g., multiple choice) rather than constructed-response items
(e.g., essay); making sure that items are not too difficult or too easy; having clearly stated
administration and scoring procedures; and requiring training before individuals can
administer, grade, or interpret a test.
108 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision

Summary
In this chapter, we presented information about We estimate the reliability/precision of
the reliability/precision of test scores, which is test scores by calculating a reliability coefficient.
the degree to which test scores are dependable, The type of reliability coefficient that we use
consistent, and stable upon additional test admin- depends on several factors, such as test content,
istrations. An important concept in reliability/ testing procedures, testing conditions, and the
precision is measurement error. In testing, we use of raters. Although no minimum level for
try to determine how much measurement error reliability coefficients exists, we know that the
may impact an individual’s true score. Meas- higher the coefficient, the more reliable the test
urement error results from factors that are irrel- scores. Calculating the standard error of meas-
evant to the construct being measured, such as urement can be helpful in interpreting reliability/
time-sampling error, content-sampling error, precision by using the statistic to create confi-
interrater differences, test-taker characteristics, dence intervals, which tell us the upper and
flaws in testing procedures, and even random lower limits within which a person’s true score
chance. will fall.

Questions for Discussion

1. Define reliability/precision and describe its impor- c. Determining the degree to which scores
tance in assessment. obtained from different raters are consistent
2. Identify and describe the various sources of 4. If a teacher were developing a midterm exam for
measurement error and their related reliability/ a psychological testing class, what type of meas-
precision estimates. What are the advantages and urement error would be of most concern? Why?
disadvantages of each method? 5. In what way would the following factors effect
3. Which method of estimating reliability/precision reliability/precision?
provides the most useful information in the fol- a. Having heterogeneous test items
lowing situations? Why? b. Increasing the number of items on a test
a. Selecting an aptitude test for predicting suc- c. Having a very short time interval between
cess in a vocational program testings on a math test
b. Determining whether the items on a test are
homogeneous

Suggested Activities
1. Review several standardized tests and identify a­ dequately cover the content domain being
the types of reliability/precision presented in the tested. He decides to use the KR 20 formula to
test manuals. determine the internal consistency of the test.
2. Write a paper or prepare a class report on one of the Using the following information, calculate the
following topics: factors that affect test score relia- internal consistency using the KR 20 formula.
bility/precision, increasing reliability/precision, Are the test scores reliable in terms of internal
or reliability/precision of teacher-made tests. consistency?
3. Read the critical reviews of some of the tests that
you have taken and see how the reviewers rate Item 1 2 3 4 5
the reliability/precision of the tests’ scores. p .3 .4 .6 .5 .4
4. A teacher wrote a test consisting of five dichoto- q .7 .6 .4 .5 .3
mous items and wants to know if the items pq .21 .24 .24 .25 .12
 Chapter 5 • Reliability/Precision 109

5. Construct an achievement test based on the con- r­ eliability coefficient for WMI scores is .92, the
cepts introduced in this chapter and administer it mean is 100, and the standard deviation is 15.
to a number of students in your class. Then, com- Calculate the standard error of measurement,
pute the reliability/precision of the test’s scores and then create confidence intervals for Sara at
using split-half and KR 20 or KR 21. {1 SEM and {2 SEM.
6. Sara scored a 98 on the Working Memory
Index (WMI) of the WISC-IV. We know that the

References
American Educational Research Association (AERA), Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2005). Psycho-
American Psychological Association (APA), & logical testing: Principles and applications (6th ed.).
National Council on Measurement in Education Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psy- Resch, J., Driscoll, A., McCaffrey, N., Brown, C.,
chological testing. Washington, DC: Authors. ­Ferrara, M. S., Macciocchi, S., & Walpert, K. (2013).
Ayeni, E. (2012). Development, standardization, and ImPact test-retest reliability: Reliably unreliable?
validation of Social Anxiety Scale. IFE Psychologia, Journal of Athletic Training, 48(4), 506–511.
20(1), 263–274. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-48.3.09
Beckstead, J. W. (2013). On measurements and their Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., & Willson, V.
quality. Paper 1: Reliability–History, issues and (2009). Measurement and assessment in education
procedures. International Journal of Nursing Studies, (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
50(7), 968–973. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.04.005 Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of chil-
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). dren: Behavioral, social, and clinical foundations
Measuring test measurement error: A general (5th  ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler
approach. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statis- ­Publisher Inc.
tics, 38(6), 629–663. doi:10.3102/1076998613508584 Smith, S. L., Vannest, K. J., & Davis, J. L. (2011). Seven
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the inter- reliability indices for high-stakes decision making:
nal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. Description, selection, and simple calculation.
Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2013). Psychometrics: Psychology in the Schools, 48(10), 1064–1075.
An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: doi:10.1002/pits.20610
Sage Publications. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2013). Psychological compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administra-
testing: Principles, applications, and issues (8th ed.). tion, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.). New York,
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. NY: Oxford University Press.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory Suter, W. N. (2012). Introduction to educational research:
of estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, A critical thinking approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
151–160. Sage Publications.
McManus, I. C. (2012). The misinterpretation of the Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing
standard error of measurement in medical educa- (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
tion: A primer on the problems, pitfalls, and pecu- Wasserman, J. D., & Bracken, B. A. (2013). Funda-
liarities of the three different standard errors of mental psychometric considerations in assess-
measurement. Medical Teacher, 34(7), 569–576. doi: ment. In J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.),
10.3109/0142159X.2012.670318 Handbook of psychology (Vol. 10: Assessment psy-
Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2012). chology, 2nd ed., pp. 50–81). Hoboken, NJ: John
Measurement and assessment in teaching (11th ed.). Wiley & Sons.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
 CHAPTER

6 Validity

In everyday terms, when we refer to something as valid, we are saying that it is sound,
meaningful, or accurate. Similarly, when applied to measurement, validity refers to
whether the claims and decisions made on the basis of assessment results are sound,
meaningful, and useful for the intended purpose of the results. Traditionally, the defini-
tion of validity centered on simply whether a test or questionnaire (i.e., assessment instru-
ment) “measured what it was supposed to measure.” Today, the concept of validity refers
to evidence that supports the use of an assessment instrument for specific purposes. An
argument for the validity of an instrument can be made using five sources of information:
test content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and testing
consequences (American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psycho-
logical Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME),
2014). This new perspective on creating a validity argument is particularly relevant in
recent years due to the accountability movement affecting both educational and psycho-
logical assessment. Therefore, assessment results are often used for making important
and sometimes life-changing decisions about an individual, which further emphasizes
the importance of evaluating the appropriateness of the interpretations made from assess-
ment results (i.e., validity).

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Define validity and explain its importance in the context of assessment.
JJ Define construct and provide examples of constructs examined in psychological and
educational assessment.
JJ Describe the major threats to validity.

JJ Explain the relationship between validity and reliability/precision.

JJ Describe the major sources of validity evidence and provide examples of the

procedures used for assessing each source.

JJ Explain how to evaluate a criterion.

JJ Explain how validity coefficients are interpreted.

JJ Explain the importance of considering the consequences of testing in the validation

process.

110
 Chapter 6 • Validity 111

The Nature of Validity

According to Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational
Research Association (AERA) et al., 2014), validity is defined as “the degree to which evi-
dence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of the test”
(p. 11). In other words, if test scores are used to make decisions about a person, how valid
are those scores for making those decisions?
Gorin (2007) more concisely defined validity as “the extent to which test scores pro-
vide answers to targeted questions” (p. 456). For example, if our targeted question is,
“What is the client’s level of anxiety?”, then we would expect that the questions on a test
would be designed to measure anxiety and that the resulting scores from that test would
be indicators of anxiety level. Although evaluating the test for this purpose may appear
easy at face value, the process is inherently more complex. For example, the test may have
questions about the clients’ sleep patterns. Do they have difficulty falling asleep? Do they
wake up early and cannot get back to sleep? These questions can be related to anxiety, but
they can also be related to depression and other issues. Thus, we need a standard process
for determining the degree to which the items on a test and the resulting scores of a test
measure the construct we are examining.
The ability to evaluate our targeted question is only one facet of validity. Validity
also refers to the adequacy and appropriateness of the uses of assessment results. For
example, an assessment instrument that leads to unfair treatment of women, individuals
of different cultures, or English-language learners would not be considered either ade-
quate or appropriate (Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2012) nor would instruments that dis-
criminate against a certain group based on gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or
disability. In both cases, the lack of fairness would indicate a lack of validity for the use of
assessment results.
When using the term validity in relation to tests and measurement, consider the fol-
lowing points:
1.  Validity refers to the appropriateness of the use and interpretation of test results, not
of the test itself. Although we often speak of the “validity of a test” for the sake of convenience,
this is actually incorrect, because no test is valid for all purposes in all situations. Statements
about validity should always refer to particular interpretations and uses. As Kane (2013) more
recently reiterated, “To validate an interpretation or use of test scores is to evaluate the plau-
sibility of the claims based on the scores.” (p. 1). In other words, because the purpose of tests
is to make some inference or decision about an individual based on his or her test results, we
want to know that the argument behind the inferences and assumptions is valid.
2.  Validity is a matter of degree; it does not exist on an all-or-none basis (Oren, Kennet-
Cohen, Turvall, & Allalouf, 2014). Although validity was sectioned into various components
prior to the development of the current edition of the Standards for Educational and Psycho-
logical Testing (American Educational Research Association (AERA) et al., 2014), it is now
thought of as a unitary concept (see point 3 ahead). The argument for validity must incorpo-
rate all of the accumulated evidence to support the interpretation of test scores for specific
purposes (Oren et al., 2014). As a counselor using assessment, you must be able to evaluate
the argument for validity made by a test developer or researcher and determine if it is sound.
3.  Validity is a unitary concept. This means that validity is a single, unified concept
that centers on construct validity, which is supported by sources of validity evidence.
112 Chapter 6 • Validity

­ istorically, validity was subdivided into three distinct types: content validity, criterion
H
validity, and construct validity (known as the tripartite view of validity). The most recent
edition of the Standards (American Educational Research Association (AERA) et al., 2014)
makes no reference to distinct types of validity; rather, it emphasizes the unitary concept by
referring to five sources of validity evidence. Despite this current unitary view of validity,
the tripartite language remains entrenched in testing; you will see references to it (i.e., con-
tent validity, criterion-related validity, construct validity) in many of the test manuals and
test reviews today. Furthermore, some current educational researchers are questioning the
unitary concept (centering on construct validity) and are reemphasizing the importance of
content validity (Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2014). Thus, many textbooks continue to include
the traditional terminology when describing types and sources of validity evidence.
4.  Validity is specific to some particular group, use, or purpose of the test score interpreta-
tions; no test is valid for all purposes or all groups. For example, the validity evidence
might support the interpretation of results from a reading test for current reading compre-
hension levels of test takers but have little evidence for predicting future levels. Alter-
nately, a math test might have strong evidence for using the results to interpret arithmetic
skills for fifth-grade students, but have little support for the interpretation of skills for
third graders. Thus, when evaluating or describing validity evidence, it is important to
consider how test scores are intended to be interpreted and used and the appropriateness
of the population for which the test is employed (American Educational Research Associa-
tion (AERA) et al., 2014).

Revisiting Construct
Because we use the term construct so frequently in this chapter, we will revisit the meaning
of the term before discussing validity evidence. Constructs (also called latent variables) are
scientifically developed concepts, ideas, or hypotheses that are used to describe or explain
behavior (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2012). As such, constructs cannot be measured directly or
observed. Instead, a construct is defined or inferred by a group of interrelated variables or
dimensions that can be directly measured or observed (known as manifest, or observed,
variables). For example, although we cannot measure or observe the construct aggression, it
can be inferred from the interrelationships among the measurable variables that make up
aggression, such as physical violence, verbal attacks, poor social skills, and so on.
Constructs can be very comprehensive and complex (e.g., personality) or narrowly
defined (e.g., depressed mood). In psychology, the term construct may be applied to traits,
characteristics, or behaviors, such as personality, mood, anxiety, aptitude, adjustment,
attention, and self-esteem, to name just a few. In education, examples of constructs include
intelligence, achievement, emotionally disturbed, and learning disabled. Examples of
employment- or career-related constructs include job performance, motivation, clerical
aptitude, interests, or work values. These examples represent only a few of the potential
constructs. In terms of validity, construct is an important concept, because if we have evi-
dence that the interpretations of assessment results are valid based on the purpose of the
test, then the results are considered to accurately reflect the construct being measured.

Threats to Validity
Numerous factors can make test results invalid for their intended use. Two main threats
include construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance (American
 Chapter 6 • Validity 113

­ ducational Research Association (AERA) et al., 2014). These terms simply refer to a test
E
measuring less (construct underrepresentation) or more (construct irrelevant) of the con-
struct than it is supposed to be measuring (Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2008). Con-
struct underrepresentation implies that a test is too narrow and fails to include important
dimensions or aspects of the identified construct. An example of this is a test that is sup-
posed to measure writing skills. If the test only contains spelling questions and leaves out
other aspects of writing (such as grammar and punctuation), then it is an inaccurate repre-
sentation of writing skills.
In contrast, construct-irrelevant variance means that the instrument is too broad and con-
tains too many variables, many of which are irrelevant to the construct. For example, if a test
on a particular subject area requires undue reading comprehension (e.g., extensive and com-
plex instructions on a math test), then test scores might be invalidly low, reflecting the test
taker’s difficulty with reading (Messick, 1995; Reynolds et al., 2008). Alternately, if the items
on a test contain clues that permit the test taker to respond correctly, then the resulting score
may be invalidly high. An example of this is a reading comprehension test that includes a
passage that is well known to some test takers; their performance may be a result of their
familiarity with the passage, not with their reading comprehension ability. Thus, construct-
irrelevant variance is viewed as a contaminant to accurate test score interpretation.
In addition to construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance, other
factors can impact the validity of the interpretation of test results, including the following
(Miller et al., 2012):
• Factors within the Test  Ambiguous, inappropriate, or poorly constructed test items;
too few test items; improper arrangement of items; identifiable patterns of answers
• Administration and Scoring Procedures  Failure to follow standard directions and
time limits, giving test takers unfair aid, scoring errors
• Test-Taker Characteristics  Test takers with emotional disturbances, test anxiety,
lack of motivation
• Inappropriate Test Group  Giving the test to individuals who differ from the valida-
tion group

Validity and Reliability/Precision

In the preceding chapter, we discussed the concept of the reliability/precision of measure-
ment, and it is important to understand the relationship between reliability/precision and
validity. Reliability/precision refers to the stability or consistency of test scores and is a
necessary but insufficient condition for validity. A measure that produces totally inconsist-
ent results cannot possibly provide valid score interpretations. However, no matter how
reliable assessment results are, it is not a guarantee of validity. In other words, assessment
results may be highly reliable but may be measuring the wrong thing or may be used in
inappropriate ways. For example, we might construct an “intelligence” test that measures
an individual’s ability to answer trivia questions related to 1990’s pop songs. Scores on this
test might be perfectly consistent across items (the individual may be a 90’s music virtu-
oso) and across time. This perfect reliability/precision, however, would not confirm that
we had a valid measurement of intelligence (assuming that the ability to correctly identify
90’s pop songs is not an accurate measure of intelligence). Although a test with low
­reliability/precision always indicates a low degree of validity, a highly reliable test does
not ensure validity.
114 Chapter 6 • Validity

Sources of Validity Evidence

The Standards (American Educational Research Association (AERA) et al., 2014) assert that
validity is “the most fundamental consideration in developing and evaluating tests”
(p. 11). Validity centers on the relationship between the purpose of a test and the interpre-
tations or decisions made about individuals based on their test scores. Thus, the process of
test validation involves gathering and evaluating multiple sources of validity evidence that
support the interpretations and inferences made from test scores. Assessing sources of
validity evidence may involve scrutinizing a test’s content, relating test scores to some
external criterion, or relating test scores to the scores on other tests or measures (Cohen &
Swerdlik, 2012).
Traditionally, validity evidence was organized into three categories: content, crite-
rion related, and construct validity evidence. However, the most recent edition of the
Standards (American Educational Research Association (AERA) et al., 2014) abandoned the
traditional nomenclature and identified five sources of validity evidence based on (a) test
content, (b) response processes, (c) internal structure, (d) relations to other variables, and
(e) consequences of testing. The common denominator of these sources of validity evi-
dence is that they emphasize evidence of relationships between assessment scores and
other variables (Urbina, 2014). Despite the introduction of the five sources of validity evi-
dence, the old classification is still widely used by test developers, researchers, authors,
educators, and counselors. Furthermore, four of the traditional methods of accumulating
validity evidence include the first four sources of evidence cited in the Standards (mostly
under the umbrella of construct validity; Miller et al., 2012). Although there may be a need
for counselors to recognize the outdated concept of validity, we believe it is important to
focus our discussion on validity evidence based on the current standards: test content,
response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences of
testing. We want to caution readers against mistaking the sources of validity evidence as
separate categories of validity; they should always be regarded as parts of the unitary con-
cept of validity. All sources of validity evidence relate to the construct being measured.
The process of test validation is ongoing and rigorous, similar to amassing support
for a complex scientific theory. After compiling validity evidence, judgment is then made
about whether a given interpretation or inference from assessment results is valid. The
greater the significance or impact of assessment results to the test taker, the more convinc-
ing the evidence needs to be. In general, the more types of validity evidence established,
the better. Although it is the responsibility of test developers to report validation data in
the test manual, it is the responsibility of test users to carefully read the validity informa-
tion and evaluate the suitability of the test for their specific purposes.

Test Content Validity Evidence

Test content validity evidence refers to evidence of the relationship between a test’s content
and the construct it is intended to measure. In other words, the content of an instrument
(which includes items, tasks, and/or questions, as well as administration and scoring pro-
cedures) must clearly represent the content domain that the instrument is designed to
assess. For example, a college student would probably be most concerned with the content
validity of a final exam; the student would want to be assured that the test questions rep-
resent the content that was covered in the classroom and in the class materials. See
­Figure 6.1 for a representation of various forms of validity evidence.
 Chapter 6 • Validity 115

measurement

domain Examination
factor values
items statistics
relevance particular
evaluate High tests discrimination

Response
determine
relate related interpretation

processes
instruments
development

difficulty
soundness

Decision
drawn
appropriateness frameworks

Internal compare
dimensionality
correlations
negative
construct
relationship Stakes program

validity

insure
Content
procedures
threads

Comparing
Testing
list dissimilar

Evidence
presence

covers
Test
Inherent systematic
Unintended

use curriculum
bias analysis
Table processcontrol correlate
Matter
construction

during

Scores
between specifications
item

SMEs groups
Subject

Structure

Social

invariance
used

similar Consequences positive

Experts
degree

ratings results
criterion quality based decisions
demonstrate
specific

Evaluating infernces support

estimates External reliability
attributes inter linking
Relations relationships
representation

FIGURE 6.1   Word cloud of validity evidence vocabulary.

The content validation process begins at the outset of instrument construction and
follows a rational approach to ensure that the content matches the test specifications. The
first step in the process is clearly delineating the construct or the content domain to be
measured. The definition of the construct determines the subject matter and the items to be
included on the instrument.
Once the construct or content domain has been defined, the second step is to develop
a table of specifications. A table of specifications, or a test blueprint, is a two-dimensional chart
that guides instrument development by listing the content areas that will be covered on a
test, as well as the number (proportion) of tasks or items to be allocated to each content area.
The content areas reflect essential knowledge, behaviors, or skills that represent the con-
struct of interest. Test developers decide on relevant content areas from a variety of sources,
such as the research literature, professional standards, or even other tests that measure the
same construct. The content areas of instruments measuring achievement or academic abil-
ities often come from educational or accreditation standards, school curricula, course syl-
labi, textbooks, and other relevant materials. For example, in constructing the KeyMath 3, a
norm-referenced achievement test measuring essential math skills in K–12 students, test
116 Chapter 6 • Validity

Table of Specifications: Predicting Sales Performance

Number of
Content areas items/tasks
Motivation and initiative 5
Persistence 5
Competitiveness 4
Communication skills 4
Extroversion 3
Planning and organizational skills 3
Cooperativeness 3
Self-confidence 3

FIGURE 6.2   Sample table of specifications.

developers created a table of specifications with content areas that reflected essential math
content, national mathematical curriculum, and national math standards. For personality
and clinical inventories, content areas may be derived from the theoretical and empirical
knowledge about personality traits or various mental health problems. For example, the
content on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) was designed to be consistent with the
diagnostic criteria for depression in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fifth Edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013). In employment assess-
ment, content areas may reflect the elements, activities, tasks, and duties related to a par-
ticular job; for example, Figure 6.2 displays a table of specifications for an instrument
designed to predict sales performance. Instrument manuals should always provide clear
statements about the source(s) of content areas that are represented on the test.
After developing the table of specifications with the identified content areas, test
developers write the actual test items. Thus, the next step in the content validation process
involves recruiting multiple outside consultants (i.e., subject matter experts [SMEs]); these
consultants review the test items to determine if they do in fact represent the content
domain. The SMEs can consist of both content experts in the field and lay experts. For
example, to evaluate the content validity of an instrument assessing depression, two
groups of experts should participate: (1) people who have published in the field or who
have worked with depressed individuals and (2) people who are depressed (Rubio, 2005).
There are a number of methods that can be used to report the data provided by the SMEs.
Although a test developer can report SME ratings as evidence, it is more useful to repre-
sent the degree of agreement among SMEs through a variety of statistics (e.g., Aiken’s
Validity Index). In addition, SMEs can perform an analysis of alignment between the test
and content standards of external bodies (e.g., state department of education). The SME
analysis of alignment can be conducted by using a variety of methods (e.g., Webb Method
and Achieve Method) and can be presented in a matrix format.

Evidence Based on Internal Structure

Evidence of validity should be gathered based on the internal structure of the test
(i.e., dimensionality, measurement invariance, reliability/precision). When examining
 Chapter 6 • Validity 117

dimensionality, it is important to note that some instruments are designed to measure a

general construct, but other instruments are designed to measure several components or
dimensions of a construct. For example, the Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale
(Piers–Harris 2; Piers & Herzberg, 2002) has six subscales designed to measure the con-
struct of global self-concept. For instruments that assess multiple dimensions, part of
assessing construct validity is checking the internal structure of the test to ensure that the
test components (e.g., scales, subscales, subtests) measure a single underlying construct.
A useful technique for this process is factor analysis. Factor analysis is a statistical proce-
dure that analyzes the relationships among test components to determine whether a test
is unidimensional (i.e., all of the components measure a single construct). There are two
basic ways to conduct factor analysis. If we are uncertain of the possible dimensions
underlying our scale, we can use exploratory factor analysis. If we have strong theoretical
expectations about dimensions that already exist in the scale, we can use confirmatory
f­actor analysis (CFA).
A form of structural equation modeling, CFA is the preferred method for demon-
strating validity evidence for the internal structure of an instrument (Rios & Wells, 2014).
The reason that CFA is a preferred method is that the test developer must specify the factor
models before starting the research. In other words, the test developer is not simply fishing
for emerging factors in the test data. The factor models that are set prior to beginning the
research are based on theory and often have an empirical rationale. Aside from the theo-
retical basis of CFA, the analytic procedure also is more robust than other procedures for
factor analysis.
Exploratory factor analysis is frequently used in test construction if a test developer
wants to identify the characteristics or attributes associated with a particular factor or
dimension (Kline, 2000). For example, say that test developers designed a test to identify
characteristics associated with the single dimension of extraversion. They wrote test items
they believed assessed these characteristics and, after obtaining scores from a large sample
of individuals, submitted the items to factor analyses. Based on the results, the developers
chose to keep only those items on the test that were related to the single dimension of
extraversion.
In addition to dimensionality, it is important to evaluate evidence in relation to meas-
urement invariance. When developing tests, researchers must ensure that fairness is
addressed for all aspects of the test. According to the 2014 Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014), test developers should collect validity evidence
that demonstrates the applicability of results to the examinee population and each relevant
subgroup. A form of factor analysis, Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(MGCFA) can be used to provide evidence of measurement invariance or fairness for dis-
tinct groups of people (Rios & Wells, 2014). The process of calculating MGCFA is beyond
the scope of this chapter. However, as counselors selecting instruments, information pro-
vided from an MGCFA analysis can indicate that the test developer attended to issues of
systematic bias.
The final component of validity related to internal structure of a test is reliability/
precision. We discussed reliability/precision in detail in the previous chapter, but it is
important to note that internal consistency data can serve as important evidence of the
quality of the internal structure of a test. To reiterate our discussion from Chapter 5, inter-
nal consistency reliability is a measure of the degree to which scores on a test are repro-
duceable when the test is administered on additional occasions (Rios & Wells, 2014).
118 Chapter 6 • Validity

Relations to Other Variables Evidence

Relations to other variables evidence involves examining the relationships between test results
and external variables that are thought to be a direct measure of the construct. It focuses on
the effectiveness of test results in predicting a particular performance or behavior. For this
purpose, test results (known as the predictor variable) are checked against a criterion, which
is a direct and independent measure that the test is designed to predict or be correlated with.
For example, test users might want evidence that a particular aptitude test can predict job
performance. The aptitude test is the predictor variable, and job performance is the criterion
to which test results are compared; if test results can accurately predict job performance, then
the test has evidence of relations to other variables. The modern conceptualization from the
2014 Standards that corresponds to this category is Evidence Based on Relations to Other
Variables (American Educational Research Association (AERA) et al., 2014).
There are two forms of relations to other variables evidence. Concurrent evidence is
based on the degree to which a predictor variable is related to some criterion at the same
time (concurrently). For example, a test that measures depressed mood should have a
strong relationship with a current diagnosis of depression. Predictive evidence is based on
the degree to which a test score estimates some future level of performance. For example,
the SAT, which is used to forecast how well a high school student will perform in college,
should predict college success. Whereas validity in general focuses on whether a test is
valid or not, evidence of relations to other variables demonstrates what a test measures
(Shultz, Whitney, & Jickar, 2014). Thus, test scores may be valid in predicting one criterion,
but not another. For example, an intelligence test may be a good predictor of academic
performance, but may be a poor predictor of morality (p. 101). Therefore, the chosen crite-
rion must be appropriate to the intended purpose of the test.
Evidence of relations to other variables is provided when there are high correlations
between test results and a well-defined criterion. We are interested in comparing test
scores to a particular criterion because we assume that the criterion better reflects or is a
more accurate representation of the construct we are measuring. Criteria are represented
by criterion measures, which are indexes designed to assess or measure the particular crite-
rion (Urbina, 2014). For example, a criterion of job performance may correspond to such
criterion measures as supervisor ratings, productivity records, employee self-reports, and
so forth. Therefore, an aptitude test (the predictor variable) could be designed to predict
job performance (the criterion) as measured by supervisor ratings (the criterion measure).
There is an almost infinite number of criterion measures that can be used in validating test
scores, including academic achievement and certification, professional aptitude, and
behavioral characteristics. Furthermore, in most validation studies more than one criterion
measure is used to represent a single criterion (Urbina, 2014).
Because of the many possible criterion measures available, instrument manuals
should always provide a rationale for the criterion measures selected in the validation
process. In general, criterion measures should be relevant, reliable, and uncontaminated. To
determine if a criterion measure is relevant to the intended purpose of the test, one must
ascertain whether it is a valid representation of the behavior or outcome in question. For
example, grade point average (GPA) is considered a relevant measure of success in college;
therefore, it is often chosen as the criterion measure for validating admissions tests, such
as the SAT.
Because an instrument is judged based on its relationship to a criterion, the criterion
itself needs to be measured accurately; it must be reliable. Say that a test is related to job
 Chapter 6 • Validity 119

­ erformance, as determined by a productivity scale and supervisor ratings. If an employee’s

p
job productivity is ranked as high one week and then low the next week or if the employee
receives a high performance rating from one supervisor and a low rating from another, then
the test will be unable to predict job performance, because the criterion measures used to
assess job performance (the productivity scale and the supervisor ratings) are unreliable.
A criterion measure should be uncontaminated, meaning that the measure should not be
influenced by any external factors that are unrelated or irrelevant to the criterion. Criterion
contamination is present when a criterion measure includes aspects unrelated to the construct
we are trying to measure. For example, if a vocabulary test for a child is affected by the child’s
expressive language disorder (which impacts a child’s ability to retain new words), then we
would consider the criterion (i.e., vocabulary) contaminated. If a test assessing depression is
given to individuals suffering from chronic pain, then the chronic pain symptoms—which
can include symptoms similar to depression, such as sleep disturbance, low energy, slow
motor behavior, and change in appetite and weight—may contaminate the criterion (i.e.,
depression). If a criterion measure is contaminated by some irrelevant external variable(s), the
scores on the test can be inflated or deflated as a result of the external variable.

Validity Coefficients  Evidence of relations to other variables is evaluated using validity

coefficients, which indicate the relationship between test results and a criterion measure.
Validity coefficients can range from -1.0 to 1.0. A validity coefficient of 0 means that there
is no relationship between the instrument scores and the criterion, and a coefficient of 1.00
indicates a perfect, positive relationship; thus, the higher the validity coefficient, the
stronger the validity evidence. Exactly how large should coefficients be in order to be con-
sidered strong evidence of relations to other variables? As with any correlation coefficient,
there are no hard and fast rules of interpretation. The size of a validity coefficient depends
on several factors, such as the nature and complexity of the criterion, a statistically signifi-
cant validity coefficient, the composition and size of the validation sample, and the interac-
tions among all of these (Anastasi, 1988; Urbina, 2014). In general, validity coefficients tend
to be lower (than reliability coefficients), because we are comparing our test to different or
other tests or criteria (even when they are measuring or represent the same construct). In
contrast, reliability coefficients provide a measure of relationships among items or compo-
nents of the test itself, so we would expect reliability coefficients to be larger. In general, it
is rare to see validity coefficients larger than .50, and coefficients less than .30 are not
uncommon. Textbooks on testing (e.g., Anastasi, 1988; Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Cronbach,
1990) have traditionally given .20 as a guideline for a minimum validity coefficient value.
Cohen (1992) established the standard for effect size of a validity coefficient: less than .20
is weak, .21 to .40 is moderate, and greater than .50 is strong. The U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL; 2000) also provided guidelines for interpreting validity coefficients: below .11 is
unlikely to be useful, .11 to .20 depends on circumstances, .21 to .35 is likely to be useful, and
above .35 is very beneficial. So many different perspectives about the meaning of validity
coefficients can be overwhelming; thus, we integrated these various perspectives to
develop a general set of guidelines for interpreting validity coefficients (see Table 6.1).

Prediction Errors  Ultimately, the purpose of relations to other variables evidence is to

show that test scores accurately predict the criterion performance of interest. However, in
making predictions we might commit two types of prediction errors: false positive errors
and false negative errors. To explain prediction errors, say that a company requires job
120 Chapter 6 • Validity

TABLE 6.1  General Guidelines for Interpreting Validity Coefficients

Very high 7.50

High .40–.49
Moderate/Acceptable .21–.40
Low/Unacceptable 6.20

applicants to complete an aptitude test as part of the application process. Because the com-
pany believes that the scores on the aptitude test (the predictor variable) will predict job
success (the criterion), the company will only hire individuals who score equal to or greater
than a designated cutoff score. In this situation, two types of errors might occur: a false
positive error, which means predicting that a positive outcome will occur and it does not; or
a false negative error, which means predicting that a negative outcome will occur and it does
not. Figure 6.3 presents a graph of the two types of error in our example. From the graph,
four quadrants are evident. A person who is predicted to succeed in a job and ­subsequently
Select

(+) False positives + True positives

Aptitude Test Scores

Adjusted Cutoff Score

Predictor Variable

Cutoff Score

− True negatives (−) False negatives

Reject

Fails Cutoff Score Succeeds

Criterion
Job Success

FIGURE 6.3  Prediction errors.

 Chapter 6 • Validity 121

does succeed would fall into the true positive quadrant. Someone who is predicted to suc-
ceed but fails would be rated as a false positive. The person who is predicted to fail and does
so would be tallied as a true negative. Anyone who is predicted to fail but actually succeeds
would be a false negative. Prediction errors can be analyzed, and adjustments to the predic-
tor variable can be made if needed. In our example, if too many false positive errors were
occurring and too many individuals were being hired who did not have job success, then
the cutoff score on the aptitude test could be raised. This would mean that almost everyone
hired would be an above-average performer, and the number of false positives for job suc-
cess would be reduced.
Evidence of relationships between test scores and other variables can be gathered
from several sources. It is important to remember that the accumulation of evidence across
the different types of validity lends credence to an argument for validity. In order to fur-
ther demonstrate the process of gathering evidence of relations to other variables, we pro-
vide a discussion of the following sources:
• Evidence of homogeneity
• Convergent and discriminant evidence
• Group differentiation studies
• Age differentiation studies
• Experimental results
• Factor analysis

Evidence of Homogeneity
Test homogeneity refers to how uniform the items and components (i.e., subtests, scales) of a
test are in measuring a single concept (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2012). In reference to the 2014
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Associa-
tion (AERA) et al., 2014), test homogeneity is one means of providing evidence of the internal
structure of a test. One way test developers can provide evidence of homogeneity is by show-
ing high internal consistency coefficients. As you will recall from the previous chapter on
­reliability/precision, an estimate of internal consistency reliability, such as the coefficient
alpha, evaluates the extent to which items on a test measure the same construct by examining
the intercorrelations among test items. High internal consistency reliability means that test
items are homogeneous, which increases confidence that items assess a single construct.
In addition to intercorrelations of items, evidence of homogeneity can also be obtained
by correlating the scores on each test item with the scores on the total test (i.e., the item-to-
total correlation). For example, if you want to obtain evidence of homogeneity on a test of
student motivation, then you could give the test to a group of students and then correlate
the scores on each item with the scores on the total test. If all the items correlated highly
with the total test score, then there is evidence that the items measured the construct of
student motivation. The same procedure can be used for the scales or subtests on a test.
High correlations between scales or subtests on the same test provide evidence that these
components measure the construct that the test is intended to measure.

Convergent and Discriminant Evidence

Test developers frequently use convergent and discriminant evidence to prove that a par-
ticular instrument measures the construct it purports to measure. Convergent evidence is
122 Chapter 6 • Validity

obtained by correlating instrument results with the results of other instruments that assess
the same construct. Unlike relations to other variables evidence, which makes score com-
parisons with criterion measures that are considered a better representation of the construct
of interest, convergent validity evidence compares instrument scores to scores from other
instruments assumed to be equivalent representations of the construct. High positive correla-
tions between the two tests help demonstrate evidence of overall construct validity. Test
developers show convergent evidence typically by correlating their test’s scores with the
scores of comparable, well-established tests (i.e., a gold standard). For example, researchers
have suggested that the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale (SB-5) global composite score is
often higher than scores produced on other measures of intelligence (Minton & Pratt,
2006). Garred and Gilmore (2009) investigated the relationship between the SB-5 and the
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence, Third Edition (WPPSI-III). After
testing a sample of 32 four-year-olds with the SB-5 and WPPSI-III, the researchers calcu-
lated a correlation of .79. Although this is a statistically significant result, the relationship
clearly has some error. What does this mean in practice? The decision to use one test over
another may produce different results. In their research, Garred and Gilmore found that
some students’ IQ scores differed by as much as 16 points. If you consider the implications
of IQ scores for school placement, then a difference of 16 points is incredibly large and
quite problematic. This example provokes thought about relations to other variables, but it
also has meaning for the discussion of consequences of testing. Keep this example in mind
as you review the information later in this chapter.
Another common procedure for establishing convergent evidence occurs when tests
are revised (Urbina, 2014). In this case, test developers report high correlations between
the new test and previous editions as evidence that both are measuring the same construct.
For example, the BDI-II test manual cites a correlation (r) of .94 between the BDI-I (Beck,
Ward, & Mendelson, 1961) and the BDI-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) as evidence that
both editions measure the construct of depression. Evidence of convergent validity can
also be obtained from correlations across the scores of subtests, or subscales, of different
scales. For example, BDI-II has correlations with the Symptom Checklist-90-R Depression
subscale (r = .89; Beck et al., 1996) and with the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Major
Depression scale (r = .71; Millon, Millon, & Davis, 1994).
Another similar method used to substantiate validity involves discriminant evidence.
In contrast to convergent evidence, discriminant evidence is based on consistently low cor-
relations between the test and other tests that are supposed to measure different constructs.
For example, we would assume that SAT scores would be unrelated to scores on a social
skills measure or that scores from a measure of physical aggression would have low cor-
relation with the scores on a measure assessing withdrawal.
The Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.  Campbell and Fiske (1959) proposed a design they
called the multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM), which provides convergent and discri-
minant evidence of validity of a test. This approach involves measuring two or more distinct
traits (i.e., constructs) with two or more distinct measurement methods. For example, we might
measure the constructs of anxiety and depression using two methods: a self-report inven-
tory and a clinical interview. Data is then collected and assembled into a matrix (also called
a table of correlations) that displays correlations between
• the same trait assessed by the same method (i.e., reliability coefficients),
• the same trait assessed by different methods (i.e., convergent evidence),
 Chapter 6 • Validity 123

TABLE 6.2  Sample of a Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix

Self-Report Observation Teacher Ratings

Method Traits AB ATT WD AB ATT WD AB ATT WD
AB (.90)
Self-Report ATT .47 (.88)
WD .35 .45 (.93)
AB .61 .25 .10 (.90)
Observation ATT .29 .61 .20 .46 (.93)
WD .20 .28 .59 .32 .43 (.86)
AB .60 .28 .15 .58 .25 .13 (.94)
Teacher Ratings ATT .21 .59 .20 .20 .62 .21 .47 (.89)
WD .12 .19 .58 .14 .20 .63 .37 .43 (.86)
Note: AB = Aggressive Behavior; ATT = Attention Problems; WD = Withdrawal.

• different traits measured by the same methods, and

• different traits measured by different methods (i.e., discriminant evidence).
The MTMM emphasizes the use of truly different multiple methods (e.g., self-report
tests, observations, rating scales, projective measures, clinical interviews), and ideally each
trait should be measured by each method. Table 6.2 is a hypothetical MTMM composed of
three traits (i.e., aggressive behavior, attention problems, withdrawal) measured by three
methods (i.e., self-rating, observation, teacher ratings).
The matrix shows the following:
• The highest coefficients (appearing in parentheses) are the reliability coefficients,
which represent correlations between the same method measuring the same trait. These
coefficients are highest because a trait should be more highly correlated with itself
than anything else.
• The next highest coefficients (appearing in bold print) are validity coefficients that
represent different methods measuring the same trait, which are evidence of convergent
validity. For example, aggressive behavior as measured by observations and teacher
ratings has a strong validity coefficient (r) of .60, showing that the two methods
measure the same trait.
• The moderate coefficients (in italics) represent the same methods measuring different
traits. We would expect these coefficients to be moderate, because they have the same
method in common. For example, aggressive behavior and attention problems as
measured by self-report resulted in a coefficient (r) of .47.
• The smallest coefficients (in plain type) represent different methods measuring different
traits, indicating evidence of discriminant validity. We would expect these to be very
low, because they share nothing in common: no traits or method similarities. For
example, the correlation (r) between aggressive behavior as measured by self-report
and withdrawal as measured by teacher ratings is .12.
The MTMM provides a great deal of data and a rigorous framework for assessing
both convergent and discriminant validity evidence. Because it requires the use of m
­ ultiple
124 Chapter 6 • Validity

distinct methods that measure each trait, it is sometimes not feasible in educational and
psychological assessment to meet the stringent requirements needed to use the process.
For example, it may be difficult to find three distinct methods to measure one particular
trait. However, variations of the MTMM are increasingly being used in validation studies
that involve using only tests or subtests (instead of distinct methods) that measure both
similar and dissimilar constructs.

Group Differentiation Studies  Another way to provide evidence of construct validity is

to demonstrate that an instrument’s scores can correctly and significantly differentiate
between two groups of people known to or thought to differ on a particular trait. Group
differentiation (or contrasted group) studies are used to analyze whether an instrument dif-
ferentiates between different groups of individuals in ways predicted by theory. If two
groups’ test scores are found to be significantly different in a predicted way, then the test
has evidence of construct validity. For example, the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Chil-
dren (KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014) is an individually administered measure of
processing and cognitive abilities in children and adolescents aged 3 to 18. As part of its
validation process, it analyzed test scores among several different groups that represented
such diagnostic or special education categories as learning disabilities, mental retardation,
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), gifted, and others. Each group’s aver-
age scores were significantly different in expected ways from the nonclinical group (i.e.,
children who were not classified in diagnostic or special education categories) based on
the standardization sample (i.e., the norm group). For example, it was expected that chil-
dren with ADHD would score lower than the children in the norm group, and analysis
indicated that there was a significant difference in scores on the KABC-II scales between
children with ADHD and children in the standardization sample (Kaufman & Kaufman,
2014), with scores for the ADHD group being significantly lower than scores for the non-
clinical group.

Age Differentiation Studies  Related to group differentiation studies are age differentia-
tion studies (also called developmental studies). Age differentiation studies focus on demon-
strating validity by showing the degree to which test scores increase or decrease with age.
We will look at intelligence as an example. According to intelligence theorists Horn and
Cattell (1966, 1967), intelligence encompasses two general types: fluid intelligence and
crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence is the ability to solve problems and adapt to new
situations. Crystallized intelligence refers to acquired knowledge and ability obtained
through education and personal experience. According to Horn and Cattell, fluid intelli-
gence improves through childhood and adolescence and then begins to decline as early as
late adolescence and into adulthood. In contrast, crystallized intelligence continues to
increase through middle age and maintains during old age. In the development of the
Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1993),
which is a measure of general intelligence composed of separate scales for fluid and crys-
tallized intelligence, the authors conducted age differentiation studies on several groups of
individuals between 11 years and 85+ years. They found that crystallized intelligence
scores increased until the mid-20s and then plateaued until age 54. After age 54, scores
dropped steadily but not dramatically. By ages 75 to 85+, crystallized intelligence scores
are similar to the scores for preadolescents and adolescents. Kaufman and Kaufman also
found that fluid intelligence scores increase until around the early 20s. Fluid intelligence
 Chapter 6 • Validity 125

scores drop a bit but then remain the same until after age 54, when scores drop dramati-
cally. By ages 75 to 85+, fluid intelligence scores are well below the mean for age 11. The
results of the KAIT’s age differentiation studies somewhat follow the pattern of age-related
changes in intelligence predicted by Horn and Cattell.

Experimental Results  Another source of construct validity evidence is provided when a

test is used to measure the effects of experimental interventions. For example, say that a
researcher is interested in studying whether teaching children to use verbal rehearsal (i.e.,
verbally reciting information) helps them on a short-term memory task. After the interven-
tion, the researcher compares the children’s pretest and posttest scores on a short-term
memory test to determine if the intervention was effective in improving short-term
­memory performance. If the scores increased significantly for children exposed to the
­intervention—versus no change for a matched group that did not participate—then the
change in scores could be viewed as evidence of the test’s validity, as well as evidence of
the efficacy of the intervention.

Evidence Based on Consequences of Testing

Evidence based on consequences of testing is a type of validity evidence identified in the Stand-
ards (American Educational Research Association (AERA) et al., 2014) that refers to exam-
ining the intended and unintended consequences of the use of test results. Tests are commonly
administered with the expectation that some benefit will come from the interpretation of
test scores. Consequential evidence involves appraising the actual and potential conse-
quences of test use, as well as the social impact of interpretations (Messick, 1989). Social
consequences of testing may be either positive (such as improved educational policies) or
negative (such as test score bias or unfair test use). It is important to gather evidence that
the positive consequences of testing outweigh the adverse consequences. For example,
consequential test validity of an academic admissions test would involve investigating
whether the test unfairly selects or rejects members of different demographic groups for
access to desirable or undesirable educational opportunities.
Lane (2014) discussed testing consequences from the framework of state-level perfor-
mance assessment. Student performance in U.S. schools has received critical attention in
recent decades. In response to emerging performance issues, states have implemented
mandated testing programs. When mandated programs are implemented, there should be
evidence that the programs are suitable for the intended outcomes (Lane, 2014). In order to
construct a suitable validity argument for mandated programs, evidence should be
reviewed that examines intended and unintended consequences. For example, in some
cases curriculum might be narrowed in order to align strongly with the standards being
measured and to improve the overall test scores of a school. By narrowing the curriculum,
broader aspects of the standards might be ignored, and students are not exposed to mate-
rial that might be important. As another example, imagine that a school district has a poor
performance record on state tests. Because of the poor record, state funding is impacted,
and the school district may be subject to state control. In this case, a superintendent and
school principals might make changes in teacher or student assignments as an effort to
improve performance of the district. The principals in the district might provide struggling
teachers with materials that relate closely to test content. These efforts would not be related
to the well-being of the students and could be problematic.
126 Chapter 6 • Validity

Evidence Based on Response Processes

The term response processes refers to the actions, thought processes, and emotional traits
that the test taker invokes in responding to a test. Evidence based on response processes,
sometimes viewed as part of content validity, provides validity support that examinees
used intended cognitive and psychological processes during test taking. Differences in
response processes may reveal sources of variance that are irrelevant to the construct
being measured. For example, if a test is designed to measure an individual’s ability to
solve mathematical problems, then the individual’s mental processes should reflect prob-
lem solving rather than remembering an answer he or she had already memorized.
Understanding how test content affects test-taker response processes is very important
for creating tests that assess the intended content domain and for avoiding unnecessary
cognitive or emotional demands on student performance. Methods of examining response
processes include think-aloud protocols (i.e., test takers think their responses out loud
during the performance of a test item or task), posttest interviews (i.e., test takers explain
reasons for their responses after taking the test), measurements of brain activity, and eye
movement studies.
The superficial appearance of what a test measures from the perspective of the test
taker or other untrained observer is part of the cognitive process that should be consid-
ered when investigating evidence of validity (Urbina, 2014). In other words, does a test
appear to be measuring what it claims to be measuring? Does the test look legitimate to
examinees who take it, to those who administer the test, and to other technically
untrained observers? Anastasi and Urbina (1997) described how a test designed for chil-
dren and extended for adult use was initially met with resistance and criticism because
of its lack of surface legitimacy. To the adult test takers, the test appeared silly, childish,
and inappropriate, thus impacting their cognitive process as they completed the test. As
a result, the adults cooperated poorly with the testing procedure, thereby affecting the
outcome of the test.

Summary
In this chapter, we introduced the concept of (i.e., content evidence), the relationship between
validity. Validity refers to whether the infer- test results and external variables (i.e., relations
ences and decisions made on the basis of test to other variables), the internal structure of the
results are sound or appropriate. Threats to test, test consequences, or the response process.
validity include construct underrepresentation Methods to evaluate construct validity evidence
(i.e., the test fails to include important dimen- include evaluating evidence of the internal
sions or aspects of the identified construct) and structure, convergent and discriminant validity
construct-irrelevant variance (i.e., the test is too evidence, group differentiation studies, age dif-
broad and contains too many variables, many of ferentiation studies, experimental results, and
which are irrelevant to the construct), in addi- factor analysis. Multiple methods are used to
tion to factors within the test, administration provide overall evidence of validity and to sup-
and scoring procedures, test-taker characteris- port the use of a test for different applications. It
tics, and inappropriate test groups. is the responsibility of test users to carefully
The process of test validation involves read the validity information in the test manual
evaluating various sources of validity evidence. and to evaluate the suitability of the test for
Evidence may focus on the content of the test their specific purposes.
 Chapter 6 • Validity 127

Questions for Discussion

1. What is the meaning of the unitary concept of d. Is there a relationship between the score on
validity? the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test and
2. What types of validity evidence might be useful workers’ rate of assembly of a product?
in the validation of each of the following? e. Is there a relationship between the Mechanical
Explain. Ability Test and performance of individuals in
a. A reading test a 6-week training program in mechanics?
b. A depression symptom checklist f. Is creativity a distinct factor measured by the test?
c. A job performance test 4. For each of the following criteria, identify at least
3. What type of validity evidence is represented by two criterion measures that might be useful in
each of these questions: validation studies:
a. Do the test items match the objectives of our a. Success in a master’s degree program in school
school? counseling
b. How do the test results of the Pryor’s Work b. A medical student’s “bedside manner” as a
Aspect Preference Scale compare with results doctor
from Super’s Work Values Inventory? c. Success in a retail sales position
c. How well does the Orleans–Hanna Algebra 5. If you wanted to construct a new instrument that
Prognosis Test predict success or failure in assesses counseling skills in counselor trainees,
Algebra I? describe the steps you would take to provide evi-
dence of content validity.

Suggested Activities
1. We have provided a list of words and phrases 4. Study the validity sections of a test manual for an
(i.e., constructs) that describe various aspects of achievement test and personality test. How does
personality. Select one of the constructs and information differ for these two types of tests?
address the questions that follow. Explain.
List of Possible Constructs: 5. Read critical reviews of some of the tests that you
• Empathy have taken and see what the reviewers say about
• Genuineness the validity of the tests.
• Selfishness 6. Read the test manual or a critical review of the
• Patience Kaufman Brief Intelligence Instrument (KBIT-2).
• Intolerance Identify two other cognitive ability tests that
a. Develop a clear definition of the construct. were used in the KBIT-2 validation process that
b. Brainstorm and identify several content areas that provided convergent evidence.
reflect the traits or behaviors of your construct. 7. Study the following descriptions of two tests and
c. Construct a table of specifications based on answer the questions that follow the descriptions:
the content areas.
2. Review several standardized tests and identify Test A: 40 items
the types of validity evidence presented in the Description: Measure of self-esteem
test manuals. Scales: Total Score, General Self-Esteem, Social Self-
3. Review the manuals of two instruments that Esteem, Personal Self-Esteem
measure intelligence. Describe how the instru- Reliability: Test-retest r = .81; coefficient alphas for
ments define the construct of intelligence. In the Total Score, General Self-Esteem, Social Self-
what ways are their definitions similar or differ- Esteem, Personal Self-Esteem scales are .75, .78,
ent? What types of content evidence do the man- .57, and .72, respectively.
uals provide? Based on this, which one do you Validity: Content—developed construct definitions
think is a better measure of intelligence? for self-esteem, developed table of specifications,
128 Chapter 6 • Validity

wrote items covering all content areas, used identity integration, and defensive self-
experts to evaluate items. Convergent—correlated enhancement.
with Coopersmith’s Self-Esteem Inventory Reliability: Test-retest for each scale ranges from .65
r = .41. Discriminant—correlated with Beck to .71. Coefficient alphas range on each scale from
Depression Inventory r = .05. Factor analysis .71 to .77.
revealed that the three subscales (General Self- Validity: Content—based on a three-level hierarchi-
Esteem, Social Self-Esteem, Personal Self-Esteem) cal model of self-esteem. Convergent—correlated
are dimensions of self-esteem. Homogeneity—cor- with the Self-Concept and Motivation Inventory
relations between the scales indicate that the Gen- r = .25 and with the Eysenck Personality Inven-
eral scale correlated with the Social scale at .67, the tory r = .45. Discriminant—correlated with
Personal scale at .79, and the Total scale at .89. Hamilton Depression Inventory r = .19.
a. Given the technical information provided,
Test B: 117 items
which of the preceding instruments would
Scales: Global self-esteem, competence, lovability,
you select?
likability, self-control, personal power, moral self-
b. What additional information would you want
approval, body appearance, body functioning,
to have to make your decision?

References
American Educational Research Association (AERA), and SB-5 with typically developing p ­ reschoolers.
American Psychological Association (APA), & Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 19(2),
National Council on Measurement in Education 104–115. doi:10.1375/ajgc.19.2.104
(NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psy- Gorin, J. S. (2007). Test construction and diagnostic
chological testing. Washington, DC: Authors. testing. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds.), Cogni-
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). tive diagnostic assessment in education: Theory and
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders practice (pp. 173–201). Cambridge: Cambridge
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. University Press.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Age differences in
New York, NY: Macmillan. primary mental ability factors. Journal of Gerontol-
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing ogy, 21, 210–220.
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Man- fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psycholog-
ual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Anto- ica, 26, 107–129.
nio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and
Beck, A. T., Ward, C., & Mendelson, M. (1961). Beck uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measure-
Depression Inventory (BDI). Archives of General ment, 50(1), 1–73.
Psychiatry, 4, 561–571. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan (Ed.),
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). West-
and discriminant validation by the multitrait-­ port, CT: Praeger.
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1993). Manual for
81–105. Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT).
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulle- Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
tin, 112, 155–159. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2014). Kaufman
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2012). Psychological Assessment Battery for Children, second edition man-
testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and ual (KABC-II). Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-
measurement (8th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. ance Service.
Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological test- Kline, P. (2000). The new psychometrics: Science, psy-
ing. New York, NY: Harper & Row. chology, and measurement. London: Routledge.
Garred, M., & Gilmore, L. (2009). To WPPSI or to Binet, Lane, S. (2014). Validity evidence based on testing
that is the question: A comparison of the WPPSI-III consequences. Psicothema, 26(1), 127–135.
 Chapter 6 • Validity 129

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educa- Piers, E. V., & Herzberg, D. S. (2002). Piers–Harris
tional measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, Children’s Self-Concept Scale manual (2nd ed.). Los
NY: American Council on Education/Macmillan. Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assess- Psychological Corporation. (1997). WAIS-III/WMS-III
ment: Validation of inferences from persons’ technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Author.
responses and performances as scientific inquiry Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., & Willson, V.
into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, (2008). Measurement and assessment in education
741–749. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2012). Rios, J., & Wells, C. (2014). Validity evidence based
Measurement and assessment in teaching (11th ed.). on internal structure. Psicothema, 26(1), 108–116.
Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon/Merrill Education. Rubio, D. M. (2005). Content validity. Encyclopedia of
Miller, S. A. (2012). Developmental research methods Social Measurement, 1, 495–498.
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shultz, K. S., Whitney, D. A., & Jickar, M. J. (2014).
Millon, T., Millon, C., & Davis, R. (1994). MCMI-III Measurement theory in action: Case studies and
manual: Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III. exercises (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Publications.
Minton, B. A., & Pratt, S. (2006). Gifted and highly Sireci, S. G. (1998). The construct of content validity.
gifted students: How do they score on the SB-5? Social Indicators Research, 45, 83–117.
Roeper Review, 28, 232–236. Sireci, S., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity evi-
Oren, C., Kennet-Cohen, T., Turvall, E., & Allalouf, dence based on test content. Psicothema, 26(1),
A. (2014). Demonstrating the validity of three gen- 100–107.
eral scores of PET in predicting higher education Sireci, S., & Padilla, J. (2014). Validating assessments:
achievement in Israel. Psicothema, 26(1), 117–126. Introduction to the special section. Psicothema,
Padilla, J., & Benítez, I. (2014). Validity evidence 26(1), 97–99
based on response processes. Psicothema, 26(1), Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing
136–144. (Vol. 4, 2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
 CHAPTER

7 Selecting, Administering, Scoring,

and Interpreting Assessment Results

In the previous chapters, we described the methods and sources of assessment data and
discussed important information about statistical and measurement concepts. It will be
important for you to keep the previous chapters in mind as you move into the next area of
assessment training. Remember that everything we have covered thus far relates to the
practice of assessment and that you should be working to integrate the information into a
comprehensive framework of counseling assessment. In order to illustrate the primary
concepts in this chapter, we will reiterate some information from previous chapters. We
believe that repetition will help reinforce your learning of difficult concepts. Before we
proceed to the next section of the textbook, which focuses on specific areas of assessment
(e.g., intelligence, achievement, aptitude, career, personality), we need to address the pro-
cess of selecting, administering, and scoring assessment instruments and interpreting
assessment results.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Identify and describe the steps involved in selecting assessment instruments and
strategies.
JJ List and describe the various resources that provide information about assessment

instruments.
JJ Describe the process of evaluating assessment instruments or strategies.

JJ Describe the various procedures for administering assessment instruments.

JJ Describe the methods for scoring instruments and discuss their strengths and
limitations.
JJ Describe the counselor’s responsibilities in interpreting assessment results.

Selecting Assessment Instruments and Strategies

Selecting the most appropriate assessment instrument or strategy is a critical decision. The
choice of instruments or strategies for a specific assessment will depend on several factors,
such as the type of information needed, the needs of the client, resource constraints, the time
frame available for the assessment, the quality of the assessment instrument, and the qualifi-
cations of the counselor. Therefore, the selection of assessment methods involves careful
consideration and evaluation of instruments and strategies. The following steps (discussed
in more detail ahead) may be helpful in selecting assessment instruments and strategies:
130
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 131

1. Identify the type of information needed.

2. Identify available information.
3. Determine the methods for obtaining information.
4. Search assessment resources.
5. Evaluate and select an assessment instrument or strategy.

Identify the Type of Information Needed

The first step in the process of selecting assessment methods is to identify the type of informa-
tion needed. Any assessment instrument or strategy is useful only if it provides the informa-
tion required for the assessment. Counselors determine what information to collect based on
the purpose of assessment. As we stated in Chapter 1, there are several general purposes for
assessment: screening, identification and diagnosis, intervention planning, and progress and
outcome evaluation. As an example, say that a career counselor is trying to determine an inter-
vention plan for a client dealing with a midcareer crisis. The counselor might be interested in
obtaining such information as the client’s employment history, current and future job desires,
educational background, aptitudes, values, and interests. Alternately, a mental health counse-
lor assessing a client for depression would want to know if the client is experiencing specific
symptoms of depression, how the client is functioning at work, or if the client has ever had
previous treatment for depression.

Identify Available Information

The next step is to identify and review existing assessment information. In clinical settings,
intake questionnaires, biographical data, and preliminary diagnoses by clinicians and phy-
sicians are often available. School settings provide access to cumulative folders containing
family information, educational history, grades, assessment and test results, anecdotal
records, and attendance and health information. This existing information often provides
useful, relevant information about a client that may be used in the current assessment pro-
cess. Unfortunately, overtesting may sometimes occur; that is, a client may be asked to
repeat a recent test or take a similar one. For example, one school district gave all of its
students in grades 9 and 10 the Otis–Lennon School Ability Test, the Differential Aptitude
Test, the School and College Ability Tests, and the California Test of Mental Maturity.
These tests repeatedly assessed the same factors, and the results of multiple tests did not
provide enough additional information to warrant such testing practices (recall the discus-
sion of testing consequences in Chapter 6). On an individual basis, it is sometimes valuable
to have more than one measure of scholastic aptitude or ability. However, when clients are
asked to repeat the same test in a short time frame, they may lose motivation or even
become hostile. It may be helpful to develop a checklist of information typically available
on clients in a particular context. Figure 7.1 presents a sample checklist for a counselor in a
school setting.

Determine the Methods for Obtaining Information

After identifying the type of information needed and reviewing any existing data, counse-
lors need to determine the methods for obtaining assessment information. Recall that
counselors have both formal and informal assessment instruments and strategies available
for selection. Counselors can use interviews, tests, and observations when they have
132 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

Needed?
Cumulative folder of student Yes No
Birth date __________ __________
Family information __________ __________
Record of attendance __________ __________
Permanent report card __________ __________
Academic records from other schools __________ __________
Attendance records __________ __________
State achievement test results __________ __________
Other achievement test results __________ __________
College entrance exam results __________ __________
Health data and records __________ __________
Disciplinary actions __________ __________
Functional behavior assessment __________ __________
Behavioral intervention plans __________ __________
Individualized Education Program __________ __________

Class records
Grades on tests and assignments __________ __________
Progress in reading __________ __________
Reading level __________ __________
Competencies mastered __________ __________
Samples of work __________ __________
Anecdotal observations __________ __________
Notes from parent conferences __________ __________

School counselor’s records

Interest data __________ __________
Behavior problems __________ __________
Career and educational goals __________ __________
Participation in school activities __________ __________
Cooperative work experience data __________ __________

Parent or guardian’s records

Nonschool activities and achievements __________ __________
Health records __________ __________
Transcripts or report cards __________ __________
Papers or assignments __________ __________

FIGURE 7.1  Sample checklist of client information available in school settings.

e­ stablished appropriate competency. For example, if the goal of assessment is to evaluate

a student for the potential of an existing learning disability, then the counselor might use
a range of strategies and tests including a functional behavior assessment (FBA), rating
scales, and an individual battery of ability tests. If a client is being assessed for career
exploration, then an interest inventory may be administered. If an individual is being eval-
uated to determine eligibility for a counseling group for individuals with depression, then
a counselor could use an unstructured interview to evaluate the client’s depressive symp-
toms. Using a combination of formal and informal interviews, tests, and observations is
recommended to obtain an in-depth evaluation of the client. The right combination of
formal and informal assessment methods will vary from assessment to assessment.
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 133

­ ounselors should also consider assessment methods that are best suited to the client (e.g.,
C
paper-and-pencil test, computer assessment) and to the setting (Whiston, 2009). In addi-
tion, counselors need to choose assessment methods that they are qualified to administer
and interpret.

Search Assessment Resources

With literally thousands of formal and informal instruments and strategies available to
assess a multitude of abilities, character traits, attitudes, and more, counselors need to
know how to locate and access information about assessment instruments. There is no
single source available that catalogs every possible formal and informal assessment instru-
ment. Sources vary with respect to detail; some provide comprehensive information,
whereas others merely provide descriptions of tests. A list of the types of sources and their
advantages and disadvantages is given in Table 7.1. We will review some of the most com-
mon sources of information, including reference sources, publishers’ websites and cata-
logs, instrument manuals, research literature, Internet resources, professional organizations,
and directories of unpublished instruments.

Reference Sources  Probably the best source of information about commercial tests is the
Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY) series. Now in its 19th edition, the yearbook was
founded in 1938 by Oscar K. Buros to provide evaluative information needed for informed
test selection. Published at the Buros Institute of Mental Measurement at the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln, the yearbooks provide descriptive information for over 2,800 tests,

TABLE 7.1  Sources of Assessment Instrument Information

Type Advantages Disadvantages

Reference Contain critical reviews of the test by May present dated information, because
Sources (Mental experts some volumes are published infrequently
­Measurements Contain bibliography of studies done Can present a spotty or biased review,
Yearbook, Tests ­using the test, such as those to assess ­because reviewers do not follow a
in Print, Test the validity and reliability of the test ­common format
­Critiques) Do not discuss thoroughly the purposes
and possible applications of the test
Publisher’s Website Can get current information on the cost Sometimes presents biased picture of the test
or Catalog of the test and scoring services available Sometimes does not have necessary ­technical
Can get information on new tests and and practical information, such as time
services available required, age or grade levels ­appropriate,
sources from which to get ­complete test
package, and basic ­information to screen
quickly for appropriateness (such as a
­description of scales or subtests)
Specimen Sets Can see test and test format; read Do not always include all pertinent
and evaluate technical information; information, such as technical manual or
and judge validity, reliability, and manual for interpretation or scoring keys
­interpretability of the test
(continued)
134 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

Table 7.1  Sources of Assessment Instrument Information  (Continued)

Type Advantages Disadvantages

Manuals Provide in-depth information on the May present dated and biased material
nature of the instrument Can be highly technical or oversimplified
Describe the processes involved in test May require background in measurement
development theory
Provide technical information
Describe norm groups
Provide guidelines for administration
and interpretation
Research Literature Contains validity and reliability studies Contains spotty reviews without a ­common
Contains reviews of certain instruments format and reviews only a few tests
Contains research on issues in assessment May take 2 to 3 years to get information
into print because of publication backlog
Internet Resources Present information that is retrievable Identify sources that are not always readily
through computerized searches available
Identify from a variety of sources the May use unfamiliar tests
major tests and instruments developed Involve a time lag between article
May be updated systematically and ­publication and inclusion in the abstract
published regularly
Professional Keep abreast of new tests, texts, Can present biased information
­Organizations ­reference books in field, and Can require a subscription cost
­issues related to test construction, Do not index sources, so information may
­administration, and interpretation be hard to retrieve
Sometimes offer up-to-date
­bibliographies of articles and research
reports using or evaluating a given test or
test procedure
Directories of Provide information on instruments not May include dated and sometimes incom-
­Unpublished commercially available plete sources
Instruments May not present information on many of
the technical and practical issues, such as
cost and time

including the publisher, prices, population for whom the test is appropriate, and psycho-
metric information (i.e., reliability, validity, norming data). As a distinctive feature, the
MMY also includes critical reviews by test experts as well as a list of reviewer’s references.
The MMY may be found in hardcopy at academic libraries, electronically through the
EBSCO and OVID/SilverPlatter databases, and at the Buros website (buros.org; for a fee,
test reviews are available online exactly as they appear in the MMY series).
Tests in Print (TIP) is another Buros Institute publication. Now in its eighth edition, it
is a comprehensive listing of all commercially available tests written in the English lan-
guage. It includes the same basic information about a test that is included in the MMY, but
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 135

it does not contain reviews or psychometric information. The TIP guides readers to the
MMY for more detailed information about tests. The TIP can be found in hardcopy in aca-
demic libraries and electronically through the EBSCO database.
Other widely used reference sources include Test Critiques and Tests, both published
by Pro-Ed, Inc. Tests provides a comprehensive listing of all tests available in the English
language. It provides descriptions of tests, but does not contain critical reviews or psycho-
metric information; this information can be found for selected instruments in Test Critiques.
Test Critiques, designed to be a companion to Tests, contains a three-part description of
each test: Introduction, Practical Application/Uses, and Technical Aspects. It also pro-
vides psychometric information and a critical review of each test.

Publishers and Website Catalogs  All of the major test publishers have websites that
include online catalogs of their products. These online catalogs can be a good source of
descriptive information about the most recent editions of tests. The information may
include the cost of materials and scoring, types of scoring services, and ancillary materials
available through the publisher. It is important to remember that publishers’ websites are
marketing tools aimed at selling products; they do not provide all the information needed
to fully evaluate a test. Counselors can also order a specimen set of the test from the pub-
lisher, which includes the manual, test booklet, answer sheet, and scoring key. Table 7.2
provides a list of some of the major U.S. test publishers and their website addresses. Many
publishers also provide hardcopy versions of their catalogs.

Manuals  Test manuals, available from test publishers, provide administrative and techni-
cal information about a test. Indeed, because most of the information one would want
about a particular psychological or educational test can be found in test manuals, they are

TABLE 7.2  Some Major U.S. Test Publishers

Academic Therapy Publications Harcourt Assessment (see The Psychological Corporation

academictherapy.com Pearson Education) (see Pearson Education)
Institute for Personality and
Ability Testing (IPAT)
ipat.com
The American College Testing Pearson Education ­ Riverside Publishing Company
Program (ACT) pearsonassessments.com riverpub.com
act.org
CTB/McGraw-Hill Pearson Instructional R
­ esources Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
ctb.com pearsonschool.com ststesting.com
Pearson Education
pearsonassessments.com
CPP and Davies-Black ­Publishing Pro-Ed Slosson Educational Publications
cpp.com proedinc.com slosson.com
Educational Testing Service Psychological Assessment Stoelting Company
ets.org Resources stoeltingco.com
parinc.com
136 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

Yes No
1. Test manual available at time of publication of test __________ __________
2. Test manual is complete, accurate, and clearly written __________ __________
3. Rationale and uses of test discussed __________ __________
4. User cautioned about possible misuses __________ __________
5. Norming population described __________ __________
6. Reliability evidence provided __________ __________
7. Validity evidence provided __________ __________
8. Special qualifications of users stated __________ __________
9. Bibliography of research and studies on test presented __________ __________
10. Test manual updated and revised when new edition __________ __________
of test was published
11. Test administration conditions and modes explained __________ __________
12. Interpretive aids provided for test takers __________ __________
13. Test interpretation easy to understand __________ __________
14. Evidence supporting the accuracy of computer-generated __________ __________
interpretations
15. Automated test interpretation service available __________ __________
16. Rationale presented and conceptualized if cutoff __________ __________
scores are given
17. Technical information is presented about appropriateness __________ __________
of the instrument for diverse groups, e.g., age, grade level,
language, cultural background, gender
18. Method of recommended linguistic modification __________ __________
described in detail

FIGURE 7.2   Checklist for evaluating a test manual.

the primary source to consult in the test selection process. Tests manuals should be com-
plete, accurate, current, and clear. The manual should provide information about test spec-
ifications (i.e., purpose of the test, definition of constructs measured, description of the
population for which the test is intended, information about interpretation) and general
standards for the preparation and publication of test documentation: manuals and user
guides (American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological
Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), 2014).
Figure 7.2 shows a checklist summary of those standards.

Research Literature  Published research is an excellent source of information about tests.

Academic journals are available that focus specifically on assessment and testing used in
education, psychology, and other fields (see Table 7.3). In addition, specific journal articles
on test reviews or about research studies using specific tests can provide professionals
with information about widely used assessment instruments.

Internet Resources  The Internet provides a number of ways to search for test informa-
tion. A test locator or test collection allows users to search for information about instru-
ments from a variety of sources. Access to test locators is available through several
sponsored websites, including the Buros Institute (buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/search.jsp),
the Educational Testing Service (ETS; ets.org/testcoll), and the ERIC Clearinghouse on
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 137

TABLE 7.3  Journals Related to Assessment

Applied Measurement in Education

Applied Psychological Measurement
Assessment
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
Assessment in Education
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Educational Assessment
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Journal of Career Assessment
Journal of Educational Measurement
Journal of Personality Assessment
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
Psychological Assessment

Assessment and Evaluation (ericae.net). In addition, as p ­ reviously stated, test reviews

from the MMY are available online for a fee (marketplace.unl.edu/buros/).
Information about instruments can also be found through an online search of
­PsycINFO, which is an abstract database that indexes all published research in psychology
from the 1800s to the present. Psychological Abstracts is the print counterpart to PsycINFO,
and PsycLIT is the CD-ROM version of PsycINFO.

Professional Organizations  A number of professional organizations exist that provide

information on assessment. Most have websites or publish journals, newsletters, or other
publications about general assessment issues or about assessment in a specific context
(e.g., assessment in the schools, employment testing). Table 7.4 presents a list of some pro-
fessional associations.

Directories of Unpublished Instruments  Assessment instruments are not limited to

published tests. There is a vast quantity of unpublished or noncommercial inventories,
checklists, projective techniques, and other instruments that exists in the social sciences
research literature. The Directory of Unpublished Experimental Measures (2008) is one of the
most popular printed directories of unpublished instruments. This directory provides
access to recently developed tests that are not commercially available. These instruments
have been used by other researchers on a variety of topics in education and psychology.
The directory groups tests according to function and content and provides information
about tests’ purpose, format, psychometric information, and related research.

Evaluate and Select an Assessment Instrument or Strategy

When selecting which assessment instruments and strategies to use, counselors must
evaluate instruments on the basis of several factors (e.g., purpose, test scores, reliability,
138 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

TABLE 7.4  Professional Associations Related to Assessment

American Counseling Association (ACA) International Personnel Management

counseling.org ­Association Assessment Center (IPMAAC)
ipmaac.org
American Educational Research Association National Academy of Science’s Board on
(AERA) ­Testing and Assessment (BOTA)
aera.net nationalacademies.org/cbsse/bota.nsf
American Psychological Association (APA) National Association of Test Directors (NATD)
apa.org natd.org
American Speech-Language-Hearing National Association of School Psychologists
­Association (ASHA) (NASP)
asha.org naspweb.org
The Association for Assessment and Research The National Center for Fair and Open Testing
in Counseling (AARC) fairtest.org
aarc-counseling.org
Association of Test Publishers The National Center for Research on Evaluation,
testpublishers.org Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)
cse.ucla.edu
The Division of Evaluation, Measurement, and National Council on Measurement in Education
Statistics (NCME)
apa.org/divisions/div5 assessment.iupui.edu/ncme
Educational Testing Service (ETS)
ets.org
ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and ­Evaluation
ericae.net

­ alidity). For most published formal assessment instruments, the test manual is the pri-
v
mary source of evaluative information. However, prior to selecting an assessment instru-
ment for close evaluation, you may elect to read published test reviews as a primary
evaluation. This section presents several questions to guide professionals in evaluating
and selecting a formal assessment instrument or strategy. As you read, you should recall
information from previous chapters and attempt to apply that information to the infor-
mation here. By going through these questions and applying the information you have
already learned, you will improve your ability to successfully evaluate an assessment
instrument.
What is the purpose of the instrument? Who is the intended population? The first
question to ask when investigating an instrument is whether the purpose of the
instrument is appropriate for the counselor’s needs. If an instrument does not meas-
ure the behavior or construct of interest, then there is no need to further evaluate the
instrument. Another factor is the extent to which an instrument is appropriate for the
individual(s) being assessed. The manual should clearly state the instrument’s rec-
ommended uses as well as describe the population for which it was intended.
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 139

What is the makeup of the norm group? This question addresses whether the sample
of individuals (i.e., norm group) used during instrument development represents the
population of potential examinees. The norm group must reflect the population from
which it is drawn. This is particularly important with norm-referenced instruments,
because it is the norm group’s performance to which an examinee’s performance is
compared and by which it is interpreted. Counselors should evaluate the suitability
of the norm group in terms of representativeness, the year that the sample was gath-
ered, and the size of the norm group (see Chapter 4).
Are the results of the instrument reliable? Reliability addresses the degree to which
scores are consistent, dependable, and stable. Any fluctuation in scores that results
from factors irrelevant to what is being measured is called measurement error. There
are several methods of estimating the reliability applicable to the various sources of
measurement error, including test-retest, alternate forms, internal consistency, and
interrater reliability (see Chapter 5).
Do the instrument’s results have evidence of validity? Validity refers to whether the
claims and decisions that are made on the basis of assessment results are sound or
appropriate. Evidence of validity can be obtained by systematically examining the
content of the instrument, by considering how the instrument’s scores relate to other
similar instruments, or by considering the association between scores and other vari-
ables related to the construct being measured. The manual or published research
studies are sources of validity information (see Chapter 6).
Does the instrument’s manual provide clear and detailed instructions about admin-
istration procedures? All administration specifications should be fully described in
the manual, including instructions and time limits. Depending on the type of instru-
ment, other administration issues may be presented, including the use of reference
materials and calculators, lighting, equipment, seating, monitoring, room require-
ments, testing sequence, and time of day.
Does the manual provide sufficient information about scoring, interpreting, and
reporting results? The instrument’s manual should present information about the
materials and resources available to aid in scoring the instrument, such as scoring soft-
ware, mail-in scoring services, or scoring keys and templates. Information should also
be provided about the methods used to interpret and report results. Many instrument
developers provide computer-generated profiles and narrative reports based on test
results. Counselors need to determine whether profiles are clear and easy to under-
stand and whether narrative reports provide accurate and comprehensive information.
Is the instrument biased? An instrument is considered biased if differences in results
are attributable to demographic variables (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, culture, age,
language, geographic region) rather than to the construct being measured. Instru-
ment developers are expected to exhibit sensitivity to the demographic characteris-
tics of examinees and to document appropriate steps taken to minimize bias (see
Chapter 6).
What level of competency is needed to use the instrument? In the past few decades,
increasing concerns about the possibility of test misuse have led professional organiza-
tions to disseminate information about test user competencies and qualifications. To
use certain assessment instruments, counselors need education, training, and
140 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

s­ upervised experience particular to the instrument. In general, qualified test users

should have knowledge and skills in psychometric principles and statistics; instrument
selection; and procedures for administering, scoring, interpreting, communicating, and
securing test results (Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling, 2003).
The purchase of assessment instruments is generally restricted to persons who meet
certain minimum qualifications of education and training. Most publishers rely on a
three-level system for classifying test user qualifications that was first developed by the
APA in 1950. The APA dropped the classification system in 1974, but many publishers
continue to use it or a similar system. The classification includes the following levels:
A-Level: These instruments do not require users to have advanced training in
administration and interpretation. To purchase an A-level instrument, an indi-
vidual may have a bachelor’s degree in psychology, human services, education,
or related disciplines; training or certification relevant to assessment; or practical
experience in the use of assessment instruments. Examples of A-level tests include
some aptitude and career exploration tests.
B-Level: To use B-level instruments, practitioners typically have a graduate degree
in psychology, counseling, education, or related disciplines; have completed spe-
cialized training or coursework in assessment; or have licensure or certification
documenting training and experience in assessment. In addition, being a member
of a professional organization such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association (ASHA) or the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA)
may make one eligible to purchase B-level products. Examples of B-level tests
include general intelligence tests and interest inventories.
C-Level: C-level instruments require users to have B-level qualifications plus a
doctorate degree in psychology or a related discipline (that provides appropriate
training in the administration and interpretation of assessment instruments) or
licensure/certification or to be under direct supervision of a qualified professional
in psychology or a related field. Examples of C-level instruments include intelli-
gence tests, personality tests, and projective measures (e.g., the Wechsler Intelli-
gence Scale for Children [WISC-IV], the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory [MMPI-II], the Rorschach Inkblot Test).
What practical issues should be considered for this instrument? When evaluating a
particular assessment instrument, counselors should consider issues of practicality.
These include the time required for administration, cost of the instrument, format,
readability, administration procedures, scoring procedures, and interpretation.

Time Required to Administer the Instrument: The time it takes to give a test may
be a factor. In a school setting, can the test be administered during the regular class
period, or does the examiner need more time? In an outpatient mental health coun-
seling center, can an instrument be completed by the client within the traditional
50-minute time period for individual counseling? How many individually admin-
istered tests can an examiner reasonably schedule during a day? We know that the
longer the test, the more reliable the results, but how much reliability is necessary for
a particular purpose might be a concern if it significantly extends the time of testing.
Ease of Administration: Administration of tests is discussed in more detail later in
the chapter, but it should be noted here that there are different procedures for test
administration. Some require extensive training to administer and score; others
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 141

do not. Some tests are more difficult to administer because they have a number
of individually timed subtests and elaborate instructions for the test taker. The
test users should read through the test manual and evaluate the difficulty of test
administration.
Ease of Scoring: How an instrument is scored is an important issue, because it
is possible for scoring to take more time than administering a test. Tests may be
hand scored, computer scored, or sent to the publisher for scoring. In most cases,
hand-scored instruments are more time-consuming; if the instrument’s publishers
provide scoring templates or answer keys, then hand-scoring may be somewhat
quicker. Some instruments also require considerable training and experience on
the part of the examiner.
Ease of Interpretation: Results are not useful unless they are interpretable, and
both test developers and examiners are expected to provide explanation. Many
instruments provide computer-based interpretations based on test results. Instru-
ments may also provide detailed sections in the manual, or separate manuals, that
focus specifically on interpretation. The better tests have sample or illustrative
case studies. Test users should also check to see whether an instrument provides
computer-generated narratives, profile or summary sheets, or other materials to
guide the test takers in understanding the results.
Format: Just as in the evaluation of other printed material, test users should con-
sider factors such as size of print, attractiveness of format, and clarity of illustra-
tions. Some tests are attractively designed and utilize a variety of colors and print
sizes. Some, however, have print that is too small or dark paper that is hard to
read. Some tests may use double columns to cut down on necessary eye move-
ments; others spread the items across the whole page. The test user should think
of the test taker when evaluating such characteristics. An attractive format may
provide more valid results.
Readability: The readability of the test is an important factor. In general, unless
the intent is to test the reading level or verbal facility of the test taker, the reading
level should be kept simple so that the desired construct is measured rather than a
reading comprehension factor. Even a test presented in audio format should have
an appropriate reading level and vocabulary to ensure comprehension.
Cost of the Instrument: Cost is an important feature when considering a particular
instrument, because most schools and agencies have limited budgets. Purchasing a
commercially available instrument can become quite expensive and may require buy-
ing the manual, test booklets, answer sheets, scoring templates, computer software, or
ancillary materials. Some test publishers now lease tests, especially achievement test
batteries, rather than requiring the user to purchase them. Also, some test booklets are
reusable, requiring the examiner to purchase only answer sheets for another testing.
Computer software might increase the initial outlay for an instrument, but may
become more cost effective per test administration if the instrument is used frequently.
There are also scoring services to which most of the major tests and test batteries can
be sent for scoring and interpretation—at an additional cost, of course.

Using an Instrument Evaluation Form  One way to make the process of evaluating and
selecting assessment instruments easier is to use an instrument evaluation form (see
­Figure 7.3). Such a form provides a convenient way to document important aspects of an
142 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

Instrument Evaluation Form

Instrument title _____________________________ Author(s) _______________________________

Publisher ___________________________________ Publication date ________________________
Examiner qualifications __________________

Brief Description of the Instrument Practical Features

General type (group achievement test, Administration procedures/time
multiple aptitude battery, interest Scoring and interpretation procedures
inventory, personality inventory, etc.) Adequacy of test manual cost
Population (age, gender, culture, etc.)
Purpose of the instrument Previous Reviews
Scores provided Mental Measurements Yearbook
Types of items Other sources

Technical Evaluation Evaluation of Instrument

Reliability evidence (test-retest, split-half, Summary of strengths
alternate-form, internal consistency, Summary of weaknesses
interrater, standard error of measurement) Final recommendation
Validity evidence (content, criterion-related,
construct)
Norm group (composition, size, appropriate
to potential test taker)

FIGURE 7.3   Instrument evaluation form.

instrument and increases the likelihood that important facts will not be overlooked. When
utilizing an instrument review form, counselors are encouraged to obtain information
from both the instrument manual and a reference source, preferably one that provides
reviews (such as the MMY). An important aspect of using an instrument evaluation form
is identifying the instrument’s strengths and weaknesses. This aids in the final process of
integrating information and making a selection decision. It is imperative that counselors
have the requisite skills to evaluate a test before using it in practice. Exercises 7.1 and 7.2
provide an opportunity to practice the test review process and to test your knowledge.

Exercise 7.1
Conducting a Test Review: Beck Depression Inventory-II
You are a mental health counselor cur- help you in making an accurate diagno-
rently working in an outpatient coun- sis. You currently work 40 hours each
seling clinic with adult clients. You are week at the clinic and see about 20 clients
considering whether or not to adopt the each week for hour-long individual
Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; counseling sessions. The rest of your
Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) in your prac- time is devoted to treatment planning,
tice. Many of your clients seem to suffer writing progress notes, staff meetings,
from depression, and you think that and supervision.
using an instrument that specifically Information about the BDI-II is
assesses depressive symptoms would located in Chapter 13. After reviewing the
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 143

information about the BDI-II, answer exer- the BDI-II item content was vali-
cise questions 1–7. dated against.
6. Convergent validity: Correlations
Norm Group were examined between the BDI-II
Conduct a search of the Mental Measure- and other instruments. Consider the
ments Yearbook (MMY) for reviews of the various other tests that were used to
Beck Depression Inventory II. As you validate the BDI-II
read the reviews, make note of the follow- 7. Discriminant validity: Several tests
ing pieces of information related to the were performed to determine
instrument. expected differences between the
BDI-II and certain scales on other
1. A clinical sample was used in the instruments. Search the MMY
development of the BDI-II, In the reviews for information related to
reviews, note the number of partici- discriminant validity.
pants, geographic locations of the
sample, demographic data (e.g., After reviewing all of the information in
number of men vs. women, average items 1–7, answer the exercise questions
age, racial/ethnic distributions, and that follow.
any other relevant data about the Exercise Questions:
participants.
2. A nonclinical sample was also used 1. Describe and evaluate the norm
in the development of the BDI-II, In group. Do you think it is representa-
the reviews, note the number of par- tive? Do you think the norm group is
ticipants, geographic locations of the current? Do you believe the size of
sample, demographic data (e.g., the norm group was large enough?
number of men vs. women, average Are the samples related to the popu-
age, racial/ethnic distributions, and lation you intend to use the test
any other relevant data about the with? Explain.
participants. 2. Describe and evaluate each method
used to estimate reliability. Does the
Reliability reliability evidence support a deci-
sion to use the instrument? Explain.
3. Internal consistency was one of the 3. Describe and evaluate each type of
methods used to establish reliability validity evidence.
of the BDI-II. Make note in the 4. Does the validity evidence support a
reviews of the data related to inter- decision to use the instrument? Explain.
nal consistency. 5. Describe the practical aspects of the
4. Test-retest reliability: Test-retest instrument, focusing on issues
reliability was the other method of related to time required for adminis-
establishing reliability for the BDI-II. tration, ease of administration, and
Make note in the reviews of the data ease of scoring.
related test-retest reliability. 6. Summarize the strengths and weak-
nesses of the inventory. Based on
Validity
your review of the BDI-II, would you
5. Content validity: Examine the test adopt this instrument? Explain your
reviews to determine the criteria that answer.
144 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

Exercise 7.2
Conducting a Test Review: Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory
You are a middle school counselor starting For interpretation, high scores correspond
a new group aimed at enhancing self-­ to high self-esteem. A high Lie Scale score
concept in students. You work at a large suggests defensiveness (indicates that the
urban school with a culturally and linguis- test taker attempted to respond positively
tically diverse population of students. You to all items).
have heard about the Coopersmith Self-
Esteem Inventory (SEI), but you’re not sure Technical Information
if it’s the appropriate instrument to use. Norm group: The SEI was adminis-
After reviewing the information tered to 643 public school children in
ahead about the Coopersmith SEI, answer grades 3 through 8. The sample con-
the questions that follow. sisted primarily of students from the
lower and middle upper socioeco-
Description:
nomic ranges. The test manual stated
The Coopersmith SEI (Coopersmith, 1981) that “a considerable number of Span-
measures evaluative attitudes toward the ish surnamed and Black children
self in social, academic, family, and per- were included in the sample.” The
sonal areas of experience. Coopersmith manual strongly recommends that
defined self-esteem as a judgment of wor- users develop local norm groups.
thiness that is expressed by the attitudes
an individual holds toward his or her self. Reliability
Coopersmith believes that self-esteem is Test-retest: The test-retest reliability
significantly associated with effective coefficient after a 5-week interval
functioning, such as school performance. (with a sample of 30 fifth graders)
Each questionnaire presents was .88. Test-retest reliability after a
respondents with generally favorable or three-year interval (with a sample of
generally unfavorable statements about 56 public school children) was .70.
the self, which they indicate as Like Me or
Internal consistency: Studies
Unlike Me. The School Form is a 50-item
reported KR20 coefficients ranging
inventory designed for 8- to 15-year-old
from .87 to .92 on scores for school
children. It provides a Total Self Score as
children in grades 4 to 8.
well as scores on four subscales: General
Self (Gen), Social Self/Peers (Soc), Home/ Alternate forms: A study comparing
Parents (H), and School/Academic (Sch). the SEI to a Canadian version of the test
The School Form is accompanied by an (using a sample of 198 children in third
eight-item Lie Scale to assess defensive- through sixth grades) found correlation
ness. The School Short Form is comprised coefficients ranging from .71 to .80.
of 25 items from the School Form. The
Validity
Adult Form is an adaptation of the School
Short Form for individuals over 15 years Content validity evidence: Most of
of age. the items on the SEI School Form
Administration time rarely exceeds were adapted from scale items used
10 minutes. The instrument can be hand by Rogers and Dymond (1954) in
scored in a few minutes via scoring keys. their classic study of nondirective
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 145

psychotherapy; several original items 2. Describe and evaluate each method

were also included. All of the state- used to estimate reliability. Does
ments were worded for use with chil- the reliability evidence support a
dren aged 8 to 10. Five psychologists decision to use the instrument?
sorted the items into two groups: Explain.
those indicative of high self-esteem 3. Describe and evaluate each type of
and those indicative of low self- validity evidence.
esteem. Items that seemed repetitious 4. Does the validity evidence support a
or ambiguous or about which there decision to use the instrument?
was disagreement were eliminated. Explain.
5. Describe the practical aspects of the
Exercise Questions: instrument, focusing on issues
1. Describe and evaluate the norm related to time required for adminis-
group. Do you think it is representa- tration, ease of administration, and
tive? Do you think the norm group is ease of scoring.
current? Do you believe the size of 6. Summarize the strengths and weak-
the norm group was large enough? nesses of the inventory.
Are the samples related to the popu- 7. Based on your review of the Cooper-
lation you intend to use the test smith SEI, would you adopt this
with? Explain. instrument? Explain your answer.

Administering Assessment Instruments

Many counselors are responsible for administering assessment instruments, whether it be
a standardized test, an informal questionnaire, or a behavioral observation checklist. The
process of administering assessment instruments is an important task, because assessment
results can be invalidated by careless administration (Whiston, 2009). There are numerous
ways that assessment instruments can be administered to a client, each having distinct
advantages and disadvantages (see Table 7.5). Regardless of which mode or format is

TABLE 7.5  Modes of Administering Assessment Instruments

Mode Description Advantages Disadvantages
Self-Administered Examinees read the The examiner does not The motivation or
instructions themselves need to be present. a­ ttitudes of test takers are
and take the test. The not known. They may be
examiner does not need confused or unclear about
to be present. tasks.
Individually The examiner administers The examiner can assess This method is expensive,
­Administered the test to one individual the motivation and at- and only a few individuals
at a time. titudes of the test taker as can be tested each day.
well as thought processes The examiner needs
and cognitive level. The special training and ex-
examiner can probe to perience in administering
gain more information. individual tests.
(continued)
146 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

Table 7.5  Modes of Administering Assessment Instruments  (Continued)

Mode Description Advantages Disadvantages
Group Administered The test is administered This is the most cost- The motivation and atti-
simultaneously to many effective method involving tude of the test takers are
examinees. an examiner. unknown.
Computer The directions for taking The test taker often can get Some individuals may not
­Administered the test and the test itself immediate feedback. The perform well because
are presented on the com- examiner does not neces- of certain disabilities or
puter screen. sarily have to be ­present. because of their attitude
This method allows for toward computers. This
flexibility in scheduling. method may not be
The computer can score, ­practical if many individu-
analyze, and interpret the als are to be tested.
tests of a large group of
individuals. Computer-
adaptive tests usually take
less time to complete.
Video Test directions and/ This method allows for The method may be inap-
­Administration or actual test items are both audio and visual propriate for individuals
presented using video stimuli to be combined. with certain disabilities.
recordings. Simulated or real situa-
tions can be presented. A
wider variety of behaviors
can be assessed.
Audio The test is presented using The examiner can circulate This method is inap-
­Administration audio recordings. to see whether there are propriate for individuals
any problems. Testing time with hearing, listening, or
can be controlled. The ­attention deficits.
quality of the recording
and the type of voice can
be uniformly controlled.
This method is good to
use with individuals who
have reading problems.
American Sign The examiner gives direc- American Sign Language The examiner needs to be
Language tions and presents the test is the first language of experienced in signing and
items using sign language. many individuals with working with individuals
hearing impairments. with hearing impairments.
Some of these individuals
might have learned a dif-
ferent system.
Nonverbal The examiner avoids This method is appropri- The examiner must be
oral or written directions ate for certain individuals trained in administering
and relies on universal with disabilities, such such tests and experienced
hand and body gestures as those with speech in working with the vari-
to explain tasks to the ­disabilities. ous special populations.
examinee.
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 147

Pretesting Procedures
__________ Review manuals and materials.
__________ Read and practice the directions for administering the test.
__________ Schedule room and facilities.
__________ Orient client(s) about the purpose of testing.
__________ Send out notice to remind client(s) of testing time.
__________ Get informed consent if needed.
__________ Identify any special materials or tools needed.
__________ Have testing materials on hand.
__________ Highlight directions in the manual.
__________ Decide on order of administration of tests.
__________ Decide on procedures for collection of test materials.
__________ Prepare answers for specific questions clients might ask.

Immediately Before Administration

__________ Organize test materials.
__________ Make and check seating arrangements.
__________ Check lighting and ventilation.
__________ Arrange clear and adequate work space.
__________ Organize materials and arrange for distribution.

During the Administration

__________ Distribute assessment instrument and materials in the specified manner.
__________ Administer instrument using specified instructions.
__________ Check time limits for the test.
__________ Record any critical incidents.
__________ Note any irregularities in test behavior.

After the Administration

__________ Collect materials in the specified manner.
__________ Follow directions for storing materials.

FIGURE 7.4   Checklist for administering assessment instruments.

used, counselors are responsible for following specified administration procedures.

­Procedures for administering instruments include activities that take place before, during,
and after administration. A counselor might benefit from a checklist of administration
activities like the one illustrated in Figure 7.4.

Before Administration
The first major responsibility of the counselor prior to administering the instrument is to
know all about the instrument. Counselors should review the manual, forms, answer
sheets, and other materials. They should also be familiar with the content of the instru-
ment, the type of items, and the directions for administering the test. One of the best ways
to become familiar with an assessment instrument is to follow the procedures and actually
take the test.
For many instruments, there are management tasks that must be accomplished prior
to the day of administration. For example, when administering a group achievement test,
it is necessary to secure the appropriate number of tests as well as answer sheets and other
test materials. Other pretesting procedures may include scheduling the date for
148 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

a­ dministering the test; scheduling rooms or facilities; ensuring accurate numbers of book-
lets, answer sheets, pencils, and any other needed materials; arranging materials for distri-
bution; and so on.
Examiners must also obtain and document informed consent from examinees orally or in
writing prior to the assessment (American Counseling Association (ACA), 2014). Clients
must be informed about the nature and purpose of the evaluation and of information con-
cerning confidentiality limits and how the security of test results will be maintained (Urbina,
2014). If the client is a minor, then it is necessary to get parental consent before the assess-
ment process begins. Furthermore, the Code of Ethics of the National Board for Certified
Counselors (NBCC, 2013) states that prior to administering assessment instruments or tech-
niques counselors must provide specific information to examinees so that the results may be
put in the proper perspective with other relevant factors. Explaining why an instrument is
being administered, who will have access to the results, and why it is in the test taker’s best
interest to participate in the assessment process can help ensure cooperation (Graham, 2011).
Examiners can provide orientation sessions that can cover the following topics:
1. Purpose of the assessment instrument
2. Criteria used for selecting the assessment instrument
3. Conditions under which the instrument is to be taken
4. Range of skills or domains to be measured
5. Administrative procedures and concerns (e.g., group or individual administration,
time involved, cost)
6. Types of questions on the instrument and an overview
7. Type of scoring, method, and schedule for reporting results to the test taker
Many standardized tests provide sample items and an overview of the test. The examiner
should be sure that all who are going to take a given test have had specific practice with
sample problems or have worked on test-taking skills prior to the test. This requirement is
especially appropriate for aptitude, achievement, and ability testing.
When administering an instrument to a large number of clients or students, the coun-
selor will need help from other individuals, such as teachers, administrators, or counse-
lors. These assistants must be trained on the instrument; this includes a general overview
of the instrument and preferably some practice giving and taking it. Hands-on experience
helps in identifying some of the types of problems that might arise—for example, what to
do with clients or students who finish early. All administrators need to know the guide-
lines for answering questions about the test and the importance of following standardized
procedures in administering the test. In order to make determinations about the test and
its appropriateness for certain clients, counselors should have a comprehensive under-
standing of validity and reliability. Exercise 7.3 provides an opportunity to practice an
evaluation of validity and reliability for a pair of instruments. Review the information and
then complete the exercise questions.

During Administration
When it’s time to administer an assessment instrument, the counselor may begin with a
final check to see that all is in order. For group tests, examiners need to check on materials,
lighting, ventilation, seating arrangements, clear work space for examinees, sharpened
pencils, a “Do Not Disturb” sign, and so on. Individual tests should be administered in a
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 149

Exercise 7.3
Examining Instrument Validity and Reliability
Concurrent validity evidence: SEI scores with the SEI General Self subscale and the
correlated with the SRA Achievement Lie Scale scores at .35 and .39, respectively.
Series and the Lorge Thorndike Intelli- Convergent validity Evidence: Correlation
gence Test at .33 and .30, respectively. between SEI scores and the California Psy-
Predictive validity evidence: Reading chological Inventory Self-Acceptance
Gifted Evaluation Scale (a measure of Scale was .45.
reading achievement) scores correlated

Subscale intercorrelations (internal structure):

Social Home-­ School-­

General Self ­Self-Peers Parents Academic Lie Scale*
General Self — .49 .52 .42 -.02
Social ­Self-Peers — .28 .29 -.09
Home-­Parents — .45 -.04
School-­Academic — -.12

Exercise Questions: 3. Describe and evaluate each type of

validity evidence. Does the validity
1. Describe and evaluate the norm
evidence support a decision to use
group. Do you think it is representa-
the instrument? Explain.
tive? Do you think the norm group is
4. Describe the practical aspects of the
current? Do you believe the size of the
instrument.
norm group was large enough? Is the
5. Summarize the strengths and weak-
sample related to the population you
nesses of the inventory.
intend to use the test with? Explain.
6. Based on your review of the SII,
2. Describe and evaluate each method
would you adopt this instrument?
used to estimate reliability. Does the
Explain your answer.
reliability evidence support a deci-
sion to use the instrument? Explain.

quiet, comfortable place. One of the most important tasks on standardized instruments is
to deliver verbatim instructions given in the test manual and to follow the stated sequence
and timing. Any deviation may change the nature of the tasks on the instrument and may
negate any comparison of results with those of the norming group. There are numerous
ways that assessment instruments can be administered to a client, each with distinct
advantages and disadvantages. Regardless of which mode or format is used, counselors
are responsible for following specified administration procedures.
The counselor also needs to establish rapport with the examinees. For some, the
assessment process may be a new and frightening experience; they may feel fear, frustra-
tion, hostility, or anxiety. When individually administering an instrument, the counselor
150 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

can assess these emotional and motivational factors and positively support the test taker.
In group administration, it is harder to establish rapport, but the examiner can be warm,
friendly, and enthusiastic. The goal is for the results to give a valid picture of the attrib-
utes measured, so the examiner should encourage the examinees to do their best on each
task. Examiners should also recognize the need to be genuine and to understand and
recognize personal biases in order to be both positive and objective. One way this is done
is by listening carefully and observing nonverbal cues. Impartial treatment of all those
being assessed is essential.
Throughout the course of administration, the counselor must be alert to the unique
problems of special populations. Young children and individuals with disabilities may
need shorter test periods and perhaps smaller numbers in the testing group. The exam-
iner may have to administer tests individually or make special provisions for visual,
auditory, or perceptual-motor impairments, being sure to record any deviation from
standardized administrative procedures. Many assessment instruments are designed to
test people with disabilities or give suggested procedures to accommodate various dis-
abilities. The test administrator must also carefully observe what is going on during the
process of administering the instrument. The examiner should record any test behavior
or other critical incidents that may increase or reduce an individual’s opportunity to
perform to capacity. Some instruments have observation forms or rating sales on which
an examiner can record an individual’s test behavior (see Figure 7.5). Problems in test
administration are often the result of inadequate preparation for test taking. The aware-
ness or orientation phase is an important element in helping to alleviate response-set
problems, anxiety, and tension. However, certain problems present themselves only
during the testing situation. Some of these, with possible solutions, are detailed in
Table 7.6.

Attention 1 2 3 4 5
Low High
Response time 1 2 3 4 5
Slow Quick
Activity level 1 2 3 4 5
Passive Active
Security 1 2 3 4 5
III at ease Calm and collected
Anxiety 1 2 3 4 5
Low High
Relationship to examiner 1 2 3 4 5
Poor Good
Need for reinforcement 1 2 3 4 5
Low High
Task orientation 1 2 3 4 5
Gives up Sticks to task
Reaction to failure 1 2 3 4 5
Poor Good
Interest in test 1 2 3 4 5
Low High

FIGURE 7.5   Sample observational scale for test administration.

 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 151

TABLE 7.6  Problems Encountered in Test Administration

Problem Possible Solution
Cheating Create an environment in which cheating is impossible be-
cause of spacing of desks, work areas, and so on.
Client Asks a Question that Is Not Respond with good judgment based on experience with
Addressed in the Manual similar tests.
Guessing Encourage examinees to work on known items first, leaving
unknown items until the latter part of the testing time. Advise
clients to guess if they wish, if the test does not penalize
guessing.
Lack of Effort Be positive and businesslike in explaining the purpose and
importance of the test and exhorting the test taker to do well.
Questions during Testing Explain in the beginning that questions will not be answered
during the test session. While circulating around the test
room, quietly answer only questions resulting from confusion.
Distractions Eliminate the distraction if possible. Apologize to test takers
and explain as much as possible. Allow extra time.
Refusal to Answer In individual testing, repeat the question and ask whether the
test taker understands it. After testing, inquire further if the
test taker should have been able to answer.
Examiner Indecision in the Use Positive reinforcement may help in establishing rapport and
of Praise and Encouragement reducing anxiety. It should not be artificial and should not be
overused.
Examiner Effects Recognize personal biases and be positive but objective. Listen
carefully and observe nonverbal cues.

After Administration
Once the administration is completed, the counselor may have several more tasks to attend
to. For example, when administering a group achievement test, the counselor may need to
collect materials according to a predetermined order, counting the test booklets and answer
sheets and arranging them all face up. In addition, everything should be put back in the
testing kit in the proper way so that it is ready for future use. The counselor should also
take time immediately to record any incident that might invalidate scores.

