evidence-based assessment
{{Short description|Review approach based on empirical evidence}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2017}}
{{Evidence-based practices}}
Evidence-based assessment (EBA) refers to the application of research and theory in selecting constructs for a specific assessment purpose, as well as informing the methods and measures used in the assessment process.{{cite journal|last1=Hunsley|first1=John|last2=Mash|first2=Eric J.|title=Evidence-based assessment|journal=Annual Review of Clinical Psychology|date=27 April 2007|volume=3|issue=1 |pages=29–51|pmid=17716047|doi=10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091419 }} This approach recognizes that, despite data from psychometrically robust measures, the assessment process inherently involves iterative decision-making. Clinicians formulate and test hypotheses by integrating often incomplete and inconsistent data. EBA has been shown to aid clinicians in reducing cognitive biases in their clinical decisions.{{cite journal|last1=Jenkins|first1=Melissa M.|last2=Youngstrom|first2=Eric A.|last3=Washburn|first3=Jason J.|last4=Youngstrom|first4=Jennifer Kogos|title=Evidence-Based Strategies Improve Assessment of Pediatric Bipolar Disorder by Community Practitioners|journal=Professional Psychology: Research and Practice|date=April 2011|volume=42|issue=2|pages=121–129|pmid=21625392|doi=10.1037/a0022506 |pmc=3100552}} Evidence-based assessment is a component of the broader movement towards evidence-based practices.
The concept of evidence-based assessment originated in the field of medicine,{{cite journal|last1=Sackett|first1=David L.|last2=Rosenberg|first2=William M.C.|last3=Gray|first3=J.A. Muir|last4=Haynes|first4=R. Brian|last5=Richardson|first5=W. Scott|title=Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't|journal=BMJ|date=13 January 1996|volume=312|issue=7023|pages=71–2|pmid=8555924|doi=10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71|pmc=2349778}} and has since been adopted in several other disciplines, notably clinical psychology. The EBA approach is widely recognized as an empirically driven method of clinical decision-making. Cochrane reviews have reported the efficacy of EBA methods.{{Cite journal |last1=Stacey |first1=Dawn |last2=Lewis |first2=Krystina B. |last3=Smith |first3=Maureen |last4=Carley |first4=Meg |last5=Volk |first5=Robert |last6=Douglas |first6=Elisa E. |last7=Pacheco-Brousseau |first7=Lissa |last8=Finderup |first8=Jeanette |last9=Gunderson |first9=Janet |last10=Barry |first10=Michael J. |last11=Bennett |first11=Carol L. |last12=Bravo |first12=Paulina |last13=Steffensen |first13=Karina |last14=Gogovor |first14=Amédé |last15=Graham |first15=Ian D. |date=2024-01-29 |title=Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions |journal=The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=CD001431 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6 |issn=1469-493X |pmc=10823577 |pmid=38284415}}
History and development
{{Empty section|date=September 2015}}
Limitations
= Test selection and inadequate assessment =
Despite the availability of numerous guidelines to assist psychologists in conducting evidence-based assessments (EBAs), professionals often fall short in adhering to these guidelines. Projective tests, for instance, are frequently employed in the assessment of child adjustment.{{cite journal|last1=Ackerman|first1=Marc J.|last2=Ackerman|first2=Melissa C.|date=April 1997|title=Custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited)|journal=Professional Psychology: Research and Practice|volume=28|issue=2|pages=137–145|url=http://custodyinfopack.com/pdf/InfoPack9CustodyEvaluationPractices.pdf|doi=10.1037/0735-7028.28.2.137|access-date=9 September 2015|archive-date=3 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233502/http://custodyinfopack.com/pdf/InfoPack9CustodyEvaluationPractices.pdf|url-status=dead}} It has been observed that there is considerable variability among professionals in following professional guidelines, leading to instances where evaluators fail to assess general parenting abilities adequately.{{cite journal|last1=Horvarth|first1=Leah S.|last2=Logan|first2=T.K.|last3=Walker|first3=Robert|date=December 2002|title=Child custody cases: A content analysis of evaluations in practice|journal=Professional Psychology: Research and Practice|volume=33|issue=6|pages=557–565|doi=10.1037/0735-7028.33.6.557}}
= Issues in test interpretation =
Professionals and authorities often erroneously recommend interpreting variability between and within scales that might not have been rigorously tested. For example, due to thorough efforts in establishing norms, reliability, and validity measures, certain measures like the Wechsler intelligence scales for both adults and children are considered as some of the most reliable psychological instruments. Authorities often advise the consideration of subtest scores. However, unlike full-scale IQ scores, subtest scores frequently have lower levels of internal consistency reliability. This results in reduced precision of measurement and an increased likelihood of false positive and false negative conclusions about the assessment.
References
{{Wikiversity|Evidence based assessment}}
{{Reflist}}
{{Evidence-based practice}}
{{Psychology}}
Category:Evidence-based medicine
Category:Psychological testing