The treatment utility of assessment: A functional approach to evaluating assessment quality.

Abstract

In practical terms, the sine qua non of the modes, methods, devices, strategies, and theories of clinical assessment is their contribution to treatment outcome. The importance of this contribution has often been noted, but under many different labels and rationales. The resultant conceptual confusion has considerably restricted the visibility and frequency of research in this critical area. In this article we propose a name for the impact of assessment on treatment outcome: the "treatment utility of assessment. "' Some of the questions that can be asked about the treatment utility of assessment are described, and methods appropriate for asking them are examined. Finally, the implications of this kind of utility for other approaches to evaluating assessment quality are analyzed.

Evidence-Based Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children and Adolescents

“…One of the most functional contributions of assessment is the planning and evaluation of intervention (Hayes et al, 1987). This purpose was highlighted frequently in this article, with certain domains (e.g., language, adaptive behavior) and specific instruments within those domains evaluated in terms of their sensitivity to change.…”

Developing and Using a Case Formulation to Guide Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

“…We examine the "treatment utility of case formulation," that is, the degree to which case formulation "is shown to contribute to beneficial treatment outcome" [15]. We also examine evidence that progress monitoring improves outcome of cognitive behavior therapy.…”

“…The function of the formulation is to guide effective treatment [15]. A key way the formulation does this is by identifying the targets of treatment, which are generally the mechanisms that the formulation proposes are causing the symptoms.…”

The likely success of functional analysis tied to the DSM

“…Empirical evidence on this point is more lacking than actively discon®rming (Kratochwill & Plunge, 1992;Kratochwill & McGivern, 1996) but there are many reasons to believe that there is a problem. Syndromal assessment is only weakly linked to dierential treatment, for example (Callahan, Panichelli-Mindel & Kendall, 1996;Gresham & Gansle, 1992;Hayes, Nelson & Jarrett, 1987;Korchin & Schuldberg, 1981;McReynolds, 1985). Logically, no diagnostic system can make much of a dierence at the level of treatment outcome until it produces reliably dierential treatment linked to the diagnostic categories.…”