Scoring Assessment Instruments

As we learned from Chapter 4, counselors must have a clear understanding of assessment
scores and their meaning and interpretation. Recall that there are several different types of
scores that relay an individual’s performance on an assessment, such as percentiles,
T  scores, deviation IQ scores, age/grade equivalents, stanines, and more. Assessment
instruments may differ in the method of scoring. Assessment instruments may be hand
scored, computer scored, sent to the publisher for scoring, or self-scored by the client. Hand
scoring an instrument typically entails the use of scoring keys or templates to aid in the
152 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

scoring process and instructions and conversion charts for transforming raw scores into
standard scores. Hand scoring is neither efficient nor cost-effective given the time it takes
to score the instrument, the need for qualified scorers, and the propensity for errors. Com-
puter scoring involves inputting test results or scanning an answer sheet into a software
program, which then automatically generates test results. Compared to hand scoring,
computer scoring is typically easier to perform, less time-consuming, requires scorers with
less training, and produces fewer scoring errors. However, we recommend that you under-
stand the process of scoring and the information related to standard scores in order to
develop competency in the interpretation of computer-scored assessment instruments.
Some hand-scored instruments demand that the scorer judge the degree of correct-
ness of the response or compare the responses to standards provided. For example, essay
questions on many college placement examinations are scored using a holistic scoring
procedure. The raters have model answers that have been given certain weights, and they
compare the examinee’s essays to these. Such raters are asked to assess answers on a
4-point scale and to make an overall rating, or holistic judgment, rather than assign a cer-
tain number of points to each possible component of the answer.

Scoring Performance Assessment

As opposed to most traditional forms of assessment instruments that may yield scores in
percentiles or standard scores, performance assessments (e.g., projects, portfolios, perfor-
mance tasks, and open-ended exercises) do not have clear-cut right or wrong answers.
Therefore, scoring a performance assessment typically involves the use of a scoring rubric,
which is a set of predetermined criteria or guidelines used to evaluate the test taker’s work.
Scoring rubrics typically include the following components:
1. One or More Dimensions or Attributes on Which Performance Is Rated  These
dimensions are clearly stated verbal descriptions of performance that need to be dis-
played in an individual’s work to demonstrate proficient performance. For example,
a written essay may be rated on such dimensions as content, organization and for-
mat, and grammar and vocabulary.
2. Descriptors or Examples that Illustrate Each Dimension or Attribute Being Measured 
For each dimension, there are usually three to five descriptors (each of which corre-
sponds to a particular rating of performance). For example, the descriptors on the
grammar and vocabulary dimension on a rubric for a written essay may include the
following:
• Poor:  lacks fluency; poor sentence construction; many grammar and spelling errors
• Fair:  some fluency; some mistakes in sentence construction; frequent grammar
and spelling errors
• Good:  adequate fluency; sentence constructions used effectively; some grammar
and spelling errors
• Excellent:  fluent expression; effective use of complex sentence structures; very few
grammatical errors
3. A Rating Scale for Each Dimension  Rating scales used to assess dimensions are
expressed using rank-ordered categories, such as unsatisfactory, below satisfactory,
satisfactory, and exemplary or novice, apprentice, proficient, and excellent. These catego-
ries may also be assigned numerical values, with more points awarded to higher
levels of proficiency.
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 153

Because rubrics rely heavily on the subjective judgment of the individual scoring the
assessment, it is important to consider differences in scorers as a potential source of scor-
ing errors. Interrater reliability should be estimated to determine how consistently scorers
implement the scoring rubric. One way to improve the reliability of a scoring rubric is to
have at least two individuals score the instrument; if there are discrepancies, then the
results are checked by a third reviewer. Workshops for scoring and frequent consistency
checks often improve reliability of the scoring, and renewal sessions for readers allow
them to review responses from earlier tests. Advance placement tests and many state
assessment tests use procedures similar to these to maintain scoring consistency.

Scoring Errors
A key issue in scoring assessment instruments is scoring errors, which can affect significantly
how test results are interpreted. Scoring errors occur frequently, regardless of who is scoring
the instrument or the scorer’s level of experience with testing. Allard and Faust (2000) found
that 20 (13.3%) out of 150 administrations of the Beck Depression Inventory, 56 (28.7%) of 300
administrations of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and 22 (14.7%) of 150 administrations
of the MMPI-II had scoring errors of some kind. Even test takers make scoring errors: Simons,
Goddard, and Patton (2002) found that scoring errors by test takers ranged from approxi-
mately 20% to 66%. Typical scoring errors include assignment of incorrect score values to
individual responses, incorrectly recording responses, incorrectly converting raw scores to
derived scores, and making calculation errors. Instrument developers have certain responsi-
bilities in making clear to the examiner how the instrument is to be scored. In addition, the
examiner has specific responsibilities to ensure that the test is scored correctly.
Computer scoring helps reduce scoring errors, but errors still occur if data is inputted
incorrectly. If optical scanners are used to input data, then answer sheets must be carefully
examined for incomplete erasures or other such problems prior to the scanning. When
hand scoring instruments, errors can be reduced if scorers understand the absolute impor-
tance of accuracy and if procedures are instituted to regularly monitor the required calcu-
lations and score transformations (Urbina, 2014).

Standards for Scoring Assessment Instruments

The 2000 Guidelines of the International Test Commission (ITC) state that test users should
apply quality control procedures to the scoring, analysis, and reporting (SAR) process and
that test users should maintain high standards. Scoring of assessments should be conducted
properly and efficiently so that the results are reported accurately and in a timely manner. We
strongly recommend that you review the ITC standards thoroughly (see intestcom.org/
guidelines). Although we have focused primarily on the Standards for Educational and Psy-
chological Testing (AERA et al., 2014), which guide assessment in the United States, the ITC
standards are used to guide assessment processes throughout the world. Although we are not
able to fully review all of the standards in this book, some of the outlined responsibilities for
persons who score and prepare reports of assessments follow:
1. Provide complete and accurate information to users about how the assessment is
scored, such as the reporting schedule, scoring process to be used, rationale for the
scoring approach, technical characteristics, quality control procedures, reporting for-
mats, and the fees, if any, for these services.
154 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

2. Ensure the accuracy of the assessment results by conducting reasonable quality con-
trol procedures before, during, and after scoring.
3. When using a new test, perform trial or practice runs to establish competency prior
to administering to a client.
4. Create test-specific standards.
5. Minimize the effect on scoring of factors irrelevant to the purposes of the assessment.
6. Inform users promptly of any deviation in the planned scoring and reporting service,
or schedule and negotiate a solution with users.
7. Provide corrected score results to the examinee or the client as quickly as practicable
should errors be found that may affect the inferences made on the basis of the scores.
8. Protect the confidentiality of information that identifies individuals as prescribed by
state and federal laws.
9. Release summary results of the assessment only to those persons entitled to such
information by state or federal law or to those who are designated by the party con-
tracting for the scoring services.
10. Establish, where feasible, a fair and reasonable process for appeal and rescoring the
assessment.

Interpreting Assessment Results

Once an assessment instrument is scored, counselors often have the responsibility of
interpreting results for clients, parents, teachers, and other professionals. To interpret a
score on any type of assessment instrument, counselors must first determine whether the
score reflects norm-referenced or criterion-referenced interpretation. As we discussed in
­Chapter 4, norm-referenced score interpretation involves comparing an individual’s test score
to the scores of other people (i.e., a norm group) who have taken the same instrument.
When using criterion-referenced score interpretation, an individual’s score is measured against
a specified standard or criterion. With a criterion-referenced instrument, the focus is not on
how the individual’s performance compares with others, but rather on how the individual
performs with respect to a particular standard of performance.
Another approach to interpreting assessment instruments is based on the interindi-
vidual (normative) and intraindividual (ipsative) models. Using an interindividual
approach, we examine differences on the same construct across test takers. In other words,
we look at score variations among the different individuals who took the test. Using an
intraindividual approach, we compare a test taker’s scores on various scales within the
same test. We are looking for score discrepancies within the individual. Whenever an
instrument provides a profile of an examinee’s scores on various scales and subtests, an
intraindividual approach is being used.
Responsible interpretation of assessment instruments requires counselors to have
knowledge of the different methods of scoring and the ways of communicating those results
in a manner that clients can understand. Counselors should be well informed about the
various types of scores, such as percentiles, standard scores, and age and grade equivalents.
When interpreting scores, counselors should consider any major differences between
the norm group and the actual test takers. They should also consider the impact any mod-
ifications of administration procedures may have had on test results. The counselor should
be able to explain how any passing scores were set, demonstrate what the results reveal,
and provide evidence that the instrument satisfies its intended purposes. The Code of Fair
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 155

Testing Practices in Education (2004) states that test users should avoid using a single test
score as the sole determinant of decisions about test takers. Test scores should be inter-
preted in conjunction with other information about individuals.
Computer-based assessment instruments often provide computer-generated reports
or narratives. These reports are canned interpretations that the computer generates when
certain test scores are obtained (Butcher, 2012). The reports may contain very complex and
detailed statements or paragraphs that are to be printed out. It’s important that counselors
not view computer-generated reports or narratives as standalone interpretations. Comput-
ers are unable to take into account the uniqueness of the test taker and incorporate impor-
tant contextual elements, such as a client’s personal history, life events, or current stressors.
Therefore, computer-generated reports or narratives are considered broad, general
descriptions that should not be used without the evaluation of a skilled counselor. If a
counselor chooses to use computer-generated reports, it is the counselor who is ultimately
accountable for the accuracy of interpretations.
Interpreting assessment instruments requires knowledge of and experience with the
instrument, the scores, and the decisions to be made. The Responsibilities of Users of Stand-
ardized Tests document (Association for Assessment in Counseling, 2003) identifies several
factors that can impact the validity of score interpretations. These include the following:
• Psychometric Factors  Factors such as the reliability, norms, standard error of meas-
urement, and validity of the instrument can impact an individual’s scores and the
interpretation of test results.
• Test-Taker Factors  The test taker’s group membership (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity,
race, socioeconomic status, relationship status) is a critical factor in the interpretation
of test results. Test users should evaluate how the test taker’s group membership can
affect his or her test results.
• Contextual Factors  When interpreting results, test users should consider the rela-
tionship of the test to the instructional program, opportunity to learn, quality of the
educational program, work and home environment, and other factors. For example,
if the test does not align to curriculum standards and how those standards are taught
in the classroom, then the test results may not provide useful information.

Summary
This chapter presented information relevant to such as knowledge of and training in the instru-
selecting, administering, scoring, and interpret- ment being administered. The counselor must
ing assessment results. Counselors need to be be aware of the many tasks that occur before,
aware of the steps involved in selecting appro- during, and after the administration process.
priate assessment instruments, which include Studies have shown that examiners make
identifying the type of information needed, numerous errors in scoring assessment instru-
identifying available information, determining ments. Consequently, a number of guidelines
the methods for obtaining information, search- and standards address scoring procedures. The
ing assessment resources, and evaluating and scoring of assessments should be conducted
selecting an assessment instrument or strategy. properly and efficiently so that the results are
How an instrument is administered can reported accurately and in a timely manner.
affect the accuracy and validity of the results. To accurately interpret instrument results,
Counselors must have important competencies, counselors need to be well informed about the
156 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results

various types of scores, such as percentiles, also consider any major differences between the
standard scores, and age and grade equivalents. norm group and the test takers.
When interpreting scores, counselors should

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the sources of information about assess- not agree with the results of previous tests you
ment instruments? What are the advantages and had taken? If you were the examiner and found
disadvantages of each source in terms of the type out that you had made some errors in scoring a
of information provided? client’s test, what would you do? What steps and
2. What practical issues need to be considered in procedures should be taken to ensure the accu-
selecting an assessment instrument? racy of test scores?
3. Why is it important to follow the directions 5. Do you agree that counselors should be extremely
strictly when administering a standardized test? careful about interpreting test results for individ-
4. How would you handle the situation if certain uals from diverse backgrounds? Why or why
test results did not appear to be accurate or did not?

Suggested Activities
1. Devise a checklist to use to evaluate assessment Scenario 3
instruments. You are administering a symptom inventory to a cli-
2. Critically review an assessment instrument in ent in an outpatient counseling center. After reading
your field. Use the guidelines for evaluating and the instructions, you leave the client alone to com-
selecting instruments presented in this chapter to plete the inventory. After the client has completed the
organize your review. instrument and left the counseling center, you look
3. Find a test review in the MMY and summarize over his results and notice that he has left a large
the review. What strengths and weaknesses do number of items unanswered.
the reviewers emphasize?
Scenario 4
4. Read the manual for administration for a widely
You are administering a test to a group and have read
used test, such as the SAT or the Graduate Record
the instructions to the individuals and gotten them
Examination. Interview an individual who is
started on the test. Five minutes into the test, one of
responsible for administering the test. What kinds of
the test takers raises his hand, asks a question loudly,
problems has the person encountered in administer-
and disrupts others who are taking the test.
ing the test? How adequate were the directions in
the manual for handling those problem situations? 6. Read the case study and answer the questions
5. Discuss the following four scenarios: that follow:
A company administered a basic skills test to aid
Scenario 1
in selecting new employees. The assistant to the
You are scheduled to administer a diagnostic achieve-
division supervisor administered the test.
ment test to a 6-year-old child. You usually have no
Because the assistant administering the test was
problem establishing rapport, but when you get into
often interrupted by telephone calls and minor
the testing room, the child says to you, “I don’t like
crises, he paid little attention to the applicants
you. I am not going to take any tests for you!” The
taking the test. He estimated the time limit
child puts her hands over her ears.
allowed for taking the test.
Scenario 2 a. What steps could be taken to ensure that the
You are administering a state achievement test to a test is administered properly and fairly to all
large group of students, and you see evidence of a applicants?
student cheating. b. What other procedures would you implement?
 Chapter 7  •  Selecting, Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Results 157

References
Allard, G., & Faust, D. (2000). Errors in scoring objec- Schinka, & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psy-
tive personality tests. Assessment, 7(2), 119–131. chology (pp. 165–191). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
American Counseling Association (ACA). (2014). Sons.
ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. Coopersmith, S. (1981). Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inven-
American Educational Research Association (AERA), tories: Manual. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
American Psychological Association (APA), & Graham, J. R. (2011). MMPI-2: Assessing personality
National Council on Measurement in Education and psychopathology (5th ed.). New York, NY:
(NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psy- Oxford University Press.
chological testing. Washington, DC: Authors. International Test Commission (ITC). (2000). Interna-
American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). tional guidelines for test use. Retrieved from http://
Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct www.intestcom.org/itc_projects.htm
(Rev. ed.).Washington, DC: Author. National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC).
Association for Assessment and Research in Coun- (2013). Code of ethics. Greensboro, NC: Author.
seling. (2003). Responsibilities of users of standard- Simons, R., Goddard, R., & Patton, W. (2002). Hand-
ized tests (RUST). Alexandria, VA: Author. scoring error rates in psychological testing. Assess-
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Man- ment, 9, 292–300.
ual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Anto- Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing.
nio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Butcher, J. N. (2012). Computerized psychological Whiston, S. C. (2009). Assessment in counseling
assessment. In I. B. Weiner, D. K. Freedheim, J. A. (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
 CHAPTER

8 Assessment of Intelligence
and General Ability

The study of intelligence dates back more than a century; over the decades, it has been
characterized by scholarly debates, research breakthroughs, and paradigm shifts about
what constitutes the nature of intelligence. It also brought about the birth of a commercial
industry that generates hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenue (Wasserman,
2003). Assessing intelligence typically encompasses measuring one’s ability to understand
complex ideas, adapt effectively to the environment, think abstractly, learn from experi-
ence, learn quickly, and engage in various forms of reasoning.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Describe the various definitions of intelligence.

JJ Explain the major theories of intelligence and describe their differences.

JJ Define the g factor of intelligence.

JJ Articulate Terman’s study and its relevance in the study of human intelligence.

JJ Describe the various cognitive abilities measured in intelligence tests.

JJ Describe individual intelligence tests and group intelligence tests and explain the

distinctions between the two.

JJ Describe specialized tests of intelligence.

JJ Identify and describe the major tests of intelligence, such as the Wechsler scales and the

Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale.

JJ Explain special issues in intelligence testing, such as heredity, test bias, stability of test
scores, and the Flynn Effect.

Defining Intelligence
What is intelligence? Despite the history behind the study of intelligence, there is still a
lack of agreement on the definition of intelligence. In the book Intelligence 101, Plucker and
Esping (2014) dedicated five pages of text to 19 different definitions proffered by psychol-
ogists over the years. The reason for so many differing definitions is that intelligence is a
complex construct that involves both genetic and social learning components. As long as
theorists and researchers have been studying intelligence, there have been various defini-
tions of the concept and how to measure it. Theorists and researchers have argued over the
traits and dimensions that comprise the construct of intelligence, and literally thousands of
158
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 159

books, research articles, and popular essays on intelligence have been published over the
last 100 years. And yet, there remains no clearly articulated definition of the construct of
intelligence. As such, we will not tender our own definition, but will discuss the concept
from a broad perspective. There is even divergence among professionals about the term
itself: Some professionals prefer using the term general ability rather than intelligence due
to the negative connotations associated with intelligence testing (Whiston, 2012).
Part of the reason scholars have disagreed on how to define intelligence involves the
ongoing debate of whether intelligence is a single, monolithic ability. In other words, is
intelligence a general, unitary concept that governs performance on all tasks and abilities?
This notion, referred to as the general intelligence factor (i.e., g factor), was supported by
some early psychometric research, but it failed to stand the test of scrutiny in educational
settings (Mayer, 2000). Although g as a total representation of intelligence is no longer in
vogue, it is often considered part of the broader construct of intelligence along with
smaller component abilities (e.g., memory, knowledge, processing speed; Ackerman &
Beier, 2012).
Abilities are enduring characteristics of individuals, sometimes called ability traits,
because they are usually stable across time. Abilities can be seen in many domains of indi-
vidual differences, including cognitive, physical (motor skills), visual, auditory, mechani-
cal, and job related, to name a few. When related to intelligence, one refers to cognitive
abilities, which generally constitutes one’s ability to understand complex ideas, solve novel
problems, think abstractly, and engage in various forms of reasoning. In this paradigm,
intelligence is often referred to as general intellectual ability. Therefore, the next logical ques-
tion is this: What specific cognitive abilities make up general intellectual ability? Unfortu-
nately, there is little agreement among researchers as to what those abilities are and which
ones are more important, although some researchers have suggested a common taxonomy
of cognitive abilities (Flanagan & Harrison, 2012; Plucker & Esping, 2014).
New theories that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s took a completely different view
of intelligence. Some theorists refuted the existence of one or several intellectual abilities
altogether and instead favored the notion of multiple separate intelligences. Other theo-
rists, instead of conceptualizing intelligence in terms of abilities, focused on information
processing, which encompasses the cognitive processes required for people to perform
intellectual tasks, such as taking in information (attention, perception) and holding that
information (memory, recall) for further information processing (reasoning, problem solv-
ing, decision making, communication).
As you can see, the construct of intelligence and its meaning have been extensively
discussed, but a multitude of definitions remain. To explore the commonalities among
researchers’ definitions of intelligence, Sternberg and Berg (1986) published a well-known
study that compared definitions from experts in the field of intelligence who met in two
symposia held in 1921 and 1986. The authors reported that common features of defini-
tions included such attributes as adaptation to the environment, basic mental processes,
and higher-order thinking (e.g., reasoning, problem solving, decision making). In addi-
tion, they found that in 1986 more emphasis was placed on metacognition (i.e., awareness
and control of one’s cognitive processes), information processing, and cultural context.
Table 8.1 provides several well-known definitions of intelligence from theorists and
researchers over the last century.
Despite the numerous definitions, the nature of intelligence continues to be elusive.
However, the idea that some individuals are brighter or smarter than others is accepted in
160 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

TABLE 8.1  Some Definitions of Intelligence

Author Year Definition
Spearman 1904 Intelligent behavior is generated by a single, unitary quality within the
human mind or brain.
Stern 1912 A general capacity of an individual consciously to adjust his thinking to
new requirements . . . a general mental adaptability to new problems
and conditions of life.
Binet & Simon 1916 Good judgment and the ability to adapt to the environment.
Terman 1921 The ability to carry on abstract thinking.
Boring 1923 Intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests.
Henmon 1921 The capacity for knowledge along with knowledge possessed.
Pinter 1921 The ability to adapt oneself adequately to relatively new situations in life.
Thorndike 1921 The power of good responses from the point of view of truth or facts.
Thurstone 1924 The capacity for abstraction, which is an inhibitory process.
Wechsler 1953 The aggregate or global ability of the individual to act purposefully, to
think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.
Vernon 1979 The product of the interplay between genetic potentiality and environ-
mental stimulation.
Piaget 1963 Intelligence is assimilation and adaptation.
Gardner 1983 Being able to either solve problems or create new products that benefit
at least a portion of society.
Anastasi 1992 Intelligence is not a single, unitary ability, but rather a composite
of ­several functions. The term denotes that combination of abilities
­required for survival and advancement within a particular culture.
Sternberg 2004 Your skill in achieving whatever it is you want to attain in your life
within your sociocultural context by capitalizing on your strengths and
compensating for, or correcting, your weaknesses.

human society and reflected in language descriptors of ability (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).

Roget’s Thesaurus, for example, provides the following synonyms for intelligence: acumen,
aptitude, brainpower, brilliance, discernment, information, insight, knowledge, learning,
news, notice, report, sense, smarts, understanding, and wisdom. In the field of intellectual
assessment, Wechsler’s definition of intelligence as comprising both aggregate and global
abilities is perhaps the most widely referenced and enduring definition (Wasserman &
Tulsky, 2012); it persists in guiding and influencing the present-day practice of intelligence
testing (Flanagan & Harrison, 2012).

Theories of Intelligence
Just as there are many definitions of intelligence, there are many theories of intelligence. The
first and most widely accepted approach is based on psychometrics, which reveals the struc-
ture or dimensions of intelligence through statistical procedures (such as factor analysis) that
analyze the interrelationships of scores on mental ability tests. This approach was used to
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 161

develop and support the concept of one overall general (g) factor of intelligence. However,
this view was by no means universally accepted among intelligence theorists. Some theorists
endorse the notion of a g factor along with specific abilities that comprise general intelligence;
some view intellectual ability as a hierarchy of general and specific abilities; and some theo-
rists diverge completely from individual intellectual abilities and focus on information pro-
cessing (i.e., the mental operations or processes associated with performing a cognitive task),
cognitive development, or multiple intelligences. Although we are unable to present all of the
many theorists’ views of intelligence, we will present an overview of a few of the more
prominent theories (Table 8.2 provides a comparison of the theories of intelligence).

Spearman’s Two-Factor Theory

Charles E. Spearman is credited as having developed the concept of the g factor of intelli-
gence. He pioneered the statistical technique called factor analysis and used it to offer a

TABLE 8.2  Comparison of the Theories of Intelligence

Specific Cognitive Multiple Information
g Factor Psychometric Abilities Hierarchical Development Intelligences Processing
Spearman’s Two-
X X X
Factor Theory
Thurstone’s
X X
Multifactor Theory
Vernon’s
X X X X
Hierarchical Model
Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc
X X X
Theory
Guilford’s
Structure-of- X X
Intellect Model
Piaget’s Theory
of Cognitive X
Development
Sternberg’s
­Triarchic Theory of X X X
Intelligence
Gardner’s Theory
of Multiple X
Intelligences
Carroll’s Three-
X X X X
Stratum Theory
Das, Naglieri, and
Kirby’s PASS Theory
X
of Cognitive
Processing
Cattell–Horn–
Carroll Theory of ? X X X
Cognitive Abilities
162 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

Vocabulary
s

Arithmetic Reading
reasoning g comprehension
s s

Computation
s

FIGURE 8.1  Diagram of Spearman’s g and s factors.

viable psychometric definition of intelligence. As a graduate student in 1904, Spearman

published a paper on a two-factor theory of intelligence that emphasized (1) a general intel-
ligence factor (g), which is general intellectual ability, and (2) specific factors (s) that vary
according to an individual’s specific abilities. He derived the notion of g through factor
analysis and demonstrated that scores on all mental tests were positively correlated, offer-
ing compelling evidence that all intelligent behavior is derived from one general fund of
mental ability (Plucker, 2003). Spearman’s paper was almost instantly controversial and
generated ongoing scholarly debates related to the g factor and the dissection of intelli-
gence (Wasserman & Tulsky, 2012).
To explain Spearman’s theory, say that we have four cognitive tests measuring
vocabulary, reading comprehension, computation, and arithmetic reasoning. According to
Spearman, each of these tests measures both the g factor and the particular s factor. As
Figure 8.1 illustrates, he believed that s factors overlap the g factor, but the g is the most
important estimate or measurement of someone’s intellectual ability. Although Spear-
man’s theory was developed over 100 years ago, the issue of g versus multiple factors of
intelligence is an issue still hotly debated today (Flanagan & Harrison, 2012).

Thurstone’s Multifactor Theory

Louis L. Thurstone (1938) challenged Spearman’s theory, particularly the notion of a general
factor of intelligence, and was in the forefront of psychometric research identifying multiple
ability factors underlying measures of intelligence. By analyzing scores on 56 different tests
taken by children of different age groups and university students, he identified seven fairly
distinctive factors (rather than a single g factor) that he called primary mental abilities:
1. Numerical Ability  Ability to perform basic mathematic processes accurately and
rapidly.
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 163

2. Verbal Comprehension  Ability to understand ideas expressed in word form.

3. Word Fluency  Ability to speak and write fluently.
4. Memory  Ability to recognize and recall information such as numbers, letters, and
words.
5. Reasoning  Ability to derive rules and solve problems inductively.
6. Spatial Ability  Ability to visualize and form relationships in three dimensions.
7. Perceptual Speed  Ability to perceive things quickly, such as visual details and simi-
larities and differences among pictured objects.
In his research, Thurstone did not find evidence of an overall g factor:

As far as we can determine at present, the tests that have been supposed to be
saturated with the general common factor divide their variance among primary
factors that are not present in all tests. We cannot report any general common
factor in the battery of fifty-six tests that have been analyzed in the present
study. (Thurstone, 1938, p. ix)

Thurstone recommended that individuals be described in terms of a profile of cognitive

abilities rather than a single index of intelligence. In later years, however, he became more
accepting of g if it was conceived to be divisible into primary factors (Thurstone, 1947).

Vernon’s Hierarchical Model

Philip E. Vernon (1950) proposed a hierarchical model of intelligence that organized abilities
at four different levels (see Figure 8.2). The first level of the hierarchy was Spearman’s

Vocabulary

Verbal fluency Verbal reasoning

Sentence completion
Verbal-educational
Arithmetic computation

Numerical ability Arithmetic concepts

Arithmetic reasoning

g factor Comprehension of mechanical tasks

Mechanical comprehension Use of tools and equipment

Mechanical reasoning
Visualize 2-D space
Practical-mechanical-
spatial Spatial relations Visualize 3-D space

Size discrimination
Hand-eye coordination

Psychomotor ability Manual dexterity

Manual speed and accuracy

FIGURE 8.2   Adaptation of Vernon’s hierarchical model of intelligence.

164 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

general factor of intelligence. The second level included two broad abilities: verbal-­
educational ability and practical-mechanical-spatial ability. Each broad ability was further
­subdivided into specific abilities shown on the third level: verbal-educational comprises
verbal fluency and numerical ability, and practical-mechanical-spatial includes mechani-
cal ability, psychomotor ability, and spatial relations. The fourth level consists of even
more special and specific factors particular to the abilities in each of the domains above it.
Because Vernon’s model accounted for a g factor as a higher-order factor as well as other
specific factors, it was viewed as a way to reconcile Spearman’s two-factor theory (which
emphasized the g factor) and Thurstone’s multiple-factor theory (which did not have a g
element; Plucker & Esping, 2014).

Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc Theory

Like Thurstone, Raymond B. Cattell disagreed with Spearman’s concept of g and believed
that one general factor of intelligence was not enough. Instead, he maintained that general
intelligence has two major parts: fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence (Cattell,
1941, 1950, 1971). Fluid intelligence (designated by Gf) has been described by Cattell as the
ability to solve problems and adapt to new situations. It is considered to be more geneti-
cally determined and based on physiological aspects of an individual. Because fluid abili-
ties are considered relatively culture free, they are often reflected in memory span and
spatial thinking tests. Crystallized intelligence (designated by Gc), on the other hand, refers
to acquired knowledge and ability obtained through education and personal experience.
Tests of verbal comprehension and knowledge draw on crystallized abilities. Both types of
intelligence increase throughout childhood and adolescence; however, fluid intelligence
tends to peak in adolescence and begins to decline around age 30 or 40. Crystallized intel-
ligence continues to grow throughout adulthood.
John Horn, a student of Raymond Cattell, worked on a series of studies to enrich and
validate Gf and Gc. However, Horn believed that the available research supported the
presence of several broad abilities beyond Gf and Gc. He extended Cattell’s model to
include nine to 10 broad cognitive abilities: fluid intelligence (Gf), crystallized intelligence
(Gc), short-term acquisition and retrieval (Gsm), visual intelligence (Gv), auditory intelli-
gence (Ga), long-term storage and retrieval (Glr), cognitive processing speed (Gs), correct
decision speed (CDS), quantitative knowledge (Gq), and reading and writing skills (Grw;
Horn & Cattell, 1966a, 1966b, 1967). In addition, he found that over 80 abilities (also called
primary mental abilities) constituted the nine to 10 broad cognitive abilities.
The Gf-Gc theory can be thought of as a two-stratum model. The broad cognitive
abilities are the second stratum, which are based on over 80 first-stratum factors. Although
the model continued to be called Gf-Gc theory, the broad cognitive abilities were treated as
equals (note that the model does not have a g factor). By the early 1990s, scholars generally
recognized the Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc model as the “best approximation of a taxonomic struc-
ture of human cognitive abilities” (McGrew, 2005, p. 143).

Guilford’s Structure-of-Intellect Model

In the 1960s, J. P. Guilford (1967) developed a model that also rejected the existence of
general intelligence, even as a higher-order factor. The structure-of-intellect model is a com-
prehensive, complex model that represents the extreme in terms of the number of factors
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 165

Content
Products

Domains

Dimensions of Guilford’s
Theory of Intelligence

FIGURE 8.3  Dimensions of Guilford’s Theory of Intelligence.

associated with intellectual ability. The model includes 180 unique intellectual factors
organized around three dimensions: operations, contents, and products (see Figure 8.3).
Operations are rules of logic or mental procedures that solve problems. Contents refers to
a particular kind of information. Products are items of information from the same content
category. According to his model, intellectual functioning involves the application of
operations to contents, which results in products. There are six types of operations: cogni-
tion, memory retention, memory recording, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and
evaluation. Each of these operations could be applied to one of five types of contents:
visual, auditory, symbolic, semantic, or behavioral. The application of operations to these
contents results in one of six products: units, classes, relations, systems, transformations,
or implications.

Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

In contrast to the psychometric theories of intelligence, Piaget (1970) conceptualized a
­theory of cognitive development. From his work on the French standardization of Burt’s intel-
ligence tests in 1920, he noticed that children of the same age tended to make exactly the
same type of mistakes. He became interested in understanding how individuals develop
intellectual abilities rather than individual differences in intelligence test performance. He
suggested that intelligence develops through the interaction of biological maturation and
experience and progresses through four stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete opera-
tional, and formal operational periods (see Figure 8.4). Children move through these stages
through the use of two intellectual functions: assimilation and accommodation. A ­ ssimilation
is the process by which a child relates new objects and ideas to familiar objects and ideas.
Accommodation is the process by which a child changes behavior and psychological
­structures in response to environmental events. Piaget’s theories have been the basis of the
166 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

Formal
operational

Concrete
operational

Preoperational

Sensorimotor

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Age in Years

FIGURE 8.4  Piaget’s stages of cognitive development.

design of curriculum materials and educational programs, and a number of scales have
been published to assess an individual’s stage of intellectual development.

Luria’s Model
A. R. Luria (1970) was a Russian neuropsychologist who is best known for his seminal work
on structures of the brain and the behavioral and cognitive deficits associated with various
brain lesions (i.e., areas of brain tissue that appear abnormal). Luria’s research has had con-
siderable influence on intelligence testing; for example, the Kaufman Assessment Battery
for Children (KABC-II) focuses on mental processes based on Luria’s theory. Luria’s work
involved mapping the brain’s systems and functions responsible for human cognitive pro-
cesses, especially the high-level processes associated with the intake and integration of
information and with problem-solving abilities (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a; Luria, 1970).
He identified three main blocks in the brain that represented the brain’s functional systems:
Block 1 is responsible for arousal, concentration, and attention. Block 2 involves the use of
one’s senses to analyze, code, and store information. Block 3 applies executive functions for
formulating plans and programming behavior; it represents the output or response center
of the brain. Although Luria distinguished the three blocks of brain functions and their
separate cognitive processes, his main emphasis was on the integration of these blocks in
order to support all cognitive activity (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004b).

Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence

Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence (1985, 1988, 1997, 1999, 2007) is also
based on the information processing model of intelligence. He believed that intelligence is
comprised of three separate (but interrelated) abilities: analytical (componential), creative
(experiential), and practical (contextual). Analytical intelligence refers to the ability to per-
form academic, problem-solving tasks. Creative intelligence involves the ability to react effec-
tively to novel situations and to find new solutions to problems. Practical intelligence refers
to the ability to solve real-life problems as they arise (also known as common sense). Stern-
berg contended that intelligent behavior arises from a balance between analytical, creative,
and practical abilities, which function collectively to allow individuals to achieve success
within particular sociocultural contexts. In addition, he believed that intelligent individuals
are those who can figure out their strengths and weaknesses and find ways to optimize
their strengths and minimize their weaknesses so they succeed in their environment.
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 167

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1993, 2006, 2011) rejected the tradi-
tional views of intelligence and contended that human intelligence was neither a single
complex entity nor a set of specific abilities. Instead, Gardner suggested that there are
several relatively autonomous intelligences and that an individual’s intelligence reflects a
unique configuration of these intellectual capacities. He stated that “intelligences work
together to solve problems to yield various kinds of end states—vocations, avocations, and
the like” (1993, p. 9). To date, Gardner has identified eight intelligences:
1. Linguistic Intelligence  Describes the ability to perceive and generate spoken or writ-
ten language.
2. Logical/Mathematical Intelligence  Involves the ability to understand and utilize
numerical, abstract, and logical reasoning to solve problems.
3. Spatial Intelligence  Entails the ability to perceive, modify, transform, and create
visual or spatial images.
4. Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence  The ability to use all or part of one’s body to express
ideas and feelings or to produce or transform things.
5. Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence  Involves the ability to perceive, reproduce, or create
musical forms.
6. Interpersonal Intelligence  Describes the ability to perceive, appreciate, and contend
with the moods, intentions, motivations, and feelings of other people.
7. Intrapersonal Intelligence  The ability to understand one’s own feelings and to use
such knowledge in regulating one’s own life.
8. Naturalistic Intelligence  Involves the ability to recognize and classify living and
nonliving forms in one’s environment.
Although not every researcher or theorist accepts Gardner’s theory, his framework
has been applied successfully in many educational settings. Based on the theory of multi-
ple intelligences, many teachers and administrators have tailored educational practices
toward a broader view of intelligence and have sought other ways to assess the various
intellectual abilities of their students.

Carroll’s Three-Stratum Model of Human Abilities

John B. Carroll was an educational psychologist who, over the course of his more than
50-year career, rigorously pursued “the field’s need for a thoroughgoing survey and cri-
tique of the voluminous results in the factor-analytic literature on cognitive abilities”
­(Carroll, 1993, p. vii). Using an empirical approach, he developed the three-stratum model,
which was an extension of previous theories (particularly the Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc model)
that specified what kinds of individual differences in cognitive abilities exist and how
those kinds of individual differences are related to one another (Carroll, 1993). Carroll’s
model was a hierarchical theory composed of three layers, or strata, of cognitive abilities:
• Stratum III: general ability, similar to g.
• Stratum II: broad cognitive abilities, which include fluid intelligence, crystallized intel-
ligence, general memory and learning, broad visual perception, broad ­auditory per-
ception, broad retrieval ability, broad cognitive speediness, and processing speed.
• Stratum I: narrow cognitive abilities, which are specific factors grouped under the
­Stratum II abilities.
168 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

The three-stratum taxonomy suggests that at the highest level cognitive abilities con-
verge to form a general common factor (g; Jensen, 1998); the inclusion of the g is distinct
from the Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc model. As a psychometric approach, Carroll’s theory was
based on a factor analytic study involving over 480 datasets of cognitive ability variables
from psychological tests, school grades, and competence ratings.

Planning-Attention-Simultaneous-Successive Theory of Cognitive Processing

J. P. Das, Jack Naglieri, and John R. Kirby (1994) developed a modern theory of cognitive
ability that is linked to the work of Luria (1966). Das, Naglieri, and Kirby’s (1994) theory
centers on the concept of information processing. They suggested that four cognitive pro-
cesses are the basic building blocks of human intellectual functioning:
1. Planning  A mental activity that involves setting goals, problem solving, knowledge,
intentionality, and self-regulation to achieve a desired goal.
2. Attention  The process involving focused cognitive activity (while ignoring other
distractions).
3. Simultaneous Processing  Involves the ability to synthesize information from a
whole (e.g., spatially) to solve problems.
4. Successive (Sequential) Processing  Involves the ability to solve problems by men-
tally arranging input in a sequential or serial order.
The Planning-Attention-Simultaneous-Successive (PASS) theory offers an innovative
approach in the field of intellectual assessment. The theory rejected the traditional g factor
of intelligence and adopted the term cognitive processes to replace the term intelligence. The
authors maintain that intelligence tests should rely as little as possible on achievement-like
content, such as vocabulary or arithmetic; rather, tests should emphasize the cognitive
processes associated with performance (Naglieri, 2005).

Cattell–Horn–Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model is an integration of the
Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc theory and Carroll’s three-stratum theory (Flanagan, McGrew, &
Ortiz, 2000; McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). The CHC model was formed in the fall of 1985
through a meeting of professionals working on the latest revision of the Woodcock–­
Johnson-Revised (WJ-R). Attendees included Richard W. Woodcock, John Horn, John B.
Carroll, and many others. At the time, Carroll was conducting extensive factor analytic
studies that provided support for a wide variety of cognitive abilities, but he did not view
his work as a “theory” of intelligence. Nevertheless, both Carroll’s work and the Cattell–
Horn model essentially started from the same point as Spearman’s (1904) g factor theory
and ended up with very consistent conclusions about the spectrum of broad cognitive
abilities (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a). Thus, the convergence of the leading test devel-
oper (Woodcock), the leading proponent of the Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc model (Horn), and a
preeminent scholar of factor analysis of cognitive abilities (Carroll) resulted in the birth of
the CHC theory.
The CHC model has been described as a hierarchical, multiple-stratum model with
general intelligence (g) at the apex (or Stratum III), nine broad cognitive abilities (G; Stratum II),
and at least 69 narrow cognitive abilities (Stratum I). The distinguishing feature between the
CHC model and the Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc model is that the CHC model supports the
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 169

Stratum III: General Ability g

is measured by the KABC-II
Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI)

Glr Gsm Gv Gf Gc Gq
Stratum II: Broad Abilities Long-Term Short-Term Visual Fluid Crystallized Quantitative
Gray-shaded abilities are Storage Memory Processing Reasoning Ability knowledge
measured by the KABC-II scales &
Retrieval

Stratum I: Narrow Abilities

Associative Memory Visual Lexical Mathematical
Gray-shaded abilities are Induction
Memory Span Memory Knowledge Achievement
measured by the KABC-II subtests

General
Learning Working Spatial Sequential General Mathematical
Abilities Memory Relations Reasoning Information Knowledge

Free Recall Quantitative Language

Visualization
Memory Reasoning Development

Ideational Spatial Listening

Fluency Scanning Ability

Originality Closure Information

Creativity About Culture
Speed

Serial
Naming Perceptual Geography
Facility Integration Achievement

Oral
Word Length Production
Fluency Estimation and Fluency

Figural Perceptual Communic-

Flexibility Illusions ative
Ability

FIGURE 8.5  Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) model applied to the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children
(KABC-III).

Source: Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children—Second Edition
(K-ABC-II). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Copyright © 2004 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Reproduced
with permission. All rights reserved. “KABC” is a trademark, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson
Education, Inc. or its affiliates(s).

e­ xistence of a g factor (Floyd, Bergeron, Hamilton, & Parra, 2010). The Kaufman Assess-
ment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II), an intelligence test for children ages
3 to 18, is founded on the CHC model (as well as Luria’s processing theory). Figure 8.5
depicts the CHC model as it applies to the KABC-II.
170 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

Terman’s Study

Lewis Terman (1877–1956) is well known for his often moved ahead in the curriculum. As adults,
research on intelligence in children. In 1922, he those in Terman’s sample had the following
began a longitudinal study that sought to answer characteristics:
the following question: What kind of adults do
• More likely to earn graduate degrees and
children with high IQs become (Terman & Oden,
doctorates
1959)? He followed the lives of 1,528 “gifted”
• Earned incomes well above population
(i.e., having IQ scores of 135 or higher) children,
averages
who have been tracked for over 80 years (50
• More satisfied with their life and life’s
years after Terman’s death). The study is the
work
longest-running survey ever carried out with
• Low criminality
regard to intelligence and ability. Contrary to the
• Achieved greater marital success
stereotypes, Terman found that the gifted chil-
• Physically healthier than the average adult
dren were taller, healthier, physically better
• Lower incidence of psychological prob-
developed, and superior in leadership and social
lems (e.g., substance abuse, suicide)
adaptability. They also excelled in school and

Intelligence Tests
Intelligence tests measure a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities, such as reasoning,
comprehension, judgment, memory, and spatial ability. They help us gain an under-
standing of an examinee’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses and are considered excel-
lent predictors of academic achievement and academic success (Sattler, 2008) as well as
success in training and job performance (Muchinsky, 2008). Most intelligence tests
include items that require verbal and nonverbal reasoning and a variety of other cogni-
tive abilities. The terminology used on tests to delineate abilities is numerous and varied
and may be based on a particular theory of intelligence or factor analytic evidence. Table
8.3 presents just a few of the common types of cognitive abilities assessed in intelligence
testing. As with other types of assessment instruments, measures of intellectual ability
can be used for a number of purposes. They may be used for screening; for identification
of intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, or giftedness; to place individuals into
specialized academic or vocational programs; or as a cognitive adjunct to a comprehen-
sive clinical evaluation, in which the main focus is on personality or neuropsychological
assessment (Kaufman, 2000, p. 453).
Intelligence tests typically yield an overall measure of global intelligence as well as
scores on subtests or groups of subtests that represent different cognitive abilities. His-
torically, the most famous index of intelligence is the IQ, or intelligence quotient. This
term came about when Lewis Terman (1916) adopted German psychologist William
Stern’s concept of a mental quotient, renaming it intelligence quotient. (Stern defined men-
tal quotient as the ratio of mental age [MA] to chronological age [CA] multiplied by 100:
IQ = MA>CA * 100.) Thus, if a child’s MA of 5 equals his or her CA of 5, then the IQ is
100 (5>5 * 100), or average intelligence. Although the formula worked fairly well for
children who have a somewhat steady pace of intellectual growth, it did not work for
adolescents and adults, because intellectual development does not steadily increase
throughout the life span; thus, CA would continue growing while MA stayed the same,
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 171

TABLE 8.3  Cognitive Abilities

Abstract reasoning Ability to use concepts and symbols to solve problems

Knowledge The accumulated fund of general information
Memory Ability to recognize and recall information such as numbers, ­letters,
and words
Nonverbal reasoning Ability to solve tasks using spatial ability and visualization
Numerical reasoning Ability to solve problems with numbers or numerical concepts
Perceptual ability Ability to perceive, understand, and recall patterns of information
Processing speed The speed of performing basic cognitive operations
Reasoning Ability to derive rules and solve problems inductively
Spatial ability Ability to visualize and manipulate visual images, geographic
shapes, or objects in three dimensions
Verbal comprehension Ability to understand words, sentences, and paragraphs

resulting in unreliably low IQ scores. Today, the term intelligence quotient and its original
formula are no longer used. Instead, overall test scores are usually converted to a
standard score with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 or 16, depending on the
test. Tests that still refer to IQ scores (such as the Wechsler scales and the Stanford–Binet
Intelligence Scales) are alluding to standard scores, not to actual quotients. Tests may
also provide descriptive classifications in addition to standard scores. It’s important to
remember that hypotheses or recommendations generated solely on IQ scores are not
valid without the inclusion of contextual information gathered from multiple sources,
such as interviews with the client; behavior observations; collateral information from
parents, teachers, and therapists; or other appropriate sources (e.g., information from
records or previous test data).
Intelligence tests can also be categorized based on whether they are administered to
individuals or groups. Individual intelligence tests are administered to a single individual by
a highly qualified examiner. Examiners must be specially trained to administer and score
the varied item types on individual intelligence tests; for example, many tests have items
requiring oral responses from the examinee, have set time limits for certain tasks, and
require examiners to observe qualitative aspects of a test taker’s performance. Individual
tests are considered clinical instruments and are used when intensive psychological evalu-
ation of an individual client is needed—for example, for the identification and classifica-
tion of intellectual disabilities (i.e., mental retardation), learning disabilities, or other
cognitive disorders (Flanagan & Harrison, 2012). In contrast to individual tests, group intel-
ligence tests can be administered to large groups of people either simultaneously or within
a limited time frame by a minimally trained examiner. Less training is required for admin-
istration, because most group tests only require the examiner to read simple instructions
and accurately keep time. The typical group test employs multiple-choice, true/false, or
other selected-response items to ensure uniformity and objectivity of scoring (Flanagan &
Harrison, 2012). Group tests are useful for screening to determine the need for an in-depth
172 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

evaluation, estimating intelligence scores for academic or vocational purposes, and esti-
mating intelligence scores for research studies. Because group tests offer the advantage of
being able to assess many individuals quickly and inexpensively, they are principally
applied in education, business, government, and military settings for screening and place-
ment purposes.
Intelligence tests can also be classified as verbal or nonverbal, or they may contain
items of both types. Verbal intelligence tests presume that examinees have a certain stand-
ard of language ability; they are able to understand language and use it to reason or
respond (Plucker & Esping, 2014). Nonverbal measures of intelligence reduce language in
directions, items, or responses. They may use oral directions, allow examinees to respond
to test items nonverbally, or use puzzles or other manipulatives. Nonverbal tests are
appropriate for special populations, such as individuals who are non-English speaking,
who are deaf or hearing impaired, or who have other types of language or physical disa-
bilities or reading problems.

Ability, Intelligence, Achievement, and Aptitude

Intelligence can be referred to using a number of different terms, such as ability, intellectual
ability, general ability, and cognitive ability. Similarly, intelligence tests are often called cogni-
tive ability tests, general ability measures, or simply ability tests. Although this terminology is
generally accurate, in the context of assessment, intelligence, achievement, and aptitude
are all aspects of an individual’s overall ability, and there are separate tests that measure
each area:
• Intelligence Tests  Measure an individual’s current intellectual ability level
• Achievement Tests  Measure what an individual knows or can do right now, in the
present
• Aptitude Tests  Are future oriented, predicting what an individual is capable of doing
with further training and education
To obtain an overall picture of an individual’s abilities, examiners analyze information
from all three areas (achievement and aptitude assessment will be discussed further in
Chapters 9 and 10 of this text). Table 8.4 provides a description of the general features and
distinguishing characteristics of intelligence, achievement, and aptitude tests.
In the next section, we will describe a few of the more prominent individual, group,
and specialized tests of intelligence. We do not attempt to provide a comprehensive descrip-
tion of each test, which would be outside the scope of this textbook. We recommend that
readers examine test manuals for more information about specific intelligence tests.

Individual Intelligence Tests

Individual intelligence tests are used widely and for various purposes. Each individual
test has been normed on a specific population and population subsets. It is important to be
familiar with a number of individual tests and to select the appropriate one based on the
person being assessed.

The Wechsler Scales  Despite the number of intelligence tests available, the Wechsler
scales continue to dominate the field; their popularity is unrivaled in the history of intel-
lectual assessment. In 1939, David Wechsler, a psychologist at Bellevue Hospital in New
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 173

TABLE 8.4  Distinguishing Characteristics of Intelligence, Achievement, and Aptitude Tests

Purpose Orientation Use

Intelligence tests Measure a broad Present and • To determine need for more in-depth
spectrum of cognitive future evaluation
abilities • To identify intellectual disabilities,
­learning disabilities, or giftedness
• For placement/selection into ­specialized
academic or vocational programs
• As part of a comprehensive clinical
evaluation
Achievement tests Measure knowledge and Present • To identify academic strengths and
skills learned as a result weaknesses
of instruction • For placement/selection into ­specialized
academic or vocational programs
• To track achievement over time
• To evaluate instructional objectives and
programs
• To identify learning disabilities
• As part of a comprehensive clinical
evaluation
Aptitude tests Measure talents or Future • To predict future performance
­performance abilities • For placement/selection into ­specialized
prior to instruction academic or vocational programs
• For job placement decisions
• As part of a comprehensive clinical
evaluation

York, first published an individual intelligence test (i.e., the Wechsler–Bellevue Intelli-
gence Scale). Since that time, he developed a series of three intelligence scales designed for
different age groups. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) is designed to assess
the cognitive abilities of individuals aged 16 to 89 years. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children (WISC-V) is for children of ages 6 years through 17 years. As is the case when new
assessment instruments are released, there is an overlap of time between the use of the
previous version and the adoption of the new version. In preparing to become professional
counselors, you should become familiar with the information related to the WISC-IV
because it is still currently used and also explore the information related to the WISC-V
because it will be widely adopted in the coming years.
The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-IV) is designed for very
young children of ages 2 years through 6 years. The Wechsler scales continue to be the
most widely used measure of intelligence the world over. A study by Camara, Nathan, and
Puente (2000) found that among intelligence tests the WAIS-II and the WISC-III were the
most frequently used by psychologists. In this section, we will discuss the WAIS-IV, the
WISC-IV, and the WPPSI-IV.
174 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

TABLE 8.5  Indexes and Subtests for the Wechsler Intelligence Scales (WAIS-IV, WISC-IV, WPSSI-III)

Wisc IV •  Verbal Comprehension Index - two subtests - two supplemental

•  Visual Spatial/Fluid Reasoning Index - four subtests - two supplemental
•  Working memory Index - two subtests - one supplemental
•  Processing Speed Index - two subtests - one supplemental

WAIS-V •  Verbal Comprehension Index - three subtests - one supplemental

•  Perceptual Reasoning Index - three subtests - two supplemental
•  Working Memory Index - two subtests - one supplemental
•  Processing Speed Index - one subtests - two supplemental
•  General Ability Index - optional

WPPSI-IV •  Verbal IQ - five subtests

•  Performance IQ - six subtests
•  Working Memory - two subtests
•  Processing Speed - two subtests

Each of the three Wechsler scales yields a Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ), index composite
scores, and subtest scaled scores (Table 8.5 lists the indexes and subtests for the Wechsler
scales). The FSIQ is considered the most representative estimate of global intellectual func-
tioning and is derived from a combination of the subtest scores. The index composite scores
measure more narrowly defined cognitive domains and are composed of the sum of vari-
ous subtest scores. Subtest scores are measures of specific abilities. The FSIQ and index
composite scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The subtest scaled
scores have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3.
Earlier versions of the Wechsler scales did not use index scores, but utilized a dual IQ
structure that included two IQ scores: verbal IQ (VIQ) and performance IQ (PIQ). The VIQ
score summarized an individual’s performance on subtests designed to measure vocabu-
lary, general knowledge, verbal comprehension, and working memory. The PIQ score
measured visual-motor skills, alertness to details, nonverbal reasoning, processing speed,
and planning ability. The use of the dual IQ structure appears to be changing, as the latest
edition of the WISC completely eliminated the VIQ and PIQ scores in favor of the four
index scores (see Table 8.6 for a description of the WISC-IV indexes and subtests). The
WPPSI-IV now has five index scores: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Visual Spatial
Index (VSI), Working Memory Index (WMI), Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), and Processing
Speed Index (PSI).
Interpreting scores on the Wechsler scales is very complicated and requires consider-
able education and training. Interpretation strategies, described fully in the test manuals
(The Psychological Corporation, 1997, 2002, 2003), are beyond the scope of this textbook;
however, we will review a few basic interpretive steps. The first step is reporting and
describing the examinee’s FSIQ score (i.e., the examinee’s overall level of intellectual
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 175

TABLE 8.6  Description of Full-Scale IQ, Indexes, and Subtests on the WISC-IV

Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) Global and aggregate measure of intelligence.

Verbal Comprehension This index measures verbal knowledge/understanding obtained
Index (VCI) through both informal and formal education. It reflects application
of verbal skills to new situations. One of the best predictors of overall
intelligence.
Similarities This subtest measures verbal reasoning and concept formation. The
individual must identify the similarity between two dissimilar words
and describe how they are similar.
Vocabulary Measures word knowledge and verbal concept formation. The
individual is required to name the pictures displayed in the stimulus
book and give definitions for words the examiner reads aloud.
Comprehension Measures verbal reasoning and conceptualization, verbal
comprehension, and verbal expression. The individual must answer
questions based on his or her understanding of general principles
and social situations.
Information* Measures the individual’s ability to acquire, retain, and retrieve
general factual knowledge. The test requires the child to answer
questions that address a broad range of general knowledge topics.
Word Reasoning* Measures verbal comprehension, word reasoning, verbal
abstraction, domain knowledge, the ability to integrate and
synthesize different types of information, and the ability to generate
alternative concepts. This test requires the individual to identify the
common concept being described in a series of clues.
Perceptual Reasoning This index measures one’s ability to interpret and organize visual
Index (PRI) information and to solve problems.
Block Design This subtest measures the ability to analyze and synthesize abstract
visual stimuli. The individual views a constructed model or a picture
in the stimulus book. Within a specified time limit, the examinee
recreates the design using nine identical blocks; each block has two
sides that are all red, two sides that are all white, and two sides that
are half red/half white.
Matrix Reasoning Measures fluid intelligence, attention to detail, concentration, and
reasoning ability; overall, a reliable estimate of general nonverbal
intelligence. In this exercise, a child examines a matrix (filled with
pictures of certain objects) that is missing a section. The child then
selects the missing portion from a group of picture options.
Picture Concepts Measures abstract, categorical reasoning ability. The individual
sees rows with pictures of various objects and selects those objects
that are similar and should be grouped together. For example, the
similar items might be trees or animals.
Picture Completion* Measures visual perception and organization, concentration, and
visual recognition of essential details of objects. This test requires
the ­individual to view a picture and then point to or name the
important part missing within a specified time limit.
(continued)
176 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

Table 8.6  Description of Full-Scale IQ, Indexes, and Subtests on the WISC-IV  (Continued)

Working Memory Index This index measures one’s ability to temporarily retain information
(WMI) in memory, perform some operation or manipulation with it, and
produce a result. Involves attention, concentration, and mental
control.
Digit Span This subtest is composed of two parts. The Digit Span Forward task
­requires the individual to repeat numbers in the same order as read
aloud by the examiner. Digit Span Backward requires the individual
to repeat the numbers in the reverse order of that presented by
the examiner. This subtest measures auditory short-term memory,
sequencing skills, attention, and concentration.
Letter-Number ­Sequencing Measures attention, short-term memory, concentration, numerical
a­ bility, and processing speed. The individual is asked to read
a sequence of numbers and letters and recall the numbers in
ascending order and the letters in alphabetical order.
Arithmetic* Measures mental manipulation, concentration, attention, short-
and long-term memory, numerical reasoning ability, and mental
alertness. It requires the individual to mentally solve a series of orally
presented arithmetic problems within a specified time limit.
Processing Speed Index This index measures one’s ability to quickly and correctly scan,
(PSI) ­sequence, or discriminate simple visual information. Involves
­concentration and rapid eye-hand coordination.
Coding This subtest measures the individual’s short-term memory, learning
ability, visual perception, visual-motor coordination, visual scanning
ability, cognitive flexibility, attention, and motivation. The individual
copies symbols that are paired with simple geometric shapes or
­numbers.
Symbol Search Measures processing speed, short-term visual memory, visual-
motor coordination, cognitive flexibility, visual discrimination, and
concentration. The individual is presented with a series of paired
groups of symbols, with each pair containing a target group and a
search group. The individual scans the search group and indicates
whether the target symbol(s) matches any of the symbols in the search
group within a specified time limit.
Cancellation* Measures processing speed, visual selective attention, vigilance, and
visual neglect. The individual scans both a random and a structured
arrangement of pictures and marks target pictures within a specified
time limit.

*Supplemental subtest

­ability). Examiners ­compare the examinee’s FSIQ to those of the general population (as
identified by the performance of the norm group, from which all scores are derived). The
population of the United States has an average intelligence score of 100. Table 8.7 identifies
the descriptive classifications for FSIQ and index composite score ranges on the Wechsler
scales. Using this table, we see that a ­person who has an FSIQ score of 100 is functioning
within the average range of intellectual ability. Examiners should report the FSIQ score
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 177

TABLE 8.7  Descriptive Classifications for FSIQ and Index Composite Scores
Percent Included
Composite Score Classification Percentile Range % in Normal Curve
130 and above Very Superior 98–99 2.2
120–129 Superior 91–97 6.7
110–119 High Average 75–90 16.1
90–109 Average 25–74 50.0
80–89 Low Average  9–24 16.1
70–79 Borderline 3–8 6.7
69 and below Extremely Low 1–2 2.2

along with the appropriate percentile rank and descriptive classification in relation to the
level of performance (e.g., average, high average).
Another step in interpretation involves interpreting the index scores. Examiners
may begin by reporting each index score, including the qualitative description and the
percentile rank. Examiners can also analyze an examinee’s strengths and weaknesses on
the index scores by identifying significant statistical differences between the index scores
(based on the normal curve). For example, an examinee may have a good verbal ability
(high VCI) but a weakness in working memory (a relatively lower score on WMI). In
order to determine if differences between index scores are significant, examiners refer to
tables located in the test manual that identify critical index score values by age group. For
example, according to the WISC-IV manual, a 13-year-old child whose VCI score is 15
points higher than his WMI score is considered statistically significant (at the .05 level).
Examiners can also identify differences between an examinee’s index scores and base rate
data, which are scores observed within the general population. Interestingly, it is possible
for index scores to be statistically different from each other and yet, because the difference
occurs so often within the population (base rate), have difference between the two scores
be meaningless. Therefore, it is very important to consider both significant differences
and base rates between an individual’s index scores when making clinical and educa-
tional planning decisions.
Interpretation can also involve describing and analyzing subtest scores within an
individual’s profile. Using a three-category descriptive classification, subtest scores may
be described as follows (understanding that subtests have a mean of 10 and a standard
deviation of 3; Sattler & Dumont, 2004):
• Subtest scaled scores of 1 to 7 indicate a relative weakness (one to three standard devi-
ations below the mean).
• Subtest scores of 8 to 12 indicate average ability (within one standard deviation from
the mean).
• Subtest scores of 13 to 19 indicate a relative strength (one to three standard deviations
above the mean).
Significant differences between the highest and lowest subtest scores are called subtest
scatter, which can be useful in specifying particular strengths and weaknesses of an
178 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

i­ndividual’s performance. Examiners can also analyze subtest scores using a base-
rate approach to compare an examinee’s subtest scores with the scores of the general
population.
Because of the complexity of interpretation, it is very important for the skilled exam-
iner to not only be trained in the administration of the Wechsler scales but also receive
advanced graduate training in the interpretation of examinees’ performance. Furthermore,
it’s essential to remember that test scores are only one method of assessment. Interpreta-
tions for test results are always made in conjunction with an individual’s background
information, direct behavioral observation, and other assessment results. Table 8.8 shows
sample WISC-IV test results.

TABLE 8.8  WISC-IV Sample Test Results

Composite Score Percentile Descriptive Classification

Verbal Comprehension (VCI) 116 86 High Average

Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) 92 30 Average
Working Memory Index (WMI) 110 75 High Average
Processing Speed Index (PSI) 97 42 Average
Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) 106 66 Average
Scaled Score Percentile
Verbal Comprehension Subtests
Similarities 16 98
Vocabulary 10 50
Comprehension 13 84
Information 11 63
Word Reasoning 12 75
Perceptual Reasoning Subtests
Block Design 8 25
Picture Concepts 10 50
Matrix Reasoning 8 25
Picture Completion 6 9
Working Memory Subtests
Digit Span 11 63
Letter-Number Sequencing 13 84
Arithmetic 13 84
Processing Speed Subtests
Coding 9 37
Symbol Search 10 50
Cancellation 10 50

Source: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). Copyright © 2003 by NCS Pearson, Inc.
Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. “Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children” and “WISC” are
trademarks, in the United States and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates(s).
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 179

In terms of psychometric properties, the Wechsler scales were standardized on large

samples of individuals that were selected to match U.S. Census Bureau data on the varia-
bles of age, gender, geographic region, race/ethnicity, and parental education/education
level. The sizes of the normative samples are 2,200 and 1,700 for the WAIS-IV and WISC-IV,
respectively. The latest Wechsler scales have considerable evidence that supports c­ onstruct
validity; that is, the scales measure overall general intellectual abilities as well as verbal
comprehension, perceptual organization/perceptual reasoning, working memory, and
processing speed (Wechsler, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2012), and many studies indicate that the
Wechsler scales correlate highly with other measures of intelligence. In terms of reliability,
the internal consistency reliability coefficients of the Full-Scale IQ scores and index scores
are in the .90s (except for PSI, which ranges from .87 to .89), and test-retest reliabilities
range from .86 to .96 (The Psychological Corporation, 1997, 2002, 2003). Exercise 8.1 pro-
vides an opportunity to apply the information you are learning about intelligence assess-
ment to a case study. Consider the information provided, and complete the three exercise
questions.

Exercise 8.1
Understanding Intelligence Assessment: Jackie
Jackie is a 10-year-old Caucasian female 2. Interpret Jackie’s index composite
who was referred for an evaluation because scores, and describe what each index
of academic problems. She is currently in measures. Use the following inter-
the fifth grade. According to her mother, pretation of the FSIQ as the format
Jackie has attended the same school since for your answers:
initial enrollment in school, including pre-
The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is an esti-
kindergarten. She has an excellent attend-
mate of global intellectual function-
ance record, is extremely well-behaved in
ing. Jackie’s FSIQ is 97, which is
school, and has an exemplary conduct
within the average range of intellec-
record in the past. Regarding her academic
tual functioning. She scored at the
performance, Jackie is currently experienc-
42nd percentile, which means that
ing many academic difficulties and has
her score is equal to or exceeds
had many academic difficulties in the past.
approximately 42% of the national
Most recent standardized achievement test
comparison group.
results show that she scored below aver-
age in reading, math, and language. • Verbal Comprehension Index
Jackie arrived on time for the assess- • Perceptual Reasoning Index
ment and was accompanied by her mother. • Working Memory Index
Jackie appeared alert and highly moti- • Processing Speed Index
vated and appeared to put her best effort
into the testing process. 3. Based on her subtest scores, how
would you describe any relative sub-
1. Identify the descriptive classifica-
test strengths and weaknesses Jackie
tions of the FSIQ, index scores, and
may have?
subtest scaled scores.
180 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

Exercise 8.1
(Continued)
Composite Descriptive
FSIQ and Index Scores Score Percentile Classification
Verbal Comprehension (VCI) 104 61
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) 102 55
Working Memory Index (WMI) 86 18
Processing Speed Index (PSI) 91 27
Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) 97 42
Descriptive
Subtest Scores Scaled Score Percentile Classification
Verbal Comprehension Subtests
Similarities 11 63
Vocabulary 11 63
Comprehension 11 63
Information 10 50
Word Reasoning 10 50
Perceptual Reasoning Subtests
Block Design 9 37
Picture Concepts 10 50
Matrix Reasoning 13 84
Picture Completion 10 50
Working Memory Subtests
Digit Span 8 25
Letter–Number Sequencing 7 16
Arithmetic 10 50
Processing Speed Subtests
Coding 8 25
Symbol Search 9 37
Cancellation 8 25

Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition  One of the oldest and most widely
used intelligence tests is the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, now in its fifth edition. The
Stanford–Binet, which originated from the Binet–Simon scale in 1905, was first published
in 1916 by Lewis Terman at Stanford University (Becker, 2003). The latest edition of the
Stanford–Binet was published in 2003 and is appropriate for use with individuals between
the ages of 2 and 85-plus years. It normally takes 45 to 75 minutes to administer the test.
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 181

The fifth edition of the Stanford–Binet was constructed on a five-factor hierarchical cogni-
tive model that includes the following scales:
• Full-Scale IQ  Measures the ability to reason with both words and visual material,
the ability to store and later retrieve and apply important knowledge, broad span of
memory for both words and visual details, spatial-visualization ability, and the abil-
ity to solve novel problems with numbers and number concepts.
• Nonverbal IQ (NVIQ)  Measures reasoning skills in solving picture-oriented, abstract
problems; remembering facts and figures presented in visual displays; solving
numerical problems shown in picture form; assembling visual puzzles; and remem-
bering information presented in visual space.
• Verbal IQ (VIQ)  Measures general verbal reasoning ability—solving problems pre-
sented in printed or spoken words, sentences, or stories.
The FSIQ, VIQ, and NVIQ have composite scores with a mean of 100 and a standard devi-
ation of 15, and the VIQ and NVIQ each include five subtests, each having a mean of 10
and a standard deviation of 3. The subtests are organized into five cognitive factors in both
the verbal and nonverbal domains:
1. Fluid Reasoning  The ability to solve novel problems, whether presented verbally or
nonverbally
2. Knowledge  The accumulated fund of general information acquired at home, school,
work, and in daily life
3. Quantitative Reasoning  The ability to solve problems with numbers or numerical
concepts
4. Visual Spatial Processing  The ability to see patterns and manipulate visual images,
geographic shapes, or 3-D objects
5. Working Memory  The ability to store information in short-term memory and then
sort or transform that information
Interpreting the Stanford–Binet involves identifying and evaluating any significant
discrepancies between the NVIQ and VIQ and among the subtest scores. Extensive tables
for evaluating score differences are available in the Stanford–Binet Technical Manual. The
FSIQ is interpreted using the descriptive categories shown in Figure 8.6 (Roid, 2003).

Average

Delayed Superior

Impaired Stanford
Gifted or
or Binet (SB-5)
Advanced
Delayed Categories

FIGURE 8.6  Descriptive Categories for the Stanford–Binet Full-Scale IQ

182 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

Extensive reliability and validity studies were conducted as part of the standardi-
zation of the fifth edition of the Stanford–Binet. The test norms were based on 4,800
individuals and were stratified according to a 2001 U.S. Census Bureau report on age,
gender, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and socioeconomic level. Internal consistency
reliability ranged from .95 to .98 for IQ scores, from .90 to .92 for the five Factor Index
scores, and from .84 to .89 for the 10 subtests. Correlations between the Stanford–Binet
and other intelligence tests yielded .90, .84, .82, and .83 for the Stanford–Binet fourth edi-
tion, WISC-III, WAIS-III, and WPPSI-R, respectively. Test-retest and interrater reliability
studies were also conducted and showed the stability and consistency of scoring of the
Stanford–Binet.

The Kaufman Instruments  Another important name in the area of intelligence testing is
Kaufman. In the 1970s and early 1980s, husband-and-wife team Alan and Nadeen ­Kaufman
created a series of intelligence tests (based on their extensive clinical and research experience
and their great knowledge in the assessment field), which included the ­Kaufman Assess-
ment Battery for Children (KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a), the Kaufman Adolescent
and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1993), the Kaufman Brief Intelli-
gence Test (KBIT-2; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004b), and many other instruments. The first
edition of the KABC was the first intelligence test to be founded on two theoretical models:
Luria’s processing model and the CHC model. We will present further information about
the KABC-II and the KAIT.
The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II; Kaufman &
Kaufman, 2004a) was designed to measure a range of cognitive abilities in children aged
3 to 18. The instrument is grounded in two modern theoretical models: Luria’s neuropsy-
chological theory of processing and the CHC model of broad and narrow abilities.
Because of its dual theoretical foundation, the KABC-II may be interpreted based on
either interpretive approach (i.e., the Luria model or the CHC approach), depending on
which approach the examiner chooses to take. The KABC-II yields a separate global
score for each of the two theoretical models: the Mental Processing Index (MPI), which
measures mental processing ability from the Luria perspective, and the Fluid-Crystallized
Index (FCI), which measures general cognitive ability from the CHC model. The primary
difference between these two global scores is that the MPI (Luria’s model) excludes meas-
ures of acquired knowledge, whereas the FCI (CHC theory) includes measures of acquired
knowledge (Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-Janzen, & Kaufman, 2005). Only one of
these two global scores is computed for any examinee. The KABC-II also yields scores on
five broad abilities scales and 18 core and supplementary subtests; however, an exam-
iner would not use all 18 with one child. The selection of subtests is based on the age
range of the child and which theoretical approach is used for interpretation. Table 8.9
provides a description of the KABC-II scales and core subtests for the 7 to 18 age range.
The instrument provides standard scores, percentiles, and age equivalent scores. For the
broad ability scales, standard scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
Descriptive categories are also provided based on various standard score ranges: upper
extreme (standard score of 131 or greater), above average (116 to 130), average (85 to
115), below average (70 to 84), and lower extreme (79 or less). The KABC-II was stand-
ardized on a sample of 3,025 children reflective of the demographics of the 2001 U.S.
Census report. The test manual reports strong evidence of internal consistency and test-
retest reliabilities as well as evidence of construct validity. Global scores of the KABC-II
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 183

TABLE 8.9  KABC-II Scales and Core Subtests

Scales and Subtests Description

Sequential/Gsm Measures the ability to arrange input into a sequential or serial order to solve
a problem.
Number Recall Measures sequential processing and short-term memory; the examiner speaks
a series of numbers, and the child repeats them.
Word Order Measures sequential processing and short-term memory; the examiner speaks
a series of words, and the child points to pictures of those words in the same
sequence.
Simultaneous/Gv Measures ability to integrate and synthesize input simultaneously, usually
­spatially, to solve a problem.
Rover Measures visual processing; the child moves a toy dog to a bone on a
­checkerboard-like grid that contains obstacles (rocks and weeds) and tries to
find the “quickest” path (e.g., the one that takes the fewest moves).
Triangles (7–12) Measures visual ability and spatial relationships; the child arranges shapes to
match a model or picture.
Block Counting (13–18) Measures visualization of objects in three dimensions; the child counts how
many blocks are present in a picture.
Planning/Gf Measures high-level, decision-making, executive processes including analysis,
planning, and organization.
Pattern Reasoning Nonverbal measure of reasoning skills and hypothesis testing necessary for
problem solving; the examinee is presented with set of images and must
­select an image that completes the pattern (most images are abstract,
­geometric shapes).
Story Completion Nonverbal measure of planning and reasoning skills; the child is shown an
incomplete series of pictures and has to choose picture cards to complete
the story.
Learning/Glr Measures ability to integrate cognitive processes associated with learning,
retaining, and efficiently retrieving information.
Atlantis Measures ability to learn new information through association between
pictures and nonsense names; the child is taught names for fanciful pictures
of fish, plants, and shells; the child then demonstrates learning by pointing to
and naming each picture.
Rebus Learning Measures ability to learn new information; the examiner teaches the child
the word or concept associated with each particular rebus (drawing), and the
child then “reads” aloud phrases and sentences composed of these rebuses.
Knowledge/Gc Measures verbal knowledge, verbal comprehension, and verbal reasoning.
Riddles Measures verbal comprehension, verbal reasoning, and word retrieval; the
examiner reads a riddle, and the child answers the riddle by either pointing to
a picture of a concrete or abstract concept or naming it.
Verbal Knowledge Measures vocabulary and general information; the child selects a picture
that corresponds to a vocabulary word or answers a general information
­question.
184 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

correlated strongly with the WISC-III, WISC-IV, and WPPSI-III FSIQs. Raiford and Coal-
son (2014) found that the correlation remained strong between the KABC-II and the
WPPSI-IV.
The Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1993)
is designed for individuals of ages 11 to 85 years. The core battery consists of three intelli-
gence scales (i.e., Fluid, Crystallized, and Composite Intelligence) and six subtests—three
that assess fluid intelligence and three that assess crystallized intelligence. The Fluid scale
measures the ability to solve novel problems by using reasoning, which is considered a
function of biological and neurological factors. The Crystallized scale measures ability to
solve problems and make decisions based on acquired knowledge, verbal conceptualiza-
tion, formal and informal education, life experience, and acculturation. The Composite
score provides a measure of overall intellectual functioning. The instrument was standard-
ized on a national sample of 2,000 individuals. The manual reports validity and reliability
information, including information on correlational studies with the WISC-IV, the
WAIS‑III, and the KABC-II, as well as internal consistency reliability coefficients in the
.90s. Additional studies have shown similar relationships with the WAIS-IV (Lichten-
berger & Kaufman, 2012)

Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities  The Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of

Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2007) is one of the most
widely used instruments for assessing cognitive abilities in individuals aged 2 to 90-plus
years. The WJ III COG is based on the CHC theory of cognitive abilities. On the WJ III COG,
scores represent cognitive ability at four different levels:
• First Level  Consists of 31 cognitive tests that measure broad and narrow cognitive
abilities. Rarely do examiners use all 31 tests; rather, they select appropriate tests
based on the purpose of assessment.
• Second Level  Several clusters of broad cognitive abilities derived from the 31 cogni-
tive tests.
• Third Level  Three categories of broad cognitive abilities, including verbal ability
(acquired knowledge and language comprehension), thinking ability (intentional cog-
nitive processing), and cognitive efficiency (automatic cognitive process).
• Fourth Level  Consists of a general intellectual ability (GIA) score.
The WJ III ACH provides a variety of scores, including age and grade equivalents, raw
score/number correct, percentile ranks, and standard score (mean = 100; SD = 15). It
also provides the following average standard score descriptors: standard scores of 131 and
above are very superior, 121–130 are superior, 111–120 are high average, 90–110 are average,
80–89 are low average, 70–79 are low, and 69 and below are very low.
The WJ III COG was developed with the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement
(WJ III ACH), and together these instruments provide a comprehensive assessment for
measuring intellectual abilities and academic achievement. Using the WJ III COG and the
WJ III ACH together, professionals can make accurate comparisons of an individual’s cog-
nitive abilities, oral language ability, and achievement scores (Schrank, Flanagan,
­Woodcock, & Mascolo, 2010).

Additional Individual Intelligence Tests  The Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition
(DAS–II; Elliot, 2007) is a comprehensive, individually administered instrument for assessing
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 185

cognitive abilities of children aged 2 years through 17 years. The DAS was initially devel-
oped to provide professionals assessing children with learning disabilities and develop-
mental disabilities with information at a finer level of detail than an IQ score; thus, its main
focus is on specific abilities rather than on general “intelligence.” In addition to learning
disabilities, the DAS-II is also appropriate for children with a variety of special classifi­
cations, including ADHD, language impairment, limited English proficiency, mild to
moderate intellectual impairment, and gifted/talented children. The DAS-II consists of
20 core and diagnostic subtests that are grouped into three batteries: Early Years Battery
(Lower Level) for ages 2 years, 6 months to 3 years, 5 months; Early Years Battery (Upper
Level) for ages 3 years, 6 months to 6 years, 11 months; and School Age Battery for ages
7 years to 17 years, 11 months. These batteries provide the General Conceptual Ability score
(GCA), which is a composite score that focuses on reasoning and conceptual abilities.
The Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised for Children and Adults (SIT-R3) is a 187-item oral
screening instrument that was designed to provide a quick estimate of general verbal cog-
nitive abilities of individuals aged 4 to 65. It measures the following cognitive areas: vocab-
ulary, general information, similarities and differences, comprehension, quantitative, and
auditory memory. As a screening instrument, it can be used to provide tentative diagnoses
or to determine if further in-depth evaluation is needed.
The Das–Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997) was built
on the PASS theory of cognitive processes, which emphasizes cognitive processes that are
related to performance rather than to a general intelligence model. The CAS assesses cog-
nitive processes in children aged 5 through 17 and yields scores for the Planning, Atten-
tion, Simultaneous, and Successive subscales as well as a full-scale score. The test may be
used for identifying ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and giftedness as
well as for evaluating children with traumatic brain injury.

Group Intelligence Tests

As stated earlier, group intelligence tests are useful when large numbers of examinees
must be evaluated either simultaneously or within a limited time frame. The World War
I Army Alpha and Army Beta tests were the first major group intelligence tests developed
and were used to screen millions of recruits. Since then, many more have been produced,
and group tests are used far more extensively than individual intelligence tests, particu-
larly for screening purposes. We will describe some of the more well-known group intel-
ligence tests.

Cognitive Abilities Test  The Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT; Lohman & Hagen, 2001)
measures K–12 students’ learned reasoning and problem-solving skills. It was designed to
help educators make important student placement decisions, such as selecting students for
gifted and talented programs. The CogAT can be administered in whole or in part, and
30 to 60 minutes of time is allowed per session, depending on the child’s grade level. It
provides scores for three batteries as well as an overall composite score:
1. Verbal Battery  Measures a child’s ability to remember and transform sequences of
English words, to understand them, and to make inferences and judgments about
them. It includes subtests on Verbal Classification, Sentence Completion, and Verbal
Analogies.
186 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

2. Quantitative Battery  Measures a child’s understanding of basic quantitative con-

cepts and relationships that are essential for learning mathematics. It includes sub-
tests on Quantitative Relations, Number Series, and Equation Building.
3. Nonverbal Battery  Measures reasoning through the manipulation and classification
of geometric shapes and figures.
4. Composite Score  Derived from the results of the three batteries, the composite score
is a general statement of a student’s overall reasoning ability.
Raw scores are converted to stanines, percentile ranks, and standard age scores.
Standard age scores (SAS) have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 and are used
to allow comparisons between a student’s scores and the scores of other students in the
same age group. SAS range from 50 to 150; scores from 128 to 152 are considered very high,
scores from 112 to 127 are above average, from 89 to 111 are average, from 73 to 88 are below
average, and from 50 to 72 are very low. An interesting feature of the CogAT is that its web-
site (riverpub.com/products/CogAT) contains an Interactive Profile Interpretation System
that enables teachers, counselors, and parents to interpret test scores by inputting the
child’s test profile. The interactive system also provides intellectual characteristics and
instructional suggestions for children based on their CogAT profiles.

Otis–Lennon School Ability Test, Eighth Edition  The Otis–Lennon School Ability Test,
Eighth Edition (OLSAT-8; Otis & Lennon, 2003) is a widely used group intelligence test sold
only to accredited schools and school districts, often used for screening children for gifted
and talented programs. First published in 1918, the OLSAT-8 yields an overall school ability
index and consists of five subtests designed to measure abstract thinking and reasoning
abilities of children. The subtests are Verbal Comprehension, Verbal Reasoning, Pictorial
Reasoning, Figural Reasoning, and Quantitative Reasoning. The test has seven levels
extending from grade K through grade 12.

Raven’s Progressive Matrices  The Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM; Raven, Raven, &
Court, 2003) are multiple-choice tests that measure fluid intelligence, which is the ability to
make sense out of complex data, to perceive new patterns and relationships, and to forge
constructs (largely nonverbal). The tests consist of a series of visual matrices (i.e., a 2 * 2
or 3 * 3 grid), each of which has a piece missing. The examinee studies the pattern on the
grid and selects the missing piece from a group of options. The RPM is available in three
formats: the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM), which is used with the general popula-
tion; the Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM), which is designed for younger children, the
elderly, and people with moderate or severe learning difficulties; and the Advanced Pro-
gressive Matrices (APM), appropriate for adults and adolescents of above-average intelli-
gence. The tests are called progressive because each test consists of “sets” of items, and each
item and each set are progressively more difficult.
Other commonly used group intelligence tests include the California Test of Mental
Maturity, the Kuhlmann–Anderson Intelligence Tests, and the Henmon–Nelson Tests of
­Mental Ability.

Specialized Tests
So far, we’ve provided information about a number of well-known individual and group
intelligence tests. For the most part, these tests can be used for multiple purposes for
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 187

TABLE 8.10  Specialized Intelligence Tests

Population Test
Culturally and linguistically Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence
diverse populations Culture Fair Intelligence Test
Leiter International Performance Scale
Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Third Edition
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Third Edition
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test
Giftedness Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary and Middle School
Students, Second Edition
Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test, Gifted Screening Form
Learning disabilities, Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence
­deafness or hearing impaired, Leiter International Performance Scale, Third Edition
speech problems, or other Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Second Edition
disabilities
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Third Edition
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test
Preschoolers Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third Edition
Extended Merrill–Palmer Scale
McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities
Mullen Scales of Early Learning

assessing diverse populations. However, some tests are more specialized, meaning they
were developed specifically for use with certain populations, such as preschool children,
individuals with learning disabilities or other disabilities, children with gifted abilities, or
individuals from diverse cultural or linguistic backgrounds. Examples of intellectual abil-
ity tests designed for special populations include the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence
(TONI-4), the Leiter Performance Scale, Third Edition (Leiter-3), and the Universal Non-
verbal Intelligence Test (UNIT). A more complete (though not exhaustive) list is available
in Table 8.10.

Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Third Edition  A well-known specialized test is the Test
of Nonverbal Intelligence, Third Edition (TONI3). This 45-item instrument is a language-free
measure of intelligence, aptitude, abstract reasoning, and problem solving in individuals
aged 6 through 89 years. It is completely nonverbal, requiring no reading, writing, speak-
ing, or listening on the part of the test taker. Examiners administer the test by pantomim-
ing instructions, and the test takers indicate their response choices by pointing, nodding,
or using a symbolic gesture. The test is well suited for use with individuals who have
severe spoken language disorders (i.e., aphasia), individuals who are deaf or hearing
impaired, non-English speakers or English-language learners, and individuals with cogni-
tive, language, or motor impairments due to intellectual disabilities, deafness, develop-
mental disabilities, autism, cerebral palsy, stroke, disease, head injury, or other
neurological impairment. The TONI3 requires approximately 15 to 20 minutes to ­administer
and score. The test provides raw scores, deviation IQ scores, percentile ranks, and age
188 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

equivalent scores. It is sound psychometrically, with strong validity and reliability evi-
dence, and was normed on a demographically representative and stratified sample of
3,451 people.

Leiter International Performance Scale, Third Edition  The Leiter International Per-
formance Scale, Third Edition (Leiter-3) has four subtests to calculate nonverbal IQ, two
subtests to calculate nonverbal memory, two subtests to calculate processing speed, and
one nonverbal neuropsychological screener. The Leiter-3 was normed on a range of chil-
dren who range from cognitive impairment to intellectual superiority. The normative sam-
ple also included children with hearing issues; deafness; cognitive impairment;
developmental delays; autism; ESL; and speech and language deficits. The authors have
included a complete profile of cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Scores are presented
for each subtest and skill area. The Leiter was found to correlate with the WISC-IV (r = .88),
the WJ-III (r = .77-.92), and the SB-5 (r = .85). The Leiter-3 has been used to test a wide
variety of individuals, including those with hearing and language disabilities, mental dis-
abilities, cultural disadvantages, or non-English-speaking backgrounds. The Leiter-3
measures dimensions of perceptual and conceptual abilities. In the third edition of the
Leiter, the number of subtests was reduced from 20 to 10 (i.e., Figure-Ground, Form Com-
pletion, Classification and Analogies, Sequential Order, Visual Patterns, Attention Sus-
tained, Forward Memory, Attention Divided, Reverse Memory, and Nonverbal Stroop).
The Leiter-3 is a valuable tool in the assessment of the cognitive abilities of children with
hearing impairments, children with severe expressive or receptive language disabilities,
and adults with severe or profound intellectual disability. The Leiter-3 is also considered
an appropriate instrument for those who have motor and manipulative difficulties in addi-
tion to impaired communication skills.

Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test  The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test

(UNIT) is a language-free test that requires no receptive or expressive language from
the examiner or examinee. The UNIT measures a number of types of intelligence and
cognitive abilities. The test is made up of six subtests designed to measure the func-
tioning of the client according to a two-tier model of intelligence: memory and reason-
ing. The memory subtests are Object Memory, Spatial Memory, and Symbolic Memory.
The reasoning subtests are Analogic Reasoning, Cube Design, and Mazes. Although
five of the subtests require motoric manipulation, they can be adapted for a pointing
response. On the Spatial Memory subtest, the examinee must remember and recreate
the placement of colored chips. On the Object Memory scale, the examinee is shown a
visual array of common objects (such as a pan, computer, and rose) for 5 seconds and
then has to identify the objects shown from a larger array of objects in pictures. The
internal consistency coefficient for 5- to 7-year-olds ranged from .83 in analogic reason-
ing to .89 in design.

Interviews and Observations

Adequate assessment of intellectual ability requires more than test results. It will also
include interviews with the test taker and relevant collateral sources, such as parents and
teachers (if the test taker is a child). Through the interview, examiners can gather important
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 189

background information about the examinee and establish the basis for a good working
relationship.
Observations of examinees can provide counselors with information relevant to intel-
ligence assessment. For example, an examiner can observe a test taker’s appearance, emo-
tional responses, social interactions, communication skills, and thought processes, which
can give the examiner insight into the test taker’s functioning. The following is an example
of an observation from a report of an evaluation that included the use of the WISC-IV:

James, a 12-year-old white male, was assessed using the WISC-IV. All testing
was conducted using standard procedures. Due to good lighting, a comfortable
room temperature and appropriate sized furniture, conditions for all testing
sessions were considered to be adequate. The assessment process was per-
formed in a private room with minimal distractions. James did not wear glasses
or hearing aids during testing.
Rapport was established with James through informal conversation and
maintained adequately for all testing. James provided open and clear responses
to all questions while maintaining adequate eye contact. When asked about his
friends, James was eager to discuss his baseball team and his recent placement
on the all-star team. Overall, James appeared to be a cooperative, happy, and
developmentally appropriate child.
With regard to testing, James indicated verbally that he understood the
reasons for the assessment process and that he understood the directions. His
behavior during testing (e.g., immediately beginning tasks when directed)
also supported his understanding. Overall, the examiner believed that the
results of all tests were a valid estimate of current functioning abilities in all
areas assessed.

Issues in Assessing Intelligence

Intelligence testing is still an issue of controversy. Many definitions of the construct of
intelligence have led to the development of many different models, theories, and tests.
There is no shared agreement as to what intelligence is and how it should be measured. Is
it just one general (g) ability? Or many abilities? In addition, there is no consensus on the
terminology to describe the construct: Is it ability, aptitude, cognitive abilities, intelligence,
or potential?
The issue of heredity and intelligence has been debated for decades. The influ-
ence of heredity on IQ has been misinterpreted to imply that there is little point in try-
ing to educate or be educated or that IQ is somehow impervious to change. This is a
fallacy; many environmental factors—including family environment, parenting, socio-
economic status, nutrition, and schooling—influence the course of intellectual devel-
opment (Toga & Thompson, 2005). The best estimate of the heritability of intelligence
is .50, which suggests that genetic variation accounts for about 50% of the individual
difference in intelligence test scores, with the other 50% attributable to environmental
factors (Plomin, DeFries, Knopils, & Neiderhiser, 2012). From this information, it could
be suggested that enriched environments would help everyone achieve their potential;
however, the complex relationships among genes, the environment, and the brain
190 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

make conclusions about the extent of specific influences on intelligence difficult to

determine.
Much concern is still focused on the biased nature of intelligence tests. Many assess-
ment instruments were originally developed by European and American psychologists
who did not consider how cultural and ethnic factors affected their tests (Sattler, 2008), and
sometimes their notions about intelligence are not shared by other cultures (Sternberg,
2003). For example, European Americans emphasize verbal ability, problem solving, and
mental processing speed as important intellectual abilities, whereas other cultures or eth-
nic groups may emphasize social skills, cooperativeness, or obedience (see Sternberg, 2003
for review). Only in the latter half of the 20th century did test developers begin to consider
cultural and ethnic factors and focus on constructing or revising tests to minimize cultural
bias. For example, verbal intelligence tests, especially those dealing with vocabulary and
general information, are highly culturally loaded, which means they have items specific to a
particular culture. In contrast, nonverbal tests are culturally reduced, because they are less
dependent on items with specific language symbols.
Another issue often debated involves the stability of intelligence over time. An
intelligence test score is not viewed as a fixed attribute. IQs change over the course of
development, especially from birth through 5 years of age (research has indicated that
intelligence test scores are very unstable in early childhood and are poor predictors of
later intelligence). Scores obtained on intelligence tests administered during school
years show a more substantial relationship with scores obtained in adult years (Sattler,
2008). Later, scores may decline with age on some types of test items and increase
on others.
A final issue is the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect refers to the general trend in
increased IQs over time with each subsequent generation. This was first discovered by
James Flynn (1998, 1999, 2000, 2009), who investigated IQ scores over the past 100 years.
He found that on average IQ scores have continuously improved to a gain of about two
standard deviations across the 20th century. Even if gains are now beginning to tail off, as
Flynn believes, the change is massive. It translates into 30 IQ points, which, if taken liter-
ally, would mean that 50% of the population 100 years ago would have had intellectual
capabilities consistent with intellectual disability as defined by current intelligence test
score classifications. Many view this proposition as absurd, because there is “no evidence
that people 100 years ago were less intelligent than people now” (Nettelbeck & Wilson,
2005, p. 614). It seems unlikely that there is a single factor that accounts for the increase;
however, some suggested reasons for rising IQ include the following (Dickens & Flynn,
2001; Flynn, 2000, 2007):

• Widespread public education

• Reduced family size
• More leisure time
• More intellectually demanding work
• Greater use of technology
• Better prenatal care
• Improved nutrition
• Changes in child-rearing practices
• Increased familiarity with tests and testing
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 191

Summary
Early interest in measuring intelligence dates ability. Tests can be used for screening, identifi-
back to the late 19th century. Different scien- cation, and placement purposes, as well as a
tists had differing ideas about the nature of cognitive adjunct to in-depth psychological
intelligence and how to measure it, but all of evaluation. The most prominent individual
these ideas contributed to our current under- intelligence tests are the Wechsler scales and the
standing of the concept of intelligence. Numer- Stanford–Binet, although numerous tests are
ous theories of intelligence have been presented available for multiple purposes for assessing
over the decades, with varied perspectives diverse populations.
about (a) the existence of a g factor, (b) broad There are several controversial aspects of
and specific abilities that constitute intelli- intelligence assessment. Scholars still discuss
gence, (c) intelligence as a hierarchy of abilities, the existence of a g factor, debate the issue of
(d) multiple intelligences, and (e) information heredity and intelligence, are concerned with
processing. test bias, and question the stability of intelli-
Intelligence tests measure a broad spec- gence over time. Despite these issues, the vari-
trum of cognitive abilities, such as reasoning, ety of published intelligence tests has
comprehension, judgment, memory, and ­spatial proliferated in the last 100 years.

Questions for Discussion

1. Develop your own definition of intelligence. 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of
How does it compare to some of the existing def- group intelligence tests? Of individual tests?
initions? When would you use each?
2. Compare the different theories of intelligence. 4. Which environmental factors do you think influ-
Which theory do you find most acceptable, and ence an individual’s performance on an intelli-
why? gence test? Explain.

Suggested Activities
1. Critique an intelligence test discussed in this Charles Murray (Free Press, 1994) and be pre-
chapter. pared to discuss the book in class. The book is
2. Interview a psychologist or counselor who uses available for download at https://lesacredu-
intelligence tests. Find out which tests he or she printemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/the-
uses, and why. Report your results to the class. bell-curve.pdf.
3. Write a review of the literature or a position 6. Review the WISC-IV scores presented in Table 8.8.
paper on one of the following topics: bias in intel- How would you describe the test taker’s overall
ligence testing, history of intelligence testing, or level of intelligence? How would you describe
genetic studies of intelligence. any relative strengths the test taker might have?
4. Take a group IQ test, score it, and write a report How would you describe any relative weak-
of the results. nesses?
5. Read The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Struc-
ture in American Life by Richard Herrnstein and
192 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

References
Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2012). The problem is c­ ontemporary approach to interpretation. Needham
in the definition: G and intelligence in I-O psy- Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
chology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Floyd, R. G., Bergeron, R., Hamilton, G., & Parra, G.
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(2), 149–153. R. (2010). How do executive functions fit with the
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing Cattell–Horn–Carroll model? Some evidence from
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. a joint factor analysis of the Delis–Kaplan execu-
Becker, K. A. (2003). History of the Stanford–Binet Intel- tive function system and the Woodcock–Johnson
ligence Scales: Content and psychometrics. Itasca, IL: III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Psychology in the
Riverside Publishing. Schools, 47(7), 721–738.
Braden, J. P., & Athanasiou, M. S. (2005). A compara- Flynn, J. R. (1998). IQ gains over time: Toward find-
tive review of nonverbal measures of intelligence. ing the causes. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve:
In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contem- Long-term gains in IQ and related measures
porary intellectual assessment (2nd ed., pp. 557–578). (pp. 25–66). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
New York, NY: Guilford. logical Association.
Camara, W. J., Nathan, J. S., & Puente, A. E. (2000). Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: The discov-
Psychological test usage: Implications in profes- ery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist,
sional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research 54, 5–20.
and Practice, 31, 141–154. Flynn, J. R. (2000). IQ gains, WISC subtests, and fluid
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey g: G theory and the relevance of Spearman’s
of factor-analytical studies. New York, NY: Cam- hypothesis to race. In Novartis Foundation Sym-
bridge University Press. posium 233 (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 202–
Carroll, J. B. (2012). The three-stratum theory of cog- 227). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
nitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison Flynn, J. R. (2009). What is intelligence? Beyond the
(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment Flynn Effect. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
(2nd ed., pp. 69–76). New York, NY: Guilford. sity Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult Gardner, H. (2011). The theory of multiple intelli-
intelligence testing. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 592. gences. In M. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M.
Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality. New York, NY: Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and
McGraw-Hill. the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contri-
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, butions to society (pp. 122–130). New York, NY:
and action. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Worth Publishers.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). Personality and indi- Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in
vidual differences. Malden, MA: Blackwell. practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, R. J. (1994). Assess- Gardner, H. (2006). Changing minds: The art and science
ment of cognitive processes. New York, NY: Allyn & of changing our own and other people’s minds. Boston,
Bacon. MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Dickens, W. T., & Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritability Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
estimates versus large environmental effects: The New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
IQ paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108, Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966a). Refinement and
346–369. test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general
Elliott, C. (2007). Differential ability scales: Administra- intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57,
tion and scoring manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio, CA: 253–270.
PsychCorp. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966b). Age differences in
Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L. (2012). Contempo- primary mental ability factors. Journal of Gerontol-
rary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues ogy, 21, 210–220.
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in
Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. (2000). The fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psycholog-
Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc Theory: A ica, 26, 107–129.
 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability 193

Horn, J. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capa- Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed.,
bilities: Gf-Gc theory. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. pp. 441–460). New York, NY: Guilford.
­Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). The PASS cognitive
intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues processing theory. In R.F. Dillon (Ed.), Handbook
(pp. 53–91). New York, NY: Guilford. on testing (pp.138–163). London, UK: Greenwood
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental Press.
ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin,
Kaufman, A. S. (2000). Tests of intelligence. In R. J. A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J. . . . Urbina, S. (1996).
­Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 445–476). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1993). Manual for Nettelbeck, T., & Wilson, C. (2005). Intelligence and
Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test IQ: What teachers should know. Educational Psy-
(KAIT). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance chology, 25, 609–630.
Service. Otis, A., & Lennon, R. (2003). Otis–Lennon School Abil-
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004a). Kaufman ity Test (OLSAT8) (8th ed.). Marrickville, Aus-
Assessment Battery for Children, second edition man- tralia: Harcourt Assessment.
ual (KABC-II). Circle Pines, MN: American Guid- Pearson Assessment. (2004). WISC-IV integrated per-
ance Service. ceptual domain case study. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004b). Kaufman Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychol-
Brief Intelligence Test, second edition manual (KBIT-2). ogy of the child. New York, NY: Orion.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopils, V. S., & Neider-
Kaufman, A. S., Lichtenberger, E. O., Fletcher-Janzen, hiser, J. M. (2012). Behavioral genetics (6th ed.).
E., & Kaufman, N. L. (2005). Essentials of KABC-II New York, NY: Worth.
assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Plucker, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). Human intelligence: Histori-
Lichtenberger, E. O., & Kaufman, A. S. (2012). Essen- cal influences, current controversies, teaching
tials of WAIS-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. resources. Retrieved from http://www.intelltheory
Lohman, D. F., & Hagen, E. (2001). Cognitive Abilities .com
Test (Form 6). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Plucker, J. A., & Esping, A. (2014). Intelligence 101.
Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.
New York, NY: Basic Books. Raiford, S. E., & Coalson, D. L. (2014). Essentials of
Luria, A. R. (1970). The functional organization of the WPPSI-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
brain. Scientific American, 222, 66–78. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2003). Manual
Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. for the Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary
New York: Basic Books. Scales. Section 1: General overview. Oxford, UK:
Mayer, R. E. (2000). Intelligence and education. In Oxford Psychologists Press.
R.  J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales,
(pp.  519–533). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge interpretive manual: Expanded guide to the interpreta-
­University Press. tion of SB5 test results (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside
McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll the- Publishing.
ory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive
In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contem- foundations (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M.
porary intellectual assessment (2nd ed., pp. 136–181). Sattler Publisher, Inc.
New York, NY: Guilford. Sattler, J. M., & Dumont, R. (2004). Assessment of chil-
McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical dren: WISC-IV and WPPSI-III supplement. San
manual: Woodcock–Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler Publisher, Inc.
Publishing. Schrank, F. A., Flanagan, D. P., Woodcock, R. W., &
Muchinsky, P. M. (2008). Psychology applied to work: Mascolo, J. T. (2010). Essentials of the WJ III cogni-
An introduction to industrial and organizational psy- tive abilities assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
chology. (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of
Naglieri, J. A. (2005). The Cognitive Assessment Sys- human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge
tem. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), University Press.
194 Chapter 8  •  Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chi-
of human intelligence. New York, NY: Viking. cago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New Toga, A. W., & Thompson, P. M. (2005). Genetics of
York, NY: Plume. brain structure and intelligence. Annual Review of
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful Neuroscience, 28, 1–23.
intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3, Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities.
292–316. London, UK: Methuen.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and crea- Wasserman, J. D. (2003). Assessment of intellectual
tivity synthesized. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge functioning. In J. R. Graham, J. A. Naglieri, & I. B.
University Press. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Assessment
Sternberg, R. J., & Berg, C. A. (1986). Definitions of psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 417–442). Hoboken, NJ:
intelligence: A quantitative comparison of the John Wiley & Sons.
1921 and 1986 symposia. In R. J. Sternberg & D. Wasserman, J. D., & Tulsky, D. S. (2012). A history of
K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence? Contem- intelligence assessment. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L.
porary viewpoints on its nature and definition Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assess-
(pp. 155–162). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ment (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Guilford.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale:
genius: The gifted group at mid-life: Thirty-five years Technical manual (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The
of follow-up of the superior child (Vol. 5). Stanford, Psychological Corporation.
CA: Stanford University Press. Wechsler, D. (2002). Manual for the Wechsler Preschool
Terman, L. M. (1916). The Measurement of Intelligence. and Primary Scale of Intelligence (3rd ed.). San Anto-
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. nio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
The Psychological Corporation. (1997). WAIS-III— Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chil-
WMS-III technical manual. San Antonio, TX: dren (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assess-
Author. ment.
The Psychological Corporation. (2002). WPPSI-III Whiston, S. C. (2012). Principles and applications of
technical and interpretative manual. San Antonio, assessment in counseling (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
TX: Author. Brooks/Cole.
The Psychological Corporation. (2003). WISC-IV Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N.
administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, (2007). Woodcock–Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside
TX: Author. Publishing.
CHAPTER

9 Assessment of Achievement

Assessment of achievement involves the use of instruments and procedures to measure an

individual’s current knowledge and skills. Achievement by nature is retrospective, mean-
ing that one’s current level of knowledge is based on prior educational experiences. As
such, achievement tests are usually constructed to reflect national, state, or local educa-
tional standards and curriculum.
Achievement tests are widely used in education, but they are also used in business,
industry, and the military. The number of achievement tests administered each year
exceeds that of all other types of psychological and educational instruments. In U.S.
schools, achievement tests are used for a number of purposes, such as monitoring stu-
dents’ achievement over time, making placement or selection decisions, evaluating instruc-
tional objectives and programs, and assisting with diagnosing learning disabilities.
Professional counselors use achievement testing and/or the results of achievement testing
for a variety of purposes, including individualized educational planning, consultation
with school systems, determination of accommodations in college settings, and awarding
professional credentials, such as certification or licensure.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Define achievement.
JJ Describe the main characteristics of achievement tests.
JJ Describe the primary uses of standardized achievement tests in schools.
JJ Describe the characteristics of achievement test batteries, diagnostic achievement tests,
individual achievement tests, and subject-area tests and explain their strengths and
weaknesses.
JJ Describe the other types of achievement assessment (i.e., criterion-referenced tests,

minimum-level skills tests, state achievement tests, the National Assessment of

Educational Progress, curriculum-based assessment or measurement, performance
assessment, portfolio assessment).

