Ethical and Professional Issues in Psychology Testing

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 1/133

CHAPTER 1 Applications and Consequences of Psychological Testing

TOPIC 1A The Nature and Uses of Psychological Testing

1.1 The Consequences of Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec1#ch01lev1sec1)

Case Exhibit 1.1 True-Life Vignettes of Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec1#ch01exh1)

1.2 De�inition of a Test (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec2#ch01lev1sec2)

1.3 Further Distinctions in Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec3#ch01lev1sec3)

1.4 Types of Tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01lev1sec4)

1.5 Uses of Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec5#ch01lev1sec5)

1.6 Factors In�luencing the Soundness of Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec6#ch01lev1sec6)

1.7 Standardized Procedures in Test Administration (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec7#ch01lev1sec7)

1.8 Desirable Procedures of Test Administration (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec8#ch01lev1sec8)

1.9 In�luence of the Examiner (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec9#ch01lev1sec9)

1.10 Background and Motivation of the Examinee (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec10#ch01lev1sec10)

If you ask average citizens “What do you know about psychological tests?” they might mention something about intelligence tests, inkblots, and true-false inventories such as the widely familiar MMPI. Most likely, their understanding of tests will focus on quantifying intelligence and detecting personality problems, as this is the common view of how tests are used in our society. Certainly, there is more than a grain of truth to this common view: Measures of personality and intelligence are still the essential

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 2/133

mainstays of psychological testing. However, modern test developers have produced many other kinds of tests for diverse and imaginative purposes that even the early pioneers of testing could not have anticipated. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the varied applications of psychological testing and also to review the ethical and social consequences of this enterprise.

The chapter begins with a panoramic survey of psychological tests and their often surprising applications. In Topic 1A (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01#ch01box1) , The Nature and Uses of Psychological Testing, we summarize the different types and varied applications of modern tests. We also introduce the reader to a host of factors that can in�luence the soundness of testing such as adherence to standardized procedures, establishment of rapport, and the motivation of the examinee to deceive. In Topic 1B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec10#ch01box2) , Ethical and Social Implications of Testing, we further develop the theme that testing is a consequential endeavor. In this topic, we survey professional guidelines that impact testing and review the in�luence of cultural background on test results.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 3/133

1.1 THE CONSEQUENCES OF TESTING From birth to old age, we encounter tests at almost every turning point in life. The baby’s �irst test conducted immediately after birth is the Apgar test, a quick, multivariate assessment of heart rate, respiration, muscle tone, re�lex irritability, and color. The total Apgar score (0 to 10) helps determine the need for any immediate medical attention. Later, a toddler who previously received a low Apgar score might be a candidate for developmental disability assessment. The preschool child may take school- readiness tests. Once a school career begins, each student endures hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academic tests before graduation—not to mention possible tests for learning disability, giftedness, vocational interest, and college admission. After graduation, adults may face tests for job entry, driver’s license, security clearance, personality function, marital compatibility, developmental disability, brain dysfunction—the list is nearly endless. Some persons even encounter one �inal indignity in the frailness of their later years: a test to determine their competency to manage �inancial affairs.

Tests are used in almost every nation on earth for counseling, selection, and placement. Testing occurs in settings as diverse as schools, civil service, industry, medical clinics, and counseling centers. Most persons have taken dozens of tests and thought nothing of it. Yet, by the time the typical individual reaches retirement age, it is likely that psychological test results will have helped to shape his or her destiny. The de�lection of the life course by psychological test results might be subtle, such as when a prospective mathematician quali�ies for an accelerated calculus course based on tenth-grade achievement scores. More commonly, psychological test results alter individual destiny in profound ways. Whether a person is admitted to one college and not another, offered one job but refused a second, diagnosed as depressed or not—all such determinations rest, at least in part, on the meaning of test results as interpreted by persons in authority. Put simply, psychological test results change lives. For this reason it is prudent—indeed, almost mandatory—that students of psychology learn about the contemporary uses and occasional abuses of testing. In Case Exhibit 1.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec1#ch01exh1) , the life-altering aftermath of psychological testing is illustrated by means of several true case history examples.

CASE EXHIBIT 1.1 True-Life Vignettes of Testing The in�luence of psychological testing is best illustrated by example. Consider these brief vignettes:

A shy, withdrawn 7-year-old girl is administered an IQ test by a school psychologist. Her score is phenomenally higher than the teacher expected. The student is admitted to a gifted and talented program where she blossoms into a self-con�ident and gregarious scholar. Three children in a family living near a lead smelter are exposed to the toxic effects of lead dust and suffer neurological damage. Based in part on psychological test results that demonstrate impaired intelligence and shortened attention span in the children, the family receives an $8 million settlement from the company that owns the smelter. A candidate for a position as police of�icer is administered a personality inventory as part of the selection process. The test indicates that the candidate tends to act before thinking and resists supervision from authority �igures. Even though he has excellent training and impresses the interviewers, the candidate does not receive a job offer. A student, unsure of what career to pursue, takes a vocational interest inventory. The test indicates that she would like the work of a pharmacist. She signs up for a prepharmacy curriculum but �inds the classes to be both dif�icult and boring. After three years, she abandons

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 4/133

pharmacy for a major in dance, frustrated that she still faces three more years of college to earn a degree.

These cases demonstrate that test results impact individual lives and the collective social fabric in powerful and far-reaching ways. In the �irst story about the hidden talent of a 7-year-old girl, cognitive test results changed her life trajectory for the better. In the second case involving the tragic saga of children exposed to lead poisoning, the test data helped redress a social injustice. In the third situation— the impulsive candidate for police of�icer—personality test results likely served the public interest by tipping the balance against a questionable applicant. But test results do not always provide a positive conclusion. In the last case mentioned above, a young student wasted time and money following the seemingly �lawed guidance of a well-known vocational inventory.

The idea of a test is thus a pervasive element of our culture, a feature we take for granted. However, the layperson’s notion of a test does not necessarily coincide with the more restrictive view held by psychometricians. A psychometrician (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss256) is a specialist in psychology or education who develops and evaluates psychological tests. Because of widespread misunderstandings about the nature of tests, it is �itting that we begin this topic with a fundamental question, one that de�ines the scope of the entire book: What is a test?

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 5/133

1.2 DEFINITION OF A TEST A test (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss326) is a standardized procedure for sampling behavior and describing it with categories or scores. In addition, most tests have norms or standards by which the results can be used to predict other, more important behaviors. We elaborate these characteristics in the sections that follow, but �irst it is instructive to portray the scope of the de�inition. Included in this view are traditional tests such as personality questionnaires and intelligence tests, but the de�inition also subsumes diverse procedures that the reader might not recognize as tests. For example, all of the following could be tests according to the de�inition used in this book: a checklist for rating the social skills of a youth with mental retardation; a nontimed measure of mastery in adding pairs of three-digit numbers; microcomputer appraisals of reaction time; and even situational tests such as observing an individual working on a group task with two “helpers” who are obstructive and uncooperative.

In sum, tests are enormously varied in their formats and applications. Nonetheless, most tests possess these de�ining features:

Standardized procedure Behavior sample Scores or categories Norms or standards Prediction of nontest behavior

In the sections that follow, we examine each of these characteristics in more detail. The portrait that we draw pertains especially to norm-referenced tests—tests that use a well-de�ined population of persons for their interpretive framework. However, the de�ining characteristics of a test differ slightly for the special case of criterion-referenced tests—tests that measure what a person can do rather than comparing results to the performance levels of others. For this reason, we provide a separate discussion of criterion- referenced tests.

Standardized procedure (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss311) is an essential feature of any psychological test. A test is considered to be standardized if the procedures for administering it are uniform from one examiner and setting to another. Of course, standardization depends to some extent on the competence of the examiner. Even the best test can be rendered useless by a careless, poorly trained, or ill-informed tester, as the reader will discover later in this topic. However, most examiners are competent. Standardization, therefore, rests largely on the directions for administration found in the instructional manual that typically accompanies a test.

The formulation of directions is an essential step in the standardization of a test. In order to guarantee uniform administration procedures, the test developer must provide comparable stimulus materials to all testers, specify with considerable precision the oral instructions for each item or subtest, and advise the examiner how to handle a wide range of queries from the examinee.

To illustrate these points, consider the number of different ways a test developer might approach the assessment of digit span—the maximum number of orally presented digits a subject can recall from memory. An unstandardized test of digit span might merely suggest that the examiner orally present increasingly long series of numbers until the subject fails. The number of digits in the longest series recalled would then be the subject’s digit span. Most readers can discern that such a loosely de�ined test

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 6/133

will lack uniformity from one examiner to another. If the tester is free to improvise any series of digits, what is to prevent him or her from presenting, with the familiar in�lection of a television announcer, “1- 800-325-3535”? Such a series would be far easier to recall than a more random set, such as, “7-2-8-1-9-4- 6-3-7-4-2.” The speed of presentation would also crucially affect the uniformity of a digit span test. For purposes of standardization, it is essential that every examiner present each series at a constant rate, for example, one digit per second. Finally, the examiner needs to know how to react to unexpected responses such as a subject asking, “Could you repeat that again?” For obvious reasons, the usual advice is “No.”

A psychological test is also a limited sample of behavior. Neither the subject nor the examiner has suf�icient time for truly comprehensive testing, even when the test is targeted to a well-de�ined and �inite behavior domain. Thus, practical constraints dictate that a test is only a sample of behavior. Yet, the sample of behavior is of interest only insofar as it permits the examiner to make inferences about the total domain of relevant behaviors. For example, the purpose of a vocabulary test is to determine the examinee’s entire word stock by requesting de�initions of a very small but carefully selected sample of words. Whether the subject can de�ine the particular 35 words from a vocabulary subtest (e.g., on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV, or the WAIS-IV) is of little direct consequence. But the indirect meaning of such results is of great import because it signals the examinee’s general knowledge of vocabulary.

An interesting point—and one little understood by the lay public—is that the test items need not resemble the behaviors that the test is attempting to predict. The essential characteristic of a good test is that it permits the examiner to predict other behaviors—not that it mirrors the to-be-predicted behaviors. If answering “true” to the question “I drink a lot of water” happens to help predict depression, then this seemingly unrelated question is a useful index of depression. Thus, the reader will note that successful prediction is an empirical question answered by appropriate research. While most tests do sample directly from the domain of behaviors they hope to predict, this is not a psychometric requirement.

A psychological test must also permit the derivation of scores or categories. Thorndike (1918 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1636) ) expressed the essential axiom of testing in his famous assertion, “Whatever exists at all exists in some amount.” McCall (1939 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1081) ) went a step further, declaring, “Anything that exists in amount can be measured.” Testing strives to be a form of measurement akin to procedures in the physical sciences whereby numbers represent abstract dimensions such as weight or temperature. Every test furnishes one or more scores or provides evidence that a person belongs to one category and not another. In short, psychological testing sums up performance in numbers or classi�ications.

The implicit assumption of the psychometric viewpoint is that tests measure individual differences in traits or characteristics that exist in some vague sense of the word. In most cases, all people are assumed to possess the trait or characteristic being measured, albeit in different amounts. The purpose of the testing is to estimate the amount of the trait or quality possessed by an individual.

In this context, two cautions are worth mentioning. First, every test score will always re�lect some degree of measurement error. The imprecision of testing is simply unavoidable: Tests must rely on an external sample of behavior to estimate an unobservable and, therefore, inferred characteristic. Psychometricians often express this fundamental point with an equation:

X = T + e

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 7/133

where X is the observed score, T is the true score, and e is a positive or negative error component. The best that a test developer can do is make e very small. It can never be completely eliminated, nor can its exact impact be known in the individual case. We discuss the concept of measurement error in Topic 3B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch03lev1sec5#ch03box2) , Concepts of Reliability.

The second caution is that test consumers must be wary of reifying the characteristic being measured. Test results do not represent a thing with physical reality. Typically, they portray an abstraction that has been shown to be useful in predicting nontest behaviors. For example, in discussing a person’s IQ, psychologists are referring to an abstraction that has no direct, material existence but that is, nonetheless, useful in predicting school achievement and other outcomes.

A psychological test must also possess norms or standards. An examinee’s test score is usually interpreted by comparing it with the scores obtained by others on the same test. For this purpose, test developers typically provide norms (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss223) —a summary of test results for a large and representative group of subjects (Petersen, Kolen, & Hoover, 1989 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1286) ). The norm group is referred to as the standardization sample.

The selection and testing of the standardization sample (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss310) is crucial to the usefulness of a test. This group must be representative of the population for whom the test is intended or else it is not possible to determine an examinee’s relative standing. In the extreme case when norms are not provided, the examiner can make no use of the test results at all. An exception to this point occurs in the case of criterion-referenced tests, discussed later.

Norms not only establish an average performance but also serve to indicate the frequency with which different high and low scores are obtained. Thus, norms allow the tester to determine the degree to which a score deviates from expectations. Such information can be very important in predicting the nontest behavior of the examinee. Norms are of such overriding importance in test interpretation that we consider them at length in a separate section later in this text.

Finally, tests are not ends in themselves. In general, the ultimate purpose of a test is to predict additional behaviors, other than those directly sampled by the test. Thus, the tester may have more interest in the nontest behaviors predicted by the test than in the test responses per se. Perhaps a concrete example will clarify this point. Suppose an examiner administers an inkblot test to a patient in a psychiatric hospital. Assume that the patient responds to one inkblot by describing it as “eyes peering out.” Based on established norms, the examiner might then predict that the subject will be highly suspicious and a poor risk for individual psychotherapy. The purpose of the testing is to arrive at this and similar predictions— not to determine whether the subject perceives eyes staring out from the blots.

The ability of a test to predict nontest behavior is determined by an extensive body of validational research, most of which is conducted after the test is released. But there are no guarantees in the world of psychometric research. It is not unusual for a test developer to publish a promising test, only to read years later that other researchers �ind it de�icient. There is a lesson here for test consumers: The fact that a test exists and purports to measure a certain characteristic is no guarantee of truth in advertising. A test may have a fancy title, precise instructions, elaborate norms, attractive packaging, and preliminary �indings— but if in the dispassionate study of independent researchers the test fails to predict appropriate nontest behaviors, then it is useless.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 8/133

1.3 FURTHER DISTINCTIONS IN TESTING The chief features of a test previously outlined apply especially to norm-referenced tests, which constitute the vast majority of tests in use. In a norm-referenced test (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss219) , the performance of each examinee is interpreted in reference to a relevant standardization sample (Petersen, Kolen, & Hoover, 1989 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1286) ). However, these features are less relevant in the special case of criterion-referenced tests, since these instruments suspend the need for comparing the individual examinee with a reference group. In a criterion-referenced test (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss80) , the objective is to determine where the examinee stands with respect to very tightly de�ined educational objectives (Berk, 1984 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib148) ). For example, one part of an arithmetic test for 10-year-olds might measure the accuracy level in adding pairs of two- digit numbers. In an untimed test of 20 such problems, accuracy should be nearly perfect. For this kind of test, it really does not matter how the individual examinee compares to others of the same age. What matters is whether the examinee meets an appropriate, speci�ied criterion—for example, 95 percent accuracy. Because there is no comparison to the normative performance of others, this kind of measurement tool is aptly designated a criterion-referenced test. The important distinction here is that, unlike norm-referenced tests, criterion-referenced tests can be meaningfully interpreted without reference to norms. We discuss criterion-referenced tests in more detail in Topic 3A (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch03#ch03box1) , Norms and Test Standardization.

Another important distinction is between testing and assessment, which are often considered equivalent. However, they do not mean exactly the same thing. Assessment is a more comprehensive term, referring to the entire process of compiling information about a person and using it to make inferences about characteristics and to predict behavior. Assessment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss17) can be de�ined as appraising or estimating the magnitude of one or more attributes in a person. The assessment of human characteristics involves observations, interviews, checklists, inventories, projectives, and other psychological tests. In sum, tests represent only one source of information used in the assessment process. In assessment, the examiner must compare and combine data from different sources. This is an inherently subjective process that requires the examiner to sort out con�licting information and make predictions based on a complex gestalt of data.

The term assessment was invented during World War II (WWII) to describe a program to select men for secret service assignment in the Of�ice of Strategic Services (OSS Assessment Staff, 1948 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1259) ). The OSS staff of psychologists and psychiatrists amassed a colossal amount of information on candidates during four grueling days of written tests, interviews, and personality tests. In addition, the assessment process included a variety of real-life situational tests based on the realization that there was a difference between know-how and can-do:

We made the candidates actually attempt the tasks with their muscles or spoken words, rather than merely indicate on paper how the tasks could be done. We were prompted to introduce realistic tests of ability by such �indings as this: that men who earn a high score in Mechanical Comprehension, a paper-and-pencil test, may be below average when it comes to solving mechanical problems with

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 9/133

their hands. (OSS Assessment Staff, 1948 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1259) , pp. 41–42)

The situational tests included group tasks of transporting equipment across a raging brook and scaling a 10-foot-high wall, as well as individual scrutiny of the ability to survive a realistic interrogation and to command two uncooperative subordinates in a construction task.

On the basis of the behavioral observations and test results, the OSS staff rated the candidates on dozens of speci�ic traits in such broad categories as leadership, social relations, emotional stability, effective intelligence, and physical ability. These ratings served as the basis for selecting OSS personnel.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 10/133

1.4 TYPES OF TESTS Tests can be broadly grouped into two camps: group tests versus individual tests. Group tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss140) are largely pencil- and-paper measures suitable to the testing of large groups of persons at the same time. Individual tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss155) are instruments that by their design and purpose must be administered one on one. An important advantage of individual tests is that the examiner can gauge the level of motivation of the subject and assess the relevance of other factors (e.g., impulsiveness or anxiety) on the test results.

For convenience, we will sort tests into the eight categories depicted in Table 1.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01tab1) . Each of the categories contains norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, individual, and group tests. The reader will note that any typology of tests is a purely arbitrary determination. For example, we could argue for yet another dichotomy: tests that seek to measure maximum performance (e.g., an intelligence test) versus tests that seek to gauge a typical response (e.g., a personality inventory).

In a narrow sense, there are hundreds—perhaps thousands—of different kinds of tests, each measuring a slightly different aspect of the individual. For example, even two tests of intelligence might be arguably different types of measures. One test might reveal the assumption that intelligence is a biological construct best measured through brain waves, whereas another might be rooted in the traditional view that intelligence is exhibited in the capacity to learn acculturated skills such as vocabulary. Lumping both measures under the category of intelligence tests is certainly an oversimpli�ication, but nonetheless a useful starting point.

TABLE 1.1 The Main Types of Psychological Tests

Intelligence Tests: Measure an individual’s ability in relatively global areas such as verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, or reasoning and thereby help determine potential for scholastic work or certain occupations. Aptitude Tests: Measure the capability for a relatively speci�ic task or type of skill; aptitude tests are, in effect, a narrow form of ability testing. Achievement Tests: Measure a person’s degree of learning, success, or accomplishment in a subject or task. Creativity Tests: Assess novel, original thinking and the capacity to �ind unusual or unexpected solutions, especially for vaguely de�ined problems. Personality Tests: Measure the traits, qualities, or behaviors that determine a person’s individuality; such tests include checklists, inventories, and projective techniques. Interest Inventories: Measure an individual’s preference for certain activities or topics and thereby help determine occupational choice. Behavioral Procedures: Objectively describe and count the frequency of a behavior, identifying the antecedents and consequences of the behavior. Neuropsychological Tests: Measure cognitive, sensory, perceptual, and motor performance to determine the extent, locus, and behavioral consequences of brain damage.

Intelligence tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss162) were originally designed to sample a broad assortment of skills in order to estimate the individual’s

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 11/133

general intellectual level. The Binet-Simon scales were successful, in part, because they incorporated heterogeneous tasks, including word de�initions, memory for designs, comprehension questions, and spatial visualization tasks. The group intelligence tests that blossomed with such profusion during and after WWII also tested diverse abilities—witness the Army Alpha with its eight different sections measuring practical judgment, information, arithmetic, and reasoning, among other skills.

Modern intelligence tests also emulate this historically established pattern by sampling a wide variety of pro�iciencies deemed important in our culture. In general, the term intelligence test refers to a test that yields an overall summary score based on results from a heterogeneous sample of items. Of course, such a test might also provide a pro�ile of subtest scores as well, but it is the overall score that generally attracts the most attention.

Aptitude tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss15) measure one or more clearly de�ined and relatively homogeneous segments of ability. Such tests come in two varieties: single aptitude tests and multiple aptitude test batteries. A single aptitude test appraises, obviously, only one ability, whereas a multiple aptitude test battery provides a pro�ile of scores for a number of aptitudes.

Aptitude tests are often used to predict success in an occupation, training course, or educational endeavor. For example, the Seashore Measures of Musical Talents (Seashore, 1938 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1478) ), a series of tests covering pitch, loudness, rhythm, time, timbre, and tonal memory, can be used to identify children with potential talent in music. Specialized aptitude tests also exist for the assessment of clerical skills, mechanical abilities, manual dexterity, and artistic ability.

The most common use of aptitude tests is to determine college admissions. Most every college student is familiar with the SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test, previously called the Scholastic Aptitude Test) of the College Entrance Examination Board. This test contains a Verbal section stressing word knowledge and reading comprehension; a Mathematics section stressing algebra, geometry, and insightful reasoning; and a Writing section. In effect, colleges that require certain minimum scores on the SAT for admission are using the test to predict academic success.

Achievement tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss02) measure a person’s degree of learning, success, or accomplishment in a subject matter. The implicit assumption of most achievement tests is that the schools have taught the subject matter directly. The purpose of the test is then to determine how much of the material the subject has absorbed or mastered. Achievement tests commonly have several subtests, such as reading, mathematics, language, science, and social studies.

The distinction between aptitude and achievement tests is more a matter of use than content (Gregory, 1994a (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib646) ). In fact, any test can be an aptitude test to the extent that it helps predict future performance. Likewise, any test can be an achievement test insofar as it re�lects how much the subject has learned. In practice, then, the distinction between these two kinds of instruments is determined by their respective uses. On occasion, one instrument may serve both purposes, acting as an aptitude test to forecast future performance and an achievement test to monitor past learning.

Creativity tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss76) assess a subject’s ability to produce new ideas, insights, or artistic creations that are accepted as being of social, aesthetic, or scienti�ic value. Thus, measures of creativity

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 12/133

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss76) emphasize novelty and originality in the solution of fuzzy problems or the production of artistic works. A creative response to one problem is illustrated in Figure 1.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01�ig1) .

Tests of creativity have a checkered history. In the 1960s, they were touted as a useful alternative to intelligence tests and used widely in U.S. school systems. Educators were especially impressed that creativity tests required divergent thinking—putting forth a variety of answers to a complex or fuzzy problem—as opposed to convergent thinking—�inding the single correct solution to a well-de�ined problem. For example, a creativity test might ask the examinee to imagine all the things that would happen if clouds had strings trailing from them down to the ground. Students who could come up with a large number of consequences were assumed to be more creative than their less-imaginative colleagues. However, some psychometricians are skeptical, concluding that creativity is just another label for applied intelligence.

FIGURE 1.1 Solutions to the Nine-Dot Problem as Examples of Creativity Note: Without lifting the pencil, draw through all the dots with as few straight lines as possible. The usual solution is shown in a. Creative solutions are depicted in b and c.

Personality tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss241) measure the traits, qualities, or behaviors that determine a person’s individuality; this information helps predict future behavior. These tests come in several different varieties, including checklists, inventories, and projective techniques such as sentence completions and inkblots (Table 1.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01tab2) ).

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 13/133

Interest inventories (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss163) measure an individual’s preference for certain activities or topics and thereby help determine occupational choice. These tests are based on the explicit assumption that interest patterns determine and, therefore, also predict job satisfaction. For example, if the examinee has the same interests as successful and satis�ied accountants, it is thought likely that he or she would enjoy the work of an accountant. The assumption that interest patterns predict job satisfaction is largely borne out by empirical studies, as we will review in a later chapter.

TABLE 1.2 Examples of Personality Test Items

(a) An Adjective Checklist Check those words which describe you:

( ) relaxed ( ) assertive ( ) thoughtful ( ) curious ( ) cheerful ( ) even-tempered ( ) impatient ( ) skeptical ( ) morose ( ) impulsive ( ) optimistic ( ) anxious

(b) A True-False Inventory Circle true or false as each statement applies to you:

T   F   I like sports magazines. T   F   Most people would lie to get a job. T   F   I like big parties where there is lots of noisy fun. T   F   Strange thoughts possess me for hours at a time. T   F   I often regret the missed opportunities in my life. T   F   Sometimes I feel anxious for no reason at all. T   F   I like everyone I have met. T   F   Falling asleep is seldom a problem for me.

(c) A Sentence Completion Projective Test Complete each sentence with the �irst thought that comes to you:

I feel bored when What I need most is I like people who My mother was

Many kinds of behavioral procedures (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss31) are available for assessing the antecedents and consequences of behavior, including checklists, rating scales, interviews, and structured observations. These methods share a common assumption that behavior is best understood in terms of clearly de�ined characteristics such as frequency, duration, antecedents, and consequences. Behavioral procedures tend to be highly pragmatic in that they are usually interwoven with treatment approaches.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 14/133

Neuropsychological tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss214) are used in the assessment of persons with known or suspected brain dysfunction. Neuropsychology is the study of brain– behavior relationships. Over the years, neuropsychologists have discovered that certain tests and procedures are highly sensitive to the effects of brain damage. Neuropsychologists use these specialized tests and procedures to make inferences about the locus, extent, and consequences of brain damage. A full neuropsychological assessment typically requires three to eight hours of one-on-one testing with an extensive battery of measures. Examiners must undergo comprehensive advanced training in order to make sense out of the resulting mass of test data.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 15/133

1.5 USES OF TESTING By far the most common use of psychological tests is to make decisions about persons. For example, educational institutions frequently use tests to determine placement levels for students, and universities ascertain who should be admitted, in part, on the basis of test scores. State, federal, and local civil service systems also rely heavily on tests for purposes of personnel selection.

Even the individual practitioner exploits tests, in the main, for decision making. Examples include the consulting psychologist who uses a personality test to determine that a police department hire one candidate and not another, and the neuropsycholo-gist who employs tests to conclude that a client has suffered brain damage.

But simple decision making is not the only function of psychological testing. It is convenient to distinguish �ive uses of tests:

Classi�ication Diagnosis and treatment planning Self-knowledge Program evaluation Research

These applications frequently overlap and, on occasion, are dif�icult to distinguish one from another. For example, a test that helps determine a psychiatric diagnosis might also provide a form of self-knowledge. Let us examine these applications in more detail.

The term classi�ication (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss47) encompasses a variety of procedures that share a common purpose: assigning a person to one category rather than another. Of course, the assignment to categories is not an end in itself but the basis for differential treatment of some kind. Thus, classi�ication can have important effects such as granting or restricting access to a speci�ic college or determining whether a person is hired for a particular job. There are many variant forms of classi�ication, each emphasizing a particular purpose in assigning persons to categories. We will distinguish placement, screening, certi�ication, and selection.

Placement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss246) is the sorting of persons into different programs appropriate to their needs or skills. For example, universities often use a mathematics placement exam to determine whether students should enroll in calculus, algebra, or remedial courses.

Screening (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss287) refers to quick and simple tests or procedures to identify persons who might have special characteristics or needs. Ordinarily, psychometricians acknowledge that screening tests will result in many misclassi�ications. Examiners are, therefore, advised to do follow-up testing with additional instruments before making important decisions on the basis of screening tests. For example, to identify children with highly exceptional talent in spatial thinking, a psychologist might administer a 10-minute paper-and- pencil test to every child in a school system. Students who scored in the top 10 percent might then be singled out for more comprehensive testing.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 16/133

Certi�ication (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss45) and selection both have a pass/fail quality. Passing a certi�ication exam confers privileges. Examples include the right to practice psychology or to drive a car. Thus, certi�ication typically implies that a person has at least a minimum pro�iciency in some discipline or activity. Selection is similar to certi�ication in that it confers privileges such as the opportunity to attend a university or to gain employment.

Another use of psychological tests is for diagnosis and treatment planning. Diagnosis (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss91) consists of two intertwined tasks: determining the nature and source of a person’s abnormal behavior, and classifying the behavior pattern within an accepted diagnostic system. Diagnosis is usually a precursor to remediation or treatment of personal distress or impaired performance.

Psychological tests often play an important role in diagnosis and treatment planning. For example, intelligence tests are absolutely essential in the diagnosis of mental retardation. Personality tests are helpful in diagnosing the nature and extent of emotional disturbance. In fact, some tests such as the MMPI were devised for the explicit purpose of increasing the ef�iciency of psychiatric diagnosis.

Diagnosis should be more than mere classi�ication, more than the assignment of a label. A proper diagnosis conveys information—about strengths, weaknesses, etiology, and best choices for remediation/treatment. Knowing that a child has received a diagnosis of learning disability (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss183) is largely useless. But knowing in addition that the same child is well below average in reading comprehension, is highly distractible, and needs help with basic phonics can provide an indispensable basis for treatment planning.

Psychological tests also can supply a potent source of self-knowledge. In some cases, the feedback a person receives from psychological tests can change a career path or otherwise alter a person’s life course. Of course, not every instance of psychological testing provides self-knowledge. Perhaps in the majority of cases the client already knows what the test results divulge. A high-functioning college student is seldom surprised to �ind that his IQ is in the superior range. An architect is not perplexed to hear that she has excellent spatial reasoning skills. A student with meager reading capacity is usually not startled to receive a diagnosis of “learning disability.”

Another use for psychological tests is the systematic evaluation of educational and social programs. We have more to say about the evaluation of educational programs when we discuss achievement tests in a later chapter. We focus here on the use of tests in the evaluation of social programs. Social programs are designed to provide services that improve social conditions and community life. For example, Project Head Start is a federally funded program that supports nationwide pre-school teaching projects for underprivileged children (McKey and others, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1104) ). Launched in 1965 as a precedent-setting attempt to provide child development programs to low-income families, Head Start has provided educational enrichment and health services to millions of at-risk preschool children.

But exactly what impact does the multi-billion-dollar Head Start program have on early childhood development? Congress wanted to know if the program improved scholastic performance and reduced school failure among the enrollees. But the centers vary by sponsoring agencies, staff characteristics, coverage, content, and objectives, so the effects of Head Start are not easy to ascertain. Psychological tests provide an objective basis for answering these questions that is far superior to anecdotal or impressionistic reporting. In general, Head Start children show immediate gains in IQ, school readiness, and academic achievement, but these gains dissipate in the ensuing years (Figure 1.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec5#ch01�ig2) ).

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 17/133

So far we have discussed the practical application of psychological tests to everyday problems such as job selection, diagnosis, or program evaluation. In each of these instances, testing serves an immediate, pragmatic purpose: helping the tester make decisions about persons or programs. But tests also play a major role in both the applied and theoretical branches of behavioral research. As an example of testing in applied research, consider the problem faced by neuropsychologists who wish to investigate the hypothesis that low-level lead absorption causes behavioral de�icits in children. The only feasible way to explore this supposition is by testing normal and lead-burdened children with a battery of psychological tests. Needleman and associates (1979 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1220) ) used an array of traditional and innovative tests to conclude that low-level lead absorption causes decrements in IQ, impairments in reaction time, and escalations of undesirable classroom behaviors. Their conclusions inspired a tumultuous and bitter exchange of opinions that we will not review here (Needleman et al., 1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1221) ). However, the passions inspired by this study epitomize an instructive point: Academicians and public policymakers respect psychological tests. Why else would they engage in lengthy, acrimonious debates about the validity of testing-based research �indings?

FIGURE 1.2 Longitudinal Test Results from the Head Start Project Source: From McKey, R. H., and others. (1985). The impact of Head Start on children, families and communities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of�ice. In the public domain.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 18/133

1.6 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SOUNDNESS OF TESTING Psychological testing is a dynamic process in�luenced by many factors. Although examiners strive to ensure that test results accurately re�lect the traits or capacities being assessed, many extraneous factors can sway the outcome of psychological testing. In this section, we review the potentially crucial impact of several sources of in�luence: the manner of administration, the characteristics of the tester, the context of the testing, the motivation and experience of the examinee, and the method of scoring.

The sensitivity of the testing process to extraneous in�luences is obvious in cases where the examiner is cold, hurried, or incompetent. However, invalid test results do not originate only from obvious sources such as blatantly nonstandard administration, hostile tester, noisy testing room, or fearful examinee. In addition, there are numerous, subtle ways in which method, examiner, context, or motivation can alter test results. We provide a comprehensive survey of these extraneous in�luences in the remainder of this topic.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 19/133

1.7 STANDARDIZED PROCEDURES IN TEST ADMINISTRATION The interpretation of a psychological test is most reliable when the measurements are obtained under the standardized conditions outlined in the publisher’s test manual. Nonstandard testing procedures can alter the meaning of the test results, rendering them invalid and, therefore, misleading. Standardized procedures are so important that they are listed as an essential criterion for valid testing in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30) ), a reference manual published jointly by the American Psychological Association and other groups:

In typical applications, test administrators should follow carefully the standardized procedures for administration and scoring speci�ied by the test publisher. Speci�ications regarding instructions to test takers, time limits, the form of item presentation or response, and test materials or equipment should be strictly observed. Exceptions should be made only on the basis of carefully considered professional judgment, primarily in clinical applications. (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30) )

Suppose the instructions to the vocabulary section of a children’s intelligence test specify that the examiner should ask, “What does sofa mean, what is a sofa?” If a subject were to reply, “I’ve never heard that word,” an inexperienced tester might be tempted to respond, “You know, a couch—what is a couch?” This may strike the reader as a harmless form of fair play, a simple rephrasing of the original question. Yet, by straying from standardized procedures, the examiner has really given a different test. The point in asking for a de�inition of sofa (and not couch) is precisely that sofa is harder to de�ine and, therefore, a better index of high-level vocabulary skills.

Even though standardized testing procedures are normally essential, there are instances in which �lexibility in procedures is desirable or even necessary. As suggested in the APA Standards, such deviations should be reasoned and deliberate. An analogy to the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law is relevant here. An overly zealous examiner might capture the letter of the law, so to speak, by adhering literally and strictly to testing procedures outlined in the publisher’s manual. But is this really what most test publishers intend? Is it even how the test was actually administered to the normative sample? Most likely publishers would prefer that examiners capture the spirit of the law even if, on occasion, it is necessary to adjust testing procedures slightly.

The need to adjust standardized procedures for testing is especially apparent when examining persons with certain kinds of disabilities. A subject with a speech impediment might be allowed to write down the answers to orally presented questions or to use gesture and pantomime in response to some items. For example, a test question might ask, “What shape is a ball?” The question is designed to probe the subject’s knowledge of common shapes, not to examine whether the examinee can verbalize “round.” The written response round and the gestured response (a circular motion of the index �inger) are equally correct, too.

Minor adjustments in procedures that heed the spirit in which a test was developed occur on a regular basis and are no cause for alarm. These minor adjustments do not invalidate the established norms—on the contrary, the appropriate adaptation of procedures is necessary so that the norms remain valid. After all, the testers who collected data from the standardization sample did not act like heartless robots when posing questions to subjects. Examiners who wish to obtain valid results must likewise exercise a reasoned �lexibility in testing procedures.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 20/133

However, considerable clinical experience is needed to determine whether an adjustment in procedure is minor or so substantial that existing norms no longer apply. This is why psychological examiners normally receive extensive supervised experience before they are allowed to administer and interpret individual tests of ability or personality.

In certain cases an examiner will knowingly depart from standard procedures to a substantial degree; this practice precludes the use of available test norms. In these instances, the test is used to help formulate clinical judgments rather than to determine a quantitative index. For example, when examining aphasic patients, it may be desirable to ignore time limits entirely and accept roundabout answers. The examiner might not even calculate a score. In these rare cases, the test becomes, in effect, an adjunct to the clinical interview. Of course, when the examiner does not adhere to standardized procedures, this should be stated explicitly in the written report.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 21/133

1.8 DESIRABLE PROCEDURES OF TEST ADMINISTRATION A small treatise could be written on desirable procedures of test administration, but we will have to settle for a brief listing of the most essential points. For more details, the interested reader can consult Sattler (2001 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1438) ) on the individual testing of children and Clemans (1971 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib314) ) on group testing. We discuss individual testing �irst, then brie�ly list some important points about desirable procedures in group testing.

An essential component of individual testing is that examiners must be intimately familiar with the materials and directions before administration begins. Largely this involves extensive rehearsal and anticipation of unusual circumstances and the appropriate response. A well-prepared examiner has memorized key elements of verbal instructions and is ready to handle the unexpected.

The uninitiated student of assessment often assumes that examination procedures are so simple and straightforward that a quick once-through reading of the manual will suf�ice as preparation for testing. Although some individual tests are exceedingly rudimentary and uncomplicated, many of them have complexities of administration that, unheeded, can cause the examinee to fail items unnecessarily. For example, Choi and Proctor (1994 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib304) ) found that 25 of 27 graduate students made serious errors in the administration of the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition, even though the sessions were videotaped and the students knew their testing skills were being evaluated. Ramos, Alfonso, and Schermerhorn (2009 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1331) ) reviewed 108 protocols from the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities administered by 36 �irst-year graduate students in a school psychology doctoral program. The researchers found an average of almost 5 errors per test, including the use of incorrect ceilings, failure to record errors, and failure to encircle the correct row for the total number correct. Loe, Kadlubek, and Williams (2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1001) ) reviewed 51 WISC-IV protocols administered by graduate students and found an average of almost 26 errors per protocol. The two most common errors were the failure to query incomplete or ambiguous verbal responses, and granting too many points for substandard answers. In many cases, these errors materially affected the Full Scale IQ, shifting it upward or downward from the likely true score. What these studies con�irm is that appropriate attention to the details of administration and scoring is essential for valid results.

The necessity for intimate familiarity with testing procedures is well illustrated by the Block Design subtest of the WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1737) ). The materials for the subtest include nine blocks (cubes) colored red on two sides, white on two sides, and red/white on two sides. The examinee’s task is to use the blocks to construct patterns depicted on cards. For the initial designs, four blocks are needed, while for more dif�icult designs, all nine blocks are provided (Figure 1.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec8#ch01�ig3) ).

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 22/133

FIGURE 1.3 Materials Similar to WAIS-IV Block Design Subtest

Bright examinees have no dif�iculty comprehending this task and the exact instructions do not in�luence their performance appreciably. However, persons whose intelligence is average or below average need the elaborate demonstrations and corrections that are speci�ied in the WAIS-IV manual (Wechsler, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1737) ). In particular, the examiner demonstrates the �irst two designs and responds to the examinee’s success or failure on these according to a complex �low of reaction and counterreaction, as outlined in three pages of instructions. Woe to the tester who has not rehearsed this subtest and anticipated the proper response to examinees who falter on the �irst two designs.

Sensitivity to Disabilities Another important ingredient of valid test administration is sensitivity to disabilities in the examinee. Impairments in hearing, vision, speech, or motor control may seriously distort test results. If the examiner does not recognize the physical disability responsible for the poor test performance, a subject may be branded as intellectually or emotionally impaired when, in fact, the essential problem is a sensory or motor disability.

Vernon and Brown (1964 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1694) ) reported the tragic case of a young girl who was relegated to a hospital for the mentally retarded as a consequence of the tester’s insensitivity to physical disability. The examiner failed to notice that the child was deaf and concluded that her Stanford-Binet IQ of 29 was valid. She remained in the hospital for �ive years, but was released after she scored an IQ of 113 on a performance-based intelligence test! After dismissal from the hospital, she entered a school for the deaf and made good progress.

Persons with disabilities may require specialized tests for valid assessment. The reader will encounter a lengthy discussion of available tests for exceptional examinees in Chapter 7 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07#ch07) , Testing Special Populations. In this section, we concentrate on the vexing issues raised when standardized tests for normal populations are used with mildly or moderately disabled subjects. We include separate discussions of the testing

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 23/133

process for examinees with a hearing, vision, speech, or motor control problem. However, the reader needs to know that many exceptional examinees have multiple disabilities.

Valid testing of a subject with a hearing impairment requires �irst of all that the examiner detect the existence of the disability! This is often more dif�icult than it seems. Many persons with mild hearing loss learn to compensate for this disability by pretending to understand what others say and waiting for further conversational cues to help clarify faintly perceived words or phrases. As a result, other persons— including psychologists—may not perceive that an individual with mild hearing loss has any disability at all.

Failure to notice a hearing loss is particularly a problem with young examinees, who are usually poor informants about their disabilities. Young children are also prone to �luctuating hearing losses due to the periodic accumulation of �luid in the middle ear during intervals of mild illness (Vernon & Alles, 1986 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1693) ). A child with a �luctuating hearing loss may have normal hearing in the morning, but perceive conversational speech as a whisper just a few hours later.

Indications of possible hearing dif�iculty include lack of normal response to sound, inattentiveness, dif�iculty in following oral instructions, intent observation of the speaker’s lips, and poor articulation (Sattler, 1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1437) ). In all cases in which hearing impairment is suspected, referral for an audiological examination is crucial. If a serious hearing problem is con�irmed, then the examiner should consider using one of the specialized tests discussed in Chapter 7 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07#ch07) , Testing Special Populations. In persons with a mild hearing loss, it is essential for the examiner to face the subject squarely, speak loudly, and repeat instructions slowly. It is also important to �ind a quiet room for testing. Ideally, a testing room will have curtains and textured wall surfaces to minimize the distracting effects of background noises.

In contrast to those with hearing loss, subjects with visual disabilities generally attend well to verbally presented test materials. The examinee with visual impairment introduces a different kind of challenge to the examiner: detecting that a visual impairment exists, and then ensuring that the subject can see the test materials well.

Detecting visual impairment is a straightforward matter with adult subjects—in most cases, a mature examinee will freely volunteer information about visual impairment, especially if asked. However, children are poor informants about their visual capacities, so testers need to know the signs and symptoms of possible visual impairment in a young examinee. Common sense is a good starting point: Children who squint, blink excessively, or lose their place when reading may have a vision problem. Holding books or testing materials up close is another suspicious sign. Blurred or double vision may signify visual problems, as may headaches or nausea after reading. In general, it is so common for children to require corrective lenses that examiners should be on the lookout for a vision problem in any young subject who does not wear glasses and has not had a recent vision exam.

Depending on the degree of visual impairment, examiners need to make corresponding adjustments in testing. If the child’s vision is of no practical use, special instruments with appropriate norms must be used. For example, the Perkins-Binet is available for testing children who are blind. These tests are discussed in Topic 7B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07lev1sec5#ch07box2) , Testing Persons with Disabilities. For obvious reasons, only the verbal portions of tests should be administered to sighted children with an uncorrected visual problem.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 24/133

Speech impairments present another problem for diagnosticians. The verbal responses of subjects with speech impairment are dif�icult to decipher. Owing to the failed comprehension of the examiner, subjects may receive less credit than is due. Sattler (1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1437) ) relates the lamentable case of Daniel Hoffman, a youngster with speech impairment who spent his entire youth in classes for those with mental retardation because his Stanford-Binet IQ was 74. In actuality, his intelligence was within the normal range, as revealed by other performance-based tests. In another tragic miscarriage of assessment, a patient in England was mistakenly con�ined to a ward for those with severe retardation because cerebral palsy rendered his speech incomprehensible. The patient was wheelchair- bound and had almost no motor control, so his performance on nonverbal tests was also grossly impaired. The staff assumed he was severely retarded, so the patient remained on the back ward for decades. However, he befriended a fellow resident who could comprehend the patient’s gutteral rendition of the alphabet. The friend was severely retarded but could nonetheless recognize keys on a typewriter. With laborious letter-by-letter effort, the patient with incapacitating cerebral palsy wrote and published an autobiography, using his friend with mental disability as a conduit to the real world.

Even if their disability is mild, persons with cerebral palsy or other motor impairments may be penalized by timed performance tests. When testing a person with a mild motor disability, examiners may wish to omit timed performance subtests or to discount these results if they are consistently lower than scores from untimed subtests. If a subject has an obvious motor disability—such as a dif�iculty in manipulating the pieces of a puzzle—then standard instruments administered in the normal manner are largely inappropriate. A number of alternative instruments have been developed expressly for examinees with cerebral palsy and other motor impairments, and standard tests have been cleverly adapted and renormed (Topic 7B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07lev1sec5#ch07box2) , Testing Persons with Disabilities).

Desirable Procedures of Group Testing Psychologists and educators commonly assume that almost any adult can accurately administer group tests, so long as he or she has the requisite manual. Administering a group test would appear to be a simple and straightforward procedure of passing out forms and pencils, reading instructions, keeping time, and collecting the materials.

In reality, conducting a group test requires as much �inesse as administering an individual test, a point recognized years ago by Traxler (1951 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1662) ). There are numerous ways in which careless administration and scoring can impair group test results, causing bias for the entire group or affecting only certain individuals. We outline only the more important inadequacies and errors in the following paragraphs, referring the reader to Traxler (1951 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1662) ) and Clemans (1971 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib314) ) for a more complete discussion.

Undoubtedly the greatest single source of error in group test administration is incorrect timing of tests that require a time limit. Examiners must allot suf�icient time for the entire testing process: setup, reading instructions out loud, and the actual test taking by examinees. Allotting suf�icient time requires foresightful scheduling. For example, in many school settings, children must proceed to the next class at a designated time, regardless of ongoing activities. Inexperienced examiners might be tempted to cut short

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 25/133

the designated time limit for a test so that the school schedule can be maintained. Of course, reduced time on a test renders the norms completely invalid and likely lowers the score for most subjects in the group.

Allowing too much time for a test can be an equally egregious error. For example, consider the impact of receiving extra time on the Miller Analogies Test (MAT), a high-level reasoning test once required by many universities for graduate school application. Since the MAT is a speeded test that requires quick analogical thinking, extra time would allow most examinees to solve several extra problems. This kind of testing error would likely lower the validity of the MAT results as a predictor of graduate school performance.

A second source of error in group test administration is lack of clarity in the directions to the examinees. Examiners must read the instructions slowly in a clear, loud voice that commands the attention of the subjects. Instructions must not be paraphrased. Where allowed by the manual, examiners must stop and clarify points with individual examinees who are confused.

Noise is another factor that must be controlled in group testing. It has been known for some time that noise causes a decrease in performance, especially for tasks of high complexity (e.g., Boggs & Simon, 1968 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib174) ). Surprisingly, there is little research on the effects of noise on psychological tests. However, it seems almost certain that loud noise, especially if intermittent and unpredictable, will cause test scores to decline substantially. Elementary schoolchildren should not be expected to perform well while a construction worker jackhammers a cement wall in the next room. In fairness to the examinees, there are times when the test administrator should reschedule the test.

Another source of error in the administration of a group test is failure to explain when and if examinees should guess. Perhaps more frequently than any other question, examiners are asked, “Is there a penalty if I guess wrong?” In most instances, test developers anticipate this issue and provide explicit guidance to subjects as to the advantages and/or pitfalls of guessing. Examiners should not give supplementary advice on guessing—this would constitute a serious deviation from standardized procedure.

Most test developers incorporate a correction for guessing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss72) based on established principles of probability. Consider a multiple-choice test that has four alternatives per item. On those items that the subject makes a wild, uneducated guess, the odds on being correct are 1 out of 4, while the odds on being wrong are 3 out of 4. Thus, for every three wrong guesses, there will be one correct guess that re�lects luck rather than knowledge. Suppose a young girl answers correctly on 35 questions from a 50-item test but answers erroneously on 9 questions. In all, she has answered 44 questions, leaving 6 blank. The fact that she selected the wrong alternative on 9 questions suggests that she also gained 3 correct answers due to luck rather than knowledge. Remember, on wild guesses we expect there to be, on average, 3 wrong answers for every correct answer, so for 9 wrong guesses we would expect 3 correct guesses on other questions. The subject’s corrected score—the one actually reported and compared to existing norms—would then be 32; that is, 35 minus 3. In other words, she probably knew 32 answers but by guessing on 12 others she boosted her score another 3 points.

The scoring correction outlined in the preceding paragraph pertains only to wild, uneducated guesses. The effect of such a correction is to eliminate the advantage otherwise bestowed on unabashed risk takers. However, not all guesses are wild and uneducated. In some instances, an examinee can eliminate one or two of the alternatives, thereby increasing the odds of a correct guess among the remaining choices. In this situation, it may be wise for the examinee to guess.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 26/133

Whether an educated guess is really to the advantage of the examinee depends partly on the diabolical skill of the item writer. Traxler (1951 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1662) ) notes:

In effect, the item writer attempts to make each wrong response so plausible that every examinee who does not possess the desired skill or ability will select a wrong response. In other words, the item writer’s aim is to make all or nearly all considered guesses wrong guesses.

A skilled item writer can fashion questions so that the correct alternative is completely counterintuitive and the wrong alternatives are persuasively appealing. For these items, an educated guess is almost always wrong.

Nonetheless, many test developers now advise subjects to make educated guesses but warn against wild guesses. For example, a recent edition of the test preparation manual Taking the SAT advises:

Because of the way the test is scored, haphazard or random guessing for questions you know nothing about is unlikely to change your score. When you know that one or more choices can be eliminated, guessing from among the remaining choices should be to your advantage.

Whether or not a group test uses a scoring correction, the important point to emphasize in this context is that the administrator should follow standardized procedure and never offer supplementary advice about guessing. In group testing, deviations from the instructions manual are simply unacceptable.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 27/133

1.9 INFLUENCE OF THE EXAMINER

The Importance of Rapport Test publishers urge examiners to establish rapport (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss266) —a comfortable, warm atmosphere that serves to motivate examinees and elicit cooperation. Initiating a cordial testing milieu is a crucial aspect of valid testing. A tester who fails to establish rapport may cause a subject to react with anxiety, passive-aggressive noncooperation, or open hostility. Failure to establish rapport distorts test �indings: Ability is underestimated and personality is misjudged.

Rapport is especially important in individual testing and particularly so when evaluating children. Wechsler (1974 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1731) ) has noted that establishing rapport places great demands on the clinical skills of the tester:

To put the child at ease in his surroundings, the examiner might engage him in some informal conversation before getting down to the more serious business of giving the test. Talking to him about his hobbies or interests is often a good way of breaking the ice, although it may be better to encourage a shy child to talk about something concrete in the environment—a picture on the wall, an animal in his classroom, or a book or toy (not a test material) in the examining room. In general, this introductory period need not take more than 5 to 10 minutes, although the testing should not start until the child seems relaxed enough to give his maximum effort.

Testers may differ in their abilities to establish rapport. Cold testers will likely obtain less cooperation from their subjects, resulting in reduced performance on ability tests or distorted, defensive results on personality tests. Overly solicitous testers may err in the opposite direction, giving subtle (and occasionally blatant) cues to correct answers. Both extremes should be avoided.

Examiner Sex, Experience, and Race A wide body of research has sought to determine whether certain characteristics of the examiner cause examinee scores to be raised or lowered on ability tests. For example, does it matter whether the examiner is male or female? Experienced or novice? Same or different race from the examinee? We will contain the urge to review these studies—with a few exceptions—for one simple reason: The results are contradictory and, therefore, inconclusive. Most studies �ind that sex, experience, and race of the examiner make little, if any, difference. Furthermore, the few studies that report a large effect in one direction (e.g., female examiners elicit higher IQ scores) are contradicted by other studies showing the opposite trend. The interested reader can consult Sattler (1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1437) ) for a discussion and extensive listing of references.

Yet, it would be unwise to conclude that sex, experience, or race of the examiner never affect test scores. In isolated instances, a particular examiner characteristic might very well have a large effect on examinee test scores. For example, Terrell, Terrell, and Taylor (1981 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1631) ) ingeniously demonstrated that the race of the examiner interacts potently with the trust level of African American examinees in IQ testing. These researchers identi�ied African American college students with high and low levels of mistrust of whites; half of each group was then administered the WAIS by a white examiner, the other half by an African American examiner. The high-mistrust group with an African American examiner

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 28/133

scored signi�icantly higher than the high-mistrust group with a white examiner (average IQs of 96 versus 86, respectively). In addition, the low-mistrust group with a white examiner scored slightly higher than the low-mistrust group with an African American examiner (average IQs of 97 versus 92, respectively). In sum, the authors concluded that mistrustful African Americans do poorly when tested by white examiners. Data bearing on this type of racial effect are meager, and there is certainly room for additional research.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 29/133

1.10 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION OF THE EXAMINEE Examinees differ not only in the characteristics that examiners desire to assess but also in other extraneous ways that might confound the test results. For example, a bright subject might perform poorly on a speeded ability test because of test anxiety; a sane murderer might seek to appear mentally ill on a personality inventory to avoid prosecution; a student of average ability might undergo coaching to perform better on an aptitude test. Some subjects utterly lack motivation and don’t care if they do well on psychological tests. In all of these instances, the test results may be inaccurate because of the �iltering and distorting effects of certain examinee characteristics such as anxiety, malingering, coaching, or cultural background.

Test Anxiety Test anxiety (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss327) refers to those phenomenological, physiological, and behavioral responses that accompany concern about possible failure on a test. There is no doubt that subjects experience different levels of test anxiety ranging from a carefree outlook to incapacitating dread at the prospect of being tested.

Several true-false questionnaires have been developed to assess individual differences in test anxiety (e.g., Lowe, Lee, Witteborg, & others, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1010) ; Spielberger, Gonzalez, Taylor, & others, 1980 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1536) ; Spielberger & Vagg, 1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1535) ). Following, we list characteristic items and their direction of keying (T for True, F for False):

(T) When taking an important examination, I sweat a great deal. (T) I freeze up when I take intelligence tests or school exams. (F) I really don’t understand why some people get so upset about tests. (T) I dread courses in which the instructor likes to give “pop” quizzes.

An extensive body of research has con�irmed the commonsense notion that test anxiety is negatively correlated with school achievement, aptitude test scores, and measures of intelligence (e.g., Chapell, Blanding, & Silverstein, 2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib297) ; Naveh-Benjamin, McKeachie, & Lin, 1987 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1219) ; Ortner & Caspers, 2011 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1258) ). However, the interpretation of these correlational �indings is not straightforward. One possibility is that students develop test anxiety because of a history of performing poorly on tests. That is, the decrements in performance may precede and cause the test anxiety. In support of this viewpoint, Paulman and Kennelly (1984 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1274) ) found that —independent of their anxiety—many test-anxious students also display ineffective test taking in academic settings. Such students would do poorly on tests whether or not they were anxious. Moreover, Naveh-Benjamin et al. (1987 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1219) ) determined that a large proportion of test-anxious college students have poor study habits that predispose them to poor test performance. The test anxiety of these subjects is partly a by-product of lifelong frustration over mediocre test results.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 30/133

Other lines of research indicate that test anxiety has a directly detrimental effect on test performance. That is, test anxiety is likely both cause and effect in the equation linking it with poor test performance. Consider the seminal study on this topic by Sarason (1961 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1435) ), who tested high- and low-anxious subjects under neutral or anxiety-inducing instructions. The subjects were college students required to memorize two-syllable words low in meaningfulness—a dif�icult task. Half of the subjects performed under neutral instructions—they were simply told to memorize the lists. The remaining subjects were told to memorize the lists and told that the task was an intelligence test. They were urged to perform as well as possible. The two groups did not differ signi�icantly in performance when the instructions were neutral and non-threatening. However, when the instructions aroused anxiety, performance levels for the high-anxious subjects dropped markedly, leaving them at a huge disadvantage compared to low-anxious subjects. This indicates that test-anxious subjects show signi�icant decrements in performance when they perceive the situation as a test. In contrast, low-anxious subjects are relatively unaffected by such a simple rede�inition of the context.

Tests with narrow time limits pose a special problem to persons with high levels of test anxiety. Time pressure seems to exacerbate the degree of personal threat, causing signi�icant reductions in the performance of test-anxious persons. Siegman (1956 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1497) ) demonstrated this point many years ago by comparing performance levels of high- and low-anxious medical/psychiatric patients on timed and untimed subtests from the WAIS. The WAIS consists of eleven subtests, including six subtests for which the examiner uses a stopwatch to enforce strict time limits, and �ive subtests for which the subject has unlimited time to respond. Interestingly, the high- and low-anxious subjects were of equal overall ability on the WAIS. However, each group excelled on different kinds of subtests in predictable directions. In particular, the low-anxious subjects surpassed the high-anxious subjects on timed subtests, whereas the reverse pattern was observed on untimed subtests (Figure 1.4 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec10#ch01�ig4) ).

Motivation to Deceive Test results also may be inaccurate if the examinee has reasons to perform in an inadequate or unrepresentative manner. Overt faking of test results is rare, but it does happen. A small fraction of persons seeking bene�its from rehabilitation or social agencies will consciously fake bad on personality and ability tests. The topic of malingering (faking bad for personal gain) is discussed in a later chapter.

FIGURE 1.4 In�luence of Timing and Anxiety Level on WAIS Subtest Results

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 31/133

Source: Based on data from Siegman, A. W. (1956). The effect of manifest anxiety on a concept formation task, a nondirected learning task, and on timed and untimed intelligence tests. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20, 176– 178.

TOPIC 1B Ethical and Social Implications of Testing

1.11 The Rationale for Professional Testing Standards (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec11#ch01lev1sec11)

Case Exhibit 1.2 Ethical and Professional Quandaries in Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec11#ch01exh2)

1.12 Responsibilities of Test Publishers (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec12#ch01lev1sec12)

1.13 Responsibilities of Test Users (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec13#ch01lev1sec13)

Case Exhibit 1.3 Overzealous Interpretation of the MMPI (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec13#ch01exh3)

1.14 Testing of Cultural and Linguistic Minorities (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec14#ch01lev1sec14)

1.15 Unintended Effects of High-Stakes Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec15#ch01lev1sec15)

1.16 Reprise: Responsible Test Use (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec16#ch01lev1sec16)

The general theme of this book is that psychological testing is a bene�icial in�luence in modern society. When used ethically and responsibly, testing provides a basis for arriving at sensible inferences about individuals and groups. After all, the intention of the enterprise is to promote proper guidance, effective treatment, accurate evaluation, and fair decision making—whether in one-on-one clinic testing or institutional group testing. Who could possibly complain about these goals?

Thankfully, tests generally are applied in an ethical and responsible manner by psychologists, educators, administrators, and others. But there are exceptions. Almost everyone has heard the horri�ic anecdotes: the minority grade schooler casually labeled as having mental retardation on the basis of a single IQ score; the college student implausibly diagnosed as schizophrenic from a projective test; the job applicant wrongfully screened from employment based on an irrelevant measure; the aspiring teacher given unfair advantage when a competency test is mysteriously leaked beforehand; or the minority child penalized in testing because English is not her �irst language. Exceptions such as these illustrate the need for ethical and professional standards in testing.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 32/133

A major purpose of this topic is to introduce the reader to the ethical and professional standards that inform the practice of psychological testing. We also pursue the related theme of special considerations in the testing of cultural and linguistic minorities. The two topics share substantial overlap: When an examinee is not from the majority Anglo-American culture (predominantly Caucasian, English-speaking, individualistic, future-oriented), ethical and professional concerns in testing rise to the forefront.

Finally, we examine a troubling and under-reported implication of widespread testing, namely, to the extent that society uses test results to make important decisions, the motivation for stakeholders to cheat is intensi�ied. As a result, cheating has emerged as a dark, unintended consequence of high-stakes testing, especially in the school systems of our nation.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 33/133

1.11 THE RATIONALE FOR PROFESSIONAL TESTING STANDARDS Testing is generally applied in a responsible manner, but as previously noted, there are exceptions. On rare occasions, testing is irresponsible by design rather than by accident. Consider, with shuddering amazement, the advertisement for Mind Prober featured in a pop psychology magazine:

Read Any Good Minds Lately? With the Mind Prober you can. In just minutes you can have a scienti�ically accurate personality pro�ile of anyone. This new expert systems software lets you discover the things most people are afraid to tell you. The strengths, weaknesses, sexual interests and more. (Eyde & Primhoff, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib472) )

In this case the irresponsibility is so blatant that discussion of ethical and professional guidelines is almost super�luous.

However, testing practices do not always present in sharply contrasting shades, responsible or irresponsible. The real challenge of competent assessment is to determine the boundaries of ethical and professional practice. As usual, it is the borderline cases that provide pause for thought. The reader is encouraged to read the quandaries of testing described in Case Exhibit 1.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec11#ch01exh2) and form an opinion about each. These examples are based on �irsthand reports to the author. At the close of this chapter, we will return to these problematic vignettes.

CASE EXHIBIT 1.2 Ethical and Professional Quandaries in Testing

A consulting psychologist agrees to perform preemployment screening for psychopathology in police of�icer candidates. At the beginning of each consultation, the psychologist asks the candidate to read and sign a detailed consent form that openly and honestly describes the evaluation process. However, the consent form explains that speci�ic feedback about the test results will not be provided to job candidates. Question: Is it ethical for the psychologist to deny such feedback to the candidates? A competent counselor who has received extensive training in the interpretation of the MMPI continues to use this instrument even though it has been superceded by the MMPI-2. His rationale is simply that there is a huge body of research on the MMPI and, he feels secure about the meaning of elevated MMPI test pro�iles, whereas he knows very little about the MMPI-2. He intends to switch over to the MMPI-2 at some undetermined future date, but �inds no compelling reason to do so immediately. Question: Is the counselor’s refusal to use the MMPI-2 a breach of professional standards? A consulting psychologist is asked to evaluate a 9-year-old boy of Puerto Rican descent for possible learning disability. The child’s primary language is Spanish and his secondary language is English. The psychologist intends to use the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV (WISC-IV) and other tests. Because he knows almost no Spanish, the psychologist asks the child’s after- school babysitter to act as translator when this is required to communicate test directions, speci�ic questions, or the child’s responses. Question: Is it an appropriate practice to use a translator when administering an individual test such as the WISC-IV? In the midst of taking a test battery for learning disability, a distraught 20-year-old female college student con�ides a terrifying secret to the psychologist. The client has just discovered that her 25-

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 34/133

year-old brother, who died three months ago, was most likely a pedophile. She shows the psychologist photographs of naked children posing in the brother’s bedroom. To complicate matters, the brother lived with his mother—who is still unaware of his well-concealed sexual deviancy. Question: Is the psychologist obligated to report this case to law enforcement?

The dilemmas of psychological testing do not always have simple, obvious answers. Even thoughtful and experienced psychologists may disagree as to what is ethical or professional in a given instance. Nonetheless, the scope of ethical and professional practice is not a matter of individual taste or personal judgment. Responsible test use is de�ined by written guidelines published by professional associations such as the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and other groups. Whether they know it or not, all practitioners owe allegiance to these guidelines, which we review in the following sections.

In general, the evolution of professional and ethical standards has been almost uniformly restrictive, providing an ever-narrowing demarcation of where, when, and how psychological tests may be used. Partly in response to the modern climate of litigation, organizations concerned with psychological testing have published guidelines that collectively de�ine the ethical and professional standards relevant to the practice of assessment.

These standards also pertain to corporations and individuals who publish tests. We begin with a survey of guidelines for test publishers before examining the responsibilities of test users. The chapter closes with a review of special concerns in the testing of cultural and linguistic minorities.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 35/133

1.12 RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEST PUBLISHERS The responsibilities of publishers pertain to the publication, marketing, and distribution of their tests. In particular, it is expected that publishers will release tests of high quality, market their product in a responsible manner, and restrict distribution of tests only to persons with proper quali�ications. We consider each of these points in turn.

Publication and Marketing Issues Regarding the publication of new or revised instruments, the most important guideline is to guard against premature release of a test. Testing is a noble enterprise but it is also big business driven by the pro�it motive, which provides an inherent pressure toward early release of new or revised materials. Perhaps this is why the American Psychological Association and other organizations have published standards that relate to test publication (AERA/APA/NCME, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30) ). These standards pertain especially to the technical manuals and user guides that typically accompany a test. These sources must be suf�iciently complete so that a quali�ied user or reviewer can evaluate the appropriateness and technical adequacy of the test. This means that manuals and guides will report detailed statistics on reliability analyses, validity studies, normative samples, and other technical aspects.

Marketing tests in a responsible manner refers not only to advertising (which should be accurate and digni�ied) but also to the way in which information is portrayed in manuals and guides. In particular, test authors should strive for a balanced presentation of their instruments and refrain from a one-sided presentation of information. For example, if some preliminary studies re�lect poorly on a test, these should be given fair weight in the manual alongside positive �indings. Likewise, if a potential misuse or inappropriate use of a test can be anticipated, the test author needs to discuss this matter as well.

Competence of Test Purchasers Test publishers recognize the broad responsibility that only quali�ied users should be able to purchase their products. By way of brief review, the reasons for restricted access include the potential for harm if tests fall into the wrong hands (e.g., an undergraduate psychology major administers the MMPI-2 to his friends and then makes frightful pronouncements about the results) and the obvious fact that many tests are no longer valid if potential examinees have previewed them (e.g., a teacher memorizes the correct answers to a certi�ication exam).

These examples illustrate that access to psychological tests needs to be limited. But limited to whom? The answer, it turns out, depends on the complexity of the speci�ic test under consideration. Guidelines proposed many years ago by the American Psychological Association (APA, 1953 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib34) ) are still relevant today, even though they are not enforced by all publishers. The APA proposed that tests fall into three levels of complexity (Levels A, B, and C) that require different degrees of expertise from the examiner. Level A comprised simple paper-and-pencil tests that require minimal training. These can be used by responsible nonpsychologists such as educational administrators. Examples include group educational tests and vocational pro�iciency scales. Level B tests require training in statistics and knowledge of test construction. Some graduate training is needed. This group includes aptitude tests and personality inventories relevant to normal populations. Level C includes the most complex instruments. Minimum training required is a master’s degree in psychology or a related �ield. Instruments include projective personality tests, individual tests of intelligence, and neuropsychological test batteries.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 36/133

In general, test publishers try to screen out inappropriate requests by requiring that purchasers have the necessary credentials. For example, the Psychological Corporation, one of the major suppliers of test materials in the United States, requires prospective customers to �ill out a registration form detailing their training and experience with tests. Buyers who do not hold an advanced degree in psychology must list details of courses in the administration and interpretation of tests and in statistics. References are required, too.

Most test publishers also specify that individuals or groups who provide testing and counseling by mail are not allowed to purchase materials. On a related note, ethical standards now discourage practitioners from giving “take-home” tests to clients. Until recent years, this has been an occasional practice with lengthy personality tests such as the MMPI. The ethics committee endorsed the following point:

Nonmonitored administration of the MMPI generally does not represent sound testing practice and may result in invalid assessment for a variety of reasons (e.g., in�luence from other people or completion of the test while intoxicated).

In general, users are advised to refrain from giving take-home tests and publishers are counseled to deny access to practitioners or groups who promote this practice.

Even though publishers attempt to �ilter out unquali�ied purchasers, there may still be instances in which sensitive tests are sold to unscrupulous individuals. Oles and Davis (1977 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1252) ) discovered that graduate students in psychology could purchase the WISC-R, MMPI, TAT, Stanford-Binet, and 16PF if they typed their orders on college stationery, placed the letters Ph.D. after their names, enclosed payment, and used a post of�ice box return address. Although illicit test orders are few in number, they do occur.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 37/133

1.13 RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEST USERS The psychological assessment of personality, interests, brain functioning, aptitude, or intelligence is a sensitive professional action that should be completed with utmost concern for the well-being of the examinee, his or her family, employers, and the wider network of social institutions that might be affected by the results of that particular clinical assessment (Matarazzo, 1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1059) ). Over the years, the profession of psychology has proposed, clari�ied, and sharpened a series of thorough and thoughtful standards to provide guidance for the individual practitioner. Professional organizations publish formal ethical principles that bear upon test use, including the American Psychological Association (APA, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib41) ), the American Association for Counseling and Development (AACD, 1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib28) ), the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA, 1991 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib43) ), and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP, 2010 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1215) ).

In addition to ethical principles, several testing organizations have published practice guidelines to help de�ine the scope of responsible test use. Sources of test use guidelines include teaching groups (AFT, NCME, NEA, 1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib31) ), the American Psychological Association (APA, 1992b (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib38) ), the Educational Testing Service (ETS, 1989 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib449) ), the Joint Committee on Testing Practices (JCTP, 1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib846) ), the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP, 1987 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1519) ), and professional alliances (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30) ). Finally, we should mention that the principles of responsible test use have been distilled in an illuminating casebook published jointly by several testing groups (Eyde, Robertson, & Krug, 2009 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib473) ).

The dozens of guidelines relevant to testing are quite speci�ic, for example:

Standard 5.9: When test score information is released to students, parents, legal representatives, teachers, clients, or the media, those responsible for testing programs should provide appropriate interpretations. The interpretations should describe in simple language what the test covers, what scores mean, the precision of the scores, common misinterpretations of test scores, and how scores will be used.

Because of their speci�icity, a detailed analysis of relevant ethical and professional standards is beyond the scope of this text. What follows is a summary of the general provisions that pertain to the responsible practice of psychological testing and clinical psychological assessment.

These principles apply to psychologists, students of psychology, and others who work under the supervision of a psychologist. We restrict our discussion to those principles that are directly pertinent to

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 38/133

the practice of psychological testing. Proper adherence to these principles would eliminate most—but not all—legal challenges to testing.

Best Interests of the Client Several ethical principles recognize that all psychological services, including assessment, are provided within the context of a professional relationship. Psychologists are, therefore, enjoined to accept the responsibility implicit in this relationship. In general, the practitioner is guided by one overriding question: What is in the best interests of the client? The functional implication of this guideline is that assessment should serve a constructive purpose for the individual examinee. If it does not, the practitioner is probably violating one or more speci�ic ethical principles. For example, Standard 11.15 in the Standards manual (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30) ) warns testers to avoid actions that have unintended negative consequences. Allowing a client to attach unsupported surplus meanings to test results would not be in the best interests of the client and would, therefore, constitute an unethical testing practice. In fact, with certain worry-prone and self-doubting clients, a psychologist may choose not to use an appropriate test, since these clients are almost certain to engage in self-destructive misinterpretation of virtually any test �indings.

Con�identiality and the Duty to Warn Practitioners have a primary obligation to safeguard the con�identiality of information, including test results, that they obtain from clients in the course of consultations (Principle 5; APA, 1992a (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib37) ). Such information can be ethically released to others only after the client or a legal representative gives unambiguous consent, usually in written form. The only exceptions to con�identiality involve those unusual circumstances in which the withholding of information would present a clear danger to the client or other persons. For example, most states have passed laws that mandate that health care practitioners must report all cases of suspected abuse in children and vulnerable elderly persons. In most states, a psychologist who learns in the course of testing that the client has physically or sexually abused a child is obligated to report that information to law enforcement.

Psychologists also have a duty to warn (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss96) that stems from the 1976 decision in the Tarasoff case (Wrightsman, Nietzel, Fortune, & Greene, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1790) ). Tanya Tarasoff was a young college student in California who was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar, a student from India. What makes the case relevant to the practice of psychology is that Poddar had made death threats regarding Tarasoff to his campus-based therapist. Although the therapist warned the police that Poddar had made death threats, he did not warn Tarasoff. Two months later, Poddar stabbed Tarasoff to death at her home. The parents of Tanya Tarasoff sued, and the California Supreme Court later agreed that therapists have a duty to use “reasonable care” to protect potential victims from their clients. Although the Tarasoff ruling has been modi�ied by legislation in many states, the thrust of the case still stands: Clinicians must communicate any serious threat to the potential victim, law enforcement agencies, or both.

Finally, the clinician should consider the client’s welfare in deciding whether to release information, especially when the client is a minor who is unable to give voluntary, informed consent. When appropriate, practitioners are advised to inform their clients of the legal limits of con�identiality.

Expertise of the Test User

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 39/133

A number of principles acknowledge that the test user must accept ultimate responsibility for the proper application of tests. From a practical standpoint, this means that the test user must be well trained in assessment and measurement theory. The user must possess the expertise needed to evaluate psychological tests for proper standardization, reliability, validity, interpretive accuracy, and other psychometric characteristics. This guideline has special signi�icance in areas such as job screening, special education, testing of persons with disabilities, or other situations in which potential impact is strong.

Psychologists who are poorly trained in their chosen instruments can make serious errors of test interpretation that harm examinees. Furthermore, inept test usage may expose the examiner to professional sanctions and civil lawsuits. A common error observed among inexperienced test users is the overzealous, pathologized interpretation of personality test results (Case Exhibit 1.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec13#ch01exh3) ).

CASE EXHIBIT 1.3 Overzealous Interpretation of the MMPI An inexperienced consulting psychologist routinely used the MMPI for preemployment screening of law enforcement candidates. One candidate subsequently �iled a lawsuit, alleging that she had been harmed by the psychologist’s report. The plaintiff, a young woman with extensive training and background in law enforcement, was denied a position as police of�icer because of a supposedly “defensive” MMPI pro�ile. Her pro�ile was entirely within normal limits, although she did obtain a T score of 72 on the K scale. The K scale is usually considered a good index of defensive test-taking attitudes, especially for mental health evaluations with clinic or hospital referrals. By way of quick review, MMPI T scores of approximately 50 are average, whereas elevations of 70 or higher are considered noteworthy. The consulting psychologist noticed the candidate’s elevated score on the K scale, surmised hastily that the candidate was unduly defensive, and cautioned the police chief not to hire her.

What the psychologist did not know is that elevated K-scale scores are extremely common among law enforcement job applicants. For example, Hiatt and Hargrave (1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib742) ) found that about 25 percent of a sample of peace of�icers produced MMPI pro�iles with K scales at or above a T score of 70. In fact, successful police of�icers tend to have higher K-scale scores than “problem” peace of�icers! In this case the test user did not possess suf�icient expertise to use the MMPI for job screening. His ignorance on this point constituted a breach of professional ethics. Incidentally, the case was settled out of court for a substantial sum of money, showing that trespasses of responsible test use can have serious legal consequences.

