Training in Psychodiagnostic Testing in APA-Approved PsyD and PhD Clinical Psychology Programs

Piotrowski, Chris; Zalewski, Christine

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6102_17

Cited by 73 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only a few previous studies have specifically examined how intelligence testing courses are taught within graduate psychology programs (e.g., Oakland & Zimmerman, 1986;Piotrowski & Zalewski, 1993). Obtaining updated information on how this course is taught is important, in part because current instructional practices and outcomes in this course have been criticized (cf.…”

Section: Remain the Primary Tests Taught In This Course Course Instrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Intelligence Testing in APA-Accredited Programs: A National Survey

Cody

Prieto

2000

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Remain the Primary Tests Taught In This Course Course Instrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Intelligence Testing in APA-Accredited Programs: A National Survey

Cody

Prieto

2000

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, these three instruments, as well as cognate versions of them, are among the most frequently used projective techniques in clinical practice (Watkins et al, 1995). For example, a 1991 survey of clinical psychology graduate programs ranked these three instruments as the most highly emphasized of all projective techniques (Piotrowski & Zalewski, 1993). A later survey of clinical psychology internship directors ranked these instruments as the three projective techniques most often administered by interns (Piotrowski & Belter, 1999; see Durand & Blanchard, 1988, for similar results).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

607

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-AlthoughControversy has been no stranger to the field of personality assessment, and no issue in this field has been more controversial than the scientific status of projective techniques. Indeed, the novice reader attempting to make sense of the sprawling and bewilderingly complex literature on projective techniques is immediately confronted with a striking paradox. On the one hand, during the past four decades a litany of personality assessment researchers (e.g., Anastasi, 1982;Gittelman Klein, 1986;Dawes, 1994) have come forth to decry the reliability and validity of most projective techniques (see Lilienfeld, 1999). Jensen's (1965) famous quotation, although 35 years old, still captures the sentiments of many contemporary scientists toward the Rorschach Inkblot Test and numerous other projective techniques: ". . . the rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well be measured by the speed and thoroughness with which it gets over the Rorschach" (p. 238). On the other hand, clinicians in the United States and to a lesser extent those abroad continue to use projective techniques with great regularity, and many contend that these techniques are virtually indispensable to their daily practice (Watkins, Campbell, Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995). The crux of this paradox was incisively summed up by Anastasi (1982), who observed that "Projective techniques present a curious discrepancy between research and practice. When evaluated as psychometric instruments, the large majority make a poor showing. Yet their popularity in clinical use continues unabated" (p. 564).Indeed, despite the sustained and often withering criticisms directed at projective techniques during the past several decades (Dawes, 1994;Lowenstein, 1987), numerous surveys demonstrate that such techniques continue to enjoy widespread popularity among clinicians. Durand, Blanchard, and Mindell (1988) reported that 49% of the directors of clinical psychology graduate programs and 65% of the directors of clinical psychology internships believed that formal training in projective techniques is important. Watkins et al. (1995) found that 5 projective techniques, including the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), were among the 10 instruments most frequently used by clinical psychologists. For example, 82% of clinical psychologists reported that they administered the Rorschach at least "occasionally" in their test batteries and 43% reported that they "frequently" or "always" administered it. There is some indication, however, that the popularity of certain projective techniques may be waning. In a recent survey of practicing clinicians, Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998) reported that several projective techniques, including the Rorschach and TAT, have been abandoned by a sizeable minority of users. Some authors (e.g., Piotrowski et al., 1998; Piotrowski & Belter, 1989) have attributed the recent decline in the popularity of projective techniques to the advent of managed care, although at least some of this decline may al...

show abstract

“…Piotrowski and Zalewski's (1993) survey of directors of APA-accredited doctoral clinical psychology programs indicated that training in psychological testing and assessment was a major component of their curricula, and that such assessment-related training emphasis essentially was unchanged over the course of a decade. However, recent years have witnessed some erosion in the depth and breadth of assessment training provided in psychology graduate programs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Achieving competency in psychological assessment: Directions for education and training

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an overview of issues related to the development and evaluation of competency in psychological assessment. Specifically, we delineate the goals, ideas, and directions identified by the psychological assessment work group in the Competencies Conference: Future Directions in Education and Credentialing in Professional Psychology. This is one of a series of articles published in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology. Several other articles that resulted from the Competencies Conference will appear in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice and The Counseling Psychologist. The psychological assessment group was charged with the tasks of: (a). identifying the core components of psychological assessment competency; (b). determining the central educational and training experiences that will aid competency development; (c). explicating strategies for evaluating competence; and (d). establishing future directions for furthering the identification, training, and evaluation of competence in psychological assessment. We present a set of eight core competencies that we deemed important for achieving psychological assessment competency and discuss four guidelines for training in the domain of psychological assessment. A variety of methods for evaluating competencies in this domain are suggested, with emphasis on using a collaborative model of evaluation. Recommendations for future directions include strengthening the academic prerequisites for graduate school training; increasing training in culturally sensitive measures; incorporating innovative assessment-related technologies into training; and addressing discontinuities between academic training, internship, and practice environments.

show abstract

Training in Psychodiagnostic Testing in APA-Approved PsyD and PhD Clinical Psychology Programs

Cited by 73 publications

References 21 publications

Teaching Intelligence Testing in APA-Accredited Programs: A National Survey

Teaching Intelligence Testing in APA-Accredited Programs: A National Survey

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Achieving competency in psychological assessment: Directions for education and training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About