Assessing Achievement
Achievement can be defined as an individual’s knowledge or skills in a particular content
area in which he or she has received instruction (American Educational Research
­Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on
195
196 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

Measurement in Education (NCME), 2014). A diverse array of tests and procedures can be
used to assess achievement, including achievement test batteries, individual and diagnos-
tic tests, subject-area tests, curriculum-based assessment and measurement, statewide
assessment programs, observations, and more. Instruments that assess achievement are
comprised of items that require test takers to demonstrate some level of knowledge or
skill. The results of achievement testing inform individuals and relevant parties (i.e., par-
ents, teachers, school administrators, and other helping professionals) about an individual’s
academic strengths and weaknesses or any learning difficulties. In addition, achievement
tests may be used to monitor individual achievement and to evaluate the effectiveness of
educational and social programs. In schools, they provide teachers and administrators
with information for planning or modifying the curriculum to better serve a particular
student or group of students.
Scores on achievement tests are often related to scores on other ability measures, such
as intelligence tests and aptitude tests. As stated in Chapter 8, all three (achievement, intel-
ligence, and aptitude tests) may have some overlap in content, but they are distinct in
terms of their focus. Achievement tests focus more on the present—that is, what an indi-
vidual knows or can do right now. However, achievement tests are also considered an
excellent predictor of academic performance and are frequently used to predict future
performance in educational programs (e.g., college) or vocational programs.
It is highly unlikely that an individual can graduate high school without participat-
ing in some form of achievement testing. In the schools, many informal teacher-made tests
constructed to reflect the learning objectives specific to a particular teacher, course, or unit
of instruction are considered informal achievement tests. In contrast, standardized achieve-
ment tests are commercially developed tests designed to reflect learning outcomes and
content common to the majority of U.S. schools. Each year, schools throughout the world
administer standardized achievement tests to large groups of students to determine stu-
dent performance levels and overall school performance. Some standardized tests (par-
ticularly diagnostic tests and individual achievement tests) are designed specifically to
identify students’ strengths and weaknesses or the presence of a learning problem.
Teacher-made tests differ from standardized tests in terms of the quality of test items, the
reliability of test scores, administration and scoring procedures, and interpretation of test
scores (Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2012). Because of their differences, teacher-made tests
and standardized tests are complementary rather than opposing methods of evaluating
achievement, and both types can be employed to assess student achievement (Aiken &
Groth-Marnat, 2006). In fact, Phelps (2012) examined studies from 1910 to 2010 and discov-
ered that testing with feedback had a significant impact on overall achievement.
In this chapter, we will continue our discussion of achievement testing, focusing pri-
marily on standardized achievement tests. Although achievement testing is performed in
various settings (e.g., schools, business, industry, military), much of our discussion will
center on standardized achievement testing in the schools.

Standardized Achivement Tests

Standardized achievement tests are commercially developed instruments that are sold to
public schools or to other institutions, agencies, or qualified professionals. They are devel-
oped to cover broad content areas common to most U.S. schools. In education, standard-
ized achievement tests are used for the following purposes:
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 197

• Establishing a student’s present achievement level

• Monitoring student achievement over time
• Identifying a student’s academic strengths and weaknesses
• Screening students for placement or selection decisions
• Evaluating instructional objectives and programs
• Assisting with diagnosis of learning disabilities
• Evaluating individuals for certification and licensure
Standardized achievement tests as a whole have several universal features, such as
uniform administration and scoring procedures, sound psychometric qualities, and nation-
ally representative norm groups. Most use standard scores, but some may also provide
percentiles, age or grade equivalent scores, normal curve equivalents (NCEs), and perfor-
mance categories. Standardized tests may be norm referenced, criterion referenced, or
both. With norm-referenced score interpretation, an individual’s test score is compared to the
scores of the normative sample, which enables test users to estimate an individual’s posi-
tion relative to other test takers. With criterion-referenced interpretation, an individual’s test
score is measured against a specific level of achievement. This usually involves a cutoff
score that the individual must achieve in order to demonstrate mastery of the content area.
Standardized achievement tests vary somewhat from each other in terms of adminis-
tration procedures, content coverage, and use of test results. For example, although most
achievement tests are group administered, some are designed to be individually adminis-
tered. Some may consist of a battery of tests covering a broad range of academic skills and
content areas, whereas others focus on a single subject area. Some provide a measure of
general learning outcomes, while others provide diagnostic information. Understanding
the various categories used to differentiate standardized achievement tests can be chal-
lenging, because professionals may use different terminology to describe tests, and tests
often fall into more than one category. We will present information about standardized
achievement tests using the following categories:
• Achievement test batteries
• Diagnostic achievement tests
• Individual achievement tests
• Subject-area tests
To help elucidate the differences among the categories of achievement tests, Table 9.1
provides a chart of the characteristics of the four categories of achievement tests. It is
important to note that some achievement tests fall into more than one category.

Achievement Test Batteries

The most popular standardized achievement tests are those that measure multiple
achievements, called achievement test batteries (also called survey achievement batteries).
These are comprehensive tests that provide a general, overall measure of learning in sev-
eral broad areas of the academic curriculum. They are comprised of a series of tests that
assess major content areas, such as reading, language, mathematics, and, at the appropri-
ate grade level, study skills, social studies, and science. Within the major content areas are
various subtests. Because achievement test batteries assess knowledge in broad content
areas, each subtest in a battery contains a fairly limited number of items, which restricts
their value for identifying students with serious learning problems. Thus, the primary
198 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

TABLE 9.1  Characteristics of Standardized Achievements Tests

Assess Current Individually Group Track

Achievement Level Administered ­Administered Achievement
Achievement test batteries X X X
Diagnostic achievement tests X X X
Individual achievement tests X X X
Subject-area tests X X

purpose for a­ dministering an achievement test battery is to determine an individual’s

general standing in various subjects. For example, using an achievement battery, it is pos-
sible to determine that a student has strengths in language skills and reading skills but is
weak in mathematics skills.
Most achievement test batteries are group administered and can be administered to more
than one examinee at a time. They can be used with large numbers of individuals, enabling
them to be administered to thousands of students throughout the nation each year. Group
tests usually contain items that can be scored objectively, usually by a computer, which
reduces or eliminates scoring errors commonly found in individually administered tests.
The main advantage of group tests is their cost-effectiveness: (a) they are usually less expen-
sive than individually administered achievement tests, (b) they minimize the time needed
for administration and scoring, and (c) they require less examiner skill and training.
Table 9.2 provides a list of widely used achievement batteries. Descriptions of these
tests can be found in the various editions of the Mental Measurements Yearbook, Tests in
Print, Tests, and Test Critiques and from the tests’ publishers. To provide an example of an
achievement test battery, information about the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition
will be presented in the next section.

Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition  The Stanford Achievement Test Series
(­Stanford 10) is one of the leading test batteries utilized by school districts in the United
States. The original Stanford Achievement Test was first published over 80 years ago. The
Stanford 10 test series, sold only to school districts, is a norm-referenced, standardized
­battery of tests designed to measure school achievement from kindergarten through

TABLE 9.2  Achievement Test Batteries

Basic Achievement Skills Inventory—Comprehensive Version (BASI)
TerraNova, Third Edition
TerraNova Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS)
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)
Metropolitan Achievement Test, 8th Edition (MAT 8)
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (Stanford 10)
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 199

Evaluate
Identify Instructional Assist with Diagnosis Certification
Strengths and Objectives and Screen for Placement/ of Learning and
Weaknesses Programs Selection Decisions ­Disabilities Licensure
X X
X X X
X X X
X X

grade  12. These 13 test levels are divided into three groups: the Stanford Early School
Achievement Test (SESAT) for students in kindergarten and the first half of first grade, the
Stanford Achievement Test for students in the second half of first grade through ninth grade,
and the Stanford Test of Academic Skills (TASK) for grades 9 through 12 and for beginning
college students. The Stanford 10 consists of several composites and subtests assessing
major academic content areas. The content areas vary somewhat depending on the level
(K–12) and the group (SESAT, Stanford Achievement Test, Stanford Test of Academic
Skills). The following are some content areas assessed in the series:
• Total Reading  Measures reading skills, such as word sounds and spellings, deter-
mining word meanings and synonyms, and reading comprehension. This section
includes subtests in Reading Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension and Word
Study Skills.
• Total Mathematics  Measures problem-solving skills involving number sense, arith-
metic operations, patterns and algebra, data and probability, geometry, and mea­
surement concepts. Two subtests comprise Total Mathematics: Mathematics Problem
Solving and Mathematics Procedures.
• Science  Measures students’ understanding of life science, Earth science, physical sci-
ence, and the nature of science.
• Language  Measures students’ application of language principles in writing, includ-
ing capitalization, punctuation, word usage, sentence structure, organization, and
composing and editing.
• Spelling  Measures students’ ability to recognize the correct spelling of words.
• Social Science  Measures achievement in history, geography, political science, and
economics.
• Listening  Measures recognition of spoken words and the ability to construct mean-
ing from dictated material.
The Stanford 10 can be administered as either the full-length battery or the abbrevi-
ated battery. It offers a variety of item formats, including multiple-choice, short-answer,
and extended-response questions. Besides requiring a written answer of five or six sen-
tences, the extended response may also require the student to graph, illustrate, or show
work. An interesting feature of the Stanford 10 is the arrangement of test items. Rather
than the typical “easy to hard” arrangement found in most achievement tests, the Stanford
10 mixes easy items with difficult items. The rationale is that in the traditional a­ rrangement,
200 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

FIGURE 9.1   Stanford 10 sample report.

Source: From Stanford Achievement Test: Tenth Edition. Copyright © by Pearson Education, Inc. and/or its
affiliates. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.

students tend to get frustrated as they encounter consistently harder items and “give up,”
but with the “easy-hard-easy” format, difficult questions are surrounded by easy ques-
tions to encourage students to complete the test. The test is also purported to be the only
achievement test battery to provide realistic, full-color illustrations, which is thought to
improve student motivation.
The Stanford 10 provides several types of scores, including scaled scores, percentile
ranks, stanines, grade equivalents, and NCEs (see Figure 9.1). Stanines of 1, 2, and 3 are
considered below average; 4, 5, and 6 are average; and 7, 8, and 9 are above average. Because
the Otis–Lennon Scholastic Ability Test (OLSAT 8) is often administered in conjunction
with the Stanford 10, the Stanford 10 score summary provides an Achievement/Ability
Comparison (AAC) Range, which describes a student’s scores on the Stanford 10 in rela-
tion to the scores of other students of similar ability as measured by the OLSAT 8. Com-
pared to other students, a student’s AAC score is considered high if it falls in the top 23%,
middle if in the middle 54%, and low if in the bottom 23%. Scores categorized as middle
indicate that the student’s ability (i.e., intelligence) and achievement are about the same;
the student is working up to his or her level of ability. High range scores indicate that the
student’s achievement is actually above what would be expected. Low scores indicate that
the student’s achievement is not as high as may be expected.
The psychometric properties of the Stanford 10 are generally strong, with internal
consistency reliability coefficients ranging from the mid-.80s to .90s and alternate forms
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 201

coefficients in the .80s. Evidence of content validity was based on a well-defined test blue-
print and a test-development process that involved extensive review of several national and
state educational standards. For example, the mathematics subtests were developed with
careful consideration of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) publica-
tion Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000), which emphasizes the necessity of
problem solving as the focus of school mathematics. Even with the strong content validity,
test users are recommended to review the test to determine if the test content matches the
curriculum and goals of the particular school. Evidence of convergent validity is provided
through numerous correlations between the various subtests and totals of the Stanford 10
with the Stanford 9 subtests. Construct validity evidence is shown through strong correla-
tions between the Stanford 10 and the OLSAT. In order to increase your understanding of
the Stanford 10 and the principles of achievement testing, complete Exercise 9.1.

Exercise 9.1
Achievement Testing: Marcus
Marcus, age 9 years 8 months, is in the fourth (see summary report below). After reviewing
grade and is having some academic difficulties Marcus’s summary report, answer the exercise
in school. He was administered the Stanford 10 questions.

Stanford 10 Student Summary Report

National Grade Percentile Bands
Number Number Scaled National National Grade AAC
Subtests and Total Possible Correct Score PR-S* NCE Equivalent Range 1 10 30 50 70 90 99

Total Reading 114 82 639 59-5 54.8 5.4 Middle

Total Mathematics 80 29 629 22-3 33.7 3.3 Low

Language 48 28 610 39-4 44.1 3.5 Middle

Spelling 40 30 647 73-6 62.9 6.4 High

Science 40 12 619 18-3 30.7 2.8 Low

Social Science 40 22 607 40-5 44.7 3.5 Middle

Listening 40 22 608 35-4 41.9 3.4 Middle

Complete Battery 402 270 NA 56-5 53.4 5.0 Middle

*PR-S: Percentile Rank and Stanine

Exercise Questions wider the bands, the more error on the

subtests.
1. Interpret the percentile ranks (PR) for
a. Which subtest score(s) appear to have
each of the subtests and total score.
the greatest error?
2. Interpret the stanine scores (S) for each
b. Which subtest score(s) appear to have
subtest and total score.
the least error?
3. Across subtest and total scores, identify
5. Marcus’s grade equivalent score on spell-
Marcus’s relative strengths and weak-
ing is 6.4. Based on this score, Marcus’s
nesses based on his stanine scores.
parents believe he is ready for instruction
4. The percentile bands provide a graphic
in spelling at the sixth-grade level. Do
display of measurement error. The
you agree with this? Why or why not?
202 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

Individual Achievement Tests

Because most achievement tests are group administered, tests that are individually adminis-
tered are regarded as a separate category of tests called individual achievement tests. Similar to
achievement test batteries, individual achievement tests cover several broad academic areas,
such as reading, mathematics, and written language; no one content area is assessed in
depth. The broad content coverage is useful for identifying general weak subject areas of
relative weakness for individuals; once a weakness is identified, a diagnostic test (discussed
in the next section) may be used to identify or diagnose the specific skill deficit or learning
problem. Individual achievement tests are typically designed for a wide age span (often
preschool through high school) and cover a broad range of skill levels. Individual achieve-
ment tests may be used in conjunction with intelligence tests to diagnose learning disabili-
ties. As such, some individual tests are concurrently normed with intelligence tests; for
example, the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-III) and the Wechsler Intelli-
gence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) were co-normed on the same national sample so that
intelligence and achievement test scores can be compared. Because the tests are administered
individually, they contain a wider variety of item formats than group tests (which contain
primarily multiple-choice items); for example, an individual achievement test may contain
items requiring oral responses or fairly lengthy essays from the test taker. The advantage of
individual administration is that examiners are able to meet and establish rapport with
examinees and observe them more closely, which may enable examiners to gain more insight
into the source of learning problems (Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2008). Although
many individual achievement tests exist, we present an overview of the Wide Range Achieve-
ment Test, Fourth Edition and the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement.

Wide Range Achievement Test, Fourth Edition  A widely used individual achievement
test is the Wide Range Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (WRAT4). The WRAT4 is a test of basic
academic skills for individuals aged 5 years to 74 years, 11 months. It takes approximately
30 minutes to complete and is often administered as a screening test to determine if a more
comprehensive achievement test is needed. As with most individual achievement tests, the
results of the WRAT4 by themselves are not intended to provide formal identification of
learning or cognitive disorders. The WRAT4 includes four subtests and one composite:
1. Word Reading  Measures letter and word decoding through letter identification and
word recognition.
2. Sentence Comprehension  Measures an individual’s ability to gain meaning from
words and to comprehend ideas and information contained in sentences through the
use of a modified cloze technique.
3. Spelling  Measures an individual’s ability to encode sounds into written form through
the use of a dictated spelling format containing both letters and words.
4. Math Computation  Measures an individual’s ability to perform basic mathematics
computations through counting, identifying numbers, solving simple oral problems,
and calculating written mathematics problems.
5. Reading Composite  A composite raw score calculated from the Word Reading and
Sentence Comprehension subtests.
The WRAT4 has two alternate forms (Blue and Green) that can be used interchange-
ably as pretest and posttest measures or can be combined for a more comprehensive
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 203

e­ valuation. Standard scores, percentile ranks, stanines, NCEs, and grade equivalents are
provided. The WRAT4 was standardized on a representative national sample of over
3,000 individuals selected according to a stratified national sample based on age, gender,
ethnicity, geographic region, and parental education. In order to help further your under-
standing of the WRAT4, complete Exercise 9.2. Review the case study of Maria, her
grades, and her WRAT4 scores. After considering all of the information, respond to the
exercise questions.

Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement  The Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achieve-

ment (WJ III ACH; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001, 2007) were designed to measure
achievement in individuals aged 2 to 95-plus years. The WJ III ACH was developed as a
companion instrument to the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG),
and together these instruments provide a comprehensive assessment for measuring intel-
lectual abilities and academic achievement. The WJ III ACH has a total of 22 different tests.
The Standard Battery is comprised of 12 tests, and the Extended Battery includes an addi-
tional 10 tests. We will describe the Standard Battery tests, which are organized into four
cluster areas:
Reading Tests
• Letter-Word Identification  Identify and pronounce letters, and read words from a list.
• Reading Fluency  Rapidly read and comprehend simple sentences.
• Passage Comprehension  Read a short passage and supply a key missing word (e.g.,
“The boy ____ off his bike”).
Oral Language Tests
• Story Recall  Listen to a story passage and then orally recall story elements.
• Understanding Directions  Follow oral directions to point to different parts of
­pictures.

Written Language Tests

• Spelling  Write spellings of words presented orally.
• Writing Fluency  Quickly formulate and write simple sentences when given three
words and a picture.
• Writing Samples  Write sentences according to directions.

Mathematics Tests
• Calculation  Perform mathematical computations, from simple addition to complex
equations.
• Math Fluency  Calculated speed of performing simple calculations for 3 minutes.
• Applied Problems  Oral, math “word problems,” solved with paper and pencil.
The WJ III ACH provides a variety of scores, including age and grade equivalents, raw
score or number correct, percentile ranks, and standard scores (mean = 100; SD = 15). It
also provides verbal labels for standard score ranges: standard scores of 151 and above are
exceptionally superior, 131 to 150 are very superior, 121 to 130 are superior, 111 to 120 are high
average, 90 to 110 are average, 80 to 89 are low average, 70 to 79 are low, 50 to 69 and below
are very low, and 49 and below are exceptionally low.
204 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

Exercise 9.2
Wide Range Achievement Test: Maria
Maria is a 10th-grade student who was the classroom, Maria is frequently off task,
referred to the school counselor because of asks inappropriate questions, comes
her unacceptable behavior in the class- unprepared, wanders about the class-
room and her poor peer relationships. room, and seeks to make herself the center
School personnel are concerned of attention. Outside of the classroom, she
about Maria’s inability to function well in keeps to herself, but she stands out in the
a school setting. Although she exhibits crowd. Her mannerisms and dress set her
problematic behavior, it is not severe apart. She appears to be preoccupied and
enough for suspension. Maria has an also seems to fear her parents, not wanting
excellent vocabulary and a good sense of them to know what happens in school.
humor. However, she does not know how To obtain more information about
to respond to teasing or correction and Maria, the school counselor looked at her
seems to enjoy telling stories about how current grades as well as her scores on the
she gets back at people who offend her. In WRAT4.

Current Grades (10th Grade)

English II C
Geometry C
Biology D
World History C
Physical Education B
Spanish I C

Wide Range Achievement Test Scores

Confidence Percentile
Subtest Standard Score Interval 95% Rank Stanine
Word Reading 127 116–138 95 8
Sentence Comprehension 125 115–135 94 8
Spelling 139 127–151 99 9
Math Computation 124 111–137 93 8

Exercise Questions 3. Overall, what does Maria’s WRAT4

results tell you about her academic
1. Describe and interpret each of
ability?
Maria’s subtest standard scores, per-
4. Are Maria’s WRAT4 subtest scores
centile ranks, and stanine scores.
consistent with her grades? Explain.
2. What does the confidence interval
5. What additional information would
for the Word Reading subtest score
you like to have about Maria?
mean?
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 205

Additional Individual Achievement Tests  The Basic Achievement Skills Individual Screener
(BASIS) is designed for students from grades 1 through 9. It includes three subtests—
reading, spelling, and mathematics—and an optional writing exercise. Both criterion ref-
erenced and norm referenced, the test provides beginning-of-the-grade and
end-of-the-grade norms as well as age and adult norms. It takes about 1 hour to adminis-
ter and is designed to help examiners formulate individual educational plans for excep-
tional and special populations.
The Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised/Normative Update (PIAT-R/NU) was
designed for individuals aged 5 to adulthood. The PIAT-R/NU takes about 60 minutes to
administer and assesses achievement in six content areas: General Information, Reading
Recognition, Reading Comprehension, Mathematics, Spelling, and Written Expression.
The test yields age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, NCEs, and stanines.
The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition was developed for use in
conjunction with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV (WISC-IV). The WIAT-II
has four composites, each comprised of specific subtests: (1) Reading (Word Reading,
Reading Comprehension, and Pseudoword Decoding subtests), (2) Mathematics
­(Numerical Operations and Math Reasoning subtests), (3) Written Language (Spelling and
Written Expression subtests), and (4) Oral Language (Listening Comprehension and Oral
Expression subtests). The test can be given to individuals aged 4 through 85. It yields
standard scores, percentile ranks, stanines, NCEs, and age and grade equivalents. In order
to further your understanding of achievement assessment, complete Exercise 9.3. This
exercise provides an opportunity to examine the relationship among intelligence, achieve-
ment, and academic functioning. After reading the case material and considering it in the
context of what you have learned thus far, complete the exercise questions.

Diagnostic Tests
The primary purpose for using diagnostic tests is to identify an individual’s academic
strengths or weaknesses and then to design an educational program or intervention to
meet this person’s needs. As compared to achievement batteries and individual achieve-
ment tests, diagnostic tests usually have a narrower focus (on one skill or knowledge area),
contain a larger number and variety of test items, and usually take longer to administer.
The majority of diagnostic tests are in reading, but tests in math and language are widely
used as well.
Diagnostic tests are also used for identifying and diagnosing learning disabilities.
Learning disability is defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004 (IDEA) as “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes
involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may
manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do math-
ematical calculations” (US Department of Education, 2004, para. c.10). In education, diag-
nosing learning disabilities in students who show signs of difficulties involves a process of
monitoring their progress through a series of increasingly intensive, individualized
instructional or behavioral interventions. In addition, assessment instruments (such as
diagnostic achievement tests) are administered as part of the evaluation process. IDEA
mandates that achievement tests must measure eight areas of achievement (e.g., oral lan-
guage, basic language, total reading, reading comprehension and fluency, written expres-
sion, mathematics, math fluency, total achievement).
206 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

Exercise 9.3
Achievement and Intelligence Assessment: Danny
Danny, age 9, is a third grader at Highland have any close friends. He frequently
Elementary School. He has been referred starts arguments in class and on the play-
to the school counselor due to concerns ground. He is very outspoken. In terms of
expressed by his teacher about academic academics, Danny is not meeting basic
and behavioral issues. educational standards. He fails to do his
homework most of the time. He was
Background Information retained in third grade.
Danny’s parents are divorced, and he cur- Danny has interest in making things;
rently lives with his grandparents. Danny’s this is evident in his art class. He has spe-
father graduated from high school and cial skills in making things with his hands.
works as a heating and air-conditioning He enjoys reading, but he reportedly
technician; his mother earned her GED after watches TV for several hours every day.
dropping out of high school and works as a Danny’s teacher commented on his family
waitress. Danny has lived with his grandpar- environment and said that his frequent
ents since he was age 4. Last year, the Depart- moves have deprived Danny of compan-
ment of Social Services investigated his ions. The teacher also commented on
living situation with his grandparents due to Danny’s constant battle with fellow class-
allegations of neglect. His grandparents lack mates in class and that he doesn’t seem to
interest in how he is doing at school. Over have any friends. The teachers believe that
the last couple of years, his grandparents Danny acts out to gain attention.
have moved three times; as a result, Danny The school counselor decides to
has changed schools three times. review Danny’s academic records. She
Danny currently belongs to no reviews his report cards from first grade
organizations or clubs, and he does not to the present and his test records.

Danny’s Elementary School Record Card

Performance Score Key:
4: Advanced—applying standard at complex levels
3: Proficient—meeting standard
2: Basic—making progress toward standard
1: Not meeting standard
First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Third Grade (This Year)
Reading 3 Reading 2 Reading 1 Reading 2
Writing 2 Writing 1 Writing 1 Writing 2
Math 2 Math 2 Math 1 Math 1
Social Studies 2 Social Studies 1 Social Studies 1 Social Studies 2
Science 1 Science 2 Science 1 Science 1
Physical Ed. 2 Physical Ed. 2 Physical Ed. 1 Physical Ed. 2
Art 3 Art 2 Art 2 Art 3
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 207

Test Records
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Administered in Third Grade—This Year)
Index Scores Standard Score Percentile Rank Descriptive Category
Verbal Comprehension (VCI) 112 79
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) 108 70
Working Memory Index (WMI) 108 70
Processing Speed Index (PSI) 110 75

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (Administered in Third Grade—This Year)

Composites Standard Score Percentile Rank Descriptive Category
Reading 85 16
Mathematics 89 23
Written Language 79 8
Oral Language 87 19

Exercise Questions you describe any relative strengths or

weaknesses that he might have?
1. Interpret each of Danny’s scores
3. Compare Danny’s scores on the
(standard score, percentile rank) on
WISC-IV to his scores on the WIAT‑II.
the WISC-IV indexes. Determine the
Are the scores on these two tests con-
descriptive category for each index.
sistent? Explain.
How would you describe his overall
4. Are Danny’s test results consistent
level of intelligence? How would
with his grades? Explain.
you describe any relative intellectual
5. What factors could account for any
strengths or weaknesses that Danny
discrepancies between his test results
might have?
and his academic performance (i.e.,
2. Interpret each of Danny’s scores
grades)?
(standard score, percentile rank) on the
6. What additional information about
WIAT-II composites. Determine the
Danny would you like to have?
descriptive category for each compos-
7. What would you recommend for
ite. How would you describe his over-
Danny?
all level of achievement? How would

Table 9.3 provides a list of just a few of the many available diagnostic tests. Note that
some individual achievement tests (e.g., the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement,
the Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised, the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of
Achievement) can also be used for diagnostic purposes. We will provide further informa-
tion about two well-known diagnostic tests: the KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment and
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
208 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

TABLE 9.3  Diagnostic Achievement Tests

Math KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (KeyMath-3 DA)
Test of Mathematical Abilities, Third Edition (TOMA-3)
Language Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition (CELF-4)
OWLS Series
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVC-4)
Test of Written Language, 4 (TOWL-4)
Test of Written Spelling, 5 (TWS-5)
Writing Process Test (WPT)
Reading Diagnostic Assessments of Reading, Second Edition (DAR)
Early Reading Diagnostic Assessment, Second Edition (ERDA)
Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests, Fourth Edition (GMRT)
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE)
Gray Diagnostic Reading Test, Second Edition (GDRT-2)
Slosson Oral Reading Test, Revised (SORT-R3)
Test of Early Reading Ability, Third Edition (TERA3)
Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Third Edition (WRMT-III)

Keymath-3 Diagnostic Assessment  The KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (KeyMath-3

DA) is a widely used, comprehensive measure of mathematical concepts and skills. The
test is an untimed, individually administered test designed to be used with individuals
aged 4 years, 6 months through 21 years. The content reflects the standards described in
the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics of the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 2000). The test has
three content areas, each comprised of several subtests:
1. Basic Concepts  Numeration, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, and Data Analysis
and Probability
2. Operations  Mental Computation and Estimation, Addition and Subtraction, and
Multiplication and Division
3. Applications  Foundations of Problem Solving and Applied Problem Solving
The KeyMath-3 DA score summary includes scale scores, standard scores, confidence
intervals, percentile ranks, grade and age equivalents, and descriptive categories (see
­Figure 9.2 to examine strategies for addressing deficits identified by the KeyMath3).
It was normed on a sample of 3,630 individuals aged 4 years, 6 months through
21 years, 11 months that reflected the demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, race or
ethnicity, parent’s education, geographic region) of the U.S. Census Bureau population
report.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition  Another well-known diagnostic

test is the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVC-4; Dunn & Dunn,
2007). The PPVC-4 has been widely used to measure oral vocabulary knowledge in
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 209

• Provide an environment rich in learning opportunities (e.g., direct

instruction, feedback, modeling)
• All learning opportunities should be broken down into a single task.
Only upon mastery of that one task should a second (appropriate)
Environment task be appended to the original task.

• Before any instruction is implemented a task analysis should be

conducted to determine if subskills are necessary for task completion
and to determine if the client has the necessary skills at the subskill
level to perform the desired skill.
Task Analysis • All instruction should begin with concrete examples in which the
student watches a model engaging in the activity with guidance.

• The student may benefit from individual or small group learning

opportunities that allow his instructor to closely monitor his
responses and learning.
Small Group

FIGURE 9.2  Strategies for addressing deficits identified by the KeyMath3.

c­ hildren and adults for many years. It was first published in 1959, and its most recent edi-
tion was published in 2007. The PPVT-4 is an individually administered, norm-referenced
test designed for people aged 2 years 6 months through 90 years and older. It assesses
the ability to comprehend spoken words in Standard American English and is often used
for screening ­individuals from diverse linguistic backgrounds or those who have lan-
guage or communication disorders. The instrument can also be used with individuals
who have autism, cerebral palsy, or other physical disabilities. The PPVT has 228 items
that cover a broad range of receptive vocabulary levels, from preschool through adult.
Items consist of words representing 20 content areas (e.g., actions, vegetables, tools) and
parts of speech (e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives). The test is available in two parallel forms:
Form A and Form B.
The 228 items consist of four full-color pictures arranged on one page. A nonthreat-
ening approach is used to assess vocabulary knowledge: while showing the examinee a set
of four pictures, the examiner says, “I will say something; then I want you to put your
finger on the picture of what I have said. Let’s try one.” Then, the examiner uses a prompt
that precedes the stimulus word: “Put your finger on the star.” The test taker indicates
which picture best represents the word spoken by the examiner. Test administration takes
approximately 10 to 15 minutes, and scoring is rapid and objective, usually occurring dur-
ing test administration.
The PPVT-4 provides standard scores (with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation
of 15), confidence intervals, growth scale values (GSV), percentiles, NCEs, stanines, and
210 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

0.1% 0.1%
2.2% 13.6% 34.1% 34.1% 13.6% 2.2%
–5SD –4SD –3SD –2SD –1SD Avg. +1SD +2SD +3SD +4SD

Standard Score 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Percentile

NCE

Stanine
Extremely Low Moderately Low High Moderately Extremely High
Description Score Low Score Average Score High Score Score

Score Summary

Standard 90% Conf. Age

Raw Score Score Interval GSV Percentile NCE Stanine Equivalent Description
159 109 102–115 181 73 63 6 10.7 Average Range

FIGURE 9.3   Graphical profile of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVC-4).

Source: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4). Copyright © 2007 by NCS Pearson, Inc.
Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. “PPVT” is a trademark, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of
Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates(s).

age equivalents (see Figure 9.3). In addition, it provides a descriptive classification of

scores, including extremely low, moderately low, low average, high average, moderately high, and
extremely high.

Subject-Area Tests
The term subject-area tests generally refers to standardized achievement tests that measure
content-area knowledge in specific academic or vocational subject areas. They usually
have more items than an achievement battery’s subtests, providing a better sample of per-
formance and more reliable scores on specific subject areas (Miller et al., 2012). Like other
types of achievement tests, subject-area tests measure an individual’s knowledge and skills
in a particular area; however, they are also used to predict how well an individual will
perform in the future (i.e., aptitude).
Subject-area tests are part of major national testing programs used by colleges and
universities to determine advanced placement or credit or as part of the requirements for
admission. For example, some colleges and universities require students to take a particu-
lar subject-area test offered by the SAT for admission into competitive programs. The SAT
offers subject tests in such areas as English, history, mathematics, science, and language.
The College-Level Examination Program (CLEP) from the College Board also offers sub-
ject-area tests in 34 areas, including composition, literature, foreign languages, history,
science, math, and business, to name just a few. Students can take a CLEP subject-area test
and, by obtaining a passing score, earn college credit.
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 211

Subject-area tests can also be used as part of certification requirements. For example,
teachers often have to earn a qualifying score on a subject-area exam to become certified to
teach; the particular subject-area test corresponds to the academic subject area in which
they are seeking certification.

Adult Achievement Tests

Although most achievement test batteries are developed for use with children, some are
designed for adults. Adult achievement tests are often used in adult basic education pro-
grams and literacy settings. Probably the most well-known example of an adult achieve-
ment test is the General Educational Development Tests (GED). The GED is sometimes
referred to as a General Equivalency Diploma or General Education Diploma, although these
names are not recognized by the American Council on Education, which developed the
test. The testing program is available internationally, with more than 3,400 official GED
testing centers accessible around the world. In 2010, nearly 760,000 adults worldwide took
some portion of the GED test battery, and 474,000 earned a passing score. The GED is com-
prised of five tests: Mathematics, Language Arts, Reading, Writing, and Social Science.
Examinees who pass the GED are certified as having American or Canadian high-school-
level academic skills. Examples of other adult achievement tests include the Adult Basic
Learning Examination, Second Edition (ABLE-2), the Comprehensive Adult Student
Assessment System (CASAS), the Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults (SATA), and the Test
of Adult Basic Education (TABE).

Other Types of Achievement Assessment Instruments

Achievement is a broad area of assessment, and the resulting scores can have a significant
impact on the future of those who are assessed. For example, some tests (e.g., minimum-
level skills tests) can determine a person’s ability to move to the next grade level or to
graduate from high school. State achievement tests can impact a school district’s funding
and, subsequently, the job security of school district employees. National achievement test
scores gauge the overall performance of the nation’s educational system in comparison to
other countries. Regardless of the type, there can be high stakes related to achievement
testing. As such, it is critical that counselors have a thorough understanding of the many
types of achievement tests.

Criterion-Referenced Tests and Minimum-Level Skills Tests

Criterion-referenced tests and minimum-level skills tests are often used to determine if
an individual or group of individuals have attained a specific level of performance. In
many cases, the level of performance is necessary for advancement. For example, as a
counselor in training, you will eventually be required to take a comprehensive exam, a
certification exam, and/or a licensure exam. Each of these types of exams has a specific
criterion that must be reached in order to graduate, have a specific credential, or be able
to practice independently. We review the various types of these measures and their role
in achievement assessment.
Criterion-referenced tests, sometimes called domain-referenced tests, are designed with
specific objectives and skills to determine if a certain academic standard is met. They differ
212 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

from norm-referenced tests in that they focus on mastery of a given objective or skill.
Norm-referenced tests usually include only one or two items to measure a given objective,
whereas criterion-referenced tests include many items on a specific objective. The criterion-
referenced test is scored to an absolute standard, usually the percentage of correct answers.
Students may be required to meet a certain score on a criterion-referenced achievement
test, say 70%, as evidence of mastery. In systems requiring mastery of objectives, the test
taker is not allowed to go on to the next unit until he or she passes the one being studied.
Criterion-referenced tests can be used for other purposes:
1. To evaluate the curriculum
2. To identify topics that should be remediated or enriched
3. To provide information for the counselor to use in educational and vocational plan-
ning with students
4. To help students select courses
5. To document student mastery of objectives
6. To provide systematic evidence of student attainment of objectives across levels and
fields over time
7. To help the counselor mark the progress of the individual over time
An example of a criterion-referenced test is the College Basic Academic Subjects Exami-
nation (College BASE), which assesses the degree to which college students have mastered
particular skills and competencies consistent with the completion of general education
coursework. The instrument measures achievement in four subject areas: English, mathe-
matics, science, and social studies. As of 2001, the exam was used by approximately 150
institutions nationwide. The users included both community colleges and 4-year institu-
tions whose Carnegie designations ranged from baccalaureate college to research univer-
sity. Some universities use the College BASE for admission into a particular program. For
example, Missouri requires all institutions to use the College BASE as a screening tool for
admission into educator preparation programs.
Another example of a criterion-referenced achievement test is the Criterion Test of
Basic Skills (CTOBS-2), which was designed to measure reading and arithmetic skills in
students from grades 6 through 11. The Reading subtest assesses basic word-attack
skills in the following areas: letter recognition, letter sounds, blending, sequencing,
decoding of common spelling patterns and multisyllable words, and sight-word recog-
nition. The Arithmetic subtest assesses skills in these areas: counting, number concepts
and numerical recognition, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, measure-
ment concepts, fractions, decimals, percents, geometric concepts, prealgebra, and
rounding and estimation.
Criterion-referenced tests are often referred to as minimum-level skills tests, particu-
larly in education, where students must earn a minimum score on a test to be promoted to
the next grade level, graduate, or be admitted into a desired educational program. For
example, satisfactory performance on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readi-
ness (STAAR) is required to receive a high school diploma in Texas. Although the STAAR
tests are minimum-level tests, they are still high-stakes tests. Failure on a single test in the
STAAR battery could prevent graduation. Tests like the STAAR are controversial because
of the impact on school funding and the identified disparities in achievement scores by
race. For example, the results of the 2013 STAAR testing showed a large disparity when
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 213

comparing White and Asian students with Black and Hispanic students (Texas Education
Agency, 2014). Over 25% of Black and Hispanic students in Texas did not attain passing
scores on the STAAR in 2013.
Because of issues like the ones with STAAR, states have been retiring assessment
instruments and implementing new ones. Achievement testing is mandated by legisla-
tures in many states, because federal funding for schools is tied to the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) of 2002, and each state has its own process for achievement testing. Because
the approaches vary from state to state, the issues are varied. We discuss state achievement
tests in detail in the next section.

State Achievement Tests

State achievement tests are state-developed standardized tests used in statewide assessment
programs to measure academic achievement across multiple grade levels in elementary,
middle, and high school. They are criterion-referenced tests, which are used to determine
if a student meets minimum standards for promotion from grade to grade and for high
school graduation (see the section on Factors Affecting Student Achievement later in this
chapter). As part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 states are required to develop
achievement tests in order to receive federal funding for schools. Because educational
standards are set by each individual state, NCLB does not require schools to use a specific
national achievement test; rather, schools develop their own standardized tests that closely
match their state’s educational curriculum. For example, Florida developed the Florida
Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT-2.0) to assess the standards and curriculum spec-
ified in the Sunshine State Standards (see fldoe.org). The FCAT-2.0 is administered to stu-
dents in grades 3 through 11 and consists of criterion-referenced tests in mathematics,
reading, science, and writing, which measure student progress toward meeting the state’s
curriculum standards. Students in third grade must pass the FCAT-2.0 Reading test to be
promoted to the fourth grade, and ninth graders must pass the FCAT-2.0 Reading,
­Mathematics, and Writing tests to be promoted. Seniors must pass both the Reading and
Mathematics sections to graduate from high school.
Although an advantage of state-developed achievement tests is their alignment with
a state’s educational standards and curriculum, a disadvantage is that student perfor-
mance cannot be compared to that of students in other states across the nation. To address
this limitation, some states and school districts administer commercially published norm-
referenced achievement batteries in addition to their state achievement tests. For example,
Alabama uses the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition in addition to the Alabama
Reading and Mathematics Test in its statewide assessment program. Commercially pub-
lished tests are also widely used among private, parochial, and home schools, because
these schools are not required by NCLB to administer state-developed tests.

National Assessment of Educational Progress

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the Nation’s
Report Card, is the only measure of student achievement in the United States that allows
for comparison of student performance across states. Since 1969, the NAEP has periodi-
cally administered achievement tests to students, covering such content areas as reading,
mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts. Tests are
214 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

administered to representative samples of students drawn at grades 4, 8, and 12 for the

main assessments, or samples of students at ages 9, 13, or 17 years for long-term trend
assessments. Test results are widely reported by the national and local media and are
often used to support legislative action involving public education.
The goal of the NAEP program is to compare student achievement among states and
to track changes in the achievement of fourth, eighth, and 12th graders. The NAEP does
not provide scores for individual students or schools, because its original purpose was to
report on the achievement of the nation, to examine performance of demographic sub-
groups, and to track trends in educational progress over time. Starting in 1990, the NAEP
began providing feedback to participating states. In 2001, after the passage of NCLB,
states that received Title I funding (i.e., financial assistance for high-poverty schools)
were required to participate in NAEP in reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8 every
2 years.

Curriculum-Based Assessment and Curriculum-Based Measurement

Curriculum-based assessment (CBA) is an alternative approach to student assessment that
emphasizes repeated measures, the linking of instruction and assessment, and the use of
material from local curriculum. It is designed to assess regular education students in a
regular education curriculum by using direct observation and recording of student perfor-
mance on materials presented in a class. An example of CBA is asking a child to read from
a reading passage in a classroom textbook for 1 minute. Information about the child’s read-
ing ability can then be obtained and compared with the abilities of other students in the
class, school, or district. CBA can be an important tool for educators in (a) evaluating a
student’s learning environment, (b) assessing the effectiveness of various task-approach
activities, (c) evaluating student products, and (d) determining a student’s instructional
needs (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 2006).
Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a type of curriculum-based assessment often
associated with special education. It also emphasizes monitoring of student performance
through repeated measures of student achievement. Brief measures of specific subject
areas are administered to a student weekly or monthly to measure progress toward long-
term instructional goals.

Performance Assessment
Performance assessment (also called authentic assessment or alternative assessment) is a form of
assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate
meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills. The tasks are either replicas of
or analogous to the kinds of problems faced in the real world. Tasks are chosen that would
allow students to demonstrate mastery of a given educational standard.
Mueller (2006) distinguished performance assessment from traditional assessment in
several ways. The most obvious is the type of items on the test. Traditional assessments
typically consist of multiple-choice, true/false, matching, and other similar items, whereas
performance assessments can include essays, projects, portfolios, performance tasks, and
open-ended exercises. Mueller also stated that traditional approaches to assessment are
typically curriculum driven. The curriculum (which delivers a predetermined body of
knowledge and skills) is developed first, then assessments are administered to determine
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 215

if students have acquired the intended knowledge and skills. In contrast, with perfor-
mance assessment, the assessment drives the curriculum. That is, teachers first determine the
tasks that students will perform to demonstrate their mastery, and then a curriculum is
developed that will enable students to perform those tasks well, which would include the
acquisition of essential knowledge and skills.
Teachers often use a mix of traditional and performance assessments to serve differ-
ent purposes (Mueller, 2006). For example, traditional assessment may be used to assess
whether a student has acquired specific knowledge and skills, and performance assess-
ment may be used to measure the student’s ability to apply the knowledge or skills in a
real-world situation. In other cases, both traditional assessment and performance assess-
ment are used to gather a more comprehensive picture of performance. For example,
achievement in STEM areas can be difficult to measure accurately. In order to have a com-
plete picture, it may be necessary to measure both macro- and microunderstanding of
concepts (Kim, VanTassel-Baska, Bracken, Feng, & Stambaugh, 2014). In order to do this in
a comprehensive manner, both traditional standardized assessments and performance
assessments may prove useful.

Portfolio Assessment
Portfolio assessment is a type of performance assessment widely used in educational set-
tings as a means of examining and measuring students’ progress by reviewing a collection
of work in one or more curriculum areas (McDonald, 2012). Portfolios can vary in style and
format. In some cases, portfolios can be viewed as a kind of scrapbook or photo album that
documents the progress and activities of a student through his or her educational pro-
gram. In other cases, portfolios are more comprehensive pictures of students’ academic
activities. At Lamar University, all graduate students in counseling complete portfolios as
part of their graduate training. In their portfolios, students are required to include key
artifacts (major course projects) from each course that tie to primary learning outcomes.
Students can also add field experience documents, resumes, disclosure statements, and
other materials. These portfolios are reviewed and graded by a team of at least three pro-
fessors as the capstone project for the degree program.
As can be seen from our examples, the contents of portfolios can include a variety of
items (sometimes called artifacts or evidence), such as writing or other work samples,
drawings, photos, video or audio recordings, computer disks, or copies of other tests or
assessment instruments. Portfolio artifacts are not selected haphazardly; rather, they are
chosen through a dynamic process of planning, reflecting, collecting, and evaluating that
occurs throughout an individual’s entire instructional program (McDonald, 2012). Arti-
facts can come from the student, teachers, parents, education staff, and other relevant
community members. Furthermore, self-reflections from students are also a common
component of portfolios.

Factors Affecting Student Achievement

It is important that counselors have knowledge of the broader social and economic factors
that surround the lives of students and how these factors can affect students’ performance
on measures of achievement. Factors that affect academic achievement can be categorized
216 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

as either in-school factors or out-of-school factors (Barton, 2003). Examples of in-school

factors include the following:

• Rigor of the Curriculum  The extent to which students take challenging, higher-level
academic courses affects achievement test scores.
• Teacher Knowledge and Skills  Students perform better on achievement tests when
taught by teachers with appropriate training and education for the subject they are
teaching.
• Teacher Experience and Attendance  Research indicates that students learn more
from teachers with experience than they do from novice teachers.
• Class Size  Smaller class sizes (20 students or less) are associated with greater aca-
demic achievement in students, especially for elementary school students and for
students from low-income or diverse backgrounds.
• Technology  Access to technology-assisted instruction increases academic achievement.
• School Safety  Students perform better academically when they feel safe at school.

Examples of out-of-school factors include the following:

• Low Birth Weight  Birth weight affects development and can cause learning disabili-
ties.
• Lead Poisoning  Studies show that lead poisoning is related to learning disabilities,
delayed development, and behavior problems.
• Hunger and Poor Nutrition  Healthier students who eat a balanced diet tend to per-
form better academically than those who do not.
• Reading to Young Children  Children with parents who read to them at home tend to
achieve at a higher level.
• Amount of TV Watching  Watching 6 or more hours of television per day may con-
tribute to poorer achievement test scores in children.
• Parental Involvement  Parental involvement with children is linked to higher aca-
demic achievement.
• Home Learning Activities  The extent to which parents manage time spent on learn-
ing is linked to academic achievement.
• Positive Social Skills  Parental focus on the development of positive social skills is
also linked to academic achievement.
• Student Mobility  Mobility—that is, changing schools frequently—is associated with
lower academic achievement.
It’s important to remember that an achievement test is only one instrument that may
be used to collect achievement information. Because of the many in-school factors and out-
of-school factors that affect academic achievement, decisions made about students should
encompass information obtained from a variety of assessment instruments and strategies,
such as the following:
• Achievement Data  Results from achievement test batteries, diagnostic tests, indi-
vidual tests, and state achievement tests; teacher observational notes of students’
performance in class; samples of students’ class work, student portfolios; informal
classroom assessment; and classroom grades (i.e., report cards)
• Ability Data  The results of intellectual ability assessment instruments or aptitude
assessment instruments
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 217

• Other Relevant Student Data  Attendance data, disciplinary records, grade reten-
tion, and homework completion
• Contextual Data  Factors such as the student’s cultural background, linguistic back-
ground, gender, out-of-school experiences, health and nutrition, self-concept, and
socioeconomic level

Analysis of Class Profile

Up to this point, we have reviewed large-scale achievement testing and individual achieve-
ment testing. It is important to note that teachers are often interested in the achievement test
results of the students in their class. They might want to know how the class is performing
in particular subject areas or if there are certain students who need help or who are having
problems in one or more achievement areas. To answer these questions, school personnel
often have access to summary charts that display the test results of groups of students in a
class, a school, or even a district. Although we reviewed the results of achievement testing
earlier in the chapter, we do so again to demonstrate the importance of results at various
levels. Table 9.4 provides an example of a sixth-grade results chart that shows grade equiva-
lent scores for the several subtests on the Stanford 10 as well as the OLSAT 8 School Ability
Index, which is a measure of total ability (with mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16).
The scores listed permit comparison of achievement and ability for the sixth-grade class. If
we assume that the Stanford 10 is a valid instrument to measure achievement in this school
district, then students with average ability should score around grade level, and students
with below-average ability should score below grade level. Care should be taken not to over-
interpret minor differences in individual scores. Student 19, for example, is technically below
grade placement in seven achievement areas, but the 5.8 in Mathematics Concepts is not
significantly lower than grade placement when the standard error of measurement is consid-
ered. As you review Table 9.4, consider the purposes of achievement testing and the ways in
which the information can be used by teachers, counselors, and other helping professionals.
One of the first tasks required to understand the results and be able to make them
useful is to organize them in a useful manner. To begin evaluating the test scores, the
teacher might graph the scores or compute some measures of central tendency. Remember
that the computation of central tendency measures is a way to understand one score in
comparison to the group. For example, on the Stanford 10, the means for the Science and
Spelling subtests are 7.00 and 6.21, respectively. The median of the Complete Battery is
6.15, and the median on the Spelling subtest is 6.1. Having an understanding of mean and
standard deviation could help the teacher to classify students as below average, average, or
above average in terms of achievement. Of course, the teacher can take a more informal
approach and simply count how many students are at or above grade level and how many
are below. For the sixth-grade class in this example, there are 11 at or above grade place-
ment in Spelling and 13 below; 14 at or above grade placement in Total Mathematics and
10 below; and 15 at or above in Science and 9 below. This type of analysis is fast, but the
ability levels of the group must be kept in mind. The teacher might also be interested in
looking at item information, perhaps the specific items that presented problems to the
class. In this example, there are a number of students below grade level in each category.
What does that mean for the teacher? There are of course numerous reasons why perfor-
mance may be below level. Having the scores is just one piece of the puzzle. Based on the
results, the teachers would have to begin to examine the test, the curriculum, teaching
218 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

TABLE 9.4  Test Results for a Sixth-Grade Class

OLSAT 8 Stanford 10 Subtests
Student Gender SAI CB TR TM LG SP SC SS LI
1 F 127 8.3 8.7 6.6 8.0 10.5 9.2 6.8 8.3
2 F 116 8.3 8.7 7.3 9.0 7.0 10.0 8.3 8.3
3 F 130 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.7 7.8 7.2 9.0 8.0
4 F 132 7.8 7.8 7.6 10.5 8.8 7.8 7.9 7.8
5 F 121 7.3 9.6 6.3 8.8 7.0 6.0 8.5 7.3
6 M 122 7.0 7.0 6.8 8.5 5.4 10.0 11.4 7.0
7 F 116 6.9 7.0 6.8 10.0 8.2 5.8 7.0 6.9
8 M 118 6.8 7.0 6.3 6.7 5.6 6.9 7.4 6.8
9 F 110 6.7 7.2 5.4 6.7 6.3 8.1 7.2 6.7
10 F 114 6.6 6.9 6.6 9.3 8.0 6.0 5.6 6.6
11 M 115 6.5 6.5 5.9 7.2 6.0 9.2 8.1 6.5
12 M 104 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.0 5.7 6.4 6.3 6.2
13 M 117 6.1 6.1 7.3 6.2 4.1 9.2 6.4 6.1
14 F 115 6.0 6.7 5.9 5.7 6.6 9.0 6.0 6.0
15 M 115 5.8 6.1 5.4 7.0 4.7 5.8 6.6 5.8
16 M 109 5.8 6.6 4.8 7.1 4.7 6.7 5.9 5.8
17 M 108 5.6 5.6 6.3 5.8 4.3 6.7 5.6 5.6
18 M 103 5.6 4.9 5.9 5.6 3.0 5.8 6.8 5.6
19 F 102 5.6 5.6 6.5 5.3 3.6 4.1 6.3 5.6
20 F 93 5.5 5.9 5.4 6.6 4.7 6.6 6.3 5.5
21 F 112 5.4 6.4 4.8 5.4 5.1 5.8 5.3 5.4
22 F 112 5.3 6.1 5.4 4.6 6.9 4.2 5.3 5.3
23 M 89 5.1 4.7 6.1 4.3 3.4 4.3 5.2 5.1
24 M 96 4.9 6.1 4.5 5.5 4.3 6.4 4.9 4.9

OLSAT 8: SAI = School Ability Index.

Stanford 10: CB = Complete Battery, TR = Total Reading, TM = Total Mathematics, LG = Language,
SP = Spelling, SC = Science, SS = Social Science, LI = Listening.

methods, factors impacting achievement, and other issues. As a counselor, you might con-
sult with the teacher and help to uncover the issues impacting achievement.
Although there may be a number of causes, the first step in an investigation is to exam-
ine the purpose of the test. The scores in this example might be low in some areas because the
test was given early in the year, before the students had been exposed to many of the con-
cepts and objectives taught in the sixth grade. Some school districts intentionally give this
test at the beginning of the year to obtain an overall estimate of the entry level of the students.
If you didn’t understand the purpose of the test in this example and tried to interpret the
scores, you could develop some poor perceptions of student performance. In order to further
your understanding of score interpretation, complete Exercise 9.4. Consider the case of
James, the background information, and data. Relate the information to the material you
have read in this chapter as well as others and then respond to the exercise questions.
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 219

Exercise 9.4
Interpreting Achievement: James
The case study of James illustrates the pro- have deficiencies in reading comprehen-
cess involved in interpreting achievement sion as well as overall scholastic achieve-
data. James is in fifth grade and is having ment. The Total Mathematics score includes
some academic difficulties in school. He is Mathematics Problem Solving and Mathe-
10.3 years old, weighs 80 pounds, and is 4 matics Procedures subtests. The Listening
feet 9 inches tall. A graph of his scores on score is based on the combination of the
the Stanford Achievement Test is shown in Vocabulary and Listening Comprehension
Figure 9.4. The derived scores plotted on scores, which provide data on the learner’s
the graph are percentile bands and repre- ability to understand and remember infor-
sent how James performed in relation to mation presented orally.
students in the national sample. The The scores on the Stanford 10 graph
median is the 50th percentile and repre- show that James scored high in relation to
sents typical or average performance. Some other fifth graders in Total Mathematics;
tests use different systems to classify supe- clearly, his strongest area of achievement
rior or poor performance. In this case, the is mathematics. His score on the Listening
Stanford 10 uses a classification of below test is below average as compared to his
average, average, and above average. Counse- peers. He is also below average in Total
lors need to be familiar not only with what Reading, Language, Spelling, and Science.
scores mean, but also with what is meas- His score in Social Science is average.
ured by each subtest and which scores are
combined to give total scores. The Total Additional Information
Reading score, comprised of the Reading One of the first questions to consider is
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension how James’s current test performance
subtests, helps identify students who might compares with other achievement data,

National Grade Percentile Bands

National PR

Total Reading 28

Total Mathematics 76

Language 22

Spelling 13

Science 6

Social Science 38

Listening 3
Complete Battery 28

1 10 30 50 70 90 99
Below Average Average Above Average

FIGURE 9.4   Profile of James’s scores on the Stanford Achievement Test.

220 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

Exercise 9.4
(Continued)
such as his performance in class, other student has been previously referred for
achievement test results, and report cards. assessment, then school counselors may
In terms of his class performance, James’s have access to the results of such instru-
teacher reports that he is an average stu- ments as the Slosson Intelligence Test, the
dent in mathematics but has problems in Otis–Lennon School Ability Test, the
reading comprehension and following ­Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, or the
directions. He does not seem to listen at WISC‑IV. Ability testing would help in
times and cannot remember what he is developing an individually prescribed
supposed to do. His problems in reading educational program for James, but no
comprehension also create problems in intelligence data were available in his
understanding his science and social stud- cumulative folder.
ies materials.
James’s results on the Stanford 10 can Other Relevant Data
also be compared with the results of other Other relevant student data may include
achievement tests. For example, James James’s attendance record, disciplinary
recently completed a local minimum- records, grade retention, and homework
skills-level test (a criterion-referenced test) completion. James has progressed nor-
that was based specifically on the educa- mally in school; he was never retained at a
tional objectives taught in James’s class (in grade level and has been at the same
contrast to the Stanford 10, which is based school since the beginning of the third
on a wide sampling of objectives and text- grade. He did attend two schools in other
books from schools across the nation). On states prior to that time. James has not
the minimum-skills-level test, James failed missed many days of school.
the following areas (i.e., he had fewer than
75% of the items correct): vocabulary, lis- Contextual Data
tening comprehension, synonyms, anto- James is the oldest child of three siblings;
nyms, sequencing, facts and opinions, he has an 8-year-old brother and a 3-year-
recalling details, main ideas, and sentence old sister. He lives with his mother and his
completion. This information combined stepfather, who works as a carpenter for a
with his score on the Stanford 10 Total construction company. His mother works
Reading subtest (James scored at the 28th part-time as a checkout clerk in a super-
percentile) indicates that the problem of market. His father is in the Navy, and his
reading comprehension is very real. How- parents were divorced when James was in
ever, his reading problem did not seem to kindergarten. James’s mother is concerned
affect his performance in Total Mathemat- about his progress and is open to any sug-
ics, in which he scored at the 76th percen- gestions the teacher or counselor may
tile. Test results are inconsistent in this have to improve his academic perfor-
dimension. mance. James relates fairly well with his
classmates, but gets easily frustrated when
Ability Data
he cannot understand his lessons or recite
We can also compare James’s Stanford 10 correctly for the teacher. He likes to per-
scores to his ability. In the schools, ability form duties around the classroom and has
typically refers to intellectual ability. If a become strongly attached to his teacher.
 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement 221

Postscript 2. What other information might you

collect in order to arrive at a decision?
James was referred to an Individualized
3. What types of intervention should
Education Program (IEP) meeting and was
be tried before being assigned to a
observed and tested by the school psychol-
learning disabilities classroom?
ogist. On the basis of the information col-
4. What positive behavior supports
lected, he was assigned to work in a specific
might be necessary?
learning disabilities resource room.
5. Are there any other interpretation
Exercise Questions points to consider from the data
­provided?
1. Given the amount of information
available, what other options could
have been considered for James?

Summary
Achievement tests are used to assess an indi- their educational opportunities or choices, such
vidual’s knowledge or skills in a particular con- as being promoted or retained at a grade level,
tent area. Standardized achievement tests can graduating high school, or being admitted into
be divided into four broad categories: achieve- a desired educational program.
ment test batteries, diagnostic achievement Used properly and interpreted wisely,
tests, individual achievement tests, and subject- standardized achievement tests can provide
area tests. Each type of achievement test has valuable information about a student’s achieve-
distinct characteristics and is used for various ment level and can be useful for making deci-
purposes, such as monitoring achievement over sions or inferences based on test scores. Misused,
time, making placement or selection decisions, they can be a source of inestimable harm, not
evaluating educational programs and curricu- only to students, but to the teachers, schools,
lum, diagnosing learning disabilities, and pro- and the community as well. As with any type of
viding endorsement for certification and test, any decisions (such as promotion of stu-
licensure. dents) should never be made solely on the basis
Standardized achievement tests play a of test scores alone. Other relevant information
large role in the U.S. education system. Students should be taken into account to enhance the
are administered tests that can directly affect overall validity of such decisions.

Questions for Discussion

1. Describe the major categories of standardized 4. In what circumstances would norm-referenced or
achievement tests, and explain their differences. criterion-referenced interpretation be appropri-
2. What are the advantages of a teacher-made test ate in achievement testing?
as opposed to a standardized achievement test? 5. What are the distinctions between intelligence
3. How would you go about developing a standard- tests and achievement tests?
ized achievement test that covers the content of 6. Do you think the No Child Left Behind Act is
your current assessment class? Include several working? Why or why not?
sample items.
222 Chapter 9  •  Assessment of Achievement

Suggested Activities
1. Select one of the major achievement tests, and 4. Go to the library and find a research article that
write a critique of it. uses a standardized test, and then answer the fol-
2. Interview counselors who use achievement tests lowing questions:
in their work. Find out what tests they use and a. What is the name of the test?
why and how they use the results. Report your b. For what purpose(s) was the test used in the
findings to the class. research study?
3. Administer an individual achievement test or c. Was the test reliable and valid? How do you
diagnostic test and write a report of the results. know?

References
Aiken, L. A., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2006). Psychological National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
testing and assessment (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school
American Educational Research Association (AERA), mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
American Psychological Association (APA), & Phelps, R. P. (2012). The effect of testing on student
National Council on Measurement in Education achievement, 1910–2010. International Journal of
(NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psy- Testing, 12(1), 21–43.
chological testing. Washington, DC: Authors. Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., & Willson, V.
Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Base- (2008). Measurement and assessment in education.
lines for tracking progress. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Boston, MA: Pearson.
Information Center. Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2014).
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). The Peabody Pic- Woodcock–Johnson IV. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
ture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Bloomington, MN: Sewell, M., Marczak, M., & Horn, M. (2001). The use of
NCS Pearson, Inc. portfolio assessment in evaluation. Retrieved from
Johnson, R. S., Mims, J. S., & Doyle-Nichols, A. (2009). http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/cyfernet/cyfar
Developing portfolios in education: A guide to reflec- /Portfo~3.htm
tion, inquiry, and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Texas Education Agency. (2014). STAAR Statewide
Sage. Summary Reports 2013–2104. Retrieved from http://
Kim, K. H., VanTassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B. A., Feng, www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=25769809035
A., & Stambaugh, T. (2014). Assessing science rea- US Department of Education. (2004). Building the Leg-
soning and conceptual understanding in the pri- acy: IDEA. Section 300.8 child with a disability.
mary grades using standardized and Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore
performance-based assessments. Journal of /view/p/,root,regs,300,A,300%252E8
Advanced Academics, 25(1), 47–66. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001,
McDonald, B. (2012). Portfolio assessment: Direct 2007). Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement.
from the classroom. Assessment & Evaluation in Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Higher Education, 37(3), 335–347. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Effective
Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2012). assessment for students with special needs: A practical
Measurement and assessment in teaching (11th ed.). guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Cor-
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. win Press.
Mueller, J. (2006). Authentic assessment toolbox.
Retrieved from http://jonathan.mueller.faculty
.noctrl.edu/toolbox
CHAPTER

10 Assessment of Aptitude

Aptitude can be defined as an innate or acquired ability to be good at something. Aptitude

tests measure an individual’s capacity, or potential, for performing a given skill or task
and are used to predict behavior: Will the individual be successful in a given educational
program, vocational program, or occupational situation? Thus, rather than focusing on
one’s current level of performance (i.e., achievement), aptitude tests are used to predict
what an individual is capable of doing in the future.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Describe the purpose of aptitude tests.

JJ Explain the differences between achievement tests and aptitude tests.

JJ Describe multiple-aptitude test batteries, specialized aptitude tests, admissions tests,

and readiness tests.

JJ Explain some key areas assessed with specialized aptitude tests, such as clerical ability,

mechanical ability, and artistic ability.

JJ Describe admission tests and explain their purpose.

JJ Describe the use of readiness tests.

Aptitude Tests
Aptitude can be defined as an innate or acquired ability to be good at something. Aptitude
should not be confused with ability, although the two terms are often interchanged. Abili-
ties typically refer to one’s “present-day” capabilities or the power to perform a specified
task, either physical or cognitive; whereas aptitudes are about one’s “potential” capabilities.
One of the best predictors of an individual’s potential to do well is whether they have a
high aptitude for a certain type of activity. Some people have strong mechanical abilities
and thus would do well working as engineers, technicians, or auto mechanics. Other indi-
viduals might have high artistic abilities and be best suited to working as interior design-
ers or in the performing arts. Thus, understanding an individual’s aptitudes can be very
helpful in advising him or her about appropriate training programs or career paths.
Aptitude tests (also referred to as prognostic tests) measure a person’s performance on
selected tasks to predict how that person will perform sometime in the future or in a dif-
ferent situation. The aptitude could be related to school performance, job performance, or

223
224 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

some other task or situation. Aptitude tests measure one’s (a) acquired knowledge (from
instruction) and (b) innate ability in order to determine one’s potential.
Aptitude tests were originally designed to augment intelligence tests. It was found
that the results of intelligence tests did not have strong correlations with future success;
instead, certain abilities were identified as the largest contributors to success (Sparkman,
Maulding, & Roberts, 2012). This led to the construction of aptitude tests that targeted
more concrete or practical abilities. These tests were developed particularly for use in
career counseling and in the selection and placement of industrial and military personnel.
Some tests were designed to assess multiple aptitudes at one time, whereas others focus on
a single area. There are a vast number of aptitudes that tests may assess, either singly or in
multiples; the most commonly tested are mechanical, clerical, musical, and artistic apti-
tude. Because these measures attempt to determine how someone will do in the future on
the basis of current test results, there must be research that demonstrates the relationship
between identified abilities and future success.
The content of aptitude, intelligence, and achievement tests overlaps. For example,
vocabulary items are often part of all three types, as are numerical computations and rea-
soning items. One of the primary differences among these tests is how the tests are used.
Aptitude tests and intelligence tests are often used for predictive purposes, whereas
achievement tests measure what has been learned and are most often used for descriptive
purposes and assessment of growth and change. There is often confusion about the differ-
ence between aptitude and achievement tests.
Because of their future orientation, counselors use aptitude tests to help people plan
their educational and vocational futures on the basis of what appear to be their abilities
and interests. Although aptitude tests are more used by career, rehabilitation, and school
counselors, they are applicable to all areas of professional counseling. These measures are
frequently used in the selection of entry-level workers and for admissions into educational
and vocational programs. The aptitude tests we will discuss in this chapter are standard-
ized, norm-referenced tests that are either group or individually administered. Like
achievement tests, some aptitude tests are batteries that cover a number of aptitudes,
whereas others focus on a specialized area. We will present information about aptitude tests
using the following categories:
• Multiple-aptitude test batteries
• Specialized aptitude tests
• Admissions tests
• Readiness tests

Multiple-Aptitude Test Batteries

Multiple-aptitude test batteries consist of a series of subtests that assess several aptitudes at
one time. The use of multiple-aptitude batteries has a long history in business, industry,
and the military. Aptitude batteries do not provide a single score; rather, they yield a pro-
file of subtest scores, one subtest for each aptitude. Thus, they are suitable for comparing
an individual’s scores across subtests (i.e., intraindividual analysis) to determine his or her
high or low aptitudes. Multiple-aptitude batteries measure such abilities as numerical
aptitude, mechanical reasoning, and spatial reasoning. Such tests are used primarily for
educational and vocational counseling. They permit intraindividual score comparisons,
showing the highs and lows of an individual’s performance on the various subtests. The
 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude 225

TABLE 10.1  Comparison of Subtests on Multiple-Aptitude Batteries

Asvab Dat Gatb Caps

Arithmetic reasoning Abstract reasoning Clerical perception Language usage
Auto and shop Clerical speed and Finger dexterity Manual speed and
information accuracy Form perception dexterity
Electronics information Language usage General learning Mechanical reasoning
General science Mechanical reasoning ability Numerical ability
Mathematics knowledge Numerical ability Manual dexterity Perceptual speed and
Mechanical Space relations Motor accuracy
comprehension Spelling coordination Spatial relations
Paragraph Verbal reasoning Numerical aptitude Verbal reasoning
comprehension Spatial aptitude Word knowledge
Word knowledge Verbal aptitude

most well-known multiple-aptitude batteries are the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery (ASVAB); the Differential Aptitude Test, Fifth Edition (DAT); the General Apti-
tude Test Battery (GATB); and the Career Ability Placement Survey (CAPS). Table 10.1
shows a comparison of the subtests on the ASVAB, DAT, GATB, and CAPS.

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery  Offered at more than 13,000 schools and
taken by more than 900,000 students per year, The ASVAB is the most widely used mul-
tiple-aptitude test battery in the world (Powers, 2014). Originally developed in 1968 by
the U.S. Department of Defense, it is a norm-referenced test that measures aptitudes for
general academic areas and career areas that encompass most civilian and military work.
The U.S. military uses the ASVAB as an entrance examination as well as to determine
specific job assignments and enlistment bonuses. There are three versions of the ASVAB:
the CAT-ASVAB (computer adaptive test), the MET-site ASVAB (mobile examination test
site), and the Student ASVAB (also referred to as the ASVAB Career Exploration Program
[ASVAB CEP]).
Although the ASVAB was originally developed for use by the military, the ASVAB
Career Exploration Program (ASVAB CEP) is used primarily with the civilian population
(United States Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPC), Testing Division, 2005).
It is designed specifically to assist high school and postsecondary students with career
planning, whether students plan to enter the workforce, military, or other college or voca-
tional programs. The ASVAB CEP provides both web-based and printed materials to help
students explore possible career choices. Program materials include (1) the original apti-
tude battery (the ASVAB), (2) an interest inventory (Find Your Interests [FYI]), and (3)
other career planning tools. The main aptitude battery, the ASVAB, consists of eight tests,
contains a total of 200 items, and requires 3 hours to complete. The eight tests include Gen-
eral Science, Mathematics, Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, Electronics
Information, Auto and Shop Information, and Mechanical Comprehension. The ASVAB
yields standard scores (with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10) and percentiles
for the eight tests as well as for three Career Exploration Scores: Verbal Skills, Math Skills,
and Science and Technical Skills (see the ASVAB summary results sheet in Figure 10.1).
226 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

The Military Entrance Score (also known as the Air Force Qualifying Test [AFQT]) is
presented on the summary results sheet as a single percentile rank, which is the score that
determines a test taker’s eligibility for enlistment into the military. Each branch of the
military has minimum AFQT score requirements to quality for enlistment: Air Force
recruits must score at least 36 points on the AFQT, the Army requires a minimum score of
31, Marine Corp recruits must score at least 32, Navy recruits must score at least 35, and
the Coast Guard requires a minimum score of 36. Although there are minimum scores
listed, the majority of armed services enlistees score 50 or above (Powers, 2014). Because of
ongoing military efforts in various countries, the Army has issued waivers for those indi-
viduals who score as low as 26 on the ASVAB (Powers, 2014).
The FYI is a 90-item interest inventory developed for the ASVAB program. Based on
John Holland’s widely accepted theory of career choice, it assesses students’ occupational
interests in terms of six interest types: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising,
and conventional (i.e., RIASEC). Once test takers receive their ASVAB and FYI scores, they
can look up potential occupations in the OCCU-Find, an online resource from which stu-
dents can view descriptions of careers and learn how their skills compare with the skills
profiles of the occupations they are exploring. OCCU-Find contains information on almost
500 occupations sorted by Holland’s RIASEC codes.
A unique feature of the ASVAB is that counselors are able to compare an individual’s
results on the ASVAB tests and the Career Exploration Scores with the results of other
groups of test takers. To do this, the ASVAB summary results sheet provides separate per-
centile scores for three different groups: same grade/same sex, same grade/opposite sex,
and same grade/combined sex. For example, according to the summary results sheet
shown in Figure 10.1, the test taker earned a standard score of 55 on Verbal Skills. Results
indicate that this score corresponds to the 62nd percentile of performance for 11th-grade
females, the 64th percentile for 11th-grade males, and the 63rd percentile for all 11th-grade
students (males and females).
Information about the ASVAB’s psychometric properties is reported in the counse-
lor manual (United States Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPC), Testing
Division, 2005). The ASVAB CEP has nationally representative norms of approximately
4,700 students in the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades and about 6,000 postsecondary students.
The norming sample was poststratification weighted by grade, gender, and the three
broad race/ethnic groupings of Black, Hispanic, and Other. (Note that poststratification
weights are used when there is an oversample of individuals with certain characteristics,
such as age, education, race, etc. With the ASVAB CEP, the unweighted norming sample
was oversampled by gender and race/ethnic groups.) The ASVAB appears to have evi-
dence of criterion-related validity in predicting success in educational and training pro-
grams and in various civilian and military occupations. It also has strong convergent
validity evidence with the ACT, the Differential Aptitude Tests, and the General Aptitude
Test Battery. Internal consistency reliability coefficients of the ASVAB composites and
subtests range from .88 to .91 and from .69 to .88, respectively. In order to further your
understanding of the ASVAB, complete Exercise 10.1, and respond to the exercise ques-
tions. Consider all of the information provided within the context of your learning experi-
ence related to assessment.

Differential Aptitude Tests For Personnel and Career Assessment  The Differential
Aptitude Tests for Personnel and Career Assessment (DAT for PCA) are a series of tests
 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude 227

Exercise 10.1
ASVAB: Halle
You are a school counselor working in at a scores, particularly the three separate sets
local high school. Halle, an 11th-grade stu- of percentile scores. She asks you to help
dent, recently received her ASVAB sum- her understand her test scores.
mary results sheet. She is confused by her

ASVAB Summary Results Sheet

Percentile Scores 11th
ASVAB Results 11th
Grade
11th
Grade
11th
Grade
11th Grade Standard Score Bands Grade
Standard
Females Males Students Score

Career Exploration Scores 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Verbal Skills 81 80 81 55
Math Skills 23 22 23 42
Science and Technical Skills 44 44 44 45

ASVAB Tests
General Science 47 40 43 47
Arithmetic Reasoning 25 21 23 41
Word Knowledge 90 89 89 60
Paragraph Comprehension 73 76 75 54
Mathematics Knowledge 23 24 23 43
Electronics Information 52 31 41 43
Auto and Shop Information 50 16 32 40
Mechanical Comprehension 42 27 37 45

Military Entrance Score (AFQT) 39 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

FIGURE 10.1   Sample ASVAB Summary Results sheet.

Source: ASVAB Career Exploration Program: Counselor Manual (United States Military Entrance Processing
Command (USMEPC), Testing Division, 2005).

1. Interpret Halle’s Career Exploration a. According to the Summary

percentile ranks based on the three Results Sheet, what is the percen-
norm groups: 11th-grade females, tile rank for this score for 11th-
11th-grade males, and 11th-grade grade females?
students. b. What is the percentile rank for this
2. Interpret her standard scores on the score for 11th-grade males?
ASVAB tests. c. Why do you think there is such a
3. From your interpretation of Halle’s large difference in percentile
test results, how would you describe scores between these two groups
any relative strengths or weaknesses on this test?
she may have?
4. Halle’s standard score on the ASVAB
Auto and Shop Information test
was 40.
228 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

designed to measure an individual’s ability to learn or to succeed in a number of areas. The

test is suitable for group administration and is used primarily for educational and career
counseling as well as for employee selection. Organizations from various types of indus-
tries and occupations use the DAT for PCA to evaluate a job applicant’s strengths and
weaknesses and to improve the accuracy and efficiency of their hiring decisions. The DAT
for PCA can be used with students in grades 7 through 12 and adults, takes about 2.5 hours
to administer, and can be hand or computer scored. Test results are reported in percentile
ranks, stanines, and scaled scores. The DAT yields scores in eight subtests, which are
directly related to various occupations. The subtests are as follows:
1. Verbal Reasoning  Measures general cognitive ability, which is useful for placing
employees in professional, managerial, and other positions of responsibility that
require higher-order thinking skills.
2. Numerical Ability  Tests the understanding of numerical relationships and facility in
handling numerical concepts. This subtest is a good predictor of job success in such
fields as mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, and other fields related to the
physical sciences.
3. Abstract Reasoning  A nonverbal measure of the ability to perceive relationships in
abstract figure patterns. This measure is useful for job selection when a position
requires the ability to perceive relationships among things rather than among words
or numbers, such as positions in mathematics, computer programming, drafting, and
automobile repair.
4. Clerical Speed and Accuracy  Measures the speed of response in a simple perceptual
task. This is important for such clerical duties as filing and coding.
5. Mechanical Reasoning  Measures the ability to understand basic mechanical princi-
ples of machinery, tools, and motion. This is useful in selection decisions for jobs
such as carpenter, mechanic, maintenance worker, and assembler.
6. Space Relations  Measures the ability to visualize a three-dimensional object from a
two-dimensional pattern. This ability is important in fields such as drafting, clothing
design, architecture, art, die making, decorating, carpentry, and dentistry.
7. Spelling  Measures an applicant’s ability to spell common English words.
8. Language Usage  Measures the ability to detect errors in grammar, punctuation, and
capitalization.

Both the Language Usage and Spelling subtests provide a good estimate of the ability
to distinguish correct from incorrect English usage. The Verbal Reasoning and Numerical
Ability subtest scores are combined to create a composite index of scholastic aptitude.
Overall, the DAT for PCA is useful in exploring an individual’s academic and voca-
tional possibilities. The test may also be used for the early identification of students with
superior intellectual promise. Test limitations relate to the lack of independence of some of
the scales and the separate gender norms. Both computerized-scoring services and hand-
scoring stencils are available for the test. Figure 10.2 presents an example of a profile from
the DAT. A Career Interest Inventory had been available with the DAT for PCA but was
discontinued as of September 2014.

General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB).  The General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) is one
of the oldest general aptitude tests still used today. Developed by the U.S. Employment
Service (USES; Dvorak, 1947), the GATB was originally designed for use by employment
 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude 229

Verbal reasoning (30)

Abstract reasoning (15)

Mechanical reasoning (40)

Numerical ability (15)

Spelling (1)

Language usage (5)

Clerical speed
(12)
and accuracy
Space relations (27)
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99
Percentile Rank

FIGURE 10.2   Profile from the Differential Aptitude Tests.

counselors in state employment services offices to match job applicants with potential
employers in the private and public sectors. Although it is still used in employment offices,
the instrument has become popular in both government and private organizations as a
method to screen large numbers of job applicants, as well as in high schools for career
counseling. The GATB is a paper-and-pencil test, can be administered to students from
grades 9 through 12 and adults, and takes approximately 2.5 hours to complete. The bat-
tery consists of 12 separately timed subtests, which make up nine aptitude scores:
1. Verbal Aptitude  Vocabulary
2. Numerical Aptitude  Computation, Arithmetic Reasoning
3. Spatial Aptitude  Three-Dimensional Space
4. Form Perception  Tool Matching, Form Matching
5. Clerical Perception  Name Comparison
6. Motor Coordination  Mark Making
7. Finger Dexterity  Assemble, Disassemble
8. Manual Dexterity  Place, Turn
9. General Learning Ability  Vocabulary, Arithmetic Reasoning, Three-Dimensional Space

Career Ability Placement Survey  The CAPS is a multiple-aptitude test battery designed
to measure vocationally relevant abilities. It is part of the COPSystem Career Measure-
ment Package, which is a comprehensive system that assesses an individual’s interests,
abilities, and values related to career choice (see Chapter 11). The CAPS is the ability
measure that can be used for matching students’ ability with occupational requirements,
educational or training program selection, curriculum evaluation, career assessment, or
employee evaluation. The battery takes 50 minutes to complete and can be used with mid-
dle through high school students, college students, and adults. The CAPS measures eight
ability dimensions:
1. Mechanical Reasoning Measures understanding of mechanical principals and
devices and the laws of physics.
2. Spatial Relations  Measures the ability to think and visualize in three dimensions.
230 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

3. Verbal Reasoning  Measures the ability to reason with words and to understand and
use concepts expressed in words.
4. Numerical Ability  Measures the ability to reason with and use numbers and work
with quantitative materials and ideas.
5. Language Usage  Measures recognition and use of proper grammar, punctuation,
and capitalization.
6. Word Knowledge  Measures understanding of the meaning and precise use of words.
7. Perceptual Speed and Accuracy  Measures how well a person can perceive small
details rapidly and accurately within a mass of letters, numbers, and symbols.
8. Manual Speed and Dexterity  Measures rapid and accurate hand movements.
There are self-scoring and machine-scoring forms for the test, as well as a computer-
ized scoring and reporting software program. All types of supportive materials are avail-
able for the counselor and client: a self-interpretation profile sheet and guide, occupational
cluster charts, the COPSystem Career Briefs Kit, and the COPSystem Career Cluster
Booklet Kits, in addition to an examiner’s manual, tapes for administration, and visuals
for orientation.

Specialized Aptitude Tests

Unlike the multiple-aptitude batteries, specialized aptitude tests typically measure a single
aptitude. Certain aptitudes (such as clerical abilities, motor dexterity, and artistic talents)
are considered to be too specialized to justify inclusion in multiple-aptitude batteries, yet
they are often considered vital to a certain job or task (Fletcher-Janzen & Reynolds, 2014).
In response to this limitation, specialized aptitude tests were designed to measure these spe-
cific abilities. In contrast to aptitude test batteries that assess several aptitudes, specialized
aptitude tests typically measure a single ability. See Figure 10.3 for a depiction of special-
ized ability test areas. The following is a description of some common specialized aptitude
test categories.

Clerical Ability  Clerical ability refers to the skills needed for office and clerical duties.
Individuals with high clerical aptitude can process information quickly, are detail ori-
ented, and may be successful as bank tellers, administrative assistants, data processors, or
cashiers. Abilities related to clerical aptitude include the following:
• Calculation  Ability to perform a series of simple arithmetic calculations.
• Checking  Ability to quickly and accurately check verbal and numerical information
(e.g., names, addresses, code numbers, telephone numbers) against a target.
• Coding  Ability to copy letter- and number-like symbols according to a specified
­pattern.
• Filing  Ability to identify the correct location for a set of named files.
• Keyboarding  Ability to quickly and accurately type on a computer keyboard.
• Numerical Ability  Ability to use numbers efficiently in clerical and administrative
contexts.
• Verbal Reasoning  Includes spelling, grammar, understanding analogies, and fol-
lowing instructions.
There are several instruments commercially available to assess clerical ability. The
descriptions of these tests reveal that they are similar to some of the subtests of the group
intelligence tests and the multiple-aptitude test batteries. Although the tests have been
 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude 231

around for decades, they remain valid measures for predicting performance (Whetzel
et al., 2011). The following are examples of several well-known clerical ability tests.
General Clerical Test-Revised.  The General Clerical Test-Revised (GTC-R) was developed
to assess one’s ability to succeed in a position requiring clerical skills. It can be either group
or individually administered and takes approximately 1 hour. The instrument consists of
three subtests: Clerical, Numerical, and Verbal. The Clerical subtest assesses speed and
accuracy in performing perceptual tasks (checking and alphabetizing) that involve atten-
tion to detail. The Numerical subtest assesses math computation, numerical error location,
and math reasoning. The Verbal subtest evaluates spelling, reading comprehension,
vocabulary, and grammar.
Minnesota Clerical Test.  The Minnesota Clerical Test (MCT) was developed to assist
employers in selecting individuals to fill detail-oriented jobs, especially positions that require
attention to number and letter details (such as bank tellers, receptionists, cashiers, and
administrative assistants). The instrument consists of two parts: number comparison and
name comparison. There are 200 pairs of numbers and 200 pairs of names, and in a specified
amount of time the examinee must correctly select the pairs with elements that are identical.
Clerical Abilities Battery.  The Clerical Abilities Battery (CAB) was developed in coopera-
tion with General Motors Corporation and assesses skills most commonly needed for
administrative tasks. The battery is comprised of seven tests: Filing, Copying Information,
Comparing Information, Using Tables, Proofreading, Basic Math Skills, and Numerical
Reasoning. The tests can be administered in any combination to reflect the skills needed
for a particular position or task.

Mechanical Ability  Mechanical ability is the capacity to learn about mechanical objects. It
is reflected in familiarity with everyday physical objects, tools, devices, and home repairs,
as well as spatial reasoning (i.e., the ability to visualize a three-dimensional object from a
two-dimensional pattern). Individuals with strong mechanical aptitude may be successful
working as engineers, mechanics, millwrights, machine operators, tool setters, and trades-
persons, to name a few. The following are examples of mechanical ability tests.
Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test.  A well-known mechanic aptitude test is the
Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test (BMCT; Bennett, 1980). This test has been used
for over 60 years to select individuals for a wide variety of civilian and military occupa-
tions as well as training programs requiring mechanical aptitude. It focuses on spatial
perception and tool knowledge and is well suited for assessing individuals for jobs requir-
ing the operation and repair of mechanical devices. It has 68 multiple-choice items focus-
ing on the application of physical and mechanical principles in practical situations. Each
item portrays a drawing illustrating an object that reflects the concepts of force, energy,
density, velocity, and so on. The test is one of the most widely used mechanical aptitude
tests, and a considerable amount of research has supported the technical quality of this
instrument. However, the test is not without its concerns. For example, some items portray
mechanical concepts involving objects that females may be less familiar with than males.
Another concern involves the norm group. Although the test was renormed in 2005 and
included groups based on the industries and occupations in which the test is most fre-
quently used (i.e., auto mechanic, engineer, installation/maintenance/repair, industrial/
technical, skilled tradesperson, transportation/equipment operator), separate norming
data for males, females, and minorities was not reported.
232 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

Clerical
Ability

Other Mechanical
Abilities Ability

Specialized
Ability
Tests

Musical Psychomotor
Ability Ability

Artistic
Ability

FIGURE 10.3   Various Specialized Ability Test Areas.

Mechanical Aptitude Test.  The Mechanical Aptitude Test (MAT 3-C) is a quick evaluation
of a person’s ability to learn production and maintenance job activities. The test was
designed specifically to measure an individual’s potential to be successful in apprentice-
ship or trainee programs for maintenance mechanics, industrial machinery mechanics,
millwrights, machine operators, and tool setters. The test contains 36 multiple-choice items
and takes approximately 20 minutes to complete.

Wiesen Test of Mechanical Aptitude.  The Wiesen Test of Mechanical Aptitude (WTMA) is
designed for selecting entry-level personnel for jobs involving the operation, maintenance,
and repair of mechanical equipment of various types. The WTMA measures basic ability
rather than formal schooling or job experience. It is a 60-item paper-and-pencil test that
takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. Each test item uses a simple drawing of
ev­eryday objects to illustrate a mechanical principle or fact (e.g., basic machines, move-
ment, gravity or center of gravity, basic electricity or electronics, transfer of heat, basic
physical properties). Test items are brief and involve the function and/or use, size, weight,
shape, and appearance of common physical objects, tools, and devices. The WTMA is
appropriate for individuals aged 18 and older.

Psychomotor Ability  Psychomotor ability refers to one’s capacity to perform body

motor movements (e.g., movement of fingers, hands, legs, body) with precision, coordina-
tion, or strength. Psychomotor tests were among the first measures of special abilities to be
constructed, and many psychomotor tests were developed during the 1920s and 1930s to
predict performance in certain jobs or trades. Psychomotor abilities are important to occu-
pations that involve working with things and objects (e.g., building, repairing, assembling,
organizing, writing). Examples of psychomotor abilities include the following:
• Arm-Hand Steadiness  Ability to keep your hand and arm steady while moving your
arm or holding your arm in one position.
 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude 233

• Finger Dexterity  Ability to make precisely coordinated movements of the fingers to

grasp, manipulate, or assemble very small objects.
• Manual Dexterity  Ability to make precisely coordinated movements with your
hand, with your hand and arm, or with two hands to grasp, manipulate, or assemble
objects.
• Multilimb Coordination  Ability to coordinate two or more limbs while standing,
sitting, or lying down.
• Static Strength  Ability to exert muscular force to move, push, lift, or pull a heavy or
immobile object.
• Visual-Motor Skills (Eye-Hand Coordination)  Ability to coordinate vision with the
movements of the body.
Psychomotor tests may require test takers to engage in various tasks, such as moving
arms and legs in coordination, pulling a lever, placing pins into holes, or using a screw-
driver, to name just a few. The following are a few examples of psychomotor tests.
Bennett Hand Tool Dexterity Test.  This test assesses whether an individual has the basic
skills necessary for any job requiring hand tools, such as aircraft or automobile mechanics,
machine adjusters, maintenance mechanics, and assembly line workers. The test requires
examinees to use wrenches and screwdrivers to take apart 12 assemblies of nuts, bolts, and
washers from a wooden frame and then reassemble them (see Figure 10.4). The test is rec-
ommended for industrial applicants and employees, students in training programs, and
adults in vocational training.
Purdue Pegboard Test.  The Purdue Pegboard Test is a dexterity test designed to aid in
the selection of employees for industrial jobs that require fine and gross motor dexterity
and coordination, such as assembly, packing, operation of certain machines, and other
manual jobs. It measures gross movements of hands, fingers, and arms, as well as fingertip
dexterity. The first part of the test requires test takers to put pins into holes first with the

FIGURE 10.4   The Bennett Hand Tool Dexterity Test.

Source: Bennett Hand Tool Dexterity Test. Copyright © 1969 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Reproduced with permission.
All rights reserved.
234 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

right hand, then with the left hand, and finally with both hands. Five separate scores can
be obtained with the Purdue Pegboard Test: (1) right hand, (2) left hand, (3) both hands, (4)
right plus left plus both hands (R 1 L 1 B), and (5) assembly. The test takes about 10 min-
utes to administer.
The Purdue Pegboard Test is also used to assess and identify issues related to func-
tional impairment in fine and gross motor dexterity. For example, the Purdue Pegboard
Test has been shown to be a valid tool for identifying functional impairment due to carpal
tunnel syndrome (Amirjani, Ashworth, Olson, Morhart, & Chan, 2011). As another exam-
ple, the Pegboard has been used to evaluate treatment effects on individuals diagnosed
with Parkinson’s disease (Eggers, Fink, & Nowak, 2010).

Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition.  The Bruininks–Oseretsky

Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2) measures motor skills in individuals rang-
ing from 4 to 21 years of age. The test assesses fine motor skills, manual dexterity, coordi-
nation, balance, and strength and agility. The test can be used for making decisions about
educational or vocational placement, developing and evaluating motor training pro-
grams, screening as part of in-depth psychological evaluations, and assessing neurologi-
cal development. The BOT-2 consists of eight subtests that require examinees to do a
variety of tasks:
1. Fine Motor Precision  Cutting out a circle, connecting dots
2. Fine Motor Integration  Copying a star, copying a square
3. Manual Dexterity  Transferring pennies, sorting cards, stringing blocks
4. Bilateral Coordination  Tapping feet alternately while making circles with index
fingers; jumping jacks
5. Balance  Standing on one leg and holding position for 10 seconds, walking forward
on a line
6. Running Speed Agility  Running from a start line to an end line and returning
7. Upper-Limb Coordination  Throwing a ball at a target, catching a tossed ball
8. Strength  Standing long jump, sit-ups
In some cases, the BOT-2 is used to determine the severity of movement disorders.
For example, the BOT-2 is one of the primary tools used to identify developmental coordi-
nation disorder. This disorder is associated with difficulty in learning and performing
motor activities (Cermak, Gubbay, & Larkin, 2002). However, the BOT-2 has not correlated
well with other measures of motor skills functioning (Spironello, Hay, Missiuna, Faught,
& Cairney, 2010). Thus, counselors are cautioned to use multiple measures across multiple
settings to more accurately identify motor issues.

Artistic Ability  The concept of artistic ability often suggests an ability to draw and paint
or appreciate great art. However, because what is considered great art varies from person
to person and from culture to culture, the criteria for measuring artistic ability is difficult
to determine (Aiken & Groth-Marnat, 2006). A number of tests have been published that
measure artistic ability; however, most are old and are no longer commercially available.
Some artistic tests measure art appreciation (i.e., judgment, perception), whereas others
assess artistic performance or knowledge of art. One of the most popular tests of art
appreciation is the Meier–Seashore Art Judgment Test (Meier, 1940), which measures one’s
ability to discern between better and worse artistic works. The test consists of pairs of
 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude 235

pictures that differ in one feature. One of the pictures is “real” (i.e., corresponds to an
original work of art), and the other represents a simple variation of the original. Test tak-
ers are asked to identify the better (original) picture. A related artistic ability test is the
Meier Art Test of Aesthetic Perception. This test presents four versions of the same work—
each differing in terms of proportion, unity, form, or design—and test takers are asked to
rank each set in order of merit. The Graves Design Judgment Test measures artistic ability
by presenting test takers with 90 sets of two- or three-dimensional designs that vary in
unity, balance, symmetry, or other aspects of aesthetic order. Test takers are then asked to
select the best in each set.

Musical Ability  Most musical ability tests assess the skills that musicians should possess,
such as the capacity to discriminate pitch, loudness, tempo, timbre, and rhythm. Tests are
available that purport to measure musical abilities, but all suffer from poor validity and
reliability. Probably the oldest and most famous musical ability test is the Seashore Measures
of Musical Talents. The test takes about 1 hour of testing time and can be administered to
students from grade 4 through grade 12 and adults. The test presents on tape six subtests
measuring dimensions of auditory discrimination: pitch, loudness, time, timbre, rhythm,
and tonal memory. Other tests that purport to measure musical aptitude include the Kwal-
wasser Music Talent Test, which is used with fourth-grade to college-age students. The
50-item test presents test takers with three-tone patterns that are repeated with variations in
pitch, tone, rhythm, or loudness. Another instrument is the Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP),
which consists of seven components: tonal imagery (melody and harmony), rhythm imagery
(tempo and meter), and musical sensitivity (phrasing, balance, and style). The test takes
about 3.5 hours to administer. Unfortunately, research has been limited on the value of
these tests, and many tests of musical aptitude have been criticized for a lack of ecological
validity. In other words, the tests do not approximate a realistic experience by which musi-
cal aptitude could be accurately measured (Karma, 2007). Music teachers tend to rely more
on their own clinical judgment and look for individual performance of music as it is written.

Other Abilities  The categories of abilities that we discussed in this section (e.g., clerical,
mechanical, artistic, psychomotor, musical aptitude) represent only a few of the many
specialized aptitude tests. Tests are available to assess numerous other specific areas, such
as food services, industrial skills, legal skills, medical office, retail sales, transcription, and
many, many more. Furthermore, businesses can have aptitude tests custom made to iden-
tify qualified applicants for specialized jobs.

Admissions Tests
Most academic programs use aptitude test scores as part of their admissions requirements.
Admissions tests (sometimes referred to as entrance exams or academic ability tests) are
designed to predict performance in a particular educational program. Used in combina-
tion with other relevant information (e.g., high school grade point average, teacher recom-
mendations), they are a general indicator of future academic success. Thus, students who
score high on admissions tests would most likely perform better in college than those who
do not score high.
Most admissions tests assess some combination of verbal, quantitative, writing, and
analytical reasoning skills or discipline-specific knowledge. The tests aim to measure the
236 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

most relevant skills and knowledge for mastering a particular discipline. A key psycho-
metric aspect of admissions tests is predictive validity, which is typically evaluated by
correlating test scores with a measure of academic performance, such as first-year grade
point average (GPA), graduate GPA, degree attainment, qualifying or comprehensive
examination scores, research productivity, research citation counts, licensing examination
performance, or faculty evaluations of students. Although the general verbal and quantita-
tive scales are effective predictors of academic success, the strongest predictor of success is
high school GPA (Fu, 2012).
One concern in admissions tests concerns bias against certain groups, including
racial, ethnic, and gender groups. Overall and across tests, research has found that average
test scores do not differ by race or ethnic group but do tend to underpredict the perfor-
mance of women in college settings (Kuncel & Hezlett, 2007). Fu (2012) conducted research
on a sample of approximately 33,000 undergraduate and graduate students from the
United States and abroad. Overall, Fu confirmed that traditional admission tests were
good predictors of success for all students. In fact, Fu found that scores on the SAT had a
high correlation with first-year GPA for international undergraduate students.
We will present information about some prominent admissions tests, including the
SAT, ACT, and others.

SAT  Nearly every college in America accepts the SAT (formerly called the Scholastic
­ ptitude Test and the Scholastic Achievement Test) as a part of its admissions process.
A
Published by the College Board, millions of college- and university-bound high school
students take the SAT each year. The SAT consists of two tests: the Reasoning Test and
Subject Tests. The SAT Reasoning Test assesses the critical thinking skills needed for col-
lege and has three sections: mathematics, critical reading, and writing (see Table 10.2).
The test takes 3 hours and 45 minutes to complete, including an unscored 25-minute
experimental section (used for development of future test questions). It includes several
different item types, including multiple-choice questions, student-produced responses
(grid-ins), and a student-produced essay. The SAT Subject Tests are optional tests designed
to measure knowledge in specific subject areas, such as biology, chemistry, literature,
various languages, and history. Many colleges use the subject tests for admission and
course placement or to advise students about course selection. Some colleges specify the
subject tests required for admission, whereas others allow applicants to choose which

TABLE 10.2  SAT Reasoning Tests

Section Content Item Types Time

Critical Reading comprehension, sentence completion, Multiple choice 70 minutes
Reading paragraph-length critical reading
Mathematics Number and operations; algebra and functions; Multiple choice, 70 minutes
geometry; statistics, probability, and data grid-ins
analysis
Writing Grammar, usage, and word choice Multiple choice, 60 minutes
essay
Experimental Critical reading, mathematics, or writing Any 25 minutes
 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude 237

tests to take. Scores on the SAT Reasoning Test and SAT Subject Tests range from 200 to
800, with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. Percentiles are also given to pro-
vide comparisons among test takers’ scores.
Research studies have looked at the SAT’s ability to predict college success (i.e., pre-
dictive validity) by examining the relationship between test scores and first-year college
GPA (FYGPA). A study sanctioned by the College Board (Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw,
­Mattern, & Barbuti, 2008) found correlation coefficients of .26, .29, and .33 between FYGPA
and the scores on the three SAT Reasoning Test sections—Mathematics, Critical Reading,
and Writing, respectively. They also found a correlation of .46 between FYGPA and com-
bined SAT score and high school GPA (HSGPA), indicating that colleges should use both
HSGPA and SAT scores to make the best predictions of student success. Fu (2012) con-
firmed these findings and demonstrated the utility of the SAT in predicting success for
international students. However, because there is a degree of error in the correlation
between FYPGA and SAT scores, it is important to consider a combination of information
sources when making admission decisions.

Preliminary Sat/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test  The Preliminary SAT/

National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT) is a standardized test that
provides high school students firsthand practice for the SAT Reasoning Test. It also gives
students a chance to enter National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) scholarship
programs. The PSAT/NMSQT measures critical reading skills, math problem-solving
skills, and writing skills. It provides students with feedback on their strengths and weak-
nesses in skills necessary for college study, helps students prepare for the SAT, and ena-
bles students to enter the competition for scholarships from the National Merit
Scholarship Corporation.

The Act Information System  The ACT program is a comprehensive system for collecting
and reporting information about students planning to enter college or university. It con-
sists of four major components: the Tests of Educational Development, the Student Profile
section, the Course/Grade Information section, and the UNIACT Interest Inventory. A
description of each component follows.
• The Tests of Educational Development are multiple-choice tests designed to assess stu-
dents’ general educational development and their ability to complete college-level
work. Like the SAT, the ACT Tests of Educational Development can be taken by
students in the 11th or 12th grades. The tests cover four skill areas: English, mathe-
matics, reading, and science. The optional Writing Test is a 30-minute essay test that
measures students’ writing skills in English. The tests emphasize reasoning, analysis,
problem solving, and the integration of learning from various sources, as well as the
application of these proficiencies to the kinds of tasks that college students are
expected to perform.
• The Course/Grade Information section provides 30 self-reported high school grades in
the areas of English, mathematics, natural sciences, social studies, language, and the
arts. The courses include those that usually form a college’s core preparatory curricu-
lum and are frequently required for admission to college.
• The Student Profile section contains information reported by students when they reg-
ister for the ACT. This information includes the following categories: admissions or
238 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

enrollment information; educational plans, interests, and needs; special educational

needs, interests, and goals; college extracurricular plans; financial aid; demographic
background information; factors influencing college choice; characteristics of high
school; high school extracurricular activities; and out-of-class accomplishments.
• The UNIACT Interest Inventory is a 72-item survey that provides six scores that paral-
lel John Holland’s six interest and occupational types. The main purpose of the inter-
est inventory is to help students identify majors congruent with their interests.

The Plan Program  The PLAN assessment is part of the ACT program. It is considered a
“pre-ACT” test, similar to the PSAT, and is a predictor of success on the ACT. Designed to
be taken by 10th graders, the PLAN consists of four academic achievement tests in English,
mathematics, reading, and science. Other components of the PLAN program include (a)
students’ needs assessment, (b) high school course and grade information, (c) the UNIACT
Interest Inventory, and (d) the Educational Opportunity Services (EOS), which links students
with college and scholarship information based on their PLAN results.

Graduate Record Examinations  The GRE is taken by individuals applying to graduate

schools. Graduate program admissions are usually based on the GRE score, undergraduate
grade point average, and other requirements specific to that graduate program. The GRE
consists of two tests: the General Test and Subject Tests. The GRE General Test measures
verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, critical thinking, and analytical writing skills that
are not related to any specific field of study. The Subject Tests gauge undergraduate achieve-
ment in specific fields of study (e.g., biochemistry, biology, and chemistry).
The GRE General Test has both computer-based and paper-based formats; the Sub-
ject Tests only offer a paper-based format. The computer version is an adaptive test. This
means that the questions given to the test taker are dependent partially on the answers the
test taker has provided to previous questions. The test begins with questions of middle
difficulty. As the individual answers each question, the computer scores that question and
uses that information to determine which question is presented next. If the test taker
answers an item correctly, then an item with increased difficulty will be presented next. If
the test taker responds incorrectly, then a less difficult item will be presented next.
Reliability coefficients, as measured by the KR 20 formula, are in the high .80s to .90s
for both the GRE General Test and the Subject Tests. In terms of predictive validity evi-
dence, the GRE General Test was positively correlated with FYGPA (r 5 low .40s; Kuncel
& Hezlett, 2007). The Subject Tests tend to be better predictors of first-year GPA for specific
departments than either the verbal or quantitative scales of the General Test. Again,
because the correlations between GRE and FYGPA contain a degree of error, many gradu-
ate schools have developed an array of admission criteria that includes the GRE rather
than making decisions based on GRE alone.

