MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2218107439 · doi:10.1037/cap0000037

Canadian psychologists’ test feedback training and practice: A national survey.

2015· article· en· W2218107439 sur OpenAlexaffabout
William E. Hanson, Hansen Zhou

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiquePsychological Testing and Assessment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyTest (biology)Interpretation (philosophy)Psychological testingProcess (computing)Mental healthBest practicePsychological researchApplied psychologySocial psychologyMedical educationPsychotherapistClinical psychologyLawMedicineComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Psychologists play unique role among mental health professionals, one that is characterised by the development, administration, and interpretation of psychological tests (Meyer et al., 2001). Testing is an integral and multidimensional aspect of psychological practice that provides wealth of valuable information to clinicians and clients. Psychologists are also ethically obligated to share assessment results with clients whenever possible, an exchange referred to as test feedback (TFB). The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological Association [CPA], 2000) states that psychologists are to suitable information about the results of assessments, evaluations, or research findings to the persons involved, if appropriate and if asked. This information would be communicated in understandable language. The code also states that psychologists are to Protect the skills, knowledge, and interpretations of psychology from being misused, used incompetently, or made useless by others (Section III.15; Section IV.11, CPA, 2000).TFB is key element in collaborative, humanistically oriented approaches to assessment, such as therapeutic assessment (TA). TA is an empirically based assessment model developed by SteRyan phen Finn and is described as a semi-structured form of collaborative assessment that uses psychological testing as the centerpiece of brief therapy (Finn & Tonsager, 2002, p. 10). Critical aspects of TA include: (a) helping clients to generate personally relevant questions they would like addressed through the assessment, (b) collecting relevant background information pertaining to the clients' questions, (c) exploring past testing-related hurts, (d) involving clients as active agents throughout the assessment process, including collaboratively discussing test results in order to address their initial questions (Finn, 1996, 2007).Research results suggest the TA model offers many positive effects for children, adolescents, adults, and couples presenting with variety of problems. These include decreased client symptomatology, improved treatment alliance, heightened compliance with treatment recommendations, enhanced self-esteem and increased levels of hope, with global composite effect sizes hovering around .40 (Ackerman, Hilsenroth, Baity, & Blagys, 2000; Hanson, Claiborn, & Kerr, 1997; Hilsenroth, Peters, & Ackerman, 2004; Meyer et al., 2001; Ougrin, Zundel, Ng, Habel, & Latif, 2013; Poston & Hanson, 2010). There is also strong evidence that clients experience considerable benefits from receiving TFB in general (Allen, Montgomery, Tubman, Frazier, & Escovar, 2003; Newman & Greenway, 1997; Poston & Hanson, 2010). In light of the many benefits TFB offers to consumers of psychological testing, it is important to study Canadian psychologists' assessment and TFB practices. It is also important to study how they learned to do so. Finally, it is important to uncover the reasons why some Canadian psychologists might not be regularly offering TFB to clients.In an American study examining psychologists' TFB training and practice, Curry and Hanson (2010) found that 91.7% of respondents reported providing TFB to clients at least sometimes, 35% reported doing so all of the time, and 2.8% reported never providing TFB. Recently graduated clinical psychologists reported providing TFB to clients more consistently than clinical psychologists who earned their degrees earlier, although no such trend was found among school and counselling psychologists. Almost one third of respondents indicated predoctoral training was minimally helpful in learning to provide TFB. However, this rating of the helpfulness of predoctoral training did not coincide with TFB utilization in practice. Ratings of postdoctoral training helpfulness were positively correlated with providing TFB. The primary method of learning indicated by respondents consistently providing TFB was through trial-and-error and the most common reason for not providing TFB was conducting assessments in forensic settings. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,070
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,509

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0090,023
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,352
Tête enseignante GPT0,449
Écart entre enseignants0,098 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneMême sujetPsychological Testing and AssessmentTravaux en français237 207