MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218107439 · doi:10.1037/cap0000037

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTest (biology)Interpretation (philosophy)Psychological testingProcess (computing)Mental healthBest practicePsychological researchApplied psychologySocial psychologyMedical educationPsychotherapistClinical psychologyLawMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.023
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.352
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.098 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicPsychological Testing and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207