Miller Analogies Test  The Miller Analogies Test (MAT) is another admissions exam taken
by individuals applying to graduate schools. The MAT is a 50-item, group-administered
test consisting of 100 multiple-choice analogy items. The content for the analogies comes
from literature, social sciences, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and general information.
In each MAT analogy item, one term is missing and has been replaced with four answer
options, only one of which correctly completes the analogy. The terms in most of the MAT
 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude 239

analogy items are words, but in some cases they may be numbers, symbols, or word parts.
For example:
PLANE : AIR :: CAR : (a. submarine, b. fish, c. land, d. pilot)
The first step in solving a MAT analogy is to decide which two of the three given
terms form a complete pair. In the example, this could either be “PLANE is related to AIR”
(the first term is related to the second term) or “PLANE is related to CAR” (the first term
is related to the third term). On the MAT, it will never be “PLANE is related to (a. subma-
rine, b. fish, c. water, d. pilot)”; the first term is never related to the fourth term.

Other Admissions Tests  Other widely used admission tests in higher education include
the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), and the
Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT). The most important consideration in the
use of these tests is whether the validity of the test for a particular program has been estab-
lished, especially through studies at a local college or university.

Readiness Tests
The term readiness test is applied to aptitude tests used to predict success when a child
enters school. School readiness has historically been defined as readiness to learn specific
material and be successful in a typical school context (Bracken & Nagle, 2007). Schools
frequently use readiness tests to judge whether children are “ready” for kindergarten or
the first grade. These tests are similar to admissions tests, because they measure current
knowledge and skills in order to forecast future academic performance; the distinction is
that the term readiness test is used specifically in reference to tests for young children.
In most states, eligibility to enroll in kindergarten begins at age 5.1. Although chil-
dren may meet this specific age requirement, they vary widely in how well prepared they
are for kindergarten. For example, some children have considerable prekindergarten edu-
cation experiences and are able to recognize letters, numbers, and shapes, whereas other
children may have fewer abilities related to kindergarten success. Readiness tests are used
to determine the extent to which children have mastered the underlying skills deemed
necessary for school learning. Most readiness tests assess facets of the following five
domains (Boan, Aydlett, & Multunas, 2007, p. 52):
• Physical  Focuses on impairments in sensory functions, motor skills, illnesses or
medical conditions, growth, and overall well-being
• Social and Emotional  Involves age-appropriate social skills, psychological well-
being, self-perceptions, and interpersonal interactions
• Learning  Includes attention, curiosity, and enthusiasm for learning
• Language  Involves verbal communication skills, nonverbal communication skills,
and early literacy skills
• Cognition and General Knowledge  Emphasizes problem-solving skills, abstract rea-
soning, early mathematical skills, and overall fund of knowledge
The majority of schools in the United States administer readiness tests (Csapó,
­ olnár, & Nagy, 2014). Children who are deemed “not ready” often wait another year
M
before starting school. Readiness tests can be used to develop curricula and to establish
individualized instruction. Most readiness tests are designed to assess areas related to
240 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

school tasks, such as general knowledge, language, and health and physical functioning.
Research finds the predictive validity of these tests to be extremely limited; thus, their use
in making decisions about kindergarten enrollment is highly questionable. Often, the con-
cept of readiness is impacted more by parental factors than academic readiness. For exam-
ple, socioeconomic adversity, parental demoralization, and support for learning have been
shown to impact readiness (Okado, Bierman, & Welsh, 2014). Thus, there is a potential for
cultural bias when assessing school readiness. We caution counselors and other helping
professionals in the use of such assessments without a range of other substantial informa-
tion to support the findings. Examples of school readiness tests include the Kaufman
­Survey of Early Academic and Language Skills (K-SEALS), the Kindergarten Readiness
Test (KRT), the School Readiness Test (SRT), the Metropolitan Readiness Tests, and the
Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA-3).
There have been several concerns cited about using readiness tests for making impor-
tant decisions about children’s lives. Although most researchers, educators, and policy-
makers agree on the dimensions essential to school readiness (e.g., physical development;
emotional and social development; learning, language, and cognition; general knowledge),
there is some debate as to whether these dimensions are accurate or complete (Meisels,
1999). Also, assessing preschool-age children is challenging because of their rapid and
uneven development, which can be greatly impacted by environmental factors (Saluja,
Scott-Little, & Clifford, 2000). Furthermore, typical standardized paper-and-pencil tests
suitable for older children are not appropriate for children entering school (Shepard,
Kagan, & Wurtz, 1998).

Summary
Aptitude tests measure an individual’s perfor- Battery, the General Aptitude Test Battery, and
mance on selected tasks to predict how that per- the Differential Aptitude Test battery.
son will perform sometime in the future or in a Specialized aptitude tests are designed to
different situation. The aptitude could involve measure the ability to acquire proficiency in a
school performance, job performance, or some specific area of activity, such as art or music.
other task or situation. Aptitude tests measure Mechanical and clerical aptitude tests have been
both acquired knowledge and innate ability in used by vocational education and business and
order to determine one’s potential. Multiple- industry personnel to counsel, evaluate, clas-
aptitude batteries are used in educational and sify, and place test takers. Both multifactor and
business contexts, as well as with career guid- special aptitude tests are designed to help the
ance systems. The most widely used batteries test takers gain a better understanding of their
are the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude own special abilities.

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the major multiple-aptitude test batter- 3. Some school districts require that all students be
ies? When should they be used, and why? What given an aptitude battery at some time during
are the advantages and disadvantages of this their 4 years of high school. Do you agree or disa-
type of test? gree with this requirement? Why?
2. When would you use specialized aptitude tests, 4. Do you feel that there can be pencil-and-paper
and why? What are the advantages and disad- aptitude tests to measure aptitudes in art, music,
vantages of such tests? and mechanics? Why or why not?
 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude 241

Suggested Activities
1. Write a critique of a widely used multiple-­ vocational assessment and was administered the
aptitude test battery or specialized aptitude test. DAT, with the following results:
2. Interview counselors who use aptitude tests—
employment counselors, career counselors, and Scale Percentile
school counselors—and find out what tests Verbal Reasoning 40%
they use and why. Report your findings to the Numerical Reasoning 55%
class.
3. Take a multiple-aptitude test battery or special- Abstract Reasoning 20%
ized aptitude test, and write a report detailing the Mechanical Reasoning 55%
results and your reaction to the test. Space Relations 30%
4. Make an annotated bibliography of aptitude tests Spelling  3%
you would use in your field.
5. Albert is a 23-year-old male who dropped out of Language Usage  5%
school in the 10th grade. He is enrolled in a high Perceptual Speed and Accuracy 45%
school equivalency program at a local commu-
nity college sponsored by the Private Industry a. How would you characterize Albert’s aptitudes?
Council. He has had numerous jobs in the food b. What additional information about Albert
services industry but has not been able to hold on would you like to have?
to them. He has a wife and three children and c. If you were a counselor, what educational and
now realizes he needs further training and educa- vocational directions would you encourage
tion to support his family. He participated in Albert to explore?

References
Ackerman, D., & Barnett, W. S. (2005). Prepared for Cermak & D. Larkin (Eds.), Developmental coordina-
kindergarten: What does “readiness” mean? New tion disorder (pp. 1–22). Albany, NY: Delmar.
Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Educa- Csapó, B., Molnár, G., & Nagy, J. (2014). Computer-
tion Research, Rutgers University. based assessment of school readiness and early
Aiken, L. A., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2006). Psychologi- reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3),
cal testing and assessment (12th ed.). Boston, MA: 639–650.
Pearson. Dvorak, B. J. (1947). New United States employment
Amirjani, N., Ashworth, N. L., Olson, J. L., Morhart, service general aptitude test battery. Journal of
M., & Chan, K. M. (2011). Validity and reliability Applied Psychology, 31, 372–376.
of the Purdue Pegboard Test in carpal tunnel syn- Eggers, C., Fink, G., & Nowak, D. (2010). Theta burst
drome. Muscle & Nerve, 43(2), 171–177. doi: stimulation over the primary motor cortex does
10.1002/mus.21856 not induce cortical plasticity in Parkinson’s dis-
Bennett, G. K. (1980). Test of mechanical comprehension. ease. Journal of Neurology, 257(10), 1669–1674. doi:
New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation. 10.1007/s00415-010-5597-1
Boan, C., Aydlett, L. A., & Multunas, N. (2007). Early Fletcher-Janzen, C. R., & Reynolds, E. (2014). Encyclo-
childhood screening and readiness assessment. In pedia of special education: A reference for the education
B. A. Bracken & R. J. Nagle (Eds.), Psychoeducational of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities
assessment of preschool children (4th ed., pp. 49–67). and other exceptional individuals (Vol. 1). Hoboken,
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bracken, B. A., & Nagle, R. J. (Eds.). (2007). Psychoedu- Fu, Y. (2012). The effectiveness of traditional admis-
cational assessment of preschool children (4th ed.). sions criteria in predicting college and graduate
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. success for American and international students.
Cermak, S. A., Gubbay, S. S., & Larkin, D. (2002). What Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 73,
is developmental coordination disorder? In S. A. 1383.
242 Chapter 10  •  Assessment of Aptitude

Karma, K. (2007). Musical aptitude definition and Saluja, G., Scott-Little, C., Clifford, R. M. (2000).
measure validation: Ecological validity can endan- Readiness for School: A Survey of State Policies
ger the construct validity of musical aptitude tests. and Definitions. Early Childhood Research & Prac-
Psychomusicology: A Journal of Research in Music tice, 2(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu
Cognition, 19(2), 79–90. /vsns/saluja.html
Kobrin, J. L., Patterson, B. F., Shaw, E. J., Mattern, K. Shepard, L. A., Kagan, S. L., & Wurtz, E. (Eds.).
D. & Barbuti, S. M. (2008). Validity of the SAT for (1998). Principles and recommendations for early
predicting first-year college grade point average (Col- childhood assessments. Washington, DC: National
lege Board Research Report No. 2008-5). New Education Goals Panel.
York, NY: College Board Publications. Sparkman, L. A., Maulding, W. S., & Roberts,
Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2007). Standardized J. G. (2012). Noncognitive predictors of student
tests predict graduate students’ success. Science, ­success in college. College Student Journal, 46(3),
315, 1080–1081. 642–652.
Meier, N. C. (1940). Meier Art Tests: Part I. Art judg- Spironello, C., Hay, J., Missiuna, C., Faught, B. E., &
ment. Iowa City, IA: Bureau of Educational Cairney, J. (2010). Concurrent and construct valida-
Research and Service, University of Iowa. tion of the short form of the Bruininks–Oseretsky
Meisels, S. (1999). Assessing readiness. In R. C. Pianta Test of Motor Proficiency and the Movement-ABC
& M. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten: when administered under field conditions: Impli-
Research, policy, training, and practice (pp. 39–66). cations for screening. Child: Care, Health, and Devel-
Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes. opment, 36(4), 499–507. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.
Okado, Y., Bierman, K. L., & Welsh, J. A. (2014). Pro- 2009.01066.x
moting school readiness in the context of socio- United States Military Entrance Processing Com-
economic adversity: Associations with parental mand (USMEPC), Testing Division. (2005).
demoralization and support for learning. Child & ASVAB career exploration program: Counselor man-
Youth Care Forum, 43(3), 353–371. ual. North Chicago, IL: Author.
Powers, R. A. (2014). Types of ASVAB tests. Retrieved Whetzel, D. L., McCloy, R. A., Hooper, A., Russell,
from http://usmilitary.about.com/od T. L., Waters, S. D., Campbell, W. J., & Ramos,
/joiningthemilitary/a/asvabtype.htm R.  A. (2011). Meta-analysis of clerical perfor-
Saluja, G., Scott-Little, C., & Clifford, R. (2000). Read- mance predictors: Still stable after all these
iness for school: A survey of state policies and years. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
definitions. ECRP Early Childhood Research & Prac- ment, 19(1), 41–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.
tice. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n2 2010.00533.x
/saluja.html
CHAPTER

11 Career and Employment Assessment

Career development is one of the foundational areas of practice in professional counseling.

Whether you specialize in career development or provide career assistance as part of your
generalized practice, it is essential that you have a strong background in career counseling.
As is the case in all areas of counseling, assessment is a key component. Career assessment
is a systematic process undertaken for the purpose of helping individuals with career
exploration, career development, or decision making. Professionals who provide career
counseling use a variety of formal and informal instruments and procedures to assess an
individual’s interests, skills, values, personality, needs, and other factors associated with
career choice. In the context of employment, various assessment strategies may be used by
businesses and organizations to assist in staffing and other personnel-related decisions.
This chapter will acquaint you with the instruments and procedures used in career and
employment assessment.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Describe career assessment.
JJ Explain the use of the initial interview in career assessment.
JJ Explain the use of interest inventories in career assessment and describe several key

inventories, including the Self-Directed Search (SDS), the Strong Interest Inventory
(SII), and the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (CISS).
JJ Describe work values and explain how they influence the process of career decision
making.
JJ Describe the use of personality inventories in career assessment.

JJ Discuss combined assessment programs, such as the COPSystem, the Kuder Career

Planning System, and DISCOVER.

JJ Describe the various instruments and strategies used in employment assessment.

Career Assessment
Career assessment is the foundation of career planning. It is used to help individuals under-
stand themselves better and to find career options to their liking. People may need help
with career decisions at many points in their lives, such as when entering the world of
work after high school or college graduation, during midlife career change, after losing a
243
244 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

job, or after moving to a new town. Career assessment is a process that helps individuals
make informed decisions about future career prospects. It can help individuals to identify
and clarify their interests, values, and personality and to begin exploring career options.
Career assessment involves gathering information using several assessment instruments
and strategies. We will describe these methods, focusing on interest inventories, values
inventories, personality inventories, abilities assessment, career development instruments,
combined assessment programs, and interviews.

Interest Inventories
Interest inventories are among the most popular tools selected by career counselors.
­Interests are likes or preferences, or, stated another way, things that people enjoy
­(Harrington & Long, 2013). In psychological theory, some theorists hold to the doctrine
that learning cannot take place without a feeling of interest. Sometimes, interest is synony-
mous with motivation. Career development theorists have pointed out the importance of
interest. Strong (1927) postulated that interest is in the domain of motivation and that there
are clusters of attitudes, interests, and personality factors related to choice of and satisfac-
tion with an occupation.
Most people want a career that is tied to their interests, and evaluating interest is a
common component of career assessment. Various techniques that measure interest are
available, such as inventories, checklists, structured and unstructured interviews, and
questionnaires. Interest inventories have been used in the helping professions for over half
a century. E. K. Strong published his first version of the Strong Interest Blank in 1927. A cur-
rent version of the test, the Strong Interest Inventory, is widely used in the field today. It
provides a profile of how an individual’s interests compare with those of successful people
in certain occupational fields. Another interest inventory, the Kuder Preference Record—
Vocational, was first published in 1932. Kuder’s test initially measured interest in 10 gen-
eral areas, such as outdoor, literary, musical, artistic, and scientific. Today, Kuder, Inc.
provides a wide range of Internet-based tools and resources that help individuals identify
their interests, explore their options, and plan for career success.
In career assessment, interest inventories are used specifically for evaluating how
closely an individual’s interests match those of various occupations or with education or
training requirements that correspond to occupations. Some interest inventories are part of
a comprehensive career assessment package that includes measures of ability, work val-
ues, and personality. We will provide information about a few of the more prominent
interest inventories.

Self-Directed Search, Fifth Edition  The SDS (Holland, 1994) is one of the most widely
used career interest inventories. It was first developed by Dr. John Holland in 1971 and
has been revised several times. The SDS guides examinees through an evaluation of
their abilities and interests. This inventory is a tool for high school and college students
or adults returning to the workforce to find occupations that best fit their interests and
abilities. It can be used by anyone between the ages of 15 and 70 in need of career guid-
ance. The SDS is easy and uncomplicated to administer and score and is available to
take online. The website for the fifth edition of the SDS has been redesigned to allow
greater access to the general public (see self-directed-search.com). The SDS is based on
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 245

Holland’s theory (i.e., the RIASEC model) that people can be classified into six different
groups:
Realistic (R) These people are usually practical, physical, hands-on, tool-oriented
individuals. They like realistic careers, such as auto mechanic, aircraft controller,
surveyor, electrician, and farmer.
Investigative (I) These people are analytical, intellectual, scientific, and explorative.
They prefer investigative careers, such as biologist, chemist, physicist, geologist,
anthropologist, laboratory assistant, and medical technician.
Artistic (A) These people are typically creative, original, and independent. They like
artistic careers, such as composer, musician, stage director, dancer, interior decora-
tor, actor, and writer.
Social (S) These people are cooperative, supportive, helping, and healing/nurturing.
They like social careers, such as teacher, counselor, psychologist, speech therapist,
religious worker, and nurse.
Enterprising (E) These people like competitive environments, have strong leader-
ship qualities, and like to influence people. They prefer enterprising careers, such
as buyer, sports promoter, business executive, salesperson, supervisor, and
­manager.
Conventional (C) These people are detailed oriented and have strong organizational
skills. They prefer conventional careers, such as bookkeeper, financial analyst,
banker, tax expert, secretary, and radio dispatcher.
On the inventory, individuals evaluate and record their interests and abilities; specifi-
cally, they are asked to identify their daydreams, activities, likes or dislikes, competencies,
occupations of interest, and self-appraisals in mechanical, scientific, teaching, sales, and cler-
ical fields. After taking the inventory, the SDS provides an individual with his or her three-
letter summary code. This code is based on the RIASEC categories and reflects a combination
of the test taker’s interests. For example, say that an examinee’s three-letter summary code is
IEA (i.e., Investigative, Enterprising, and Artistic). The first letter of the code shows the type
the individual most closely resembles, the second letter shows the type he or she next most
closely resembles, and the third letter shows the third closest type he or she resembles.
The SDS has several forms for use with specific populations:
• Form R, Career Development  Helps individuals not yet in the workforce gain insight
into the world of work and match occupations with their interests and skills
• Form E, Vocational Guidance  Assists individuals with limited reading skills as they
explore vocational options
• Form CP, Career Path Management  Focuses on the needs of individuals who have
or aspire to have high levels of responsibility
SDS Form R also has an Internet version (Holland et al., 2001) that provides a print-
able Interpretive Report. The report identifies the examinee’s three-letter summary code
and lists the occupations, fields of study, and leisure activities that correspond to the sum-
mary code. To describe potential occupations, the report provides information in four
columns (see Table 11.1). Column one is the SDS code. Column two (Occupation) lists the
occupations that are determined from the test taker’s three-letter summary code. The
246 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

TABLE 11.1  Sample List of Occupations from the Self-Directed Search Interpretive Report
SDS Code Occupation O*NET Code ED
ISC Computer network specialist 15-1152.00 3
Dialysis Technician 29-2099.00 3
Linguist 19-3099.00 5
Market Research Analyst 11-2011.01 4
Microbiologist 19-1022.00 5
Physician, Occupational 29-1062.00 5

Source: Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204
North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the Self-Directed Search Software Portfolio (SDS-SP) by
Robert C. Reardon, Ph.D. and PAR Staff, Copyright 1985, 1987, 1989, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2008,
2013. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission from PAR, Inc.

occupations are taken from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET), which has a
taxonomy of nearly 1,000 occupations. Column three is the O*NET code that provides the
corresponding number for each occupation. Column three (ED) shows the level of educa-
tion required for each occupation. The numbers under ED have the following meanings:
1. means that elementary school training or no special training is required;
2. means that high school or GED is usually needed;
3. means that community college or technical education is usually needed;
4. means that college is required; and
5. means that an advanced degree is required.

Strong Interest Inventory  The SII (or the Strong) is one of the most respected measures
of vocational interests in the United States. The inventory has been widely used in educa-
tional settings, public institutions, and private organizations for over 80 years. The first
version of the SII instrument (then called the Strong Vocational Interest Blank) was pub-
lished by E. K. Strong in 1927, and its most recent revision was in 2012 (Donnay, Thompson,
Morris, & Schaubhut, 2012). The SII instrument was designed for evaluating career-related
interests with adults, college students, and high school students aged 14 and up (Harmon,
Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994). It assesses a client’s interests among a broad range of
occupations, work and leisure activities, and educational subjects and yields results for
several themes and scales:
• Six General Occupational Themes  Interest patterns based on Holland’s RIASEC cat-
egories (i.e., realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional)
• 30 Basic Interest Scales  Specific interest areas within the six General Occupational
Themes
• 244 Occupational Scales  The individual’s interests related to satisfied workers
within various occupations
• Five Personal Style Scales  The individual’s preferences related to work style, learn-
ing environment, leadership style, risk taking, and team orientation
Results are provided on the SII® Profile and Interpretive Report, which is several pages long
and consists of a comprehensive presentation of an individual’s scores. A Profile Summary
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 247

Five Personal
Style Scales
Six General
Occupational
Themes
30 Basic
Interest Scales

244 Occupational
Scales

Scale Scores Result In:

Highest Top Top Personal

themes Interests Occupations Style

FIGURE 11.1  Overview of the Strong Interest Inventory.

is also provided that gives a graphic snapshot of the test taker’s results for immediate easy
reference. This includes the individual’s (a) three highest General Occupational Themes,
(b) top five interest areas, (c) areas of least interest, (d) top 10 Strong occupations, (e) occu-
pations of dissimilar interest, and (f) personal style scales preferences. Figure 11.1 shows
an example of an SII® Profile Summary.

Campbell Interest and Skill Survey  The CISS (Campbell, Hyne, & Nilson, 1992) is another
instrument that measures interests as well as self-estimates of skills. Its major purpose is to
help individuals understand how their interests and skills map into the occupational
world, thus helping them make better career choices. It focuses on careers that require
postsecondary education and is most appropriate for use with individuals who are college
bound or college educated. The CISS contains 200 interest items, and test takers are asked
to rate their level of interest on each item using a 6-point scale ranging from Strongly Like
to Strongly Dislike. The CISS also contains 120 skill items, which ask respondents to rate
their skill level on a 6-point scale from Expert: Widely recognized as excellent in this area to
None: Having no skills in this area. The CISS yields scores on the three scales: Orientation
Scales, Basic Interest and Skills Scales, and Occupational Scales.
I. Orientation Scales  These scales cover seven broad themes of occupational interests
and skills. Each Orientation Scale corresponds to Holland’s RIASEC themes (the
comparable Holland dimensions are noted in parentheses):
1. Influencing (Enterprising)—influencing others through leadership, politics, public
speaking, sales, and marketing
248 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

2. Organizing (Conventional)—organizing the work of others, managing, and monitor-

ing financial performance
3. Helping (Social)—helping others through teaching, medicine, counseling, and reli-
gious activities
4. Creating (Artistic)—creating artistic, literary, or musical productions and designing
products or environments
5. Analyzing (Investigative)—analyzing data, using mathematics, and carrying out sci-
entific experiments
6. Producing (Realistic)—producing products, using “hands-on” skills in farming, con-
struction, and mechanical crafts
7. Adventuring (Realistic)—adventuring, competing, and risk taking through athletic,
police, and military activities
II. Basic Interest and Skill Scales  There are 29 Basic Interest and Skill Scales, which are
essentially subscales of the Orientation Scales. Scores on the Basic Scales are usually
closely related to occupational membership.
III. Occupational Scales  There are 59 Occupational Scales that provide scores comparing
an individual’s interest and skill patterns with those of workers in a wide range of
occupations. Each Occupational Scale represents a specific occupation, such as com-
mercial artist, physician, or human resource director.

For each CISS scale (Orientation Scales, Basic Interest and Skill Scales, and Occupa-
tional Scales), two scores are calculated, one based on the test taker’s interests and the
other based on skills. The interest score shows how much the respondent likes the specified
activities; the skill score shows how confident the respondent feels about performing these
activities. The CISS uses T scores (with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10), and
the combination of interest and skill score results in four patterns:

• Pursue  When interest and skill scores are both high (Ú 55), the respondent has
reported both attraction to these activities and confidence in his or her ability to per-
form them well. This is an area for the respondent to Pursue.
• Develop  When the interest score is high (Ú 55) and the skill score is lower (6 55),
this is a possible area for the respondent to Develop. The respondent may enjoy these
activities but feels uncertain about his or her ability to perform them. Further educa-
tion, training, or experience with these skills might lead to better performance and
greater confidence, or these skills may simply be enjoyed as hobbies.
• Explore  When the skill score is high (Ú 55) and the interest score is lower (6 55),
this is a possible area for the respondent to Explore. The respondent is confident of
his or her ability to perform these activities but does not enjoy them. With some
exploration, the respondent may find a way to use these skills in other areas that
hold more interest.
• Avoid  When interest and skill scores are both low (… 45), this is an area for the
respondent to Avoid in career planning. The respondent has reported not enjoying
these activities and not feeling confident in his or her ability to perform them.

Other Interest Inventories  The Career Assessment Inventory-Vocational Version (CAI-VV)

compares an individual’s vocational interests to those of individuals in 91 specific careers
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 249

that reflect a range of positions in today’s workforce—including skilled trades and techni-
cal and service professions—requiring 2 years or less of postsecondary training. The Career
Assessment Inventory-Enhanced Version compares an individual’s occupational interests
to those of individuals in 111 specific careers that reflect a broad range of technical and
professional positions in today’s workforce.
The Harrington–O’Shea Career Decision-Making System—Revised (CDM-R) is appropri-
ate for individuals ages 12 and older. The CDM-R provides scale scores in six interest areas
(e.g., crafts, arts, scientific, social). It assesses abilities, interests, and work values in one
instrument. The CDM Level 1 is for middle school students. The CDM Level 2 is for high
school and college students and adults.
The Interest Determination, Exploration, and Assessment System (IDEAS) provides scores
on such scales as mechanical, electronics, nature/outdoor, science, numbers, writing, arts/
crafts, social service, child care, medical service, business, sales, office practice, and food
service. The instrument is designed for use in grades 6 through 12.
The Jackson Vocational Interest Survey (JVIS) is used with high school students, college
students, and adults and has 34 basic interest scales, such as creative arts, performing arts,
mathematics, skilled trades, dominant leadership, business, sales, law, human relations,
management, and professional advising. It also has 10 occupational themes, such as asser-
tive, enterprising, helping, and logical.
Counselors need to be aware of a number of problem areas when using interest
inventories. First, interest does not equate to aptitude. Although someone may be inter-
ested in pursuing a career as an attorney, they may not have the potential for academic
success in that area. Also, because interest inventories are completed based on an indi-
vidual’s own perception of him- or herself (self-report), there may be some issues with
reliability of the results. Counselors should check the validity of test results by asking
examinees about their interests and activities, inquiring about their preferences, and find-
ing out why areas are liked and disliked. For example, individuals may have had no expe-
rience or opportunity in certain interest areas and may not have been able to identify some
potential career options. Also, some of the reported likes and dislikes by a client may be
influenced by parent, spouse, or family attitudes and not be true indicators of the indi-
vidual’s preferences. As you work with clients on career assessment, it is important that
you stress that interests should not be determined by how clients spend their time. Time
may be spent doing things under pressures from parents, spouse, family, or peers. Or indi-
viduals simply may not have time to do the things they most enjoy. Other problems with
interest inventories include the following:
1. Even though there is much evidence of the stability of interests, especially from the
late teens on, some clients change their interests dramatically in their adult years.
2. Instruments given before grade 10 or 11 may not be accurate measures of interests.
Students may not have had the necessary background of experiences, real or vicarious.
3. Job success is usually correlated more to abilities than interests.
4. Many interest inventories are susceptible to faking, either intentional or unintentional.
5. Response set may affect the validity of an individual’s profile. Clients may choose
options they consider more socially desirable or acquiescence may prevail.
6. High scores are not the only valuable scores on an interest inventory. Low scores,
showing what people dislike or want to avoid, are often more predictive than high
scores.
250 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

7. Societal expectations and traditions may prove more important than interest in deter-
mining vocational selection. Gender bias was a major concern in interest measure-
ment during the past several decades and needs to be considered when selecting
instruments and interpreting profiles.
8. Socioeconomic class may affect the pattern of scores on an interest inventory.
9. The inventories may be geared to the professions rather than to skilled and semi-
skilled areas. Many inventories were criticized because they were geared exclusively
to college-bound students.
10. A profile may be flat and hard to interpret. In such a situation, a counselor should use
other instruments and techniques to determine interests.
11. Tests use different types of psychometric scoring procedures. Some interest invento-
ries use forced-choice items, in which individuals are asked to choose from a set of
options. Examinees may like or dislike all of the choices but still must choose. Scoring
procedures will have an impact on interpretation of results.

Work Values Inventories

The most widely accepted definition of values comes from the seminal work of Rokeach
(1973), who defined values as “enduring beliefs that a specific mode of conduct or end-state
of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct
or end-state of existence” (p. 5). In this definition, Rokeach regards values as stable beliefs
that can refer to oneself or to others (i.e., society). Values may be enduring, yet Rokeach
also believed that values can change as people learn to make decisions favoring one value
over another.
Aspects of a job or occupation that are important to a person’s satisfaction are
called work values. Work values are an important determinant in career decision making
and account for a significant part of job satisfaction and tenure (Sinha & Srivastava,
2014). Super (1970) believed that understanding an individual’s value structure is
important in clarifying goals and determining the psychological appropriateness of a
given type of training or employment. Work values can include such dimensions as
prestige and recognition, independence, social interaction, compensation, and working
conditions.
Work values inventories are used to identify an individual’s work-related values in
order to match that individual with a suitable job choice. Examples of work values inven-
tories include the Super’s Work Values Inventory-Revised (SWVI-R); the Rokeach Values S ­ urvey
(RVS); the Salience Inventory (SI); the Hall Occupational Orientation Inventory, Fourth Edition;
and the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ).

Super’s Work Values Inventory-Revised  The SWVI-R (Zytowski, 2006) is an instrument

that measures the relative importance of a number of work values considered most
­important in career decision making. It is one of the instruments used in the Kuder Career
Planning System, which is a comprehensive, Internet-based system that provides a variety
of resources and instruments for career planning. The SWVI-R measures several values
thought to be important in career choice and development. It can be given to middle and
high school students, college students, and adults who are planning to enter, continue, or
leave a given educational program, occupation, or job. The test is administered online and
provides instantaneous scoring and reporting of results. Examinees rate test items using
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 251

descriptive statements that correspond to levels of importance (1 = not important at all;

2 = somewhat important; 3 = important; 4 = very important; 5 = crucial). The inven-
tory yields results on 12 work-related values scales. A score report provides percentile
scores for each work value, which are presented in a rank-ordered bar graph to depict
high (75 to 100), medium (25 to 74), and low (0 to 24) scores. The length of the bar above
the titles (see Figure 11.2) indicates how an individual ranks his or her work values.
Examinees are recommended to consider their top three or four work values when explor-
ing career options.

Rokeach Values Survey  The RVS is a rank-order instrument in which the test taker is
presented with 18 instrumental values and 18 terminal values and asked to rank them.
Terminal values are the end state we hope to achieve in life, such as freedom, a world of
peace, family, security, pleasure, health, excitement, or a comfortable economic life. Instru-
mental values are the means by which we achieve terminal values, such as being polite,
ambitious, caring, self-controlled, obedient, or helpful.

FIGURE 11.2   Super’s Work Values Inventory sample score report.

*Super’s Work Values Inventory-Revised. Copyright © Kuder, Inc. All rights reserved.
252 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

Salience Inventory  The SI measures the value and preference that an individual places
on his or her career roles in comparison to other life roles. The SI measures the importance
of five major life roles: student, worker, homemaker, leisurite, and citizen. The inventory
consists of 170 items, resulting in 15 scales that examine the relative importance of the five
major life roles in participation, commitment, and value expectations. The inventory can
be administered to adults and high school students.

Hall Occupational Orientation Inventory, Fourth Edition  The Hall Occupational

Orientation Inventory is based on the humanistic theory of personality of Abraham Maslow
and emphasizes the dynamic, changing, developing nature of one’s work motivation and
behavior. The inventory is designed to help individuals understand their values, needs,
interests, and preferred lifestyles, and how these relate to career goals and future educa-
tional plans. Three forms are available: Intermediate (grades 3–7), Young Adult/College,
and Adult Basic (used for adults with GED and below).

Minnesota Importance Questionnaire  The MIQ measures 20 vocational needs and six
underlying values related to those needs. The values assessed are achievement, altruism,
autonomy, comfort, safety, and status. The instrument is for individuals ages 15 and up
and takes about 20 to 35 minutes to complete.

Personality Inventories
When we think of personality, we think of the thoughts, behaviors, and emotions that are
enduring and distinguish one person from another. The career development theories of
John Holland (1996) and Donald Super (1990) identify personality as a key factor in career
choice. They believe that individuals’ personality characteristics and traits are related to
their career choice and to their ability to perform successfully at a given occupation.
Assessing personality in career assessment usually involves instruments that meas-
ure “normal” personality characteristics rather than maladaptive or “pathological” per-
sonality traits. Characteristics such as sociability, motivation, attitude, responsibility,
independence, and adjustment are the types of personality traits that are important for
career exploration and choice. For example, the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) can be
used in career assessment as a tool to help individuals understand themselves and others,
and how they approach problems in different ways. The test can help organizations with
career planning and development, improving teamwork, conflict resolution, and improv-
ing individual communication with supervisors, peers, and employers. There are 16 per-
sonality types possible on the MBTI, which are more fully described in Chapter 12.
Understanding a client’s personality type can assist in career planning by helping the cli-
ent select a career field that is a good fit for the client’s personality. Furthermore, it can
increase the client’s awareness of his or her learning style so that he or she can benefit more
from career-related education or vocational training programs. Consider the following
example:

Individuals classified as ESTJ (Extroversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judgment) by

the MBTI tend to be analytical, decisive, logical, and tough-minded and are
adept at planning and organization. Such people have an ability to see flaws in
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 253

advance, to critique problems logically, and to organize people, processes, and

products. In the work environment, ESTJs are take-charge leaders who are able
to use past experiences to solve problems. They tend to make decisions quickly.
They like to work in environments that are task oriented, organized, and struc-
tured and where the achievement of goals is rewarded. They like their associ-
ates to be hard-working people who want to get the job done correctly. However,
these individuals do have potential problem areas. They tend to decide too
quickly and may lack diplomacy in working with others to get the job done.
Sometimes they may not see the need for change. ESTJs may need to consider
all sides before deciding on strategies and the benefits of change. They need to
make sure they show appreciation of others and also take time to reflect on their
feelings and values.

Other personality inventories commonly used in career assessment include the

­ ixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Fifth Edition (16PF); the NEO Personality Inventory
S
(NEO PI-R); and the Eysenck Personality Inventory.

Abilities and Skills Assessment

Every occupation requires a different mix of knowledge, skills, and abilities. Therefore, an
important function of career assessment is helping an individual identify current and
potential abilities and skills and the career options that capitalize on them (Harrington &
Long, 2013). The term ability refers to one’s present-day skills or capabilities to perform a
specific task, whether physical or cognitive. Abilities are considered to be innate, neuro-
logically based, fairly stable characteristics of the individual. In contrast, skills may come
from educational experiences, work experiences, and personal life experiences. Related to
abilities, the term aptitude refers to one’s potential capabilities, which can include the poten-
tial ability to learn or succeed in future endeavors.
In career assessment, instruments that appraise skills and abilities are used to help
individuals identify job possibilities that their skills and abilities suggest. This involves
assessing abilities that can be immediately transferred into job-related skills. To help cli-
ents choose jobs or careers that offer them a high likelihood of success, counselors need to
be familiar with the duties and abilities required of various occupations. By having knowl-
edge of a client’s abilities and the abilities required of a wide variety of occupations, coun-
selors can help propose career options that capitalize on a client’s current and potential
strengths (Arulmani, 2014).
Many resources are available to provide counselors with information about the
skills and abilities required by various occupations. Websites from government
agencies—­particularly the U.S. Department of Labor—and private companies are the
major sources of this information. Educational institutions, professional associations,
and commercial companies also provide online information about technical schools, col-
leges, and continuing education. In addition, national and state websites provide infor-
mation on trends in the labor market, including projections of future job openings.
O*NET OnLine (located at onetonline.org) is the nation’s primary source of occupational
information. The O*NET database, an online version of the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles, contains information on thousands of occupations with descriptions about several
254 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

distinguishing characteristics of each occupation, such as the tasks, knowledge, skills,

abilities, work activities, interests, work values, and wages. The database is continually
updated by surveying a broad range of workers from each occupation. See Figure 11.3
for a description of the skills and abilities required for educational, vocational, and
school counselors from the O*NET summary report (U.S. Department of Labor National
Center for O*NET Development, 2007). Another resource is the Occupational Outlook
Handbook (OOH) from the U.S. Department of Labor (dol.gov), which is a classic r­ eference

Skills:
• Active Listening: Giving full attention to what other people are saying, taking time to understand
the points being made, asking questions as appropriate, and not interrupting at inappropriate times.
• Social Perceptiveness: Being aware of and understanding others’ reactions.
• Reading Comprehension: Understanding written sentences and paragraphs in work related documents.
• Service Orientation: Actively looking for ways to help people.
• Speaking: Talking to others to convey information effectively.
• Critical Thinking: Using logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
alternative solutions, conclusions or approaches to problems.
• Time Management: Managing one’s own time and the time of others.
• Writing: Communicating effectively in writing as appropriate for the needs of the audience.
• Active Learning: Understanding the implications of new information for both current and future
problem-solving and decision-making.
• Coordination: Adjusting actions in relation to others’ actions.

Abilities
• Oral Expression: The ability to communicate information and ideas in speaking so others will
understand.
• Oral Comprehension: The ability to listen to and understand information and ideas presented
through spoken words and sentences.
• Problem Sensitivity: The ability to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong. It does
not involve solving the problem, only recognizing there is a problem.
• Speech Clarity: The ability to speak clearly so others can understand you.
• Inductive Reasoning: The ability to combine pieces of information to form general rules or
conclusions (includes finding a relationship among seemingly unrelated events).
• Written Expression: The ability to communicate information and ideas in writing so others will
understand.
• Deductive Reasoning: The ability to apply general rules to specific problems to produce answers
that make sense.
• Speech Recognition: The ability to identify and understand the speech of another person.
• Written Comprehension: The ability to read and understand information and ideas presented in
writing.
• Near Vision: The ability to see details at close range (within a few feet of the observer).

FIGURE 11.3  O*NET Description of skills and abilities required for educational, vocational, and school
counselors.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor National Center for O*NET Development (2007). O*NET Online Summary
Report for: 21-1012.00—Educational, Vocational, and School Counselors. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from
http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/21-1012.00
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 255

about occupations, organized from A to Z. This national source of career information is

designed to provide assistance to individuals making decisions about their future work
lives. Revised every 2 years, the OOH describes occupations in detail, including educa-
tional and experience prerequisites, places of employment, employment outlook, earn-
ings, working conditions, chances for advancement, and lists of government resources
that provide additional information.
There are several assessment instruments that evaluate an individual’s skills and
abilities as they relate to career performance. Many of the instruments used are the same
as those we discussed in Chapter 10. For example, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery (ASVAB) is a multiple-aptitude test battery that measures aptitudes for both civil-
ian and military career areas. The ASVAB is often used with high school and postsecond-
ary students as part of the ASVAB Career Exploration program. It assesses such abilities as
general science, arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, math-
ematics knowledge, electronics information, auto and shop information, and mechanical
comprehension. Another instrument is the Career Ability Placement Survey (CAPS), a
­multiple-aptitude battery designed to measure such vocationally relevant abilities as
mechanical reasoning, spatial relations, verbal reasoning, numerical ability, language
usage, word knowledge, and perceptual speed and accuracy. The instrument was designed
for middle through high school students, college students, and adults. See Chapter 10 for
more information about these multiple-aptitude tests. Other skills and abilities assessment
instruments include the Kuder Skills Assessments (KSA) and the Ability Explorer.

Kuder Skills Assessment  The KSA is part of the comprehensive online Kuder Career Plan-
ning System, which includes two partner assessments, the Kuder Career Search with Person
Match and the revised Super’s Work Values Inventory. The instruments measure various
skills that are aligned with specific occupational clusters, such as finance, manufacturing,
health science, information technology, and education and training. There are two levels,
one for middle and high school students (the KSA) and one designed for college students
and adults (the KSA-CA). The KSA has 90 items that require students to rate their current
skill level for various tasks using a 4-point scale: 1 (I don’t think I could ever learn to do
this task), 2 (I could probably learn to do this task, but it would be hard), 3 (I could easily
learn to do this task), and 4 (I can already do this task). The KSA-CA is a 160-item instru-
ment that requires adult test takers to rate their degree of certainty in performing a wide
variety of activities using a 5-point scale from 1 (Cannot do at all) to 5 (Completely certain
can do).

Ability Explorer  The Ability Explorer (Harrington, Harrington, & Wall, 2012) measures
strengths in the 14 abilities important in today’s workplace. This 140-question assess-
ment enables individuals to learn their strongest abilities, plus related courses, activities,
and careers for developing and using these abilities. Designed for individuals from high
school to adult, the instrument is written at an eighth-grade reading level and takes
about 30 minutes to complete. Test takers are asked to read each statement and then
indicate how good they are or would be at doing an activity. The Ability Explorer meas-
ures 14 abilities: artistic, clerical, interpersonal, language, leadership, manual, musical/
dramatic, numerical/mathematical, organizational, scientific, persuasive, spatial, social,
and technical/mechanical.
256 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

Career Development Inventories

The concept of career development has been used to describe both the process by which indi-
viduals make career choices appropriate to their age and stage of development and their
ability to successfully transition through the specific developmental tasks of each of these
stages. Also known as career maturity, career development takes into account both attitudi-
nal and cognitive dimensions (Brown & Lent, 2013). Attitudinal dimensions include indi-
viduals’ attitudes and feelings about making an effective career choice. Cognitive
dimensions involve their awareness of the need to make a career decision and their under-
standing about their vocational preferences.
Career development is particularly important in career assessment with adolescents.
At this stage in life, teenagers often have to make important educational and career deci-
sions that they are not developmentally ready to make. Many adolescents are unable to
integrate their interests, skills, and abilities into focusing on a particular career goal, which
is the main objective of career assessment. Therefore, helping adolescents evaluate their
skills and interests and engage in career exploration is an important goal of career coun-
seling with individuals at this age.
Many career development instruments can be utilized to help counselors assess a cli-
ent’s attitudes and career awareness and knowledge. These instruments can provide coun-
selors with valuable information about the career development and educational needs of
clients and can provide survey information to help in planning career guidance programs.
Career development is a continuous process, and at various points throughout life, most
people have to make a variety of decisions concerning their career. Examples of career
development instruments include the Career Maturity Inventory (CMI), the Career Devel-
opment Inventory (CDI), and the Career Factors Inventory (CFI).

Career Maturity Inventory, Revised  The CMI was developed for students from grades 6
through 12 to measure attitudes and competencies related to variables in the career-choice
process. The inventory has two parts: an attitude inventory and a competence inventory.
The attitude inventory measures attitudes toward the decisiveness, involvement, inde-
pendence, orientation, and compromise dimensions of career maturity. The competence
inventory has five subscales: Self-Appraisal, Occupational Information, Goal Selection,
Planning, and Problem Solving.

Career Development Inventory  The CDI (Super, Zelkowitz, & Thompson, 1981) was
developed for K–12 and college and university students. The inventory contains five scales:
Career Planning, Career Exploration, Decision Making, World-of-Work Information, and
Knowledge of Preferred Occupational Group. The scales are combined to give scores in
Career Development Attitudes, Career Development Knowledge and Skills, and Career
Orientation.

Career Factors Inventory  The CFI is designed to help people determine whether they
are ready to engage in the career decision-making process. The CFI can be used for indi-
viduals age 13 and above; its 21-item, self-scoreable booklet takes 10 minutes to complete.
It explores an individual’s perceived issues of lack of self-awareness, lack of career infor-
mation, career anxiety, and generalized indecisiveness.
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 257

Combined Assessment Programs

The trend in career assessment is to include interests, values, and other dimensions, such
as aptitude, career development, and maturity.

COPSystem  The Career Occupational Preference System (COPS) is a comprehensive career

assessment program that combines interests, abilities, and values inventories. The instru-
ments can be used alone or in combination to provide comprehensive career-related infor-
mation that can assist individuals with their career decision-making process. The program
includes the following inventories:

• Career Occupational Preference System (COPS) Interest Inventory  Designed to

measure interests related to 14 career clusters. It is targeted for use with students from
seventh grade through college as well as adults.
• Career Ability Placement Survey (CAPS)  Designed to measure vocationally relevant
abilities, such as mechanical reasoning, spatial relations, verbal reasoning, numerical
ability, language usage, word knowledge, perceptual speed and accuracy, and man-
ual speed and dexterity.
• Career Orientation Placement and Evaluation Survey (COPES)  A values inventory
that matches an individual’s personal values with occupational areas.

Kuder Career Planning System  The Kuder Career Planning System is an Internet-based
system that was developed based on the work of Dr. Frederick Kuder, a pioneer in the
career development industry. The Kuder system provides several customizable career
development tools to help individuals identify their interests, explore their career options,
and plan for career success. It can be used by middle school, high school, and college stu-
dents, as well as adults. The Kuder system includes an interest inventory, a skills assess-
ment, and a values inventory, all available online:
• Kuder Galaxy is designed for students in pre-K through grade five. The online system
allows for an interactive process that involves games, activities, and video to help
identify areas for career exploration.
• Kuder Skills Assessment is designed for grades 6 through 12 and provides an inter-
active online system to help identify college and career paths. The assessment can
be completed in under 20 minutes and helps students to develop multi-year career
plans.
• Kuder Journey is an online interactive system designed to aid in career planning for
college students and adults. This research-based system provides the user with an
analysis of interests, skills, and work values.

Interviews
As is the case in all areas of counseling, the initial interview is an important aspect of career
assessment. During the interview, counselors gather general background information
common to any unstructured interview (see Chapter 2). In addition, they may ask the cli-
ent questions relevant to career assessment, such as the client’s work experience, education
and training, interests, and leisure activities (Barclay & Wolff, 2012). Counselors may also
258 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

ask clients to describe their typical day, including (a) how much they like routine or spon-
taneity and (b) how much they rely on others or are independent. An important aspect of
career planning is the client’s readiness to make career decisions as well as his or her
knowledge about the world of work and personal abilities and skills. Barclay and Wolff
suggested that counselors may use a structured career interview (e.g., Career Construction
Interview) to analyze life themes, patterns, self-concept, and salient interests. Further,
­Barclay and Wolff determined that raters of the Career Construction Interview could iden-
tify RIASEC themes from the content of the interview. Although further research is needed
to validate these results, the idea that interviews can result in the same coding as standard-
ized assessments is promising.
McMahon and Watson (2012) argued that a narrative approach to career assessment
can provide a rich qualitative analysis of career interests and potential career paths. Gibson
and Mitchell (2006, p. 112) provided sample questions that may be asked of clients who
have expressed an interest in changing careers:
1. Would you give me a brief review of your employment experiences?
2. What is your educational background?
3. Do you have any unique experience or interest that might be related to the choice of
career, such as hobbies or special interests?
4. Why have you decided, at this time, to change careers?
5. Tell me about your ideas about a new or different career.

Employment Assessment
In the context of employment, businesses and organizations use various assessment strate-
gies to make recommendations or decisions about employees or job applicants. For exam-
ple, various personnel assessment procedures can be used to select individuals for
entry-level positions, make differential job assignments, select individuals for advanced
and specialized positions, decide who will be promoted within an organization, decide
who is eligible for training, and provide diagnostic and career development information
for individuals. Effective personnel assessment involves a systematic approach to gather-
ing information about applicants’ job qualifications. Not all assessment instruments are
appropriate for every job and organizational setting; agencies must determine the most
appropriate assessment strategy for their particular needs. The effective use of assessment
tools will reduce the degree of error in making hiring decisions (U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, 2009). In this section, we will discuss common procedures specific to employ-
ment assessment, including selection interviews, biographical information, and tests. We
will also present information about job analysis and assessment centers.

Selection Interviews
The selection interview is one of the most widely used methods of assessing job applicants.
The purpose of the interview is to gain information about candidates’ qualifications and
experiences relevant to the available job. Although there is limited evidence that inter-
views are valid procedures for personnel selection, they continue to be widely used (Hebl,
Madera, & Martinez, 2014). According to Hebl, Madera, and Martinez, there are numerous
issues with interview processes, and they can be highly impacted by cultural or racial bias.
Although interviews are widely used as a primary selection process, little research a­ ttention
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 259

has been paid to multicultural issues, bias, and prejudice in the interview (Manroop,
­Boekhorst, & Harrison, 2013).
Although interviews can be impacted greatly by the lens of the interviewer, they
remain a viable approach to assessment of suitability for personnel selection. In lieu of
unstructured approaches, Hebl, Madera, and Martinez (2014) suggested that interviewers
take a more systematic, structured, job-related interview approach. These structured
approaches tend to have higher validity. However, the interviewer should be trained in
personnel selection and understand the relationship of traits to job performance.
As an example of structured interviewing, the situational interview, with specific
questions based on job-related critical incidents, has also proven to be a valid assessment
tool (Seijts & Kyei-Poku, 2010). Although the use of structured approaches tends to miti-
gate some of the bias issues in interviewing, it is important to identify some of the ongoing
concerns. Studies of the interview show that interviewers tend to make decisions about
candidates early in the interview. Negative information tends to be weighed more heavily
than positive information, and visual cues tend to be more important than verbal cues
(Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). In addition, ratings are affected by
how many others are being rated at the same time; clients who share similarities with the
interviewer (the same race, gender, and so on) tend to be more favorably rated. Often,
applicants are rated the same in evaluations, either superior (leniency error), average (cen-
tral tendency error), or poor (stringency error). Sometimes, one or two either good or bad
characteristics of an applicant tend to influence the ratings of all the other characteristics
(halo error). Sometimes, the interviewer allows the quality of the applicants who preceded
the present applicant to influence the ratings of the present applicant (contrast effect).
Interviewers are overconfident at times in their ability to evaluate applicants; as a result,
they make hasty decisions. Interviewers need training and instruction in the following
skills (Gatewood, Feild, & Barnick, 2010):
1. Setting the stage for open communication
2. Consistency in the questioning/interview process
3. Keeping the interview on target
4. Using appropriate speech
5. Mastering listening skills
6. Using notes to keep track of information
7. Using good interviewing skills to maintain the flow of communication and maintain-
ing a collaborative process
8. Managing nonverbal aspects of the interview process
The selection interview can be valuable if the interviewers are trained in the process,
panels are used whenever possible, job-related questions are used, and multiple questions
are designed for the requirements of the job.

Biographical Information
Almost all employers require prospective employees to complete an application blank, a
biographical information blank, or a life history. Employers believe that these forms pro-
vide information on what the candidate has done in the past and can be used to predict
future behavior. Biographical data has received a great deal of attention in the world of
career development. Overall, there are some assumptions that individuals use when
260 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

e­ valuating biographical data from a rational perspective. Chernyshenko, Stark, and

­Drasgow (2011) identified three assumptions for the use of biographical data: (1) The best
predictor of applicants’ future behavior is what they have done in the past. (2) Applicants’
life experiences provide an indirect measure of their motivational characteristics. (3) Appli-
cants are less defensive in describing their previous behaviors on the form than discussing
their motivations for these behaviors. Biographical data has been shown to be one of the
best predictors of employee retention and career success (Breaugh, 2014). Biographical
data also has been valuable in assessing individuals and classifying them into subgroups
for purposes of better placement and utilization. Personnel directors sometimes divide
large groups of current and former employees into categories of successful and unsuccess-
ful workers and determine which items differentiate the two groups. According to Breaugh,
biodata instruments are less expensive than other custom-made tests and can predict
employee turnover and subsequent employee ratings.

Tests
Many employers use tests as part of the assessment process to develop work-related infor-
mation and recommendations or decisions about people who work for them or are seeking
employment with them. To be effective, instruments must be valid for the intended pur-
pose and should be the least discriminating tool for the decisions that need to be made.
Tests can help ensure fair treatment of workers in an employment context.

Tests Used in the Private Sector  Employees in the private sector work primarily in man-
ufacturing, retail trades, and service occupations. Tests used in these settings measure
such attributes as general aptitude, cognitive ability, clerical achievement, spatial and
mechanical abilities, perceptual accuracy, and motor ability. Other factors, such as atti-
tudes, motivation, organizational commitment, and work environment, can also be
assessed to diagnose strengths and weaknesses in an organization and to monitor changes
in the workforce. Job satisfaction instruments are used to measure dimensions such as
attitude toward supervision, the company, coworkers, salary, working conditions, promo-
tion, security, subordinates, autonomy, and esteem needs. Personality inventories are also
used in some employment contexts. In general, the most widely used personality invento-
ries in these settings include the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, the California Psychologi-
cal Inventory, the Edwards Personal Preference Inventory, and the Guilford–Zimmerman
Temperament Scale.
Examples of standardized instruments used in the private sector include the following:
• The Career Attitudes and Strategies Inventory (CASI) helps to identify career prob-
lems requiring further discussion and exploration. It includes a career checkup; a
self-assessment of the client’s career or situation; and a survey of the beliefs, events,
and forces that affect the client’s career.
• The Comprehensive Ability Battery (CAB) contains 20 pencil-and-paper subtests that
measure a single primary-ability factor related to performance in an industrial set-
ting. The subtests are Verbal Ability, Numerical Ability, Spatial Ability, Perceptual
Completion, Clerical Speed and Accuracy, Reasoning, Hidden Shapes, Rote M ­ emory,
Mechanical Ability, Meaningful Memory, Memory Span, Spelling, Auditory Ability,
Esthetics Judgment, Organizing Ideas, Production of Ideas, Verbal Fluency, Origi-
nality, Tracking, and Drawing.
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 261

• The Wonderlic Comprehensive Personality Profile (CPP) is a personality inventory

for positions requiring significant client interaction, such as customer service, tele-
marketing, and sales. The primary traits assessed are emotional intensity, intuition,
recognition, motivation, sensitivity, assertiveness, trust, and good impression.
• The Employee Aptitude Survey Test Series (EAS) consists of 10 tests that measure
cognitive, perceptual, and psychomotor abilities required for successful job perfor-
mance in a wide variety of occupations. Tests include verbal comprehension, visual
pursuit, visual speed and accuracy, space utilization, numerical reasoning, verbal
reasoning, word fluency, mechanical speed and accuracy, and symbolic reasoning.
• The Employee Reliability Inventory is an 81-item, preinterview questionnaire
designed to help employers identify reliable and productive individuals prior to
making a hiring decision. It measures emotional maturity, conscientiousness, trust-
worthiness, long-term commitment, safe job performance, and courteous behavior
with customers.
• The Job Effectiveness Prediction System is a selection system for entry-level employ-
ees in clerical positions (e.g., administrative assistant, customer service representa-
tive) and technical/professional positions (e.g., underwriter, annuity analyst). It
includes tests such as Coding and Converting, Comparing and Checking, Filing,
­Language Usage, Mathematical Skill, Numerical Ability, Reading Comprehension,
Spelling, and Verbal Comprehension.
• The Personnel Selection Inventory (PSI) is a popular system designed to identify
high-caliber employees who can contribute positively to an organization. The sys-
tem is based on extensive research and is designed to comply with federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines on fair employment
practices and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The PSI also provides scores on
an overall Employability Index (applicant’s suitability for hire) and Significant
Behavioral indicators (areas of concern that might need further investigation). It
also has 18 other scales that assess the attitudes of potential employees, such as hon-
esty, drug avoidance, nonviolence, stress tolerance, and supervision attitudes, to
name just a few.
• The Wesman Personnel Classification Test assesses general verbal and numerical
abilities and is used for selection of employees for clerical, sales, supervisory, and
managerial positions.
• The Wonderlic Personnel Test measures general verbal, spatial, and numerical rea-
soning and is used for selection and placement purposes. It measures a candidate’s
ability to learn a specific job, solve problems, understand instructions, apply knowl-
edge to new situations, benefit from specific job training, and be satisfied with a
particular job. It can be administered using a paper-and-pencil or computer/­Internet
format.

Tests Used in Government  The federal government became involved in employment

assessment in 1883, when Congress created the U.S. Civil Service Commission. In 1979,
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) became involved in the assessment pro-
cess and established standards for job classification and competitive examinations for
more than 1,000 types of jobs. The OPM has responsibility for two-thirds of the federal
civilian workforce, and a large percentage of these workers are selected by one of the
assessment programs.
262 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

Other government agencies develop and administer their own tests. The U.S. Depart-
ment of State, for example, uses its own tests to select Foreign Service officers. The U.S.
Employment Service (USES) has developed instruments for use in the local and state
employment offices. The General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) is widely used; it com-
pares examinee scores with workers in more than 600 jobs. The USES has also developed
interest inventories and tests of proficiency in dictation, typing, and spelling.
State and local government agencies often require tests for selection purposes. Tests
are frequently required of police officers and firefighters, as well as clerical workers. Local
governmental agencies tend to use tests less than state agencies. However, both state and
local agencies use oral and performance examinations more than federal agencies do
(Friedman & Williams, 1982). Skilled workers tend to be given tests more than unskilled
workers, and tests are not used as a sole criterion. Education, experience, character, and
residence requirements are other important factors considered in hiring.
States often mandate occupational and professional licensing for which some type of
examination is required. This is true even in education in many states, with teachers and
principals required to pass licensing examinations. States often establish a licensing board
for a specific occupation. Occupations requiring licensing examinations include the fol-
lowing: architects, acupuncturists, audiologists, chiropractors, dentists, dental hygienists,
engineers, funeral directors, landscape architects, land surveyors, occupational therapists,
psychologists, speech pathologists, hearing aid counselors, optometrists, registered nurses,
practical nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, physicians, physician’s assistants, podi-
atrists, and social workers.

Tests Used in the Military  The military makes extensive use of tests for selection and
classification purposes. For example, the ASVAB is a comprehensive aptitude test that
helps identify the proper technical training or education needed for various types of
occupational areas in the armed forces. In addition, specific tests are used to select can-
didates for admission to the service academies, reserve officer training programs, officer
candidate schools, and specialized programs (such as flight training). The Cadet Evalu-
ation Battery (CEB), the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT), the Alternate Flight
Aptitude Selection Test (AFAST), and the Defense Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB)
are examples.

Job Analysis
One of the key elements in effective personnel assessment is job analysis. Job analysis is a
purposeful, systematic process for documenting the particular duties and requirements of
a job and the relative importance of these duties. It is used to analyze information about
the duties and tasks of a given job; environment and working conditions; tools and equip-
ment; relationships among supervisors and employees; and the knowledge, skills, and
abilities requirement for the job. Job analysis is conducted to (a) help determine the train-
ing requirements of a given job, (b) make decisions about compensation, (c) aid in selecting
job applicants, and (d) review job performance.
The interview is an excellent method for obtaining information for job analysis
and can be conducted with employees, supervisors, and other individuals knowledge-
able about the job. An example of a job analysis interview for employees is shown in
Table 11.2.
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 263

TABLE 11.2  Job Analysis Interview

What is your job title?
Where do you work?
Of what department or division are you a member?
Job Tasks
What do you do? How do you do it? Do you use special equipment?
What are the major tasks you perform on your job? What percentage of time do you spend on
each task?
Knowledge Requirements
For each task you perform, what type of knowledge is necessary?
What types of formal and informal knowledge do you need to perform these tasks?
Do you need formal coursework, on-the-job training, or other forms of training?
What level of knowledge is required?
Skill Requirements
What types of manual, mechanical, or intellectual skills are necessary to perform your job?
What types of tasks require these skills?
Ability Requirements
What types of communication skills, oral or written, are required for your job?
Do you have to prepare reports or complete records as part of your job?
What types of thinking, reasoning, or problem-solving skills are required?
What types of quantitative and mathematical abilities are required for your job?
What types of interpersonal abilities are required?
Are you responsible for the supervision of other employees?
What types of physical abilities are required?
Physical Activities
What types of physical activities are required to perform your job?
How often are you engaged in physical activities?
Environmental Conditions
What types of environmental conditions do you encounter on your job?
Other
Describe a typical day.
Are there any other facets of your job that need to be described?

Job analysis can also take place in focus groups or multiperson interviews, which are
conducted by one person with several interviewees. A multiperson job analysis should
follow these steps:
1. Read and review existing materials and data on the job to be analyzed.
2. Have supervisors and experienced workers in the field meet together in a group and
discuss the job requirements, producing a list of tasks and roles that are performed.
3. Display the tasks and job characteristics identified so that the group can react to what
you have written.
264 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

4. List outputs, knowledge, skills, and abilities (including use of machines, tools, equip-
ment, and work aids) needed to get the job done. Get agreement from the group on
the tasks performed.
5. Have the workers determine the percentage of time spent on each task or skill.
6. Combine common tasks together.
7. Have the workers explain how they know or recognize excellent, satisfactory, or poor
performance of the tasks and the job.
8. Construct an instrument to assess job performance, and have supervisors and work-
ers react to the tasks and performance standards identified.
Several standardized instruments are available for use with job analysis. They usu-
ally contain three major sections: background information on the respondents, job tasks,
and other miscellaneous information. Examples include the Position Analysis Question-
naire (PAQ) and the WorkKeys.

THE POSITION ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE  The PAQ is a structured job analysis question-
naire that measures the human attributes needed to perform a job. It consists of 195 items
divided into six major categories:
1. Information Input  Where and how does the worker get the information that is used
in performing the job?
2. Mental Processes  What reasoning, decision-making, planning, and information-
processing activities are involved in performing the job?
3. Work Output  What physical activities are required to perform the job, and what
tools or devices are used?
4. Relationships with Other Persons  What relationships with other people are
required in performing the job?
5. Job Context  In what physical and social contexts is the work performed?
6. Other Job Characteristics  What activities, conditions, or characteristics other than
those described previously are relevant to the job?
Using rating scales, items may be evaluated on the (a) extent of use in the given job, (b)
amount of time, (c) importance to the job, (d) possibility of occurrence, or (e) applicability
to the job in question.

Workkeys  WorkKeys is a system developed by the ACT that gives students and workers
reliable, relevant information about their workplace skill levels. It includes eight tests, six
of which correspond to basic academic skills and two of which assess other, nonacademic
workplace skills, such as applied technology and teamwork. WorkKeys also includes a
job-analysis system that helps employers identify the skills employees need to be success-
ful on the job. Three different job-analysis options are available:
1. Job Profiling  Used with focus groups to identify the tasks most critical to a job and
the skill levels required to enter the job and perform effectively
2. SkillMap  Given to job administrators or job experts, who identify and rate the tasks
and skills requirements needed for a particular job
3. WorkKeys Estimator  Provides quick estimates of the skill levels needed for a
given job
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 265

Assessment Centers
In terms of employment assessment, the term assessment center is considered a technique or
approach to assessment (it does not refer to a place where assessment occurs). Assessment
centers are group-oriented, standardized series of activities that provide a basis for judg-
ments or predictions of human behaviors considered relevant to work performance in a
particular organizational setting (Muchinsky, 2008). These activities can occur in some
physical location in an organization or at some location away from the workplace. Assess-
ment centers are used in human resource management to (a) decide whom to select or
promote, (b) diagnose strengths and weakness in work-related skills, and (c) develop job-
relevant skills (Thornton & Rupp, 2006). Because assessment centers are expensive, they
have been used mainly by large organizations—but consulting firms may also provide
assessment center services to smaller companies.
Muchinsky (2008, p. 120) lists four characteristics of the assessment center approach:
1. People who attend the center (assessees) are usually management-level personnel
that the company wants to evaluate for possible selection, promotion, or training.
2. Assessees are evaluated in groups of 10 to 20, although subgroups may be formed for
specific exercises. The group format provides opportunity for peer evaluation.
3. Several raters (the assessors) do the evaluation. They work in teams and collectively
or individually make recommendations about selection and promotion.
4. The assessment program can take from one to several days to complete, and multiple
assessment methods are employed. Many are group exercises, but inventories, per-
sonal history forms, and interviews are also used.
The assessment center approach often uses situational judgment tests and work sam-
ple tests. A situational judgment test is usually a paper-and-pencil test that presents the exam-
inee with a written scenario and a list of possible solutions to the problem. The individual
has to make judgments about how to deal with the situation. Work sample tests measure job
skills by having the examinee perform a simulated work task. An example of this is the In-
Basket Test (Frederiksen, Saunders, & Wand, 1957), a test that presents job applicants with
materials in an “in-basket” related to tasks, problems, or situations that routinely occur in
the position for which they have applied. The in-basket typically consists of memos,
appointments, email messages, phone messages, correspondence, reports, forms, and other
materials that reflect real-world, job-related tasks. The candidate’s task is to review the in-
basket items and then take action, recording any notes, comments, and responses on special
forms. A number of versions of this approach have been developed for different groups,
such as school administrators and military officers. Candidates demonstrate how they
would handle each problem and are evaluated not only on their solutions but on other
work-related skills, such as time-management, decision-making, and organizational skills.
Thornton and Byham (1982) identified nine dimensions frequently measured in
assessment centers: communication skills, planning, organizational strategies, delegating
of responsibilities, decisiveness, initiative, stress tolerance, adaptability, and tenacity. The
administrator of an assessment center should keep in mind the following guidelines:
1. Assessment should be based on clearly defined dimensions of the position or behav-
ior in question.
2. Multiple assessment techniques should be used.
3. A variety of job-sampling techniques should be used.
266 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

4. Familiarity with the job and the organization is needed; experience in the job or role
is desirable.
5. Thorough training in assessment center procedures is necessary for all observers and
raters.
6. All pertinent behavior should be observed, recorded, and communicated to other
raters and observers.
7. Group discussion and decision-making procedures are used to integrate observa-
tions, rate dimensions, and make predictions.
8. Clients should be assessed against clearly understood external norms, not against
each other.
9. Observers should guard against first impressions and other errors commonly made
in rating and observation.

Guidelines for Employee Selection

As a professional counselor with an expertise in career development, you may be invited
to consult with various companies on career selection processes. For example, a company
may be experiencing retention issues with their employees. Because turnover is an expen-
sive issue, the company has asked you to help them identify better procedures for employee
selection. One of the primary directions you might provide is to collect assessment data.
More specifically, you could offer your consultees some guidelines to follow based on
research in the employee selection process:
1. Know the legal and ethical considerations thoroughly.
2. Know basic measurement concepts.
3. Know the steps in collecting evidence of criterion-referenced validity.
4. Be able to analyze the skills, competencies, and personal qualities that relate to suc-
cessful performance on the job.
5. Consider practical factors, such as cost, number of employees involved, and time.
6. Locate tests that purport to measure the characteristics identified for the job.
7. Administer the tests to workers on the job and to new applicants.
8. Observe the workers tested, and have supervisors report on the performance of these
workers.
9. Analyze how the test scores and ratings relate to success on the job.
10. If evidence is favorable, then formulate an operational plan to utilize the data for
selection purposes. If evidence is not favorable, then select other instruments and get
additional ratings.
11. Systematically monitor and evaluate the system.

Trends in Employment Assessment

The greatest trend in employment assessment has been the continued development and
evolution of technology. The Internet has changed the process of assessment and made it
more accessible to the general public. Web-based testing offers 24-7 access, ease-of-use,
immediate scoring, and a more limited need for test administrators, leading to convenient,
cost-effective, and efficient test use (Osborn, Dikel, & Sampson, 2011).
Jobseekers and hiring companies have been brought together by “virtual career cent-
ers” (Osborn et al., 2011). The centers offer a variety of services, including areas to post
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 267

résumés, standardized résumé-building templates, job boards, background information

on companies, and personnel assessments. Researchers need to investigate the impact of
these career centers and the assessments they administer on employers and employees.
It is fair to say that Internet-based assessments have become the norm. Companies can
use the Internet to administer prescreening questionnaires, job application blanks, struc-
tured behavioral interviews, and brief selection tests (Dozier, Sampson, Lenz, Peterson, &
Reardon, 2014). Internet assessment companies can offer employers a seamless platform
from which to administer skill assessment, employee evaluations, preemployment screen-
ings, and postemployment evaluations. Along with the benefits of web-based assessment
come such issues as verifying a test taker’s identity, security measures to protect test item
security, and the protection of test-taker test results.
Another ongoing issue is that of discrimination in employment tests. Employers
need to be sensitive in how they use tests for hiring purposes; they do not want to engage
in discrimination and unfair practices. Because employers must go through elaborate vali-
dation and documentation procedures when they employ tests for selection purposes, the
use of tests for those purposes has declined. However, the use of tests for certification
purposes has increased.
Because so many businesses are concerned about the cost of employee theft, many
administer honesty tests in their hiring procedures and evaluations of current staff mem-
bers. Honesty tests are standardized, commercially available written examinations that
provide psychological evaluations of a candidate’s ethical dispositions and attitudes
toward work. These tests can purportedly identify problem employees who have either
stolen in the past or who will be unproductive workers. Honesty tests have been hailed by
some for helping to eliminate pilfering, reduce employee turnover, and increase produc-
tivity. They have also been criticized and challenged by those who feel the tests are either
inaccurate or a violation of rights to privacy and other civil rights.

Summary
There are many approaches to career and employ- Employment tests are more widely used in
ment assessment. Career and employment tests federal and state agencies than in business and
have had a long history, beginning with Strong’s industry. In addition, many skilled and profes-
interest inventory in the 1920s. These tests have sional workers must take certification or licens-
proven to be good measures of vocational suc- ing examinations, such as those for certification
cess, but many factors need to be considered. The as a school counselor or a mental health counse-
maturity, socioeconomic class, and educational lor, which then become the prerequisite for hir-
level of the client all play important roles in ing. Tests in business and industry are primarily
assessing interests and career satisfaction. Envi- used for selection purposes. The decline in test
ronment and heredity issues are also involved. A use has led to a movement away from objective
client may not have had the opportunities and selection procedures. Analysis of research has
experiences necessary to make valid judgments. indicated that research-based testing does not
Family, societal, and peer expectations may influ- discriminate against minority groups and
ence an individual’s pattern of behavior, and women and saves the organization money. Nev-
temperament may influence an individual’s pref- ertheless, currently there is more reliance on clin-
erences. Career counselors need to have a com- ical judgment and consideration of the applicant’s
prehensive knowledge of the world of work as experience and education. Career counselors
well as extensive knowledge of assessment tech- need to be guided by the nine specific standards
niques and counseling procedures. for the use of tests in employment contexts.
268 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

Questions for Discussion

1. What do you think is the best way to find out to provide counseling to children who are
someone’s interests: (a) using an interest inven- patients at the hospital, but you must identify
tory or (b) asking the person, “What are you individuals who could be described as “natu-
interested in, or what would you like to do or ral-born counselors” for the jobs. Describe the
be?” Explain your position. assessment methods you would choose, includ-
2. What career assessment tests have you taken? ing (a) a list of interview questions, and (b) the
When did you take these tests? How were the types of tests you would use. In your opinion,
results presented to you? Did you agree with the what results from these methods would you
results? What impact have these tests had on need to obtain from an individual to determine
your career development? If you were displaced whether he or she were a “natural-born counse-
from a current job, would you seek career assess- lor”? What ethical issues would be relevant in
ment to help you identify other possible jobs or this scenario?
career fields? 4. How would you go about the task of setting up a
3. Imagine you are head of a human resources licensing examination for workers in your field?
department in a large, privately owned chil- What things would you do to ensure that you
dren’s hospital. You are asked to hire personnel met all of the legal guidelines of that profession?

Suggested Activities
1. Evaluate an instrument listed or discussed in this advanced as far as possible in her current position
chapter and write a critical review of it. Be sure to and has gotten tired of working at the same job. She
read the evaluations of the test in the Mental has experienced some job burnout and has decided to
Measurement Yearbooks. see what other types of careers she might be able to
2. Administer several career assessment instru- pursue. After discussing her career concerns with a
ments and write an interpretation. Tape or role- career counselor, Erica agreed that an interest inven-
play the results for the client. tory might be a good starting point for discussion.
3. Write a position paper on one of the following The counselor administered the COPS and the CAPS.
topics: the role of assessment in career coun- Erica had the following scores:
seling, gender and cultural bias in interest inven-
tories, Internet-based career assessment, or the Raw Scores Percentiles
history of career assessment. COPS Career Clusters
4. Design some nontest techniques to assess indi-
1. Science, Professional 26 91
vidual interests and values. Try out your assess-
2. Science, Skilled 11 50
ment techniques on a sample of individuals and
3. Technology, 9 45
write a report of your findings.
Professional
5. Study the following hypothetical case and answer
4. Technology, Skilled 4 30
the questions that follow it.
5. Consumer Economics 11 50
Case of Erica 6. Outdoor 18 70
Erica is a 35-year-old mother of one and has been 7. Business, Professional 26 85
working in same job since graduating college. Erica 8. Business, Skilled 14 55
was the first person in her family to go to college. 9. Clerical 1 2
Erica’s family emigrated from Mexico and began 10. Communication 15 45
working in trade jobs for several generations. Erica’s 11. Arts, Professional 17 35
family members take pride in working with their 12. Arts, Skilled 21 48
hands and have had some opposition to her pursuit 13. Service, Professional 30 87
of education. Today, Erica believes that she has 14. Service, Skilled 17 50
 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment 269

Raw Scores Percentiles 6. Interview an individual who is working in the

personnel field in business and industry. Find
CAPS Ability Dimensions
out what types of assessment procedures that
1. Mechanical Reasoning 13 83 person’s company uses to hire workers and to
2. Spatial Relations 15 92 promote workers. Report your findings to the
3. Verbal Reasoning 24 98 class.
4. Numerical Ability 18 92 7. Conduct a task or job analysis of your current job.
5. Language Usage 22 83 Get the reactions of others—that is, your cowork-
6. Word Knowledge 41 68 ers and your supervisors. See if they agree. Then,
7. Perceptual Speed and 116 83 design assessment instruments to rate individu-
Accuracy als in your field. Identify standardized instru-
8. Manual Speed and 230 32 ments and procedures that might already be
Dexterity available.
8. Design an assessment program to hire workers in
a. How would you describe Erica’s pattern of your field, to identify professional development
interests? needs, and to identify those who should be pro-
b. How would you describe Erica’s pattern of moted to managerial levels.
aptitudes? 9. Write a critical review of the literature on one of
c. What further information would you want to the following topics: assessment centers, job analy-
have about Erica? sis, legal aspects of employment tests, or Internet-
d. What further information would you want to based employment tests. Critically analyze one of
have about the tests? the widely used tests listed in this chapter.

References
Arulmani, G. (2014). Assessment of interest and apti- Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. L. (1992).
tude: A methodologically integrated approach. In Manual for the Campbell Interest and Skills Survey.
G. Arulmani, A. J. Bakshi, F. T. L. Leong, & A. G. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Watts (Eds.), Handbook of career development: Inter- Donnay, D. A. C., Thompson, R. C., Morris, M. L.,
national perspectives (pp. 609–629). New York, NY: &  Schaubhut, N. A. (2012). Technical brief for
Springer Science & Business Media. the  newly revised Strong Interest Inventory assess-
Barclay, S. R., & Wolff, L. A. (2012). Exploring the ment: Content, reliability, and validity. Retrieved
career construction interview for vocational per- from https://www.cpp.com/Pdfs/StrongTech
sonality assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, nicalBrief.pdf
81(3), 370–377. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j Dozier, V. C., Sampson, J. P., Lenz, J. G., Peterson, G.
.jvb.2012.09.004 W., & Reardon, R. C. (2014). The impact of the
Breaugh, J. A. (2014). Predicting voluntary turnover Self-Directed Search Form R Internet Version on
from job applicant biodata and other applicant counselor-free career exploration. Journal of Career
information. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. doi: 10.1177/1069072714535020
Assessment, 22(3), 321–332. doi: 10.1111/ijsa.12080 Frederiksen, N., Saunders, D. R., & Wand, B. (1957).
Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (2013). Career development The in-basket test. Psychological Monograph, 71(9),
and counseling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. 1–28.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Friedman, T., & Williams, E. B. (1982). Current uses
Individual differences: Their measurement and of tests for employment. In A. K. Wigdon & W. R.
validity. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of indus- Garner (Eds.), Ability testing: Uses, consequences,
trial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2: Selecting and controversies (Pt. 2). Washington, DC: National
and developing members for the organization; Academy Press.
pp. 117–151). Washington, DC: American Psycho- Gatewood, R. D., Feild, H. S., & Barnick, M. J. (2010).
logical Association. Human resource selection. Chicago, IL: Dryden.
270 Chapter 11  •  Career and Employment Assessment

Gibson, R. L., & Mitchell, M. H. (2006). Introduction to ­psychology (9th ed.). Kansas City, KS: Hyper-
career counseling for the 21st century. Columbus, graphic Press.
OH: Pearson. Osborn, D. S., Dikel, M. F., & Sampson, J. P. (2011). The
Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. I. C., Borgen, F. H., & Internet: A tool for career planning. Broken Arrow,
Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory OK: National Career Development Association.
applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: CPP. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New
Harrington, T. F., Harrington, J. C., & Wall, J. E. York, NY: Free Press.
(2012). Ability Explorer. Indianapolis, IN: JIST Seijts, G. H., & Kyei-Poku, I. (2010). The role of situ-
Works. ational interviews in fostering positive reactions
Harrington, T., & Long, J. (2013). The history of inter- to selection decisions. Applied Psychology: An Inter-
est inventories and career assessments in career national Review, 59(3), 431–453.
counseling. Career Development Quarterly, 61(1), Sinha, N., & Srivastava, K. B. L. (2014). Examining the
83–92. doi: 10,1002/j.2161-0045.2013.00039.x relationship between personality and work values
Hebl, M. R., Madera, J. M., & Martinez, L. R. (2014). across career stages. Psychological Studies, 59(1),
Personnel selection. In F. T. L. Leong, L. Comas- 44–51.
Díaz, G. C. Nagayama Hall, V. C. McLoyd, & J. E. Strong, E. R. (1927). Vocational Interest Test. Educa-
Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural tional Record, 8, 107–121.
­psychology (Vol. 2: Applications and training; Super, D. E. (1970). Manual, Work Values Inventory.
pp. 253–264). Washington, DC: American Psycho- Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.
logical Association. Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to
Holland, J. L. (1994). Self-Directed Search. Odessa, FL: career development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, &
Psychological Assessment Resources. Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development
Holland, J. L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typol- (2nd ed., pp. 196–261). San Francisco, CA:
ogy. American Psychologist, 51, 397–406. ­Jossey-Bass.
Holland, J. L., Reardon, R. C., Latshaw, R. J., Rarick, Super, D. E., Zelkowitz, R. S., & Thompson, A. S.
S. R., Schneider, S., Shortridge, M. A., & St. James, (1981). Career Development Inventory: Adult Form I.
S. A. (2001). Self-Directed Search Form R Internet New York, NY: Teachers’ College, Columbia
Version 2.0. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www ­University.
.self-directed-search.com Thornton, G. C., & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & centers and managerial performance. New York, NY:
­Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employ- Academic Press.
ment interview: Narrative and quantitative review Thornton, G. C., & Rupp, D. E. (2006). Assessment
of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, centers in human resource management. Mahwah,
67(1), 241–293. NJ: Erlbaum.
Manroop, L., Boekhorst, J. A., & Harrison, J. A. (2013). U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2009). Assess-
The influence of cross-cultural differences on job ment decision guide. Retrieved from https://apps
interview selection decisions. The International Journal .opm.gov/ADT/Content.aspx? page=TOC
of Human Resource Management, 24(18), 3512–3533. U.S. Department of Labor National Center for O*NET
McMahon, M., & Watson, M. (2012). Telling stories of Development. (2007). O*NET Online Summary
career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, Report for: 21-1012.00—Educational, Vocational,
20(4), 440–451. and School Counselors. Retrieved from http://
Muchinsky, P. M. (2008). Psychology applied to work: online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/21-1012.00
An introduction to industrial and organization
CHAPTER

12 Personality Assessment

Personality includes all the special qualities people have that make them different from
each other (e.g., charm, energy, disposition, attitude, temperament, cleverness) and the
feelings and behaviors they exhibit. Personality assessments assist counselors in under-
standing the behavior of a particular individual, with the aim of making some decision
about a future course of action or making a prediction about the person’s unique future
behavior. They give us a picture of the individual’s enduring personality traits and tran-
sient personality states. Personality inventories are used in employment settings to aid in
personnel selection, in forensic settings to aid in identification of problematic behavioral
patterns, in clinical settings to identify personal problems and diagnose psychopatholo-
gies, and in clinical settings to evaluate growth or change in behavior after counseling. In
recent years, personality assessment has become a popular approach for identifying the
potential for relationship success or failure (Solomon & Jackson, 2014). Numerous instru-
ments and techniques are used in personality assessment (such as structured personality
inventories and projective techniques) to evaluate pathological aspects of personality.
There are also instruments that focus primarily on assessing positive personality traits.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Provide a general definition of personality.
JJ Define the terms state, trait, and type as they relate to personality.
JJ Explain the various approaches (e.g., rational, theory, criterion group, factor analysis)
by which personality instruments are constructed.
JJ Describe the characteristics of structured personality inventories and provide examples

of inventories that fall in this category.

JJ Describe and provide examples of projective techniques and explain how they are

distinct from structured personality inventories.

JJ Describe personality inventories that assess positive aspects of personality.

Defining Personality
The term personality has many meanings. Over the years, scientists and researchers have
attempted to find a comprehensive definition of personality—their efforts resulting in
dozens of diverse definitions appearing in the literature. For example, Gordon Allport

271
272 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

(1897–1967), considered by some to be the father of personality theory, alone described

and classified over 50 meanings of personality. Some researchers regarded personality as
synonymous with temperament—that is, the natural predisposition of an individual’s
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Some defined personality in terms of outward, observ-
able behaviors; for example, John B. Watson (1878–1958) characterized personality as a
by-product of habits. In contrast, some theorists focused on underlying inner, subjective
qualities. In this vein, Allport viewed personality as a combination of psychosocial sys-
tems working to adapt to an environment. Consistency is probably at the heart of defin-
ing personality. Personality is generally considered to encompass stable and enduring
behaviors. How you define personality will have a direct impact on the work you per-
form as a professional counselor. For example, if you view personality as a stable and
unchanging collection of behaviors tied only to genetic predispositions, then you are
likely to see some clients as hopeless. On the other hand, if you see personality as a com-
bination of genetics and environmental (social) learning, then you might see opportuni-
ties for clients to manage behaviors that have been ingrained or even change long-standing
behavior patterns.
Regardless of how you define personality, you have to admit that it is a complex
construct. Because personality is complex, there are thousands of assessment instruments
that measure all aspects of personality. For this textbook, we define personality as the rea-
sonably stable patterns of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors derived from both genetic
predisposition and social learning that distinguish one person from another and crystallize
over time. Before presenting information about personality assessment, we will provide
some background information on three fundamental terms related to personality: traits,
states, and types.

Traits, States, and Types

Although theorists have debated the definition of personality, most would agree that it
involves a system of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Some of the elements of this sys-
tem are short acting (states), whereas others are longer lasting (traits). States and traits
often combine to create different types of personalities. Much has been written about
personality traits, states, and types, and whole courses can be dedicated to these concepts.
We provide an overview of each in order to help to develop a foundational understand-
ing of these concepts.

Traits  Personality traits can be viewed as the distinguishing characteristics or qualities

possessed by an individual. Traits can be defined as “dimensions of individual differ-
ences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions” (McCrae
& Costa, 2003, p. 25). Traits are assumed to be relatively stable over time, differ among
individuals, and influence behavior. Words such as “outgoing,” “passive,” “extrovert,”
“perfectionist,” and “motivated” reflect specific personality traits related to an indi-
vidual’s behavior, whereas traits associated with emotional qualities include “happy,”
“anxious,” and “moody.” The collection of traits forms a profile of general social person-
ality strengths and weaknesses that can be used to distinguish one person from another
(Beutler, Groth-Marnat, & Hardwood, 2012). As professional counselors, we often become
more concerned with those traits that are maladaptive. The Diagnostic and Statistical
­Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) Personality and Personality Disorder workgroup
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 273

­ roposed the identification of personality disorders using 25 pathological traits (Krueger,

p
Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). Thomas et al. (2013) determined that these
pathological traits fit within the framework of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality
(discussed later in this chapter). More simply stated, there is some evidence that patho-
logical and normative personality traits can be explained via a single model. However,
more research needs to be conducted before a single model of explaining personality
traits emerges.
The difficulty in researching personality traits is the sheer number of adjectives that
people use to describe each other. Allport (1937), an American psychologist who pioneered
the study of personality traits, was the first theorist to identify the thousands of words that
discriminate human personality characteristics. After searching dictionaries, he found
over 18,000 trait-like words. He whittled that list down to about 3,000 words and catego-
rized them into three levels: cardinal traits (dominate and shape a person’s behavior),
central traits (general characteristics found in all persons within particular cultures), and
secondary traits (characteristics seen in only certain circumstances). Despite his efforts,
theorists disagree on which and how many traits explain human personality, and today
hundreds of inventories are available that purport to measure one or more personality
traits. Consider some popular dating sites that claim to be able to match clients on distinct
aspects of personality. These sites claim to have success in creating lasting relationships
using personality trait theory. However, the number of traits being matched differs across
the board. The same is true for various standardized personality assessment instruments.
Whereas some measure five factors, others measure 16 or more. The end result is that there
are innumerable ways to measure personality traits.

States  In reference to personality, the word state refers to the transitory exhibition of some
trait (Kalimeri, 2013). Whereas trait refers to an enduring personality characteristic, state
usually refers to a temporary behavioral tendency. For example, a person may be described
as being in an anxious state after experiencing a traumatic event, but may not be consid-
ered an anxious person (trait) in general. Although few personality inventories distinguish
traits from states, Spielberger (1970, 1983) designed the State-Trait Anxiety Scale to iden-
tify the anxiety an individual feels at a particular moment (state) versus the way he or she
feels generally (trait).

Types  Some researchers expanded on the trait approach of understanding personality by

sorting traits into various clusters or types. If traits can be considered specific characteris-
tics of an individual, then types can be regarded as a general description of a person. The
first focuses on individual attributes, whereas the latter represents an enumeration of
essential qualities or features that have more far-reaching implications (Kroeger & Thuesen,
2013). For example, extroversion can be considered a personality type that is associated
with traits such as sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness, adventurousness, and high lev-
els of energy. Personality typologies have existed at least since Hippocrates’s classification
of people into four types (i.e., melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, sanguine), and many
more typologies have been created over the years. Most notable is the personality typology
developed by Carl Jung (1921) that became the basis for the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), probably the best known instrument
that assesses personality type.
274 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

Personality Inventories
Personality inventories are commonly used to identify and measure the structure and fea-
tures of one’s personality or one’s characteristic way of thinking, feeling, and behaving
(Weiner & Greene, 2011). Some personality inventories measure specific traits (such as
introversion) or states (such as anxiety), whereas others evaluate broad dimensions of per-
sonality that encompass a broad range of characteristics and attributes. In addition to
measurement and evaluation, personality inventories can be used for other purposes, such
as increasing self-knowledge and self-understanding (Urbina, 2014). Most personality
inventories are self-report, meaning that the test taker supplies information about him- or
herself; other instruments can be designed to elicit information from individuals other
than the person being evaluated (e.g., parent, spouse, teacher). The following are examples
of how professionals from various disciplines may use personality inventories:
• A career counselor administers a personality inventory in order to help a person
choose a career.
• A clinical mental health counselor administers a personality inventory to narrow
down a varied set of symptoms and determine the diagnosis of a particular psycho-
logical disorder.
• A school counselor looks at a high school student’s personality inventory results to
determine if any difficulties are related to the student’s academic problems.
• An employment counselor uses a personality inventory to identify a client’s person-
ality attributes (e.g., conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness) that con-
tribute to effective work performance.
• A neuropsychologist administers a personality inventory to determine the extent to
which an individual’s brain injury has affected cognition and behavior.

Approaches to Personality Inventory Development

Personality inventories may differ in the approach by which they are constructed. Four
common approaches to personality inventory development are rational, theory, criterion
group, and factor analysis; combinations of these approaches are also employed.

Rational Approach  One of the oldest methods of personality test construction is the
rational approach, which involves the use of reason and deductive logic to construct test
items. In other words, items are developed based on the degree to which they are logically
assumed to be related to a given construct. An example is the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet
(Woodworth, 1920), considered to be the first structured (i.e., objective) personality inven-
tory. The 116-item self-report inventory was assembled in response to needs for psychiatric
screening during the U.S. entry into World War I. Test items consisted of statements that
Woodworth believed were indicators of psychological maladjustment. Items were simply
listed on paper (e.g., Are you happy most of the time?), and the respondent answered yes or no.
Instrument development using the rational approach means that the measure is entirely
dependent upon the test author’s assumptions about the construct (i.e., personality) being
measured, and these assumptions may or may not have been well-founded.

Theory-Based Approach  Unlike the rational approach, personality inventories constructed

using a theory-based approach are founded on an established theory of personality. For
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 275

e­ xample, instruments that use projective techniques are based on the psychodynamic theory of
personality, which emphasizes the importance of the unconscious (i.e., hidden emotions,
internal conflicts). Thus, projective instruments are thought to reveal examinees’ uncon-
scious by allowing them to respond to some type of unstructured stimuli (e.g., an inkblot, a
picture, an incomplete sentence), resulting in the examinee projecting or expressing uncon-
scious fears, conflicts, or needs.
Similarly, the MBTI (Myers et al., 1998) was constructed based on Carl Jung’s (1921)
theory of psychological type. Jung identified two dimensions that combined to create
personality types: attitudes (extraversion and introversion) and functions (sensation,
intuition, thinking, and feeling). Based on Jung’s original concepts, the MBTI sorts an
individual’s preferences into four separate categories: (a) extraversion or introversion, (b)
sensing or intuitive, (c) thinking or feeling, and (d) judging or perceiving. Combinations
of these four preferences result in 16 separate personality types that are used to describe
the examinee.

Criterion Group Approach  The criterion group approach is an empirical method of per-
sonality test construction that involves selecting items that can discriminate between rel-
evant criterion groups and control groups. The approach begins with a population sample
with known personality characteristics, such as a group of individuals diagnosed with
schizophrenia (i.e., the criterion group). An instrument based upon this population sample
is administered to both the schizophrenic group and a control group (usually a “normal”
population) to identify the items that distinguish the two groups. The items that distin-
guish the schizophrenic group from the control group are then placed in a separate scale.
The scale is then cross-validated to see how well it distinguishes the schizophrenic group
from other groups. Using the criterion group method, the emphasis is on the discriminat-
ing power of the instrument; what is important is the fact that the test discriminates, not
the reason it does so. This method of instrument construction is exemplified by the crea-
tion of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) and MMPI-2-RF,
which were developed based on the ability of tests’ items to detect symptoms of psycho-
pathology in adults.

Factor Analysis  Factor analysis is another empirical approach that uses statistical proce-
dures to (a) analyze interrelationships among a large number of variables (e.g., personality
traits) and (b) explain these variables in terms of their common underlying dimensions
(factors). For constructing personality inventories, factor analysis helps in condensing
numerous personality traits into fewer dimensions of personality that can then be meas-
ured and evaluated. For example, Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1970) developed the Sixteen
Personality Factor, Fifth Edition (16PF) by reducing 18,000 personality descriptors (origi-
nally identified by Allport) into 181 personality clusters, from which 12 factors were gener-
ated using factor analysis. These factors laid the foundation for the first 16PF published in
1949. More than half a century and several revisions later, the 16PF continues to be a widely
used instrument for measuring normal adult personality. Another example is the NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), a 240-item inventory that is based on five dimensions of
personality (known as the Five Factor Model): neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agree­
ableness, and conscientiousness. These broad factor-analytically derived categories have
been shown to represent the underlying structure of Allport’s 18,000 personality adjectives
(Costa & McCrae, 2013) and have received much support from theorists and researchers
276 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

(Detrick & Chibnall, 2013; Furnham, Guenole, Levine, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013;
Gorostiaga, Balluerka, Alonso-Arbiol, & Haranburu, 2011; Källmen, Wennberg, & Bergman,
2011; Van den Broeck, Rossi, Dierckx, & De Clercq, 2012; Vassend & Skrondal, 2011).

Combined Approaches  Many personality inventories are constructed using a combina-

tion of rational, theory-based, criterion groups, and factor analytic approaches. For
example, the items of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III) were initially
theory-based items and derived from Millon’s (1969) theories of personality and psycho-
pathology. Then, criterion group procedures were employed to refine test items in terms
of their ability to discriminate among groups with certain personality disorders or clini-
cal syndromes.

Categories of Personality Inventories

In this section, we will present information about several personality assessment instru-
ments and strategies grouped into three categories: structured personality inventories,
projective techniques, and instruments that assess positive aspects of personality.

Structured Personality Inventories

Structured (also called objective) personality inventories are usually standardized, self-
report instruments made up of items that are presented to a person who indicates how
accurately the items describe his or her personality using a limited set of response options
(Kamphaus & Frick, 2010). For example, many structured personality inventories use
selected-response items (e.g., true/false, matching, multiple choice) or rating scales.
Responses on personality inventories are not scored in terms of correctness (right or
wrong), but are scored in reference to the personality characteristic being measured. For
example, a true response on a personality test item may indicate the presence of a par-
ticular trait, not that the question was answered correctly. Because of the selected-
response format, items on structured personality inventories can typically be answered
rapidly, allowing for the use of numerous items covering many aspects of personality
without lengthy administration times (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). In addition, items can
be scored quickly and reliably using various means (e.g., hand scoring, computer scor-
ing) as well as interpreted accurately and efficiently, particularly with the use of com-
puter software programs.
Structured personality inventories can have a broad or narrow scope. An instrument
with a broad scope measures and provides scores on a wide array of personality variables.
Broadly focused personality inventories can be very comprehensive and time-consuming
(taking 1 to 2 hours to complete), may contain hundreds of test items, and may provide
several scores on scales or subscales. The MMPI-2 is the best example of a personality
inventory with a broad scope; it contains 566 true/false items, resulting in scores on sev-
eral separate scales. A version of the MMPI (MMPI-2-RF) was developed by Ben-Porath
and Tellegen (2008) to be aligned with the MMPI-2’s restructured clinical scales. This new
version is 338 true/false items and can be used for a wide range of assessment purposes.
In contrast, structured inventories with a narrow scope focus on targeted aspects of
personality, such as specific symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety) or behaviors. They are
typically briefer than broad personality inventories, often taking no longer than 15 or
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 277

20 minutes to complete. Frequently used in clinical assessment, hundreds if not thousands

of narrowly focused inventories are available that aid in (a) screening and diagnosing
mental disorders (such as an eating disorder or a mood disorder), (b) developing treatment
plans, (c) monitoring treatment progress, and (d) evaluating treatment outcome. For exam-
ple, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) is a widely used inventory with items that
focus specifically on symptoms of depression. Chapter 13 will provide more information
about narrowly focused personality inventories.
Structured personality inventories can focus on pathological or nonpathological aspects
of personality. Pathology refers to anything that deviates from a healthy, normal condition.
In terms of personality, pathological is used to indicate symptoms or other manifestations of
mental or behavioral disorders (i.e., psychopathology). Examples of psychopathology
include such symptoms as depressed mood, anxiety, hallucinations, and delusions, to
name just a few. The MMPI-2 and the MCMI-III are examples of personality inventories
with a pathological focus; their general intent is to identify the presence or absence of
symptoms or behaviors that relate to specific psychopathological categories. Both of these
tests are discussed at length in Chapter 10.
Nonpathological inventories de-emphasize pathology as a defining characteristic of
personality and focus on “normal” personality characteristics. They are developed for use
with a normal population and assess the presence or absence of such nonpathological per-
sonality characteristics as sociability, responsibility, and flexibility. Personality inventories
with a nonpathological focus include the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), the
MBTI, the NEO PI-R, the 16PF, and the Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI).
In this section, we will review several prominent structured personality inventories.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory  The MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001),
one of the most widely used personality inventories, is a comprehensive, structured instru-
ment that assesses major symptoms of adult psychopathology. It is often used by clinicians
to assist with the diagnosis of mental disorders and the selection of appropriate treatment
methods. The original MMPI was developed in the late 1930s and early 1940s by psycholo-
gist Starke R. Hathaway and psychiatrist and neurologist J. C. McKinley at the University
of Minnesota. Because of concerns about the adequacy of the original standardization
norm, the MMPI-2, released in 1989, implemented norms that were much more repre-
sentative of the U.S. population. The MMPI-2 can be administered to individuals aged 18
years and older who can read at a minimum sixth-grade level. It has 567 true/false ques-
tions; takes 60 to 90 minutes to complete; can be administered by hand, audiocassette, and
computer; and is available in English, Spanish, Hmong, and French (Canada). Use of the
MMPI-2 is restricted to qualified professionals who are licensed or credentialed and have
adequate training in assessment, personality theory, psychopathology, and diagnosis.
The MMPI-2 contains 10 clinical scales that assess dimensions of personality and psy-
chopathology. The clinical scales were developed using an empirical approach: items were
selected for each scale on the basis of their ability to discriminate between clinical and
normal groups. It also has nine validity scales used to detect response styles, which refers to
a test taker’s pattern of responding to items. A test taker may respond to items in a variety
of ways that can compromise the validity of the test (Butcher et al., 2001). For example, an
examinee may leave a large number of items unanswered, distort his or her self-­descriptions
by underreporting or overreporting symptoms, choose answers randomly, or pick all true
or all false answers. The MMPI-2 validity scales were designed to help detect sources of
278 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

test invalidity and to evaluate the impact of such distortions on the test results. Table 12.1
provides a description of the clinical and validity scales.

TABLE 12.1  MMPI-2 Validity and Clinical Scales

Name Abbr. Description
Validity Scales
1. Cannot Say CNS The total number of unanswered questions. If 30 or more
items are omitted, then the test results are highly suspect or
invalid.
2. Variable Response VRIN Detects random or inconsistent responding. A T score at or
Inconsistency above 80 invalidates the test.
3. True Response TRIN Picking all true or all false answers. A T score at or above
Inconsistency 80 invalidates the test. (Note: On the MMPI-2 profile, a
letter “T” following the TRIN T score indicates more true
responses, and the letter “F” following the TRIN T score
indicates more false responses.)
4. Infrequency F Identifies overreporting of symptoms (faking bad). A T score
at or above 90 might invalidate the test. T scores between
70 and 89 suggest exaggerated symptoms, perhaps a cry
for help.
5. Back Infrequency F(B) Detects overreporting in the second half of the test. If the
T score on the F(B) is at least 30 points greater than the
T score on the F, then scales with items in the latter part of
the test may be invalid.
6. Infrequency- F(P) Detects intentional overreporting of symptoms. A T score
Psychopathology at or above 70 suggests exaggerated symptoms (perhaps
a cry for help); a T score at or above 100 invalidates the
profile.
7. Lie L Detects intentional underreporting (purposefully making
self look favorable). A T score at or above 80 may indicate
dishonest answers and invalidates the test.
8. Correction K Detects unintentional underreporting (due to denial, lack of
insight, or a defensive approach to taking the test). A T score
at or above 65 may invalidate the test.
9. Superlative S Assesses the tendency to present self as highly virtuous
Presentation and responsible, with no psychological problems and few
or no moral flaws. A T score at or above 70 may invalidate
the test.
Clinical Scales
Note: In general, all clinical scale T scores at or above 65 are considered to be high scores and in the
“clinical” range.
  1. Hypochondriasis Hs Preoccupied with health problems; medical complaints with
little or no organic basis; health problems may be associated
with stress.
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 279

TABLE 12.1  MMPI-2 Validity and Clinical Scales (Continued)

Name Abbr. Description
  2. Depression D Clinical depression; feels pessimistic, hopeless, guilty, suicidal,
unworthy.
  3. Hysteria Hy Difficulty dealing with stress; physical symptoms may worsen
under stressful conditions.
  4. Psychopathic Pd Antisocial behavior; trouble with the law; stealing, lying;
Deviate rebellious, angry, and/or impulsive behavior; substance
abuse.
  5. Masculinity- Mf Nontraditional sex roles. High scores for men indicate lack
Femininity of traditional masculine interests; high scores for women
indicate a rejection of traditional feminine roles.
  6. Paranoia Pa Paranoid symptoms, such as ideas of reference, delusions
of persecution, suspiciousness, excessive sensitivity, rigid
opinions.
  7. Psychasthenia Pt Anxiety, extreme fear, tension, obsessive-compulsive.
  8. Schizophrenia Sc Disturbances of thinking, mood, and behavior;
hallucinations; delusions.
  9. Hypomania Ma Hypomanic or manic symptoms, such as elevated mood,
irritability, flight of ideas, grandiosity, excitability.
10. Social Introversion Si Tendency to withdraw from social contacts and
responsibility; insecure, indecisive, introverted.

