In this article, the authors discuss how the misuse of norm-referenced tests can impact the assessment and treatment of a client. Norm-referenced tests provide a comparison between the skills and behaviors assessed of a client to the relevant norms of a similar age group. According to the article, a clinician must ensure to properly use a norm-referenced test in order to provide evidence as to whether a client may need more assessments or whether a certain treatment approach is more beneficial to the client. However, the misuse of a norm-referenced test may also negatively impact the client’s diagnosis and treatment approach. In this article, the authors describe four common errors that arise when misusing a norm-referenced test. As previously mentioned, norm-referenced tests are used as a comparison in order to evaluate the client’s scores. However, the authors discuss that norm referenced tests are not truly reliable as comparisons are based on estimates and no two similar individuals will perform in an identical matter on a given task. This leads to the question of how much of a difference should there be between a client and similar individuals in their age group before the differences are indicative of an underlying problem? The use of reliability may assist clinicians in determining this issue. The authors describe that depending on how high or low the tests reliability is, is an indication of whether there is little difference or inconsistencies between the client’s ideal score, also known as their true score, and their observed score. Due to the issue that norm-referenced tests are based on estimates, a test’s reliability may cause doubt for a clinician to interpret a client’s test score results. Therefore, the ... ... middle of paper ... ...nt scores is less reliable for individuals who are more advanced developmentally as their age-equivalent score is not equally matched to their individual’s chronological age. The second psychometric problem is that age-equivalent scores do not truly represent the population of specific ages of children. Instead, age-equivalent scores are computed or estimated in two ways. The first way age-equivalent scores are estimated is between a fixed set of ages, and the second way is estimating a score between older and younger individuals. The authors believe that the way these age-equivalent scores are computed suggest that it is a less reliable method in making a prediction about the behavior of and language of a child. Furthermore, the article continues to discuss that age-equivalent scores can often lead to misleading information and inferences made towards a client.
The sample used to norm the test was inclusive, and studies have showed little to no discrepancies in scores in regards to demographics (gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status). I found limited data regarding the exactly reliability coefficients and the validity of the test. However, I did discover this test to be used when determining concurrent validity of other tests of anxiety. There are no limits to this test in regards to a population or administration, as it is written at an elementary reading level and provides multiple administration types (verbal, audio CD, reading) and response types (verbal or nonverbal). The only area of limitation that I believe exists with this test is its vulnerability to self-report biases, affecting the accuracy of the scores produced for children. I feel very comfortable using this measure in my profession, and believe it can provide a strong base for assessing a child’s anxiety levels and their impacts socially or
Time constraints are common when contact with clients is limited because then there is no way to get repeated measures from them across a prolonged sequence of assessment sessions. Hence, the Brief Functional Analysis was developed for these kinds of situations. Pairwise Functional Analysis (also known as single function test) and trial based function analysis can be used in these time limited situations. Risky behaviors like severe self injury or aggression is hard to assess if they cannot occur frequently and are not very safe for the client. Hence, the challenge faced when conducting an FA is arranging conditions under which problem behaviors may increase while at the same time minimizing the risks. Clients can wear protective devices and equipment to avoid the risks. Therapists can engage in precursor FA or latency FA to reduce the risks of the problem behavior. Therapists can get medical clearance before starting the FA treatment and termination sessions when the behavior is extremely severe and risky for the
This article supports the argument that speech-language pathologists should not use AE scores in reporting results of norm-referenced testing. Age-equivalent scores are the age at which a given raw score is average The authors give many limitations of AE test scores. The first limitation is that AE scores do not take into consideration the range of normal performance whose scores fall into the average range. Age-equivalent scores instead represent the age that the raw score is average. The article goes on to say that the lack of consideration for a normal performance range can result in these scores giving a false standard of performance (Maloney & Larrivee 2007). Another limitation the article discusses is that AE scores promote typological thinking. Age-equivalent scores compare clients to the average of their age group, when in reality, there is no average. Another limitation is the lack of info provided about the examinee’s performance. One cannot assume that because two people have the same score that they responded the same way. This only means that they answered the
...d Vogus, 2014). However, Kennedy (2015) points out that, in reality, with measuring perceptions, as long as the patient believes the healthcare provider is having compassion and doing as much as they could for the pain, the patient will report well on the survey.
Wakefield, J. C. (2013). DSM-5: An Overview of Changes and Controversies. Clinical Social Work Journal, 41(2), 139-154.
According to the BDI-II test review, norming of the BDI-II is neither impressive nor extensive including a clinical sample of 500 outpatients in therapy as well as a conve...
Walsh, B. & Dempsey, L. 2010, “Assessment Scale”, A literature Review Investigating the Reliability and Validity of the Waterlow Risk Tool, Clinical Nurse Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 387-390.
Nelson-Gray, Rosemery O. "Treatment Utility Of Psychological Assessment." Psychological Assessment 15.4 (2003): 521-531. PsycARTICLES. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Liddle, H A., Rowe, C L., Dakof, G A., Henderson, C E., Greenbaum, P E.; (Feb, 2009). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology; Vol 77(1); 12-25. Doi: 10.1177/0306624X10366960
This paper will show how assessment is a core part of the client’s treatment. It will show how assessment is done at the beginning of the treatment process but, will allow you to see that assessment is a continuing process. It results from a combination of focused interviews, testing, and record reviews. Assessments give the social worker a framework of reference to understand the strengths, weaknesses, problems, and needs of the client for the development of the treatment plan. It provides the social worker with a theory-based framework for generating hypotheses about the client’s experience and behaviors, which in turn helps prepare the basis for a specific treatment intervention. This paper will discuss the assessment tools
Davison and Neale, (2001, p.62) state that “The purpose of the assessment process is to diagnose, and to find the best treatment for a disorder and to do this the problem it must be classified correctly”.
Validity and reliability: The assessment has an overall reliability coefficient of .93 based on test-retest reliability, making it an extremely reliable assessment (Fredricks, 2010). For it 's validity rate, the assessment has an overall validity of 93.9% (Fredricks, 2010). However, many argue that this reliability and validity be accepted with caution. The test-retest reliability is limited by the fact that it is only reported over a two-week period. In addition, the sample population with a high occurrence of substance abuse disorder, could attribute to it 's high validity rate (Fredricks, 2010).
The aim of the Odinot et al. (2009) study is to determine the accuracy a...
As I have created my theory and began its evaluation, the substantive foundation and structural integrity have been challenged. It is this point in the creation of a philosophy that these two categories come into light in order to review the theory as a whole. However, the functional adequacy portion of theory evaluation is continually at play. As time progresses, does my theory continue to be relevant and useful? Is this philosophy equally as useful across different situations? Is it actually helping anyone receive better care? While evaluating functional adequacy, it is possible - imperative even - to include patients in the ongoing evaluation process. Patients can give input on care in the form of pre and post-visit questionnaires, narrative interviews, and feedback forms. If this philosophy is successful when put into practice, my patients will feel as though their care was positive and tailored to their
It is important to use multiple tools for diagnosing, rather than just using the same method across clients. Every case is different and no two individuals are the same, despite having the same diagnostic label. It is also significant to note that a “label” does not define the client. After establishing the client’s baseline, you can determine what intervention