Passer au contenu

Obtenir l’application

Langue : ASPPB offre une version française de l’EPPP (le FEPPP) là où un organisme de réglementation l’exige légalement. ASPPB n’a pas encore publié les énoncés de compétence en français : nos questions et nos fiches sont donc en anglais jusqu’à ce qu’il le fasse.

2.A.4

Common instruments and matching them to the question

Énoncé de compétence 2.A.4 d’ASPPB : Commonly used instruments for the measurement of characteristics and behaviors of individuals, groups, or organizations and their appropriate use

Psychologists draw on a recognizable set of instruments: intelligence and achievement batteries, broadband personality inventories, brief symptom scales, adaptive behavior and informant rating systems, and validity tests. Knowing what each family measures, for whom it was normed and which decisions its evidence supports prevents the most common misuse, which is asking an instrument to answer a question it was not built to answer.

Notions clés

Cognitive and achievement batteries
Individually administered intelligence batteries, such as the Wechsler scales, and achievement tests estimate abilities and academic skills against age or grade norms. They are central to questions about intellectual disability, learning disorders and cognitive change, but a composite score rarely settles such a question alone.
Broadband personality inventories
Inventories such as the MMPI-3 and the Personality Assessment Inventory cover many dimensions of personality and psychopathology in one administration and include validity scales for overreporting, underreporting and inconsistent responding.
Brief symptom and severity scales
Scales such as the PHQ-9 rate symptom severity and track change. In its validation, scores of 5, 10, 15 and 20 marked mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression, and a score of 10 or more had a sensitivity and specificity of 88 percent for major depression.
Adaptive behavior and informant systems
Adaptive behavior scales, such as the Vineland, measure everyday communication, daily living and social skills from informant interviews or forms. Informant systems such as the ASEBA score parent, teacher and self reports on common scales so the views can be compared.
Validity tests
Performance validity tests check whether ability scores reflect adequate engagement, and symptom validity scales check the accuracy of symptom reports. The 2021 AACN consensus holds that all clinical and forensic evaluations must address the validity of test results.

Exemple commenté

A primary care team begins giving the PHQ-9 at every visit to adults being treated for depression and asks a consulting psychologist how to use the scores.

  1. The PHQ-9 rates each of the nine DSM depressive symptoms from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day), so totals run from 0 to 27.
  2. At a first visit, a score of 10 or more is a positive screen; because predictive value depends on how common depression is in the clinic, a positive result is followed by a clinical interview before a diagnosis is recorded.
  3. At later visits, the scores track movement across the severity bands at 5, 10, 15 and 20, which is the use its authors intended for guiding treatment decisions.
  4. The PHQ-9 does not measure personality, cognition or the causes of the depression, so questions about those call for other instruments.

Use each instrument for the decisions its evidence supports, and add other measures for the questions it was not built to answer.

Vérifiez vos acquis

For an adult inpatient, a psychologist wants one broadband self-report measure of personality and psychopathology that includes scales for detecting overreporting and underreporting. Which instrument fits?

Sources

  • Kroenke, Spitzer and Williams (2001), The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure, Journal of General Internal Medicine (PMID 11556941), Journal of General Internal Medicine 16, 606-613 (item scoring 0 to 3; severity cut points 5, 10, 15, 20; sensitivity and specificity 88 percent at 10 or more)
  • Sweet, Heilbronner, Morgan, Larrabee, Rohling, Boone, Kirkwood, Schroeder and Suhr (2021), American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment, The Clinical Neuropsychologist (PMID 33823750), The Clinical Neuropsychologist 35, 1053-1106 (all clinical and forensic evaluations must address validity)
  • Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014), Chapter 10, Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Ben-Porath and Tellegen (2020), MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, Validity scales (overreporting, underreporting, non-content-based invalid responding)
  • Sparrow, Cicchetti and Saulnier (2016), Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition, manual, Domains: communication, daily living skills, socialization
  • Achenbach and Rescorla (2001), Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles, Cross-informant scales for parent, teacher and youth forms