Since the original MMPI was published, a number of additional scales and subscales
(e.g., Content Scales, Supplementary Scales) have been developed that measure numerous
pathological or nonpathological aspects of personality. In addition, the MMPI-2-RF was
published in 2008 as a shorter form of the MMPI. Although the MMPI-2-RF is a more
recent form, the MMPI-2 continues to be the more widely used version because of the sub-
stantial research base to support it.
Scores for the MMPI-2 are reported as T scores. There are several steps involved in
interpreting scores. First, clinicians examine the validity scale scores to determine whether
the profile contains valid, useful, and relevant information about the client’s personality
and clinical problems. If the test taker scores at or above particular T score values on valid-
ity scales, then the results of the clinical scales may be invalid. For example, a T score of 80
or higher on the Lie (L) validity scale may indicate that the individual answered questions
dishonestly, thus invalidating the test. Only after evaluating the validity scales and deter-
mining that the results are valid does the clinician proceed to examine the clinical scales
scores. In general, T scores above 65 on the clinical scales are elevated and considered
within the “clinical” range, which refers to the range of scores obtained by the sample of
individuals experiencing the particular symptom measured by the scale. Inferences should
not be based solely on a high score on one clinical scale; rather, inferences should be made
on the basis of all elevated scale scores as well as the individual’s background and present-
ing problem. Figure 12.1 provides a sample profile of the MMPI-2.
280 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

Level Uniform T-Scores Percentile Rank

•  Extremely High • 85–90 •  > 99.8

•  Very High • 75–80 • 98–99
• High • 65–70 • 92–96
•  Moderately High • 55–60 • 73–85
• Average • 45–50 • 34–55
•  Moderately Low • 35–40 • 4–15
•  Very Low • 30 •  < 1

FIGURE 12.1   Overview of MMPI-2 Scores.

The MMPI-2-RF is a shorter and newer version of the MMPI. The RF contains 338
true/false items, and the results can be used for a wide range of purposes—much like the
longer form of the MMPI-2. The MMPI-2-RF has 51 empirically validated scores and a num-
ber of validity indicators. Many of the same scales from the long form are included in the
MMPI-2-RF. The shorter form is based on the restructured clinical scales, which have been
reported in the long form as well. The restructured clinical scales include the following:
RCd-(dem)—Demoralization
RC1-(som)—Somatic Complaints
RC2-(lpe)—Low Positive Emotions
RC3-(cyn)—Cynicism
RC4-(asb)—Antisocial Behavior
RC6-(per)—Ideas of Persecution
RC7-(dne)—Dysfunctional Negative Emotions
RC8-(abx)—Aberrant Experiences
RC9-(hpm)—Hypomanic Activation
Like the long form of the MMPI-2, interpretation of the scales requires specific training.
The MMPI-2-RF is restricted to use by professionals who have a doctoral degree in a help-
ing profession, licensure in an area of professional practice, or certification by a profes-
sional organization. Although licensed counselors are qualified users, we caution you to
review state licensure laws to ensure state-specific privleges.

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory The MCMI-III (Millon, Millon, Davis, &

­ rossman, 2009) is a 175-item self-report, true/false instrument designed for adults
G
(18 years and older) and takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. It is one of the few
inventories that focus on personality disorders along with symptoms that are frequently
associated with these disorders. The inventory consists of 28 scales that are divided into
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 281

Exercise 12.1
Assessment Using the MMPI-2
Nicholas, age 35, was referred for evalua- tions commonly prescribed in the
tion by his psychiatrist. Nicholas was treatment of bipolar disorder. Nicholas
diagnosed with bipolar disorder (also informed his psychiatrist that he is feel-
known as manic-depressive illness), ing much better and wants to stop taking
which is a brain disorder that causes dra- the medications and terminate treatment.
matic mood swings—from overly “high” The psychiatrist wants to know if Nicho-
and/or irritable to sad and hopeless and las is doing as well as he claims he is
then back again, often with periods of doing.
normal mood in between. The psychia- Review Nicholas’ MMPI-2 profile re-
trist was treating Nicholas with medica- port and answer the questions that follow.

MMPI-2 Profile
Validity Scales Description
Cannot Say The Cannot Say score was 4, indicating that David
omitted three items on the inventory. This does not
invalidate test results.
Variable Response Inconsistency—VRIN The T score on the VRIN scale was 46, which
indicates that David’s responses were not random
or inconsistent.
True Response Inconsistency—TRIN
Infrequency—F
Back Infrequency—F(B)
Infrequency-Psychopathology—F(P)
Lie—L
Correction—K
Superlative Presentation—S

Exercise Questions: 3. Identify the clinical scale score(s)

that are in the “clinical range” and
1. Interpret the scores on each validity
interpret the scores.
scale. Use the answers provided on
4. How would you respond to the psy-
the first two validity scales as a for-
chiatrist’s question (is Nicholas is do-
mat for your answers.
ing as well as he claims he is doing)?
2. Based on the validity scale scores, do
5. What would you recommend to
you believe Nicholas’s MMPI-2 re-
Nicholas and his psychiatrist?
sults are valid? Explain.
282 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

TABLE 12.2  The MCMI-III Scales

Clinical Personality Pattern Scales Clinical Syndrome Scales
1 Schizoid A Anxiety
H Somatoform 2A Avoidant
N Bipolar: Manic 2B Depressive
D Dysthymia 3 Dependent
B Alcohol Dependence 4 Histrionic
5 Narcissistic T Drug Dependence
6A Antisocial R Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
6B Sadistic (Aggressive) Severe Syndrome Scales
7 Compulsive SS Thought Disorder
8A Negativistic (Passive-Aggressive) CC Major Depression
8B Masochistic (Self-Defeating) PP Delusional Disorder

Severe Personality Pathology Scales Modifying Indices

S Schizotypal C Borderline
X Disclosure P Paranoid
Y Desirability Z Debasement
V Validity

the following categories: Modifying Indices, Clinical Personality Patterns, Severe Person-
ality Pathology, Clinical Syndromes, and Severe Syndromes (see Table 12.2). The scales,
along with the items that comprise the scales, are closely aligned to both Theodore Millon’s
(1969) theory of personality and the classification system of the DSM-5 (American Psychi-
atric Association (APA), 2013). The MCMI-III is often considered an alternative to the
MMPI-2, because both instruments cover a broad range of adult psychopathology.
­However, the MMPI-2 focuses primarily on clinical symptoms, whereas the MCMI was
specifically designed to assist in diagnosing personality disorders. An important advan-
tage of the MCMI-III is that it is considerably shorter than the MMPI-2 (175 items vs. 567
items) and yet provides a wide range of information.

The California Psychological Inventory  First published in 1957, the CPI is a self-
administered personality inventory composed of 434 true/false statements that assess per-
sonality dimensions in “normal” people between the ages of 12 and 70 (Gough, 2000).
Except for the MMPI-2, the CPI is the most thoroughly researched and frequently used
personality inventory. Test items focus on typical behavior patterns, feelings and opinions,
and attitudes relating to social, ethical, and family matters (e.g., “I enjoy social gatherings
just to be with people”). The results are plotted on 20 scales (representing personality
traits) that are clustered into four general domains (see Table 12.3). The inventory was
normed on a standardization sample of 6,000 men and 7,000 women of varying age and
socioeconomic status and included high school and college students, teachers, business
executives, prison executives, psychiatric patients, and prison inmates.

The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator  Another nonpathological personality inventory is the

well-known and widely used MBTI (Myers et al., 1998). Developed in the 1940s by
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 283

TABLE 12.3  General Domains and Scales of the California Personality Inventory
General Domains Scales
I. Observable, interpersonal   1. Dominance (leadership ability)
style, and orientation   2. Capacity for status (ambitious vs. unsure)
  3. Sociability (outgoing vs. shy)
  4. Social presence (self-assured vs. reserved)
  5. Self-acceptance (positive self vs. self-doubting)
  6. Independence (self-sufficient vs. seeks support)
  7. Empathy (empathetic vs. unempathetic)
II. Normative orientation   8. Responsibility (responsible vs. undisciplined)
and values   9. Socialization (conforms vs. rebellious)
10. Self-control (overcontrol vs. undercontrol)
11. Good impression (pleases others vs. complains about others)
12. Communality (fits in vs. sees self differently)
13. Well-being (optimistic vs. pessimistic)
14. Tolerance (fair minded vs. fault finding)
III. Cognitive and intellectual 15. Achievement via conformance (efficient and well organized
functioning vs. distracted)
16. Achievement via independence (clear thinking vs. uninterested)
17. Intellectual efficiency (keeps on task vs. hard time getting
started)
IV. Measures of role and 18. Psychological mindedness (insightful and perceptive vs.
personal style apathetic and unmotivated)
19. Flexibility (likes change vs. not changeable)
20. Femininity/masculinity (sensitive vs. unsentimental)

­ atharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, the MBTI was designed for measuring an
K
individual’s preference according to the typological theories of Carl Jung (Myers & Myers,
1995). The instrument sorts an individual’s preferences into four separate categories, each
composed of two opposite poles:
• Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I)  Where an individual prefers to focus his or her
energy. People who prefer extroversion direct their energy to the outside world of
people, things, and situations. Those who prefer introversion focus their energy on the
inner world of ideas, emotion, information, or beliefs.
• Sensing (S) or Intuitive (I)  How an individual prefers to process or acquire informa-
tion. The sensing type prefers to deal with facts, be objective, or use the five senses to
notice what is real. The intuitive type prefers to look beyond the five senses to acquire
information, to generate new possibilities and ways of doing things, or to anticipate
what isn’t obvious.
• Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)  How an individual prefers to makes decisions. Thinking
indicates a preference to make decisions based on logic and objective analysis of the
evidence. Feeling types prefer to make decisions based on their values and subjective
evaluation.
284 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

• Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)  How an individual prefers to organize his or her life.
The term judging does not mean “judgmental.” It simply indicates a preference for
living in a planned, stable, and organized way. Perceiving indicates a preference for
more spontaneity and flexibility, responding to things as they arise.
These four categories are combined to form 16 possible personality types (or combinations
of preferences) that best describe the examinee. Each type tends to be characterized by its
own interests, values, and unique gifts. Types are often referred to by an abbreviation of
four letters, indicating the four type preferences—for example:
ESTJ: Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging
INFP: Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, Perceiving
The results of the MBTI provide a detailed description of an individual’s type. For exam-
ple, an individual reported as an ENFP (Extraversion, Intuition, Feeling, and Perceiving)
would be described as the following (Myers & Myers, 2004, p. 2):
• Curious, creative, and imaginative
• Energetic, enthusiastic, and spontaneous
• Keenly perceptive of people and of the outside world
• Appreciative of affirmation from others; readily expresses appreciation and gives
support to others
• Likely to value harmony and goodwill
• Likely to make decisions based on personal values and empathy with others
• Usually seen by others as personable, perceptive, persuasive, and versatile

Neo Personality Inventory-Revised  The NEO PI-R is a well-known, highly regarded

personality inventory based on the Five Factor Model of personality, which suggests that
the basic dimensions of personality contain the following components: Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The NEO
PI-R includes scales for each of the five personality factors as well as six facet (trait) scales
for each domain:
1. Neuroticism  Tendency to experience negative emotions (anxiety, angry hostility,
depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability)
2. Extraversion  Amount of energy directed outward into the social world (warmth,
gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions)
3. Openness to Experience  Level of openness to new ideas and new experiences (fan-
tasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, values)
4. Agreeableness  Tendency toward friendly, considerable, and modest behavior (trust,
straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender-mindedness)
5. Conscientiousness  Associated with responsibility and persistence (competence,
order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, deliberation)
The NEO PI-R consists of 240 statements for which respondents are asked to rate their level
of agreement on a 5-point scale. Scores are reported in terms of qualitative descriptors: very
low, low, average, high, and very high. The test has two forms: Form S is for self-reports; form
R is for observer reports. There is also a shorter version, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI), which has 60 items and yields just the five domain scores.
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 285

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Fifth Edition  The 16PF (Cattell et al.,
1970) is a comprehensive measure of adult personality traits. It has been widely used for a
variety of applications, including treatment planning, couples’ counseling, vocational
guidance, and hiring and promotion recommendations. The questionnaire consists of 187
items and takes 35 to 50 minutes to complete. There are 16 personality factors, which are
also grouped into five global factors. The 16 personality factors and five global factors are
derived from client responses. The 16 personality factors are Warmth, Reasoning, Emo-
tional Stability, Dominance, Liveliness, Rule-Consciousness, Social Boldness, Sensitivity,
Vigilance, Abstractedness, Privateness, Apprehension, Openness to Change, Self-Reliance,
Perfectionism, and Tension. The five global factors are Extraversion, Anxiety, Tough-
Mindedness, Independence, and Self-Control. Raw scores on all personality and global
factors are converted to sten scores: scores from 1 to 3 are classified as low, scores from 4 to
7 are average, and scores from 8 to 10 are classified as high. High and low scores designate
opposite poles of the same personality factor. For example, an individual’s score on the
Warmth factor may fall from reserved (low) to warm (high). Figure 12.2 shows a score
profile for the 16PF.

Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator  The RHETI is a 144-item personality type

instrument that produces a personality profile across nine personality types. Riso and
Hudson (1999) postulated that this ancient system will help individuals unlock their hid-
den aspects so that they can become freer and better-functioning individuals. He believes
that the study of one’s profile leads to self-understanding and then to the understanding
of others. The nine Enneagram types include the following:
1. Reformers  Idealistic, purposeful, orderly, self-controlled, perfectionistic
2. Helpers  Generous, concerned, demonstrative, people-pleasing, possessive
3. Achievers  Self-assured, adaptable, ambitious, driven, image-conscious
4. Individualists  Creative, expressive, dramatic, introverted, temperamental
5. Investigators  Perceptive, analytical, secretive, isolated
6. Loyalists  Likable, dependable, anxious, suspicious
7. Enthusiasts  Accomplished, extroverted, spontaneous, acquisitive, scattered
8. Challengers  Powerful, self-confident, decisive, willful, autocratic
9. Peacemakers  Peaceful, receptive, passive, agreeable, complacent
The nine Enneagram types can be further divided into three ranges of functioning: healthy,
average, and unhealthy (see Table 12.4). The test authors believe that assessing the level of
functioning is important, because people with the same personality type will differ
­significantly if they are healthy or unhealthy. The internal consistency for the RHETI has
been shown to be adequate (Newgent, Parr, Newman, & Higgins, 2004). Although there
have been mixed results with regard to evaluation of validity for the instrument, Newgent
et al. suggested that the instrument has heuristic value.

Projective Instruments and Techniques

In contrast to structured personality inventories, projective instruments and techniques
require examinees to answer questions related to ambiguous stimuli (e.g., inkblots, pic-
tures, phrases) using open-ended responses. What is projective about these instruments
is the requirement for clients to generate a response in the face of ambiguity; in so doing,
286 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

Personality Factors

Sten Factor Left Meaning Low Average High Right Meaning

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6 Warmth (A) Reserved Warm

8 Reasoning (B) Concrete Abstract
6 Emotional Stability (C) Reactive Emotionally Stable
6 Dominance (E) Deferential Dominant
4 Liveliness (F) Serious Lively
6 Rule-Consciousness (G) Expedient Rule-Conscious
8 Social Boldness (H) Shy Socially Bold
6 Sensitivity (I) Utilitarian Sensitive
4 Vigilance (L) Trusting Vigilant
7 Abstractedness (M) Grounded Abstracted
4 Privateness (N) Forthright Private
6 Apprehension (O) Self-Assured Apprehensive
9 Openness to Change (Q1) Traditional Open to Change
4 Self-Reliance (Q2) Group-Oriented Self-Reliant
4 Perfectionism (Q3) Tolerates Disorder Perfectionistic
6 Tension (Q4) Relaxed Tense

Global Factors

Sten Factor Left Meaning Low Average High Right Meaning

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7 Extraversion Introverted Extraverted

5 Anxiety Low Anxiety High Anxiety
3 Tough-Mindedness Receptive Tough-Minded
7 Independence Accommodating Independent
5 Self-Control Unrestrained Self-Controlled

FIGURE 12.2   16PF Profile.

Source: 16PF Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2002 by Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc. (employer for
hire). Reproduced with permission of the publisher NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. “16PF” is a
trademark, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates(s).

the person interprets instrument stimuli in a way that reveals or projects elements of his
or her personal characteristics (e.g., concerns, needs, conflicts, desires, feelings). Although
projective techniques are reviewed in the majority of counselor-preparation assessment
courses, the time spent on review does not typically prepare counselors to use these
instruments in practice (Neukrug, Peterson, Bonner, & Lomas, 2013). Counselors inter-
ested in projective techniques require additional coursework or training to be competent
in this area. Of course, before using these techniques or any assessment techniques, you
should consult your state laws to ensure that you have appropriate privileges under your
certification or licensure.
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 287

TABLE 12.4  Types Included on the Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator

Range of Functioning
Type Healthy Unhealthy
1. Reformer Idealistic, orderly Perfectionist, intolerant
2. Helper Concerned, helpful Possessive, manipulative
3. Achiever Self-assured, ambitious Narcissistic, psychopathic
4. Individualistic Creative, individualistic Introverted, depressive
5. Investigator Perceptive, analytical Eccentric, paranoid
6. Loyalist Likable, dependable Masochistic, plagued by doubt
7. Enthusiast Accomplished, extroverted Excessive, manic
8. Challenger Powerful, self-confident Dictatorial, destructive
9. Peacemaker Peaceful, reassuring Passive, repressed

Although counselor licensure laws vary with regard to the use of projective assess-
ment, it is still important to understand the principles related to this method. Various
methods of interpretation are used with projective instruments to make inferences about
the individual’s underlying personality processes and social-emotional functioning (Smith,
2011). Projective instruments are strongly associated with the psychodynamic theory of
personality, which emphasizes the importance of the unconscious (i.e., hidden emotions,
internal conflicts). Thus, by responding to some type of unstructured stimuli (e.g., inkblot,
picture, incomplete sentence), individuals are thought to reveal their unconscious fears,
conflicts, or needs. Some well-known projective instruments and techniques are the
­Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), verbal projective tech-
niques, and projective drawings.

The Rorschach Inkblot Test  The Rorschach Inkblot Test, developed by Herman R
­ orschach
(1921), is a test that measures an individual’s view or perception of his or her world or envi-
ronment. It consists of a series of irregular but symmetrical inkblots (see F
­ igure 12.3); subjects
are asked to look at the inkblots and verbally describe what they see. By analyzing what
someone sees on the inkblot, examiners can make various hypotheses about the individual’s
emotions, cognition, coping skills, perception of others and relationships, and self-perception.
The test consists of 10 bilaterally symmetrical inkblots printed on separate cards. Five cards
are black and white; two are black, white, and red; and three are multicolored.
The test has two phases. In the first free-association phase, the examiner presents the
inkblots to the test taker one at a time and instructs him or her to tell what is on each card
by asking questions such as “What might this be?” The examiner records all relevant infor-
mation, including the test taker’s verbatim responses, nonverbal gestures, length of time
before the first response to each card, and so on. The second phase, referred to as the
inquiry phase, involves the examiner attempting to determine what features on the inkblot
played a role in the test taker’s perception of the image. Questions such as “What makes it
look like (whatever)?” and “Where on the inkblot did you see (whatever the examinee
saw)?” are asked to gain information useful for interpreting the responses.
Examiners must be thoroughly trained in the use of the Rorschach. Clinicians can
make numerous errors during administration, scoring, and interpretation. However, with
288 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

FIGURE 12.3   A Rorschach-like inkblot.

supervised training the number of errors can be significantly reduced (Callahan, 2014).
The original test came with no test manual and no administration, scoring, or interpreta-
tion instructions. Over the years, a number of manuals and handbooks by various authors
have become available; the most widely used is a “comprehensive system” devised by
Exner and Exner (2013).

Thematic Apperception Test  The TAT (Murray, 1943) originally was based on Henry
Murray’s (1938) theory of personality. The TAT includes a series of black-and-white pic-
ture cards that contain a variety of characters, situations, and objects (see Figure 12.4 for an
example of typical administration of a personality test.). Examinees are asked to look at
and make up stories about each picture. After each TAT card story, an inquiry process
begins, and the examiner asks a series of questions to better understand the examinee’s
story, such as what led up to the event shown, what is happening at the moment, what the
characters are thinking and feeling, and what the outcome of the story was. Questions may
involve further clarification of the characters’ thoughts and feelings and how the story was
generated. There are numerous approaches to interpreting the TAT. Some interpretations
involve examiners identifying a hero or main character within the story, the belief being
that the examinee will identify with the character and project his or her unconscious
motives, feelings, and needs onto the character (Aronow, Weiss, & Reznikoff, 2013).
­Furthermore, common themes among the stories should be identified, and how the client
relates the story should be noted.
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 289

FIGURE 12.4   Example of personality assessment with a client.

Verbal Expressive Projective Techniques  Verbal expressive projective techniques allow

a counselor to understand elements of personality through the presentation of verbal stim-
uli and elicited verbal responses. The stimuli and responses can be transmitted orally or in
writing. These types of projective techniques allow a counselor to evaluate personality
information when an individual has difficulty with self-evaluation (Panek, Jenkins,
­Hayslip, & Moske, 2013). To use verbal projective techniques, the client needs good lan-
guage skills and should be able to hear or read words and express himself or herself orally
or in writing. An example of a verbal projective technique is projective questions. Examples
of questions include the following:
If you could be anything you wanted to be, what would you be?
If you had three wishes, what would you wish for?
If you had a magic wand, what would you change about your life?
These types of questions allow individuals to reflect some degree of their personality traits
and states in their responses (Weiner & Greene, 2011). Counselors can interpret an indi-
vidual’s view of him- or herself and the world through the use of these types of techniques.
Sentence-completion tasks are another verbal projective technique in which examinees
are presented a list of sentence stems (the beginning of a potential sentence) with a blank
space after each stem. The task of the examinee is to complete the sentence. The typical way
to conduct sentence-completion tasks is for the examinee to read the stems and then provide
a written response, but oral administration and response also is an option (Hodges, 2011).
Sentence-completion instruments may range from only a small number of items (10 to 15) to
50 or more items. The basis of all sentence-completion forms is that the examinee’s
290 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

TABLE 12.5  Sample Sentence Stems from the Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank

1. I wish …   6. Sometimes …
2. I secretly …   7. The happiest time …
3. I feel …   8. The only trouble …
4. I regret …   9. What annoys …
5. I can’t … 10. Other kids …
Source: Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank, Second Edition. Copyright © 1950, renewed 1977 by NCS Pearson, Inc.
Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. “Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank, Second Edition” and
“RISB” are trademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates(s).

responses may provide insight into his or her self-image, developmental characteristics,
interpersonal reactions, needs, and perceived threats. Although published sentence-
completion instruments yield an overall score, most examiners simply read over the com-
pleted sentences and form impressions about what examinees’ responses might signify
about their personality characteristics. The Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank, Second
­Edition (RISB) is probably the best known sentence-completion instrument. Table 12.5
provides 10 sample sentence stems from the RISB.
Similar to sentence completion is story completion. There are different versions of the
story completion technique (Koppitz, 1982; Thomas, 1937), but in general, it involves
developing stories about a hypothetical child of the same age and gender as the child being
assessed. Koppitz (1982) gives an example of a story: “A boy is at the table with his parents.
Father suddenly gets angry. Why?” (p. 278). The stories are designed to investigate a
child’s dreams, fantasies, attitudes, and defense mechanisms, and they can be analyzed for
major themes.

Projective Drawings  Projective drawings are perhaps the oldest category of projective
assessment procedures and are often used with children and adolescents (Weiner &
Greene, 2011). As with other projective approaches, drawings are thought to contain non-
verbal clues and symbolic messages about a child’s self-concept, motivations, concerns,
attitudes, and desires (Cummings, 1986). One of the most common drawing techniques is
the Draw-a-Person test (DAP; Machover, 1949; see Figure 12.5). In this technique, a child is
simply given a paper and a pencil and asked to draw a picture of a whole person. The
drawing must be created in the presence of the counselor. After the child completes his or
her drawing, an inquiry process ensues in which counselors ask questions about the draw-
ing, such as “Tell me a story about this person,” “What is the person doing?” or “How is
the person feeling?” Answers to the questions as well as the drawings themselves are used
to form various hypotheses and interpretations about the child’s personality and function-
ing. Although many methods are available to score human figure drawings, Koppitz’s
(1968) scoring system is one of the most frequently cited. Koppitz’s scoring system focuses
on 30 emotional indicators in children’s drawings. Emotional indicators are specific details in
drawings (e.g., tiny or large figures, transparent [X-ray] bodies, crossed eyes, showing
teeth, hands cut off, no eyes) that distinguish between normally adjusted children and
emotionally disturbed children. The presence or absence of three or more emotional indi-
cators may indicate underlying problems or maladjustment in the child. For example, poor
achievement might be reflected in poorly integrated body parts, a monster or grotesque
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 291

FIGURE 12.5   Example of the Draw-a-Person technique.

figure, omission of body, omission of arms, or omission of mouth (Koppitz, 1982, p. 285).
The drawing of a hostile, aggressive child might show a big figure, transparency, crossed
eyes, teeth, long arms, big hands, or genitals. Depressed, withdrawn children characteristi-
cally include tiny figures and short arms but no eyes. Some general guidelines for inter-
preting drawings are included in Table 12.6.
Another drawing technique is the House-Tree-Person Technique (HTP; Buck, 1948).
In this technique, children are asked to draw a house, a tree, and a person on separate
sheets of paper (see Figure 12.6). The picture of the house is supposed to arouse children’s

FIGURE 12.6   Example of the House-Tree-Person drawing.

292 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

TABLE 12.6   General Guidelines for Interpreting Human Figure Drawings

Dimensions Interpretation
The figure’s location or placement
on the page:
Central Normal, reasonable, secure person
Upper right Intellectualizing tendencies, possible inhibition of expression of feeling
Upper left Impulsive behavior, drive toward immediate emotional satisfaction
of needs, orientation toward past
High on page High level of aspiration, extreme optimism
Low on page Feelings of insecurity, low levels of self-esteem, depressive
tendencies, defeatist attitudes
Lower edge as base Need for support, lack of self-confidence
Size of the figure:
Unusually large Aggressive, expansive, or grandiose tendencies, acting out potential
Unusually small Feelings of inferiority, timidness, insecurity, ineffectiveness,
inhibition, depressive behavior under stress
Pencil pressure; stroke or line quality:
Heavy strokes Sign of tension, high energy level, forcefulness, and possible acting-
out tendencies
Light, sketchy strokes Hesitant, indecisive, timid, insecure person; inhibited personality,
low energy level
Shaded strokes Anxiety
Long strokes Controlled behavior, inhibition
Short strokes Impulsive behavior
Straight, uninterrupted lines Assertive and decisive behavior
Variable strokes Flexible, adaptive person
Organization and symmetry of
the figure:
Bizarre Schizoid tendencies
Boxed off Indication of difficulty in controlling life; reliance on external
structure or organizations
Element encapsulated Desire to remove an area of conflict from life
Extremely symmetrical Obsessive-compulsive, defensive, cold, distant, hypertensive, and
perfectionist tendencies
Lacking symmetry Insecurity, poor impulse control, unbalanced self-concept
Erasures:
Excessive Uncertainty, indecisiveness, and restlessness, obsessive-compulsive
personality
Occasional or to improve Flexibility, satisfactory adjustment
Localized Conflict or concern about what that area represents
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 293

TABLE 12.6  General Guidelines for Interpreting Human Figure Drawings (continued)
Dimensions Interpretation
Detail:
Absent Psychosomatic, hypertensive conditions or depressive and
withdrawing
Excessive Obsessive-compulsive tendencies, rigidity and/or anxiety, highly
emotional
Bizarre Indicative of psychosis
Transparency/X-ray drawings Schizophrenic or manic conditions, poor judgment, sexual
disturbance indicated by sexual organs
Outer clothing Voyeuristic or exhibitionist tendencies
Distortions and omissions:
Distortions Confused, psychotic or schizophrenic condition
Omissions Conflict, denial
Perspective:
From below Rejection, unhappiness or inferiority, withdrawal tendencies
From above Sense of superiority, compensation for underlying feelings of
inadequacy
Distant Inaccessibility, desire to withdraw
Close Interpersonal warmth, psychological accessibility
Shading:
Shaded area Anxiety
Complete absence Character disorder
Color:
Red Problem or danger, anger or violent reaction, need for warmth and
affection
Orange Extroversion, emotional responsiveness to outer world, life-or-death
struggle, ambivalence
Yellow Cheerfulness, intellectualizing tendencies, lack of inhibition,
expansiveness, anxiety
Green Regulation of affective tendencies, healthy ego, peacefulness,
security
Blue Quiet, calm, well-controlled, cold, distant, fading away or
withdrawing
Purple Inner emotional and affective stimulation, internalization of affect,
bold exterior, need to control or possess
Brown Sensuousness, security, fixations, rigidity, in touch with nature
Gray Noninvolvement, repressions, denial, emotional neutralization
White Passivity, emptiness, depersonalization, loss of contact with reality
294 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

feelings about their home life and family relationships. Drawing a tree is expected to elicit
feelings about inner strengths or weaknesses. The picture of the person is believed to reveal
children’s view of themselves (i.e., self-concept).
Family drawings are a projective drawing technique that provide a nonthreatening
way to assess a child’s perception of his or her family. For example, the Kinetic Family
Drawing (KFD) asks the child to “Draw a picture of everyone in your family, including
you, doing something” (Burns & Kaufman, 1970, p. 5). The instructions emphasize the
family engaging in some activity—hence the term kinetic. After the image is completed, an
inquiry phase begins in which the child is asked to (a) explain who each figure is (e.g.,
name, age, relationship to the child); (b) describe all the figures, what they are doing in the
picture, how they are feeling, and what they are thinking about; and (c) tell a story, includ-
ing what happened immediately before the actions in the drawing and what happens next.
Family drawings can be analyzed and interpreted in terms of actions, styles, and symbols
(Burns & Kaufman, 1970, 1972), in addition to figures’ positions, distance in relation to one
another, and barriers between figures (Knoff & Prout, 1985).

Issues with Structured and Projective Instruments  Although most textbooks on

assessment divide personality inventories into the dichotomy of structured (i.e., objec-
tive) and projective, some theorists and researchers argue that both terms are misleading
(Ortner & Schmitt, 2014). For example, as a word, objectivity implies neutrality and
impartiality, yet objective instruments are only objective from the vantage point of the
scorer; test takers complete the test based on their own opinions and are certainly not
objective in that regard. In truth, objective refers to the type of item response (e.g., multi-
ple choice, true/false) that does not require the examiner administering the test to rely
on his or her judgment to classify or interpret the test taker’s response. On the other
hand, the term projective typically refers to instruments in which the stimulus is a task or
activity that is presented to a person who is required to generate a response with mini-
mal external guidance or constraints imposed on the nature of that response. Nonethe-
less, what is projective is “the requirement for test takers to generalize a response in the
face of ambiguity; thus, they project or put forward elements of their personal character-
istics” (Meyer & Kurtz, 2006, p. 223).
Another issue is the question of whether projective instruments have adequate reli-
ability and validity to justify their use. The Rorschach has mixed reviews in terms of its
psychometric properties, and the TAT and projective drawings have generally failed to
provide research support for their reliability and validity. Although many psychologists,
counselors, and other helping professionals still believe that the instruments help them
develop a better understanding of the test taker, the use of projective instruments has dras-
tically decreased. In some cases, like the assessment of children, researchers have called for
the elimination of projective techniques (Duvoe & Styck, 2014).

Personality Inventories with a Positive Focus

Some personality inventories are based on positive psychology (i.e., the study of the condi-
tions and processes that contribute to the optional functioning of people) and assess posi-
tive aspects of personality (Spielberger & Butcher, 2013). Some researchers agree that an
individual’s happiness or satisfaction with life is an essential criterion for mental health
and successful outcomes in counseling. Thus, positive personality variables include those
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 295

quality-of-life variables associated with happiness or satisfaction, such as self-efficacy,

resiliency, coping skills, life satisfaction, and well-being. The Quality of Life Inventory
(QOLI) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) are examples of positively focused
personality inventories.
Many positively focused inventories specifically assess self-esteem. We define self-
esteem as the manner in which people evaluate themselves and the ensuing judgments
about themselves based on those evaluations. Rosenberg (1965) defined self-esteem more
broadly as a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the self (p. 15). Self-esteem is a pop-
ular construct in counseling and psychology and is related to specific personality traits
(e.g., shyness), behavior, academic achievement, anxiety, and depression. Examples of
inventories that assess self-esteem are the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI), the
Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, Second Edition (Piers–Harris 2), the Culture-
Free Self-Esteem Inventory, Third Edition (CFSEI-3), Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, the
Multidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory (MSEI), and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale,
Second Edition (TSCS:2).

The Quality of Life Inventory  The QOLI (Frisch, 1994) is a brief but comprehensive
measure of a person’s overall satisfaction with life. People’s life satisfaction is based on
how well their needs, goals, and wishes are being met in important areas of life. The inven-
tory consists of 32 items that ask test takers to describe how important certain aspects of
their lives (such as work or health) are and how satisfied they are with them. The QOLI
yields an Overall Quality of Life score (reported as a T score and percentile) that is classi-
fied as very low, low, average, or high. The inventory also yields Weighted Satisfaction Rat-
ings for 16 areas of life (such as health, self-esteem, love, work, etc.). The satisfaction ratings
are summarized on a profile report with a ratings range from –6 (extreme dissatisfaction)
to 6 (extreme satisfaction). Negative weighted satisfaction ratings denote an area of life in
which the individual may benefit from treatment; ratings of –6 and –4 are considered of
greatest concern and urgency.

Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory  The SEI (Coopersmith, 1981) assesses attitudes

toward the self in general and in specific contexts: social, academic, and personal contexts.
It was originally designed for use with children, drawing on items from scales that were
previously used by Carl Rogers. The SEI consists of a school form for ages 8 to 15 years and
an adult form for ages 16 and above. It has five scales for self-esteem in relation to general
self, social self/peers, home/parents, and school/academic, and a lie scale. Respondents
answer items by choosing like me or unlike me. Table 12.7 presents samples of items that are
typical for instruments like the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, School Form.

Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, Second Edition  The Piers–Harris 2

instrument is a 60-item self-report questionnaire that assesses self-concept in children
aged 7 to 18 (Piers & Herzberg, 2002). It can be administered in paper-and-pencil or com-
puter format, and children usually complete the scale in 10 to 15 minutes. The scale
yields a general measure of overall self-concept (Total [TOT]) as well as six subscales:
Behavioral Adjustment (BEH), Intellectual and School Status (INT), Physical Appear-
ance and Attributes (PHY), Freedom from Anxiety (FRE), Popularity (POP), and Happi-
ness and Satisfaction (HAP).
296 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

TABLE 12.7  Sample Self Esteem Assessment Questions

Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
• People like to spend
time with me
• I am good at most
things
• I have trouble believing
in myself
• I feel useless most of
the time

Source: The table above represents typical types of questions posed in self-esteem assessment instruments. The
items are not from published instruments..

1. Behavioral Adjustment  Measures admission or denial of problematic behaviors at

home or school.
2. Intellectual and School Status  Measures the child’s evaluation of his or her own
intellectual abilities and academic performance.
3. Physical Appearance and Attributes  Measures a child’s appraisal of his or her
physical appearance, as well as attributes such as leadership and the ability to
express ideas.
4. Freedom from Anxiety  Measures feelings of anxiety and negative mood.
5. Popularity  Measures the child’s evaluation of his or her own social functioning.
6. Happiness and Satisfaction  Measures a child’s feelings of happiness and satisfac-
tion with life.
Test items are simple descriptive statements (e.g., “I am well behaved at school”)
written at a second-grade reading level. Children indicate whether each item applies to
them by selecting a yes or no response. Scores are reported as T scores and percentiles, and
higher scores indicate favorable self-concept (i.e., high degree of self-esteem or self-
regard), whereas lower scores are associated with more negative self-concept. On the six
subscales, scores can classified as very low (T score less than 29), low (T score of 30 to 39),
low average (T score of 40 to 44), average (T score of 45 to 55), and above average (T score
greater than 56). The TOT scale score uses the same classification for very low, low, and
above-average rankings. From there it changes, adding high average (T score of 56 to 59), high
(T score of 60 to 69), and very high (T score greater than 70).

Other Self-Esteem Inventories  A number of other self-esteem inventories are available to

counselors. The CFSEI-3 are a set of self-report inventories that measure self-esteem in
children and adolescents aged 6 years and 0 months to 18 years and 11 months. They con-
sist of different forms for three age categories: children of ages 6 to 8 years are adminis-
tered the Primary form, youth of ages 9 to 12 are administered the Intermediate form, and
adolescents of ages 13 to 18 are administered the Adolescent form. All three forms of the
inventory provide a Global Self-Esteem Quotient (GSEQ). The Intermediate and Adoles-
cent Forms provide scores in four areas: Academic Self-Esteem, General Self-Esteem,
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 297

Parental/Home Self-Esteem, and Social Self-Esteem. The Adolescent form provides an

additional self-esteem score: Personal Self-Esteem. Raw scores can be converted into stand-
ard scores, percentiles, and descriptive ratings.
The TSCS:2 (Fitts & Warren, 1996) measures self-concept in individuals aged 7 to 90
years and is available in Adult and Child forms. The Adult form is designed for individu-
als 13 years of age and older, and the Child form can be used with 7- through 14-year-olds.
Each form can be group or individually administered in 10 to 20 minutes. The scale is
subdivided into 15 scores, including self-concept scores (physical, moral, personal, family,
social, and academic/work), supplementary scores (identity, satisfaction, and behavior),
summary scores (total self-concept and conflict), and validity scores (inconsistent respond-
ing, self-criticism, faking good, and response distribution). The TSCS:2 can be hand scored,
computer scored, or scored through a mail-in service.
The MSEI (O’Brien & Epstein, 2012) is a 116-item Likert-type scale that measures self-
esteem. The MSEI yields scores on (a) Global Self-Esteem, (b) eight components of self-
esteem (Competence, Lovability, Likability, Personal Power, Self-Control, Moral
Self-Approval, Body Appearance, and Body Functioning), (c) Identity Integration (sense of
identity), and (d) Defensive Self-Enhancement (a validity scale measuring the tendency to
embellish one’s self-esteem).

Response Styles
The concept of the response style (also called response bias) in personality assessment refers
to the ways in which a test taker responds to an item in some characteristic manner that
distorts the test results. Response style is an important aspect of personality assessment.
Because most personality assessment instruments are self-report, there is a possibility that
individuals can either distort their responses to impress or distort their responses to imply
that they are functioning poorly, depending on the purpose of the assessment (Ray et al.,
2013). For example, an individual who is being evaluated to determine his or her fitness as
parent may have a tendency to provide socially desirable answers to items. In this situa-
tion, the individual may be “faking good” because of defensiveness about his or her behav-
ior and the desire to reunite with his or her children. Sometimes, the choice is unconsciously
expressed. Some individuals purposely answer questions in way that results in a patho-
logical or undesirable profile. In this case, they may have some motivation for appearing
more symptomatic than they really. For example, imagine that you are a counselor evalu-
ating an individual for the court system to determine if they are fit to stand trial for mur-
der. If the individual can claim that their mental health issues impaired their ability to
determine right from wrong, then they may be able to avoid prosecution. In this case,
“faking bad” becomes a real possibility.
Some test takers may be more apt to respond yes or true on items than no or false, and
others may answer questions with random responses. The problem with response bias is
that the test taker is not providing honest, accurate answers to questions, which can ren-
der the results suspect or even invalid. For example, imagine you are conducting an
assessment on an adolescent who is mandated to counseling services. That individual
might be less than willing to fully participate in the assessment process. Instead of giving
full effort in completing an assessment instrument, that person might simply answer yes
to all of the items. Of course, there are more response styles that can emerge than just
298 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

answering yes to all items. Common response styles are as follows (Cohen, Swerdlik, &
Sturman, 2012):
• Social Desirability  Choosing the response that bests presents self in a favorable light
• Acquiescent  Tendency of the test taker to accept or agree with statements regardless
of the item content (i.e., answering all items as true or yes)
• Nonacquiescence  Disagreeing with whatever item is presented (i.e., answering all
items as false or no)
• Deviance  Making unusual or uncommon responses
• Extreme  Choosing extreme, rather than middle, ratings on a rating scale
• Gambling/Cautiousness  Guessing, or not guessing, when in doubt about the answer
All self-report inventories are subject to response biases; therefore, instrument developers
use various means to try to control response bias. For example, the MMPI-2 and MMPI-
2-RF have validity scales that are used to identify test-taker response styles that might
affect or invalidate the test results. The Edwards Personal Preference Inventory (EPPI)
attempts to control the social desirability response style by using forced-choice item match-
ing on the basis of social desirability. In other words, items include paired phrases that
may be both desirable and undesirable.

Summary
Personality inventories are a method of identi- Structured personality inventories are
fying and measuring the structure and features standardized, self-report instruments that ask
of one’s personality, or one’s characteristic way respondents to describe their personality using
of thinking, feeling, and behaving (Cohen et al., a limited set of response options. Inventories
2012). Personality inventories assist profession- such as the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF, the
als in understanding an individual’s behavior MCMI-III, and the CPI are examples of struc-
with the aim of making some decision about a tured personality inventories. Projective instru-
future course of action or to make a prediction ments and techniques require examinees to
about the person’s unique future behavior. answer questions related to ambiguous stimuli
Counselors can choose from a wide array of using open-ended responses. Examples include
personality instruments and techniques, which the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the TAT, verbal pro-
can be grouped into three categories: structured jective techniques, and projective drawings.
personality inventories, projective techniques, Some personality inventories, such as self-­
and instruments that assess positive aspects of concept scales, are designed specifically to
personality. measure positive personality traits.

Questions for Discussion

1. How important are the various approaches to e­verybody fakes on personality inventories?
developing personality tests? Does one approach Explain your answer.
have advantages over others? Explain your 3. A wide variety of item content measures dimen-
answer. sions of personality, from food choices to occupa-
2. Response sets are major problems on personality tions to musical preferences. How important do
tests. How would you structure a testing situa- you think the content of the items is in assessing
tion to minimize faking? Do you believe that personality?
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 299

Suggested Activities
1. Operationally define a personality construct and 4. Review the research on one of the current issues
devise a method for measuring the construct. in personality assessment and write a critical
Develop some preliminary items and give them analysis of your findings.
to your classmates. What was the reaction of the 5. Make an annotated bibliography of the personal-
test takers to the form of the test? ity tests that are appropriate for your current or
2. Identify a personality test of interest to you. Criti- future field.
cally analyze the test. Read the reviews of the test 6. Enneagram activity: In this Enneagram exercise,
in the Mental Measurement Yearbooks and Test the following table shows the nine Enneagram
­Critiques. types and four groups of adjectives that describe
3. Interview workers in the helping professions each type.
who use tests and find out which personality
tests they use and why. Report your findings to
the class.

Enneagram
Type Group 1 Rank  Group 2 Rank  Group 3 Rank  Group 4 Total Score

1. Principled Orderly Perfectionist Idealistic

2. Caring Generous Possessive Nurturing

3. Adaptable Ambitious Image-Conscious Pragmatic

4. Intuitive Individualistic Self-Absorbed Withdrawn

5. Perceptive Original Provocative Cerebral

6. Engaging Responsible Defensive Security-Oriented

7. Enthusiastic Accomplished Excessive Busy

8. Self-Confident Optimistic Assertive Decisive

9. Easy-Going Stable Accepting Trusting

a. Rank each adjective within each group in or- 7. Review the scores ahead of the NEO PI-R and
der from 1 (Least Like Me) to 9 (Most Like answer the following questions:
Me). No ties are allowed (each rank must a. How would you describe the dimensions of
be used only once for each adjective in each this individual’s personality?
group). b. How does the absence of validity and lie
b. Reading across each of the nine rows, add the scales on the NEO PI-R influence your ability
total points for the four groups. Look at your to ­interpret the results of this instrument?
high scores and low scores. Then turn back
to Table 12.4 showing Enneagram types, and NEO PI-R Domain Score Range
look at the description of the nine types. Row
Neuroticism Low
1 gives a score for type 1 Reformer, row 2 for
type 2 Helper, and so on. Identify the Ennea- Extraversion Very High
gram type that you scored highest in. Openness to Experience High
c. Discuss your results in small groups. Do you Conscientiousness High
agree that your Enneagram type matches your
Agreeableness High
personality type? Explain.
300 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

References
Allport, G. W. (1937) Personality. New York: Holt, Cummings, J. A. (1986). Projective drawings. In H. M.
1937. Knoff (Ed.), The assessment of child and adolescent
Allport, G. W. (1951). Personality: A psychological inter- personality (pp. 199–244). New York, NY: Guilford.
pretation. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Detrick, P., & Chibnall, J. T. (2013). Revised NEO
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). ­Personality Inventory normative data for police
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders officer selection. Psychological Services, 10(4),
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. 372–377.
Aronow, E., Weiss, K. A., & Reznikoff, M. (2013). A Duvoe, K. R., & Styck, K. M. (2014). Book review:
practical guide to the Thematic Apperception Test: The Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assess-
TAT in clinical practice. London, UK: Routledge. ment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
Beutler, L. E., Groth-Marnat, G., & Hardwood, T. M. 32(5), 477–480.
(2012). Integrative assessment of adult personality Exner, J. E., Jr. (Ed.). (2013). Issues and methods in Ror-
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. schach research. London, UK: Routledge.
Buck, J. N. (1948). The H-T-P test. Journal of Clinical Fitts, W. H., & Warren, W. L. (1996). Tennessee Self-
Psychology, 4, 151–159. Concept Scale: Manual (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1970). Kinetic family Western Psychological Services.
drawings (K-F-D). New York, NY: Brunner-Mazel. Frisch, M. B. (1994). Manual and treatment guide for the
Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1972). Actions, styles, Quality of Life Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
and symbols in kinetic family drawings (K-F-D). New Furnham, A., Guenole, N., Levine, S. Z., & Chamorro-
York, NY: Brunner-Mazel. Premuzic, T. (2013). The NEO Personality Inven-
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Telle- tory–Revised: Factor structure and gender
gen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). invariance from exploratory structural equation
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 modeling analyses in a high-stakes setting. Assess-
(MMPI-2) manual for administration and scoring, ment, 20(1), 14–23.
­second revision. Minneapolis, MN: University of Gorostiaga, A., Balluerka, N., Alonso-Arbiol, I., &
Minnesota Press. Haranburu, M. (2011). Validation of the Basque
Callahan, J. L. (2014). Evidence-based technical skills Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R).
training in prepracticum psychological assess- European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(3),
ment. Training and Education in Professional 193–205.
­Psychology, 9(1), 21–27. Gough, H. G. (2000). The California Psychological
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Inventory. In C. E. Watkins & V. L. Campbell
Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Question- (Eds.), Testing and assessment in counseling practice
naire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Person- (2nd ed., pp. 45–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ality and Ability Testing. Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological
Cohen, R., & Swerdlik, M. (2010). Test development: assessment (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Psychological testing and assessment. New York, NY: Sons.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Hodges, S. (2011). The sentence stem technique: An
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2012). innovative interaction between counselor and
Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction ­client. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 6(3),
to tests and measurement (8th ed.). Boston, MA: 234–243.
McGraw-Hill. Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (H. G. Baynes,
Coopersmith, S. (1981). Antecedents of self-esteem. Palo Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (Origi- (Original work published 1921)
nal work published 1967) Kalimeri, K. (2013). Towards a dynamic view of person-
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. (2013). The Five-Factor ality: Multimodal classification of personality states in
Model of personality and its relevance. Personality everyday situations. Paper presented at the Pro-
and Personality Disorders: The Science of Mental ceedings of the 15th ACM International confer-
Health, 6(4), 17. ence on multimodal interaction.
 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment 301

Källmen, H., Wennberg, P., & Bergman, H. (2011). and use of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.).
Psychometric properties and norm data of the Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Swedish version of the NEO-PI-R. Nordic Journal of Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing:
Psychiatry, 65(5), 311–314. Understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA:
Kamphaus, R. W., & Frick, P. J. (2010). Clinical assess- Davis-Black.
ment of child and adolescent personality and behavior Myers, P. B., & Myers, K. D. (2004). Myers–Briggs
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. Type Indicator Profile. Retrieved from cpp.com
Knoff, H. M., & Prout, H. T. (1985). The Kinetic Draw- /images/reports/smp261001.pdf
ing System: A review and integration of the kinetic Neukrug, E., Peterson, C. H., Bonner, M., & Lomas,
family and school drawing techniques. Psychology G. I. (2013). A national survey of assessment
in the Schools, 22(1), 50–59. instruments taught by counselor educators. Coun-
Koppitz, E. M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of chil- selor Education & Supervision, 52(3), 207–221. doi:
dren’s human figure drawings. New York, NY: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2013.00038.x
Grune & Stratton. Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. E., Newman, I., & Higgins,
Koppitz, E. M. (1982). Personality assessment in the K. K. (2004). The Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type
schools. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Indicator: Estimates of reliability and validity.
Handbook of school psychology (pp. 273–295). New Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
York, NY: Wiley. Development, 36(4), 226–237.
Kroeger, O., & Thuesen, J. M. (2013). Type talk: The 16 O’Brien, E. J., & Epstein, S. (2012). MSEI: The Multidi-
personality types that determine how we live, love, and mensional Self-Esteem Inventory. Odessa, FL: Con-
work. New York, NY: Random House LLC. sulting Psychologists Press.
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, Ortner, T. M., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Advances and
D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a continuing challenges in objective personality
maladaptive personality trait model and inven- testing. European Journal of Psychological Assess-
tory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42(9), ment, 30(3), 163–168.
1879–1890. Panek, P. E., Jenkins, S. R., Hayslip, B., Jr., & Moske,
Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the draw- A. K. (2013). Verbal expressive personality testing
ing of the human figure. Springfield, IL: Thomas. with older adults: 25+ years later. Journal of Per-
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in sonality Assessment, 95(4), 366–376.
adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory perspective (2nd Piers, E. V., & Herzberg, D. S. (2002). Piers–Harris
ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Children’s Self-Concept Scale—second edition manual.
Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personal- Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
ity assessment terminology: Time to retire “objec- Ray, J. V., Hall, J., Rivera-Hudson, N., Poythress, N.
tive” and “projective” as personality test descriptors. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Morano, M. (2013). The rela-
Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 223–225. tion between self-reported psychopathic traits
Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2012). and distorted response styles: A meta-analytic
Measurement and assessment in teaching (11th ed.). review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Treatment, 4(1), 1.
Millon, T. (1969). Modern psychopathology: A biosocial Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1999). The wisdom of the
approach to maladaptive learning and functioning. Enneagram: The complete guide to psychological and
Philadelphia, PA: Saunders. spiritual growth for the nine personality types. New
Millon, T., Millon, C., Davis, R. D., & Grossman, S. York, NY: Bantam.
(2009). Millon clinical multiaxial inventory-III Rorschach, H. (1992). Psychodiagnostik. Bern, Switzer-
(MCMI-III): Manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: land: Bircher.
Pearson/PsychCorp. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test man- image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Smith, S. R. (2011). Projective Assessment Tech-
Murray, H. A. (2007). Explorations in personality. New niques. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Develop-
York, NY: Oxford University Press. ment, 1163–1164.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, Solomon, B. C., & Jackson, J. J. (2014). Why do per-
A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the d­ evelopment sonality traits predict divorce? Multiple pathways
302 Chapter 12  •  Personality Assessment

through satisfaction. Journal of Personality and trait facets and Five-Factor Model trait domains.
Social Psychology, 106(6), 978–996. doi: 10.1037/ Assessment, 20(3), 308–311.
a0036190.supp (Suppl.) Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing
Spielberger, C. D. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait (Vol. 4, 2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Con- Van den Broeck, J., Rossi, G., Dierckx, E., & De Clercq,
sulting Psychologists Press, Inc. B. (2012). Age-neutrality of the NEO-PI-R: Poten-
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait tial differential item functioning in older versus
Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA: Consult- younger adults. Journal of Psychopathology and
ing Psychologists Press. Behavioral Assessment, 34(3), 361–369.
Spielberger, C. D., & Butcher, J. N. (2013). Advances in Vassend, O., & Skrondal, A. (2011). The NEO person-
personality assessment (Vol. 7). London, UK: Rout- ality inventory revised (NEO-PI-R): Exploring the
ledge. measurement structure and variants of the Five-
Thomas, M. (1937). Méthode des histoires à com- Factor Model. Personality and Individual Differences,
pleter pour le dépiste des complexes et des con- 50(8), 1300–1304.
flits affectifs enfantins. Archives Psychologie, 26, Weiner, I. B., & Greene, R. L. (2011). Handbook of per-
209–284. sonality assessment. Malden, MA: John Wiley &
Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, Sons.
A. G. C., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Woodworth, R. S. (1920). Personal data sheet. Chicago,
The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality IL: Stoelting.
CHAPTER

13 Clinical Assessment

The term clinical assessment generally refers to applying assessment procedures to (a) diag-
nose a mental disorder, (b) develop a plan of intervention, (c) monitor progress in coun-
seling, and (d) evaluate counseling outcome. Traditionally employed in mental health
settings, clinical assessment involves the counselor collecting relevant information about a
client, organizing and integrating the data, and using his or her clinical judgment in form-
ing an opinion about a client’s diagnosis. In addition, counselors conduct clinical assess-
ment to develop a plan of intervention, monitor a client’s progress in counseling, and
evaluate counseling outcomes. Although clinical assessment is typical for mental health
settings, it is imperative that all counselors understand the process and are able to interpret
the information from a clinical assessment. The results of clinical assessment inform coun-
seling in all settings. As with all assessment, clinical assessment encompasses multiple
data collection instruments and strategies as well as multiple sources of information.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Describe and explain the purpose of clinical assessment.

JJ Define mental disorder.

JJ Describe the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)

and explain its use in clinical assessment.

JJ Explain the use of dimensional assessment.

JJ Describe the use of structured, semistructured, and unstructured interviews in clinical

assessment.
JJ Describe the mental status exam.

JJ List and describe instruments commonly used in clinical assessment.

JJ List the risk factors and warning signs of suicide and explain how suicide risk is assessed.

JJ Describe the value of observation in clinical assessment.

JJ Describe neuropsychological assessment.

JJ Discuss cultural considerations in clinical assessment.

Fundamentals of Clinical Assessment

“Does this client have a mental disorder?” and “If so, what is the diagnosis?” are typical
questions that can be answered through clinical assessment (Cohen, Swerdlik, &
­Sturman, 2012). A key function of clinical assessment is diagnosing mental disorders.
303
304 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. In the United
States, an estimated 26.4% of Americans of ages 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable
mental disorder in a given year (Demyttenaere et al., 2013), and about 20% of children
and adolescents are estimated to have mental disorders. Four of the 10 leading causes of
disability are mental disorders: major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and
obsessive-compulsive disorder. The severity of mental disorders is often increased in
developing countries because of a lack of appropriate services (Demyttenaere et al., 2013).

Political Issues in Diagnosis

Diagnosing mental disorders has become an integral part of the job for many counse-
lors. Although counselors are trained to diagnose, state laws vary with regard to the
privilege to diagnose. For example, in Texas, counselors are able to perform assessment
and diagnose mental health disorders. However, in Louisiana (an adjourning state), a
professional counselor is not able to diagnose a serious mental disorder unless super-
vised by a professional licensed by the State Board of Medical Examiners (Louisiana
Mental Health Counselor Licensing Act, 1987). In one state, a counselor can diagnose inde-
pendently; in another, the same counselor must be supervised. These differences are
typically due to political issues rather than competency. Because the purpose of this
book is to provide you with a foundation in assessment, our discussion of practice priv-
ileges is limited. As you prepare to become professional counselors, it will be important
for you to review your state laws with regard to practice privileges. It will also be
important for you to be active in advocating for counselor parity at state and national
levels. Joining state counseling associations, being credentialed appropriately, and
­joining counseling advocacy efforts can help to create a more unified scope of practice
for counselors.

Determining a Diagnosis
Although counselors have different privileges with regard to diagnosis from state to
state, it is still essential to understand the process of determining a diagnosis. To deter-
mine a client’s diagnosis, counselors may use various formal and informal instruments
and strategies in the process of clinical assessment. Usually, the counselor conducts an
interview first, and the background information gathered from the interview helps the
counselor decide which additional assessment instruments or strategies should be
employed. For example, a client who complains of being depressed during the interview
may be asked to complete an inventory that assesses depressive symptoms. The informa-
tion gathered from both the interview and the inventory can aid in deciding whether the
client should be diagnosed with depression.
In addition to diagnosis, the clinical assessment can help guide decisions related to
treatment. From the assessment, counselors can determine the client’s diagnosis, and,
based on this information, they can select a treatment plan that is effective for that par-
ticular diagnosis. For example, a client who is depressed may be treated with cognitive-
behavioral therapy, which is a treatment approach shown to be effective in treating
depression. Cognitive-behavioral therapy involves identifying and correcting the client’s
inaccurate thoughts associated with depressed feelings, helping the client increase social
competence, and enhancing the client’s problem-solving skills.
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 305

Researchers and clinicians may also use clinical assessment for monitoring treatment
progress and evaluating treatment outcomes. They may analyze which treatment approach
was most effective for a client with a particular disorder, or they may determine which
population would most benefit from a certain treatment modality. They can monitor the
client’s progress throughout treatment to note improvements or worsening of symptoms
and to evaluate the final outcome of treatment.
In this chapter, we will discuss the process of clinical assessment. We will begin by
describing the diagnosis of mental disorders and then will present information about the
use of interviews, formal instruments, and observations in clinical assessment.

DSM-5
A key function of clinical assessment is the diagnosis of mental disorders. Clinicians diag-
nose disorders using criteria from the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association (APA),
2013). The DSM-5 is the official classification system of mental disorders used by counse-
lors, psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals in
the United States. It is used across settings (inpatient, outpatient, partial hospital, private
practice, and primary care) and with community populations. Substantial training is needed
in the use of the DSM-5, which is beyond the scope of this textbook. Those of you who are
preparing to become clinical mental health counselors will receive coursework in abnormal
human behavior, psychopathology, and diagnosis. For those of you in other counselor
preparation specializations, it will be necessary to complete elective courses or continuing
education to become competent in the diagnostic process. For all counselors, we recom-
mend clinical supervision from an Approved Clinical Supervisor (ACS) or state board–
qualified supervising counselor when developing skills in clinical assessment and diagnosis.
Although we are unable to provide an in-depth exploration of clinical assessment, we will
provide you with an introduction to diagnosis and a brief overview of the DSM-5 disorders.
To begin to understand the DSM-5, counselors need to understand the meaning of
the term mental disorder. In general, a mental disorder is a complex construct comprised of
various symptoms that impact mental health and a broad array of biological, social, occu-
pational, and relational functioning. Mental disorders are classified using the DSM-5 based
on the clinician’s assessment of certain criteria. The DSM-5 contains over 300 separate
disorders divided into 22 categories. For an example of how the various types of personal-
ity disorder fall under a category, see Table 13.1.

TABLE 13.1  DSM-5 Personality Disorders

Cluster A Paranoid Personality Disorder
Schizoid Personality Disorder
Schizotypal Personality Disorder
Cluster B Antisocial Personality Disorder
Borderline Personality Disorder
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Cluster C Avoidant Personality Disorder
Dependent Personality Disorder
Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder
306 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

Each mental disorder has a list of diagnostic criteria (i.e., symptoms, emotions, cogni-
tions, behaviors) that need to be met in order for a diagnosis to be made. For example, code
296.21 for Major Depressive Disorder can be marked by a variety of symptoms, such as
almost daily insomnia and fatigue, unintended changes in weight, depressed mood, and
lack of interest or pleasure in daily activities. This diagnosis may also be specified with
applicable features, such as anxious distress, catatonia, seasonal patterns, or mood-­
congruent psychotic features (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013). Each disor-
der also includes a description of its features, including specific age, cultural, and
gender-related features; prevalence, incidence, and risk; course (e.g., typical lifetime
­patterns); complications; predisposing factors; familial pattern; and differential diagnosis
(e.g., how to differentiate this disorder from other similar disorders). The DSM-5 also
­provides code numbers for each disorder, which is helpful for medical record keeping,
statistical analysis, and reporting to third parties.
In contrast to the multiaxial diagnostic system used in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), the DSM-5 moved
to a nonaxial documentation of diagnosis that combines the information from Axes I, II,
and III of the previous edition (Axis I: Clinical Disorders; Axis II: Personality Disorders
and Mental Retardation; Axis III: General Medical Conditions). Counselors diagnose a
client’s current condition and rate the severity of the disorder using a new dimensional
approach. Using this new dimensional assessment process, counselors provide the diag-
nostic information needed to ensure that clients receive the appropriate treatment for
their current symptoms and disorders. Please see Table 13.2 for an overview of the DSM-5
classification system.
In order to illustrate the new dimensional assessment process, consider the case of
Julio, a 3-year-old male whose parents are concerned about his progress on developmental

TABLE 13.2  DSM-5 General Classification of Disorders

• Neurodevelopmental Disorders
• Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders
• Bipolar and Related Disorders
• Depressive Disorders
• Anxiety Disorders
• Obsessive Compulsive and Related Disorders
• Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders
• Dissociative Disorders
• Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders
• Feeding and Eating Disorders
• Sleep-Wake Disorders
• Sexual Dysfunctions
• Gender Dysphoria
• Disruptive, Impulse-Control, and Conduct Disorders
• Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders
• Neurocognitive Disorders
• Paraphilic Disorders
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 307

milestones. Julio’s mother reports that he was late on sitting up, crawling, walking, and
other areas. Julio has difficulty with verbal communication but seems to understand what
is being said to him. Julio’s mother did not report any pregnancy or delivery complica-
tions. Julio’s mother indicated that Julio has had some difficulty with maintaining weight
and that he is a picky eater. Julio tends to only eat items that are of a certain texture. Also,
Julio is highly sensitive to changes in routine. For example, he displays a tantrum if they
take a different route to preschool than usual. When Julio plays with his toys, he does so in
an atypical manner. For example, instead of rolling a car, he turns it over and only spins
the wheels. Julio becomes very upset if his play is disrupted.
Julio’s preschool teacher reports that he does not engage with other children and that
he does not attempt verbal communication while in preschool. His teacher reports that
Julio often seems to stare off in the distance and does not seem to attend to what is occur-
ing in the classroom. She noted that he does make some verbalizations but that they seem
to be just repeating what she has said.
Based on the information provided, Julio’s DSM-5 diagnosis would be 299.0 Level 2
with accompanying language impairment. According to the DSM-5, individuals at Level 2
require substantial support for their disorder. In this case, Julio has marked deficits in ver-
bal communication, clear social impairments, reduced responses to social overtures from
others, inflexibility of behavior, and other symptoms. He is able to participate in preschool
but is not being successful. He requires significant levels of intervention and support to
manage his current behavior and to make progress on developmental milestones.
The new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual has launched with a degree of
controversy that will not abate in a short time. The changes from the DSM-IV-TR to the
DSM-5 were significant and have received numerous challenges. The critics of the DSM-5
have been adamant that the new edition lacks the science to drive the numerous changes
(Whitbourne, 2013). Several groups, including the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Ser-
vices have been so opposed to the changes that they are now requiring the use of the Inter-
national Classification of Disease Manual (ICD) in lieu of the DSM-5 (APA, 2013). As a
professional counselor, you will likely either use the DSM-5 to levy a diagnosis or need to
understand the diagnosis that was given by another helping professional. Therefore, we
will review some of the commonly cited advantages and disadvantages. One of the criti-
cisms of the DSM-5 has been the inclusion of a mild category in the severity index. Many
believe that such a classification will result in the pathologizing of common phenomena.
For example, the diagnosis of mild neurological impairment may be difficult to differenti-
ate from average cognitive changes in older adulthood (APA, 2013). In addition to the
criticisms of the new edition, the overall DSM has been criticized because (a) it emphasizes
pathological symptoms, (b) managed care organizations tend to use categories to deny
authorization of client treatment for normal conflicts or for longer-term care, and (c) it has
a strong medical orientation that runs counter to the wellness philosophy that counselors
espouse (Remley & Herlihy, 2013). Further explanation of the DSM-5 is beyond the scope
of this textbook. However, other sources of information are available that provide infor-
mation about the DSM-5 and diagnosis (see Seligman & Reichenberg, 2014).
Of course, the changes in the DSM-5 have some positive attributes. As has been the
case with all iterations of the manual, the DSM-5 has some distinct advantages for clinical
practice: (a) it offers a universal system of diagnosis that permits dialogue among mental
health professionals; (b) it includes attention to cultural, age, and gender features; and (c)
the severity index requires that practitioners consider various physical, psychosocial, and
308 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

environmental circumstances influencing the client’s dysfunction. Regardless of how you

see the changes to the new edition of the diagnostic manual, it will be imperative that you
explore it in depth and develop a solid foundation in the diagnostic process.
Now that we have reviewed the manner in which disorders are classified, we will turn
to the process involved in determining a diagnosis. As is the case with other areas reviewed
in this book, assessment is the primary process used to arrive at a clinical answer. There are
numerous forms of clinical assessment, and some are used more often than others. Through-
out the remainder of this chapter, we will explore the various methods used to arrive at a
diagnosis (e.g., interviews, mental status exams, standardized assessment instruments).

Interviews in Clinical Assessment

The initial client interview is a fundamental component in clinical assessment. Like any
assessment instrument or strategy, the interview has the defined purpose of gathering
data or information about an individual. In clinical assessment, the interview is often
referred to as the clinical interview or the diagnostic interview, and it is used in conjunction
with tests and observations to gather enough information about the client’s background
and presenting problem to formulate a diagnosis and treatment plan. As described in
Chapter 2, interviews can vary in the degree of structure. Some interviews are flexible,
allowing clients to discuss whatever topic they wish, whereas other interviews are highly
structured and goal oriented. In terms of structure, interviews can be categorized as struc-
tured, semistructured, or unstructured. Each approach has benefits and drawbacks, but the
primary purpose of all three types is to obtain relevant information about the client.
Structured interviews have proliferated since the publication of the DSM-IV. As we
discussed earlier in the book, structured interviews consist of a specific set of questions
used to determine whether or not a person meets the criteria for a particular mental disor-
der. Counselors must read all questions exactly as written and not deviate from the text.
There are several structured interviews to assess children, adolescents, or adults for vari-
ous mental disorders. Examples of structured interviews include following:
• Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI)
• Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS)
• Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV)
• Structured Interview for PTSD (SIP)
• Substance Use Disorders Diagnostic Schedule (SUDDS-IV)
Semistructured interviews are less uniform than structured interviews and allow coun-
selors more opportunity to probe and expand the client’s responses. Although a predeter-
mined set of questions is specified, counselors have some flexibility to rephrase questions
or ask additional questions for clarification. An example of a well-known semistructured
interview used for clinical assessment is the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis
I Disorders (SCID-I; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 2012). Specifically used to help
determine DSM-IV Axis I diagnoses, the SCID-I is divided into several modules, each con-
taining interview questions that correspond directly to specific disorders. Although its title
includes the term “structured,” the SCID is considered a semistructured interview because
counselors may tailor questions to fit the client’s understanding, ask additional questions
for clarification, and even use only specific portions of the interview. For example, if you
have a client who has a history of clinical depression and is seeking help to manage the
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 309

depression, then you may want to use only the Mood Disorder module to ask questions
specifically about the symptoms of depression and to confirm the existing diagnosis. The
SCID-I has two versions: the Clinician Version (SCID-CV) and the Research Version (SCID-
I-RV). The Clinician Version is a streamlined, more user-friendly version of the Research
Version that can be used in clinical settings. Administration time can range from 15 min-
utes to around 90 minutes, depending on how many modules are administered. The Biom-
etrics Research Department at Columbia University is now in the process of revising the
SCID to match the DSM-5. The new versions will be the SCID-CV and the SCID-5-RV.
Because the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders did not change from the DSM-
IV‑TR to the DSM-5, the SCID II can still be used, although it is also under revision. The
release of the new SCID versions is expected in 2015.
Examples of other semistructured interviews used for diagnosing include the follow-
ing (note that one of the titles includes the word structured, but it is in fact a semistructured
interview):
• Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents-IV (DICA-IV)
• Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS)
• Semistructured Clinical Interview for Children and Adolescents (SCICA)
• Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis-II Disorders (SCID-II)
Unstructured interviews are the most frequently used type of interview in clinical
assessment. They are considered unstructured because there is no standardization of ques-
tioning or recording of responses. It is the counselor who makes up the questions and
determines how to document the responses (Jones, 2010). Although they are flexible,
unstructured interviews are not without some direction or format. Counselors typically
assess several general domains, including the presenting problem, family background,
social and academic history, medical history, and substance use history. As you might
guess, an unstructured interview requires a knowledgeable and skilled clinician to man-
age the various facets of the interview process and to chain together the pieces of informa-
tion gathered within the context of a diagnostic decision tree. Table 2.2 in Chapter 2
provides a description of these general domains.
As part of clinical assessment, topics relevant to diagnosing mental disorders are
addressed in the unstructured interview. For example, one of the domains involves gather-
ing information about the client’s “presenting problem,” which is the client’s primary
problems or concerns. For clinical assessment, counselors may ask specifically about psy-
chological symptoms (such as depression or anxiety) and about occupational/school func-
tioning and social functioning to help determine a DSM-5 diagnosis. In addition, counselors
will ask about the history of the client’s presenting problem in three main areas (American
Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013; Seligman & Reichenberg, 2014):
1. Onset/Course  When did the problems begin? Was there a time when the client felt
worse or better? Was there any particular pattern?
2. Severity  Do the problems interfere with the client’s life (e.g., work, relationships,
and leisure pursuits) and/or lead to suffering or distress?
3. Stressor  Does the client believe that some external event brought on the problems?
Are any stressful life events associated with the problem?
Unstructured interviews in clinical assessment may also include questions about devel-
opmental history, focusing specifically on risk factors associated with the development of
310 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

current or potential mental health problems from childhood through adulthood; questions
about child abuse, domestic violence, and mental illness within the client’s family; and ques-
tions focusing on substance use, including past and current alcohol or drug use (including
prescription drugs), levels of consumption, and any consequences resulting from substance
use (e.g., legal problems, job loss, financial difficulties).

Mental Status Exam

The mental status exam (MSE) is an important part of clinical assessment. It is a structured
procedure for observing and describing a client’s mental state, which includes appearance,
speech, actions, mood, perception, and thoughts. The purpose of the MSE is to provide a
broad description of a client’s mental state, which, when combined with the background
information obtained from the clinical interview, aids counselors in making an accurate
diagnosis. The MSE was originally modeled after the physical medical exam; just as the
physical medical exam is designed to review a patient’s body and major organ systems, the
mental status exam reviews the major systems of psychiatric functioning (Mitchell & Atri,
2014). In the clinical assessment, the MSE is performed when the clinician suspects that
the client may have some level of intellectual disability. In hospital settings, it is not unu-
sual for psychiatrists to request or administer daily MSEs for acutely disturbed patients
(Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2013). In fact, MSEs are a basic procedure in
most medical settings. Anyone seeking employment in the medical mental health domain
should be competent in their knowledge of MSE reports. The following is a description of
several general categories of MSEs (Sadock & Sadock, 2007):
• Appearance  How was the client dressed and groomed (e.g., neat, disheveled, unkempt)?
• Behavior/Psychomotor Activity  Did the client exhibit slow movement, restlessness,
or agitation? Did the client have any unusual behaviors, such as tics, mannerisms, or
gestures?
• Attitude toward Examiner  Was the client’s attitude toward the examiner coopera-
tive, friendly, attentive, defensive, hostile, evasive, guarded, or so forth?
• Affect and Mood  Did the client have sad, angry, depressed, or anxious mood? Was
the client emotionally responsive (affect)? Was affect congruent with mood?
• Speech  How was the quantity, rate of production, and quality of the client’s speech
(e.g., minimal—mostly yes and no answers; talkative; rapid/pressured speech)?
• Perceptual Disturbances  Did the client experience hallucinations or illusions? If so,
what sensory system did they involve (e.g., auditory, visual, olfactory, tactile)?
• Thought  Did the client have any disturbances in thought process, which involves the
rate of thoughts and how they flow and are connected (e.g., racing thoughts, flight of
ideas, tangential)? Were there any disturbances in thought content, such as delusions,
obsessions, preoccupations, or suicidal or homicidal thoughts?
• Orientation  Was the client aware of (a) the date and time, (b) where he or she was,
and (c) who the people around him or her were (i.e., oriented to time, place, and
person)?
• Memory  How was the client’s recent memory (e.g., remembering what he or she had
for breakfast) and remote memory (e.g., memories from childhood)?
• Concentration and Attention  Was the client’s concentration or attention impaired?
Was the client distractible?
• Information and Intelligence  Can the client accomplish mental tasks that would be
expected of a person of his or her educational level and background?
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 311

• Judgment and Insight  Does the client have the capacity for social judgment? Does
the client have insight into the nature of his or her illness?
• Reliability  How accurately was the client able to report his or her situation?
A well-known screening test of mental status is called the Mini Mental Status Exami-
nation (MMSE; Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975). It is “mini” because it focuses only on
the cognitive aspects of mental functions and excludes questions about mood, perceptual
disturbances, and thought process or content. Thus, the exam is commonly used in the
evaluation of Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia. The MMSE consists of 11
questions that measure five areas of cognitive function: orientation, registration, attention
and calculation, recall, and language (see Table 13.3 ). It is important to gather information
from each area, because neurocognitive issues may impact one aspect of brain functioning
but not another. For example, clients may know their names and where they are but may
not know the year. We stress that a screening tool such as the MMSE is not suitable alone
for making a diagnosis but can be used as a brief general survey of a broad range of cogni-
tive function and can screen for the need for more thorough neuropsychological evalua-
tion. The maximum score of the MMSE is 30. A score of 23 or lower indicates significant
cognitive impairment. The MMSE takes only 5 to 10 minutes to administer and is therefore
practical to use repeatedly and routinely.

Instruments Used in Clinical Assessment

The primary types of formal instruments used in clinical assessment are inventories and
checklists, both of which fall under the umbrella category of personality tests. The invento-
ries and checklists used are those with a pathological focus; they detect clinical problems or
psychological symptoms, such as depression, anxiety, hallucinations, delusions, and so on.
In fact, many of these instruments are constructed to correspond directly with the DSM
classification system. For example, the scales of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory
(MCMI-III; see Chapter 11) are grouped into categories of personality and psychopathology
that are consonant with the DSM nosology. As another example, the Beck Depression

TABLE 13.3  Sample Items from the Mini Mental Status Exam
Item Instructions Purpose
Orientation “What is the date?” To assess whether the client is
oriented to the present.
Registration “Listen carefully. I am going to say three words. To assess the client’s immediate
You say them back after I stop. Ready? Here they recall and memory.
are … APPLE [pause], PENNY [pause], TABLE
[pause]. Now repeat those words back to me.”
Naming “What is this?” (Point to a pencil or pen.) To assess the client’s ability to
name an object.
Reading “Please read this and do what it says.” (Show To assess the client’s ability
examinee a piece of paper with the words to read and follow a written
CLOSE YOUR EYES written on it.) command.
Source: Reproduced by special permission of the publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204
North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the Mini Mental State Examination, by Marshal Folstein
and Susan Folstein, Copyright 1975, 1998, 2001, by Mini Mental LLC, Inc. Published 2001 by Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission of PAR, Inc.
312 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

Inventory (BDI-II) was developed specifically to assess depression symptoms as listed in

the DSM (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996). Many clinical tests indicate whether a respondent’s
score falls within the clinical range, which refers to the range of scores that align with a sam-
ple of individuals experiencing psychopathological symptoms. For example, a client scor-
ing in the clinical range on the BDI-II indicates that he or she is experiencing symptoms
similar to a normative sample of depressed individuals.
Clinical assessment instruments may have either a broad scope (i.e., evaluate a wide
array of symptoms and problems) or a narrow scope (i.e., assess a particular set of related
symptoms or problems). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), the
MCMI-III, and the Symptom Checklist 90–Revised (SCL-90-R) are examples of broadly
focused tests that assess a range of adult psychopathological symptoms. In addition, there
are literally hundreds if not thousands of narrowly focused tests available for assessing
specific types of symptoms. Table 13.4 provides a very short list of the inventories and
checklists commonly used in clinical assessment. We will provide more information on a
few of the more well-known clinical tests.

TABLE 13.4  Sample of Inventories and Checklists Used in Clinical Assessment

Broad Focus
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2; MMPI-II-RF)
Outcome Questionnaire 45.2 (OQ 45.2)
Symptom Checklist 90–Revised (SCL-90-R)
Narrow Focus
Anxiety Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)
Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS)
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scales: Second Edition (RCMAS-2)
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)
Depression Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II)
Children’s Depression Inventory, Second Edition (CDI-2)
Hamilton Depression Inventory (HDI)
Eating Disorders Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26)
Eating Disorder Inventory-3 (EDI-3)
Stirling Eating Disorders Scales (SEDS)
Relationship/Family Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B)
Marital Satisfaction Inventory, Revised (MSI-R)
Substance Abuse Alcohol Use Inventory (AUI)
Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST)
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-3)
Trauma Detailed Assessment of Posttraumatic Stress (DAPS)
Multiscale Dissociation Inventory (MDI)
Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS)
Trauma Symptom Inventory-2 (TSI-2)
Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC)
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 313

Beck Depression Inventory  The BDI-II (Beck et al., 1996) is one of the most widely used
instruments for measuring the severity of depression in persons 13 years of age and older. The
21-item self-report inventory takes approximately 5 to 10 minutes for clients to complete. The
content of items reflects the diagnostic criteria for depression in the DSM-5 (American Psychiat-
ric Association (APA), 2013) and includes sadness, pessimism, past failure, loss of pleasure,
guilty feelings, punishment feelings, self-dislike, self-criticalness, suicidal thoughts or wishes,
crying, agitation, loss of interest, indecisiveness, worthlessness, loss of energy, changes in sleep-
ing pattern, irritability, changes in appetite, concentration difficulty, tiredness or fatigue, and
loss of interest in sex. However, because there were some significant changes in the DSM-5 with
regard to the diagnosis of depression, counselors are cautioned to use best practice and to con-
duct a multifaceted assessment process. For each item on the BDI-II, respondents are asked to
choose from among a group of statements (rated on a 4-point scale from 0 to 3) those that best
describe their feelings during the past 2 weeks. The simple rating-scale format of the inventory
allows individuals to easily comprehend the questions and respond appropriately. To score the
inventory, counselors simply sum the item scores. Total raw scores can range from 0 to 63;
scores from 0 to 13 represent minimal depression, from 14 to 19 indicate mild depression, from
20 to 28 represent moderate depression, and from 29 to 63 indicate severe depression. The BDI‑II
is a fast, efficient way to assess depression in either a clinical or nonclinical setting. The publisher
has recently lowered the classification of the BDI-II to a B-Level qualification, meaning that test
users must have a master’s degree in counseling or a related field or be licensed or certified to
practice in their state. In terms of technical quality, the BDI-II has demonstrated strong evidence
of internal consistency and test-retest reliability and evidence of convergent validity.
Symptom Checklist 90-Revised  The SCL-90-R is a 90-item self-report symptom inventory
designed to measure psychological symptom patterns in individuals who are ages 13 years
and older (Derogatis, 1994). It can be paper-and-pencil, audiocassette, or computer admin-
istered and requires about 12 to 15 minutes to complete. Each item represents a particular
psychological symptom (e.g., feeling fearful, feeling low in energy, difficulty making deci-
sions), which is rated on a 5-point scale of distress (0–4), ranging from not at all (0) to
extremely (4). The SCL-90-R yields raw scores and T scores for three global indices and nine
primary symptom dimensions (Derogatis, 1994). The three global indices provide measures of
the level of an individual’s distress and include the following:
1. Global Severity Index (GSI)  This index is the average score of the raw scores of all 90
items of the questionnaire. It provides a single numeric indicator of the respondent’s
psychological status. In general, T scores at or above 63 suggest the presence of a
clinically significant level of psychological difficulties.
2. Positive Symptom Distress Index (PSDI)  This index is a measure of symptom inten-
sity or severity. It is the average value of all items scored above zero (between 1 and
4). For example, if a client’s raw score on the PSDI index was 2.5, then this means that
the average of all items scored above zero was between 2 (Moderately) and 3 (Quite
a Bit). Higher scores on the PSDI indicate increased symptom severity.
3. Positive Symptom Total (PST)  This is the number of items scored above zero.
Whereas PSDI is a measure of symptom severity, the PST index represents the num-
ber (or breadth) of symptoms. For example, if a client’s raw score on the PST was 60,
then this would mean that he or she answered 60 out of the 90 items with a rating
from 1 to 4. A low PST would indicate relatively few symptoms, whereas a high PST
would indicate a wide array of symptoms.
314 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

The nine primary symptom dimensions represent various psychological symptom pat-
terns. T scores of 63 or more on two or more of the symptom dimensions suggest clinically
significant levels of psychological distress. The primary symptoms are as follows:
1. Somatization (SOM)  This dimension reflects distress from perceptions of bodily
dysfunction. Complaints may focus on cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory,
gross musculature, or other bodily areas (note responses to actual items). Pain and
anxiety are both likely to be present as well.
2. Obsessive-Compulsive (O-C)  This dimension focuses on obsessions and compul-
sions that cause distress. It focuses on impulses, thoughts, and actions that are unre-
mitting, irresistible, and unwanted.
3. Interpersonal Sensitivity (I-S)  This dimension reflects feelings of inadequacy and
inferiority. Self-deprecation, self-doubt, and discomfort in interpersonal situations
are evident among individuals who score high on this index. They have negative
expectations regarding interpersonal behavior with others and are self-conscious.
4. Depression (DEP)  Elevated scores on the DEP index reflect a range of depressive
symptoms, such as withdrawal, lack of motivation, loss of energy, hopelessness, and
suicidal thoughts.
5. Anxiety (ANX)  This index focuses on general signs of anxiety, such as nervousness,
tension, and trembling, as well as panic attacks and feelings of terror, apprehension,
and dread.
6. Hostility (HOS)  Elevated scores on the HOS dimension indicate thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors that are characteristic of anger, such as aggression, irritability, rage,
and resentment.
7. Phobic Anxiety (PHOB)  This dimension focuses on the presence of persistent and
irrational fear related to a specific person, place, object, or situation. Items in this
dimension more closely reflect agoraphobia or panic attacks rather than merely
phobias.
8. Paranoid Ideation (PAR)  This dimension represents the key elements of paranoid
thought, such as suspiciousness, hostility, grandiosity, fear of loss of autonomy, and
delusions.
9. Psychoticism (PSY)  Items on the PSY dimension are indicative of a withdrawn and
isolated lifestyle as well as first-rank symptoms of schizophrenia, such as hallucina-
tions and thought control. Scores reflect a range of psychoticism from minor levels of
interpersonal alienation to severe psychotic symptoms.
To interpret SCL-90-R scores, counselors examine (1) the global indices, (2) the
symptom dimensions, and (3) specific items. The SCL-90-R provides a clinical profile
showing both raw scores and T scores for the global indices and the symptom dimen-
sions. It also provides a list of items that were endorsed as quite a bit or extremely dis-
tressed. A sample clinical profile is presented in Figure 13.1. A unique feature of the
SCL-90-R is that an individual’s scores can be compared with and plotted based on four
norm groups: psychiatric outpatients, nonpatients, psychiatric inpatients, and nonpa-
tient adolescents. The SCL-90-R can be used as a one-time assessment of a client’s clini-
cal status, or it can be used repeatedly to document treatment outcome. In order to
further your understanding of the SCL-90-R and how it can be used in the diagnostic
process, complete Exercise 13.1. After reviewing the information, respond to the exer-
cise questions.
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 315

Exercise 13.1
Clinical Assessment: Jada
Jada, age 25, worked part-time as a librarian. persistently worried about having more
She was driving to work one day when she attacks and became increasingly anxious
began to feel intensely anxious. Her heart about having another attack while she was
started pounding, and she began sweating, driving alone with no one to help her. She
had shortness of breath, felt dizzy and shaky, began avoiding driving, and she even began
and felt like she was about to die. She pulled to fear leaving her house alone.
off to the side of the road and recovered after Jada sought counseling at an outpa-
about 10 minutes. Jada drove on to work and tient counseling center and was adminis-
was able to function that day but experi- tered the SCL-90-R during her initial
enced similar incidents over the next couple assessment. Review Jada’s SCL-90-R Clinical
of weeks. For the next few months, she was Profile and answer the questions that follow.

SCL-90-R CLINICAL PROFILE

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30
SOM O-C I-S DEP ANX HOS PHOB PAR PSY GSI PSDI PST

T Score: 55 48 46 57 63 52 66 51 53 65 56 54

Raw Score: 1.24 1.17 0.97 2.71 2.91 1.17 2.45 1.17 1.04 2.45 2.58 60

FIGURE 13.1  Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90-R) clinical profile.

Source: Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). Copyright © 1975, 2004 by Leonard R. Derogatis, Ph.D.
Reproduced with permission of the publisher NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. “SCL-90-R” is a
trademark of Leonard R. Derogatis, Ph.D.
316 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

Symptoms of Note: Exercise Questions

The following items were endorsed as 1. Interpret Jada’s scores on the three
Extremely distressed: global indices (e.g., GSI, PSDI, and
PST).
13. Feeling nervous when you are left
2. Were any of Jada’s scores on the pri-
alone.
mary symptom dimensions “clini-
25. Feeling afraid to go out of your
cally significant”? If yes, identify the
house alone.
dimension(s) and interpret the score(s).
The following items were endorsed as 3. Are Jada’s scores on the SCL-90-R
Quite a Bit distressed: consistent with the information pre-
sented in the case study? Explain.
39. Heart pounding or racing.
4. What inferences can you make
50. Having to avoid certain things,
about Jada based on the background
places, or activities because they
information and her scores on the
frighten you.
­SCL-90-R?
72. Spells of terror or panic.
5. What would you recommend for her?

Eating Disorder Inventory  The Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI-3) is a widely used self-
report measure of psychological traits shown to be clinically relevant in individuals with
eating disorders. The 91-item inventory is organized into 12 primary scales, consisting of
three eating-disorder-specific scales and nine general psychological scales that are highly
relevant to, but not specific to, eating disorders. It also yields six composites: one that is
eating-disorder specific (i.e., Eating Disorder Risk) and five that are general integrative
psychological constructs (i.e., Ineffectiveness, Interpersonal Problems, Affective Problems,
Overcontrol, General Psychological Maladjustment).

Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale  The Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale

(PDS; Foa, 1995) was designed to aid in the detection and diagnosis of posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). It contains 17 items rated on a 4-point scale (i.e., 0 = not at all or only once
to 3 = five or more times a week/almost always) to measure the severity of the PTSD symp-
toms in the past month. The items assess the extent to which respondents have symptoms
of reexperiencing the trauma (e.g., “Having bad dreams or nightmares about the event”),
avoidance symptoms (e.g., “Trying not to think about, talk about, or have feelings about
the event”), and arousal symptoms (e.g., “Feeling irritable or having fits of anger”), all of
which correspond to the PTSD symptoms listed in the DSM-IV. The scale provides results
in the following areas:
• PTSD Diagnosis (yes or no)
• Symptom Severity Score and Rating (Mild = 1 - 10, Moderate = 11 - 20,
Moderate to Severe = 21 - 35, and Severe 7 36)
• Number of Symptoms Endorsed
• Level of Impairment of Functioning (No Impairment, Mild, Moderate, Severe)
Psychometrically, the PDS appears to meet its main objective of validly and reliably
differentiating PTSD from non-PTSD subjects, although the instrument would benefit
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 317

PTSD Diagnosis
Yes / No
Symptom Number of Symptom Level of
Severity Symptoms Severity Impairment in
Score Endorsed Rating Functioning

Mild to Mild to
0–50 0−15
Severe Severe

FIGURE 13.2  Overview of the PTSD Diagnostic Scale Elements.

from additional validation research utilizing larger and perhaps demographically more
representative samples. Figure 13.2 shows a sample profile report.

Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory  The Substance Abuse Subtle Screening
Inventory (SASSI-3) is a brief, self-report, easily administered psychological screening
measure that is available in separate versions for adults and adolescents. The instrument
helps identify individuals who have a high probability of having a substance-dependence
disorder. It is particularly useful in identifying persons who are experiencing difficulties
with substance abuse but are unwilling or unable to acknowledge them. The SASSI-3 is
now available for online assessment through sassionline.com. The SASSI-3 is comprised of
10 scales that measure the following dimensions:
1. Face Valid Alcohol (FVA)
2. Symptoms (SYM)
3. Subtle Attributes (SAT)
4. Supplemental Addiction Measure (SAM)
5. Correctional (COR)
6. Face Valid Other Drugs (FVOD)
7. Obvious Attributes (OAT)
8. Defensiveness (DEF)
9. Family vs. Control Measure (FAM)
10. Random Answering

Suicide Risk Assessment

Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the United States and the second leading cause
of death among people between the ages of 15 and 24 years. It is almost impossible to have
an exact account of the number of people who have experienced suicidal ideation or
attempts, but in general we can estimate that for every person who completes suicide,
there are an approximately 10 to 20 who have attempted suicide (Granello & Granello,
318 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

2006). Approximately 71% of all counselors will work with a client who attempts suicide
(Granello, 2010).
These statistics are dire, and although no one can predict with absolutely certainty
who will commit suicide, mental health professionals strive to find accurate ways of assess-
ing suicide risk in order to keep people safe. As counselors-in-training, it is critical that you
understand the nuances of suicide risk assessment and the best practices for working with
suicidal clients. Suicide risk is difficult to assess for several reasons. First, there is no “one
size fits all,” meaning determination of suicide risk involves evaluating a combination of
risk factors and warning signs. Risk factors are ongoing client characteristics that increase
suicide risk, and warning signs are client behaviors that warn of imminent suicide risk
(Hawton, Casañas i Comabella, Haw, & Saunders, 2013). Marital and job status, feelings of
hopelessness or isolation, and family history are all examples of risk factors. Warning signs
include settling personal affairs, giving away possessions, and drastic changes in mood
and behavior (Granello & Granello, 2006).
A comprehensive suicide risk assessment typically involves several types of assess-
ment methods and sources of information. The most common assessment method involves
unstructured interviews in which mental health professionals assess suicide risk in several
key areas, such as intent, a suicide plan with accessible means, a history of suicidal thoughts,
and family history of suicidal thoughts and mental disorders (Granello & Granello, 2006).
It’s important that questions about suicide risk be asked in clear and frank language
(i.e., “Have you thought about suicide?” or “Are you considering killing yourself?”).
Sometimes, clients will use euphemisms (e.g., “I just want to be with the angels” or “I won’t
be around for them to pick on anymore”) that hint at suicide plans (Granello & Granello,
2006, p. 189). In these situations, it is vital that professionals ask the client in a direct man-
ner about plans to commit suicide.
Many mental health professionals use suicide risk–assessment instruments in con-
junction with the unstructured interviews, and there are hundreds of instruments availa-
ble that assess suicide risk that are either commercially published or available in the
research literature. Although these instruments were designed to directly measure suicide
ideation and behavior, none have been universally supported as being effective in deter-
mining risk. Thus, a few of the more commonly used suicide risk–assessment instruments
are listed in Table 13.5.
In addition to instruments assessing suicide ideation and behavior, there are instru-
ments that measure variables that have been closely associated with suicide, such as

TABLE 13.5  List of Suicide Risk–Assessment Instruments

Adults Children and Adolescents
Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (ASIQ) Adolescent Suicide Inventory
Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI) Child Suicide Assessment (CSA)
Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Harkavy Asnis Suicide Scale (HASS)
Thoughts (FAST) Inventory of Suicide Orientation-30 (ISO-30)
Suicide Probability Scale (SPS) Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R)
Suicidal Ideation Scale (SIS) Suicide Probability Scale (SPS)
Suicide Intent Scale (SIS) Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ)
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 319

hopelessness and reasons for living. For example, the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS; Beck
& Steer, 1988) is a self-report instrument that is designed to measure the extent of positive
and negative beliefs about the future. Another example is the Brief Reasons for Living
Inventory (BRFL; Ivanoff, Jang, Smyth, & Linehan, 1994), which assesses the reasons for
not killing oneself if the thought were to occur.
Many checklists and inventories that assess general psychological symptoms also
have “critical items” assessing suicide risk. For example, the BDI-II has a suicide item that
consists of four ratings: 1 (“I don’t have any thoughts of killing myself”), 2 (“I have thoughts
of killing myself, but I would not carry them out”), 3 (“I would like to kill myself”), and 4
(“I would kill myself if I had the chance”). Similarly, the Outcome Questionnaire 45 (OQ45;
Lambert, Lunnen, Umphress, Hansen, & Burlingame, 1994) has a suicide potential screen-
ing item (“I have thoughts of ending my life”) that respondents can rate on a 5-point scale
from never to almost always. Although suicide risk cannot be adequately evaluated with one
item alone, these types of items can be useful screening tools for indicating the need for
more thorough assessment of suicide risk.
Although formal assessment instruments can be useful tools, they do not replace
interviews and interactions with a client and are not a substitute for clinical judgment.
Comprehensive suicide risk assessment involves examining information obtained from
interviews, information from assessment instruments, and/or collateral information from
individuals closest to the client.

Observation and Clinical Assessment

As stated in Chapter 2, observation is an assessment method that involves monitoring the
actions of others or oneself in a particular context and making a record of what is
observed. In clinical assessment, observation is used to help determine a client’s diagno-
sis, to target specific patterns of behavior, to provide behavioral baseline data, and to
identify effective treatment approaches. In clinical assessment, observation is often infor-
mal and frequently begins with the initial handshake between the clinician and the client
(O’Donohue, ­Cummings, & Cummings, 2006). In this situation, a client’s damp palm
may reveal something about his or her level of anxiety. Informal observation continues
throughout the interactions with a client and involves the counselor taking note of a
number of the client’s ­characteristics or behaviors, such as body type and behaviors, eye
movements, clothing, and facial features (Carlat, 2011). Some possible observations
include the following:
• General Appearance–attractive, plain, flamboyant, meticulous
• Eye Contact–intermittent, averted, constant, absent
• Dress–appropriate to age and season, neat, disheveled, casual
• Speech–rapid, loud, soft
• Gait–walks with a limp, wheel-chair bound, no anomalies of gait, shuffle
Observations can also be formal and involve the use of structured instruments for
recording data, such as event recording, duration recording, time sampling, and rating
scales. There are several published rating scales commonly used in the clinical assessment
of children. These rating scales can be completed by teachers, parents, or others who know
the individual, as well as by the child himself or herself. An example of a widely used rat-
ing scale for assessing behavioral and emotional problems children is the Child Behavior
320 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

Checklist (CBCL/6-18). Other instruments measuring children’s behavior include the

Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BASC-2), the Child Symptom Inventory
(CSI-4), and the Conduct Disorder Scale (CDS).

Child Behavior Checklist  In clinical assessment, the CBCL/6-18 (Achenbach & Res-
corla, 2001) is considered the gold standard for evaluating behavioral and emotional
problems in children aged 6 to 18. The CBCL/6-18 is a rating scale completed by par-
ents, guardians, and/or close relatives that assesses children’s competencies and behav-
ioral/emotional problems. It is part of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based
Assessment (ASEBA), which includes an integrated set of rating forms that assess adap-
tive and maladaptive functioning in children and adults. For example, the CBCL/6-18
(completed by the parent/guardian) is designed to be administered in conjunction with
the Youth Self-Report (YSR; completed by the child) and the Teacher’s Report Form
(TRF; completed by the child’s teacher). All three instruments measure eight cross-
informant syndrome constructs: Social Withdrawal, Somatic Complaints, Anxiety/
Depression, Social Problems, Thought Problems, Attention Problems, Delinquent
Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior.
On the CBCL/6-18, parents are asked to rate 118 items that describe their child’s spe-
cific behavioral and emotional problems. Parents rate their child for how true each item is
now or within the past 6 months using the following scale: 0 = not true; 1 = somewhat or
sometimes true; 2 = very true or often true. Examples of items are “Acts too young for age,”
“Cries a lot,” and “Gets in many fights.” In addition, there are two open-ended items for
parents to report additional problems. The CBCL/6-18 requires a fifth-grade reading abil-
ity, and most parents can complete the CBCL/6-18 in about 15 to 20 minutes. Results can
be hand scored or computer scored.
The CBCL/6-18 provides several scales that measure parents’ perceptions of their
child’s behavior and emotional problems: three competence scales and a Total Compe-
tence scale; eight syndrome scales; Externalizing, Internalizing, and Total Problems scales;
and six DSM-oriented scales. The competence scales reflect the degree and quality of the
child’s participation in various activities (e.g., sports, hobbies, games), social relationships,
and academic performance. The syndrome scales include empirically derived syndromes
labeled as Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Prob-
lems, Thought Problems, Attention Problems, Rule-Breaking Behavior, and Aggressive
Behavior, as well as a list of Other Problems that consists of items that are not strongly
associated with any of the syndrome scales. The first three syndrome scales (Anxious/
Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, and Somatic Complaints) comprise the Internalizing
scale, and the last two syndromes (Rule-Breaking Behavior and Aggressive Behavior)
comprise the Externalizing scale. The Total Problems scale is the sum of all of the 120 items
on the instrument. The DSM-oriented scales are comprised of items that experienced psy-
chiatrists and psychologists rated as being very consistent with categories of diagnoses
defined by the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 1994). Table 13.6 pro-
vides a summary of each of the CBCL/6-18 scales.
The CBCL/6-18 provides separate scoring profiles for boys and girls of ages 6 to 11 and
12 to 18. Scoring profiles include raw scores, T scores, and percentile ranks for each scale
(Figure 13.3 shows an example of a scoring profile for the syndrome scales). T scores are fur-
ther categorized as being in the clinical range, borderline clinical range, or the normal range.
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 321

TABLE 13.6  CBCL/6-18 Scales

Scale Description
Competence Scales
Activities Participation in sports, hobbies, clubs, teams, jobs, chores
Social Number of friends; relations with peers, siblings, and parents; ability to
work and play alone.
Academic Performance Academic performance level, grade retention, special services, school
problems.
Total Competence Sum of the three competence scales.

Syndrome Scales
Anxious/Depressed Cries, fears school, phobias, perfectionist, feels unloved, feels worthless,
nervous, fearful, feels guilty, self-conscious, suicidal thoughts, worries.
Withdrawn/Depressed Enjoys little in life, prefers to be alone, won’t talk, secretive, shy, lacks
energy, unhappy and sad, withdrawn.
Somatic Complaints Nightmares, dizzy, fatigued, aches or pains, headaches, nausea, eye
problems, skin problems, stomach aches, vomiting.
Social Problems Dependent on adults, feels lonely, doesn’t get along with other kids,
jealous, believes others are “out to get” him or her, accident-prone,
teased, not like by other kids, clumsy, prefers to be with younger chil-
dren, speech problems.
Thought Problems Ruminates, harm to self, hears things, body twitches, skin picking, com-
pulsions, sees things that aren’t there, sleeps less, hoards things, strange
behavior, strange ideas, sleepwalks, sleep problems.
Attention Problems Acts too young for his or her age, fails to finish things, problems con-
centrating, trouble sitting still, daydreaming, impulsive, poor school-
work, inattentive, stares.
Rule-Breaking Behavior Drinks alcohol, no guilt after doing something wrong, breaks rules, so-
cializing with “bad” kids, lies or cheats, prefers older kids, has run away
from home, sets fires, often thinks about sex, uses tobacco, truant, uses
drugs, vandalizes.
Aggressive Behavior Argues, mean to others, demands attention, destroys own belongings,
destroys others’ belongings, disobeys parents, disobeys at school, fights,
attacks, screams, stubborn, moody, sulks, suspicious, teases others,
temper problems, threatens to hurt others, louder than other kids.
Internalizing, ­Externalizing,
and Total Problems Scales
Total Problems The sum of the 0-1-2 scores on all 120 items.
Internalizing The sum of scores for the Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed,
and Somatic Complaints syndromes.
Externalizing The sum of scores for the Rule-Breaking Behavior and Aggressive Behav-
ior syndromes.
(continued)
322 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

TABLE 13.6  CBCL/6-18 Scales (Continued)

Scale Description

DSM-Oriented Scales
Affective Problems Enjoys little in life, cries, harms self, feels worthless, feels guilty,
f­ atigued, apathetic, suicidal thoughts, low energy, sad. This scale
corresponds to the DSM-IV criteria for Major Depressive Disorder and
Dysthymia.
Anxiety Problems Dependent on adults, phobias, fears school, nervous, fearful, worries.
Corresponds with the DSM-IV criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder,
Social Anxiety Disorder, and Specific Phobia.
Somatic Problems Aches or pains, headaches, nausea, eye problems, skin problems,
­stomach aches, vomiting. Corresponds with the DSM-IV criteria for
Somatization and Somatoform Disorders.
Attention Deficit/ Fails to finish things, problems concentrating, trouble sitting still,
Hyperactivity Problems ­fidgets, difficulty following directions, disturbs others, impulsive, talks
out, disruptive, inattentive, talks too much, louder than other kids.
Corresponds with the criteria for ADHD, Hyperactive-Impulsive, and
Inattentive types.
Oppositional Defiant Argues, defiant, disobeys at school, stubborn, temper problems.
Problems ­Corresponds with the criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
Conduct Problems Mean, destroys others’ belongings, no guilt after doing something
wrong, breaks rules, fights, socializing with “bad” kids, lies or cheats,
attacks, irresponsible, steals, swears, threatens, truant.

The value of T scores for each range varies depending on the scale. For example, on the com-
petence scales, higher T scores are associated with normal functioning. On the syndrome
scales, Internalizing, Externalizing, Total Problem, and DSM-oriented scales, lower T scores
are associated with normal functioning. For a more thorough understanding of children’s
assessment using the CBCL, complete Exercise 13.2 and respond to the exercise questions.

