Abstract
In a recent article in this journal, reported a meta-analysis of 17 studies on the use of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention (PATI) and concluded that “psychological assessment procedures—when combined with personalized, collaborative, and highly involving test feedback—have positive, clinically meaningful effects on treatment” ( , p. 203). Although extant data suggest that PATI can sometimes exert positive effects, meta-analysis may overstate the magnitude of these effects because the authors (a) included several studies that combined assessment with treatment components that are irrelevant to PATI, sometimes rendering it impossible to attribute any observed effects to PATI per se and (b) excluded numerous nonsignificant results. Moreover, the studies reviewed neglected to rule out Barnum effects as alternative explanations for client improvement, raising the possibility that PATI works for reasons other than those proposed by its advocates. We conclude that review leaves a number of lingering questions concerning the treatment utility of PATI unanswered.Preview Only. This article cannot be rented because we do not currently have permission from the publisher.
Preview Only
© 2012 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy