APRN Background

Psychological assessment involves the use of validated measures and other methods, including interviews, observations, self-report inventories, performance-based measures, collateral reports, and the review of records, to evaluate the full spectrum of individual differences in human characteristics and functional capacities. Psychological assessment is often deemed medically necessary (APA Services, Inc, 2019) and is regularly used in clinical and medical settings to inform clinical decision-making (e.g., diagnosis, risk management; Bornstein, 2021), guide service delivery (e.g., treatment choice, routine outcome monitoring; Beutler & Clarkin, 2014), and assess readiness for medical procedures (Marek et al., 2016). Notably, psychological assessment has value beyond clinical and medical applications. Psychological assessment is used in academic settings (Wilmshurst & Brue, 2018), in civil and criminal proceedings (Goldwaser & Goldwaser, 2019), to inform other high-stakes legal decisions (e.g., custody determinations; Otto et al., 2000), in personnel selection and candidate screening (e.g., police, airline pilots; Corey & Borum, 2012; King, 2014), in the selection of professional athletes (Beckmann & Kellmann, 2003), and is a recommended component of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and Pension examination (VA Benefits Administration, 2015). This list, though extensive, highlights only a portion of the many invaluable applications of psychological assessment and the serious, life-altering effects assessment results can have for individuals from various populations across a wide range of settings. Justifiably, robust knowledge of the validity, utility, and impact of psychological assessment should be paramount in the field.

Despite the importance of clinical utility and calls for increases in clinical utility research (APA, 2006; Keeley, 2016), there has been only minimal exploration into the utility and impact of psychological assessment (see Kamphuis et al., 2021 for review). Rather, researchers have historically focused on investigating the validity and utility of individual measurement instruments. Studies of individual tests do little to answer vital questions pertaining to the applied practice of psychological assessment. These studies cannot determine whether psychological assessment works and, if so, how, for whom, and under which conditions. The few studies that have directly investigated the utility of psychological assessment have drawn mixed conclusions, with some finding little to no support (e.g., Olsson & Fridell, 2018; Schulte et al., 1992) and others producing evidence supporting the clinical utility of psychological assessment (e.g., De Saeger et al., 2014; Lambert et al., 2003; Poston & Hanson, 2010). Kamphuis et al. (2021) outlined the methodological issues believed to underlie these divergent findings, concluding that “conducting [clinical utility of psychological assessment] research is complex and presents with numerous pitfalls for questionable research practices” (p. 130). Principally, findings derived from controlled efficacy trials are limited in their generalizability, whereas in vivo effectiveness studies lack internal validity, and both designs are restricted in their capacity to distinguish direct from indirect effects of psychological assessment on meaningful outcomes. Neither approach alone can produce sufficient evidence documenting the validity, utility, or impact of psychological assessment. What is needed is an accumulation of evidence from a sustained and scientifically robust program of research with constituent studies being true integrations of science and practice. The establishment of an organized collaboration between researchers and practitioners dedicated to studying the impact and clinical utility of psychological assessment by way of an Assessment Practice Research Network (APRN) is the ideal strategy for generating a continuous flow of informative investigations that are empirically sound and clinically relevant.