Internalizing Externalizing
100
95 C
T 90 L
85 I
S 80 N
C 75 I
O C
70
R A
65 L
E 60
55 N
< 50 O
Anxious/ Withdrawn/ Somatic Social Thought Attention Rule-Breaking Aggressive R
Depressed Depressed Complaints Problems Problems Problems Behavior Behavior M
Total Score 2 10 1 5 5 7 1 11 A
T Score 51 80-C 53 59 66-B 62 52 63 L
Percentile 54 >97 62 81 95 89 58 90

FIGURE 13.3   CBCL/6-18 sample profile of the syndrome scales.

Source: Reprinted with permission from Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School
Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth and Families.
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 323

Exercise 13.2
Child Clinical Assessment: CBCL
Name: Sabrina Robinson Clinician: Darcy Young Informant: Joanne Robinson
Gender: Female Agency: Community Counseling Relationship: Biological Mother
Clinic
Age: 12 Date of Assessment: 05/28/2007
Birth Date: 04/10/1995

Sabrina, age 12, was brought to an outpa- school, and has never been reprimanded
tient counseling center by her biological or held after school for detention. Ms.
mother, Joanne Robinson. Ms. Robinson Robinson reported that Sabrina has no
reported concern about Sabrina’s prob- friends at school but has two close friends
lems in school and her mood at home. Sab- who attend their church. Sabrina sees her
rina is in the sixth grade and is performing friends less than once a week. At home,
poorly academically; her most recent pro- Ms. Robinson reported that Sabrina has a
gress report showed D’s in social studies, few chores (e.g., making her bed, putting
math, and science and a C in language away dishes). She reported that Sabrina
arts. Ms. Robinson stated that Sabrina has enjoys playing games on her computer
difficulty concentrating on school and fre- and reading.
quently does not finish her homework. Ms. Robinson completed the
She is often tired, taking a nap every day CBCL/6-18. The profile scores of Sabrina’s
after school. Sabrina is well-behaved at CBCL/6-18 follow.
home, has few if any behavior problems in

CBCL/6-18 Competence Scale for Girls 12–18

80
65.0
75
60.0 70
N
55.0 N 65
O
O
R
50.0 R 60
M
T M
A
A 55
L
S 45.0 L T
C 50
O 40.0 S
R C 45
E 35.0 O
R 40
C
30.0 E
L 35
I C
25.0 N 30 L
I I
20.0 C 25 N
A I
Activities Social School
L 20 C
A
Total Score 7.0 4.0 2.5 15
L

T Score 34 30 29 10
Total
Percentile 6 2 2 Competence

Total Score 13.5

T Score 27

Percentile 1
324 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

• Three hobbies/activities •  No clubs or teams • Below average to

(computer games, reading, dolls) • Two friends average school grades
• Two chores (making bed, • Contact with friends less • Repeated third grade.
cleaning room) than one time weekly

CBCL/6-18 Syndrome Scales for Girls 12–18

100
95 C
T 90 L
85 I
S 80 N
C 75 I
O C
70
R A
65 L
E 60
55 N
50 O
Anxious/ Withdrawn/ Somatic Social Thought Attention Rule-Breaking Aggressive R
Depressed Depressed Complaints Problems Problems Problems Behavior Behavior M
Total Score 3 10 6 8 2 16 0 0 A
T Score 52 78 68 69 56 87 50 50 L
Percentile 58 > 97 97 97 73 > 97 < 50 < 50

• Perfectionist • Prefers being • Feels dizzy • Lonely • Hoarding • Acts young for age
• Feels alone • Tired • Accident- • Sleep • Fails to finish things
worthless • Won’t talk • Aches or prone problems • Can’t concentrate
• Self- • Secretive pains • Gets teased • Confused
conscious • Lacks energy • Headaches • Clumsy • Daydreams
• Sad • Nausea • Prefers • Poor school work
• Withdrawn • Stomach younger • Inattentive
aches kids • Stares blankly
Note: The items that were endorsed as somewhat or sometimes true or very true or often true are listed
under each scale.

CBCL/6-18 Internalizing, Externalizing, Total Problem, Other Problems for Girls 12–18
100
Other Problems
95
Overeats
90 C
L Overweight
I
85 N Thumb Sucking
I
T C
80 A
S L
C 75
O
R
E 70

65

N
60 O
R
M
55
A
L
50

Internalizing Externalizing Total

Problems Problems Problems

Total Score 19 0 51

T Score 68 34 66

Percentile 97 6 95
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 325

CBCL/6-18 DSM-Oriented Scales for Girls 12–18

100
95
90 C
T
85 L
80 I
S
N
C 75
I
O 70
C
R 65 A
E 60 L
55
50 N
Attention O
Oppositional
Affective Anxienty Somatic Deficit/ Conduct R
Defiant
Problems Problems Complaints Hyperactivity Problems M
Problems
Problems A
Total Score 9 0 4 6 0 0 L
T Score 73 50 66 63 50 50
Percentile > 97 < 50 95 90 < 50 < 50

• Worthless • Aches •  Fails to finish things

• Underactive • Headaches •  Can’t concentrate
•  Sleep problems • Stomachaches • Inattentive
• Tired
• Sad
Note: The items that were endorsed as somewhat or sometimes true or very true or often
true are listed under each scale.

Exercise Questions obtained a standard score of 70

(which is greater than the 97th per-
1. Identify and interpret the scores for centile). This indicates that she is
each of the CBCL/6-18 scales that functioning in the clinical range.
fall in the clinical range (the table This suggests that that she is experi-
ahead provides the cutoff scores for encing significant psychological
normal, borderline clinical, and clini- symptoms, such as lacking energy,
cal ranges). Use the following exam- sadness, and withdrawal. She pre-
ple as a format for your answers: fers to be alone, won’t open up and
talk, and is secretive.
Withdrawn/Depressed scale: On the
Withdrawn/Depressed scale, Sabrina

Table of Normal, Borderline, and Clinical Ranges

Scale Normal Range Borderline Clinical Range Clinical Range
Activities, Social and T scores 7 35 T scores: 31–35 T scores 6 31
Academic Performance
Competence Scales
Total Competence Scale T scores 7 40 T scores: 37–40 T scores 6 37
Syndrome Scales T scores 6 65 T scores: 65–69 T scores 7 69
Internalizing, Externalizing, T scores 6 60 T scores: 60–63 T scores 7 63
and Total Problems Scales
DSM-Oriented Scales T scores 6 65 T scores: 65–69 T scores 7 69
326 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

2. Are the CBCL/6-18 results consist- 4. What inferences can you make about
ent with Sabrina’s background infor- Sabrina based on the background
mation? Explain. information and her scores on the
3. Overall, what do the CBCL/6-18 CBCL/6-18?
results tell you about Sabrina? 5. What recommendations would you
have for Sabrina and her mother?

Neuropsychological Assessment
Neuropsychology is the study of brain-behavior relationships and the impact of brain
injury or disease on the cognitive, sensorimotor, emotional, and general adaptive capaci-
ties of the individual. Neuropsychological assessment involves assessing a wide variety of
cognitive and intellectual abilities, such as attention and concentration, learning and
memory, sensory-perceptual abilities, speech and language abilities, visuospatial skills
(ability to perceive spatial relationships among objects), overall intelligence, and execu-
tive functions. In addition, psychomotor speed, strength, and coordination all would be
addressed in some fashion. Three well-known neuropsychological instruments include
the Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery, the Luria–Nebraska Neuropsycho-
logical Battery (LNNB), and the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test, Second Edition
(Bender-Gestalt II).

Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery  This test battery is designed to

evaluate brain and nervous system functioning in individuals aged 15 years and older. The
battery takes about 6 to 8 hours to administer and involves administering eight separate
tests. It uses Wechsler Intelligence Scales but also includes a number of tests utilized origi-
nally by Halstead, some added by Reitan, and several added by others. Some tests within
the battery call for tactual performance; for example, the Halstead Tactual Performance
Test requires test takers to place 10 blocks of differing shapes into a matching 10-hole form-
board while blindfolded, using only a sense of touch. On the Klove Roughness Discrimina-
tion Test, the test taker must order four blocks, each covered with a different grade of
sandpaper. The blocks are presented behind a blind, and the test is scored on the time the
client takes and the number of errors made with each hand. Also included in the Halstead-
Reitan Battery are visual and psychomotor scales; for example, the Reitan Aphasia Screen-
ing Test contains both language and copying tasks. The copying tasks require the test taker
to make a copy of a square, a Greek cross, a triangle, and a key. The language functions
measured are naming, repetition, spelling, reading, writing, calculation, narrative speech,
and left/right orientation. The language section is scored by listing the number of aphasic
symptoms. The Klove Grooved Pegboard Test requires the test taker to place pegs shaped
like keys into a board containing recesses oriented in randomly varying directions. The test
taker performs first with one hand and then the other. Some of the other tests on the scale
are the Halstead Category Test, the Speech Perception Test, the Seashore Rhythm Test, the
Finger Tapping Test, the Trail-Making Test, the Perceptual Disorders Test, and the Visual
Field Examination.

Luria–Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery  The LNNB is another series of tests

designed to assess neuropsychological function. It is designed for individuals ages 15 and
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 327

older and can be administered in 1.5 to 2.5 hours. The LNNB assesses a wide range of
cognitive functions on 11 clinical scales, two optional scales, three summary scales, and 11
factor scales. The following is a list and description of the clinical scales:
1. Motor Functions  Measures a wide variety of motor skills
2. Rhythm  Measures nonverbal auditory perception, such as pitch discrimination and
rhythmic patterns
3. Tactile Functions  Measures tactual discrimination and recognition
4. Vision Functions  Measures visual-perceptual and visual-spatial skills
5. Receptive Speech  Measures perception of sounds from simple to complex
6. Expressive Speech  Measures ability to repeat sounds, words, and word groups and
produce narrative speech
7. Writing  Measures ability to analyze words into letters and to write under varying
conditions
8. Reading  Measures ability to make letter-to-sound transformations and read simple
material
9. Arithmetic  Measures knowledge of numbers, number concepts, and ability to per-
form simple calculations
10. Memory  Measures short-term memory and paired-associate learning
11. Intellectual Processes  Measures sequencing, problem-solving, and abstraction skills

Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test, Second Edition  The Bender-Gestalt II is widely used
for screening neuropsychological impairment in both children and adults. Specifically, the
Bender-Gestalt evaluates visual-motor ability and visual perception skills. Visual-motor
ability is the ability of the eyes and hands to work together in smooth, efficient patterns.
Visual perception refers to one’s ability to receive, perceive, and make sense of visual stimu-
lation. To assess these skills, the Bender-Gestalt uses nine stimulus cards, each displaying
an abstract design (see Figure 13.4). The cards are presented to the examinee one at a time;
then, the examinee is asked to reproduce the design on a blank sheet of paper.
Although several systems are available for scoring the Bender-Gestalt, the scoring
process, in general, involves comparing an individual’s drawings to the designs displayed
on the cards. For example, the Global Scoring System (GSS) rates each drawing on a scale

Bender-Gestalt II Design Subject's Drawing

FIGURE 13.4   Design similar to Bender-Gestalt II stimulus card.

328 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

of 0 to 4, with 0 being equivalent to scribbles or a complete lack of accuracy and 4 being

equivalent to perfect accuracy. It specifically evaluates such deviations as misalignment
(rotations), reduction of elements, increase of elements, simplification of elements, omis-
sion of elements, substitution of elements, and integration of elements. The Koppitz Devel-
opmental Scoring System, Second Edition (KOPPITZ-2) also focuses on errors in the
examinee’s drawings. The assessor examines each card for four types of error: distortions,
rotations, errors of integration, and errors of perseveration (i.e., repetition of the elements
of some designs). The system provides standard scores, percentile ranks, specialized scores,
and age equivalents.
Koppitz (1975) also described the practice of using the Bender-Gestalt to screen for
emotional indicators, which are defined as drawing characteristics that are associated with
specific types of emotional-behavioral problems in children, such as impulsivity, mental
confusion, and low frustration tolerance. Emotional indicators are as follows:

1. Confused Order  Sign of mental confusion, lack of planning ability, and poor organi-
zational skills
2. Wavy Line  Poor motor coordination and/or emotional instability
3. Dashes Substituted for Circles  Impulsivity or lack of interest
4. Increasing Size of Figures  Low frustration tolerance and explosiveness
5. Large Size  Impulsivity and acting-out behavior
6. Small Size  Anxiety, withdrawal, constriction, and timidity
7. Fine Line  Timidity, shyness, and withdrawal
8. Careless Overwork or Heavily Reinforced Lines  Impulsivity, aggressiveness, and
acting-out behavior
9. Second Attempt at Drawing Designs  Impulsivity and anxiety
10. Expansion (Using Two or More Sheets to Complete the Nine Drawings)  Impulsivity
and acting-out behavior
11. Box around the Design  Attempt to control impulsivity, weak inner control, and need
for outer limits and structure
12. Spontaneous Elaboration and/or Additions to Designs  Unusual preoccupation with
own thoughts, fears, and anxieties; serious emotional problems
Other tests used for neuropsychological assessment include the following:
• The Kaufman Short Neuropsychological Assessment Procedure (K-SNAP) was
developed by H. S. Kaufman and N. L. Kaufman to measure the cognitive function-
ing of individuals ages 11 to 85. The test measures attention and orientation, simple
memory, and perceptual skills.
• The Quick Neurological Screening Test, Second Edition (QNST-II) assesses 15 areas
of neurological integration as they relate to learning. The scales are Control of Large
and Small Muscles, Motor Planning, Motor Development, Sense of Rate and
Rhythm, Spatial Organization, Visual and Auditory Skills, Perceptual Skills, and
Balance Orientation.
• The Ross Information Processing Assessment, Second Edition (RIPA-2) is designed
to assess any cognitive and linguistic deficits and determine severity levels. The
scales on the RIPA-2 are Immediate Memory, Recent Memory, Spatial Orientation,
Orientation to the Environment, Recall of General Information, Organization, and
Auditory Processing and Retention.
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 329

Cultural Considerations in Clinical Assessment

Cultural competence is essential for counseling practice and should be a consideration
for your work with every client. It is important to recognize that assessment procedures
are used throughout the world and that counseling is a global profession. As counselors
in a global world, you are entrusted to use assessment instruments with consideration of
the cultural implications for your clients. Whether you are practicing counseling in the
United States or in the United Kingdom, you will assess clients from different ethnic
groups and cultural backgrounds. During the assessment process, it will be important to
take into account your client’s cultural frame of reference when evaluating behaviors.
The consequence of lack of multicultural perspectives in assessment is identifying cul-
turally normal behaviors as pathological. For example, certain cultures believe in con-
nections with the spirits of those who are deceased. If a client from that culture reported
hearing or seeing a deceased relative during bereavement, it would be imperative to
evaluate that report in light of the cultural lens. Failure to consider culture in this case
would likely lead to a misdiagnosis of a psychotic disorder (American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation (APA), 2013).
As you have learned or will learn, being comfortable discussing cultural issues is one
of the most important steps toward cultural competency. In a clinical assessment situation,
you may have to respectfully ask about cultural differences with your client. These ques-
tions could be about differences in gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, or other cultural
factors. For example, imagine that you have a client who is struggling with drug use and
reported on his or her intake paperwork that he or she is Amish. It would be important to
explore the client’s connection to Amish culture and traditions. It would also be important
to understand the perspective of the Amish community on drug use and on counseling.
Sommers-Flanagan and Sommers-Flanagan (2013) suggest a variety of techniques to use
when exploring cultural differences, such as asking for clarification, accepting cultural
norms for behaviors and verbalizations, accepting beliefs in causes of crisis, and not diag-
nosing prematurely.

Summary
The term clinical assessment generally refers to diagnosis. Interview techniques include
applying assessment procedures to (a) diagnose unstructured, semistructured, and structured
a mental disorder, (b) develop a plan of treat- interviews, as well as the MSE. In addition,
ment, (c) monitor treatment progress, and (d) many formal instruments are used in clinical
evaluate treatment outcome. Traditionally assessment. Most of these instruments have a
employed in mental health settings, clinical pathological focus and are closely aligned to
assessment involves the counselor determining symptoms of disorders listed in the DSM-5.
the information that is needed to answer the Instruments may assess a broad array of
referral question, organizing and integrating symptoms or a specific set of related symp-
the data, and using his or her clinical judgment toms. Formal and informal observations are
in forming an opinion about a client’s diagnosis. also used in clinical assessment to help make
Interviews are widely used in clinical an accurate diagnosis and in developing a
assessment to help determine an individual’s treatment plan.
330 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment

Questions for Discussion

1. What is the purpose of clinical assessment in 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of
mental health settings? using behavioral observation in clinical assess-
2. Which assessment method (e.g., interviews, tests, ment? In what types of situations would observa-
observations) provides the most important infor- tions be more appropriate than standardized tests?
mation in clinical assessment? Explain your rea- 4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of
soning. using the interview in clinical assessment?

Suggested Activities
1. Interview psychologists and counselors working and has obtained several Valium tablets from a
in the mental health field, and find out what tests neighbor. She says she is lonely and has wasted
and assessment procedures they use and why. her life. She has the tablets in her house and is
Report your findings to the class. thinking about taking them. After further discus-
2. Critically review a test used in clinical assess- sion, the counselor finds out that Karen will be
ment. Read the reviews of the test in different turning 40 next week. She lives alone, has no
journals and yearbooks. friends, and has no family members who live
3. Design an interview schedule, and try it out on nearby. She used to be quite religious but stopped
several individuals. Write an analysis of the results. attending church last year. Karen has been previ-
4. Write a review of the literature on a topic such as ously involved with mental health services, hav-
behavioral assessment, intake interviews, use of ing been treated at an inpatient psychiatric
tests in counseling practice, or neuropsychological hospital several times over the years for depres-
testing. sion and suicidal ideation.
5. Review the following case study and answer the a. Identify the factors and warning signs associ-
questions at the end: ated with suicide risk.
Karen calls the suicide hotline number Friday b. How would you describe Karen’s overall risk
night at 9 p.m. and speaks to an on-call crisis for suicide?
counselor. Karen says that she is depressed and c. To further assess suicide risk, what questions
wants to kill herself. She has been drinking vodka would you like to ask Karen?

References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2012).
the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction
VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for to tests and measurement (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
Children, Youth, & Families. McGraw-Hill.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Demyttenaere, K., Bruffaerts, R., Posada-Villa, J.,
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders ­Gasquet, I., Kovess, V., Lepine, J., . . . Morosini, P.
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. (2013). Prevalence, severity, and unmet need for
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1993). Manual for the Beck treatment of mental disorders in the World Health
Hopelessness Scale. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Social
Corporation. Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(1),
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual 137–149.
for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, Derogatis, L. R. (1994). SCL-90-R: Symptom Checklist
TX: Psychological Corporation. 90-Revised: Administration, scoring, and procedures
Carlat, D. J. (2011). The psychiatric interview: A practi- manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
cal guide (23rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams,
Williams & Wilkins. J.  B.  W. (2012). Structured Clinical Interview for
 Chapter 13  •  Clinical Assessment 331

DSM-IV Axis I disorders (SCID-I), Clinician Versions. Lambert, M. J., Lunnen, K., Umphress, V., Hansen,
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. N., & Burlingame, G. M. (1994). Administration and
Foa, E. B. (1995). The Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale scoring manual for the Outcome Questionnaire
manual. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments. (OQ‑45.1). Salt Lake City, UT: IHC Center for
Folstein, M., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Behavioral Healthcare Efficacy.
“Mini-Mental State”: A practical method for grad- Louisiana Mental Health Counselor Licensing Act.
ing the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. (1987). Acts 1987, No. 892 §1, eff. July 20, 1987.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198. Mitchell, M. B., & Atri, A. (2014). Dementia Screen-
Gilliland, B. E., & James, R. R. (1997). Theories and ing and Mental Status Examination in Clinical
techniques in counseling and psychotherapy (4th ed.). Practice. Dementia: Comprehensive Principles and
New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Practices, 461.
Granello, D. H. (2010). A suicide crisis intervention O’Donohue, W. T., Cummings, N. A., & Cummings,
model with 25 practical strategies for implementa- J. L. (2006). Clinical strategies for becoming a master
tion. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32(3), psychotherapist. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
218–235. Remley, T. P., & Herlihy, B. (2013). Ethical, legal, and
Granello, D. H., & Granello, P. F. (2006). Suicide: An professional issues in counseling (4th ed.). Upper
essential guide for helping professionals and educators. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Boston, MA: Pearson. Sadock, B. J., & Sadock, V. A. (2007). Kaplan and
Hawton, K., Casañas i Comabella, C., Haw, C., & ­Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral sciences/
Saunders, K. (2013). Risk factors for suicide in clinical psychiatry (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA:
individuals with depression: A systematic review. ­Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Journal of affective disorders, 147(1), 17–28. Seligman, L., & Reichenberg, L. W. (2014). Selecting
Ivanoff, A., Jang, S. J., Smyth, N. F., & Linehan, M. M. effective treatments: A comprehensive, systematic
(1994). Fewer reasons for staying alive when you guide to treating mental disorders (4th ed.). San Fran-
are thinking of killing yourself: The Brief Reasons cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
for Living Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R.
and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 1–13. (2013). Clinical interviewing (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
Jones, K. D. (2010). The unstructured clinical inter- John Wiley & Sons.
view. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(2), Whitbourne, S. K. (2013). What the DSM-5 changes
220–226. mean for you. Psychology Today. Retrieved from
Koppitz, E. M. (1975). The Bender Gestalt Test for Young http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog
Children (Vol. 2: Research and applications, 1963– /fulfillment-any-age/201305/what-the-dsm-5-
1973). New York, NY: Grune & Stratton. changes-mean-you
 CHAPTER

14 Assessment in Education

Counselors who work with children, adolescents, college students, parents, or families
require a thorough understanding of assessment in educational systems. Regardless of
work setting, the results of educational assessment inform the counseling process. Edu-
cational assessment, a primary function for school counselors and school-based mental
health counselors, encompasses many of the types of assessment reviewed throughout
this textbook (e.g., achievement, aptitude, career assessment, observation). The purposes
of assessment in educational systems varies and can include tasks such as identifying
students with special needs, determining whether students have mastered the require-
ments for graduation, determining appropriate accommodations for a college student
with a learning disability, advocating for a child with unmet educational needs, coach-
ing a parent on their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
and evaluating the effectiveness of a comprehensive school counseling program. Assess-
ment in education is a broad practice that includes the use of a wide variety of instru-
ments (e.g., achievement tests, ability tests, aptitude tests, career assessment instruments)
and assessment procedures (e.g., functional behavior assessment, observation, interpre-
tation, report writing).
School counselors, school-based mental health counselors, and college counselors
play an important role in assessment programs and are often involved in collecting and
using assessment data; regularly monitoring student progress; and communicating the
purposes, design, and results of assessment instruments to various parties. To practice
effectively, counselors need specific knowledge and skills about the assessment instru-
ments and strategies used in the schools. Because the scope of educational assessment is
broad, it is difficult to capture the roles and activities of all counseling professionals who
interact with educational systems in one chapter. Thus, we will focus primarily on the
roles and functions of school counselors in this chapter, but we stress that the material
herein is relevant to all counselors and helping professionals.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Discuss the goals of school assessment programs.
JJ Explain the common assessment activities of counselors.
JJ Define specific learning disabilities (SLDs).

JJ Describe the assessment process related to specific learning disability determination

and Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI).

332
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 333

JJ Describe the process and procedures for assessing giftedness.

JJ Discuss the use of test preparation and performance strategies in increasing
achievement test scores.
JJ Describe the purpose of environmental assessment in the schools.

JJ List and explain the competencies in assessment and evaluation for school counselors.

JJ Discuss the issue of high-stakes testing in education.

School Assessment Programs

Teachers, counselors, administrators, and parents need all types of information about stu-
dents. They need to know about their cognitive and scholastic abilities, their interests, their
achievement, and their problems. Schools implement assessment programs to provide
information needed to improve the public schools by enhancing the learning gains of all
students and to inform parents of the educational progress of their children. School assess-
ment programs may consist of several diverse instruments used for a variety of purposes,
such as the following:
• Identifying the readiness of kindergarten and first-grade students.
• Determining whether students have mastered the basic and essential skills required
by the school system.
• Placing students in educational programs.
• Identifying students with special needs.
• Evaluating the curriculum and specific programs of study.
• Helping students make educational and vocational decisions.
• Assessing the intellectual ability and aptitude of individual students.
• Measuring achievement in specific courses and subject areas.
School counselors are actively involved in school assessment programs. They may
administer, score, and interpret assessment instruments themselves, or they might be
asked to coordinate an entire testing program. School counselors are also frequently called
upon to disseminate assessment results that have been collected by other professionals to
students, parents, teachers, and administrators.

Planning a School Assessment Program

Planning a school assessment program is a complex process that requires cooperation
among a diverse group of stakeholders. In order to ensure the development of an assess-
ment program that is best practice and comprehensive, the planning process should
involve the superintendent’s staff, principals, school counselors, teachers, parents, com-
munity leaders, representatives from local postsecondary institutions, and other adminis-
trative leaders in the school district. Involvement by a diverse group of stakeholders
promotes acceptance of the assessment program and helps each group understand its role
in the process. For example, through participation in the planning process, teachers might
contribute information about their needs for being able to use assessment information for
instructional decisions; principals might help formulate the plan so that assessment data
can aid in the evaluation of the curriculum; and the team might determine methods for
allowing students to use assessment information to guide their educational and vocational
334 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

decision making. A number of steps should be followed in designing a school assessment

program:
1. Identify the goals and purposes of the assessment program.
2. Identify the types of information needed to make decisions.
3. Identify the types of instruments to be given and establish procedures for selecting
them.
4. Identify the responsibilities of the staff in the assessment program.
5. Develop procedures for disseminating assessment results to appropriate individuals.
6. Develop an evaluation strategy to continuously monitor the assessment program.

Instruments Used in School Assessment Programs

School assessment programs encompass several different types of assessment instruments
used at different grade levels (see Figure 14.1). For example, state achievement tests are given
to students in grades 3 through 8 and one grade in high school to assess students’ progress
in achieving their state’s educational standards. Readiness tests may be administered to
preschoolers to determine their readiness to enter kindergarten or first grade. As students
reach the middle and high school years, instruments assessing interests, abilities, and val-
ues may be utilized to obtain information for post–high school planning. The following is
a list and brief description of the types of assessment instruments and strategies used in
school assessment programs.

Grade Level

Test/Inventory K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Readiness test X

State achievement test X X X X X X X

NAEP X X X

Subject area tests X X X X

General aptitude battery X

Career development/
X
maturity

Career interest/values X

ASVAB X

PSAT/PLAN X

SAT X X

ACT X X

National Merit X

FIGURE 14.1  Sample school assessment program.

 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 335

Achievement Tests  Every state requires schools to administer achievement tests that are
aligned with their educational standards. As we addressed in the chapter on assessing
achievement (Chapter 9), states may develop their own standardized achievement test or
use a commercially developed achievement test battery, such as the Stanford Achievement
Test (Stanford 10). On these examinations, students must earn a minimum test score to
prove mastery in order to be promoted to the next grade or graduate high school. Schools
may also administer the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which
tracks student achievement in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades. Many elementary schools admin-
ister diagnostic reading tests to screen and monitor student progress in learning reading
skills. Other forms of achievement assessment include curriculum-based assessment,
­curriculum-based measurement, and performance-based assessment.

Intellectual Ability Tests  Test that measure intellectual ability are used in the schools for
a variety of purposes. They may be used to help identify students with intellectual disabil-
ities or learning disabilities or to place students into specialized academic or vocational
programs. Most schools administer ability tests such as the Cognitive Abilities Test
(CogAT) or the Otis–Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT 8) to screen students for place-
ment in gifted and talented programs.

Readiness Tests  Schools frequently use the scores from readiness tests to determine
whether children are “ready” for kindergarten or are “ready” for promotion to first grade.
Readiness tests assess whether children have the underlying skills deemed necessary for
school learning. As we indicated previously, school readiness tests should be used with
caution and careful examination of normative groups. There is a strong potential for cul-
tural bias with these types of instruments.

Aptitude Tests  Four of the most widely used aptitude tests are the Armed Services Voca-
tional Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB), the Differen-
tial Aptitude Test (DAT), and the Career Aptitude Placement Survey (CAPS). Some school
districts administer an aptitude test in the 10th grade. Civilian counselors working with
the ASVAB will visit high schools and administer the test to all high school students who
want to take the test for educational and vocational guidance purposes. Students meet
with armed services personnel only if they request an interview.

Admissions Tests  Most high school counselors are in charge of coordinating programs to
administer the PSAT, PLAN, SAT, ACT, or other college admissions tests to students in the
10th, 11th, and 12th grades. Coordinating the administration of admissions tests can
include providing orientation about admissions tests to students and parents, having
information about prep classes, and ensuring that students meet the necessary deadlines
for complete test registrations.

Career Assessment Instruments  Various career assessment instruments are used in the
schools, especially at the middle school and high school levels. General interest inventories
are often given at both levels. In addition, school counselors often administer career devel-
opment inventories that help the school district evaluate the educational and vocational
needs of the students. Popular career assessment systems include the COPSystem, the
Kuder Career Planning System, and the College and Career Readiness System.
336 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

Assessment Activities of School Counselors

In order to illustrate assessment in educational systems, we profile the assessment activi-
ties of school counselors. School counselors are actively involved in assessment in the
schools and are frequently engaged in selecting, administering, scoring, and interpreting
various assessment instruments for diverse purposes. For example, school counselors are
involved in the administration and interpretation of standardized achievement test results
at all levels; use formal and informal assessment measures to identify students’ career
choices, interests, and attitudes; conduct needs assessments to determine the focus of com-
prehensive school counseling programs; and conduct evaluations of program and inter-
vention effectiveness. School counselors need knowledge of the process of identifying
students with learning disabilities as well as students who qualify for gifted and talented
programs. Furthermore, teachers and administrators often rely on school counselors as a
resource to provide them with information about assessment instruments, to answer
measurement-related questions, and to interact with parents on assessment issues (Young
& Kaffenberger, 2011)
In addition to student assessment, school counselors are responsible for evaluating
the effectiveness of comprehensive school counseling programs (Dahir & Stone, 2011).
Various assessment instruments are used to show the impact of a school counseling pro-
gram on school improvement and student achievement. School counselors must show that
each activity or intervention they implement was developed from a careful analysis of
students’ needs, achievement, and/or other data. School counselors must also report on
immediate, intermediate, and long-range results, showing how students are different as a
result of the school counseling program. This aspect of the school counselor role is directly
related to the concept of accountability. Under the ASCA National Model, school counse-
lors must be able to demonstrate that they have an impact on student success (American
School Counselor Association (ASCA), 2012).
Assessment is one of the biggest workload demands of a professional school counse-
lor (McCarthy, Van Horn Kerne, Calfa, Lambert, & Guzmán, 2010). Whether engaged in
assessment to evaluate student performance or to evaluate a comprehensive school coun-
seling program, school counselors play a primary role in school assessment programs.
Thus, counselors need knowledge and training in a wide range of diverse assessment activ-
ities. In a survey of professional school counselors, Ekstrom, Elmore, Schafer, Trotter, and
Webster (2004) found that 80% of the 161 respondents indicated performing assessment-
related activities such as reading about ethical, special needs, and multicultural issues; com-
municating assessment information to parents, school administration and teachers, and
other professionals; and integrating test and nontest data when making decisions.
Ekstrom et al. (2004) also found that the assessment activities performed by school
counselors may vary according to the educational level (elementary, middle, or high
school) at which they work. For example, high school counselors were more likely to be
involved in administering standardized tests than counselors in elementary schools. High
school counselors also used assessment instruments more often for helping students with
career planning. Middle school counselors spend more time designing or adapting assess-
ment instruments for use in planning or evaluating school counseling programs and spend
more time reading professional literature about assessment. Elementary school counselors
were less likely to schedule testing, to interpret results from assessment instruments, or to
use assessment information in counseling or in making placement decisions. Of counselors
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 337

in all three educational levels, high school counselors had more responsibility for selecting,
administering, and interpreting assessment instruments. Although no studies have been
conducted to validate that these assessment tasks remain the same today, they are clearly
aligned with the accountability requirements of the ASCA National Model (American
School Counselor Association (ASCA), 2012) and the Standards for Educational and
­Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association (AERA), American
Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education
(NCME), 2014). These tasks are considered common for school counselors, but there is a
degree of concern about the competency of school counselors to perform the tasks (Maras,
Coleman, Gysbers, Herman, & Stanley, 2013). We stress that competency requires practice
under supervision and extended study through continuing education and thorough review
of assessment materials.

Needs Assessments
Assessment of students’ counseling needs is a crucial component of implementing an
effective school counseling program. Needs assessment is a formal process of gathering
information from a range of sources (e.g., students, parents, teachers, administrators)
about their perceptions of the needs of the student population. Needs assessments deter-
mine the students’ needs or desired outcomes and, in doing so, identify the priorities of the
school counseling program within the philosophical framework of the school and com-
munity. According to Sink (2009), school counselors conduct needs assessments as part of
the accountability dimension of the ASCA National Model. Sink indicated that school
counselors must take accountability leadership and evaluate their comprehensive school
counseling programs for missing or underutilized elements, student learning progress,
service improvement efforts, to evaluate concerns, and to guide school program changes.
Most needs assessment instruments are informally constructed to assess students’ needs in
three broad areas: academic, career, and personal or social. Figure 14.2 shows an example
of a career development needs assessment instrument. As another example, you might
consider conducting a needs assessment among parents and teachers to determine the
types of services you should provide in your comprehensive school counseling program.
Items on the needs assessment might ask participants to rate various service needs on a
Likert scale (e.g., bully prevention, multiculturalism, social skills, conflict resolution).

Assessing Specific Learning Disabilities

School counselors work individually and with other school personnel to meet the develop-
mental needs of all students, including those with specific learning disabilities. A specific
learning disability (SLD) is a neurological disorder that severely impairs children’s ability to
learn or to demonstrate skills in several academic areas:
1. Oral Expression  Ability to convey ideas and information verbally
2. Listening Comprehension  Ability to listen to and understand words, questions, and
instructions presented through spoken words and sentences
3. Written Expression  Ability to convey ideas and information in written form
4. Basic Reading Skill  Ability to decode (read) words
5. Reading Comprehension  Ability to make sense of and understand written or printed
information
338 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

Read each phrase and then decide the importance of that activity to you. Circle the appropriate
number to the right of each phrase using the following scale.

0 if you feel the item is not important

1 if you feel the item is of some importance to you
2 if you feel the item is of moderate importance to you
3 if you feel the item is of great importance to you

1. Knowing what jobs are available locally that I can 0 1 2 3

enter immediately after graduating from high school
2. Knowing how to apply for a job 0 1 2 3
3. Knowing how to write a résumé 0 1 2 3
4. Knowing how to dress for and what to 0 1 2 3
say in an interview
5. Learning more about my career interests 0 1 2 3
6. Learning more about the training and education 0 1 2 3
required in my career interest areas
7. Talking with people employed in my career 0 1 2 3
interest areas
8. Arranging for work experience in my career 0 1 2 3
interest fields
9. Learning more about my values and the way 0 1 2 3
they relate to my career choice
10. Learning about what courses I should take if 0 1 2 3
I want to enter certain career fields

FIGURE 14.2   Example of a career-development needs-assessment instrument.

6. Mathematical Calculation  Ability to learn basic math facts and perform basic math
operations, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division
7. Mathematical Reasoning  Ability to apply mathematical techniques, concepts, or
processes to solve problems
Students with an SLD may have difficulty listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing,
spelling, or doing math problems. They usually have average to above-average intelligence,
but may have difficulties demonstrating academic knowledge and understanding. They
will show intraindividual differences in their academic skills and abilities; in other words,
they often do well in some school subjects, but usually have extreme difficulty with certain
skills, such as decoding (reading) words, calculating math facts, or putting their thoughts
and ideas into writing. SLDs are believed to be caused by some kind of neurological condi-
tion that affects information processing, which means that although students with SLDs
almost always hear and see normally, they have trouble understanding what they see or
hear. SLDs can be caused by such conditions as perceptual (visual or auditory) disabilities,
brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia (language
impairment). SLDs do not encompass learning problems that are primarily the result of
visual, hearing, intellectual, or motor disabilities; emotional disturbance; environmental,
cultural, or economic factors; or limited English proficiency. Although the true prevalence
rate of SLDs is not known, it is estimated that approximately 5% of students have an identi-
fied SLD, but that as many as 15% more of students remain unidentified (Cortiello, 2014).
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 339

An important practice for schools is to identify students with SLDs to ensure that the
students receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs. Historically, the
most common method schools have used to identify students with SLDs is the ability-
achievement discrepancy model (also called the IQ-achievement discrepancy model), which was
a component of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of
1997. This model identifies students as learning disabled when there is a severe discrepancy
between their scores on an ability (i.e., intelligence) test and their scores on an achievement
test. A discrepancy of 1 to 1.5 standard deviations between the scores generally qualifies as
severe. Thus, if a student’s achievement test scores are well below his or her ability test
scores in at least one area (such as reading), then the student can be classified as having a
specific learning disability. There have been many concerns cited about the use of the
­ability-achievement discrepancy approach (National Association of State Directors of Spe-
cial Education’s IDEA Partnership, 2007). First, critics have described the ability-achieve-
ment discrepancy approach as a wait-to-fail approach, because intervention is withheld
until a discrepancy can be demonstrated, which often does not occur until the student has
experienced several years of academic failure. Second, the information gathered from the
ability and achievement assessments does not indicate each student’s specific learning
needs. Third, the discrepancy model can create inequitable treatment for students; that is,
disproportionate numbers of students from culturally and linguistically diverse back-
grounds have been identified as having SLDs via the ability-achievement discrepancy
approach. Contemporary cognitive assessment involves more than just standardized test-
ing. Today, evidence-based procedures that include standardized assessment are required
for the identification of SLDs (Decker, Hale, & Flanagan, 2013).

Responsiveness to Intervention  The IDEA of 2004 changed the evaluation process by

which schools identify students with SLDs. Schools are no longer required to use the abil-
ity-achievement discrepancy model; rather, schools should use a combination of research-
based instruction, intervention, and assessment procedures for determining whether
students have SLDs. As a result, many states and school districts have adopted an alterna-
tive model called Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI). RTI is a comprehensive, multistep
approach to identifying students with SLDs in which services and interventions are pro-
vided to at-risk students at increasing levels of intensity based on progress monitoring and
data analysis. The RTI process includes the following tasks:
1. Universal screening of all students to identify those who are at risk for academic failure
2. Providing and monitoring the effectiveness of research-based instruction and other
interventions for at-risk students
3. Providing special education services to those students who are achieving below age
or grade expectations and fail to make adequate progress (having been provided
research-based instruction and interventions)
Although no universally accepted approach currently exists, Table 14.1 provides a descrip-
tion of a three-tiered RTI model as conceptualized by the National Joint Committee on
Learning Disabilities (NJCLD; 2005, p. 3). Assessment occurs at all tiers, and a wide variety
of formal assessment instruments (e.g., achievement test batteries, diagnostic achievement
tests, school readiness tests, state achievement tests) and informal instruments (e.g.,
­curriculum-based measurement) are used for screening, progress monitoring, and diagnos-
tic purposes. For example, in Tier 1, screening tests are administered school-wide to identify
340 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

TABLE 14.1  Responsiveness to Intervention Three-Tier Model

Tier Level Approach Tasks
Tier 1 Instruction The goal of tier one is to provide appropriate
screening, instruction, and behavior supports.
Differentiated instruction is a primary component
of this tier level
Tier 2 Intervention Identified students receive a higher level of
attention. Intervention occurs based on research.
Students are monitored for progress and
additional interventions are determined based on
data. Parents are incorporated into the process.
Tier 3 Special Education Evaluation is more comprehensive to determine
the need for special education services. Numerous
student observations occur at this tier. Procedural
safeguards are implemented.

Source: From Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities: A report prepared by the National Joint
­Committee on Learning Disabilities. Copyright 2005 by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities
(NJCLD). Reproduced by permission.

students who are not meeting grade-level expectations so that instructional or behavioral
interventions can be implemented. Progress monitoring (using curriculum-based assess-
ment) occurs at Tier 2 to identify students who continue to need assistance and to evaluate
the effectiveness of instructional and behavioral interventions. In Tier 3, diagnostic assess-
ment is conducted as part of a comprehensive evaluation for students who fail to make
sufficient progress in Tier 2 in order to determine their eligibility for special education.

Individualized Education Plan  If a student is diagnosed as having a specific learning

disability, then schools are required to develop an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). An
IEP is a written document created by a team of teachers, parents, and other school staff
(e.g., school counselors, school psychologists) that contains a statement of the student’s
present level of educational performance, a list of annual goals and objectives, and a
description of the special education and related services (e.g., speech therapy, counseling,
parent training, rehabilitation counseling) to be provided to the student. The IEP is
reviewed at least once per year to examine the student’s progress toward those goals.
In many cases, school counselors are directly involved in the IEP process. The Amer-
ican School Counselor Association (2012) views individual advocacy during IEP meetings
as an appropriate activity for school counselors and also views advocacy as part of a com-
prehensive school counseling program. In addition to attending IEP meetings, they may
consult with teachers, intervene with students, and support parents.

Assessing Giftedness
When considering the concept of Giftedness, it is important to note that numerous defini-
tions exist. Although states may differ in how they define giftedness, there is a federally
legislated definition that guides the conceptualization of giftedness in educational set-
tings. The United States federal government views the gifted and talented classification as
encompassing those students who demonstrate potential for high achievement in a range
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 341

of areas (e.g., academics, performance, arts, creativity) and who need support services to
realize their potential. (No Child Left Behind Act, 2004). These children demonstrate high
performance capability in intellectual, creative, or artistic areas, as well as strong leader-
ship ability. The National Association for Gifted Children (2008) reported that nearly three
million children (i.e., 5% of the U.S. student population) are considered gifted and tal-
ented. However, this may not be a reliable estimate. Researchers conducting the National
Surveys of Gifted Programs (Callahan, Moon, & Oh, 2014) reported that there was a high
degree of variance in the percentage of identified gifted children from district to district
and that some districts didn’t identify gifted students at all.
Although we can’t identify the exact percentage of gifted children, we do have
research-based approaches for assessment and intervention for that population. Gifted
children require services or activities not typically provided in a regular classroom setting;
thus, most schools have gifted and talented programs that provide unique educational oppor-
tunities for children who have been identified as gifted and talented. These programs can
include modifying or adapting regular curriculum and instruction; accelerated learning
opportunities, such as independent study and advanced placement; opportunities for
­subject and grade skipping; and providing differentiated learning experiences. To qualify
for participation in a school’s gifted and talented program, students must meet certain
minimum standards.
The process of assessing students for giftedness usually entails two phases: screening
and identification. To screen for giftedness, most districts conduct annual school-wide
screening using standardized ability or achievement tests. Students may also be referred
or nominated for giftedness screening by their teacher, school counselor, or parent. Stu-
dents must meet a set cutoff score on the screening test to continue to the identification
phase. In the identification stage, further assessment is conducted, focusing on four areas:
1. Cognitive Ability  Ability to perform at an exceptionally high level in general intel-
lectual ability, which may be reflected in such cognitive areas as reasoning, memory,
nonverbal ability, and the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information
2. Academic Ability  Ability to perform at an exceptionally high level in one general
academic area or a few specific academic areas significantly beyond others of one’s
age, experience, or environment
3. Creative Thinking Ability  Ability to perform at an exceptionally high level in crea-
tive thinking, as evidenced by creative or divergent reasoning, advanced insight and
imagination, and solving problems in novel ways
4. Visual or Performing Arts Ability  Ability to perform at an exceptionally high level
in the visual arts, dance, music, or drama
To assess these four areas, a variety of assessment instruments and strategies may be used
(see Table 14.2). Cognitive ability and academic ability are typically evaluated using
standardized ability tests and standardized achievement tests. To be placed into a gifted
and talented program, students must meet or exceed minimum cutoff scores as defined
by state laws. For example, in some states, students must either score at least two stand-
ard deviations above the mean minus the standard error of measurement or at or above
the 95th percentile on an approved cognitive ability test and an achievement test. For
assessing academic achievement, states may require scores only for specific subtests or
scales of the test, such as reading comprehension, written expression, and mathematics.
Creative thinking ability can be assessed by using intelligence tests, general gifted-
ness screening instruments, or instruments designed specifically to appraise creativity. An
342 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

TABLE 14.2  Instruments and Strategies for Assessing Giftedness

Cognitive Ability Creative Thinking Ability
• Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) • Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT)
• Cognitive Assessment System-Second • Cognitive Assessment System-Second Edition
­Edition (CAS2) (CAS2)
• Differential Ability Scales (DAS-II) • Differential Ability Scales (DAS-II)
• Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second • Gifted & Talented Evaluation Scales (GATES)
­Edition (KBIT-2) • Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition
• Raven’s Progressive Matrices (APM and (KBIT-2)
SPM) • Raven’s Progressive Matrices (APM and SPM)
• Otis–Lennon School Ability Test, Eighth • Otis–Lennon School Ability Test, Eighth ­Edition
­Edition (OSLAT 8) (OSLAT 8)
• Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, • Scales for Rating Behavior Characteristics of
Fifth Edition (SB5) Superior Students (SRBCSS)
• TerraNova 3 • Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition (SB5)
• Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of • Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
Intelligence, Third Edition (WPPSI-III) • Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intel-
• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children ligence, Third Edition (WPPSI-III)
(WISC-IV) • Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV)
• Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive • Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities,
Abilities, Fourth Edition (WJ-IV) Fourth Edition (WJ-IV)

Academic Ability Visual and Performing Arts Ability

• Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI) • Gifted & Talented Evaluation Scales (GATES)
• California Achievement Tests (CAT 6) • Gifted Rating Scales
• Grade Point Average • Rubric for Scoring Dance Performance
• Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) • Rubric for Scoring Drama Performance
• Kaufman Test of Educational • Rubric for Scoring Music Performance
­Achievement (KTEA-II) • Rubric for Scoring Display of Work—Visual Art
• PSAT • Scales for Rating Behavior Characteristics of
• SAT Superior Students (SRBCSS)
• TerraNova 3
• Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—
Third Edition (WIAT-III)
• Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement

example of a well-known instrument developed specifically to evaluate creative thinking

is the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) developed by E. Paul Torrance (1974).
Constructed for individuals from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond, the
TTCT consists of two different tests: the Figural TTCT and the Verbal TTCT. The Figural
TTCT contains abstract pictures, and the examinee is asked to state what the image might
be. The Verbal TTCT presents the examinee with a situation and gives the examinee the
opportunity to ask questions, to improve products, and to “just suppose.” The tests yield
results in several subscales, including Fluency, the number of relevant ideas; Originality,
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 343

the rarity and unusualness of ideas; Elaboration, the amount of detail in the responses;
Abstractness of Titles, the degree to which a picture title is expressed beyond simple labe-
ling; and Resistance to Premature Closure, the degree of psychological openness. Torrance
also developed Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement, a nonverbal movement assess-
ment of creativity; Thinking Creatively with Sounds and Words, which measures an individu-
al’s ability to create images for words and sounds; and Thinking Creatively with Pictures,
which uses picture-based exercises to measure creative thinking.
Visual or performing arts ability is usually demonstrated through a display of work,
a performance, or an exhibition. For example, students may submit portfolios containing
artistic samples; perform a musical recital; provide evidence of placing first, second, or
third in a music or art contest; or perform a series of drama or dance sessions. Trained
examiners evaluate the products or performance using an approved rubric or checklist.
Instruments are also available that were developed specifically for assessing charac-
teristics of giftedness. For example, the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of
­Superior Students, Revised (SRBCSS; Renzulli et al., 2010) is a widely used rating scale that
can be completed by school personnel who are familiar with the student’s performance. It
is comprised of 14 scales associated with the characteristics of gifted students: Learning,
Motivation, Creativity, Leadership, Art, Music, Drama, Planning, Communication (Preci-
sion), Communication (Expressiveness), Mathematics, Reading, Science, and Technology.
Score reports include raw scores, grade-level means, and percentile ranks that are calcu-
lated based on the particular group of students taking the test; there are no published
national norms for the scale. Each of the 14 scales represents relatively different sets of
behaviors; therefore, the scores obtained from the separate scales should not be summed to
yield a total score (Renzulli et al., 2010). Test users may select from among the 14 scales
only those scales appropriate to both the purpose of the test and the requirements or needs
of the school; for example, schools may use only the Artistic, Creativity, and Musical scales
as part of their giftedness assessment program. Each scale consists of several items in
which raters evaluate student behaviors using a scale from 1 (never) to 6 (always). The
SRBCSS authors did not establish cutoff scores for identification of gifted children, based
on the assumption that there would be variations in student populations. Instead, they
recommended that test users calculate local cutoff scores. An online version of the SRBCSS
is available, and summary reports include raw scores and percentile ranks. Other instru-
ments designed for identifying gifted and talented students include the Gifted Rating
Scales—School Form (GRS-S), Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scale (GATES), and the Screening
Assessment for Gifted Elementary and Middle School Students (SAGES-2).
Standardized assessment instruments are useful for screening and identifying gifted-
ness in students and for designing programs and services based on these needs. Despite
their potential usefulness, tests also have limitations. The technical inadequacy of tests can
result in bias against certain populations of gifted students, especially those from racial,
cultural, and ethnic minority populations, those from low socioeconomic environments,
and those with disabilities or for whom English is a second language. Thus, although
standardized tests are critically important in the assessment process, careful attention is
critical to the selection of appropriate assessment instruments when assessing underserved
gifted students. Furthermore, a score from a single instrument should never be the sole
basis for placement decisions for gifted and talented programs. In order to further your
understanding of assessment for giftedness, complete Exercise 14.1 and then respond to
the exercise questions.
344 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

Exercise 14.1
Assessment of Giftedness
Gayle began taking piano lessons at age 4. onstrates gifted characteristics, so the
By the time she was 10 years old, she was teacher decides to refer Gayle to be
a proficient pianist, had completed in sev- screened for the gifted and talented pro-
eral statewide youth piano competitions, gram. Gayle passed the screening test and
and had recently won the prestigious was assessed for identification of gifted-
national Chopin Youth Piano Competi- ness. In Gayle’s school, to qualify for the
tion. Gayle has already decided that she gifted and talented program students
wants to be a professional musician. have to meet specific criteria for superior
In school, Gayle performs well aca- cognitive ability, specific academic ability,
demically. Her fifth grade teacher believes creative thinking ability, and visual or
that Gayle’s musical ability as well as her performing arts ability, as indicated in the
high level of academic performance dem- following table:

Instrument Cutoff Scores

Superior Cognitive Cognitive Abilities Test Minimum standard score of two
Ability standard deviations above the mean,
minus the standard error of meas-
urement on the Composite Score
and on at least one of the batteries.
Specific Academic Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Minimum 95% percentile on all
Ability Achievement the following subtests:
1. Passage Comprehension
2. Applied Problems
3. Writing Samples
Creative Thinking Scales for Rating the ­Behavioral Minimum raw score of 32 on the
Ability Characteristics of Superior Students Creativity Scale.
Visual or Performing 1. Scales for Rating the ­Behavioral 1. SRBCSS Minimum raw score on
Arts Ability Characteristics of Superior one of the following scales:
­Students a. Art Scale = 53
2. Display of work in art or music b. Music Scale = 34
c. Dramatics Scale = 48
2. Evidence of art display or musical
performance

The following are Gayle’s test scores:

Cognitive Abilities Test

Batteries and Composite Standard Score Stanine Percentile Descriptors

Verbal 132 9 98 Very High
Quantitative 129 9 97 Very High
Nonverbal 126 8 96 Above Average
COMPOSITE 129 9 97 Very High
Note: SEM = 3
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 345

Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement

Standard Battery Tests Standard Score Percentile Descriptor

Oral Vocabulary 124 95 Superior
Number Series 127 96 Superior
Verbal Attention 121 92 Superior
Letter Pattern Matching 124 95 Superior
Phonological Processing 120 91 High Average
Story Recall 121 92 Superior
Visualization 119 90 High Average
General Information 124 95 High Average
Concept Formation 120 91 High Average
Numbers Reversed 125 95 Superior

Scales for Rating the Behavioral Exercise Questions

Characteristics of Superior Students
1. How would you describe Gayle’s
Scales Raw Score Percentile overall level of intelligence based on
the CogAT scores?
Artistic 48 85 2. How would you describe her overall
Communication 42 75 level of achievement based on her
expressive scores on the WJ-IV ACH?
Communication 37 64 3. How would you interpret the com-
precision parison of Gayle’s CogAT scores to
Creativity 55 95 her WJ-IV ACH scores?
4. How would you interpret Gayle’s
Dramatics 50 65
SRBCSS scores on the Creativity and
Leadership 37 58 Musical subtests?
Learning 58 90 5. Based on Gayle’s scores, she is not
Mathematics 58 93 accepted into the gifted and talented
program. Why was she not accepted?
Motivation 50 95
6. Write a letter to the Gifted Program
Musical 52 98 Administrator appealing this deci-
Planning 45 60 sion. In your letter, make sure you
Reading 52 95 reference all the relevant assessment
Science 35 75
about Gayle, including her academic
grades, scores on the assessment
Technology 30 79
instruments (e.g., WJ-IV ACH,
CogAT, and the relevant SRBCSS
subtest scores), as well as any other
evidence related to creative, artistic,
or music ability.
346 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

Consulting with Teachers

Because school counselors are trained in tests and measurement, they are frequently called
upon by teachers to help interpret a student’s assessment results. Teachers may lack
knowledge about basic measurement concepts and not understand what a student’s test
score means, not be familiar with a new edition of a standardized test, or need to under-
stand the implications of a student’s test results for classroom instruction. School counse-
lors can provide in-service trainings or workshops to educate teachers about measurement
concepts in general or about new editions of standardized tests. School counselors may
also consult with teachers individually to review and interpret a student’s test scores.

Environmental Assessment in the Schools

Assessment in the schools often focuses almost exclusively on academic achievement and
learning outcomes. Although student outcomes provide valuable information, they cannot
give a complete picture of the educational process. A critical determinant of student out-
comes is the classroom environment, which is evaluated through the process of environ-
mental assessment. Environmental assessment involves appraising specific environmental
factors that interact with and predict behavior. The environment includes everything that
surrounds us and experiences to which we are exposed, including the following:
1. Physical Space  Amount of space that is available and the way the space is arranged
2. Organization and Supervision of Space  The organization of the space according to
use or function
3. Materials  The materials required by the individual who will be using the environment
4. Peer Environment  The number and type of people who are going to share the
environment
5. Organization and Scheduling  The level of organization of the environment, how
activities are scheduled, and the roles of the people involved
6. Safety  An environment that is free of hazards and has adequate supervision
7. Responsiveness  An environment that provides opportunities to enhance feelings of
competency and independence
Many environmental factors with schools can be associated with students’ academic
problems, such as the physical setting, teacher/student relationship, curricular and educa-
tional materials, and other students’ behaviors. Other variables, such as attendance, social
interaction, and class interruptions, can also impact student performance.
Assessment of the classroom environment needs to focus on (a) physical and struc-
tural dimensions, (b) interactional dimensions, and (c) instructional dimensions. Physical
and structural dimensions include seating position, classroom design and furniture arrange-
ment, spatial density, and crowding, noise, and lighting. Interactional dimensions involve the
extent to which students interact with materials, people, and activities in the environment.
Instructional dimensions refers to teacher behaviors that are related to student achievement.
Strong, Gargani, and Hacifazlioğlu (2011) identified several effective teacher behaviors,
such as accessing students’ prior knowledge, active interaction, moving around the class-
room, enabling students to generate ideas, creating a stimulating classroom environment,
using visuals and manipulatives, checking for student understanding, having clear objec-
tives, presenting concepts clearly, exhibiting equity, and differentiating instruction.
Person-environment fit theories stress the need to study the congruence between the
client’s needs, capabilities, and aspirations and environmental demands, resources, and
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 347

response opportunities (Holland, 1997). Counselors look for ways that different environ-
mental arrangements and conditions force accommodations in behavior and study the
individual/environment interactions. Person-environment fit has wide application and is
especially important when working with preschool children and students with disabilities
who are placed in regular classrooms.
Several assessment instruments have been developed to measure aspects of the class-
room school environment at all levels. Instruments measure the perceptions of various
groups, such as parents, teachers, students, and administrators. Some of the major instru-
ments are as follows:
• The Classroom Environment Scale, Third Edition (CES; Trickett & Moos, 1995) assesses
perceptions of the learning environment of middle and high school classrooms. The
instrument evaluates the effects of course content, teaching methods, teacher personal-
ity, class composition, and characteristics of the overall classroom environment. The
student form contains 90 true/false items and takes 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Stu-
dents rate their perceptions of the classroom climate from using a 5-point scale from 1
(almost never) to 5 (very often). There are nine subscales grouped into three major
dimensions: relationship, personal growth/goal orientation, and system maintenance
and change. The subscales are involvement, affiliation, teacher support, task orienta-
tion, competition, order and organization, rule clarity, teacher control, and innovation.
• The Effective School Battery (ESB) assesses school climate and provides a portrait of the
attitudes and other characteristics of a school’s students and teachers. It measures and
reports on school safety, staff morale, administrative leadership, fairness and clarity of
school rules, respect for students, classroom orderliness, academic climate, school
rewards, student educational expectations, attachment to school, and other aspects of
school climate as reflected in teachers’ and students’ perceptions, behavior, and attitudes.
• The School Environment Preference Survey (SEPS) measures work-role socialization as
it occurs in the traditional school. SEPS has four scales: self-subordination, traditional-
ism, rule conformity, and uncriticalness. The test is helpful in planning instructional
strategies for students or as an aid for placement in alternative learning environments.
• The Responsive Environmental Assessment for Classroom Teaching (REACT) evalu-
ates student perceptions of the classroom environment. The instrument results in a
single factor score (i.e., classroom teaching environment) and six subscale scores: pos-
itive reinforcement, instructional presentation, goal setting, differentiated instruction,
formative feedback, and instructional enjoyment (Nelson, Demers, & Christ, 2014).

Competencies in Assessment and Evaluation for School

Counselors
A joint committee of the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) and the Associa-
tion for Assessment in Counseling (AACE; 2000) developed a document describing the
assessment and evaluation competencies school counselors need. This document identifies
nine competencies that school counselors should meet:
1. School counselors are skilled in choosing assessment strategies.
2. School counselors can identify, access, and evaluate the most commonly used assess-
ment instruments.
3. School counselors are skilled in the techniques of administration and methods of
scoring assessment instruments.
348 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

4. School counselors are skilled in interpreting and reporting assessment results.

5. School counselors are skilled in using assessment results in decision making.
6. School counselors are skilled in producing, interpreting, and presenting statistical
information about assessment results.
7. School counselors are skilled in conducting and interpreting evaluations of school
counseling programs and counseling-related interventions.
8. School counselors are skilled in adapting and using questionnaires, surveys, and
other assessment instruments to meet local needs.
9. School counselors know how to engage in professionally responsible assessment and
evaluation practices.

Assessment Issues in Education

The primary issue in school assessment today is the widespread compulsory testing of
public school students. Standardized achievement tests have long been part of the U.S.
education system. Caldwell (2008) described the traditional process involved in testing in
the schools as a cycle, with days set aside for standardized testing. Once tests were returned,
usually months later, from being scored by the publishers, it was generally too late to make
changes to classroom instruction. A frenzy of school administration meetings and newspa-
per articles would occur before things would normalize until the next cycle.
All this changed after the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, passed in 2001 and signed
into law in January 2002. This law contains the most sweeping changes to the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since ESEA was enacted in 1965. Emphasizing educational
accountability, NCLB requires America’s schools to describe their success in terms of what
each student accomplishes—the belief being that through accountability, schools and parents
can receive the information needed to identify and focus attention and resources on children
who need help. Thus, in order to receive federal funding, school districts in all 50 states are
required to administer tests that measure student progress toward state achievement standards.
Each state has identified educational standards that specify the skills and knowledge that
students are expected to master in a given subject area at a specific grade (e.g., Mathematics,
Grade 5). Under NCLB, all states must test in reading, mathematics, and science in grades 3
through 8 and one grade in the high school span. Students must earn a minimum test score
to prove mastery in order to be promoted to the next grade or graduate high school.
This type of testing program has been labeled high-stakes testing. Stakes and conse-
quences of assessment are important considerations. The term stakes refers to the impact
that test results may have on a student, group, or organization (American Educational
Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National
Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), 2014). High-stakes tests can directly affect
a student’s educational paths or choices, such as whether a student is promoted or retained
at a grade level, graduated, or admitted into a desired program. Low-stakes tests, on the
other hand, are used for monitoring and providing feedback to students, teachers, and
parents on student progress. High-stakes testing also involves judging schools according
to their students’ test performance. For example, high-performing schools may receive
financial rewards, such as bonuses or merit pay, whereas low-performing schools may
receive sanctions, which can include developing or implementing improvement plans,
being placed on probation, losing accreditation, losing funding, relocating children to bet-
ter-performing schools, and even closing the school. Schools are generally ranked (i.e.,
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 349

school report card) according to their students’ test scores, with the implication that a
school’s ranking reflects the effectiveness or quality of teaching.
Proponents of NCLB believe that testing assists in identifying and providing resources
for children who need help, holds schools accountable for student progress, and provides
parents with choices when their school ranking falls to unacceptable levels, and in 2006,
the U.S. Department of Education reported that that since NCLB’s inception, student
achievement has risen across America. However, many critics believe the act is failing;
they identify the following concerns (Adrianzen, 2010; Frey, Mandlawitz, & Alvarez, 2012;
Kieffer, Lesaux, & Snow, 2008; Ott, 2008; VanCise, 2014):
• School curriculum has narrowed to basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, excluding
subjects (e.g., art, music, social sciences, physical education) that are not tested.
• Schools with children from diverse backgrounds or who have diverse learning skills
are being penalized.
• High-stakes testing has created an atmosphere of greed, fear, and stress in schools,
none of which contribute to learning.
• Extremely high stakes encourage schools to cheat and to urge low-achieving students
to drop out.
• School counselors spend more time coordinating achievement test administration,
reducing their ability to provide services to students, teachers, and administrators.
• There is no consistency among states as to which standardized achievement tests
they use, which means that there is no way to compare the performance of students
from state to state.
The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is the leading organization
that studies educational issues. The organization has acknowledged that although policy-
makers instituted high-stakes tests with the good intention of improving education, they need
to carefully evaluate the tests’ potential to cause serious harm. For example, policymakers and
the public may be misled by spurious test score increases unrelated to any educational
improvement; students may be placed at increased risk of educational failure and dropping
out; teachers may be blamed or punished for inequitable resources over which they have no
control; and curriculum and instruction may be severely distorted if high test scores per se,
rather than learning, become the overriding goal of classroom instruction (American Educa-
tional Research Association (AERA), 2000). The organization recommends validating test
scores and individual uses, providing resources and opportunities for students to learn the
materials, and stating explicitly probable negative consequences as well as the rules used to
determine test-taking individuals. The association’s full policy on high-stakes testing is
available online at aera.net/AboutAERA/AERARulesPolicies/AERAPolicyStatements/
PositionStatementonHighStakesTesting/tabid/11083/Default.aspx.
Although NCLB has been due for reauthorization, there has been continued debate
in congress over the changes in the law. Partisan politics have been a continued issue in
changing the law to address some of the concerns identified by AERA.

Test Preparation and Performance

Because scores on achievement tests can be critical for attaining access to and succeed-
ing in educational programs or occupational opportunities, students must perform well
on achievement tests. As such, there has been an increase in interest regarding test
350 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

­ reparation and performance strategies that students can use to increase their test
p
scores. These strategies can include coaching, increasing test wiseness, and reducing
test anxiety.

Coaching
Coaching is a method used by administrators, teachers, and counselors to help test tak-
ers improve their test performance. Although there is no universally accepted defini-
tion for coaching, the term is popularly used to mean training test takers to answer
specific types of questions and provide the information required by a specific test
(Hardison & Sackett, 2008). Coaching programs usually focus on test familiarization,
drill and practice on sample test items, or subject matter review. Coaching programs are
provided through classes offered in public schools; private classes; private tutors; and
test books, software programs, or videos. Probably the best example of a coaching pro-
gram is an SAT prep class. Thousands of high school students take SAT prep courses
each year, hoping to increase their scores on the college entrance exam. The results from
a recent nationwide study showed that students who took private SAT prep classes
scored an average of 60 points higher on their SAT tests compared to students who
didn’t take the classes (Grabmeier, 2006).
Of significance are concerns about the social, philosophical, and ethical aspects of
coaching. Research studies have found that students from less-advantaged families—those
with lower family incomes and with parents who have less education and lower-level
jobs—are less likely to use any form of test-preparation program (Grabmeier, 2006).

Test-Wiseness
Test-wiseness refers to an individual’s ability to utilize the characteristics and formats of a
test to receive a high score. Test-wiseness is independent of the student’s knowledge of the
subject matter that the test is designed to measure. Skills involved in test-wiseness include
strategies for time use, error avoidance, guessing, and use of deductive reasoning.
Strategies to increase test-wiseness include becoming familiar with the test before
test day. It is always best to know as much as possible about what to expect before arriving
at the test center. Once students know what to expect on the test, they should practice tak-
ing the test. In general, test takers feel more knowledgeable and have less anxiety when
they receive instructions about how to take a test. This reduces errors caused by unfamili-
arity with test procedures and leads to scores that better reflect an examinee’s knowledge
and abilities.
Special strategies apply to each type of item format. For example, on multiple-choice
tests, test takers should examine carefully all of the options or responses before attempting
to choose the correct answer. If the student stops when she sees a correct answer—say,
option A—then she could miss reading options B, C, D, and E, which might also be correct.
Some options on multiple-choice items may be similar and vary only slightly; usually,
these options can be eliminated. The examinee has a better chance of getting a higher score
if options known to be incorrect can be eliminated and the choice is made from among the
remaining alternatives. Sometimes, an option resembles the stem—that is, it uses the same
names, words, or phrases. Usually, such options should be selected. Correct answers are
often longer and perhaps stated more precisely or specifically than the other alternatives.
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 351

Simmonds, Luchow, Kaminsky, and Cottone (1989) designed the SPLASH test-taking
strategy for multiple-choice tests. SPLASH is an acronym that stands for the following:
1. Skim the Test  Skim the entire test to get a general idea of the number of items, the
types of questions, and areas of proficiency and deficiency.
2. Plan Your Strategy  This includes knowing time constraints of the test and where to
begin.
3. Leave Out Difficult Questions  Students should leave difficult questions for the end.
4. Attack Questions You Know  Students should first answer all questions they are sure of.
5. Systematically Guess  After completing all questions they know, students should
make their best guess on the questions they don’t know.
6. House Cleaning  A few minutes should be left prior to the end of the exam to fill in all
answers, double-check forms, and clean up erasures.

Test Anxiety
With the increased use of high-stakes tests throughout K–12 education, test anxiety has
become a common issue confronted by school counselors. Test anxiety is the general feeling of
uneasiness, tension, or foreboding that some individuals experience in testing situations. Test
anxiety can cause a host of problems in students, such as upset stomach, headache, loss of
concentration, fear, irritability, anger, and even depression. Students with test anxiety typi-
cally worry about not doing well on a test. This mind-set inhibits their ability to absorb, retain,
and recall information. Students with low test anxiety, on the other hand, do not worry and
are able to focus on their test performance. There are some controversies about test anxiety.
Some researchers debate the idea that anxiety interferes with test performance. In other words,
there is some belief that those with lesser ability would have higher incidence of anxiety and
that deficits in test performance are based on skill rather than anxiety. Sommer and Arendasy
(2014) concluded that test anxiety is a situation-specific trait based on existing deficits.
There are few published inventories with strong psychometric properties that assess
test anxiety. Only one specific instrument, the Test Anxiety Profile, is reviewed in the Men-
tal Measurements Yearbook, and the reviews suggest extreme caution in using this instru-
ment. Other instruments, such as the Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI) and the Test Anxiety
Scale for Children (TASC), are available from various publishers, but we also suggest cau-
tion in using these inventories. The TAI consists of 20 items in which respondents are
asked to report how frequently they experience specific symptoms of anxiety before, dur-
ing, and after examinations using a 4-point scale from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always).
The TASC is a 30-item instrument that assesses test anxiety, remote school concerns, poor
self-evaluation, and somatic signs of anxiety.
Students should be motivated to do their best on tests but should not be made anx-
ious. Sometimes, however, pressure comes not from the counselor or teacher but from the
parents. Currently in our educational system, tests have assumed too much importance in
some states. They are used as the sole criterion to judge whether a student should be pro-
moted to the next grade or allowed to move from one level to another. Counselors should
consider these strategies in test administration:
1. Make sure students understand test instructions; check with them, asking whether
they understand. In a group test, circulate around the room to see if students are fol-
lowing directions and recording their answers properly.
352 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

2. Establish rapport and an environment that is as relaxed and stress-free as possible.

Before the test, create a learning-oriented environment. Students may need to be
taught more effective study habits and may need more time to prepare for tests. Tests
can be an interesting learning experience as well as a motivational one. At test time,
be friendly and positive, but follow standardized procedures. Ensure that students
have the proper physical facilities, space to work, proper lighting, adequate ventila-
tion, and so on.
3. To remove some of the pressure from major tests and exams, conduct group or class
sessions on how to take a test, give the students practice tests, and provide a list of
guidebooks and study guides that are available for an upcoming test.

Relaxation exercises are often used in reducing test anxiety. The object of relaxation
exercises is to help students practice mind calming. The following is an example of what a
counselor might say before a test:

Sit down and get very comfortable. Close your eyes and take a deep breath.
Exhale and let your body and mind relax completely. Breathe in again, and as
you breathe out, feel even more relaxed. Forget about everything except what I
am saying. Listen carefully. Continue to breathe deeply and slowly. You should
begin to feel more and more relaxed.
You are sitting in a lounge chair on the beach. It is not too warm or too
cold. The temperature is just right. Everything is very peaceful and pleasant.
You see the waves coming onto the beach. They are a beautiful blue, and the
sun is a brilliant yellow. You feel nice and warm and relaxed all over. Take a
deep breath in the nice clear air. You lose track of time. The sky becomes a
deeper blue.
Now that you are relaxed, think positively of yourself. Say, “I can remem-
ber all I need to know on the test.” Say it several times. Say, “I will know the
right answers.” Say, “I am alert; my mind is powerful.”

Summary
Assessment instruments and strategies are used or coordinate an entire assessment program.
extensively throughout children’s educational Counselors need knowledge about the process
experience and play a major role in their life of designing school assessment programs, the
decisions, ranging from grade promotion and various types of assessment instruments and
graduation to college admission and entry into strategies used, and the assessment activities
certain vocational or educational training pro- they will most often engage in. They should also
grams. School counselors play an active role in be aware of other assessment-related issues in
school assessment programs and may adminis- education, such as assessing giftedness, assess-
ter, score, and interpret various assessment ing learning disabilities, test preparation and
instruments; communicate assessment results to performance, environmental assessment, and
students, parents, teachers, and administrators; high-stakes testing.
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 353

Questions for Discussion

1. Study Figure 14.1, a sample school assessment 5. Should counselors and teachers make sure that
program. What tests would you add or drop? sessions on test-taking skills are conducted prior
Why? to all major examinations? Why or why not?
2. Should intelligence tests be given to students 6. Do you think that anxiety plays a significant role
every 2 to 3 years along with achievement tests? in test performance? Should we try to assess anx-
Why or why not? Should all students be required iety before and during testing situations? Why or
to take some type of personality test, such as the why not?
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator? Why or why not? 7. Teachers may feel that they are under tremen-
3. Describe Response to Intervention, and explain dous pressure because of achievement testing.
why it is important for students with learning They may dislike the standardized achievement
disabilities. test used in their state because it does not meas-
4. Do you agree with the view that the ability- ure what they are teaching. In such a situation,
achievement discrepancy model is a wait-to-fail what steps should the district administrators take
approach? Explain your response. to gain the support of district teachers?

Suggested Activities
1. Interview a school counselor to find out what which he is applying. He says, “I don’t have time to
tests are part of that school’s assessment pro- go to the test prep sessions at school. It’s just an apti-
gram. Report your findings to the class or in a tude test, and either I have it or I don’t.”
written paper. a. Do you agree with Kent?
2. Write a position paper on one of the issues related b. What approach would you use to help him?
to school assessment programs.
3. Prepare an annotated bibliography of sources to
help an individual prepare to take one of the Case of Letitia
major college admissions tests. Letitia, a high school senior, is taking an honors
4. Administer a test designed to measure test anxi- class in chemistry. She has a 3.0 grade point aver-
ety, and discuss the results with the class. age on a 4-point system. Whenever she has a test
5. Read the following brief cases and answer the in class, she becomes nauseous and faints. She does
questions at the end of each. not report the same feeling when she takes tests in
other courses.
Case of Kent
a. What do you think is Letitia’s problem?
Kent needs to take the SAT to complete his file so that b. What approach would you use to help her?
he can be considered for admission to the college for

References
Adrianzen, C. A. (2010). A critical examination of equity American Educational Research Association (AERA).
issues associated with the implementation of the Title III (2000). AERA position statement on high-stakes test-
components of the No Child Left Behind Act on bilin- ing in pre-k–12 education. Retrieved from http://
gual students. (70), ProQuest Information & Learn- www.aera.net/?id=378
ing, US. Retrieved from http://libproxy.lamar American Educational Research Association (AERA),
.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com American Psychological Association (APA), &
/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010- National Council on Measurement in Education
99011-429&site=ehost-live Available from EBSCO- (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psy-
host psyh database. chological testing. Washington, DC: Authors.
354 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education

American School Counselor Association (ASCA). & school reform (pp. 57–74). Thousand Oaks, CA:
(2012). The ASCA national model: A framework for Corwin Press.
school counseling programs (23rd ed.). Alexandria, Maras, M. A., Coleman, S. L., Gysbers, N. C., H ­ erman,
VA: Author. K. C., & Stanley, B. (2013). Measuring evaluation
American School Counselor Association (ASCA) & competency among school counselors. Counseling
Association for Assessment in Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 4(2), 99–111.
(AACE). (2000). Competencies in assessment and McCarthy, C., Van Horn Kerne, V., Calfa, N. A., Lam-
evaluation for school counselors. Alexandria, VA: bert, R. G., & Guzmán, M. (2010). An exploration
Author. of school counselors’ demands and resources:
Caldwell, J. S. (2008). Reading assessment: A primer for Relationship to stress, biographic, and caseload
teachers and coaches (2nd ed.). New York, NY: characteristics. Professional School Counseling,
­Guilford. 13(3), 146–158.
Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2014). National National Association for Gifted Children. (2008). Def-
surveys of gifted programs: Executive summary. Char- initions of giftedness. Retrieved from http://www.
lotesville, VA: University of Virginia. nagc.org/index.aspx?id=574
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of National Association of State Directors of Special
learning disabilities: Facts, trends, and emerging issues Education’s IDEA Partnership. (2007). Dialogue
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: National Center for guides: What is the IQ-achievement discrepancy
Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http:// model? Alexandria, VA: Author.
www.ncld.org/types-learning-disabilities/what- National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities
is-ld/state-of-learning-disabilities (NJCLD). (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and
Dahir, C. A., & Stone, C. (2011). The transformed school learning disabilities. Retrieved from http://www
counselor. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. .ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld#reports
Decker, S. L., Hale, J. B., & Flanagan, D. P. (2013). Pro- Nelson, P. M., Demers, J. A., & Christ, T. J. (2014).
fessional practice issues in the assessment of cog- The Responsive Environmental Assessment for
nitive functioning for educational applications. Classroom Teaching (REACT): The dimensional-
Psychology in the Schools, 50(3), 300–313. ity of student perceptions of the instructional
Ekstrom, R. B., Elmore, P. B., Schafer, W. D., Trotter, environment. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2),
T. V., & Webster, B. (2004). A survey of assessment 182–197.
and evaluation activities of school counselors. Pro- Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan,
fessional School Counseling, 8, 24–30. C. M., Hartman, R. K., Westberg, K. L., . . . Sytsma,
Frey, A. J., Mandlawitz, M., & Alvarez, M. E. (2012). R. E. (2010). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Charac-
Leaving NCLB behind. Children & Schools, 34(2), teristics of Superior Students: Technical and adminis-
67–69. tration manual. (Rev ed.). Mansfield Center, CT:
Grabmeier, J. (2006, August 7). SAT test prep tools give Creative Learning Press, Inc.
advantage to students from wealthier families. Retrieved Simmonds, E. P. M., Luchow, J. P., Kaminsky, S., &
from http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive Cottone, V. (1989). Applying cognitive learning
/satprep.htm strategies in the classroom: A collaborative
Hardison, C. M., & Sackett, P. R. (2008). Use of writ- training institute. Learning Disabilities Focus, 4,
ing samples on standardized tests: Susceptibility 96–105.
to rule-based coaching and the resulting effects on No Child Left Behind Act. (2004). P.L. 107–110 (Title
score improvement. Applied Measurement in Educa- IX, Part A, Definition 22, 2002); 20 USC 7801(22).
tion, 21(3), 227–252. Ott, E. M. (2007). Schools Left Behind: Statistical Issues
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A the- with NCLB (No Child Left Behind). ProQuest.
ory of vocational personalities and work environments Sink, C. A. (2009). School counselors as accountabil-
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ity leaders: Another call for action. Professional
Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N. K., & Snow, C. E. (2008). School Counseling, 13(2), 68–74.
Promises and pitfalls: Implications of NCLB for Sommer, M., & Arendasy, M. E. (2014). Comparing
identifying, assessing, and educating English lan- different explanations of the effect of test anxi-
guage learners. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding ety on respondents’ test scores. Intelligence, 42,
NCLB accountable: Achieving, accountability, equity, 115–127.
 Chapter 14  •  Assessment in Education 355

Strong, M., Gargani, J., & Hacifazlioğlu, Ö. (2011). Do ­ ashington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
W
we know a successful teacher when we see one? Office.
Experiments in the identification of effective VanCise, S. A. (2014). A descriptive study of the
teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, doi: impact of the highly qualified teacher require-
10.1177/0022487110390221 ment of NCLB on the attrition of special education
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Think- personnel. Dissertation Abstracts International Sec-
ing, figural form A. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Test- tion A, 74.
ing Service. Young, A., & Kaffenberger, C. (2011). The beliefs
Trickett, E., & Moos, R. (1995). Classroom Environment and practices of school counselors who use data
Scale manual (3rd ed.) Redwood City, CA: Mind to implement comprehensive school counseling
Garden. programs. Professional School Counseling, 15(2),
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). National excel- 67–76.
lence: A case for developing America’s youth.
 CHAPTER

15 Assessment Issues
with Diverse Populations

Fairness in testing is an essential component of the Standards for Educational and Psychologi-
cal Testing. According to the AERA et al. standards (American Educational Research Asso-
ciation (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on
Measurement in Education (NCME), 2014), the concept of fairness to all test takers is foun-
dational to the assessment process and deserves specific attention and evaluation. Fairness
in testing is a complex construct that includes issues related to measurement bias, acces-
sibility, universal design, responsiveness to individual characteristics and testing contexts,
treatment during the testing process, access to constructs being measured, and validity of
individual test score interpretation for the intended test uses (AERA et al., 2014). Counse-
lors who conduct assessment must do so with consideration of the characteristics of diverse
subgroups of people (e.g., race, gender, ability, language).
Cultural competence is critical for all professional counselors. Thus, counseling
professionals who use assessment strive to ensure fair and equitable treatment of diverse
populations. Diverse populations can be defined as “persons who differ by race, ethnic-
ity, culture, language, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ability” (Association
for Assessment in Counseling (AAC), 2003). In this chapter, we will divide our discus-
sion of assessing diverse populations into two sections: (1) multicultural assessment,
which will refer to the competencies required for assessing individuals from various
cultural groups that are distinguished by race, ethnicity, age, language, gender, sexual
orientation, religious or spiritual orientation, and other cultural dimensions, and (2)
assessment of individuals with disabilities, which will center on the competencies and
standards necessary for assessing individuals with significant limitations in physical or
cognitive functioning.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Define multicultural assessment.
JJ List and describe the major sources of test bias.
JJ Describe the issues involving the use of standardized tests with diverse populations,

including psychometric properties, administration and scoring procedures, and test

use and interpretation.
JJ Describe assessment issues related to test-taker and examiner bias.

JJ Describe ethical principles and other issues relevant to multicultural assessment.

356
 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations 357

JJ Define disability, and explain standards for assessing individuals with disabling
conditions.
JJ Describe assessment issues for individuals with visual impairments, hearing

impairments, intellectual disabilities, communication disorders, and other disorders.

Multicultural Assessment
Cultural diversity among the U.S. population continues to grow. In 2014, the U.S. Census
Bureau reported that as many as one-third of the total 31,600 million U.S. residents now
claim “minority” heritage. Undoubtedly, counselors and other helping professionals will
work with individuals with differing cultural backgrounds, customs, traditions, and val-
ues. As such, counselors need to be prepared to work with individuals from diverse back-
grounds and must recognize and appreciate the differences that exist among people and
clients. Multicultural assessment refers to competencies and standards necessary for assess-
ing individuals who differ on various aspects of cultural identity, such as race, ethnicity,
age, language, gender, sexual orientation, religious or spiritual orientation, and other cul-
tural dimensions. Each cultural dimension has unique issues and concerns. Thus, to be
effective, counselors must possess a depth of knowledge concerning the culture of clients
as well as an awareness of available resources for acquiring information about persons of
diverse cultures (Huey, Tilley, Jones, & Smith, 2014).
Standardized tests are frequently used in the assessment process, and many profes-
sionals rely on the scores of standardized tests to make important decisions or inferences
about a client. Nonetheless, the use of standardized tests has been criticized for being
biased and unfair for use with diverse populations. Multicultural assessment focuses on
the extent to which assessment instruments and procedures are appropriate, fair, and use-
ful for accurately describing abilities and other traits in individuals from a given culture.
We will focus our discussion on several issues pertinent to using standardized tests in
multicultural assessment, including test bias, psychometric considerations, test-taker fac-
tors, examiner bias, etic and emic perspectives, and acculturation.

Measurement Bias
According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014), one
of the principal threats to fairness is measurement bias. There are two primary compo-
nents of measurement bias: accessibility and universal design. These two components of
measurement bias are evolutions of concepts from earlier versions of test standards. The
concept of accessibility relates to the extent to which all individuals are given an equal
chance to demonstrate their capabilities or level of functioning during the assessment pro-
cess. For example, imagine that a client who speaks English as a second language is taking
the MMPI-2-RF as part of your clinical assessment process. It would be difficult to use the
results of the assessment instrument to accurately formulate a diagnosis if the client was
not proficient enough in English to fully understand the questions.
Universal design is purposeful test design aimed at maximizing accessibility for the
population of intended test takers. The process of universal design involves a test devel-
oper giving consideration to the various processes that may impede access to a test and
attempting to minimize any challenges that may be related to those processes. More sim-
ply stated, test developers must put themselves in the shoes of test takers and imagine the
358 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations

various facets of a test that might block performance unnecessarily. For example, imagine
that you are taking a scenario-based exam aimed at evaluating your ability to accurately
diagnose an individual client. In the exam, you are given a case study and a time limit of
20 minutes to arrive at a diagnosis. What relevance does 20 minutes have to the ability to
diagnose? Is a 20-minute time limit part of competency in diagnosis, or does the time limit
create construct-irrelevant variance (i.e., an incorrect inflation or deflation of test scores
due to measurement error)?
When some aspect of an assessment instrument does not allow for accessibility or is
not designed for universal access, the instrument is viewed as being biased. Measurement
bias can be defined as “construct underrepresentation or construct-irrelevant components
of tests that differentially affect the performance of different groups of test takers and con-
sequently the reliability/precision and validity of interpretations and uses of their test
scores” (AERA et al., 2014, p. 216). In other words, a test is labeled as biased when indi-
viduals with the same ability perform differently on the test because of their affiliation
with a particular group. It’s important to note that test bias is not the same as group differ-
ences; groups that differ on test results in a way that is consistent with the research is evi-
dence of the validity of test results (e.g., individuals with depression scoring higher on the
Beck Depression Inventory). Fairness in measurement is a new way of conceptualizing
measurement bias. According to AERA et al., fairness in measurement quality can be
examined from three different perspectives: fairness as the lack or absence of measurement
bias, fairness as access to the construct being measured, and fairness as validity of the indi-
vidual test score interpretation.

Fairness as the lack or absence of measurement bias  Do groups perform differently

when examining patterns of relationships between test scores and other variables? If so,
the phenomenon is called differential prediction or predictive bias. This is a primary question
when considering fairness in light of measurement bias. In practice, this means that profes-
sional counselors must look not only at a summary of the psychometric data when evaluat-
ing a test but also the research on the test related to group performance and potential for
bias. For example, imagine that you are asked to determine an appropriate test to measure
the potential for success in technical school. However, when examining the research on
this instrument, you discover that women have patterns of lower scores in relation to auto
mechanics, plumbing, or other stereotypically masculine activities. You must then deter-
mine if there is a potential for measurement bias in this case and if this would be a fair
measurement for your particular needs. The question in this case is whether or not the
scores provide an inaccurate prediction for success in technical school simply because of
group membership (e.g., gender).
Another aspect of fairness in relation to measurement bias is differential item functioning
(DIF), or the difference in scores on particular items by examinees of equal ability who are
members of different groups (commonly gender or ethnicity). Differential item functioning
occurs if items are interpreted differently by members of different groups. In order to avoid
DIF, test designers should include words in general use, not words and expressions associ-
ated with particular disciplines, groups, or geographic locations. If evidence of item bias is
apparent, then flagged items are further scrutinized, and a subjective determination is made
as to whether DIF is occurring (Suzuki & Ponterotto, 2008). For example, imagine an IQ test
with the following question aimed at examining fund of knowledge: “What is a toboggan?”
Although some of you who live in New England may recognize the term as a type of snow
 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations 359

sled, others from Tennessee or Appalachia may consider the term as a type of knit cap. Still
others from Arizona may have never been exposed to the term. Performance on this item
may simply be a result of geographic differences rather than intelligence.
If a test is full of items that result in different groups of equal standing having overall
differences in test scores, then there may be bias related to differential test functioning.
This type of bias may also result from a lack of clarity of test instructions or from faulty
scoring procedures. For example, for non-English-speaking individuals, the failure to per-
form on a task may simply be the result of not understanding test directions.

Fairness in Access to the Construct as Measured  When examining a test for fairness,
it is important to determine if the population for which the test is intended has equal
opportunity to access the construct being measured. Measurement bias can occur when
the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to access the test differ from those being meas-
ured in the test. For example, imagine that a state mandates the use of the paper-and-
pencil version of the MMPI-2 for determination of fitness for the death penalty in a capital
murder case. Having reviewed the MMPI-2 in Chapter 12, you might see this as a reason-
able measure considering the amount of research available, the scales that measure malin-
gering, and the level of training involved in accurate interpretation of scores. However, the
reading level of the MMPI-2 is fifth grade, and many individuals on death row are consid-
ered illiterate. Providing an audio version of the instrument might result in a more valid
picture of personality than the paper-and-pencil version.

Fairness as Validity of Individual Test Score Interpretation  Examiners need to recog-

nize personal bias and how it may influence interpretation of results. Reducing examiner
bias requires treating each individual with dignity and respect and pursuing the best inter-
ests of the examinee. For example, imagine a counselor education program that enrolls an
international student who speaks English as a second language and is interested in becom-
ing a professional counselor in his or her home country. Would it be a fair comparison to
examine that individual’s scores on a comprehensive exam in English and to compare
those scores to individuals whose primary language is English? Because English profi-
ciency is not the construct being measured on this exam, the correct procedure in this situ-
ation would be for the counselor education program to administer the test in such a way
as to minimize the language barrier. One strategy might be to provide a dictionary and

FIGURE 15.1   Equal vs. fair.

360 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations

additional time. It is important to note that there are many other accommodations that
could be made to increase fairness in the interpretation of test scores in this scenario. The
key is for testing coordinators to consider these factors and to take appropriate steps to
increase fairness.
Baruth and Manning (2011) identified several barriers to effective multicultural coun-
seling that may be applied to the issue of examiner bias:
1. Differences in class and cultural values between counselor and client.
2. Language differences between counselor and client.
3. The counselor believes stereotypes about culturally different people.
4. The counselor fails to understand his or her own culture.
5. Lack of counselor understanding about the client’s reluctance and resistance in
counseling.
6. Lack of understanding of the client’s worldviews.
7. Labeling cultural groups as mentally ill when their behaviors vary from so-called
norms.
8. Expecting all clients to conform to the counselor’s cultural standards and expectations.
In addition, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014)
explain that in educational, clinical, and counseling situations, test users should not
attempt to evaluate test takers whose special characteristics—such as age, disability, or
linguistic, generational, or cultural backgrounds—are outside the range of their academic
training or supervised experience.

Multicultural Perspectives in Assessment

Fairness is a key component of the standards for educational and psychological testing
(AERA et al., 2014). It is impossible to fully review the nature of fairness in assessment
without paying specific attention to multicultural issues. Many of the legal issues in assess-
ment have been related to fairness and culture (e.g., Larry P. v. Riles, Diana v. State Board of
Education, Griggs v. Duke Power). In order to illustrate the interrelatedness of assessment
and culture, we review some common principles (i.e., etic and emic perspectives). The etic
perspective emphasizes the universal qualities among human beings by examining a phe-
nomenon that has common meaning across cultures. The emic perspective is culture specific
and examines behavior from within a culture, using criteria relative to the internal charac-
teristics of that culture (Kelley, Bailey, & Brice, 2014).
From the etic perspective, assessment involves comparing individuals’ scores to
those of a norming group and comparing different individuals from different cultures on
a construct assumed to be universal across all cultures. Dana (2005) included as etic meas-
ures a broad spectrum of instruments to measure psychopathology, personality measures,
and major tests of intelligence and cognitive functioning. Included as etic personality
measures are the California Psychological Inventory and the Eysenck Personality Ques-
tionnaire. Included in the intelligence or cognitive functioning area are the Wechsler Intel-
ligence Scales, the System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment, the Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children, the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities, and the Stanford–Binet
Intelligence Scale. Other single-construct tests for identification of psychopathology are
the State-Trait Anxiety Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Michigan A ­ lcoholism
 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations 361

Screening Test. The MMPI is also on this list; it has been translated into 150 languages and
has reported applications in 50 countries. The other tests listed have also been translated
into other languages, mainly Spanish.
Emic methods include behavior observations, case studies, studies of life events, pic-
ture story techniques, inkblot techniques, word association, sentence-completion items,
and drawings. Most of these methods are classified as projective. These tests can provide a
personality description of the individual that reflects the data and mirrors the culture and
ethnic group (Dana, 2005). The analysis requires the examiner to have more knowledge of
the culture but aids the understanding of the individual in a cultural context. Thematic
Apperception Test versions include the Tell Me a Story Test, designed for Spanish-speaking
populations, and the Thompson Modification of the Thematic Apperception Test, a 10-card ver-
sion of the TAT for African Americans. Sentence-completion methods have also been used,
and items can be designed to assess the social norms, roles, and values of clients from dif-
ferent cultures. Here are examples of some of the items:
The thing I like most about America is ____________________________________.
Anglos ________________________________________________________________.
If I could be from another culture or ethnic group, __________________________.

Acculturation
The degree of acculturation to the dominant society and the extent to which the original
culture has been retained provide valuable information in interpreting assessment results.
Assessing acculturation can help assessment professionals understand the unique chal-
lenges and transformations experienced by racial and ethnic minorities exposed to a new
culture (Zhang & Tsai, 2014). An examiner can get an idea of whether the client is identify-
ing with a culture of origin rather than with the dominant Anglo-American culture by
asking questions such as those shown in Figure 15.2. In addition, several instruments are
available that evaluate cultural and racial identity, including the following:
• Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA-II)
• African American Acculturation Scale (AAAS)
• The East Asian Acculturation Measure (EAAM)
• Bicultural Involvement Questionnaire (BIQ)
• Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS)
• Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM)
• Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS)

Strategies
Because each client is unique, the examiner needs to be alert to important behavioral signals
during the assessment process. Certain behaviors may affect the reliability and validity of
the assessment procedure. Appropriate examiner responses are summarized in Table 15.1.

Assessment of Linguistically Diverse Individuals

Demographic data clearly show that the number of individuals from diverse linguistic
backgrounds in the U.S. is increasing. In 2011, nearly 20% of U.S. residents ages 5 and older
362 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations

1. What is your country of origin?

2. What was your reason for coming to the United States?
3. How long have you been in the United States?
4. Was any parent, grandparent, or relative in this country before you came?
5. What language do you speak in your home?
6. What languages can you speak? How well?
7. Is your family in the United States?
8. Do you have friends from your country here?
9. Are there people from your country living near you?
10. Where do you live? A house, apartment, room?
11. What education or schooling did you complete?
12. Are you currently going to school or taking classes somewhere?
13. Are you currently working? Where? What do you do on the job?
14. What type of work did you do before coming to this country?
15. Have you had any problems since coming here?
16. Have you had any conflicts on the job, at school, or at home?
17. What kind of problems have you had adjusting to life in the United States?

FIGURE 15.2   Questions for assessing acculturation.

spoke a language other than English (Ryan, 2013). Because the diversity of language is now
becoming a clear trend in the United States, it is imperative that U.S.-based assessment
practices include a more global perspective and attend to language-based issues in the
assessment process.
Tests written in English may become tests of language proficiency for these individu-
als, rather than measures of other constructs. Of course, it is sometimes important and
necessary to have tests that measure English proficiency—especially for educational
assessment and placement. Tests not meant to measure proficiency in English are some-
times translated into the appropriate native language. However, there may be problems in
translation, and the content and words might not be appropriate or meaningful to the
group being tested.
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014) includes
several standards relating to the testing of linguistically diverse populations. A number of
standards are intended primarily for the test authors and publishers, but should be taken
into consideration by the test user. If the test is modified for individuals with limited Eng-
lish proficiency, then the changes should be presented in the manual. The reliability and
validity of the test for the intended linguistic group are also important. If two versions of
dual-language tests exist, then evidence of the comparability of the forms should be
included. The Standards also caution users not to require a greater level of English profi-
ciency for the test than the job or profession requires—a significant concern in developing
and selecting employment, certification, and licensing examinations. Another standard
cautions test users to not judge English-language proficiency on the basis of test informa-
tion alone. Many language skills are not adequately measured by multiple-choice exami-
nations. The examiner needs to use observation techniques and perhaps informal checklists
to assess proficiency more completely.
 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations 363

TABLE 15.1  Critical Behavior Indicators and Possible Examiner Responses

Behavior Response
Is silent Establish rapport. Give nonverbal and performance test first,
get other indexes of individual behavior.
Says “don’t know” Don’t assume client cannot respond.
Is shy and reserved; lowers eyes Observe client in other situations, spend time establishing
rapport, start with nonverbal and untimed tests, provide
reinforcement, try to motivate client.
Uses wit or popular language Be firm and positive; be sure examinee knows why the test
or instrument is being given.
Interrupts the test or asks questions Be firm, but allow some dialogue; be sure the examinee
knows the purpose of the test.
Is inattentive and restless Structure test environment; keep examinee involved.
Is uncertain about how to respond Rephrase question; make meaning clear.
Watches the examiner rather than Be firm; be sure questions are clear; be sure there are no
listening to the questions distractions in test situation. If the responses are inappropri-
ate, question further.
Performs poorly on timed tests Recognize a culture not oriented to the value of time; avoid
drawing conclusions about individual performance until
untimed measures have been tried.
Shows poor knowledge of Try other ways of measuring the examinee’s expressive
­vocabulary vocabulary; question individual in primary language.
Is unmotivated to take test Explain purpose and value of test to client and family; try
techniques to motivate client performance.
Scores poorly on information items Recognize that some items might be biased and not a
part of the examinee’s culture; ask examinee to clarify any
­unusual responses.
Is afraid of embarrassing or Initiate test-wise session, practice session, or some type of
­dishonoring family warm up.
Is quiet and does not ask questions Establish rapport; explain examiner’s role and purpose of the
or interact test; ask client to repeat the question if no answer is given
or the answer is inappropriate.
Is afraid of a male examiner Observe examinee; establish rapport before testing.

Assessment of Individuals With Disabilities

More than 56 million Americans (19% of the population) report some level of disability
(Brault, 2012). A disability, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), is “a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity” (U.S.C. Title
42 Chapter 126 Section 12102 [2]). The American Association on Intellectual and Develop-
mental Disabilities (AAIDD) further elaborates that a disability “should be considered
within the context of the individual’s environmental and personal factors, and the need for
individualized supports” (2008, p. 2). The Individuals with Disabilities Education
364 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations

TABLE 15.2  IDEA Disability Categories for Children

1. Autism 8. Orthopedic impairment
2. Deaf-blindness 9. Other health impairment
3. Deafness 10. Specific learning disability
4. Emotional disturbance 11. Speech or language impairment
5. Hearing impairment 12. Traumatic brain injury
6. Mental retardation 13. Visual impairment, including blindness
7. Multiple disabilities

I­mprovement Act of 2004 (IDEA) lists 13 specific disability categories under which chil-
dren may qualify for special education and related services (see Table 15.2).
Although not listed in the IDEA disability categories, the term developmental ­disabilities
is widely used to describe a diverse group of severe, lifelong disabilities attributable to
mental and/or physical impairments, which manifest prior to age 22. People with devel-
opmental disabilities have problems with major life activities, such as language, mobility,
learning, self-care, and independent living. Autism, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, intellec-
tual disabilities, and vision impairment are examples of developmental disabilities.
Assessment of individuals with disabilities is conducted for a variety of reasons: to
diagnose or determine the existence of disability, to determine intervention plans, for place-
ment or selection decisions, and/or for monitoring performance in an educational setting
(AERA et al., 2014). With regard to ability/disability assessment, instruments are often
designed to measure skills that should be mastered at certain stages across the life span:
• Communication Skills  Verbal and nonverbal, receptive and expressive, listening
and comprehension
• Cognitive Skills  Reasoning, thinking, memory; basic achievement in reading, writ-
ing, and mathematics; problem solving
• Physical Development  General growth; motor and sensory; balance, locomotion,
walking
• Emotional Development  Temperament, adjustment, emotional expression, self-­
concept, attitudes
• Social Development  Peer and family relationships, friendships, interpersonal rela-
tionships
• Self-Care Skills  Basic self-care needs, such as drinking, eating, toileting, dressing
• Independent Living Skills  Functioning independently in the home and community,
including clothing care, cooking, transportation, shopping, money management
• Work Habits and Adjustment Skills  Working independently, maintaining proper
work habits, working with employers and employees, seeking and keeping jobs
• Adjustment Problems  Aggression, hyperactivity, acting out, withdrawal, delin-
quency, stress, depression
A major issue in assessing individuals with disabilities concerns the use of accom-
modations or modifications that minimize the impact of the individual’s attributes that are
not relevant to the construct that is being measured. Most assessment instruments are
designed for use with the general population and may not be appropriate for use with
 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations 365

individuals with specific disabilities. For example, a person who is blind and reads only
Braille cannot complete a traditional written exam. Thus, modification of tests and test
administration procedures is necessary to make an accurate assessment. Examples of test-
modification strategies include the following (AERA et al., 2014):
• Modifying the presentation form
• Modifying the response format
• Modifying timing
• Modifying test setting
• Using only portions of a test
• Using substitute or alternate tests
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014) established sev-
eral standards for instruments designed to assess people with disabling conditions. Test
developers are required to have psychometric expertise and experience in working with
individuals with disabilities, and test publishers should caution examiners about the use
and interpretation of the test with clients with special needs until it has been fully vali-
dated. Test developers should conduct pilot tests on people who have similar disabilities
to check on the appropriateness and feasibility of test modifications and should include a
careful statement of steps taken to modify the test so that users will be able to identify any
changes that may alter its validity. They should use empirical procedures to establish time
limits for modified forms and explore the effects of fatigue. They also should provide
validity and reliability information on the modified forms and on the unmodified forms.
Clearly, it is important for test users to study the test manual and evaluate the techni-
cal information to determine whether the modifications are valid and reliable for the group
in question. In addition, practitioners working with clients who have special needs should
know what alternate tests and methods are available and appropriate for these persons.
Those who are interpreting the test results need to know which set of norms should be
used. Regular norms are used when the examiner needs to compare the test performance
of the individual with disabilities with that of the general population. Special norms are
appropriate when the examiner is looking at how the individual performs in relation to
peers with the same disabling condition.

