Week 13

            I was very interested in the section about the MSE, particularly the mini MSE, because I have often seen the results of this assessment when I work with my patients through my hospice job.  With my patients, the test is typically done by a social worker in a skilled care facility.  And as was indicated in our text, the mini MSE is repeated fairly regularly with all the patients.  This has been a good way to track any changes in cognition, which is something that many patients experience as they age and near the end of their lives. 

            Additionally, our hospice has recently switched to electronic charting and assessing.  All nurses, social workers, and spiritual care personnel now do assessments using a tablet similar to an iPad that is loading with software that takes us through specific questions regarding anxiety, depression, bereavement risk, and suicide risk for example.  Although I am not aware of the questions being from one of the semi-structured interview assessments listed in our text, they function in much the same way.  A question will appear on my tablet that I must ask the patient or family and depending on their answer another particular question will populate the screen. I am free to ask additional questions as needed, but I must ask each question that is populated on the screen or the program does not allow me to proceed with my visit documentation or close out the visit.  The same beginning questions must be asked for each patient as part of a comprehensive assessment tool.  At the completion of my assessment, the software program will flag some individuals as high, medium, or low risk for certain criteria. 

            I have found the assessment software to be very helpful in that it encourages a thoroughness that is helpful as we design interventions and measure any progress as a result of our interventions.  When we as clinicians used paper forms for our assessment, we were not prompted with particular questions or funneled into different sets of questions depending on the patient’s responses.  Therefore I have found the computer assessment tool to be much more helpful.  I wonder if there is similar software that clinicians in the mental health or counseling field could use for some of the assessments listed in our text.  The ease of use and the quick access to past assessments, seem to be a great advantage.

Reference

Drummond, R. J. and Jones, K. (2010). Assessment Procedures for Counselors and Helping Professionals. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

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.

Not the Test but the Test User and Test Taker

The theme I picked up from this week's readings was that although understanding the test, its background, validity and reliability are important, the way that the test user administers the test and the preparation and performance of the student are crucial to interpretation.  Once the test has been established, it depends on how it is administered and prepped to give the most accurate results of an individual.  Anastasi (1992) states "whether any tool is an instrument of good or harm depends on how the tool is used" (p.610).  This quote stuck with me because as a school counselor we can make the difference between a beneficial or unbeneficial assessment.  One of the main reasons that was touched on in the article was the need for humans to find shortcuts or quick solutions when doing something.  It has already been shown that school counselors have so many responsibilities and little time to do it in as well as having incredibly large caseloads.  Due to these unfortunate factors, school counselors look for ways to shorten the length of time needed for certain tasks.  It makes logical sense to me that testing would be the perfect example of an area someone may think they could cut their time down.  Having awareness about the characteristic to do this can prevent inaccurate results from being found.  Each assessment tool was created to be administered in a particular way to provide results that are the most valid and reliable.  When a test user changes those procedures, it interferes with previous validity and reliability results that have been determined. 

 

A second important point I took from the Anastasi (1992) article was that test scores show us how well an individual is performing at the time of the test but it does not tell us why they are performing as they do.  This seems to be another reoccurring theme throughout Appraisal.  From day one with working on the puzzle to the testing presentations we have been doing and our interpretation sessions, assessment tools only provide one piece to the puzzle.  Just looking at my session with my client, I learned a lot about her but with little to no context.  Without having those other pieces to the puzzle it is hard to say why she performed the way she did and what it could mean for her in the future.  This is something that we will always have to keep in mind as school counselors.  Using an assessment tool is an easier way to provide tangible "evidence" of something going on with a student but this does not always explain or diagnose the problem.  We need to ensure decisions are not being made just on what we find through one test. 

The section from our chapter reading that stuck with me the most was that on test preparation and performance.  This gave me a look into how school counselors could benefit students during assessment periods.  Providing students with the opportunity to better their readiness for an assessment in particular a state test or admissions test is extremely beneficial.  Assessments are not always providing a clear representation of a student but at times it is one of the limited ways a student is being assessed.  By coaching the students on the best ways to take these types of exams as well as using test-wiseness and lowering their test anxiety, students can do better to more accurately represent their knowledge and ability (Drummond and Jones, 2010).  I was definitely able to appreciate this week's readings and gain a lot of new insight for my future work with assessments and interpretation.

Anastasi, A. (1992). What counselors should know about the use and interpretation of psychological

tests. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 610-615.

