Week 12

Although Anastasi's article was a little close for comfort this week, as it described many mistakes a counselor can make while administering and interpreting exams, I think it is useful to examine these common mistakes in detail in order to avoid potential pitfalls while practicing. Fortunately, I feel as if we have reviewed many of these principles already in preparation for administering assessments to our clients for this course. For instance, we've frequently emphasized the importance of providing the standard error of measurement, making sure to report confidence intervals instead of a single test score in our interpretation of the KBIT-2. We also avoided the hazard of a single indicator by administering two assessments, one assessing aptitude and the other assessing emotional intelligence. As I had some familiarity with my client because I was also counseling him for my Theory II course, I also had an additional layer of information that I could use when interpreting results. As we did not use a computer interpretation system, we also avoided the hazard of illusory precision, although it will be important to remember to approach these sorts of programs with caution if they are offered for our use in a school. We cannot really control for the hazard of a single time period, as we only had access to the client for a limited time, but I think that I was clear in my interpretation session that these scores represented a snapshot of Brady's performance on those particular assessments at that time. In addition to analyzing the hazards in light of my own experiences, I also enjoyed reading more about what test results do and do not tell us about a person. In this section, Anastasi reminds us that "test scores tell us how well individuals perform at the time of testing, not why they perform as they do" (p. 612). In order to find out the reasons for an individual's performance, we need to know more about the person's past learning history and environment that shaped his or her experiences. We also need to think more about the anticipated context for this information, which is the "setting-educational, occupational, societal-in which this person is expected to function, and for which he or she is being evaluated" (p.612). I think this is an interesting approach because it reminds us that not everyone has to adhere to some perceived standard of functioning, but rather, they have to be at the appropriate level for whatever they plan to do. Some great examples Anastasi provides include determining whether a child can function at the appropriate reading level for a job they're applying to or whether a child is ready to benefit from a particular educational intervention. Anastasi, A. (1992). What Counselors Should Know About the Use and Interpretation of Psychological Tests. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 610-615.