Assessment of Individuals with Visual Impairment

Visual impairment may be caused by injury or disease that reduces the individual’s central
vision, accommodation, binocular vision, peripheral vision, or color vision. The impair-
ment affects normal patterns of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor development.
Assessment professionals assess individuals with visual impairments by using instru-
ments to meet their needs, such as tests with large-print versions, Braille forms, and forms
on audio recorders. Because many tests have not been normed on those with visual impair-
ments, assessment professionals must pay close attention to fairness in terms of measure-
ment bias, access, and interpretation. Steer, Gale, and Gentle (2007) highlighted the
complexity of test accommodations for those individuals with visual disorders. According
to the researchers, accommodations for individuals with visual impairment fall into five
broad categories:
• Presentation related
• Time related
366 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations

• Setting related
• Response related
• Aids related
Counselors who conduct assessment on individuals who experience some form of
visual impairment must become familiar with the various accommodations that are related
to each category. For example, many assessment instruments have audio recorded materi-
als for administration to those with visual impairment. Providing an audio presentation
would make an appropriate accommodation. As another example, consider a student who
is completing an online program in counselor education and must take exams as part of
the training program. It may be an appropriate accommodation to provide the individual
with a screen reader.
Determining appropriate accommodations in the assessment process is a critical ele-
ment of fairness in testing. However, a more appropriate path is to select a test that is
normed on the population for which it is intended. There are specialized tests available for
assessing children and adults with visual impairments. The Hill Performance Test of
Selected Positional Concepts measures the spatial concepts of children aged 6 to 10 with
visual impairments. The Reynell–Zinkin Scales provide a profile of six areas for children
up to 5 years old: social adaptation, sensorimotor, exploration of environment, response to
sound/verbal comprehension, expressive language, and nonverbal communication.

Assessment of Individuals with Hearing Impairment

Individuals differ in their degree of hearing impairment as well as the age of onset of the
impairment. Audiologists screen individuals with hearing losses that range from mild to
profound; such losses can be caused by a number of factors. Normally, examinees with
hearing deficits have had a pattern of delayed speech and language development and
problems in social development.
During the assessment process, individuals with hearing impairments need inter-
preters who sign the instructions and items for them. Some tests have DVDs or videos with
the directions and items presented in sign language. Examiners must be careful in reaching
conclusions during observations. Individuals who exhibit behavior characteristic of peo-
ple with learning disabilities, behavior disorders, or intellectual disabilities may be suffer-
ing from a hearing loss that leads to those similar behaviors. Simeonsson (1986) identified
three major purposes of assessment of individuals with hearing impairments:
1. To assess the cognitive competency and achievement discrepancy
2. To assess the cognitive and linguistic discrepancy
3. To assess personal and social functioning
Many individual differences exist within this group, and it is important to take into
consideration both the etiology of the impairment and the developmental history of the
individual. The following guidelines pertain to assessment of individuals with hearing
impairments:
• Be sure that any individual with problems speaking or understanding spoken lan-
guage has a hearing evaluation.
• Keep the test environment controlled and free from distraction; an individual with a
mild hearing loss may be distracted by extraneous noise.
 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations 367

• Avoid visual distractions, especially if the examinee is reading lips.

• If necessary, have an interpreter help communicate with the examinee.
• Allow the interpreter and the person with a hearing impairment to arrange seating to
enhance the lines of communication.
• Have more than one assessment approach to measure the construct in question.
Sattler and Hoge (2006) recommended assessing adaptive behavior of all students
with disabilities or suspected disabilities along with observations conducted in different
settings.

Assessment of Individuals with Intellectual Disability

Intellectual disability is a developmental disability characterized by significant limitations in
intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and
practical adaptive skills; the disability originates before the age of 18 (Luckasson et al.,
2010, p. 1). The term intellectual disability is currently preferred to what historically has
been referred to as “mental retardation” (AAIDD, 2008). In a child, intellectual disability
can be caused by injury, disease, or a brain abnormality, which can happen before a child
is born or during childhood. For many children, the cause of their intellectual disability is
not known. Some of the most commonly known causes of intellectual disability occur
before birth, including Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome (a genetic syndrome), fetal
alcohol syndrome, infections, or birth defects. The symptoms of intellectual disability usu-
ally appear early in life. Children with the disorder tend to develop more slowly than
normal. They may learn to sit up, crawl, or walk later than other children, or take longer to
develop speech or have trouble speaking. Both adults and children with intellectual disa-
bility may experience one or more problems in the following areas: learning, communica-
tion, social skills, academic skills, vocational skills, and independent living.
To assess for an intellectual disability, instruments are used to evaluate two general
areas: (1) cognitive or intellectual ability and (2) adaptive behavior. Intelligence tests, such
as the Wechsler scales and the Stanford–Binet, are the primary instruments used to assess
intellectual ability. Limitations in intellectual ability are generally thought to be present if
a child has an IQ score of about 70 or below. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Men-
tal Disorders, Fifth Edition (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013) intellectual dis-
ability is divided into four levels of severity (based on intelligence test scores) indicating
the degree of intellectual impairment: mild, moderate, severe, or profound.
In contrast to earlier versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, intellectual dis-
ability is not identified solely by IQ score. Adaptive functioning is now a central component
in identifying the severity of the intellectual disability. Adaptive functioning refers to con-
ceptual, social, and practical skills that people have learned to be able to function in their
everyday lives. It can include such skill areas as communication, self-care, home living,
social or interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional aca-
demic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety (APA, 2013). Adaptive functioning is assessed
by using standardized tests, and a widely used instrument is the Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales (Vineland-II).

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition  The Vineland-II (Sparrow,

­ icchetti, & Balla, 2005) is an individually administered instrument that measures per-
C
sonal and social skills needed for everyday living. It was designed to identify individuals,
368 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations

from birth to age 90, who have intellectual disabilities, developmental delays, autism spec-
trum disorders, and other impairments. The instrument contains five domains, each with
two or three subdomains (see Table 15.3). The Vineland-II is available in four formats: a
Survey Interview Form, a Parent/Caregiver Rating Form, an Expanded Interview Form,
and a Teacher Rating Form. The instrument yields standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15),
V-scale scores (M = 15, SD = 3), percentile ranks, age equivalents, stanines, adaptive lev-
els (i.e., low, moderately low, adequate, moderately high, and high), and maladaptive
levels (i.e., average, elevated, clinically significant).

TABLE 15.3  Vineland-II: Domains and Subdomains

Domain Communication
Receptive Language How the individual listens and pays attention, and what he or
she understands
Expressive Language What the individual says, how he or she uses words and
­sentences to gather and provide information
Written Language What the individual understands about how letters make words,
and what he or she reads and writes
Domain Daily Living Skills
Personal How the individual eats, dresses, and practices personal hygiene
Domestic What household tasks the individual performs
Community How the individual uses time, money, the telephone, the
­computer, and job skills
Domain Socialization
Interpersonal Relationships How the individual interacts with others
Play and Leisure Time How the individual plays and uses leisure time
Coping Skills How the individual demonstrates responsibility and sensitivity
to others
Domain Motor Skills
Gross How the individual uses arms and legs for movement and
­coordination
Fine How the individual uses hands and fingers to manipulate objects
Maladaptive Behavior Domain (OPTIONAL)
Internalizing Behavior Examples: sad, avoids others, lacks energy, anxious or nervous,
sleeping and eating difficulties
Externalizing Behavior Examples: impulsive, defies authority, temper tantrums, lies,
physically aggressive, bullies
Other Examples: sucks thumb, wets bed, bites nails, runs away, ­truant,
uses drugs or alcohol

Source: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II). Copyright © 2008 by NCS
­Pearson, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.
 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations 369

Assessment of Individuals with Neuropsychological Impairment

A major assessment area related to intellectual disability is neuropsychological assessment,
which involves assessing for impairment caused by a brain injury or damage. A wide
variety of cognitive and intellectual abilities is typically assessed during a neuropsycho-
logical evaluation, including attention and concentration, learning and memory, sensory-
perceptual abilities, speech and language abilities, visuospatial skills (ability to perceive
spatial relationships among objects), overall intelligence, and executive functions. In
addition, psychomotor speed, strength, and coordination all would be addressed in some
fashion. Three well-known neuropsychological instruments are the Halstead–Reitan
Neuropsychological Test Battery, the Luria–Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery
(LNNB), and the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test, Second Edition (Bender-Gestalt
II).These tests are described in Chapter 13, Clinical Assessment.

Assessment of Individuals with Communication Disorders

Communication disorders are problems that affect an individual’s speech or language func-
tioning. They are among the most common disorders in childhood; approximately 40 mil-
lion people have communication disorders, and the cost of providing services for these
disorders can be up to $186 billion dollars annually (Tanner, 2007). Although the number
of individuals impacted by communication disorders is vast, there are limited services
available for these individuals (Roth, 2013). Speech disorders generally include problems
with producing speech sounds (articulation), controlling sounds that are produced (voice),
and controlling the rate and rhythm of speech (fluency). Language disorders include prob-
lems using proper forms of language, using the content of language (comprehension), and
with the use and functions of language (i.e., social conversational rules; Ysseldyke &
Algozzine, 2006). Communication disorders can result in significant problems in school,
work, and social functioning.
Speech-language pathologists are responsible for assessment of individuals with com-
munication disorders and may use a number of different assessment approaches. Psycholo-
gists and counselors testing these individuals may find that examinees are unable to say
words correctly or to formulate ideas according to accepted standards. Examiners need to
concentrate their attention on what these clients have to say and reward client efforts with
warmth and positive reinforcement. The following are some other good practices:
1. Demonstrate acceptance and positive regard for the client as an individual.
2. Try to remove any distracting stimuli from the testing environment.
3. Keep instructions and directions simple. Repeat or rephrase questions when
appropriate.
4. Be alert to facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice.
5. Allow the examinee to nod, point, or otherwise indicate the answer in a nonverbal
manner.

Assessment of Children with Disabilities

When children have the potential to have a disability, an accurate assessment process is
critical. In many cases, early assessment can impact the outcome of treatment and can help
design the appropriate treatments. We review assessment procedures for Autism S ­ pectrum
Disorders, ADHD, and general developmental disabilities. Counselors should note that
370 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations

assessment of children with special needs can be a difficult process. All counselors con-
ducting assessment should have supervision of their assessment practice until they gain
competence, but such supervision is especially important when working with children. In
order to be effective, counselors should also consider attending additional training for
each particular disorder.

Autism Spectrum Disorders  Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) include those disorders
characterized by impairment in several areas of development, including social interaction
skills, communication skills, or the presence of stereotyped behavior, interests, and activi-
ties. The revision to the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder in the DSM-5 now encom-
passes several specific disorders from the DSM-IV-TR (i.e., Rhett’s Disorder, Childhood
Disintegrative Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not
Otherwise Specified). Autism is a complex spectrum of symptoms that is usually evident
in the first years of life. One of the issues that makes diagnosis complex is that individuals
may range from gifted intelligence to some degree of cognitive impairment. Regardless of
intellectual functioning, children with ASDs display difficulties in the following areas:
1. Social Interaction  Appear aloof, want to spend more time alone than with others,
show little interest in making friends, and lack emotional reciprocity
2. Communication  Show a significant delay in or absence of speech
3. Repetitive Behaviors  Become intensely preoccupied with one toy or activity, or
engage in rituals or routines
4. Senses  Demonstrate extreme overreaction or underreaction to sensory (e.g., sight,
hearing, touch, smell, taste) information
Assessing children with an ASD should include, at minimum, a parent or caregiver inter-
view, a medical evaluation, direct behavioral observation, a cognitive assessment, and an
assessment of adaptive functioning (Sheperis, Mohr, & Ammons, 2014). No assessment
instrument or procedure can be used in isolation to make a diagnosis of autism, but the
combined use of evidence-based assessment methods is recommended. Formal assess-
ment instruments are often best for determining risk of autism rather than for making a
specific diagnosis. Examples of these instruments include the following:
• Autism Behavior Checklist (ABC)
• Autism Screening Instrument for Educational Planning, Third Edition (ASIEP-3)
• Autism Diagnostic Interview, Revised (ADI-R)
• Behavior Observation Scale for Autism (BOS)
• Childhood Autism Rating Scale, Second Edition (CARS-2)
• Gilliam Autism Rating Scale, Third Edition (GARS-3)

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder  Although its cause is unknown, attention-­

deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic condition that becomes apparent in some
children in preschool and the early school years, and the disorder can continue on to adult-
hood. Individuals with ADHD have problems with inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsiv-
ity. The assessment of ADHD requires multiple methods and multiple sources of information.
These include parent and child interviews, teacher and parent rating scales, direct observa-
tion, and school reports. Professionals who usually perform evaluations for ADHD are clin-
ical psychologists, school psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists, and pediatricians.
 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations 371

Behavior checklists and rating scales play a prominent role in assessment of children
with ADHD. They provide important information about a child’s behavior in different set-
tings and how it is judged by significant others (Hersen, 2006). Some checklists or rating
scales assess broad dimensions of child behavior but can be used to assess ADHD, includ-
ing the following:
• Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/6-18)
• Behavioral Assessment System for Children (BASC-2)
• Conner’s Rating Scales, Third Edition (Conners 3)
Checklists and rating scales that focus more narrowly on ADHD characteristics or symp-
toms include the following:
• ADHD Symptom Rating Scale (ADHD-SRS)
• Attention Deficit Disorder Evaluation Scale (ADDES-2)
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Rating Scale (AD/HD-RS-IV)
• Barkley Home Situation Questionnaire (HSQ-R)
• Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior (SWAN)
• Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale (SNAP-IV)
• Development and Well Being Assessment (DAWBA)
• Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV)

Developmental Delays  Developmental delay is a term that means a child is developing slower
than normal in one or more areas and is at risk of academic failure (Glascoe, Marks, & Squires,
2012). These delays may occur in one or more of the major areas of development, including
physical abilities (gross or fine motor skills), cognitive development, language, or personal or
social skills development. In recent years, there has been an effort to identify children with
developmental delays prior to kindergarten. The Early Intervention Program for Infants and
Toddlers with Disabilities (Part C of IDEA) is a federal grant program that assists states in
providing early intervention services for infants and toddlers (ages birth through 2 years)
with disabilities and their families. In order to be eligible for services, a comprehensive, mul-
tidisciplinary evaluation and assessment of the child and family must be conducted. The
evaluation of the child involves assessing the following areas of child development:
• Physical (reaching, rolling, crawling, walking)
• Cognitive (thinking, learning, solving problems)
• Communication (talking, listening, understanding)
• Social/emotional (playing, feeling secure and happy)
• Adaptive (toileting, eating, dressing, personal hygiene)
Various instruments are available to help assess these developmental areas. An anno-
tated list of these instruments is provided as follows:
• The Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III) are
used to assess the cognitive, language, and psychomotor development of children from
2 to 30 months of age and to aid in the diagnosis of normal or delayed development.
• The Battelle Developmental Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-2) was designed to
assess five domains of development in infants and children through age 7: adaptive
behavior, personal/social skills, communication, gross and fine motor ability, and
cognitive skills.
372 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations

• The Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale measures the intellectual development of chil-
dren from 3 to 30 months by assessing verbalizations and motor control.
• The Dallas Preschool Screening Test (DPST) is used to assess the learning disabilities
of children between the ages of 3 and 6; it measures auditory, language, motor, vis-
ual, psychological, and articulation development.
• The Denver Developmental Screening Test, Second Edition (DDST-II) is used to evalu-
ate a child’s personal, social, fine motor, gross motor, language, and adaptive abilities.
The test is appropriate for use as a screening tool with children from birth to age 6.
• The Kent Infant Development Scale, Second Edition (KID Scale) uses a 252-item
inventory to assess infants from birth to 15 months and children up to 6 years with
developmental ages of less than 15 months. The test measures cognitive, language,
motor, self-help, and social skills.

Standards for Assessment With Diverse Populations

Ethical standards require assessment professionals to have specific knowledge and exper-
tise related to working with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds and with indi-
viduals with disabilities. Counselors must respect the diverse values, beliefs, and
experiences of clients, which affect clients’ view of the world and psychosocial function-
ing. They must also be aware of the impact of social, environmental, and political condi-
tions on problems and interventions. In assessing diverse populations, the need for
multiple methods and multiple sources of information is even more important to accu-
rately assess an individual’s capabilities, potentials, and limitations (APA, 2002).
In 2012, the Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling (AARC) pub-
lished Standards for Multicultural Assessment that addresses many of the challenges that are
specifically related to the assessment of diverse populations (see Appendix I). These stand-
ards are a compilation of standards from five sources:
1. Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education
2. Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests
3. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Multicultural Counseling ­Competencies
and Standards
4. Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the American Counseling Association (2014)

Summary
Fairness in measurement is a primary consider- and other traits in individuals from diverse pop-
ation for all assessment. Counselors and other ulations. Professionals are aware of the impor-
helping professionals must recognize and tant issues related to the use of standardized
appreciate the differences that exist among peo- tests, such as test bias, psychometric properties,
ple who differ in terms of race, ethnicity, age, administration and scoring procedures, test use
language, gender, sexual orientation, religious and interpretation, and test-taker and examiner
or spiritual orientation, ability, and other cul- bias. Furthermore, they have knowledge of the
tural dimensions. ethical principles, etic and emic perspectives,
Multicultural assessment encompasses and the issue of acculturation.
assessment procedures that are appropriate, Assessment of individuals with disabili-
fair, and useful for accurately describing ­abilities ties is conducted to diagnose or determine the
 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations 373

existence of disability, to determine interven- individuals with disabilities. They understand

tion plans, for placement or selection decisions, the importance of using test accommodations
or for monitoring educational performance. or modifications that reduce testing of the indi-
Examiners have knowledge of the assessment vidual’s attributes that are not relevant to the
standards and procedures for working with construct being measured.

Questions for Discussion

1. Compare and contrast your culture with that of f. Lack of knowledge of the client’s first lan-
another culture. What are the similarities? What guage
are the differences? What are the different dimen- g. Lack of knowledge of the specific ethnic group
sions of bias that an examiner must be alert to? 3. Do you think it is acceptable to adapt and modify
2. How might the following examiner variables a standardized test to accommodate an individu-
affect the validity of the test results? al’s disability? Why or why not?
a. Personal bias and expectation 4. How important do you feel the environment is in
b. Difficulty in understanding what the exami- assessing individuals with disabilities? How
nee says would the following factors affect the validity of
c. Lack of knowledge of the particular disability the test results?
d. Lack of experience testing and working with a. Lighting in the test environment
the particular exceptionality b. Noise level
e. Lack of special communication skills (e.g., c. Physical features of the test environment
American Sign Language) d. Positioning needs of the examinee

Suggested Activities
1. Interview professionals who assess diverse pop- 4. Review the legislation and judicial decisions
ulations and find out what tests they use and related to assessing individuals from different
why. Report your findings to the class. cultural groups and individuals with disabilities.
2. Review a video of a test administration of an indi- Write a summary of what you find.
vidual with a disability. Did the examiner modify 5. Locate a test that has been adapted and standard-
test procedures? If so, how? ized for use with a specific cultural group or
3. Interview individuals with disabilities and find diverse population. Compare the adaptation
out their experiences and reactions to testing. with the original version. How was the test mod-
Report your findings to the class. ified? How do the two sets of norms compare?

References
American Association on Intellectual and Develop- American Educational Research Association (AERA),
mental Disabilities (AAIDD). (2008). Frequently American Psychological Association (APA), and
asked questions on intellectual disability and the National Council on Measurement in Education
AAIDD definition. Washington, DC: Author. (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psy-
American Counseling Association (ACA). (2014). chological testing. Washington, DC: Authors.
ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013).
American Counseling Association and Association Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
for Assessment in Counseling. (2003). Responsibili- (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
ties of users of standardized tests. Alexandria, VA: Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L.
Author. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990).
374 Chapter 15  •  Assessment Issues with Diverse Populations

Association for Assessment in Counseling (AAC). Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011.
(2003). Standards for multicultural assessment US Department of Commerce: Economics and Sta-
(2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://aarc-counseling tistics Administration. Washington, DC.
.org/assets/cms/uploads/files/multicultural.pdf Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of
Baruth, L. G., & Manning, M. L. (2011). Multicultural children: Behavioral, social, and clinical foundations
counseling psychotherapy (5th ed.). Upper Saddle (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler Pub-
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. lisher Inc.
Brault, M. W. (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010 Sheperis, C. J., Mohr, J. D., & Ammons, R. (2014). Best
Household economic studies. U.S. Department of practices: Autism spectrum disorder. Center for
Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administra- Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved
tion, Washington, DC. from http://www.counseling.org/knowledge-
Dana, R. H. (2005). Multicultural assessment: Princi- center/center-for-counseling-practice-policy-and-
ples, applications, and examples. Mahwah, NJ: Law- research/practice-briefs
rence Erlbaum Associates. Simeonsson, R. J. (1986). Psychological and developmen-
Glascoe, F. P., Marks, K. P., & Squires, J. (2012). tal assessment of special children. Boston, MA: Allyn
Improving the definition of developmental delay. & Bacon.
Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005).
33(1), 87–87. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second edition:
Hersen, M. (2006). Clinician’s handbook of behavioral Survey forms manual. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson
assessment. Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic Assessment.
Press. Steer, M., Gale, G., & Gentle, F. (2007). A taxonomy of
Huey, S. J., Jr., Tilley, J. L., Jones, E. O., & Smith, C. A. assessment accommodations for students with
(2014). The contribution of cultural competence to vision impairments in Australian schools. British
evidence-based care for ethnically diverse popu- Journal of Visual Impairment, 25(2), 169–177.
lations. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, Suzuki, L. A., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2008). Handbook of
305–338. multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and
Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of educational applications (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
fair testing practices in education. Washington, DC: CA: Jossey-Bass.
Author. Tanner, D. C. (2007). Medical-legal and forensic aspects
Kelley, L., Bailey, E. K., & Brice, W. D. (2014). Teach- of communication disorders, voice prints, & speaker
ing methods: Etic or emic. Developments in Busi- profiling. Tuscon, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publish-
ness Simulation and Experiential Learning, 28, ing Company.
123–126. U.S. Census Bureau (2014). State & Country Quick-
Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Buntinx, W. H. Facts, 2014. Retrieved from http://quickfacts
E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., Reeve, A., … Tassé, .census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
M. J. (2010). Mental retardation: Definition, classifica- Ysseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, R. (2006). Teaching stu-
tion, and systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington, dents with communication disorders: A practical guide
DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roth, K. (2013). Understanding and managing the grow- Zhang, Y., & Tsai, J. (2014). The assessment of accultura-
ing SLP shortage. San Fransisco, CA: Presence- tion, enculturation, and culture in Asian-American
Learning, Inc. Retrieved from http://www samples: Guide to psychological assessment with
.slideshare.net/presencelearning/understanding- Asians. New York, NY: Springer.
and-managing-the-growing-slp-shortage
CHAPTER

16 Communicating
Assessment Results

Once the assessment process is complete and results are analyzed and interpreted,
counselors have the responsibility to communicate the results to those individuals enti-
tled to the information. Communicating results in an appropriate manner is as essential
as following appropriate procedures in conducting assessment (see Figure 16.1). We
place this chapter toward the end of the book to allow for developmental learning about
the assessment process. However, the process of communicating results is an integral
component in assessment and should not be considered something that happens after
assessment is completed.
When communicating the results of the assessment process, you may include
more than just the person being assessed. Communication of results may involve the
client, parents (if the examinee is a minor), and other professionals involved with the
examinee (i.e., teachers, school administrators, mental health professionals). In cases in
which clients are mandated for assessment by the court system, you may have to com-
municate results to the court or court officials. It is important to clearly state that results
are communicated to others only with the explicit permission of the client or guardian.
In some cases, you will have to determine who the appropriate person is to receive this
information. For example, in court-mandated cases, the client may actually be the court
system, and the results are only reported to the court. As you can see, the process of
communicating results is more complex than it may appear. This chapter will present
information about communicating assessment results using feedback sessions and
­written reports.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Describe the use of feedback sessions in orally communicating assessment results.
JJ Describe the potential problems and issues associated with feedback sessions.
JJ Describe the process of feedback sessions with parents.

JJ Explain the purpose of written assessment reports.

JJ Describe each section of the assessment report.

JJ Describe the qualities of a well-written assessment report.

JJ List and discuss the guidelines for reporting assessment results to other professionals

and the public.

375
376 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

Integrate
Select
Conduct Score Interpret Communicate Results into
Referral Assessment
Assessment Assessment Scores Results Counseling
Procedures
Process

FIGURE 16.1   The assessment process.

Feedback Sessions
In most instances, the assessment process ends with an oral or written report, whereby
counselors communicate assessment results to clients (or other relevant parties) in a com-
prehensible and useful manner. Assessment results are of direct interest to clients. Depend-
ing on the reason for assessment, they may be concerned about what the results mean in
terms of their academic standing or goals, career decisions, abilities, or emotional prob-
lems. In some cases, the results of assessment have high stakes associated with them. For
example, assessment is required to determine competency to stand trial in forensic settings
and for competency to be sentenced to death in capital punishment cases. Being able to
communicate fair and valid interpretations of test results can be as serious as life and
death. Even in cases in which the stakes are not as high as life or death, the results can have
lasting implications. Imagine being a counselor in a school setting and having to explain to
parents that their child’s assessment results do not qualify them for gifted education. In a
real example, a parent had two older children who were involved in the gifted education
program at a local school. The parent asked that their youngest child also be tested for
inclusion in the program. After completing a multifaceted and multidimensional assess-
ment, it was determined that the child did not qualify. It was important to communicate to
the parent the procedures followed and the meaning of the test scores. In this case, the
student had an IQ of 110 and had similar achievement scores. His grades were also aver-
age, and his teachers viewed him as comparable to other children at the same grade level.
The parent was certain that the child was gifted and asked for an additional assessment.
As part of communicating the results of this assessment process, the standard error of
measurement was explained to the parent in a manner she could understand. With regard
to IQ tests, there is a band of error (e.g., + > -3) that predicts what a test score would be if
a person was tested over and over. In this case, we could predict that if the child was tested
again, his scores might improve or they might go down. Either way, the change would
only be slight, because intelligence is something that doesn’t change very much across
­testing occasions. If the child was tested again, he would likely score between 107 and 113
 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results 377

and still would not qualify for the gifted education program. By taking the time to explain
the results in an understandable manner, the parent was able to accept the results and real-
ize that the youngest child did not qualify for the additional program. Effective communi-
cation also saved the district the time and money involved in additional testing.
Hopefully, you can see that counselors and other helping professionals use feedback
sessions with clients to orally communicate their assessment results. During feedback ses-
sions, counselors can review and clarify assessment results, acquire additional information
relevant to the assessment process, educate the client (and family members, if relevant)
about what their results mean, and provide recommendations regarding interventions or
educational services. Furthermore, feedback sessions can be a vehicle for establishing good
rapport with clients and to help them understand why treatment is being recommended.
The feedback session is usually scheduled soon after the assessment, and spouses and
primary caregivers may be invited to attend. If the examinee is a child, then teachers, school
administrators, and other professionals may be included with the family’s permission.
Counselors should begin feedback sessions by describing the purpose of the assessment.
They should be prepared to explain difficult concepts and the limits of a test. Counselors
may also wish to explain the various sources of test bias that may affect the interpretation
of the scores. The client also needs to understand that test data represent just one source of
information and are not sufficient for fully assessing an individual’s abilities, skills, or traits.
After explaining the purpose of the test, counselors should report test results in a
manner that clients (and family members) can understand. Most people, professionals and
laypersons alike, find that percentile ranks can be the easiest types of scores to understand
(Lichtenberger, Mather, Kaufman, & Kaufman, 2004). When explaining percentile ranks to
clients, it is easy for them to see that being #1 is not the best outcome. If you are in the 1st
percentile, then that means that out of 100 people your score is equal to or higher than one
score. In other words, your score is probably the lowest out of the 100. Hopefully, as a
professional counselor you won’t have to tell someone they are number 1, but you can see
the utility of explaining assessment results in terms of percentile rank. Standard scores can
easily be converted to percentile ranks using a conversion table. Some professionals prefer
using qualitative descriptions of scores rather than the scores themselves. When appropri-
ate, the standard error of measurement can help to emphasize that the test results are not
absolute; results provide approximations of where true scores might fall. The following are
examples of how to orally communicate various types of scores with a hypothetical client
named Ellis, who is 10 years old and in the fifth grade as well as with Ellis’s parent (Miller,
Linn, & Gronlund, 2011):

• Percentile Ranks  “With regard to math, Ellis scored in the 95th percentile. This
means that she performed very well compared to others in her grade. In fact, her
score was equal to or better than 95% of children her age who have taken the test.
• Deviation IQ  Ellis is also above average in her ability to understand verbal con-
cepts. She performs much higher than most of her peers.
• T Scores  Ellis did demonstrate some areas for concern on the Child Behavior Check-
list/6-18 Withdrawn/Depressed syndrome scale. The results indicate that she may
be having some problems with adjustment. According to her scores on the CBCL,
she may be experiencing some aspects of depression. Overall, the scores suggest
that she is somewhat withdrawn and lacks energy. She also seems to be experienc-
ing a sense of sadness.
378 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

• Stanines  Ellis received a stanine score of 9 on her testing. Basically, a 9 indicates that
Ellis is performing at a higher level than her peers. Her score is in the above-average
range (e.g., stanine scores from 7 to 9).
• Grade Equivalent Scores  Ellis’ performance on the math computations test was
also above average. It is important to note that these scores are only comparing her
to others her age. Because she is performing at a higher level may not mean that she
should be promoted to a new grade level. Although a score of 6.3 might suggest the
need to move ahead to the sixth grade, such an assumption is not correct. The only
comparison group is same age peers. However, the 6.3 intimates that she should be
moved forward in a grade. However, the only comparison is with peers. As such,
she has no exposure to advanced materials. She is simply doing better than most of
her peers
• Age Equivalent Scores  Age equivalent scores are also important to discuss. Ellis
scored an 11-2. This simply means that Ellis’ performance equals or exceed other
children’s performances in the 11th year.

Because clients are often nervous or anxious about receiving their assessment results,
counselors should focus on the clients’ thoughts and feelings about their scores and inter-
pretations. Thus, the feedback session itself can become a therapeutic experience for the
client. The client’s reaction to results also may provide professionals with new insight
about the individual. Furthermore, by participating in the discussion and interpretation of
assessment results, the client may become more accepting of the findings, gain more self-
awareness, and be more willing to use the information in decision making. Counselors
should consider the guidelines shown in Figure 16.2 for interpreting results in feedback
sessions (Reynolds, Livingston, Willson, & Willson, 2010).

Group Feedback Sessions

Group feedback sessions are frequently used to communicate test results. Clients with
particular learning or personality styles may prefer group and social interaction; such cli-
ents often learn from each other as well as from the counselor. Most tests now provide
interpretive material that the counselor can highlight effectively and efficiently in group
sessions. This approach is usually more economical. The counselor can work with a small
or large group and can use overhead transparencies, filmstrips and tapes, or videotapes to
present material. Such aids are less likely in a one-on-one situation. The use of group ses-
sions does not preclude offering individual sessions if a client needs further help process-
ing the information.

Problem Areas
Counselors may face some issues when disseminating information during feedback ses-
sions. We present some of the more common problems here, including acceptance of
results, client readiness, negative results, flat profiles, and client motivation and attitude.

Acceptance  The goal of the feedback session is often to get clients to accept assessment
results and incorporate that information into their decision making. Negative results fre-
 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results 379

_____ Review the purpose of the instrument.

_____ Explain how the instrument is scored and interpreted.
_____ Clearly define all terms.
_____ Discuss who receives the results and how they are used.
_____ Report results in a manner that is easily understood by the client.
_____ Use percentile ranks when reporting quantitative data.
_____ Be tactfully honest.
_____ Avoid jargon. If you must use technical terms, take time to explain their meaning.
_____ Emphasize the positives and objectively discuss the negative aspects of the assessment results.
_____ Avoid terms such as “abnormal,” “deviant,” or “pathological.” Simply explain the characteristics
of these terms or other symptoms without using the labels.
_____ Do not discuss every test or subtest score. Limit your interpretation to a few of the most
important assessment results.
_____ Check to see whether the examinee understands the test results.
_____ Encourage clients (and parents) to ask questions, offer corrective feedback, and provide
more information.
_____ Avoid making global or negative future predictions.
_____ Schedule sufficient time for clients to process the results and reach closure.
_____ Do not try to convince clients to accept that your interpretations of the results are correct.
_____ Use good counseling skills with clients to listen attentively, observe nonverbal cues, validate
their opinion (even if they disagree with assessment results), and reflect their feelings about
assessment results.
_____ Encourage client to further research or study the meaning of the results.
_____ Schedule follow-up sessions, if needed, to facilitate understanding, planning, or
decision making.

FIGURE 16.2   Checklist for feedback sessions.

quently prompt test takers to resist accepting valid and genuine information about them-
selves. Counselors can enhance acceptance of test results by doing the following:
1. Involve the clients in decision making and general selection of tests prior to the testing.
2. Establish rapport with the clients so that they trust the counselor and are relaxed in
the sessions.
3. Spend sufficient time interpreting the results to test takers, but do not overwhelm
them with too much data.
4. Translate the results into language that the clients can understand.
5. Show the validity of the information for the decision(s) to be made.

Readiness  The critical factor in the acceptance of the test results is the examinee’s readiness
to hear it. How one presents test results has a substantial effect on an individual’s ability
to accept the results. If the information is damaging to an examinee’s self-concept, then the
counselor might have to work on getting that individual to extend his or her acceptance.
The following techniques can help increase an examinee’s readiness level:
1. Have several sessions prior to the feedback session to build rapport.
2. Allow the client to bring up the topic of test results; don’t immediately begin the
feedback session with test interpretation.
380 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

3. Focus on the test rather than on the client.

4. Reflect the examinee’s responses to feedback.

Negative Results  Often, the results are not what the test taker wanted, desired, or
expected. The individual may have failed to pass a certification or licensing examination
or failed to achieve the minimum score for admission to college. On a clinical test, a client
may become defensive after being informed that he or she scored high on scales assessing
substance-abuse problems, or an individual may score high on the validity scales on a
personality test and be told that his or her test was invalid. The test administrator must
know how to appropriately communicate negative test results to individuals. The follow-
ing are several recommendations:
1. Explain the rationale for cutoff scores and the validity of the established procedures.
2. Avoid using negative terms or labels, such as “abnormal,” “deviant,” or “pathologi-
cal.”
3. Gain an understanding of the test taker’s perceptions and feelings.
4. Accept the test taker’s right to argue with test implications, without necessarily
agreeing with the test taker.
5. Identify other information about the individual that supports or does not support the
test data.
6. Discuss the implications of the data and the importance of that information for deci-
sion making.

Flat Profiles  Many times, an individual’s pattern of scores has no highs or lows, but is
just a flat profile. On aptitude and achievement tests, this would indicate a similar level of
performance in all areas. On interest or career inventories, flat profiles may indicate that
the client is undecided about future goals. Response set might be a factor on a test, with the
individual ranking everything high, average, or low. In the case of flat profiles on interest
and career guidance tests, counselors can ask clients to read the descriptions of the six
­Holland types and rank the three types most characteristic of themselves (Gati & Amir,
2010) and discuss the clients’ expectations, relevant past experiences, previous work activ-
ities, and misconceptions and stereotypes. In the case of flat profiles on aptitude and
achievement tests, counselors can look at the interests, values, and career goals and assure
the clients that their profiles are not abnormal. The counselor should discuss what an indi-
vidual considers his or her goals to be and what he or she can do acceptably. A good pro-
cedure is to investigate the individual’s performance on previous tests to determine
whether this pattern is typical.

Motivation and Attitude  Test results are more significant to clients who are motivated
to take a test, come in and discuss the results, and have a positive attitude toward the value
of the data. Some clients have a negative attitude toward testing prior to the test and main-
tain that attitude afterward. Some clients become negative after they see that the test results
are not what they expected.
Counselors should recognize that tests can aid clients in developing more realistic
expectations about themselves and can be valuable in decision making. However, some
clients put too much weight on the results and become overly dependent on test data to
solve their problems. Other clients use test results as a way of escaping from their feelings
and problems. Counselors interpreting test results need to be aware not only of a client’s
 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results 381

motivation to take or not take a test but also his or her attitude toward the test. Other
important information is the immediate goal for the interpretation of the test results and
the client’s desire to be involved in decision making about the type of test to be taken and
the dissemination of test results.

Feedback Sessions with Parents

Almost all children today take some form of standardized test throughout their school
careers. Although most will take group achievement tests that all students complete, some
will be referred for individual assessment because of a suspected problem. All parents
want to know how their child is performing in school, yet parents may feel apprehensive
about test findings and fearful of the impact the test results may have on the child’s future.
In feedback sessions with parents, counselors can explain the child’s assessment results
and help parents understand the purpose of assessment, what test scores mean, whether
their child is meeting school standards, and if their child has any other concerns or issues
that need to be addressed. The ultimate purpose of assessment is to help the child; thus,
providing specific test information can help parents make informed decisions about any
concrete steps that should be taken for their child (Reynolds et al., 2010).
The first step in the parent feedback session is describing what the test measures. For
example, the examiner can simply inform parents that the math computation subtest of the
Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT4) measures an individual’s ability to perform basic
mathematics computations without using long, technical descriptions of the subtest. The
examiner then discusses the child’s scores, avoiding scientific jargon and providing mean-
ingful information to parents (Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2011). The examiner should walk
the parent through the interpretation, being patient and understanding but honest. In gen-
eral, percentile ranks, grade equivalent scores, and stanines are easy to explain and are less
likely to be misinterpreted. Actual test results may be presented visually through the use
of graphs and profiles to help parents understand the results. Oral feedback needs to be
comprehensible as well as informational. However, in general, it is best to keep explana-
tions brief and simple and not overwhelm parents with more information than they can
grasp in a short period of time.
The Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education (Joint Committee on Testing Practices,
2004) states that parents or guardians should be informed about how test scores will be
stored and to whom and under what circumstances scores will be released. Parents should
also be informed of how to register complaints and have testing problems resolved. Par-
ents and guardians should also be informed about the rights of test takers, whether they
can obtain copies of their child’s tests and completed answer sheets, and if their child can
retake tests, have tests rescored, or cancel scores.
Sattler and Hoge (2006) provide a four-phase model for presenting assessment find-
ings to parents:
Phase 1: Establish Rapport Arrange to meet with parents in a private setting, and
make every effort to have both parents or guardians present at the interview. Exam-
iners should help parents feel comfortable during the session and encourage them to
talk freely and ask questions.
Phase 2: Communicate Assessment Results Assessment results and their implica-
tions should be summarized as clearly as possible, in a straightforward, detailed, and
382 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

unambiguous manner. Examiners should be prepared that some of the information

shared might at times arouse conflict, hostility, or anxiety in parents. They need to
help parents express their feelings and have their feelings acknowledged by the
examiner. The hope is that the parents will develop realistic perceptions and expecta-
tions for their child.
Phase 3: Discuss Recommendations Examiners need to allow time for parents to
assimilate assessment results and help them formulate a plan of action. The parents
may want specific recommendations or program suggestions, and the examiner
should be prepared to provide these.
Phase 4: Terminate the Interview Examiners should summarize the assessment results
and recommendations and encourage parents to ask any additional questions. Exam-
iners should also inform parents that they are available for additional meetings.
In responding to parents’ concerns, examiners should be prepared to answer many
questions about testing. Table 16.1 provides a list of frequently asked questions.
According to Miller, Linn, and Gronlund (2011), counselors should take some proac-
tive steps to prevent misinterpretation of results by clients or parents. Based on the work
of Miller, Linn and Gronlund, we recommended that counselors keep the following points
in mind:
1. Be conscious of the potential negative stigma surrounding intelligence tests. Be
sure to describe the tests in a way that is understandable to the receiver of the
information.

TABLE 16.1  Frequently Asked Questions from Parents

• Why are you testing my child?
• Why do you test so much?
• What is a standardized test?
• How was the test administered?
• What do my child’s test scores mean?
• How is my child performing compared with other children of the same age or grade?
• What is wrong with grade equivalent scores?
• Why are our school’s scores below the national norms?
• How do you use the scores?
• Why do students take a state achievement test? What does it measure? When do students take it?
• How can my child prepare for taking the state achievement test?
• What is the passing score on the test?
• What kinds of questions were asked on the test?
• Who will see the test results?
• Can I see a copy of the test?
• Can I get a copy of my child’s test results?
• Can test scores be improved with coaching?
• How do my child’s test scores affect his or her future choices?
• How accurately do the tests predict success?
• Is the test fair to members of my race, gender, or ethnic group?
 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results 383

2. Be sure to point out that ability or aptitude test scores may change over time because
the abilities measured are learned.
3. Present the results of ability tests in a way that helps parents to understand that
scores do not equal school performance. Many factors impact performance, and the
results of an ability test only indicate the potential for a certain level of performance.
During a feedback session, parents may express concerns about a variety of aspects
of their child’s assessment. A common question is what to do if they disagree with the
results of the testing—for example, if assessment results indicate that the child is not ready
for kindergarten, yet the parents think the child is, or if the parents think their child should
be placed in the gifted program, but assessment results show that the child doesn’t qualify
for placement. Parents should be advised of avenues they might take, such as pursuing an
independent evaluation on their own, while recognizing that the school district may not
reimburse them for the evaluation and that it may be difficult to have the client tested with
the same tests.
Parents may want to know whether test results really matter. Professionals can
explain the objectives of assessment programs and the issue of accountability to help par-
ents understand why assessment results are important. They should also emphasize to
parents that many placement and selection decisions are based on the outcome of the
assessment process; thus, parents should encourage children to take the assessment pro-
cess seriously and do their best.
Parents might ask whether the tests are culturally biased. Examiners can discuss with
parents the procedures that many standardized tests use to reduce test bias, such as using
panels of experts to review test items or comparing test results among various groups to
see if score differences occur because of affiliation with a particular group. It is important
to explain that even with these attempts, some bias might still be operating in the testing
situation and may distort a person’s true score.
Parents may be concerned about whether scores are fixed or changeable. They need
to be reminded that a test measures a sample of behavior at a particular time, using items
from a given domain. Tests scores do change; they can go up and down, and their child’s
scores may vary from year to year. Sometimes, poor performance happens because a stu-
dent may not be skilled in the areas measured by the test. Most children perform better in
some areas than in others. Parents need to understand the dynamics at work and refrain
from hasty value judgments.
Parents may ask whether children should be informed about their own test results. In
most cases, students should be provided feedback on their performance in words and
terms they can understand. The information can help them understand their own strengths
and weaknesses and make more realistic educational and vocational choices.

Assessment Reports
In addition to oral feedback, counselors may communicate findings in a written assessment
report, often called a psychological report or a psychoeducational report. These reports summa-
rize the data collected from interviews, tests, and observations that directly addressed the
reason for assessment. Professionals from various disciplines write assessment reports,
including school psychologists, clinical psychologists, neuropsychologists, counselors,
and speech and language therapists. Although their professional roles may differ, all
engage in the process of report writing. The central purposes of assessment reports are
384 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

fourfold: (a) to describe the client, (b) to record and interpret the client’s performance on
assessment instruments, (c) to communicate assessment results to the referral source, and
(d) to make recommendations or decisions regarding educational programs, therapy, or
other appropriate intervention (Cohen, Swerdlik, & Sturman, 2012; Engelhard & Wind,
2013; Urbina, 2014). Reports also create a record of the assessment for future use and may
serve as a legal document (Gunn & Taylor, 2014).
The content of written reports addresses the specific concerns (e.g., psychological,
behavioral, academic, linguistic) of the referral source (Goldfinger & Pomerantz, 2013).
For example, a teacher may request information about whether a child’s learning pro-
gress differs from peers or why a child is having difficulty in a particular subject area,
such as reading (Schwean et al., 2006). Parents might request an assessment to determine
if their child meets the school’s criteria for inclusion in the gifted and talented program.
A judge may need to know the best placement for a child in a child custody dispute. A
probation officer might want to know an adolescent’s psychological functioning to deter-
mine whether any mental health needs should be addressed. Each referral source has
different information needs. Assessment reports are tailored to address the referral ques-
tions and the intended audiences.
Written reports should integrate information from multiple assessment methods,
including interviews, observations, tests, and records. The extent to which reports inte-
grate assessment information varies greatly. Reports that are low on integration generally
focus more on test scores, neglect inconsistent results between various methods, ignore the
overall context of the client, and do not discuss the meaning of the scores for the client. An
integrated report carefully blends assessment findings so that they have specific meaning
for the client (Goldfinger & Pomerantz, 2013).
The length of written reports can vary substantially. Although the average report is
between five and seven single-spaced pages (Donders, 2001), no universal agreement on
length is recommended (Groth-Marnat & Horvath, 2006). For forensic evaluations, Acker-
man (2006) distinguishes between reports that are brief (1–3 pages), standard (2–10 pages),
and comprehensive (10–50 pages). Length is based on the purpose of the report, the con-
text (i.e., educational, mental health, medical, or vocational settings), the expectations of
the referral source, the importance and impact of the assessment, and the complexity and
quantity of information to be reported.

Qualities of Well-Written Reports

The success of the assessment process requires that assessment results be communicated
effectively. Written reports are read not only by other mental health professionals, but also
by clients, parents, teachers, court systems, and other professionals. Thus, reports need to
be written in a language that is understandable by a fairly wide audience. However, sev-
eral major problems are frequently encountered in written reports, such as the use of jar-
gon, poorly defined terms, and abbreviations; poor or illogical explanations of results;
vague or inappropriate recommendations, poor organization; emphasis on numbers rather
than explanations; and the exclusive use of computer-generated test reports (Carr &
McNulty, 2014). Overuse of jargon was the most frequent complaint cited from clients,
parents, teachers, and even mental health professionals (Lichtenberger et al., 2004).
To keep written reports clear and understandable, the language should be specific
and concrete rather than abstract and ambiguous. Abstract statements may be difficult for
 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results 385

readers to interpret, and ambiguous sentences are often misinterpreted, because they
imply different meanings to different individuals. The sentence, “John lacks mechanical
aptitude” leaves the reader to interpret “lacks” and “mechanical aptitude.” It would be
better to say, “John is unable to use the screwdriver or put washers on the bolts.” Similarly,
in the sentence “Mary is an extrovert,” who is to define an extrovert? It would be better to
say, “Mary likes to be with people and be the center of attention. She talks and laughs
loudly and makes sure she introduces herself to everyone in the room.”
When writing assessment reports, counselors should consider the following recom-
mendations (Carr & McNulty, 2014; Goldfinger & Pomerantz, 2013; Lichtenberger et al.,
2004; Wiener & Costaris, 2012):
• Avoid jargon and abbreviations.
• Refer to yourself in third person (e.g., “the examiner found” instead of “I found”).
• Use simple words and concise sentences.
• Avoid using needless words and phrases.
• Avoid redundancies.
• Begin paragraphs with a strong declarative sentence followed by information that
supports the declarative statement.
• Write background information and observations in the past tense.
• Write assessment results in the present tense.
• Information irrelevant to the purpose of the assessment generally should not be
included.
• Capitalize test titles.
• Pay attention to punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and grammar.

The Assessment Report Format

There is no single, optimal report format suitable for every setting and assessment
(Wiener & Costaris, 2012). The exact format of an assessment report depends on the
audience, referral questions, and the assessment instruments and strategies adminis-
tered. In general, a written assessment should discuss the reason for referral, the assess-
ment procedures used, the client’s background information, behavioral observations,
assessment results and interpretation, the examiner’s interpretation and conclusion,
and recommendations (see Table 16.2). Because some assessment professionals use tests
as one data collection method, some assessment reports (particularly comprehensive

TABLE 16.2  Sections of a Typical Report

I. Title and identifying information
II. Reason for referral
III. Background information
IV. Behavioral observations
V. Assessment instruments and procedures
VI. Assessment results and interpretation
VII. Summary
VIII. Recommendations
386 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

psychological evaluations) will contain a list of the tests that were used during the
assessment process. However, when tests are not used in the assessment process, they
are not listed or discussed in the written report. We will describe each of the sections of
an assessment report. As an example, we have provided an abbreviated assessment
report later in the chapter.

Title and Identifying Information  Most reports begin with a title that is followed by
important identifying information. The title is typically centered across the top of the first
page (e.g., Mental Health Evaluation, Psychoeducational Assessment, Psychological Eval-
uation). Identifying information is generally recorded underneath the title as follows:
• Examinee’s name
• Date of birth
• Chronological age
• School and grade (if assessing a student)
• Date(s) of assessment
• Report date (date written)
• Examiner’s name

Reason for Referral  The first substantive section of the report contains the reasons that
the individual is being referred for assessment. This section is crucial, because the reason
for referral determines the focus of an evaluation and provides the rationale for the assess-
ment; all other sections of the report should be written with the referral question in mind
(Lichtenberger et al., 2004). Writers must also assume that the referral source is not the
only individual who will read the report; other individuals, such as other mental health
professionals, attorneys, case managers, parents/spouses/children of the examinees, and
even examinees themselves, may read the report.

Background Information  This section provides a context for understanding the client
(Goldfinger & Pomerantz, 2013). In this section, counselors give a brief description of the
individual’s personal history, which may include a chronological summary of the client’s
social and developmental history, medical history, education, family constellation, and
employment information (if relevant). This information is typically obtained through
interviews (with the client and relevant collateral sources) and records (e.g., school records,
previous assessment results, intervention plans, court documents, health records).
Although this section provides the context in which assessment results are interpreted, if
the background information is not relevant to the referral problem and it is very personal,
then counselors should consider carefully whether or not to include it in the report
­(Kamphaus & Frick, 2005). The report should not include hearsay, unverified opinions,
generalized statements, or potentially harmful or damaging information.

Behavioral Observations  This section covers observations that occurred during the
assessment process and/or observations that occurred in other settings (e.g., the class-
room, waiting room, playground, at home; Lichtenberger et al., 2004). Behaviors can be
observed directly by the counselor, or observations can be provided indirectly by reports
from teachers, parents, and others who have contact with the client. Examples of observa-
tions made during the assessment include physical appearance, ease of establishing and
 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results 387

maintaining rapport with the client, language style (e.g., speed, pitch, volume, and rhythm
of speech), attention span, distractibility, activity level, anxiety level, mood, attitude
toward the assessment process, attitude toward the examiner, and unusual mannerisms or
habits (Lichtenberger et al., 2004). Typically, behaviors are presented in the report if they
had a positive or negative impact on the individual’s performance during the assessment
or on the individual’s academic, social, or emotional functioning.

Assessment Instruments and Procedures  This section provides a brief description of

the instruments and procedures used in the assessment process. Usually written in list
form, reports may also identify the dates that the client and other relevant collateral sources
(e.g., parents, teachers) were interviewed. This is followed by the names of any tests that
were administered, including any formal methods of observation.

Assessment Results and Interpretation  The results of the instruments administered

should be presented descriptively in this section. Only include results that are relevant to
the assessment; it is not mandatory to describe every test score in this section of the report.
In terms of format, assessment results can be organized by (a) domain, (b) ability, or (c)
test. Using a domain-oriented approach, separate paragraphs are written on each domain of
interest, such as intellectual ability, achievement, adaptive behavior, social or emotional
functioning, and the like. Each paragraph may include data from multiple instruments
and strategies. An ability-oriented format is similar to a domain-oriented approach, except
that assessment results are organized based on specific abilities (e.g., memory, reasoning,
visual-spatial ability, expressive language) rather than on general domains. The test-­
oriented format, the most commonly used organizational format, includes separate para-
graphs that describe the results of each individual assessment instrument. In addition to
reporting results using one of the three formats, counselors may also provide instrument
data in a chart or graph format as an appendix.
After the assessment results are presented, they should be interpreted in a manner
that is meaningful and relevant to the client, the referral source, and other relevant collat-
eral sources. Discuss clinically significant findings, such as test scores that fall in the “clin-
ical range.” Report results that are supported by (a) scores on other assessment instruments,
(b) behavioral observations that occurred both during the assessment and in other con-
texts, or (c) background information obtained from interviews with the client and collat-
eral sources and/or from any documents or records (Lichtenberger et al., 2004). Try to
explain any discrepancies across assessment instruments and strategies. Factors that may
affect the validity or reliability of assessment results should also be addressed in this sec-
tion, such as cultural differences, language factors, disabilities, health problems, and so on.
It is important to remember that the focus of this section is on the individual being assessed,
not simply the scores on assessment instruments.
Advancements in computer technology are changing the way professionals con-
duct assessments, including incorporating computer-based test interpretations (CBTIs)
into the results and interpretation section of the written report. CBTIs convert an indi-
vidual’s test results into extensive narrative reports, which can provide several advan-
tages to examiners: The reports may be more comprehensive than an individual
examiner’s reports, CBTIs save the examiner time in preparing reports, and CBTIs may
provide more objective information. However, a central issue in the use of CBTIs is the
388 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

accuracy of these interpretations. Another concern is that many of the lengthy narratives
often appear valid (even if they are not valid) to untrained consumers and even to some
professionals (Goldfinger & Pomerantz, 2013). Unqualified counselors may use these
reports to compensate for a lack of training and experience. In addition, counselors may
come to depend more on the CBTIs than on their own clinical judgment. There can be
numerous problems with the interpretations made using CBTIs (Lichtenberger, 2006).
Counselors should view CBTIs as a valuable adjunct to, rather than a substitute for,
clinical judgment. In this light, counselors can incorporate the information from CBTIs
into the results and interpretation section of the written report in the context of their own
clinical judgment.

Summary  This section of the report integrates key information from each part of the report
as well as the counselor’s hypotheses or clinical impressions about the client. This section
is particularly important; some may read only this section out of the entire written report.
Counselors briefly restate the reason for referral, pertinent background information,
behavioral observations, and test results and interpretations. The hypotheses or clinical
impressions are a key element of this section because they help describe and clarify the
nature of and reasons for the client’s particular problems or concerns. All hypotheses and
clinical impressions are based on and supported by multiple pieces of assessment informa-
tion. A clear summary of the assessment is then provided that answers the referral ques-
tions using connections among the examinee’s background information, behavior
observations, and test results. Summaries are concise and should rarely exceed one page.
New information is never included in the summary.

Abbreviated Assessment Report

Student: Sean appropriate word to use and struggles putting

Date of Birth: 10/8/2006 sentences together. In regards to behavior, Sean
Chronological Age: 8 years, 11 months is generally well behaved and has no record of
School: Middletown Elementary School conduct problems.
Grade: 1st grade Sean says that he enjoys school, and math-
Date of Evaluation: 9/15/2015 ematics is his favorite subject. When not attend-
Evaluator: Catherine Ramirez ing school or playing with friends, he spends
time watching TV with his older brother.
Reason for Referral
Sean was referred for an evaluation to deter- Behavioral Observations
mine if he meets the criteria for a specific learn-
During the assessment, Sean was shy at first but
ing disability. Sean’s teacher is concerned about
quickly warmed up. His effort and cooperation
whether Sean possesses adequate oral language
during the assessment process were good.
skills.

Background Information Assessment Instruments

Sean’s teacher indicated that he has difficulty Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V)
expressing himself in class. When asked a ques- Expressive Vocabulary Test, Second Edition (EVT-2)
tion, he often has difficulty thinking of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4)
 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results 389

Assessment Results and Interpretation and struggled to recall the exact word he was
looking for.
Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children (WISC-V)
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4)
Standard Percentile
Standard Score Percentile Rank
Composite Score Rank
PPVT-4 Score 90 25
Verbal Comprehension  96 39
Index The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edi-
Visual Spatial  95 37 tion (PPVT-4) was administered to measure Sean’s
Fluid Reasoning 103 58 receptive (hearing) vocabulary. The test consists
Working Memory  95 37 of items that require test takers to select one pic-
Processing Speed Index  97 42 ture (from a group of four pictures) that best rep-
Full Scale IQ  97 42
resents the meaning of a word. Sean obtained a
PPVT-4 standard score of 90, which is in the low
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,
average range for his age. This indicates that
Fifth Edition (WISC-V) was administered to assess
Sean has knowledge of basic vocabulary.
Sean’s general intellectual abilities. Sean’s Full
Scale IQ (97) and the Verbal Comprehension
Summary
(96), Perceptual Reasoning (95), Working Mem-
ory (103), and Processing Speed (97) index scores Sean was evaluated for a possible learning disa-
are all within the average normal range. There bility. In terms of cognitive abilities, Sean’s scores
are no significant differences between index are in the average range; there appears to be no
scores, indicating no significant areas of cogni- cognitive issues interfering with his ability to
tive strengths or weaknesses. learn. Sean performed in the low average to
average range on tests assessing expressive and
Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT-2) receptive language. He exhibits some weakness
in rapid word retrieval, which is consistent with
Standard Score Percentile Rank
teacher reports and observations made during
EVT-2 Score 98 45 the assessment. However, he does not meet the
criteria for a learning disability.
The Expressive Vocabulary Test, Second Edition
(EVT-2) was administered to assess expressive
Recommendations
language and word retrieval. Items consist of
tasks in which the examiner presents a picture Sean’s difficulty with recalling words may inter-
to the test taker, makes a statement or asks a fere with his ability to manage classroom assign-
question, and the test taker responds with a ments. He would benefit from regular classroom
one-word answer. Sean obtained a standard supports, such as allowing ample time when
score of 98, which is in the average range. This Sean is required to respond to questions, allow-
indicates that he is able to use a range of words ing Sean to speak without feeling rushed or
typical of children his age. During the testing, being interrupted, and offering Sean prompts
he displayed some difficulty with word retrieval when he is struggling to recall a word.

Some reports written for medical or forensic settings often require evaluators to
record a formal diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fifth Edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013). The diagnosis can be
written in sentence format.

Recommendations  In this section, specific suggestions are offered regarding pro-

grams, strategies, and interventions that address the referral questions and improve
390 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

outcomes for the individual being assessed. Recommendations vary based on the rea-
son for referral as well as the setting where the assessment takes place. For example,
recommendations for students in K–12 schools typically focus on behavioral interven-
tions, instructional strategies, or other appropriate educational services (Lichtenberger
et al., 2004). Recommendations for clients assessed in mental health clinics usually
center on treatment recommendations based on the client’s diagnosis. Note that some
assessment reports also contain an appendix that includes any additional information
or readings that the counselor wishes to share to help implement the recommenda-
tions—for example, information about a particular learning or emotional disorder, the
pharmaceutical treatment of a particular disorder, or a specific technique to use for
spelling instruction.

Communicating Assessment Results to Other Professionals

Many times, a counselor is required to communicate test results to other professionals,
such as teachers, principals, correctional officers, and judicial staff members. Not all of
these professionals understand test information. Again, it is important to work coop-
eratively to establish good rapport and a working relationship based on mutual respect
and recognition of joint proficiencies. Communication skills remain an important vari-
able. Explanations should be clear and unambiguous. The American Counseling Asso-
ciation’s Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association, 2014) calls for the examiner
to understand the psychometric properties of instruments and to be able to interpret the
results in light of those properties. Counselors are cautioned to ensure that the results
of assessment are reported accurately and to the correct parties. Goldfinger and Pomer-
antz (2013) provided some basic guidelines for presenting assessment information to
other professionals:

1. Find out exactly what information the recipient needs, what he or she plans to do
with it, and what qualifications he or she has.
2. Make sure ethical and legal procedures are followed, such as securing a client’s writ-
ten permission to release information.
3. Check to see whether procedures have been established for test information. Nor-
mally, a policy is already in force.
4. Aim the report as directly as possible to the particular question asked. This practice
saves time and provides clear communication of needed information.

Communicating Assessment Results to the Public

When test results are released to the news media, those responsible for releasing the results
should provide information to help minimize the probability of misinterpretation. The
current movement toward accountability has influenced the use and reporting of test data
by the schools. Administrators like to use norm- and criterion-referenced test data to show
that the schools are accomplishing the educational goals of society. However, many people
have trouble understanding the concepts used in measurement and the many different
types of derived scores test makers report. Test data, when properly presented, can be a
useful tool in interpreting the school system for the community.
 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results 391

Dear Parents,
Within the next few weeks, your child will be taking the Stanford Achievement Test Series, Tenth
Edition (Stanford 10). The Stanford 10 is a norm-referenced standardized test. This means that your
child’s scores will be compared to the scores of thousands of other children in the same grade who
also took the test. The Stanford 10 includes many of the subjects that your child is taught in school.
Please note that a student does not pass or fail the Stanford 10. Test results help show what a
student knows about a subject and how the teacher can best help the student to learn.
Included in this letter are several sample test items. We recommend that you share these sample
questions with your child so he or she will know what to expect. The teacher will also be reviewing
sample questions before the Stanford 10 is given.
You can help your child prepare for the test-taking experience by following some simple suggestions:
1. Each child should have a good night’s sleep prior to a testing day. We suggest 10 hours of sleep.
2. Each child should have a good, well-balanced breakfast before coming to school on a
testing day.
3. Conflicts and arguments should be avoided. A child’s emotional state has great influence
on performance.
4. Make sure your child understands that the Stanford 10 scores simply provide information.
Scores will not be used to reward or punish students.
If you have any questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact the school office, in
person or by telephone. We have appreciated your assistance and support throughout the year.
Sincerely,
School Counselor

FIGURE 16.3   Sample letter of information for parents.

Communication with the public should follow these general procedures:

1. Communication should take place before and after testing. News releases can
announce a test, and letters and cards can be sent to the parents or guardians. An
example of such a letter is shown in Figure 16.3. Reports of test results can be made
through the local media or can be presented at PTA or community meetings.
2. Because most citizens are not familiar with test jargon and statistical terms, the
results should be presented as simply as possible while still remaining accurate and
honest.
3. Percentile bands or stanines can be reported graphically or visually using handouts,
transparencies, or slides.
4. Data should be presented in summary form—for example, by grade rather than by
teacher.
5. Statistical and measurement terms can be defined in nontechnical language, with
examples provided.
6. The public is not stupid and should not be treated with condescension.
Any oral or written communication should include the following components:
1. A general description of the tests or testing program
2. Uses of the test results
3. Types of skills and competencies measured
4. Types of scores reported and the meaning of those scores
5. Type of norms used
392 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

6. Definitions and examples of the summary statistics and measurement concepts

needed to understand the presentation
7. The results with appropriate comparisons (national, state, district, and school; year-
to-year changes; or grade by grade)
8. Factors that might have influenced the results
An oral presentation requires time for questions. The examiner should be prepared
to answer the following types of questions about major issues:
• Are these tests biased against minority and disadvantaged students?
• Why do we test so much?
• Why are some schools in the system achieving higher results than others in the
system?
• Are teachers influenced by the test results?

Summary
Communicating assessment results is the final information relevant to the assessment process,
step of the assessment process. Once the assess- to educate the client (and family) about what
ment process is complete and results are ana- the results mean, and to provide recommenda-
lyzed and interpreted, professionals have the tions. Written assessment reports are also used
responsibility of communicating the results to to communicate assessment findings. Reports
those individuals entitled to the information, integrate information obtained from interviews
such as the client, parents (if the examinee is a with the client, test results, observations, and
minor), and other professionals involved with any information obtained from collateral
the examinee (e.g., teachers, school administra- sources. The central objectives of assessment
tors, mental health professionals). reports are to describe the individual being
Feedback sessions are meetings that coun- assessed, answer the referral questions, organ-
selors schedule with the client to disclose assess- ize and interpret the data, and recommend
ment results. The sessions serve to review and interventions related to the original reason for
clarify assessment results, to acquire additional referral.

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the major problem areas in disseminat- 4. Do you agree that professionals should be
ing results to the test taker? To parents? extremely careful about interpreting test results
2. How would you improve a client’s readiness to for individuals from diverse backgrounds? Why
hear test results? or why not?
3. How would you explain negative test results to a 5. If you could choose the way you were to receive
client? your test results, what approach would you
choose? Why?

Suggested Activities
1. Interview school counselors, mental health coun- approaches to problems such as client acceptance
selors, career counselors, or psychologists who of results, examinee readiness, negative results,
use tests frequently. Find out how they commu- flat profiles, and examinee motivation and atti-
nicate assessment results to their clients and their tude. Report your findings to class.
 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results 393

2. Conduct simulated feedback sessions in which a gifted program and was accepted by virtue of a
student portrays a “counselor” communicating 133 score on the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale.
test results to (a) a “parent” (also played by a stu- Mary’s mother can’t make any sense out of the
dent) and then to (b) an adult “client.” Videotape test scores and wants the teachers and counselors
the sessions. to help her daughter improve her scores.
3. Devise a workshop for a group of individuals in
a. How would you approach a feedback session
your field who need help in communicating test
with Mary’s mother?
results.
b. What would you tell her about the test results?
4. Role-play a situation in which you have to con-
sult a helping professional on testing problems or 6. Read the following case study and answer the
results. For example, a teacher might want to questions at the end:
know how she can help her students improve
their test scores because she is afraid that she will Albert, a 23-year-old male, would like help in
lose her job if the class does not do well on understanding his results on the Self-Directed
achievement tests, or a doctor might want to Search (SDS) and the Myers–Briggs Type Indica-
know whether a child shows any signs of learn- tor (MBTI). You find out that Albert dropped out
ing disabilities and how that information could of school in the 10th grade and is enrolled in a
be relayed to the child’s parents. high school equivalency program. He’s held
5. Read the following case study and answer the numerous jobs in the food service industry but
questions at the end: has been unable to keep them. He has a wife and
three children and realizes that he needs further
Mary’s mother was very concerned when she training and education to support his family. He
received her second grader’s scores on the Stan- is an ISFJ on the MBTI and an ARS on the SDS.
ford Achievement Test. Mary scored at the 99th
percentile on Total Mathematics but only at the a. How would you communicate Albert’s assess-
81st on Total Reading. Mary scored at the 95th ment results to him?
percentile on Spelling but at the 45th on Language b. What would you tell him about the test re-
and 54th on Science. She had been tested for the sults?

References
Ackerman, M. J. (2006). Forensic report writing. Engelhard, G., Jr., & Wind, S. A. (2013). Educational
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 59–72. testing and schooling: Unanticipated consequences
American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA Code of purposive social action. Measurement: Interdisci-
of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. plinary Research and Perspectives, 11(1–2), 30–35.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Gati, I., & Amir, T. (2010). Applying a Systemic
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders ­Procedure to Locate Career Decision-Making
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. ­Difficulties. The Career Development Quarterly,
Carr, A., & McNulty, M. (2014). Intake interviews, 58(4), 301–320.
testing, and report writing. In A. Carr & M. Goldfinger, K., & Pomerantz, A. M. (2013). Psycho-
McNulty (Eds.), The Handbook of Adult Clinical logical assessment and report writing. Thousand
­Psychology: An Evidence Based Practice Approach Oaks, CA: Sage.
(pp. 253–288). New York, NY: Routledge. Groth-Marnat, G., & Horvath, L. W. (2006). The psy-
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2012). chological report: A review of current controver-
Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction sies. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 73–81.
to tests and measurement (8th ed.). B ­ oston, MA: Gunn, J., & Taylor, P. (2014). Forensic psychiatry: Clini-
McGraw-Hill. cal, legal, and ethical issues. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Donders, J. (2001). A survey of report writing by neu- Press.
ropsychologists, II: Test data, report format, and Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of
document length. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, fair testing practices in education. Washington, DC:
15, 150–161. Author.
394 Chapter 16  •  Communicating Assessment Results

Kamphaus, R. W., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Clinical assess- Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of chil-
ment of child and adolescent personality and behavior dren: Behavioral, social, and clinical foundations
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. (5th  ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler
Lichtenberger, E. O. (2006). Computer utilization and ­Publisher Inc.
clinical judgment in psychological assessment Schwean, V. L., Oakland, T., Weiss, L. G., Saklofske,
reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 19–32. D. H., Holdnack, J. A., & Profitera, A. (2006). Report
Lichtenberger, E. O., Mather, N., Kaufman, N. L., & writing: A child-centered approach. In L. G. Weiss,
Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of assessment D. H. Saklofske, A. Prifitera, & J. A. Holdnack
report writing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and (Eds.), WISC-IV advanced clinical interpretation
Sons. (pp. 371–420). Boston, MA: Academic Press.
Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2011). Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing
Measurement and assessment in teaching (11th ed.). (Vol. 4, 2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Wiener, J., & Costaris, L. (2012). Teaching psycholog-
Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., Willson, V. L., & ical report writing: Content and process. Canadian
Willson, V. (2010). Measurement and assessment in Journal of School Psychology, 27(2), 119–135. doi:
education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 10.1177/0829573511418484
CHAPTER

17 Ethical and Legal Issues

in Assessment

Professional standards and codes of ethics express the values on which counselors build
their practice and provide a framework for responsible test use. There are probably as
many codes of ethics as there are professional societies, but to become effective helping
professionals, individuals must be committed to the ethical standards of their profession
and follow them in their practice. In addition to ethical codes, a number of laws at both
the state and national level affect assessment and testing practices. Counselors need to be
familiar with the statutes, regulations, and court decisions that have implications for
assessment. Although this is the final chapter in the textbook, it is a topic that is integral
to each and every chapter. We considered placing this chapter toward the beginning of
the book, but we believe that you must develop an understanding of the basics of assess-
ment before you can understand how to ethically and legally apply your understanding.
Some of you may read this chapter earlier in a course on measurement and assessment,
whereas others will read it at the end of a graduate course. Regardless of when you read
the ­chapter, we strongly suggest integrating the material into your understanding of the
assessment process.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

JJ Identify and describe the ethical standards of professional organizations related to

assessment.
JJ Explain the importance of professional training and competence in assessment and

summarize the guidelines for the competencies of test users.

JJ Summarize the professional standards for test-user qualifications.
JJ Discuss the issue of client welfare in assessment.
JJ List and describe the statutes and regulations that impact assessment practice.

JJ List and describe the judicial decisions affecting employment and educational

assessment.

Professional Standards and Codes of Ethics

Because of the impact of assessment on society and lives, professional standards and
ethical codes have been developed to promote responsible professional practice in psy-
chological testing and assessment. Ethics can be viewed as moral principles adopted

395
396 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment

by an individual or group that provide the basis for right conduct. Most governing
bodies associated with psychological and educational assessment have established
codes of ethics for their members to follow. These codes provide guidelines for profes-
sionals but do not provide answers to all ethical dilemmas. Thus, it is up to individual
professionals in the field to reflect on their behavior and assess whether what they’re
doing is in the best interest of their clients. Several professional organizations have
ethical standards that relate specifically to assessment. Our discussion will center on
the following:
• American Counseling Association—Code of Ethics
• American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological
Association (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education
(NCME)—Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
• American Psychological Association (APA)—Ethical Principles of Psychologists and
Code of Conduct
• Association for Assessment in Counseling (AAC)—Responsibilities of Users of Stand-
ardized Tests, Third Edition (RUST)
• Joint Committee on Testing Practices—Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education
• National Council on Measurement in Education—Code of Professional Responsibilities
in Educational Measurement

American Counseling Association Code of Ethics

The ACA is a professional organization with members who work in a variety of set-
tings and serve in multiple capacities. The ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling
Association (ACA), 2014) serves to clarify the ethical responsibilities of its members as
well as describe best practices in the counseling profession. The Code is divided into
eight main sections that address key ethical issues; Section E, Evaluation, Assessment,
and Interpretation, focuses specifically on assessment (see Table 17.1 for a portion of
this section of the code. For a full version, see counseling.org/resources/aca-code-of-
ethics.pdf). The ACA emphasizes that counselors should use assessment instruments
as one component of the counseling process, taking into account the client’s personal
and cultural context.

AERA, APA, and NCME Standards for Educational

and Psychological Testing
One of the most comprehensive documents on assessment standards is the Standards
for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association
(AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measure-
ment in Education (NCME), 2014). This document—which we will refer to as the
Standards—represents the seventh in a series of publications that originated in 1954. It
provides test developers and test users with assistance in evaluating the technical ade-
quacy of their instruments for educational and psychological assessment. The intent of
the Standards is to promote the sound and ethical use of tests and to provide criteria for
the evaluation of tests, testing practices, and the effects of test use. We recommend that
anyone who routinely engages in any form of testing—from test design and implemen-
tation to assessment and evaluation—obtain a copy of the Standards and become
 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment 397

TABLE 17.1  ACA Code of Ethics Section E.1 to E.4: Evaluation, Assessment, and Interpretation
Counselors use assessment as one component of the counseling process, taking into account the clients’
personal and cultural context. Counselors promote the well-being of individual clients or groups of clients by
developing and using appropriate educational, mental health, psychological, and career assessments.

E.1. General
E.1.a. Assessment
The primary purpose of educational, mental health, psychological, and career assessment is to gather infor-
mation regarding the client for a variety of purposes, including, but not limited to, client decision making,
treatment planning, and forensic proceedings. Assessment may include both qualitative and quantitative
methodologies.
E.1.b. Client Welfare
Counselors do not misuse assessment results and interpretations, and they take reasonable steps to prevent
others from misusing the information provided. They respect the client’s right to know the results, the inter-
pretations made, and the basis for counselors’ conclusions and recommendations.

E.2. Competence to Use and Interpret Assessment Instruments

E.2.a. Limits of Competence
Counselors use only those testing and assessment services for which they have been trained and are compe-
tent. Counselors using technology-assisted test interpretations are trained in the construct being measured
and the specific instrument being used prior to using its technology-based application. Counselors take
reasonable measures to ensure the proper use of assessment techniques by persons under their supervision.
E.2.b. Appropriate Use
Counselors are responsible for the appropriate application, scoring, interpretation, and use of assessment in-
struments relevant to the needs of the client, whether they score and interpret such assessments themselves
or use technology or other services.
E.2.c. Decisions Based on Results
Counselors responsible for decisions involving individuals or policies that are based on assessment results
have a thorough understanding of psychometrics.

E.3. Informed Consent in Assessment

E.3.a. Explanation to Clients
Prior to assessment, counselors explain the nature and purposes of assessment and the specific use of results
by potential recipients. The explanation will be given in terms and language that the client (or other legally
authorized person on behalf of the client) can understand.
E.3.b. Recipients of Results
Counselors consider the client’s and/or examinee’s welfare, explicit understandings, and prior agreements in
determining who receives the assessment results. Counselors include accurate and appropriate interpreta-
tions with any release of individual or group assessment results.

E.4. Release of Data to Qualified Personnel

Counselors release assessment data in which the client is identified only with the consent of the client or the
client’s legal representative. Such data are released only to persons recognized by counselors as qualified to
interpret the data.

Source: Reprinted from the ACA Code of Ethics. Copyright © 2014 The American Counseling Association. Reprinted
with permission. No further reproduction authorized without written permission from the American Counseling
­Association.
398 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment

f­amiliar with the guidelines. The current edition of the Standards is organized into
three parts:
1. Foundations  This section contains standards for validity, reliability/precision and
errors of measurement, and fairness in testing. The subsections discuss standards
related to test development and revision; scaling, norming, and score comparability;
test administration, scoring, and reporting; and supporting documentation for tests.
According to the Standards, “validity is … the most fundamental consideration in
developing tests and evaluating tests” (AERA et al., 2014, p. 11). As such, the S ­ tandards
addresses the different types of validity evidence needed to support test use. In addi-
tion, standards on reliability and errors of measurement address the issue of consist-
ency of test scores. Although the Standards supports standardized procedures, it
recognizes the need to consider fairness and testing. According to the Standards,
­special situations may arise in which modifications of the procedures may be advis-
able or legally mandated; for example, a person with a vision impairment may need
a larger print version of a standardized test. Standards for the development and revi-
sion of formal, published instruments, an often overlooked area of importance,
describe criteria important for scale construction.
The first section of the Standards focuses heavily on fairness and bias, the rights
and responsibilities of test takers, testing individuals of diverse linguistic back-
grounds, and testing individuals with disabilities. This section emphasizes the impor-
tance of fairness in all aspects of testing and assessment. According to the standards,
fairness is a foundational construct that impacts validity. Fairness should be consid-
ered in all aspects of test use. Special attention to issues related to individuals of
diverse linguistic backgrounds or with disabilities may be needed when developing,
administering, scoring, interpreting, and making decisions based on test scores.
2. Operations  The second section of the standards relates to test design and develop-
ment; scores, scales, norms, score linking, and cut scores; test administration, scoring
reporting, and supporting documentation for tests; the rights and responsibilities of
test takers; and the rights and responsibilities of test users. This section of the Stand-
ards addresses the more technical and psychometric aspects of assessment. As profes-
sional counselors, it will be important to carefully review Part II and to develop a
strong understanding of how these standards apply in practice.
3. Testing Applications  The third section of the Standards provides an overview of psy-
chological testing and assessment; workplace testing and credentialing; educational
testing and assessment; and uses of tests for program evaluation, policy studies, and
accountability. This section provides specific guidance on the general responsibilities
of test users in each area. One of the new elements of the Standards is accountability.
This final section provides specific guidance for test users on evaluation of programs
and policy initiatives, test-based accountability systems, and issues in program and
policy evaluation and accountability.

American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists

and Code of Conduct
The APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological
Association (APA), 2002) consists of several ethical standards set forth as rules of conduct
for psychologists. Section 9 specifically addresses 11 issues related to assessment.
 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment 399

The first standard (Standard 9.01) states that psychologists should base recommenda-
tions on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. Standard 9.02
addresses the importance of using valid and reliable assessment techniques as evidenced by
research. The third standard states that psychologists must obtain informed consent when
using assessment techniques; this includes explaining the nature and purpose of the assess-
ment, fees, involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality. The fourth standard
asserts that psychologists must not release a client’s test results unless the client gives per-
mission; in the absence of client permission, psychologists provide test data only as required
by law or court order. Standard 9.05 refers to ethical procedures involved in test construc-
tion. The sixth standard addresses test interpretation and psychologists’ need to explain
results in the language that can be understood by the individual being assessed. The sev-
enth standard emphasizes psychologists’ responsibility of not promoting the use of psycho-
logical assessment techniques by unqualified examiners. Standard 9.08 emphasizes the
importance of not using obsolete tests or outdated test results; that is, psychologists must
refrain from basing their assessment, intervention decisions, or recommendations on out-
dated test results and measures that are not useful for the current purpose. Standards 9.09
and 9.10 refer to scoring and interpreting tests and explaining assessment results. Individu-
als offering assessment or scoring services to other professionals have the obligation to
make sure their procedures are appropriate, valid, and reliable. In explaining assessment
results, psychologists must ensure that explanations are given by appropriate individuals
or services. The 11th and final standard holds the psychologist responsible for making rea-
sonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of tests and other assessment tech-
niques consistent with the law, contractual obligations, and the code of ethics.

Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling Responsibilities

of Users of Standardized Tests, Third Edition
The Association for Assessment in Counseling (AAC; now called the Association for Assess-
ment and Research in Counseling [AARC]), a division of the ACA, is an organization of
counselors, counselor educators, and other professionals that provides leadership, training,
and research in the creation, development, production, and use of assessment and diagnostic
techniques in the counseling profession. The organization is responsible for developing the
Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests (RUST; AARC, 2003), which promotes the accu-
rate, fair, and responsible use of standardized tests by the counseling and education com-
munities, including counselors, teachers, administrators, and other human service workers
(see Appendix II). RUST addresses several areas related to test-user qualifications, including
the following: qualifications of test users, technical knowledge, test selection, test adminis-
tration, test scoring, interpreting test results, and communicating test results. RUST empha-
sizes that qualified test users (a) have appropriate education, training, and experience in
using tests and (b) adhere to the highest degree of ethical codes, laws, and standards govern-
ing professional practice. Lack of qualifications or ethical and legal compliance can lead to
errors and subsequent harm to clients. Individual test users are responsible for obtaining
appropriate education, training, or professional supervision when engaged in testing.

Joint Committee on Testing Practices Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education

The Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education (2004) is a guide for professionals who engage
in testing in education. It was prepared by the Joint Committee on Testing Practices, which
400 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment

includes members from the ACA, the AERA, the APA, the American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association (ASHA), the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP),
the National Association of Test Directors (NATD), and the National Council on Measure-
ment in Education (NCME). The code emphasizes fairness as the primary consideration in
all aspects of testing. Professionals are obligated to provide and use tests that are fair to all
test takers, regardless of age, gender, disability, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion,
sexual orientation, linguistic background, or other personal characteristics. In this regard,
the Code provides guidance for test developers and test users in four areas:
1. Developing and selecting appropriate tests
2. Administering and scoring tests
3. Reporting and interpreting test results
4. Informing test takers

National Council on Measurement in Education Code

of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement
The NCME published its Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement
(CPR) in 1995. The council developed the CPR to promote professionally responsible prac-
tices in educational assessment. The CPR provides a framework of eight major areas of
assessment standards that focus on the responsibilities of those who do the following:
1. Develop assessment products and services
2. Market and sell assessment products and services
3. Select assessment products and services
4. Administer assessments
5. Score assessments
6. Interpret, use, and communicate assessment results
7. Educate others about assessment
8. Evaluate educational programs and conduct research on assessments
Each section includes more specific standards. In Section 6, for example, those who
interpret, use, and communicate assessment results are to provide all needed information
about the assessment, its purposes, and its uses for the proper interpretation of the results;
provide an understandable discussion of all reported scores, including proper interpreta-
tions; promote the use of multiple sources of information about persons or programs in
making educational decisions; communicate the adequacy and appropriateness of any
norms or standards being used in the interpretation of assessment results and any likely
misinterpretations; and protect the rights of privacy for individuals and institutions.

Ethical Issues in Assessment

Currently, ethical issues receive widespread attention from professionals who use psycho-
logical and educational tests. Similar themes are contained in all of the codes—for exam-
ple, professional training and competence, test-user qualifications, client welfare issues,
and fairness in assessment.

Professional Training and Competence

One of the most important ethical issues is the competency of the professional in the use of
available assessment instruments. Professionals must be qualified to select, administer, score,
 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment 401

and interpret tests. Different tests require different levels of competency. Some tests that
require a high level of skill include the Wechsler scales, the Thematic Apperception Test, and
the Rorschach. The professional standards of several professional associations have set explicit
guidelines for the competencies of tests users; the following is a summary of these guidelines:

1. Understand basic measurement concepts, such as scales of measurement, types of

reliability, types of validity, and types of norms.
2. Understand the basic statistics of measurement and define, compute, and interpret
measures of central tendency, variability, and relationship.
3. Compute and apply measurement formulas, such as the standard error of measure-
ment and the Spearman–Brown prophecy formula.
4. Read, evaluate, and understand test manuals and reports.
5. Follow exactly as specified the procedures for administering, scoring, and interpret-
ing a test.
6. List and discuss major tests in their fields.
7. Identify and locate sources of test information in their fields.
8. Discuss and demonstrate the use of different systems of presenting test data in tabu-
lar and graphic forms.
9. Compare and contrast different types of test scores and discuss their strengths and
weaknesses.
10. Explain the relative nature of norm-referenced interpretation and the use of the
standard error of measurement in interpreting individual scores.
11. Help test takers and counselees to use tests as exploratory tools.
12. Aid test takers and counselees in their decision making and in their accomplishment
of developmental tasks.
13. Pace an interpretative session to enhance clients’ knowledge of test results.
14. Use strategies to prepare clients for testing to maximize the accuracy of test results.
15. Explain test results to test takers thoughtfully and accurately and in a language they
understand.
16. Use the communication skills needed in test interpretation and identify strategies
for presenting the results to individuals, groups, parents, students, teachers, and
professionals.
17. Shape clients’ reaction to and encourage appropriate use of the test information.
18. Be alert to the verbal and nonverbal cues expressed by clients, not only in the testing
situation but also during feedback situations.
19. Use appropriate strategies with clients who perceive the test results as negative.
20. Be familiar with the test interpretation forms and computerized report forms in order
to guide clients through the information and explanation.
21. Be familiar with the legal, professional, and ethical guidelines related to testing.
22. Be aware of clients’ rights and the professional’s responsibilities as a test administra-
tor and counselor.
23. List and discuss the current issues and trends in testing.
24. Present results from tests both verbally and in written form, and know what types of
information should be presented in case studies and conferences.
25. Discuss and utilize strategies to assist an individual in acquiring test-taking skills
and in lowering test anxiety.
26. Identify and discuss computer-assisted and computer-adaptive testing and show
application to their fields.
402 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment

Test-User Qualifications
According to the International Test Commission (2013), competence is a key facet in
qualifying individuals for test use. The concept of test-user qualifications refers to the nec-
essary knowledge, skills, abilities, training, and credentials for using tests (Oakland,
2012). The issue of test-user qualifications remains controversial. Although some profes-
sional groups advocate restricting the use of psychological tests to psychologists only,
others believe firmly that one’s qualifications to use tests is directly related to compe-
tence, not to a specific professional field, and competence can be achieved through vari-
ous means, such as education, training, and experience in the use of tests. Internationally,
competence-based assessment practice is considered the standard over specific licenses
or degrees. According to the International Test Commission (ITC), responsible test users
work within the limits of scientific principle and substantiated experience; set and main-
tain high personal standards of competence; know the limits of their own competence
and operate within those limits; and keep up with relevant changes and advances relat-
ing to the tests they use and to test development, including changes in legislation and
policy, which may impact on tests and test use (2013). The ACA (2003) also developed a
set of standards for test user qualification, the Standards for the Qualifications of Test Users,
which states that professional counselors are qualified to use tests and assessments in
counseling practice to the degree that they possess the appropriate knowledge and skills
(see Table 17.2).
The purchase of tests is generally restricted to persons who meet certain minimum
qualifications. Most test publishers rely on a three-level system for classifying test-user
qualifications that was first developed by APA in 1950. The APA later dropped the classi-
fication system in 1974, but many publishers continue to use this or a similar system. The
classification includes the following levels:

A Level Test users are not required to have advanced training in the test administra-
tion and interpretation to purchase A-level tests. They may have a bachelor’s degree
in psychology, human services, education, or related disciplines; training or certifica-
tion relevant to assessment; or practical experience in the use of tests. Examples of
A-level tests include some aptitude and career exploration tests.
B Level To use B-level tests, practitioners typically have a graduate degree in psy-
chology, counseling, education, or related disciplines; have completed specialized
training or coursework in testing; or have licensure or certification documenting
training and experience in testing. In addition, being a member of a professional
organization, such as ASHA or the American Occupational Therapy Association
(AOTA), may make one eligible to purchase B-level products. Examples of B-level
tests include general intelligence tests and interest inventories.
C Level C-level tests require users to have B-level qualifications plus a doctorate
degree in psychology or a related discipline (that provides appropriate training in
the administration and interpretation of tests), licensure or certification, or to be
under the direct supervision of a qualified professional in psychology or a related
field. Examples of C-level tests include intelligence tests, personality tests, and
projective measures (e.g., the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children [WISC-IV],
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI-II], the Rorschach Ink-
blot Test).
 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment 403

TABLE 17.2  ACA Standards for the Qualifications of Test Users

1. Skill in practice and knowledge of theory relevant to the testing context and type of counseling
specialty
Assessment and testing must be integrated into the context of the theory and knowledge of a specialty
area, not as a separate act, role, or entity. In addition, professional counselors should be skilled in treat-
ment practice with the population being served.
2. A thorough understanding of testing theory, techniques of test construction, and test reliability
and validity
Included in this knowledge base are methods of item selection, theories of human nature that underlie a
given test, reliability, and validity. Knowledge of reliability includes, at a minimum, methods by which it is
determined, such as domain sampling, test-retest, parallel forms, split-half, and interitem consistency; the
strengths and limitations of each of these methods; the standard error of measurement, which indicates
how accurately a person’s test score reflects their true score of the trait being measured; and true score
theory, which defines a test score as an estimate of what is true. Knowledge of validity includes, at a
minimum, types of validity, including content, criterion-related (both predictive and concurrent), and con-
struct methods of assessing each type of validity, including the use of correlation; and the meaning and
significance of standard error of estimate.
3. A working knowledge of sampling techniques, norms, and descriptive, correlational, and pre-
dictive statistics
Important topics in sampling include sample size, sampling techniques, and the relationship between
sampling and test accuracy. A working knowledge of descriptive statistics includes, at a minimum, prob-
ability theory; measures of central tendency; multimodal and skewed distributions; measures of variability,
including variance and standard deviation; and standard scores, including deviation IQs, z scores, T scores,
percentile ranks, stanines/stens, normal curve equivalents, and grade and age equivalents. Knowledge of
correlation and prediction includes, at a minimum, the principle of least squares, the direction and magni-
tude of relationship between two sets of scores, deriving a regression equation, the relationship between
regression and correlation, and the most common procedures and formulas used to calculate correlations.
4. Ability to review, select, and administer tests appropriate for clients or students and the con-
text of the counseling practice
Professional counselors using tests should be able to describe the purpose and use of different types of
tests, including the most widely used tests for their setting and purposes. Professional counselors use
their understanding of sampling, norms, test construction, validity, and reliability to accurately assess
the strengths, limitations, and appropriate applications of a test for the clients being served. Professional
counselors using tests also should be aware of the potential for error when relying on computer printouts
of test interpretation. For accuracy of interpretation, technological resources must be augmented by a
counselor’s firsthand knowledge of the client and the test-taking context.
5. Skill in administration of tests and interpretation of test scores
Competent test users implement appropriate and standardized administration procedures. This requirement
enables professional counselors to provide consultation and training to others who assist with test administration
and scoring. In addition to standardized procedures, test users provide testing environments that are comfort-
able and free of distraction. Skilled interpretation requires a strong working knowledge of the theory underlying
the test, the test’s purpose, the statistical meaning of test scores, and the norms used in test construction. Skilled
interpretation also requires an understanding of the similarities and differences between the client or student
and the norm samples used in test construction. Finally, it is essential that clear and accurate communication of
test score meaning in oral or written form to clients, students, or appropriate others be provided.
(continued)
404 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment

TABLE 17.2  ACA Standards for the Qualifications of Test Users  (Continued)

6. Knowledge of the impact of diversity on testing accuracy, including age, gender, ethnicity, race,
disability, and linguistic differences
Professional counselors using tests should be committed to fairness in every aspect of testing. Information
gained and decisions made about the client or student are valid only to the degree that the test accurately
and fairly assesses the client’s or student’s characteristics. Test selection and interpretation are done with
an awareness of the degree to which items may be culturally biased or the norming sample not reflective
or inclusive of the client’s or student’s diversity. Test users understand that age and physical disability dif-
ferences may impact the client’s ability to perceive and respond to test items. Test scores are interpreted
in light of the cultural, ethnic, disability, or linguistic factors that may impact an individual’s score. These
include visual, auditory, and mobility disabilities that may require appropriate accommodation in test
administration and scoring. Test users understand that certain types of norms and test score interpretation
may be inappropriate, depending on the nature and purpose of the testing.
7. Knowledge and skill in the professionally responsible use of assessment and evaluation practice
Professional counselors who use tests act in accordance with the ACA’s Code of Ethics and Standards of
Practice (1997), Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests (AAC, 2003), Code of Fair Testing Practices
in Education (JCTP, 2002), Rights and Responsibilities of Test Takers: Guidelines and Expectations (JCTP,
2000), and Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 1999). In addition, profes-
sional school counselors act in accordance with the American School Counselor Association’s (ASCA’s)
Ethical Standards for School Counselors (ASCA, 1992). Test users should understand the legal and ethical
principles and practices regarding test security, using copyrighted materials, and unsupervised use of as-
sessment instruments that are not intended for self-administration. When using and supervising the use of
tests, qualified test users demonstrate an acute understanding of the paramount importance of the well-
being of clients and the confidentiality of test scores. Test users seek ongoing educational and training
opportunities to maintain competence and acquire new skills in assessment and evaluation.

Source: Reprinted from Standards for the Qualifications of Test Users, Copyright © 2003 The American Counseling
Association. Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction authorized without written permission from the
American Counseling Association.

Client Welfare Issues

A major concern is whether the welfare of the client is taken into consideration in the
choice and use of tests. Lack of confidentiality and invasion of privacy in testing are viewed
as minor problems in the field of education but are seen as a more serious problem in psy-
chology. It is important for professionals to have informed consent before testing the indi-
vidual or releasing the results to a third party. Individuals have become suspicious about
the possible “downloading” of information by unauthorized users.

Legal Issues in Assessment

In addition to ethical codes, state and national laws also regulate assessment. There are
several sources of laws:
• Statutes  Laws written by legislative bodies
• Regulations  Laws created by government agencies
• Judicial Decisions  Laws created by opinions from the court, often in litigation cases
 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment 405

Professionals need to stay informed of the major laws that affect assessment. We will
begin by presenting statutes and regulations that have implications for assessment and
several judicial decisions brought about from cases involving litigation.

Statutes and Regulations

Assessment is a regulated professional activity, and counselors using assessment should
be aware of the laws and rules that impact the practice of assessment. Both federal and
state laws govern the practice of assessment and the use of assessment results. As such,
counselors should be fully aware of the legal guidelines for assessment and take extreme
care to practice within those guidelines. Although we review several statutes and regula-
tions related to assessment, there are many more. Counselors are responsible for knowing
all legal requirements for assessment practice and should recognize the potential for seri-
ous consequences related to violation of any laws or regulations.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was
passed by Congress and signed into law on July 26, 1990. The law was passed for the
purpose of reducing discrimination and making everyday life more accessible to the
over 43 million Americans who have some form of disability. The ADA defines a disabil-
ity as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity
(U.S.C. Title 42 Chapter 126 Section 12102 [2]). The ADA states that an employment
agency or labor organization shall not discriminate against individuals with a disability.
This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement and discharge of
employees, worker’s compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privi-
leges of employment.
The law has certain provisions related to employment assessment. Under the reason-
able accommodations section, it states the following:

A private entity offering an examination is responsible for selecting and admin-

istering the examination in a place and manner that ensures that the examina-
tion accurately reflects an individual’s aptitude and achievement level, or other
factors the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting an individ-
ual’s impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, except where those skills are
factors that the examination purports to measure. (Section III.4.6100)

In other words, employers cannot select and administer an employment test if a par-
ticular disability adversely affects an individual’s performance on that test. This means that
to comply with the ADA, individuals with disabilities must be assessed using “reasonable
accommodations”—that is, appropriate changes and adjustments in test-administration
procedures. It is important to remember that when any modification is made to a stand-
ardized test, results should be interpreted cautiously, recognizing that modification can
jeopardize validity. Examples of modifications include the following:
• Extending testing time
• Providing written materials in large print, Braille, or audiotape
• Providing readers or sign language interpreters
• Holding test administration in accessible locations
• Using assistive devices
406 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment

Civil Rights Act of 1991  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—amended in 1971, 1978,
and 1991—outlaws discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, gender,
pregnancy, or national origin. The original legislation created the Equal Opportunity Com-
mission (EEOC), which was charged with developing guidelines to regulate equal employ-
ment. In the 1970s, the EEOC developed strict guidelines involving the use of employment
tests. The guidelines stated that all formal assessment instruments used for employment
decisions that may adversely affect hiring, promotion, or other employment opportunity
for classes protected by Title VII constitutes discrimination unless the test can demonstrate
“a reasonable measure of job performance” (i.e., validity).
An example of problems with employment tests and potential discrimination is the
landmark case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971). The case involved African Ameri-
can employees of a private power company who filed suit against the company, claiming
that the criterion for promotion, such as requiring high school diplomas and passing scores
on standardized tests (i.e., the Wonderlic Personnel Test and the Bennett Mechanical Com-
prehension Test), were discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that Duke Power
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because the standardized testing requirement
prevented a disproportionate number of African American employees from being hired
by, and advancing to higher-paying departments within, the company. Validity of the
tests was a key issue in this case, because neither of the tests was shown to be significantly
related to successful job performance; as a result, the case spurred stronger focus on the
validity of employment tests.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974  The Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974 is a federal law that protects that privacy of student records.
FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children’s education records, such
as the right to examine their children’s academic records and stipulate the terms under
which others may have access to them. If there is assessment information in the records,
then parents have a right to see these results as well.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004  The Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was originally signed into law in 1975. Its purpose
was to ensure that children with disabilities throughout the nation were provided with
appropriate services and educational opportunities. The law requires that each state have
a comprehensive system for identifying, locating, and evaluating children of ages birth
through 21 who have disabilities. The IDEA defines “child with a disability” as a child
who has been evaluated as having autism, deafness, deaf-blindness, emotional distur-
bance, hearing impairment, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impair-
ment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language
impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment (including blindness). Schools
are required to provide children with disabilities with special education services. Special
education instruction may take place in a general education classroom, special education
classroom, specialized school, home, hospital, or institution and may include academic or
behavioral support, speech and language pathology services, vocational education, and
many other services.
In 2004, IDEA was reauthorized and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities
­Education Improvement Act. This latest version of IDEA greatly impacted assessment in
education and the process by which schools determine whether students have specific
 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment 407

learning disabilities (SLDs). School districts are no longer required to use the traditional
ability-achievement discrepancy model, which was a component of IDEA of 1997. IDEA now
mandates that schools utilize several scientifically based assessments and instructional
and behavioral interventions to determine whether students have SLDs, thereby qualify-
ing them for special education services. As a result, many states and school districts have
adopted an alternative model called Responsiveness to Intervention, or RTI. RTI is a compre-
hensive, multistep approach to providing services and interventions to students at increas-
ing levels of intensity based on progress monitoring and data analysis. RTI is fully described
in Chapter 14.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996  The Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996. The
act has three main purposes: to guarantee insurance portability, to increase protection
against fraud in the insurance industry, and to institute new regulations regarding the
security and privacy of health information.
The HIPAA Privacy Rule (CFR 42. Cite. 42 CFR Part 2. §164.501) establishes a mini-
mum level of privacy protection for health care information. For professionals involved
with assessment, the new privacy regulations are most relevant. The privacy regulations
establish that personal health information (which includes assessment information) must
be kept confidential. The regulations are designed to safeguard the privacy and confiden-
tiality of an individual’s health information, particularly in this age of electronic transmis-
sion of information (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2014). The regulations
define the rights of individuals, the administrative obligations of covered entities (i.e.,
health-care providers, health plans, health-care clearinghouses), and the permitted uses
and disclosures of protected health information. In general, the privacy rule requires prac-
titioners to act as follows:
• Provide clients with information about their right to privacy and how any informa-
tion collected may be used.
• Adopt and follow procedures for protecting privacy
• Conduct training of all staff to ensure that they understand and can accurately apply
the privacy standards.
• Appoint a designated individual to monitor adherence to the adopted privacy stand-
ards and HIPAA.
• Ensure that patient records are maintained in compliance with HIPAA standards.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001  No Child Left Behind (NCLB) contained the most
sweeping changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was
enacted in 1965. It changed the federal government’s role in K–12 education by requiring
America’s schools to describe their success in terms of what each student accomplishes.
The NCLB contains four basic education reform principles: stronger accountability,
increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on
teaching methods that have been proven to work. NCLB significantly raises expectations
for states, local school systems, and individual schools, in that all students are expected to
meet or exceed state standards in reading and mathematics within 12 years. NCLB requires
all states to establish state academic standards and a state testing system that meet federal
requirements.
408 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment

As a result of NCLB, states have created policies to reward schools that score well on
high-stakes tests. Merit-based awards, clear accountability and public visibility, and finan-
cial incentives for educators are purported benefits of high-stakes tests. However, many
criticize the use of these tests in education (further discussion in Chapter 14).

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 2006  The Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Technical Education Act provides federal funding and guidance for career
and technical education, with a focus on student achievement and preparing students for
careers and postsecondary education. The 2006 reauthorization called for increased focus
on the academic achievement of career and technical education students, strengthened the
connections between secondary and postsecondary education, and improved state and
local accountability. The accountability aspect of this new law means that, for the first
time, career and technical education programs will be held accountable for continuous
improvement in performance, measured by the academic proficiency of their students.
Success will be determined through valid and reliable tests, including No Child Left
Behind assessments in reading, math, and science.

Judicial Decisions
Judicial decisions are laws created by opinions from the court, often in litigation cases. Most
of the judicial decisions affecting assessment involve employment and educational tests.

Judicial Decisions Involving Educational Assessment  The following is a list of note-

worthy judicial decisions related to educational assessment:
• Larry P. v. Riles (1974, 1979, 1984) involved as plaintiffs African American elementary
school students from a California school district who claimed that they had been
improperly placed in Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) classrooms. The placement
had been made on the basis of their scores on an intelligence test that they claimed
was inappropriate for use with African American students. The district EMR stu-
dents were 28.5% White and 66% African American. The court concluded that the
schools had been using an inappropriate test for the placement of African Americans
in EMR programs and that the test could not be used. In the future, the school would
have to submit a written statement declaring that tests were not discriminatory and
had been validated for EMR placement decisions and provide statistics on the scores
of both White and African American students.
• Diana v. California State Board of Education (1973, 1979) concerned the appropriate use
of intelligence tests with Mexican American students. These students tended to score
poorly and were placed in EMR classes. The out-of-court agreement required the
schools to test students both in their first language and in English and restricted the
administration of many of the verbal sections of the tests.
• Debra P. v. Turlington (1979, 1981, 1983, 1984) questioned the fairness of the Florida
State Student Assessment Test. The plaintiffs, 10 African American students, argued
that they had been denied due process because they had not been given adequate time
to prepare for the test and that the test was used to segregate students by race. The
court found the test was not discriminatory. The court concluded that it was the
responsibility of the school system when using a test for granting high school diplo-
mas to show that the test covers only material that was actually taught to the students.
 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment 409

• Sharif v. New York State Educational Department (1989) concerned the use of Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT) scores as the sole basis for awarding state merit scholarships.
The plaintiffs claimed that the state was discriminating against girls who were com-
peting for the award. The court ruled that New York could not use the SAT scores
alone as a basis for awarding scholarships and needed to have other criteria, such as
grades or statewide achievement test data.

Judicial Decisions Involving Employment Tests  Employment is another area that has
received legal attention for assessment practices. The following is a list of noteworthy judi-
cial decisions related to employment assessment:
• Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) decided that Duke Power Company violated
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by requiring a high school diploma and two
written tests of applicants for jobs as laborers. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that
Duke Power violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because the standardized test-
ing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African American employ-
ees from being hired by, and advancing to higher-paying departments within, the
company. Validity of the tests was a key issue in this case, because neither of the tests
was shown to be significantly related to successful job performance.
• Washington v. Davis (1976) was a case that dealt with the issue of bias in selection
tests. In this case, two African Americans filed suit against the District of Columbia’s
police department for using a selection test (a test of verbal skills) that dispropor-
tionately screened out African American applicants. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled
against the workers and stated that an official action (in this case, the use of a selec-
tion test) could not be determined unconstitutional solely because it results in a
racially disproportionate impact. The Court instead relied on whether or not the
police department intended to discriminate against African American job appli-
cants. The Court found no intent to discriminate; therefore, it ruled in favor of the
police department.
• Bakke v. California (1978) was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on
affirmative action. It ruled that the use of racial “quotas” for university admissions
was unconstitutional, but approved affirmative action programs that give equal
access to minorities.
• Golden Rule Insurance Company v. Richard L. Mathias (1984) was a landmark lawsuit
that charged that the insurance agent licensing exam made by the Educational Test-
ing Service (ETS) was racially biased and not job related. The case was settled out of
court when ETS agreed to construct future tests by (a) including items for which the
percentage of correct responses for all test takers is at least 40% and (b) considering
any item biased if the difference in the percentage of correct answers between White
and African American test takers exceeded 15%.
• Contreras v. City of Los Angeles (1981) held that the employer’s burden is satisfied by
showing it used professionally acceptable methods and that the test was predictive
or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior that comprised
or were relevant to the job.
• Berkman v. City of New York (1987) struck down an arbitrary conversion process to
enhance scores for female firefighter applicants, even though the underlying tests did
not predict job performance.
410 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment

• Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust (1988) ruled that adverse impact does not apply
to subjective criteria. The plaintiff must identify a specific criterion as producing an
adverse impact and show reliable and probative statistical evidence to support an
inference of discrimination. The employer needs only to offer a legitimate business
reason for the criterion. Employers are not required, even when defending standard-
ized tests, to introduce formal validation studies showing that particular criteria pre-
dict actual on-the-job performance.
• Ward Cover Packing Company v. Antonio (1989) reversed the impact of Griggs v. Duke
Power (1971). A much more conservative Supreme Court agreed that, yes, employ-
ment tests must be substantially job related, but that employers could require tests
that went beyond what was essential for the job as part of “business necessity.”

Summary
Professional standards and codes of ethics principles are competence, integrity, treating cli-
ensure ethical and professional behavior by ents with respect and dignity, accepting responsi-
counselors and other helping professionals who bility, and concern for the welfare of others. Those
engage in assessment. Laws and court decisions involved in testing need to have competency in
have had an impact on assessment practice. The administering the test selected, provide an expla-
overall effect has been fairer tests and testing nation for using the test, and discuss the test
practices for diverse groups. The role of tests is results in a language test takers can understand.
constantly being redefined by the courts. Pro- They must get informed consent prior to adminis-
fessionals need to be guided by the code of eth- tering the test. Counselors need to be familiar with
ics of their organization, be familiar with laws techniques and procedures that are appropriate
and court interpretations relating to testing, and for use with clients from other ethnic and cultural
be careful, critical consumers of assessment groups. Practitioners also need to be aware of and
practices and procedures. respect the beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and
Codes of ethics and standards of practice are skills of all individuals they work with. This
essential elements of fair assessment. There are requires counselors to understand their own
similarities among the codes. Some of the ­common assumptions, biases, and values.

Questions for Discussion

1. Who should be allowed to purchase psychologi- that are not justified by the latest research. Do you
cal tests? What should their qualifications be? agree or disagree with this position? Why?
2. Many employment test experts believe that the 3. What position would you take if your code of
guidelines from the courts and legislature are out- professional ethics conflicted with a recent court
dated and make costly demands on employers ruling?

Suggested Activities
1. Conduct a content analysis of two or three of the certain tests for a particular function, misuse of
codes of ethics as they relate to testing. How are tests, appropriateness of a certain test for a minor-
they alike? How are they different? ity group, and the like.
2. Stage a mock trial on one of the major issues in 3. Discuss some of the cases presented in the section
testing, such as due process, appropriateness of on responsible test use.
 Chapter 17  •  Ethical and Legal Issues in Assessment 411

4. Research to see if any cases in your local court To remain competitive, Memorial Hospital has
system have involved assessment issues. decided it needs to cut its budget by downsizing
5. Read the following case study and answer the semiskilled workers, such as orderlies, custodi-
questions at the end: ans, cafeteria personnel, stockroom clerks, file
A private liberal arts college was working toward room clerks, and so on. The hospital would like
getting regional accreditation. The school had to help these workers qualify for higher-level
usually admitted a large percentage of students jobs so that they can remain with the organiza-
that were lower performers in their high school tion. From the attrition rate, the hospital admin-
class, including any student who had a 2.0 grade istrators know they will need workers with
point average (GPA) on a 4.0 scale. The college advanced technical skills and will have to recruit
did not require the SAT or ACT. The admissions from the outside to fill these positions if they
committee was under pressure to increase the have no one qualified internally. The personnel
academic respectability of the college by chang- department has decided to give all the targeted
ing the standards to require a minimum score of workers who will lose their positions the Wide
900 on the SAT Reasoning test. The committee Range Achievement Test (WRAT-III) and the
was told that enrollment would increase if the Wonderlic Personnel Test-Revised (WPT-R) and
school used an established assessment test and select those with the highest scores to be
that fewer students would drop out. retrained. Of the workers, 80% are women and
minority group members.
a. What are the assessment issues in the situation?
b. What factors or assessment practices are a. What are the ethical and legal issues related
­involved? to this case?
c. If you were a consultant invited by the college b. If you were a consultant hired by the hospital
to help the admissions committee in the selec- to help identify workers to be retrained and
tion and retention of students, what would conduct outplacement counseling for those
you advise? who are to be let go, what would you advise
Memorial to do?
6. Read the following case study and answer the
questions at the end:

References
American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA Code International Test Commission (ITC). (2013). Interna-
of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. tional Guidelines for Test Use. Retrieved from
American Counseling Association. (2014). Standards for http://www.intestcom.org/itc_projects.htm
qualifications of test users. Alexandria, VA: Author. National Council on Measurement in Education
American Educational Research Association (AERA), (NCME). (1995). Code of professional responsibilities
American Psychological Association (APA), & in educational measurement. Washington, DC:
National Council on Measurement in Education Author.
(NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psy- Oakland, T. (2012). Principles, standards, and guide-
chological testing. Washington, DC: Authors. lines that impact test development and use and
American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). sources of information. In Leach, M.M., Stevens,
Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct M. J, Ferrero, A., Korkut, Y., & Lindsay, G. (Eds.),
(Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Oxford international handbook of psychological ethics
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. (pp. 201–215). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990). Press.
Association for Assessment and Research in Coun- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
seling (AARC). (2003). Responsibilities of users of (2014). HIPPA privacy rule and sharing informa-
standardized tests (RUST). Alexandria, VA: Author. tion related to mental health. Retrieved from
Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education. (2004). http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa
Washington, DC: Joint Committee on Testing /understanding/special/mhguidance.html
Practices.
 Appendix I

Standards for Multicultural Assessment

Fourth Revision, 2012
The Association for Assessment in Counseling and Education (AACE) is an organization
of counselors, educators, and other professionals that advances the counseling profession
by providing leadership, training, and research in the creation, development, production,
and use of assessment and diagnostic techniques. The mission and vision of AACE drives
the continuing effort to create awareness of the importance of assessment and diagnostic
techniques for an increasingly diverse population, to promote better training in the uses
and development of assessments, and to advocate for social justice concerns in counseling
and educational assessment.
In 1992, the Committee on Diversity in Assessment under the direction of the Asso­
ciation for Assessment in Counseling (now AACE) Executive Council created the first set
of standards addressing cultural diversity and the impact on assessment in counseling and
education. In 2003, the Executive Council of the Association for Assessment in Counseling
(AAC) appointed a committee to expand and update the original set of standards.
During the past decade, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Edu­
cational Programs (CACREP) emphasized the centrality of diversity in our profession by
including language regarding diversity and advocacy throughout every aspect of the 2009
CACREP Standards. The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) has also acknowl­
edged in its 2010 Standards the importance of cultural and individual diversity and has
incorporated cultural competence into standards for rehabilitation counseling programs.
This revision of the Multicultural Assessment Standards addresses more specifically
the role of social advocacy in assessment. Further, they speak to the importance of effec­
tively selecting, administering, and interpreting assessments and diagnostic techniques
while providing training standards in multicultural assessment. The intent of the revision
is to enhance counseling professionals’ knowledge of as well as the public’s awareness and
support for culturally appropriate assessment. This is particularly salient as assessment is
an individual and system interventions useful for client/student and community empow­
erment, advocacy, collaboration, to change systems, and inform public opinion and policy.

Definition of Multicultural and Diverse Populations

We define multicultural populations broadly to recognize persons who differ by race, ethnic­
ity, culture, language, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ability. Today counselors
consider during the assessment process the impact of age, color, culture, ability, ethnic group,
gender, gender identity, race, religion, sexual orientation, linguistic background, socio­
economic status or other personal characteristics. Counselors are also challenged to advocate
for culturally diverse individuals from marginalized populations. To this end, this revision
of the Multicultural Assessment Standards offers an introductory section on Advocacy,
however, we assert that advocacy be infused throughout the Standards.
412
 Appendix I  •  Standards for Multicultural Assessment Fourth Revision, 2012 413

The Standards
Advocacy
Culturally competent professional counselors recognize the importance of social justice advocacy;
they integrate understanding of age, gender, ability, race, ethnic group, national origin, religion,
sexual orientation, linguistic background, and other personal characteristics in order to provide
appropriate assessment and diagnostic techniques.
Professional counselors should:
• Recognize in themselves and others, subtle biases and the way these biases influence
and impact the assessment process for marginalized populations.
• Seek opportunities for learning by immersion into marginalized populations in order
to gain understanding of clients’ worldview and the impact on the assessment process.
• Support use of assessments with psychometric properties appropriate for individu­
als and vulnerable groups and create awareness about assessment of culturally
diverse clients.
• Provide culturally competent and effective practices in all areas of counseling and
assessment in individual, family, school, and community settings.
• Work collaboratively with community leaders to understand and address the needs
of diverse clients providing opportunities to access services if needed.
• Address systemic barriers and consider how these barriers impact the interpretation
and use of assessment results.
• Be knowledgeable of potential bias in assessment instruments and use procedures
that comply with ethical guidelines when assessing marginalized populations.
• Are responsible for the appropriate applications, scoring, interpretations, and use of
assessment instruments relevant to the needs of clients, whether they score and inter­
pret such assessments themselves or use technology or other services.
• Take reasonable measures to ensure the proper use of psychological and assessment
techniques by persons under their supervision, that results are kept confidential and
that results are not misused by others.

Selection of Assessments: Content and Purpose, Norming,

Reliability and Validity
Culturally competent professional counselors select assessments and diagnostic techniques that are
appropriate and effective for diverse client populations.
Professional counselors should:
• Understand and follow the standard development procedures utilizing accepted
research methods when developing new instruments to ensure technical quality of
the content domains evaluated.
• Be knowledgeable of the technical aspects of assessments, including the importance of
reliability, validity, measurement error and scores and norms when selecting assessments.
• Evaluate representative samples of test questions or practice tests, directions, answer
sheets, manuals, and score reports before selecting a test.
• Understand how to review information on the performance of test takers of diverse sub­
groups, using appropriate norming information to ensure adequate subgroup analyses.
414 Appendix I  •  Standards for Multicultural Assessment Fourth Revision, 2012

• Understand how to select and utilize appropriate modified forms of tests for test tak­
ers with disabilities who need special accommodations.
• Select assessments that help identify client needs, strengths and resources for client
empowerment and self-advocacy.
• Select instruments with which they are trained and are competent to use and adhere to
the ethical standards for the administration, scoring, interpretation, or reporting proce­
dures and ensure that persons under their supervision are aware of these standards.
• Recognize the impact of cultural identity on test administration and interpretation,
and place test results in proper perspective with other relevant factors.

Administration and Scoring of Assessments

Culturally competent professional counselors recognize challenges inherent in assessment of per-
sons and seek to provide administration and scoring of assessment to clients respecting age, gender,
ability, race, ethnic group, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, linguistic background, and
other personal characteristics.
Professional counselors should:
• Obtain, understand and follow all established protocol for administering standard­
ized test instruments to clients with diverse linguistic backgrounds utilizing a com­
petent and bilingual translator to address cultural identity throughout the assessment
process including informed consent or other procedural directives.
• Become familiar with test question format and procedures for answering test ques­
tions as well as understand additional materials or needed equipment.
• Understand the nature and importance of test security, copyright, and ramifications
of cheating and maintain confidentiality of scores using adequate security procedures.
• Be knowledgeable with procedures, materials and directions for scoring tests and/or
monitoring scoring process to ensure accuracy of test scores, promptly reporting any
errors and communicating corrected results promptly.
• Administer assessments only within the context of a defined professional relation­
ship and utilize tests for their recommended purpose only
• Obtain informed consent from clients regarding the nature and purpose of assess­
ment methods to be used and ensure that the test taker has the opportunity to become
familiar with test question format.

Interpretation and Application of Assessment Results

Culturally competent professional counselors acknowledge the importance of social justice advocacy
in interpretation and communication of assessment results with diverse populations.
Professional counselors should:
• Understand the normative groups, technical information, benefits and limitations
of assessments and potential for bias in scoring and interpretation of assessment
instruments.
• Provide a holistic appraisal of clients by creating a strong foundational evaluation
respecting the influence of culture, background, and individual characteristics.
• Understand the influence of culture, background, and individual characteristics when
designing and implementing interventions to achieve effective counseling outcomes.
 Appendix I  •  Standards for Multicultural Assessment Fourth Revision, 2012 415

• Recognize how the effects of stigma, oppression, and discrimination impact the inter­
pretation and application of assessment results for culturally diverse clients.
• Recognize and collaborate with others to eliminate biases, prejudices, and discrimina­
tory contexts in conducting evaluations, interpretations and providing interventions.
• Explain the nature and purpose of assessment and specific use of results in an under­
standable, developmental level of the client or the client’s legally authorized repre­
sentative providing information about the impact of culture on assessment results
and interpretation.
• Consider other factors present in the client’s situation (e.g., disability or cultural fac­
tors or systematic or internalized oppressing) before making any recommendations,
when relevant.
• Do not use data or results from assessments that are obsolete or outdated and make
every effort to prevent the misuse of obsolete measures and assessment data by others.
• Release assessment data in which clients are identified only with the consent of cli­
ents or their legal representatives, or court order and only released to professionals
recognized as qualified to interpret the data.

Training in the Uses of Assessments

Culturally competent professional counselors seek training and supervised experience to ensure
they provide appropriate assessment and diagnostic techniques for diverse client populations.
Professional counselors should:
• Understand the test’s characteristics and receive guidance on the levels of skills,
knowledge and training required to administer.
• Understand individual and group approaches to multicultural assessment.
• Receive training in how assessment data can be used to develop client action plans to
make systemic changes that benefit disadvantaged individuals and vulnerable
groups.
• Gain knowledge in how to collaborate with allies and policy makers to develop
assessment practices that empower clients and educate the general public about cul­
turally appropriate assessment of culturally diverse individuals and groups.
• Engage in continuous education to increase knowledge of assessment and enhance
job performance.
• Have training and expertise in the use of traditional assessment and testing instru­
ments including technical aspects of the instruments as well as cultural limitations to
use test instruments for the welfare of culturally different clients.

References
American Art Therapy Association. (2011). Art ther- www.counseling.org/resources/codeofethics
apy multicultural/diversity competencies. Retrieved /TP/home/ct2.aspx
from http://www.arttherapy.org/upload/multi Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender
culturalcompetencies2011.pdf Issues in Counseling. (2010). Competencies for coun-
American Counseling Association. (2005). Code of seling LGBTQ clients and competencies for counseling
­ethics and standards of practice of the American transgender clients. Retrieved from http://www
­Counseling Association. Retrieved from http:// .algbtic.org/resources/competencies.
416 Appendix I  •  Standards for Multicultural Assessment Fourth Revision, 2012

Association for Multicultural Counseling and Devel­ National Career Development Association. (2010).
opment. (1996). AMCD multicultural counseling Career counselor assessment and evaluation competen-
competencies. Retrieved from http://www.multi cies. Retrieved from http://associationdatabase
culturalcounseling.org. .com/aws/NCDA/asset_manager/get_file
American Psychological Association. (2004). Code of /18143/aace-ncda_assmt_eval_competencies.
Fair Testing Practices in Education. Retrieved from Association for Assessment and Counseling. (2003).
http://www.apa.org/science/programs/test Responsibilities of users of standardized tests.
ing/fair-testing.pdf. Retrieved from http://www.theaaceonline.com
Council on Accreditation of Counseling and Related /rust.pdf.
Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 standards. Texas Professional Educational Diagnosticians Board
Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org of Registry. (2010). Best practice guidelines.
/doc/2009%20Standards%20with%20cover.pdf. Retrieved from http://regped.com/pdf/TPED­
Counselors for Social Justice Position Statement on BestPract.pdf.
Academic Achievement Gap and Equity on Edu­
cational Services. (2008). Retrieved from http:// 2011–2012 Executive Council:
counselorsforsocialjustice.com/CSJ_Position_-_
Academic_Achievement_Gap.pdf. • President: Danica G. Hays, Old Dominion
Council on Rehabilitation Education. (2012). Accredi- University, [email protected]
tation manual for masters’ level rehabilitation counse- • President-Elect: Carl Sheperis, Lamar Univer­
lor education programs. Retrieved from http:// sity, [email protected]
www.core-rehab.org/Files/Doc/PDF/CORE­ • Past President: Joshua Watson, Mississippi
StandardsPrograms.pdf. State University-Meridian, jwatson@meridian.
Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certifica­ msstate.edu
tion. (2009). Code of professional ethics for rehabilita- • Secretary: Casey Barrio-Minton, University of
tion counselors. Retrieved from http://www North Texas, [email protected]
.crccertification.com/filebin/pdf/CRCCodeOf­ • Treasurer: Stephanie Crockett, Oakland
Ethics.pdf. ­University
Lewis, Arnold, House, and Toporek. (2003). ACA • Governing Council Representative: Joshua
advocacy competencies. Retrieved from http:// Watson, Mississippi State University-Meridian,
www.counseling.org/resources/competencies [email protected]
/advocacy_competencies.pdf. • MAL Publications: Dale Pietzrak, University of
National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse South Dakota, [email protected]
Counselors. (2011). Code of ethics. Retrieved from • MAL Awards: Susan Carmichael, susan.
http://www.naadac.org/membership/code-of- [email protected]
ethics. • MAL Membership: Amy McLeod, Argosy
National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). ­University- Atlanta, [email protected]
National Association of School Psychologists’ model • Graduate Student Representative: Jayne Smith,
for comprehensive and integrated school psychological Old Dominion University, [email protected]
services. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline Multicultural Assessment Standards Revision
.org/standards/2010standards/2_PracticeModel Task Force: Dr. Linda Foster, Chair (Foster_lh@mercer.
.pdf. edu , Mercer University); Members: Dr. Gabriel
National Board for Certified Counselors. (2005). Code Lomas ([email protected]), Danica Hays (DHays@
of ethics. Retrieved from http://nbcc.org/Assets odu.edu), Michael Becerra ([email protected].
/Ethics/nbcc-codeofethics.pdf. edu), and Anita Neuer Colburn ([email protected])
 Appendix II

Responsibilities of Users of Standardized

Tests (RUST; 3rd Ed.)

Prepared by the Association for Assessment in Counseling (AAC)

Qualifications of Test Users

Qualified test users demonstrate appropriate education, training, and experience in using
tests for the purposes under consideration. They adhere to the highest degree of ethical
codes, laws, and standards governing professional practice. Lack of essential qualifications
or ethical and legal compliance can lead to errors and subsequent harm to clients. Each
professional is responsible for making judgments in each testing situation and cannot leave
that responsibility either to clients or others in authority. The individual test user must
obtain appropriate education and training, or arrange for professional supervision and
assistance when engaged in testing in order to provide valuable, ethical, and effective
assessment services to the public. Qualifications of test users depend on at least four factors:
• Purposes of Testing  A clear purpose for testing should be established. Because the
purposes of testing direct how the results are used, qualifications beyond general
testing competencies may be needed to interpret and apply data.
• Characteristics of Tests  Understanding of the strengths and limitations of each
instrument used is a requirement.
• Settings and Conditions of Test Use  Assessment of the quality and relevance of test
user knowledge and skill to the situation is needed before deciding to test or partici-
pate in a testing program.
• Roles of Test Selectors, Administrators, Scorers, and Interpreters  The education,
training, and experience of test users determine which tests they are qualified to
administer and interpret.
Each test user must evaluate his or her qualifications and competence for selecting, admin-
istering, scoring, interpreting, reporting, or communicating test results. Test users must
develop the skills and knowledge for each test they intend to use.

Technical Knowledge
Responsible use of tests requires technical knowledge obtained through training, educa-
tion, and continuing professional development. Test users should be conversant and com-
petent in aspects of testing, including:
• Validity of Test Results  Validity is the accumulation of evidence to support a spe-
cific interpretation of the test results. Since validity is a characteristic of test results, a

417
418 Appendix II  •  Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests (RUST; 3rd Ed.)

test may have validities of varying degree for different purposes. The concept of
instructional validity relates to how well the test is aligned to state standards and
classroom instructional objectives.
• Reliability  Reliability refers to the consistency of test scores. Various methods are
used to calculate and estimate reliability depending on the purpose for which the test
is used.
• Errors of Measurement  Various ways may be used to calculate the error associated
with a test score. Knowing this and knowing the estimate of the size of the error
allows the test user to provide a more accurate interpretation of the scores and to
support better-informed decisions.
• Scores and Norms  Basic differences between the purposes of norm-referenced and
criterion-referenced scores impact score interpretations.

Test Selection
Responsible use of tests requires that the specific purpose for testing be identified. In addi-
tion, the test that is selected should align with that purpose, while considering the charac-
teristics of the test and the test taker. Tests should not be administered without a specific
purpose or need for information. Typical purposes for testing include:
• Description  Obtaining objective information on the status of certain characteristics, such
as achievement, ability, personality types, and so on, is often an important use of testing.
• Accountability  When judging the progress of an individual or the effectiveness of
an educational institution, strong alignment between what is taught and what is
tested needs to be present.
• Prediction  Technical information should be reviewed to determine how accurately
the test will predict areas such as appropriate course placement; selection for special
programs, interventions, and institutions; and other outcomes of interest.
• Program Evaluation  The role that testing plays in program evaluation and how the
test information may be used to supplement other information gathered about the
program is an important consideration in test use.
Proper test use involves determining if the characteristics of the test are appropriate for the
intended audience and are of sufficient technical quality for the purpose at hand. Some
areas to consider include:
• The Test Taker  Technical information should be reviewed to determine if the test
characteristics are appropriate for the test taker (e.g., age, grade level, language, cul-
tural background).
• Accuracy of Scoring Procedures  Only tests that use accurate scoring procedures
should be used.
• Norming and Standardization Procedures  Norming and standardization proce-
dures should be reviewed to determine if the norm group is appropriate for the
intended test takers. Specified test administration procedures must be followed.
• Modifications  For individuals with disabilities, alternative measures may need to be
found and used and/or accommodations in test-taking procedures may need to be
employed. Interpretations need to be made in light of the modifications in the test or
testing procedures.
 Appendix II  •  Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests (RUST; 3rd Ed.) 419

• Fairness  Care should be taken to select tests that are fair to all test takers. When test
results are influenced by characteristics or situations unrelated to what is being meas-
ured (e.g., gender, age, ethnic background, existence of cheating, unequal availability
of test preparation programs), the use of the resulting information is invalid and
potentially harmful. In achievement testing, fairness also relates to whether or not
the student has had an opportunity to learn what is tested.

Test Administration
Test administration includes carefully following standard procedures so that the test is
used in the manner specified by the test developers. The test administrator should ensure
that test takers work within conditions that maximize opportunity for optimum perfor-
mance. As appropriate, test takers, parents, and organizations should be involved in the
various aspects of the testing process, including the following:
Before administration, it is important that relevant persons
• are informed about the standard testing procedures, including information about the
purposes of the test, the kinds of tasks involved, the method of administration, and
the scoring and reporting;
• have sufficient practice experiences prior to the test to include practice, as needed, on
how to operate equipment for computer-administered tests and practice in respond-
ing to tasks;
• have been sufficiently trained in their responsibilities and the administration proce-
dures for the test;
• have a chance to review test materials and administration sites and procedures prior
to the time for testing to ensure standardized conditions and appropriate responses
to any irregularities that occur;
• arrange for appropriate modifications of testing materials and procedures in order to
accommodate test takers with special needs; and
• have a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities.

During administration, it is important that

• the testing environment (e.g., seating, work surfaces, lighting, room temperature,
freedom from distractions) and psychological climate are conducive to the best pos-
sible performance of the examinees;
• sufficiently trained personnel establish and maintain uniform conditions and observe
the conduct of test takers when large groups of individuals are tested;
• test administrators follow the instructions in the test manual; demonstrate verbal
clarity; use verbatim directions; adhere to verbatim directions; follow exact
sequence and timing; and use materials that are identical to those specified by the
test publisher;
• a systematic and objective procedure is in place for observing and recording environ-
mental, health, and emotional factors, or other elements that may invalidate test per-
formance and results; deviations from prescribed test administration procedures,
including information on test accommodations for individuals with special needs,
are recorded; and
420 Appendix II  •  Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests (RUST; 3rd Ed.)

• the security of test materials and computer-administered testing software is pro-

tected, ensuring that only individuals with a legitimate need for access to the materi-
als/ software are able to obtain such access and that steps to eliminate the possibility
of breaches in test security and copyright protection are respected.
After administration, it is important to
• collect and inventory all secure test materials and immediately report any breaches
in test security; and
• include notes on any problems, irregularities, and accommodations in the test records.
These precepts represent the basic process for all standardized tests and assessments. Some
situations may add steps or modify some of these to provide the best testing milieu possible.

Test Scoring
Accurate measurement necessitates adequate procedures for scoring the responses of test
takers. Scoring procedures should be audited as necessary to ensure consistency and accu-
racy of application:
• Carefully implement and/or monitor standard scoring procedures.
• When test scoring involves human judgment, use rubrics that clearly specify the cri-
teria for scoring. Scoring consistency should be constantly monitored.
• Provide a method for checking the accuracy of scores when accuracy is challenged by
test takers.

Interpreting Test Results

Responsible test interpretation requires knowledge about and experience with the test, the
scores, and the decisions to be made. Interpretation of scores on any test should not take
place without a thorough knowledge of the technical aspects of the test, the test results,
and its limitations. Many factors can impact the valid and useful interpretations of test
scores. These can be grouped into several categories, including psychometric, test taker,
and contextual, as well as others.
• Psychometric Factors  Factors such as the reliability, norms, standard error of meas-
urement, and validity of the instrument are important when interpreting test results.
Responsible test use considers these basic concepts and how each impacts the scores
and hence the interpretation of the test results.
• Test-Taker Factors  Factors such as the test taker’s group membership and how that
membership may impact the results of the test are critical factors in the interpretation
of test results. Specifically, the test user should evaluate how the test taker’s gender,
age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, marital status, and so forth, affect the indi-
vidual’s results.
• Contextual Factors  The relationship of the test to the instructional program, oppor-
tunity to learn, quality of the educational program, work and home environment,
and other factors that would assist in understanding the test results is useful in inter-
preting test results. For example, if the test does not align with curriculum standards
and how those standards are taught in the classroom, the test results may not provide
useful information.
 Appendix II  •  Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests (RUST; 3rd Ed.) 421

Communicating Test Results

Before communication of test results takes place, a solid foundation and preparation is
necessary. That foundation includes knowledge of test interpretation and an understand-
ing of the particular test being used, as provided by the test manual.
Conveying test results with language that the test taker, parents, teachers, clients, or
general public can understand is one of the key elements in helping others understand the
meaning of the test results. When reporting group results, the information needs to be sup-
plemented with background information that can help explain the results with cautions
about misinterpretations. The test user should indicate how the test results can be and
should not be interpreted.

Closing
Proper test use resides with the test user—the counselor and educator. Qualified test users
understand the measurement characteristics necessary to select good standardized tests, admin-
ister the tests according to specified procedures, assure accurate scoring, accurately interpret test
scores for individuals and groups, and ensure productive applications of the results. This docu-
ment provides guidelines for using tests responsibly with students and clients.
RUST Committee
Janet Wall, Chair Brad Erford
James Augustin David Lundberg
Charles Eberly Timothy Vansickle

Source: Association for Assessment in Counseling, 2003. All rights reserved.

 Name Index

A Aydlett, L. A., 239

Achenbach, T. M., 39, 320 Ayeni, E., 100
Ackerman, M. J., 384
Ackerman, P. L., 159 B
Adrianzen, C. A., 349 Bacharach, V. R., 98
Aiken, L. A., 34, 196, 234 Bagby, R. M., 4
Algozzine, B., 214 Bailey, E. K., 360
Algozzine, R., 369 Balla, D. A., 367
Allalouf, A., 111 Balluerka, N., 276
Allard, G., 153 Barbuti, S. M., 237
Allport, G. W., 271–273, 275 Barclay, S. R., 257, 258
Alonso-Arbiol, I., 276 Bardos, A. N., 74
Alvarez, M. E., 349 Barnick, M. J., 259
American Association on Intellectual and Barry, C. T., 35, 37
Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), Barton, P. E., 216
363, 367 Baruth, L. G., 360
American Counseling Association (ACA), 148, 390, Beck, A. T., 22, 74, 85, 122, 312,
396, 397, 402, 403–404 313, 319
American Educational Research Association Becker, K. A., 180
(AERA), 2, 32, 91, 110–114, 117, 118, 121, 125, Beckstead, J. W., 100
136, 195, 337, 348, 349, 356–358, 360, 362, 364, Beier, M. E., 159
365, 396, 398 Bennett, G. K., 231
American Psychiatric Association (APA), 4, 42, 116, Ben-Porath, Y. S., 276
140, 282, 305–307, 309, 313, 320, 329, Berg, C. A., 159
367, 372 Bergeron, R., 169
American Psychological Association (APA), 2, 32, Bergman, H., 276
91, 110, 136, 195, 337, 348, 356, 396, Beutler, A., 272
398–399, 402 Beutler, L. E., 8, 23
American School Counselor Association (ASCA), Bierman, K. L., 240
336, 337, 340, 347 Binet, A., 14
Amir, T., 380 Boan, C., 239
Amirjani, N., 234 Boekhorst, J. A., 259
Ammons, R., 370 Bonner, M., 286
Anastasi, A., 14, 119, 126 Boo, J., 33
Angoff, W. H., 72 Borgen, F. H., 246
Arendasy, M. E., 351 Boyd, D., 93
Aron, A., 68 Bracken, B. A., 104, 215, 239
Aron, E. N., 68 Breaugh, J. A., 260
Aronow, E., 288 Brice, W. D., 360
Arulmani, G., 253 Briggs, K. C., 283
Ashworth, N. L., 234 Brown, C., 97
Association for Assessment and Research in Brown, G. K., 22, 74, 85, 122, 312
Counseling (AARC), 140, 372, 399, Brown, S. D., 256
412–416 Buchanan, T., 16
Association for Assessment in Counseling (AAC), Buck, J. N., 291
10–11, 155, 347, 356, 399 Burlingame, G. M., 319
Atri, A., 310 Burns, R. C., 294
Austin, W. G., 42 Buros, O. K., 133

422
 Name Index 423

Butcher, J. N., 15, 16, 33, 155, 277, 294 Darwin, C., 14
Byham, W. C., 265 Das, J. P., 168, 185
Davey, T., 33
C Davidshofer, C. O., 34, 97
Cairney, J., 234 Davis, J. L., 104
Caldwell, J. S., 348 Davis, R., 122, 280
Calfa, N. A., 336 Decker, S. L., 339
Callahan, C. M., 341 De Clercq, B., 276
Callahan, J. L., 288 DeFries, J. C., 189
Camara, W. J., 173 Demers, J. A., 347
Campbell, D. P., 247 Demyttenaere, K., 304
Campbell, D. T., 122 Derogatis, L. R., 313
Campion, M. A., 259 Derringer, J., 273
Carlat, D. J., 319 Detrick, P., 276
Carr, A., 384, 385 Dickens, W. T., 190
Carroll, J. B., 167–168 Dierckx, E., 276
Casañas i Comabella, C., 318 Dikel, M. F., 266
Cattell, R. B., 67, 124, 125, 164, 275, 285 Domino, G., 29
Cavagnaro, A. T., 42 Domino, M. L., 29
Cermak, S. A., 234 Donders, J., 384
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 160, 276 Donnay, D. A. C., 246
Chan, K. M., 234 Dozier, V. C., 267
Charcot, J. M., 11 Drasgow, F., 260
Chernyshenko, O. S., 260 Driscoll, A., 97
Chibnall, J. T., 276 Dumont, R., 177
Choate, L., 43 Dunn, D. M., 31, 208
Christ, T. J., 347 Dunn, L. M., 31, 208
Cicchetti, D. V., 367 Duvoe, K. R., 294
Clifford, R., 240 Dvorak, B. J., 228
Coalson, D. L., 184 E
Cohen, R. J., 3, 14, 27, 33, 41, 112, 114, 119, 121, 276, Eber, H. W., 67, 275
298, 303, 384 Eggers, C., 234
Coleman, S. L., 337 Ekstrom, R. B., 336
Colwell, K., 42 Elliott, C., 184
Coopersmith, S., 295 Elmore, P. B., 336
Cortiella, C., 338 Engelhard, G., Jr., 384
Costa, P. T., Jr., 272, 275 Epstein, S., 297
Costaris, L., 385 Erford, B. T., 4, 23–25
Cottone, V., 351 Ertelt, T., 42
Coups, E., 68 Esping, A., 158, 159, 164, 172
Court, J. H., 186 Esquirol, J., 11
Craig, R. J., 25, 42 Exner, J. E., Jr., 288
Cronbach, L. J., 102, 119
Csapó, B., 239 F
Cudeck, R., 68 Faught, B. E., 234
Cummings, J. A., 290 Faulkner-Bond, M., 112
Cummings, J. L., 319 Faust, D., 153
Cummings, N. A., 319 Feild, H. S., 259
Feng, A., 215
D Ferrara, M. S., 97
Dahir, C. A., 336 Fink, G., 234
Dana, R. H., 360, 361 First, M. B., 308
424 Name Index

Fiske, D. W., 122 H

Fitts, W. H., 297 Hacifazlioğlu, Ö., 346
Fitzherbert, A., 11 Hagen, E., 185
Flanagan, D. P., 159, 160, 162, 168, 171, 184, 339 Hale, J. B., 339
Fletcher-Janzen, C. R., 182, 230 Hamilton, G., 169
Floyd, R. G., 169 Hammer, A. L., 246, 273
Flynn, J. R., 190 Hansen, J. I. C., 246
Foa, E. B., 74, 316 Hansen, N., 319
Folstein, M., 311 Haranburu, M., 276
Folstein, S. E., 311 Hardison, C. M., 350
Frederiksen, N., 265 Hardwood, T. M., 8, 23, 272
Freud, S., 11 Harmon, L. W., 246
Frey, A. J., 349 Harrington, J. C., 255
Frick, P. J., 9, 35, 37, 276, 386 Harrington, T. F., 244, 253, 255
Friedman, T., 262 Harrison, J. A., 259
Frisch, M. B., 295 Harrison, P. L., 159, 160, 162, 171
Fu, Y., 236, 237 Hartwell, C. J., 259
Furnham, A., 276 Hathaway, S. R., 277
Furr, R. M., 98 Haw, C., 318
Hawton, K., 318
G Hay, J., 234
Gale, G., 365 Hayslip, B., Jr., 289
Galton, F., 14 Hebl, M. R., 258, 259
Gardner, H., 167 Heilbrun, K., 41
Gargani, J., 346 Herlihy, B., 307
Garred, M., 122 Herman, K. C., 337
Gatewood, R. D., 259 Hersen, M., 25, 36, 41, 371
Gati, I., 380 Herzberg, D. S., 117, 295
Gentle, F., 365 Hezlett, S. A., 236, 238
Gibbon, M., 308 Higgins, K. K., 285
Gibson, R. L., 258 Hodges, S., 289
Gifford, B., 15 Hoge, R. D., 4, 9, 26, 104, 367, 381
Gilmore, L., 122 Holland, J. L., 226, 238, 244, 245, 252, 347
Glascoe, F. P., 371 Horn, J. L., 124, 125, 164, 168
Goddard, R., 153 Horvath, L. W., 384
Goldfinger, K., 384–386, 388, 390 Huarte, J., 11
Gorin, J. S., 111 Hudson, R., 285
Gorostiaga, A., 276 Huey, S. J., Jr., 357
Gough, H. G., 282 Hyne, S. A., 247
Grabmeier, J., 350
Graham, J. R., 148 I
Granello, D. H., 317, 318 Ivanoff, A., 319
Granello, P. F., 317, 318
Greene, R. L., 274, 289, 290 J
Gronlund, N. E., 92, 111, 196, 377, 381, 382 Jackson, J. J., 271
Grossman, S., 280 Jang, S. J., 319
Groth-Marnat, G., 8, 23, 26, 34, 196, 234, 272, 384 Jenkins, S. R., 289
Gubbay, S. S., 234 Jensen, A. R., 168
Guenole, N., 276 Jickar, M. J., 118
Guilford, J. P., 164–165 Joint Committee on Testing Practices, 381,
Gunn, J., 384 399–400
Guzmán, M., 336 Jones, E. O., 357
Gysbers, N. C., 337 Jones, K., 25
 Name Index 425

Jones, K. D., 309 Loeb, S., 93

Jung, C. G., 273, 275, 283 Lomas, G. I., 286
Lomax, R. G., 68
K Long, J., 244, 253
Kaffenberger, C., 336 Losardo, A., 84
Kagan, S. L., 240 Luchow, J. P., 351
Kalimeri, K., 273 Luckasson, R., 367
Källmen, H., 276 Lunnen, K., 319
Kalohn, J. C., 33 Luria, A. R., 166, 168
Kaminsky, S., 351
Kamphaus, R. W., 9, 35, 37, 38, 276, 386 M
Kane, M. T., 111 MacCallum, R. C., 68
Kaplan, R. M., 94 Macciocchi, S., 97
Karma, K., 235 Machover, K., 290
Kaufman, A. S., 4, 9, 73, 124, 166, 168, 170, 182, 184, 377 Madera, J. M., 258, 259
Kaufman, H. S., 328 Mandlawitz, M., 349
Kaufman, N. L., 4, 73, 124, 166, 168, 182, 184, 328, 377 Manning, M. L., 360
Kaufman, S. H., 294 Manroop, L., 259
Kelley, L., 360 Maras, M. A., 337
Kennet-Cohen, T., 111 Marion, B. E., 4
Kieffer, M. J., 349 Markon, K. E., 273
Kim, K. H., 215 Marks, K. P., 371
Kirby, R. J., 168 Martinez, L. R., 258, 259
Kline, P., 117 Mascolo, J. T., 184
Knoff, H. M., 294 Maslow, A., 252
Knopils, V. S., 189 Mather, N., 4, 184, 203, 377
Kobrin, J. L., 237 Mathur, S. R., 38
Koppitz, E. M., 290, 291, 328 Matson, K., 42
Kroeger, O., 273 Mattern, K., 237
Krueger, R. F., 273 Maulding, W. S., 224
Kuder, F., 244, 257 Mayer, R. E., 159
Kuder, G. F., 100 McCaffrey, N., 97
Kuncel, N. R., 236, 238 McCarthy, C., 336
Kurtz, J. E., 294 McCaulley, M. H., 273
Kurtz, S. M. S., 38 McCrae, R. R., 272, 275
Kyei-Poku, I., 259 McDonald, B., 215
McGrew, K. S., 164, 168, 184, 203
L McHugh, P. R., 311
Lambert, M. J., 319 McKinley, J. C., 277
Lambert, R. G., 336 McMahon, M., 258
Lane, S., 125 McManus, I. C., 104
Lankford, H., 93 McNulty, M., 384, 385
Larkin, D., 234 Meier, N. C., 234
Lennon, R., 186 Meisels, S., 240
Lent, R. W., 256 Mendelson, M., 122
Lenz, J. G., 267 Messick, S., 113, 125
Lesaux, N. K., 349 Meyer, G. J., 294
Levashina, J., 259 Miller, M. D., 92, 111, 113, 114, 196, 210, 377, 381, 382
Levine, S. Z., 276 Millon, C., 122, 280
Lichtenberger, E. O., 4, 8, 9, 182, 184, 377, 384–388, 390 Millon, T., 122, 276, 280, 282
Linehan, M. M., 319 Minton, B. A., 122
Linn, R. L., 92, 111, 196, 377, 381, 382 Missiuna, C., 234
Livingston, R. B., 84, 98, 99, 104, 107, 113, 202, 378 Mitchell, M. B., 310
426 Name Index

Mitchell, M. H., 258 Opie, C., 25

Mohr, J. D., 370 Oren, C., 111
Molnár, G., 239 Ortiz, S., 168
Moon, T. R., 341 Ortner, T. M., 294
Moos, R., 347 Osborn, D. S., 266
Morgeson, F. P., 259 Otis, A., 186
Morhart, M., 234 Ott, E. M., 349
Morris, M. L., 246 Ownby, R. L., 9
Morrison, J., 26
Moske, A. K., 289 P
Muchinsky, P. M., 170, 265 Panek, P. E., 289
Mueller, J., 214, 215 Parr, P. E., 285
Multunas, N., 239 Parra, G. R., 169
Murphy, K. R., 34, 97 Parshall, C. G., 33
Murray, H. A., 288 Patel, S., 43
Myers, I. B., 273, 275, 282–283 Patterson, B. F., 237
Myers, K. D., 284 Patton, W., 153
Myers, P. B., 283, 284 Pearson, Inc., 38, 74, 169, 178, 200, 210, 233, 286, 290,
315, 368
N Peterson, C. H., 286
Nagle, R. J., 239 Peterson, G. W., 267
Naglieri, J. A., 168, 185 Phelps, R. P., 196
Nagy, J., 239 Piaget, J., 165–166
Nathan, J. S., 173 Picarello, K., 41
National Association for Gifted Children, 341 Piers, E. V., 117, 295
National Association of State Directors of Special Pinel, P., 11
Education’s IDEA Partnership, 339 Plomin, R., 189
National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC), Plucker, J. A., 158, 159, 162, 164, 172
148 Pomerantz, A. M., 384–386, 388, 390
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Ponterotto, J. G., 358
(NCTM), 200, 208 Powers, R. A., 225, 226
National Council on Measurement in Education Pratt, S., 122
(NCME), 2, 32, 91, 110, 136, 195–196, 337, 348, Prout, H. T., 294
356, 396, 398, 400 Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 246, 311
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities Psychological Corporation, 174, 179
(NJCLD), 339 Puente, A. E., 173
Neiderhiser, J. M., 189
Nelson, P. M., 347 Q
Nettelbeck, T., 190 Quenk, N. L., 273
Neukrug, E., 286 Quinn, M. M., 38
Newgent, R. A., 285
Newman, I., 285 R
Nilsen, D. L., 247 Raiford, S. E., 184
Nock, M. K., 38 Raven, J., 186
Nowak, D., 234 Raven, J. C., 186
Ray, J. V., 297
O Reardon, R. C., 267
Oakland, T., 402 Reichenberg, L. W., 307, 309
O’Brien, E. J., 297 Remley, T. P., Jr., 307
Oden, M. H., 170 Renzulli, J. S., 343
O’Donohue, W. T., 319 Resch, J., 97
Oh, S., 341 Rescorla, L. A., 39, 320
Okado, Y., 240 Reynolds, C. R., 38, 84, 87, 88, 98, 99, 104, 107, 113,
Olson, J. L., 234 202, 378, 381
 Name Index 427

Reynolds, E., 230 Sinha, N., 250

Reznikoff, M., 288 Sink, C. A., 337
Richardson, M. W., 100 Sireci, S., 112
Rios, J., 117 Skodol, A. E., 273
Riso, D. R., 285 Skrondal, A., 276
Roberts, J. G., 224 Smith, C. A., 357
Robertson, G. J., 74 Smith, S. R., 287
Rogers, C., 295 Smith, S. L., 104
Roid, G. H., 181 Smyth, N. F., 319
Rokeach, M., 250 Snow, C. E., 349
Rorschach, H., 287 Solomon, B. C., 271
Rosenberg, M., 295 Sommer, M., 351
Rossi, G., 276 Sommers-Flanagan, J., 25, 310, 329
Roth, K., 369 Sommers-Flanagan, R., 25, 310, 329
Rotter, J. B., 50 Sparkman, L. A., 224
Rubio, D. M., 116 Sparrow, S. S., 367
Rupp, D. E., 265 Spearman, C. E., 161–162
Rutherford, R. B., 38, 39 Spielberger, C. D., 273, 294
Ryan, C., 362 Spironello, C., 234
Spitzer, R. L., 308
S Spray, J. A., 33
Saccuzzo, D. P., 94 Spreen, O., 104
Sackett, P. R., 350 Squires, J., 371
Sacks, P., 14, 27 Srivastava, K. B. L., 250
Sadock, B. J., 310 Stambaugh, T., 215
Sadock, V. A., 310 Stanley, B., 337
Salkind, N. J., 22 Stark, S., 260
Saluja, G., 240 Steer, M., 365
Sampson, J. P., 266, 267 Steer, R. A., 22, 74, 85, 122, 312, 319
Sattler, J. M., 4, 9, 26, 104, 170, 177, 190, 367, 381 Stern, W., 170
Saunders, D. R., 265 Sternberg, R. J., 159, 166, 190
Saunders, K., 318 Stone, C., 336
Scalise, K., 15 Strauss, E., 104
Schafer, W. D., 336 Strong, E. K., 244, 246
Schaubhut, N. A., 246 Strong, M., 346
Schmitt, M., 294 Sturman, E. D., 3, 27, 298, 303, 384
Schrank, F. A., 184 Styck, K. M., 294
Schwean, V. L., 384 Super, D. E., 250, 252, 256
Scott-Little, C., 240 Suter, W. N., 102
Seguin, E., 11 Suzuki, L. A., 358
Seijts, G. H., 259 Swerdlik, M. E., 3, 27, 33, 112, 114, 121, 276, 298,
Selborn, M., 4 303, 384
Seligman, L., 307, 309 Syverson, A. N., 84
Shapiro, E. S., 36, 37
Shaw, E. J., 237 T
Shepard, L. A., 240 Tanner, D. C., 369
Sheperis, C. J., 370 Tatsuoka, M. M., 67, 275
Sherman, E. M. S., 104 Taylor, P., 384
Shultz, K. S., 118 Tellegen, A., 276
Shuster, S., 42 Terman, L. M., 170, 180
Simeonsson, R. J., 366 Thomas, K. M., 273
Simmonds, E. P. M., 351 Thomas, M., 290
Simon, T., 14 Thompson, A. S., 256
Simons, R., 153 Thompson, P. M., 189
428 Name Index

Thompson, R. C., 246 Ward, C., 122

Thorndike, R. M., 74 Warren, J., 41
Thornton, G. C., 265 Warren, W. L., 297
Thuesen, J. M., 273 Wasserman, J. D., 104, 158, 160, 162
Thurstone, L. L., 162–163 Watson, D., 273
Tilley, J. L., 357 Watson, J. B., 272
Toga, A. W., 189 Watson, M., 258
Torrance, E. P., 342 Webster, B., 336
Trickett, E., 347 Wechsler, D., 160, 172–173, 179
Trotter, T. V., 336 Weiner, I. B., 3, 7, 21, 274, 289, 290
Tsai, J., 361 Weiss, K. A., 288
Tulsky, D. S., 160, 162 Wells, C., 117
Turner, S. M., 25 Welsh, J. A., 240
Turvall, E., 111 Wennberg, P., 276
Whetzel, D. L., 231
U Whiston, S. C., 2, 133, 145, 159
Umphress, V., 319 Whitbourne, S. K., 307
Urbina, S., 7, 14, 22, 29, 31, 32, 47, 93–95, 103, 105, Whitney, D. A., 118
106, 114, 118, 119, 122, 126, 148, 153, 274, 384 Wiener, J., 385
U.S. Census Bureau, 73, 179, 182, 357 Wilkinson, G. S., 74
U.S. Civil Service Commission, 261 Williams, E. B., 262
U.S. Department of Defense, 225 Williams, J. B. W., 308
U.S. Department of Education, 205, 349 Willson, V., 84, 98, 99, 104, 107, 113, 202, 378
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 407 Willson, V. L., 378
U.S. Department of Labor, 119, 253, 254 Wilson, C., 190
U.S. Department of State, 262 Wind, S. A., 384
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Wolff, L. A., 257, 258
258, 261 Woodcock, R. W., 168, 184, 203
V Woodworth, R. S., 274
VanCise, S. A., 349 Wundt, W., 11
Van den Broeck, J., 276 Wurtz, E., 240
Van Horn Kerne, V., 336 Wyckoff, J., 93
Vannest, K. J., 104
VanTassel-Baska, J., 215 Y
Vassend, O., 276 Young, A., 336
Vernon, P. E., 163–164 Young, M. E., 26
Vispoel, W., 33 Ysseldyke, J. E., 214, 369

W Z
Wall, J. E., 255 Zelkowitz, R. S., 256
Walpert, K., 97 Zhang, Y., 361
Wand, B., 265 Zytowski, D. G., 250
 Subject Index

A Adaptive tests, 15, 33–34, 238

Abilities, 159, 223, 253 Administration considerations, 145–151
Abilities assessment, 253–255 during administration, 148–151
Ability-achievement discrepancy model, 339 after administration, 151
Ability Explorer, 255 checklist of, 147
Ability-oriented format, for assessment reports, delayed, 97, 98–99
387 ease of, 140–141
Ability traits, 159 modes of, 15, 29–31, 145–146, 171–172
Abscissa, 54 pretesting procedures, 147–148
Absolute/true zero, 48, 49–50 simultaneous, 97, 98
ACA Code of Ethics, 390, 396, 397 sources of error due to, 95
Academic ability tests. See Admissions tests time of, 140
Academic journals, 136, 137 validity and, 113
Acceptance, of test results, 378–379 Admissions tests, 235–239
Accessibility, to assessment, 357 ACT, 237–238
Accommodation, 165 GREs, 62, 82, 238
Accountability, in education, 348 Miller Analogies Test, 238–239
Acculturation, 361, 362 overview, 235–236, 335
Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment PLAN program, 238
(ASEBA), 39, 320 PSAT/NMSQT, 237
Achievement, 195. See also Achievement tests SAT, 27, 82, 106, 118, 210, 236–237, 350
Achievement/Ability Comparison (AAC) Range, Adult achievement tests, 211
200 Adult Basic Learning Examination (ABLE-2), 211
Achievement levels, 71 Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM), 186
Achievement test batteries, 197–201 Age differentiation studies, 124–125
Achievement tests, 195–221. See also specific tests Age equivalent scores, 83, 84, 88
adult, 211 Agreeableness, 284
analysis of class profile, 217–218 Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT), 226, 262
characteristics of, 172, 173, 196 A-level instruments, 140
criterion-referenced, 211–213 Alternate Flight Aptitude Selection Test (AFAST),
culture and diversity in, 213 262
curriculum-based assessment and measurement, Alternate forms reliability, 97, 98–99, 103
214, 335 Alternative assessment, 214
factors impacting, 215–217 American Council on Education, 211
interpreting, 219–221 American Occupational Therapy Association
minimum-level skills tests, 211, 212–213 (AOTA), 140
National Assessment of Educational Progress, American Sign Language tests, 146
213–214, 335 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
objectives of, 30, 195, 196 (ASHA), 140
performance, 152–153, 214–215, 335 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 261,
portfolio, 215 363, 405
in schools, 335 Analogue assessment, 36
standardized (See Standardized achievement Analytical intelligence, 166
tests) Anecdotal records, 39–41
state, 213, 334 Angoff method, 72
types of, 27, 196 Anxiety, on tests, 351–352
Acquired knowledge, 224 APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
ACT information system, 237–238 Conduct, 398–399
Adaptive functioning, 367 Aptitude, 223, 253. See also Aptitude tests
429
430 Subject Index

Aptitude tests, 223–240 Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), 370

admissions (See Admissions tests) Automated test scoring, 15
characteristics of, 172, 173
multiple-aptitude test batteries, 224–230 B
objectives of, 30, 223–224 Bakke v. California (1978), 409
readiness tests, 239–240, 334, 335 Baseline measures, 5
in schools, 335 Base rate data, 177
specialized (See Specialized aptitude tests) Basic Achievement Skills Individual Screener
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (BASIS), 205
(ASVAB), 225–227, 255, 262, 335 Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI), 74,
Army Alpha/Beta assessment, 14, 185 85–86
Artistic abilities, 234–235 Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI-2), 371
Assessment. See also specific names and types of Batteries, 32
assessment Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler (Bayley-III), 371
administration (See Administration Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II)
considerations) content validity of, 116
communicating results (See Communicating convergent validity of, 122
results) features of, 22, 311–313
competencies required for, 9–11 normative sample of, 74
confidentiality issues in, 26, 43 norm- vs. criterion-referenced interpretations of,
controversial issues in, 17 87–88
defined, 1, 2–3 qualitative descriptors of, 85
ethics in (See Ethical considerations) scoring errors on, 153
historical perspectives on, 11–14 as structured inventory, 277
informed consent for, 148 suicide risk assessment in, 319
interpretation of, 29, 141, 154–155, 219–221 test review of, 142–143
legal issues (See Legal considerations) Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), 319
methods of (See Methods of assessment) Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS),
objectives of, 3–5 320
overview, 1–2 Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2),
process of, 7–9, 376 38
reports (See Assessment reports) Bell curves, 54, 60
scores (See Scores and scoring) Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test (Bender-Gestalt II),
selection of (See Selecting assessment methods) 327–328, 369
sources of, 5–7, 20–21, 41–43 Bennett Hand Tool Dexterity Test, 233
technology and, 14–17, 33–34, 136–137, 216, Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test (BMCT),
266–267 231
testing vs., 3 Berkman v. City of New York (1987), 409
Assessment centers, 265–266 Bias
Assessment reports, 383–390 examiner, 359–360
computer-based test interpretations, 155, 387–388 in intelligence tests, 190
example of, 388–389 measurement, 139, 357–360
format for, 385–390 rater, 39
overview, 383–384 Bilaterally symmetrical curves, 60
qualities of, 384–385 Bimodal distributions, 56
Assimilation, 165 Binet–Simon scale, 180
Asymmetrical curves, 54–55, 57 Biographical information, for employment
Asymptotic tails, 61 assessment, 259–260
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), B-level instruments, 140, 313
124, 185, 370–371 Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence, 167
Attitude, toward taking tests, 380–381 Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA-3), 240
Audio-administered tests, 146 Brief Reasons for Living Inventory (BRFL), 319
Auditory intelligence, 164 Broad cognitive abilities, 164, 167, 168
Authentic assessment, 214 Broad scope instruments, 276, 312
 Subject Index 431

Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency Checklists, 31

(BOT-2), 234 Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/6-18), 319–326
Buros Institute of Mental Measurement, 133, 134, 136 Children. See also Educational assessment
custody evaluations, 42
C with disabilities, 369–372
Cadet Evaluation Battery (CEB), 262 functional behavior assessments of, 34
California Achievement Test (CAT/6), 27 history of assessment of, 14
California Occupational Profile Scales, 87 mental disorders among, 304
California Psychological Inventory (CPI), 260, 277, parental consent and, 148
282, 283 Terman’s study of intelligence in, 170
California Test of Mental Maturity, 131, 186 Child Symptom Inventory (CSI-4), 320
Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (CISS), 247–248 Civil Rights Act of 1991, 406
Cardinal traits, 273 Class intervals, 52–53
Career Ability Placement Survey (CAPS), 225, Classroom Environment Scale (CES), 347
229–230, 255, 257, 335 Class size, impact on achievement, 216
Career assessment, 243–258 Clerical abilities, 230–231
abilities and skills assessment, 253–255 Clerical Abilities Battery (CAB), 231
career development inventories, 256 C-level instruments, 140
combined programs, 257 Clients, as primary sources of information, 7, 21
interest inventories, 244–250 Client welfare, 404
interviews, 257–258 Clinical assessment, 303–329. See also Diagnosis
objectives of, 30 culture and diversity in, 329
overview, 243–244 defined, 303
personality inventories, 252–253 functions of, 303–04
in schools, 335 instruments used in, 311–317
work values inventories, 250–252 interviews in, 308–310
Career Assessment Inventory-Vocational Version mental status exams, 310–311
(CAI-VV), 248–249 narrow scope instruments for, 277
Career Attitudes and Strategies Inventory (CASI), neuropsychological, 326–328
260 observation and, 319–326
Career Construction Interview, 258 of suicide risk, 317–319
Career development inventories, 256 Clinical interviews, 308–310
Career Development Inventory (CDI), 256 Clinical Mental Health Counseling Exam (CMHCE),
Career Exploration Scores, 225, 226 16
Career Factors Inventory (CFI), 256 Clinical range, 312
Career Maturity Inventory, Revised (CMI), 256 Clinical scales, 277, 278–279
Career Occupational Preference System (COPS) Closed questions, 27
Interest Inventory, 257 Coaching, 350
Career Orientation Placement and Evaluation Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education (Joint
Survey (COPES), 257 Committee on Testing Practices), 154–155,
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education 356–360, 381, 399–400
Act of 2006, 408 Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational
Carroll’s three-stratum model of human abilities, Measurement (NCME), 400
161, 167–168 Codes of ethics. See also Ethical considerations
Carryover effect, 94, 97 American Counseling Association, 390, 396, 397
Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) Hierarchical Three- American Psychological Association, 398–399
Stratum Model, 161, 168–169, 182 National Board for Certified Counselors, 148
Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc theory of intelligence, 161, 164 Coefficient alpha, 97, 102, 103
Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale, 372 Coefficient of equivalence, 98, 99
CEEB scores, 81, 82 Coefficient of stability, 97, 99
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 307 Cognitive abilities, 159, 164, 167–168, 170, 171, 341
Central tendency errors, 40 Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), 81, 185–186, 335
Central tendency measures, 55–58 Cognitive-behavioral therapy, 304
Central traits, 273 Cognitive efficiency, 184
432 Subject Index

Cognitive factors, 181 Contrasted group studies, 124

Cognitive processes, 168 Contrast errors, 40
Cognitive processing speed, 164 Contreras v. City of Los Angeles (1981), 409
Collateral sources of information, 7, 41–43 Contrived settings, 36
College and Career Readiness System, 335 Control groups, 275
College Basic Academic Subjects Examination Convergent validity evidence, 121–125
(College BASE), 212 Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI), 144–145,
College Board, 236, 237 295
College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB), 82 COPSystem Career Measurement Package, 229–230,
College-Level Examination Program (CLEP), 210 335
Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM), 186 Correct decision speed (CDS), 164
Combined assessment programs, 257 Correlation, 61–62
Communicating results, 375–392 Correlation coefficients, 62–66, 119
assessment reports, 383–390 Cost, of tests, 29, 141
feedback sessions, 376–383 Creative intelligence, 166
to other professionals, 390 Creative thinking ability, 341–343
overview, 375 Criterion, 118
to public, 390–392 Criterion contamination, 119
Communication disorders, 369 Criterion group approach, to personality inventory
Competence scales, 320 development, 275
Competencies, for assessment, 9–11, 139–140, Criterion measures, 118–119
400–401 Criterion-referenced achievement tests, 211–213
Comprehensive Ability Battery (CAB), 260 Criterion-referenced score interpretation, 71, 154,
Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System 197
(CASAS), 211 Criterion-referenced scores, 71–72, 87–88, 154, 197
Comprehensive Personality Profile (CPP), 261 Criterion-related validity, 112, 114, 118–121
Comprehensive tests, 27 Criterion Test of Basic Skills (CTOBS-2), 212
Computer-adaptive tests, 15, 33–34, 238 Cronbach’s Alpha, 102
Computer-administered tests, 15, 146 Cross-validation, 275
Computer-based assessment, 14, 15–16, 33–34 Crystallized intelligence, 124, 164
Computer-based test interpretations (CBTIs), 155, Culturally loaded tests, 190
387–388 Culturally reduced tests, 190
Computer-based tests, 14, 33–34 Culture and diversity. See also Multicultural
Computer scoring, 15, 152 assessment
Computer simulations, 15–16 in achievement tests, 213
Concurrent validity, 118 in clinical assessment, 329
Conduct Disorder Scale (CDS), 320 in intelligence tests, 190
Confidence intervals, 106–07 in interviews, 258–259
Confidentiality issues, 26, 43 Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventories (CFSEI-3),
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), 117 296–297
Conscientiousness, 284 Current samples, 73–74
Consent, informed, 148 Curriculum, impact on achievement, 216
Consequential validity, 125 Curriculum-based assessment (CBA), 214, 335
Consistency. See Reliability/precision Curriculum-based measurement (CBM), 214, 335
Constructed-response items, 28, 31 Custody evaluations, 42
Construct-irrelevant variance, 112–113 Cutoff scores, 71–72, 197
Constructs, 112
Construct underrepresentation, 112–113 D
Construct validity, 112, 114, 116–117, 122, 124, 125 Dallas Preschool Screening Test (DPST), 372
Content, of tests, 27 Das–Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS),
Content-sampling errors, 94–95, 98, 100 185
Content validity, 112, 114–116, 126 Data-reduction techniques, 67
Contextual factors, in interpretation, 155 Debra P. v. Turlington (1979), 408
Continuous variables, 47 Defense Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB), 262
 Subject Index 433

Delayed administration, 97, 98–99 communication disorders, 369

Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST-II), defined, 363
372 developmental, 364, 367
Dependent variables, 66 developmental delays, 371–372
Depression, diagnosis of, 116, 304, 306 hearing impairment, 366–367
Depression inventories. See also Beck Depression intellectual, 367–368
Inventory (BDI-II) learning disabilities, 205, 335, 337–340
in educational settings, 4 neuropsychological impairment, 369
SAD PERSONS Scale, 23–24 overview, 363–365
skewed distributions on, 61 prevalence of, 363
Descriptive statistics, 47, 48, 50 visual impairment, 365–366
Developmental delays, 371–372 Discrete variables, 47–49
Developmental disabilities, 364, 367 Discriminant validity evidence, 121–125
Developmental studies, 124–125 Discrimination, in employment tests, 267
Deviation IQ scores, 81 Distributions, frequency, 47, 50–55
Diagnosis. See also Clinical assessment Diverse populations, 356. See also Culture and
defined, 4 diversity; Multicultural assessment
determination of, 304–05 Domain-oriented approach, for assessment reports,
DSM-5 for, 4, 305–08 387
political issues in, 304 Domain-referenced achievement tests, 211–212
Diagnostic achievement tests, 205, 207–210 Domain sampling, 94–95
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Draw-a-Person Test (DAP), 290–291
Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), Drawing questions, 28, 290–294
306–308, 320 DSM-oriented scales, 320
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Dual IQ structure, 174
Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Duration recordings, 36–37
advantages of, 307–08
on autism spectrum disorders, 370 E
classification system, 306 Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers
criticisms of, 307 with Disabilities, 371
on depression, 116, 306, 313 Ease of administration, 140–141
for diagnosis, 4, 305–08 Ease of interpretation, 141
on intellectual disability, 367 Ease of scoring, 141
on personality disorders, 272–273, 282, 305 Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI-3), 316
Diagnostic criteria, 306 EBSCO database, 134, 135
Diagnostic interviews, 308–310 Educational assessment, 332–352. See also
Diana v. California State Board of Education (1973), 408 Admissions tests; School counselors;
Differential Ability Scales (DAS–II), 184–185 Standardized achievement tests
Differential Aptitude Tests for Personnel and Career consulting with teachers regarding, 346
Assessment (DAT for PCA), 131, 225, 226, 228, environmental assessment and, 346–347
229, 335 of giftedness, 340–345
Differential item functioning (DIF), 358–359 issues in, 348–349
Differential prediction, 358 of learning disabilities, 205, 335, 337–340
Dimensionality, 117 mandated testing programs, 125
Dimensions, 67 needs assessments, 336–338
Direction, of correlation coefficients, 62 overview, 332–333
Direct observations, 35 readiness tests, 239–240, 334, 335
Directories of unpublished instruments, 134, 137 school programs, 333–335
Directory of Unpublished Experimental Measures simulations in, 16
(American Psychological Association), 137 test preparation and performance, 349–352
Disabilities, 363–372 Educational Opportunity Services (EOS), 238
ADHD, 124, 185, 370–371 Educational Testing Service (ETS), 82, 136
autism spectrum disorders, 370 Edwards Personal Preference Inventory (EPPI), 260,
children with, 369–372 298
434 Subject Index

Effective School Battery (ESB), 347 F

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Factor analysis, 67–68, 117, 161–162, 275–276
(ESEA), 348, 407 Fairness in testing, 154–155, 356–360, 381, 399–400
Emic perspective, 360, 361 False negative errors, 120, 121
Emotional indicators, 290–291, 328 False positive errors, 120, 121
Employee Aptitude Survey Test Series (EAS), 261 Family drawings, 294
Employee Reliability Inventory, 261 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974
Employment assessment, 258–267 (FERPA), 406
assessment centers, 265–266 Feedback sessions, 376–383
biographical information, 259–260 checklist for, 379
guidelines for employee selection, 266 group, 378
job analysis, 262–264 overview, 376–378
overview, 243, 258 with parents, 381–383
selection interviews, 258–259 problem areas in, 378–381
tests, 260–262 Feeling types, 283
trends in, 266–267 Fill-in-the-blank questions, 28
Employment inventories Find Your Interests (FYI) inventory, 225, 226
objectives of, 30 Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality, 273, 275, 284
Entrance exams. See Admissions tests Flat profiles, 380
Environmental assessment, in schools, 346–347 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT),
Environmental problems, 307–08 213
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI), 182
(EEOC), 261, 406 Fluid intelligence, 124–125, 164
Equal intervals, 48–50 Fluid reasoning, 181
ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), 174
136–137 Flynn Effect, 190
Error distribution, 105 Forced-choice items, 27–28
Errors Forensic evaluations, 42
content-sampling, 94–95, 98, 100 Formal assessment instruments, 5, 22–23. See also
in linear regression, 66 specific instruments
prediction, 119–120 Formal observations, 7, 23, 34–36, 319–320
rating scale, 39, 40 Format, of tests, 27–28, 141
scoring, 153 Frequency curves, 54
time-sampling, 94, 97 Frequency distributions, 47, 50–55
Ethical considerations, 395–404. See also Codes of Frequency polygons, 54, 55
ethics Frequency recordings, 36, 37
client welfare, 404 Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ), 174–177, 181
fairness in testing, 154–155, 356–360, 381, 399–400 Functional behavior assessments (FBAs), 34, 132
in multicultural assessment, 372
professional standards and ethical codes, 395–400 G
in professional training and competence, 400–401 Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, 161, 167
test-user qualifications, 402–04 General ability, 159, 167. See also Intelligence
Etic perspective, 360–361 General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB), 225, 228–229,
Evaluation 262, 335
of assessment instruments, 137–142 General Clerical Test-Revised (GTC-R), 231
of results, 9 General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score, 185
Event recordings, 36, 37 General Educational Development (GED) Tests, 211
Evidence based on consequences of testing, 125 General intellectual ability (GIA), 159, 162, 184
Examiner bias, 359–360 General intelligence, 168
Experimental interventions, 125 General intelligence factor, 159, 161, 162, 164
Exploratory factor analysis, 117 Generosity errors, 40
External locus of control, 50 Gf-Gc theory of intelligence (Cattell–Horn), 161, 164
Extraversion, 283, 284 Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scale (GATES), 343
Eysenck Personality Inventory, 253 Giftedness, 340–345
 Subject Index 435

Gifted Rating Scales–School Form (GRS-S), 343 House-Tree-Person Technique (HTP), 291, 294
Global indices, 313, 314 Hunger, impact on achievement, 216
Global Scoring System (GSS), 327–328
Global Self-Esteem Quotient (GSEQ), 296 I
Global Severity Index (GSI), 313 Identification of problems, 4, 8
Golden Rule Insurance Company v. Richard L. Mathias Implementation, of assessment methods, 8–9
(1984), 409 In-Basket Test, 265
Gold standard, 122 Independent variables, 66
Government employment assessment, 261–262 Index composite scores, 174, 176, 177
Grade equivalent scores, 83–84, 88 Indirect observations, 35
Grade point average (GPA), 118, 236, 237 Individual achievement tests, 202–05
Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT), Individual intelligence tests, 171–185
33–34, 239 Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), 340
Graduate Record Examinations (GREs), 62, 82, 238 Individually administered tests, 29, 30, 145, 148–150,
Graphic rating scales, 38, 39 171
Graphs, 53 Individuals with Disabilities Education
Graves Design Judgment Test, 235 Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), 205, 332,
Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971), 406, 409 339, 363–364, 406–07
Group-administered tests, 29, 30, 146, 148, 150, Inferential statistics, 47
171–172 Informal assessment instruments, 5, 22–23
Group differentiation studies, 124 Informal observations, 7, 23, 34–36, 319
Group feedback sessions, 378 Informants, 39
Group intelligence tests, 171–172, 185–186 Information processing, 159, 161, 168
Guilford’s structure-of-intellect model, 161, 164–165 Information processing model (Luria), 166, 182
Guilford–Zimmerman Temperament Scale, 260 Informed consent, 148
Initial interview. See Interviews
H Innate ability, 224
Hall Occupational Orientation Inventory, 252 In-school factors, impact on achievement, 216
Halo effect, 40 Instructional dimensions, 346
Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery, Instrumental values, 251
326, 369 Instrument evaluation forms, 141–142
Hand-scoring, 141, 151–152 Intellectual ability tests, 29, 335
Harrington–O’Shea Career Decision-Making Intellectual disabilities, 367–368
System–Revised (CDM-R), 249 Intelligence, 158–170. See also Intelligence tests
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act age differentiation studies of, 124–125
of 1996 (HIPAA), 407 Carroll’s three-stratum model of human abilities,
Hearing impairment, 366–367 161, 167–168
Henmon–Nelson Tests of Mental Ability, 186 Cattell–Horn–Carroll hierarchical three-stratum
Heredity, intelligence and, 189–190 model of, 161, 168–169, 182
Hierarchical model of intelligence (Vernon), 161, Cattell–Horn Gf-Gc theory of, 161, 164
163–164 crystallized, 124, 164
Hierarchical three-stratum model of defined, 158–160
intelligence(Cattell–Horn–Carroll), 161, fluid, 124–125, 164
168–169, 182 Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, 161,
High-stakes testing, 14, 27, 212, 348, 349 167
Hill Performance Test of Selected Positional Guilford’s structure-of-intellect model, 161,
Concepts, 366 164–165
Hispanic clients, 73 heredity and, 189–190
Histograms, 53–54 historical perspectives on, 14
Home learning activities, impact on achievement, Luria’s model of information processing, 166, 182
216 PASS theory of cognitive processing, 161, 168, 185
Homogeneity, of test items, 99, 121 Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, 161,
Honesty tests, 267 165–166
Horizontal axis, 54 Spearman’s two-factor theory of, 161–162, 164
436 Subject Index

Intelligence (continued) Intervening experiences, impact on reliability, 94, 97

stability of, 190 Intervention, responsiveness to, 339–340, 407
Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Successful Intervention planning, 4
Intelligence, 161, 166 Interviews
Terman’s study of children, 170 in career assessment, 257–258
Thurstone’s multifactor theory of, 161, 162–163 in clinical assessment, 308–310
Vernon’s hierarchical model of, 161, 163–164 with collateral sources, 41
Intelligence quotient (IQ), 81, 170–171 culture and diversity in, 258–259
Intelligence tests, 170–190. See also specific tests degrees of structure in, 24–26
characteristics of, 172, 173 in employment assessment, 258–259, 262–264
controversial issues regarding, 189–190 formal vs. informal, 23
culture and diversity in, 190 guidelines for, 26–27
group, 171–172, 185–186 intelligence tests and, 188–189
individual, 171–185 objectives of, 6, 23
interviews and observations, 188–189 structured vs. unstructured, 24–27, 259, 308–310
objectives of, 170 Intraindividual approach to interpretation, 154
specialized, 186–188 Intrapersonal intelligence, 167
terminology, 172 Introversion, 283
Interactional dimensions, 346 Intuitive types, 283
Interactive Profile Interpretation System, 186 Inventories, 31
Interest Determination, Exploration, and Assessment IQ-achievement discrepancy model, 339
System (IDEAS), 249 Item sampling, 94–95
Interest inventories, 244–250
Campbell Interest and Skill Survey, 247–248 J
Career Assessment Inventory-Vocational Version, Jackson Vocational Interest Survey (JVIS), 249
248–249 Jesness Inventory, 50, 51, 56
cautionary guidelines for, 249–250 Job analysis, 262–264
Harrington–O’Shea Career Decision-Making Job Effectiveness Prediction System, 261
System, 249 Job satisfaction instruments, 260
Interest Determination, Exploration, and Journal articles, 136, 137
Assessment System, 249 Judging types, 284
Jackson Vocational Interest Survey, 249 Judicial decisions, 404, 408–410
overview, 244
Self-Directed Search, 244–246 K
Strong, 244, 246–247 Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test
Interindividual approach to interpretation, 154 (KAIT), 124, 182, 184
Internal consistency reliability, 97, 99–103, 117, 121 Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children
Internal locus of control, 50 (KABC-II), 124, 166, 169, 182–184
Internal structure, of tests, 116–117, 121 Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-2), 73, 182
International Classification of Disease Manual (ICD), Kaufman instruments, 73, 124, 166, 169, 182–184
307 Kaufman Short Neuropsychological Assessment
International Test Commission (ITC), 30, 153–154, 402 Procedure (K-SNAP), 328
Internet-based assessment, 16–17, 266–267 Kaufman Survey of Early Academic and Language
Internet resources, 134, 136–137 Skills (K-SEALS), 240
Interpersonal intelligence, 167 Kent Infant Development (KID) Scale, 372
Interpretation, of assessments and tests, 29, 141, KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (KeyMath-3 DA),
154–155, 219–221 115–116, 208, 209
Interquartile range, 76 Kindergarten Readiness Test (KRT), 240
Interrater agreement, 103 Kinesthetic intelligence, 167
Interrater reliability, 95, 97, 102–03, 104, 153 Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD), 294
Interval recording, 37–38 Knowledge, 181
Interval sampling, 37–38 Koppitz Developmental Scoring System
Interval scales, 48, 49–50 (KOPPITZ-2), 328
Interval time sampling, 37–38 Kuder Career Planning System, 250, 255, 257, 335
 Subject Index 437

Kuder Preference Record–Vocational, 244 Matching questions, 27

Kuder–Richardson formulas, 97, 100–103 Mathematical intelligence, 167
Kuder Skills Assessment (KSA), 255 Maturation, impact on reliability, 94, 97
Kuhlmann–Anderson Intelligence Tests, 186 Maximum-performance tests, 30–31, 87
Kurtosis, 55 Mean, 56, 57
Kwalwasser Music Talent Test, 235 Measurement bias, 139, 357–360
Measurement error, 93–95, 139
L Measurement invariance, 117
Language disorders, 369 Measurement movement, 11
Larry P. v. Riles (1974), 408 Measurement scales, 48–50
Latent variables, 47, 112 Measures of central tendency, 55–58
Latino/Latina clients, 73 Measures of relationship, 61–68
Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), 239 Measures of variability, 57–60
Lead poisoning, impact on achievement, 216 Mechanical abilities, 231–232
Learning, impact on reliability, 94, 97 Mechanical Aptitude Test (MAT 3-C), 232
Learning disabilities, 205, 335, 337–340 Median, 56, 57
Legal considerations, 404–410 Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), 239
ADA, 261, 363, 405 Meier Art Test of Aesthetic Perception, 235
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Meier–Seashore Art Judgment Test, 234–235
Education Act, 408 Memory ability, 163
Civil Rights Act, 406 Mental disorders
FERPA, 406 defined, 4, 305
HIPAA, 407 diagnosing, 304–08
IDEA, 205, 332, 339, 363–364, 406–07 prevalence of, 304
judicial decisions, 404, 408–410 Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY, Buros
NCLB, 71, 213, 214, 341, 348, 349, 407–08 Institute), 133–134, 137, 198, 351
statutes and regulations, 404, 405–08 Mental Processing Index (MPI), 182
Leiter International Performance Scale, 187, 188 Mental quotient, 170
Length of test, impact on reliability, 95, 107 Mental status exams (MSEs), 310–311
Leniency errors, 40 Mesokurtic distributions, 55, 56
Leptokurtic distributions, 55, 56 Metacognition, 159
Likert scales, 38, 39, 64 Methods of assessment, 20–41
Linear regression, 66 formal vs. informal, 5, 22–23
Linear transformations, of raw scores, 77 interviews (See Interviews)
Line of best fit, 66, 67 observations (See Observations)
Linguistically diverse individuals, 361–362 overview, 5–7, 20–21
Linguistic intelligence, 167 tests (See Tests and testing)
Locus of control, 50 Metropolitan Readiness Tests, 240
Logical errors, 40 Midpoints, 54
Logical/mathematical intelligence, 167 Military employment assessment, 14, 16, 185, 262
Lohman, 185 Military Entrance Score, 226
Long-term storage and retrieval, 164 Miller Analogies Test (MAT), 238–239
Low birth weight, impact on achievement, 216 Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III),
Low-rate behaviors, 36 122, 276, 277, 280, 282, 311, 312
Low-stakes tests, 348 Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), 311
Luria–Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery Minimum-level skills tests, 211, 212–213
(LNNB), 326–327, 369 Minnesota Clerical Test (MCT), 231
Luria’s model of information processing, 166, 182 Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ), 252
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
M (MMPI-2), 79, 81, 153, 275–281, 298, 312
Magnitude, 48–50 Mode, 56, 57
Mandated testing programs, 125 Most recent performance errors, 40
Manifest variables, 112 Motivation, for taking tests, 380–381
Manuals, 134, 135–136, 138, 139 Multiaxial diagnostic system, 306
438 Subject Index

Multicultural assessment, 357–363. See also Culture Nonclinical groups, 124

and diversity Nonlinearly derived scores, 77
of acculturation, 361, 362 Nonpathological inventories, 277
behavioral indicators in, 361, 363 Nonstandardized tests, 30
defined, 357 Nonverbal IQ (NVIQ), 181
etic vs. emic perspectives, 360–361 Nonverbal measures of intelligence, 172
examiner responses in, 361, 363 Nonverbal tests, 31, 146, 172
of linguistically diverse individuals, 361–362 Normal curve equivalents (NCEs), 83
measurement bias and, 139, 357–360 Normal curves/distributions, 54, 55, 57, 60–61
standards for, 372 Normalized standard scores, 77
Multidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory (MSEI), Norm groups, 22, 72–74, 139
98, 297 Norm-referenced score interpretation, 72, 154, 197
Multifactor theory of intelligence (Thurstone), 161, Norm-referenced scores, 72–84
162–163 criterion-referenced vs., 72, 87–88
Multimodal approach, 5 defined, 71
Multimodal distributions, 56 grade and age equivalents, 83–84, 88
Multiple-aptitude test batteries, 224–230 interpreting, 72, 154, 197
Multiple-choice questions, 27, 28 norm groups and, 22, 72–74, 139
Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis percentile ranks, 75–77, 88
(MGCFA), 117 standard scores, 77–83, 88, 171
Multiple intelligences, 161, 167 Norms, 72
Multiple regression, 66 Nowicki–Strickland Locus of Control Scale, 50–52,
Multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM), 122–124 54–57, 59
Musical abilities, 235 Numerical ability, 162
Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP), 235 Nutrition, impact on achievement, 216
Musical/rhythmic intelligence, 167
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), 252–253, 260, O
273, 275, 277, 282–284 Objective personality inventories. See Structured
personality inventories
N Objective tests, 31
Narrow cognitive abilities, 167, 168 Observable variables, 47
Narrow scope instruments, 276–277, 312 Observational scales, for test administration, 150
National Assessment of Educational Progress Observations, 34–41
(NAEP), 213–214, 335 clinical assessment and, 319–326
National Counselor Exam (NCE), 33 defined, 34, 319
National Institute of Mental Health, 61 direct and indirect, 35
National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC), 237 formal vs. informal, 7, 23, 34–36, 319–320
National Model (ASCA), 336, 337 intelligence tests and, 189
National norms, 73 natural and contrived settings, 36
National Surveys of Gifted Programs, 341 objectives of, 7
Naturalistic intelligence, 167 recording, 36–41
Naturalistic observations, 36 self-monitoring, 41
Needs assessments, 336–338 unobtrusive vs. participant, 36
Negative correlations, 62 Observed scores, 93, 96, 104–05, 106
Negative halo, 40 Observed variables, 112
Negatively skewed distributions, 55 OCCU-Find, 226
Negative test results, 380 Occupational and professional licensing, 262
NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R), 98, Occupational Information Network (O*NET), 246,
253, 275, 277, 284 253–254
Neuropsychological assessment, 326–328 Occupational Outlook Handbook (U.S. Department of
Neuropsychological impairment, 369 Labor), 254–255
Neuroticism, 284 Open-ended questions, 27
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 71, 213, Openness to experience, 284
214, 341, 348, 349, 407–08 Ordinal scales, 48, 49
Nominal scales, 48–49 Ordinate, 54
 Subject Index 439

Orientation sessions, 148 Planning-Attention-Simultaneous-Successive (PASS)

Otis–Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT-8), 131, theory of cognitive processing, 161, 168, 185
186, 200, 217, 218, 335 PLAN program, 238
Outcome evaluations, 4–5 Plato, 11
Outcome Questionnaire 45 (OQ-45), 5, 319 Platykurtic distributions, 55, 56
Outcome variables, 66 Political issues, in diagnosis, 304
Outliers, 57 Populations, 47
Out-of-school factors, impact on achievement, 216 Portfolio assessment, 215
Overtesting, 131 Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ), 264
OVID/SilverPlatter database, 134 Positive correlations, 62
Positively skewed distributions, 54–55
P Positive psychology, 294–297
Parallel (alternate) forms reliability, 97, 98–99, 103 Positive Symptom Distress Index (PSDI), 313
Parental consent, 148 Positive Symptom Total (PST), 313
Parental feedback sessions, 381–383 Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS), 74,
Parental involvement, impact on achievement, 216 316–317
Participant observations, 36 Practical intelligence, 166
Pathology, 277 Practice effect, 94, 97
Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised/ Precision. See Reliability/precision
Normative Update (PIAT-R/NU), 205 Prediction errors, 119–120
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4), 31, 99, Predictive bias, 358
208–210 Predictive validity, 118, 236
Pearson Product Moment Correlation, 62–64 Predictor variables, 66
Perceiving types, 284 Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship
Percentages, in scoring, 71, 76 Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT), 237
Percentile bands, 76 Pretesting procedures, 147–148
Percentile ranks, 75–77, 82, 88 Primary mental abilities, 162–164
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), 175 Primary sources of information, clients as, 7, 21
Perceptual speed, 163 Primary symptom dimensions, 313, 314
Perfect negative correlations, 62, 65 Principles and Standards for School Mathematics
Perfect positive correlations, 62, 65 (NCTM), 201, 208
Performance assessment, 152–153, 214–215, 335 Privacy Rule (HIPAA), 407
Performance categories, 71 Private sector employment assessment, 260–261
Performance IQ (PIQ), 174 Probability theory, 60
Performing arts ability, 343 Problem identification, 4, 8
Personality, 271–273. See also Personality inventories Processing Speed Index (PSI), 105, 174, 176
Personality disorders, 272–273, 282, 305 Pro-Ed, Inc., 135
Personality inventories, 271–298 Professional licensing, 262
in career assessment, 252–253 Professional organizations, 134, 137, 138
development of, 67–68, 274–276 Professional sources of information, 7, 41, 42
in employment assessment, 260 Professional standards, 395–400
objectives of, 30, 271, 274 Proficiency levels, 71
with positive focus, 294–297 Profiles, in scoring, 86–87
projective (See Projective instruments and Prognostic tests, 223. See also Aptitude tests
techniques) Progress evaluations, 4–5
response styles, 277, 297–298 Projective drawings, 290–294
structured (See Structured personality inventories) Projective instruments and techniques, 285–294
Personal sources of information, 7, 41, 42 characteristics of, 31, 275, 285–287
Person-environment fit theories, 346–347 criticisms of, 294
Personnel Selection Inventory (PSI), 261 drawings, 290–294
Phi coefficient, 64 Rorschach Inkblot Test, 287–288, 294
Physical and structural dimensions, 346 Thematic Apperception Test, 288, 289, 294, 361
Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, 161, 165–166 verbal expressive techniques, 289–290
Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale Projective questions, 289
(Piers–Harris 2), 117, 295–296 Proximity errors, 40
440 Subject Index

Psychiatric disorders. See Mental disorders Relations to other variables evidence, 118–121
Psychoeducational reports. See Assessment reports Relaxation exercises, 352
Psychological Abstracts (American Psychological Relevance
Association), 137 of criterion measures, 118
Psychological reports. See Assessment reports of norm groups, 73, 74
Psychometrics, 22, 155, 160. See also Reliability/ Reliability coefficients, 96, 103–04
precision; Validity Reliability/precision, 91–108
Psychometric soundness, 22 alternate forms reliability, 97, 98–99, 103
Psychomotor abilities, 232–234 confidence intervals and, 106–07
Psychopathology, 277 of criterion measures, 118–119
Psychosocial problems, 307–08 defined, 22, 91, 92
PsycINFO database, 137 increasing, 107
PsycLIT CD-ROM, 137 internal consistency reliability, 97, 99–103, 117, 121
Public, communicating results to, 390–392 interrater reliability, 95, 97, 102–03, 104, 153
Publishers, of tests, 32, 74, 133, 135 interviews and, 25–26
Purdue Pegboard Test, 233–234 measurement error and, 93–95, 139
methods of estimating, 95–107
Q overview, 91–93
Qualitative assessment, 36, 84 reliability coefficients, 96, 103–04
Qualitative descriptors, 84–85 standard error of measurement and, 93, 104–06
Qualitative variables, 47, 48 standardized tests and, 30
Quality of Life Inventory (QOLI), 295 test-retest reliability, 97–98, 103
Quality of test items, impact on reliability, 95 validity and, 113, 117
Quantitative knowledge, 164 Reporting, of assessment results, 9, 15
Quantitative reasoning, 181 Representativeness, of norm groups, 73, 139
Quantitative variables, 47 Research literature, 134, 136, 137
Quartiles, 76 Resources, for selecting assessment methods, 133–138
Questionnaires, 31 Response acquiescence errors, 40
Quick Neurological Screening Test (QNST-II), 328 Response deviance errors, 40
Response processes, 126
R Response styles, 277, 297–298
Range, 57–58 Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests (RUST),
Rapport, in assessment, 25, 30, 149–150 10–11, 155, 399, 417–421
Rater bias, 39 Responsive Environmental Assessment for
Rating scales, 27–28, 38–40, 276, 319 Classroom Teaching (REACT), 347
Rational approach, to personality inventory Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI), 339–340, 407
development, 274 Results. See Communicating results
Ratio scales, 48, 50 Reynell–Zinkin Scales, 366
Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM), 186 Rhythmic intelligence, 167
Raw scores, 71, 77, 79, 81, 88 RIASEC model, 226, 245
Readability, of tests, 141 Risk factors, 318
Readiness, for test results, 379–380 Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI),
Readiness tests, 239–240, 334, 335 277, 285, 287
Reasoning ability, 163 Rokeach Values Survey (RVS), 251
Recommendations, from assessment results, 9 Rorschach Inkblot Test, 287–288, 294
Records Ross Information Processing Assessment (RIPA-2),
of observations, 36–41 328
as source of information, 7, 42 Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank (RISB), 290
Reference sources, 133–135 RUST. See Responsibilities of Users of Standardized Tests
Referral questions, 8
Regression analysis, 65–67 S
Regression lines, 66, 67 SAD PERSONS Scale, 23–24
Regulations and statutes, 404, 405–08 Salience Inventory (SI), 252
Relationship measures, 61–68 Samples, 47
 Subject Index 441

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), 295 Self-administered tests, 29, 145
SAT test, 27, 82, 106, 118, 210, 236–237, 350 Self-Directed Search (SDS), 244–246
Scales, of tests, 31–32 Self-esteem inventories, 295, 296–297
Scale scores, 71 Self-monitoring, 41
Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Semantic differential rating scales, 38, 39
Superior Students (SRBCSS), 343 Semistructured interviews, 24–26, 308–09
Scales of measurement, 48–50 Sensing types, 283
Scatterplots, 65, 66 Sentence-completion tasks, 28, 289–290
Scenario-based testing, 16 Severity errors, 40
Schedules, 31 Sharif v. New York State Educational Department (1989),
Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults (SATA), 211 409
School ability index, 186 Short-term acquisition and retrieval, 164
School and College Ability Tests, 131 Significant statistical differences, 177
School assessment programs, 333–335. See also Simple linear regression, 66
Educational assessment Simulations, 15–16
School counselors Simultaneous administration, 97, 98
assessment activities of, 336–346 Situational interviews, 259
competencies for, 347–348 Situational judgment tests, 265
role of, 333 Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), 67,
School Environment Preference Survey (SEPS), 347 253, 275, 277, 285, 286
School Readiness Test (SRT), 240 Size, of norm groups, 74, 139
School settings Skewed curves, 54–55, 57
availability of information in, 131, 132 Skewness, 54
Scores and scoring, 70–89 Skills, 253
automated, 15 Skills assessment, 253–255
computer-based, 15, 152 Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised for Children and
criterion-referenced, 71–72, 87–88, 154, 197 Adults (SIT-R3), 50–54, 57–59, 185
ease of, 141 Smoothed frequency polygons, 54, 55
errors in, 153 Social Anxiety Scale, 100
hand-scoring, 141, 151–152 Social consequences of testing, 125
norm-referenced (See Norm-referenced scores) Social desirability errors, 40
overview, 70–71 Social skills, impact on achievement, 216
performance assessment, 152–153 Socrates, 11
procedures for, 29 Sources of assessment, 5–7, 20–21, 41–43
qualitative descriptors of, 84–85 Spatial ability, 163
standards for, 153–154 Spatial intelligence, 167
tables and profiles for, 85–87 Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, 100
Scoring errors, 153 Spearman’s rho, 64
Scoring rubrics, 152–153 Spearman’s two-factor theory of intelligence,
Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary and 161–162, 164
Middle School Students (SAGES-2), 343 Specialized aptitude tests, 230–235
Screening process, 4 artistic abilities, 234–235
Seashore Measures of Musical Talents, 235 clerical abilities, 230–231
Secondary traits, 273 mechanical abilities, 231–232
Selected-response items, 27–28, 31, 276 musical abilities, 235
Selecting assessment methods, 130–142 overview, 230, 232
determine methods for obtaining information, psychomotor abilities, 232–234
131–133 Specialized intelligence tests, 186–188
evaluate instruments and strategies, 137–142 Specific learning disabilities (SLDs), 337–339,
identify type and availability of information 406–07
needed, 131, 132 Specimen sets, 133, 135
overview, 8–9, 130–131 Speech disorders, 369
resources for, 133–138 SPLASH test-taking strategy, 351
Selection interviews, 258–259 Split-half reliability, 97, 99–100, 103
442 Subject Index

Stability, of intelligence, 190 central tendency measures, 55–58

Standard age scores (SAS), 186 defined, 47
Standard deviation, 57, 59–60, 105–06 descriptive, 47, 48, 50
Standard error of measurement (SEM), 93, 104–06 frequency distributions, 47, 50–55
Standardization samples. See Norm groups inferential, 47
Standardized achievement tests, 196–211 normal curves, 54, 55, 57, 60–61
achievement test batteries, 197–201 overview, 46–47
characteristics of, 197, 198–199 relationship measures, 61–68
defined, 196 scales of measurement and, 48–50
diagnostic, 205, 207–210 variability measures, 57–60
individual, 202–05 Statutes and regulations, 404, 405–08
objectives of, 196–197 Sten scores, 82
in schools, 335 Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Successful
subject-area, 210–211 Intelligence, 161, 166
Standardized instruments for recording data, 35 Story completion, 290
Standardized tests. See also Standardized Stratified sampling, 73
achievement tests Strength, of correlation coefficients, 62
characteristics of, 30 Strong Interest Inventory® (SII®), 244, 246–247
objectives of, 22 Structural dimensions, 346
qualifications for using, 11 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I
Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM), 186 Disorders (SCID-I), 308–09
Standard scores, 77–83, 88, 171 Structured interviews, 24–26, 259, 308
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Structured personality inventories, 276–285
(AERA et al.) California Psychological Inventory, 260, 277,
on consequences of testing, 125 282, 283
development of, 32 characteristics of, 276–277
on disabled persons, 365 criticisms of, 294
on examiner bias, 360 Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, 122, 276, 277,
on fairness in testing, 356, 357 280, 282, 311, 312
on linguistically diverse populations, 362 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 79,
organization of, 396, 398 81, 153, 275–281, 298, 312
on school counselor responsibilities, 337 Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, 252–253, 260, 273,
on test homogeneity, 121 275, 277, 282–284
on validity, 111, 112, 114, 117, 118, 121, 125 NEO Personality Inventory, 98, 253, 275, 277, 284
Standards for Multicultural Assessment (AARC), 372, Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator, 277,
412–416 285, 287
Standards for the Qualifications of Test Users (ACA), Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, 67, 253,
402, 403–04 275, 277, 285, 286
Stanford Achievement Test Series (Stanford 10), 74, Structure-of-intellect model (Guilford), 161, 164–165
198–201, 217–220, 335 Subject-area achievement tests, 210–211
Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale (SB5), 122, 180–182, Subjective tests, 31
367 Subject matter experts (SMEs), 116
Stanford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT), Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory
199 (SASSI-3), 317
Stanford Test of Academic Skills (TASK), 199 Subtest scatter, 177–178
Stanines, 82, 88 Subtest scores, 174, 177–178
State achievement standards, 348 Subtests (subscales), 32, 122
State achievement tests, 213, 334 Suicide risk assessment, 317–319
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness Super’s Work Values Inventory-Revised (SWVI-R),
(STAAR), 212–213 250–251, 255
States, personality, 273 Survey achievement batteries, 197
State-Trait Anxiety Scale, 153, 273 Surveys, 31
Statistics, 46–68 Symmetrical distributions, 54
 Subject Index 443

Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), 122, 312, preparation and performance, 349–352

313–316 prevalence of, 14, 27
Syndrome scales, 320 scores (See Scores and scoring)
terminology, 31–32
T Tests in Print (TIP, Buros Institute), 134–135, 198
Table of specifications, 115–116 Tests of Educational Development, 237
Tables, in scoring, 85–86 Tests (Pro-Ed, Inc.), 135, 198
Tally sheets, 36, 37 Test takers, 32, 95, 113, 155
Teacher-made tests, 196 Test users
Teachers defined, 32
educational assessment, consulting on, 346 qualifications and competencies for, 139–140,
impact on achievement, 216 402–04, 417–421
Teacher’s Report Form (TRF), 39, 40, 320 Test validation, 114
Technology, in assessment, 14–17, 33–34, 136–137, Test-wiseness, 350–351
216, 266–267 Texas Education Agency, 213
Television, impact on achievement, 216 Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), 288, 289, 294, 361
Tell Me a Story Test, 361 Theory-based approach, to personality inventory
Temperament, 272 development, 274–275
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSCS:2), 297 Theory of cognitive development (Piaget), 161,
Terminal values, 251 165–166
Test anxiety, 351–352 Theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner), 161, 167
Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI), 351 Thinking ability, 184
Test Anxiety Profile, 351 Thinking types, 283
Test Anxiety Scale for Children (TASC), 351 Thompson Modification of the Thematic
Test bias, 139, 357–360 Apperception Test, 361
Test blueprints, 115–116 Three-stratum model of human abilities (Carroll),
Test Critiques (Pro-Ed, Inc.), 135, 198 161, 167–168
Test developers, 32, 365 Thurstone’s multifactor theory of intelligence, 161,
Test homogeneity, 99, 121 162–163
Test locators, 136 Time of administration, 140
Test manuals, 134, 135–136, 138, 139 Time sampling, 37–38
Test movement, 11, 14, 27 Time-sampling errors, 94, 97
Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE), 211 Title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1991), 406
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI), 187–188 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), 342–343
Test-oriented format, for assessment reports, 387 Traits, personality, 272–273
Test publishers, 32, 74, 133, 135 Transformed scores, 71
Test-retest reliability, 97–98, 103 Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence
Test reviewers, 32 (Sternberg), 161, 166
Tests and testing, 27–34. See also specific names and Tripartite view of validity, 112
types of tests True/absolute zero, 48, 49–50
administration (See Administration True/false questions, 27, 28
considerations) True negatives, 120, 121
assessments vs., 3 True positives, 120, 121
categories of, 27, 29–34 True scores, 93, 96, 104–05, 106
characteristics of, 27–29 T scores, 79–81
computer-based, 14, 33–34 Two-factor theory of intelligence (Spearman),
costs of, 29 161–162, 164
defined, 27 Types, personality, 273
in employment assessment, 260–262 Typical-performance tests, 31, 87
formal vs. informal, 23
interpreting, 29, 141, 154–155 U
objectives of, 6–7, 27 Unconscious, 275, 287
participants in, 32 Uncontaminated criterion measures, 119
444 Subject Index

UNIACT Interest Inventory, 238 Visual impairment, 365–366

Unimodal distributions, 61 Visual intelligence, 164
Unitary concept, validity as, 111–112 Visual-motor ability, 327
United States Military Entrance Processing Visual perception, 327
Command (USMEPC), 225, 226 Visual/performing arts ability, 343
Universal design, 357–358 Visual Spatial Index (VSI), 174
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT), Visual spatial processing, 181
187, 188 Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI), 98
Unobtrusive observations, 36
Unpublished instruments, directories of, 134, 137 W
Unstructured interviews, 24–27, 259, 308, 309–310 Wait-to-fail approaches, 339
U.S. Employment Service (USES), 228, 262 Ward Cover Packing Company v. Antonio (1989), 410
Warning signs, 318
V Washington v. Davis (1976), 409
Validity, 110–126 Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust (1988), 410
concurrent validity, 118 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), 173,
consequential validity, 125 174, 179
construct validity, 112, 114, 116–117, 122, 124, 125 Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT),
content validity, 112, 114–116, 126 202, 205
convergent and discriminant evidence, 121–125 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC),
criterion-related validity, 112, 114, 118–121 105–06, 173–179, 202
defined, 22, 110, 111 Wechsler intelligence scales, 84–85, 105, 106, 122,
interviews and, 25–26 172–179, 367
nature of, 111–113 Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of
overview, 110 Intelligence (WPPSI), 122, 173, 174
predictive validity, 118, 236 Welfare of clients, 404
reliability and, 113, 117 Wesman Personnel Classification Test, 261
resources on, 139 Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT4), 74, 92, 99,
response processes and, 126 202–03, 204
standardized tests and, 30 Wiesen Test of Mechanical Aptitude (WTMA), 232
test homogeneity and, 121 Wonderlic Comprehensive Personality Profile (CPP),
threats to, 112–113 261
Validity coefficients, 119, 120 Wonderlic Personnel Test, 261
Validity scales, 277–279 Woodcock–Johnson-Revised (WJ-R), 168
Values, 250 Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement
Variability measures, 57–60 (WJ III ACH), 184, 203
Variables, 47 Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities
Variance, 58, 96 (WJ III COG), 184, 203
Verbal ability, 184 Woodworth Personal Data Sheet, 14, 274
Verbal comprehension, 163 Word fluency ability, 163
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), 105, 106, 174, Working memory, 181
175, 177 Working Memory Index (WMI), 174, 176, 177
Verbal expressive projective techniques, 289–290 WorkKeys, 264
Verbal intelligence tests, 172 Work sample tests, 265
Verbal IQ (VIQ), 174, 181 Work values inventories, 250–252
Verbal response questions, 28
Verbal tests, 31, 172 X
Vernon’s hierarchical model of intelligence, 161, X axis, 54
163–164 Y
Vertical axis, 54 Y axis, 54
Video-administered tests, 146 Youth Self-Report (YSR), 320
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Vineland-II),
367–368 Z
Virtual career centers, 266–267 Z scores, 78–79, 81, 106