 

Drummond, R. J. and Jones, K. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors and

helping professionals. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Blog 12

In reading Chapter 12 I found myself thinking about where I was going to be able to be most useful with the skill set I had developed in relation to assessments etc.  I found the SPLASH test strategy (Drummond & Jones, 2010) to be very attention grabbing especially since I think it would be most fitting when used with High school students. The thought of doing testing and assessing is still not something I am over the moon about, but i must admit that after administering the KBIT and the Baron-EQI I do feel more prepared. I think that with any test there is a period of uncertainty since we are all ethical counselors that can recognize the issues that could be mistaken for learner IQ errors should we not be prepared to administer a test. Having tackled my fear head on, I was interested to find myself being excited more or less over a testing strategy. To continue to move towards being a more competent professional that administers tests I think the “Test Preparation and Performance” would be very helpful. 

I thought that chapter 14 was particularly helpful for me because it gives a really nice overview of the types of assessments as well as providing a realistic framework for what a real school counseling job may look like. I have heard a few 3^rd year school counseling students be disappointed with Guidance Program Development because they feel that the school counseling job is not as they had expected and GPD is the course that really opens their eyes. I am not fearful of this as I truly feel that the school counseling field is my spot that I will be happy regardless of what aspects of my job are given to me that are technically “not my responsibility”. I thought that chapter 14 was a nice precursor for setting the realistic expectation of what my job may actually look like. Of course, I would love to be in my office/traveling around the school meeting with and counseling students but realistically, my job will entail many things that are not individual/group counseling. I think of it metaphorically- the majority of my job is the meat and potatoes. The ability to have individual sessions or run groups with students is more like the desert. The pieces that I would love to do all day- and find the most joy in doing is not going to be what the majority of my job consists of. Thankfully, I am ok with doing all aspects of this job because like I said, I really feel like this is my fit.

Drummond, R.J. & Jones, K. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors and helping professionals ( 7^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

           

Post 12: Assessment in Education

One area of assessment that I thought both Anastasi (1992) and Drummond & Jones (2010) addressed in this week’s reading was that of environmental assessment.  To this end, perhaps the most profound statement that I felt Anastasi (1992) made was that “test scores tell us how well individuals perform at the time of testing, not why they perform as they do” (p. 612).  There are many reasons why an individual might perform a certain way on the given testing day.  In order to understand these reasons, we may need to consider factors such as the person’s learning history, developmental environment, or the person’s response to conditions and events encountered.  All of these factors would fall under the category of antecedent context. 

Whenever I see or hear the word “antecedent” I automatically associate it with Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), which I have studied in a couple of other classes recently.  In ABA, an observer might analyze a student’s behavior according to the A-B-C model, in which “A” stands for antecedent, “B” stands for Behavior, and “C” stands for consequence.  When determining the antecedent, the observer wants to figure out what is triggering the student’s behavior.  I remember hearing about a student whose disruptive behaviors were triggered when their teacher came close to the student to work one-on-one.  The student was disturbed by the teacher’s coffee breath!  Imagine: an intervention could be as simple as having the teacher brush their teeth after drinking coffee!  Often, teachers jump to doling out consequences after a student displays disruptive behavior; however, one thing that one of my professors noted is that many disruptive behaviors can be avoided simply by antecedent control.  Posting classroom expectations is one form of antecedent control.  Other forms of antecedent control might include seating arrangements, noise control, or temperature control.

 In order to determine which antecedents a teacher may need to control, an environmental assessment might be performed.  “Environmental assessment involves appraising specific environmental factors that interact with and predict behavior” (Drummond & Jones, 2010, p. 319).  During an environmental assessment, one might consider components such as physical space, organization and supervision of space, materials, peer environment, organization and scheduling, safety, and responsiveness (Drummond & Jones, 2010).  I think that environmental assessment dovetails nicely into Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI).  As Drummond and Jones (2010) note, schools are now encouraged to use a combination of research-based instruction, intervention, and assessment procedures for determining whether students have specific learning disorders (SLDs).  As I see it, the RTI approach is to rule out all other factors that may be contributing to a student’s difficulty in learning before jumping into assessment and diagnosis for a SLD.  An environmental assessment is something that I believe would be most useful with students falling in the Tier 2/Intervention category, as the goal in this category is to identify what specific skills or types of instruction students may need.  Determining that a student’s learning style is not a good fit with their teacher’s teaching style (environment) could be a key component to helping a student succeed. 

Overall, I found that Anastasi and Drummond and Jones all emphasized the fact that a student’s diagnosis or placement should not solely depend on one test score, that there are many factors that one must consider in interpretation of scores, and that it is very important for school counselors to be well-versed in types of assessments and the skills to interpret them.

References

Anastasi, A. (1992). What counselors should know about the use and interpretation of psychological tests. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 610-615.

Drummond, R.J. & Jones, K. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors and helping professionals ( 7^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Blog #12

             Before I signed up for this course, I really didn’t have a whole lot of interest in learning about different assessments.  However, after reading the book, going through all the different class material, getting hands on experience with an assessment, and watching all of my classmates wonderful presentations, I can honestly say that my mind has definitely been changed.

            Chapter 14 was extremely interesting to me because it is so full of important information and detail.  The more I read through the text, the more I understand why Dr. Baker encouraged all of us to keep it with us.  The Assessment in Education Chapter gives a good overview of many of the types of assessments, which are available in most school districts.  I especially appreciated the section entitled, “Assessment Activities of School Counselors”.  Throughout my journey in the School Counseling Program, I keep telling myself how much I want to be prepared to do my job, once I actually get into a school.  The more I learn about what my role may actually involve, the more confident and excited I get to want to take on the role.

            The “Test Preparation and Performance” was also extremely informative.  One of the areas in which I need to improve as a counselor is my level of confidence in some of the actual material.  In order for me to try and make my clients feel as confident and comfortable as possible, I need to make sure that I am projecting that feeling onto them.  I know that with time, experience, and through expanding my knowledge within the field, my confidence level in the material will continue to grow everyday.  I have always had a slight fear of failure, so my goal is to be the best prepared counselor I can be so that failure will never be an option.  I guess in a way, the fact that I have those feelings is “normal”, and it may provide me a way to be able to relate better to some of the students with the same feelings.

            It is also good for me to know how much of a role assessment tests and strategies can play for all types of children.  Since I had very little experience with them myself as a child, I never really had a good understanding of the purpose.  I now realize how important they are, and how helpful they really can be.  I am looking forward to more hands on experience with all of them.

Drummond, R.J. & Jones, K. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors and helping professionals ( 7^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Week 12

            Drummond & Jones (2010) assert that counselors are actively involved in administering, scoring, and interpreting a variety of assessments in schools, and go on to list particular assessments: career, needs assessments, standardized achievement tests.  They also contend that teachers and administrators rely on counselors as a resource of information about assessments instruments and results.  Anastasi (1992) asserts that counselors play a major role in psychological testing.  To be completely honest, either the counselors in my school are not doing their job, or it is simply not this way in my district.  Throughout the course we have read and learned about the active role that counselors take in assessment, but in my experience that has been the school psychologist’s job.  The counselors in my school are responsible for Career Cruising assessments, but they do not personally have access to nor keep a record of students’ results.  In addition, they proctor the PSSA tests for students who need extra time.  Our students take the 4sight tests, which are benchmark assessments to gauge student growth throughout each year, but the counselors are not involved in scoring nor interpreting these assessments; that is the job of the reading and math teachers.  They later state, from the Ekstrom et al (2004) study, that “Middle school counselors spend more time designing or adapting assessment instruments for use in planning or evaluating school counseling programs, as well as reading professional literature about assessment.”  That seems much more realistic as to what I understand of the counselors’ jobs at my school.

            It was interesting to read further into the discrepancy model of determining learning disabilities.  While I have known that a learning disability is present if there is a discrepancy between a student’s ability and achievement, I did not realize that it was, specifically if there are 1 to 1.5 standard deviations between the scores.  I do agree that this model can be a “wait to fail” approach; however, many times, when a student scores low enough, they are given a label of Other Health Impairment and still given special education services.  If this is not the case, schools have become so differentiated that students who are lower achieving are often placed in more supported classes anyway.  Again, reading this section I cannot help but wonder if my school is using best practices.  I am about 95% positive that psychologists still use the discrepancy model to identify students with learning disabilities (although if I am wrong that could be due to my oblivion of my Special Ed world of already-identified students).  Interventions are almost always a must in order for a student to be considered for testing; the only exception I know of is if the evaluation is due to parents’ request. Drummond & Jones (2010) state that there is “not universally accepted approach” of RTI, and I definitely see this in my school.  I believe administrators, counselors, psychologists, etc. are still implementing a more well-defined system.

            I learned a few new tid-bits when reading this chapter.  I had never heard of the SPLASH test strategy (Drummond & Jones, 2010), and I can see that such an acronym could be useful for students.  With so many components to this acronym, I think it would be more useful for high school students.  I have also never heard of environmental assessments, let alone seen one personally.  It slightly worries me that research from 1977 is used as the basis of such assessments, since schools (students, curriculum, laws, society in general) have changed so greatly.  One of the most unfortunate changes is the implementation of NCLB and the focus on standardized assessments (PSSAs and Keystones) as a means to measure student success.  I could write pages on my feelings about this topic, but I think perhaps the most accurate and powerful statement was made by Drummond & Jones (2010): “High-stakes testing has created an atmosphere of greed, fear, and stress in schools, none of which contribute to learning.”

References

Anastasi, A. (1992).  What counselors should know about the use and interpretation of psychological 

            tests.  Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 610-615.

Drummond, R. J. and Jones, K. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors and

            helping professionals. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.