The expertise of the psychologist is particularly relevant when test scoring and interpretation services are used. The Ethical Principles of the American Psychological Association leave no room for doubt:

Psychologists retain appropriate responsibility for the appropriate application, interpretation, and use of assessment instruments, whether they score and interpret such tests themselves or use automated or other services. (APA, 1992a (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib37) )

The reader is referred to Topic 12B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch12lev1sec5#ch12box3) , Computerized Assessment and the Future of Testing, for further discussion of this point.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 40/133

Informed Consent Before testing commences, the test user needs to obtain informed consent from test takers or their legal representatives. Exceptions to informed consent can be made in certain instances, for example, legally mandated statewide testing programs, school-based group testing, and when consent is clearly implied (e.g., college admissions testing). The principle of informed consent (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss156) is so important that the Standards manual devotes a separate standard to it:

Informed consent implies that the test takers or representatives are made aware, in language that they can understand, of the reasons for testing, the type of tests to be used, the intended use and the range of material consequences of the intended use. If written, video, or audio records are made of the testing session, or other records are kept, test takers are entitled to know what testing information will be released and to whom. (AERA et al., 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30) )

Even young children or test takers with limited intelligence deserve an explanation of the reasons for assessment. For example, the examiner might explain, “I’m going to ask you some questions and have you work on some puzzles so I can see what you can do and �ind out what things you need more help with.”

From a legal standpoint, the three elements of informed consent include disclosure, competency, and voluntariness (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1998 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1128) ). The heart of disclosure is that the client receive suf�icient information (e.g., about risks, bene�its, release of reports) to make a thoughtful decision about continued participation in the testing. Competency refers to the mental capacity of the examinee to provide consent. In general, there is a presumption of competency unless the examinee is a child, very elderly, or has mental disabilities (e.g., has mental retardation). In these cases, a guardian will need to provide legal consent. Finally, the standard of voluntariness implies that the choice to undergo an assessment battery is given freely and not based on subtle coercion (e.g., inmates are promised release time if they participate in research testing). In most cases, the examiner uses a written informed consent form such as that found in Figure 1.5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec13#ch01�ig5) .

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 41/133

FIGURE 1.5 Abbreviated Example of Informed Consent for Psychological Assessment Note: This form is illustrative only. Practitioners should consult legal counsel in regard to the details of an informed consent form.

Obsolete Tests and the Standard of Care Standard of care is a loose concept that often arises in the professional or legal review of speci�ic health practices, including psychological testing. The prevailing standard of care (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss307) is one that is “usual, customary or reasonable” (Rinas & Clyne-Jackson, 1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1369) ). To cite an extreme example, in medicine the standard of care for a fever might include the administration of aspirin —but would not include the antiquated practice of bleeding the patient.

Practitioners of psychological testing must be wary of obsolete tests, because their use might violate the prevailing standard of care. A case in point is the MMPI versus the MMPI-2. Even though the MMPI-2 is a relatively conservative revision of the highly esteemed MMPI, the improvements in norming and scale construction are substantial. The MMPI-2 is now the standard of care in MMPI-based assessment of psychopathology. Practitioners who continue to rely on the original MMPI could be liable for malpractice suits, especially if the test interpretation resulted in misleading interpretive statements or an incorrect diagnosis.

Another concern relevant to the standard of care is reliance on test results that are outdated for the current purpose. After all, individual characteristics and traits show valid change over time. A student who meets the criteria for learning disability (LD) in the fourth grade might show large gains in academic achievement, such that the LD diagnosis is no longer accurate in the �ifth grade. Personality test results are especially prone to quixotic change. A short-term personal crisis might cause an MMPI-2 pro�ile to look like a range of mountains. A week later, the test pro�ile could be completely normal. It is dif�icult to provide

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 42/133

comprehensive guidelines as to the “shelf life” of psychological test results. For example, GRE test scores that are years old still might be validly predictive of performance in graduate school, whereas Beck Depression Inventory test results from yesterday could mislead a therapist as to the current level of depression. Practitioners must evaluate the need for retesting on an individual basis.

Responsible Report Writing Except for group testing, the practice of psychological testing invariably culminates in a written report that constitutes a semipermanent record of test �indings and examiner recommendations. Effective report writing is an important skill because of the potential lasting impact of the written document. It is beyond the scope of this text to illuminate the qualities of effective report writing, although we can refer the reader to a few sources (Gregory, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib650) ; Tallent, 1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1608) ).

Responsible reports typically use simple and direct writing that steers clear of jargon and technical terms. The proper goal of a report is to provide helpful perspectives on the client, not to impress the referral source that the examiner is a learned person! When Tallent (1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1608) ) surveyed more than one thousand health practitioners who made referrals for testing, one respondent declared his disdain toward psychologists who “re�lect their needs to shine as a psychoanalytic beacon in revealing the dark, deep secrets they have observed.” On a related note, effective reports stay within the bounds of expertise of the examiner. For example:

It is never appropriate for a psychologist to recommend that a client undergo a speci�ic medical procedure (such as a CT scan for an apparent brain tumor) or receive a particular drug (such as Prozac for depression). Even when the need for a special procedure seems obvious (e.g., the symptoms strongly attest to the rapid onset of a brain disease), the best way to meet the needs of the client is to recommend immediate consultation with the appropriate medical profession (e.g., neurology or psychiatry). (Gregory, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib650) )

Additional advice on effective report writing can be found in Ownby (1991 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1263) ) and Sattler (2001 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1438) ).

Communication of Test Results Individuals who take psychological tests anticipate that the results will be shared with them. Yet practitioners often do not include one-to-one feedback as part of the assessment. A major reason for reluctance is a lack of training in how to provide feedback, especially when the test results appear to be negative. For example, how does a clinician tell a college student that her IQ is 93 when most students in that milieu score 115 or higher?

Providing effective and constructive feedback to clients about their test results is a challenging skill to learn. Pope (1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1314) ) emphasizes the responsibility of the clinician to determine that the client has understood adequately and accurately the information that the clinician was attempting to convey. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the clinician to check for adverse reactions:

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 43/133

Is the client exceptionally depressed by the �indings? Is the client inferring from �indings suggesting a learning disorder that the client—as the client has always suspected—is “stupid”? Using scrupulous care to conduct this assessment of the client’s understanding of and reactions to the feedback is no less important than using adequate care in administering standardized psychological tests; test administration and feedback are equally important, fundamental aspects of the assessment process. (p. 271)

Proper and effective feedback involves give-and-take dialogue in which the clinician ascertains how the client has perceived the information and seeks to correct potentially harmful interpretations.

Destructive feedback often arises when the clinician fails to challenge a client’s incorrect perceptions about the meaning of test results. Consider IQ tests in particular—a case in which many persons deify test scores and consider them an index of personal worth. Prior to providing test results, a clinician is advised to investigate the client’s understanding of what IQ scores mean. After all, IQ is a limited slice of intellectual functioning: It does not evaluate drive or character of any kind, it is accurate only to about ±5 points, it may change over time, and it does not assess many important attributes such as creativity, social intelligence, musical ability, or athletic skill. But a client may have an unrealistic perspective about IQ and, hence, might jump to erroneous conclusions when hearing that her score is “only” 93. The careful practitioner will elicit the client’s views and challenge them when needed before proceeding. Further thoughts on feedback can be found in Pope (1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1314) ).

Going beyond the general pronouncement to avoid harm when providing test feedback, Finn and Tonsager (1997 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib502) ) present the intriguing view that information about test results should be directly and immediately therapeutic to individuals experiencing psychological problems. In other words, they propose that psychological assessment is a form of short-term intervention, not just a basis for gathering information that is later used for therapeutic purposes. In one study (Finn & Tonsager, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib500) ), they examined the effects of a brief psychological assessment on clients at a university counseling center. Thirty-two students took part in an initial interview, completed the MMPI-2, and then received a one-hour feedback session conducted according to a method developed by Finn (1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib499) ). A comparison group of 29 students was interviewed and received an equal amount of supportive, nondirective psychotherapy instead of the test feedback. The clients in the MMPI-2 assessment group showed a greater decline in symptomatic distress and a greater increase in self-esteem, immediately following their feedback session and also two weeks later, than the clients in the comparison group. The feedback group also felt more hopeful about their problems after the brief assessment. These �indings illustrate the importance of providing thoughtful and constructive test feedback instead of rushing through a perfunctory review of the results.

Consideration of Individual Differences Knowledge of and respect for individual differences is highlighted by all professional organizations that deal with psychological testing. The American Psychological Association lists this as one of six guiding principles:

Principle D: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity . . . Psychologists are aware of cultural, individual, and role differences, including those due to age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socio-economic status. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 44/133

on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone unfair discriminatory practices. (APA, 1992a (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib37) )

The relevance of this principle to psychological testing is that practitioners are expected to know when a test or interpretation may not be applicable because of factors such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status. We can illustrate this point with a case study reported in Eyde et al. (1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib474) ). A psychologist evaluated a 75-year-old man at the request of his wife, who had noticed memory problems. The psychologist administered a mental status examination and a prominent intelligence test. Performance on the mental status examination was normal, but standard scores on the intelligence test revealed a large discrepancy between verbal subtests and subtests measuring spatial ability and processing speed. The psychologist interpreted this pattern as indicating a deterioration of intellectual functioning in the husband. Unfortunately, this interpretation was based on faulty use of non-age-corrected standard scores. Also, the psychologist did not assess for depression, which is known to cause visuospatial performance to drop sharply (Wolff & Gregory, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1779) ). In fact, a series of further evaluations revealed that the husband was a perfectly healthy 75-year-old man. The psychologist failed to consider the relevance of the gentleman’s age and emotional status when interpreting the intelligence test. This was a costly oversight that caused the client and his wife substantial unnecessary worry.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 45/133

1.14 TESTING OF CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC MINORITIES

Background and Historical Notes Persons of ethnic minority descent (non-European origin) currently constitute about a third of the U.S. population, and it is estimated that they will comprise more than 50 percent within several decades. Yet the enterprise of testing is based almost entirely on the efforts of white psychologists who bring an Anglo- American viewpoint to their work. The suitability of existing tests for the evaluation of diverse populations cannot be taken for granted. The assessment of ethnic minority individuals raises important questions, especially when test results translate to placement decisions or other sensitive outcomes, as is commonly the case within educational institutions.

Unfortunately, the early pioneers in the testing movement largely ignored the impact of cultural background on test results. For example, in the 1920s Henry Goddard concluded that the intelligence of the average immigrant was alarmingly low, “perhaps of moron grade.” Yet he downplayed the likelihood that language and cultural differences could explain the low test scores of immigrants. Goddard’s role in the history of testing is discussed in the next chapter.

Perhaps as a rebound against these early methods, beginning in the 1930s psychologists displayed an increased sensitivity to cultural variables in the practice of testing. A shining example in this regard was Stanley Porteus, who undertook a wide-ranging investigation of the temperament and intelligence of Australian aboriginal peoples. Porteus (1931 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1317) ) used many traditional instruments (block designs, mazes, digit span), but to his credit he also devised an ecologically valid measure of intelligence for this group, namely, footprint recognition. Whereas the aboriginal examinees performed poorly on the Eurocentric tests, their ability to recognize photographed footprints was on a par with other racial groups studied. Even so, Porteus displayed an acute awareness that his procedures still might have handicapped the aboriginals:

The photograph of a footprint is not the same as the footprint itself, and quite probably a number of cues that are made use of by the aboriginal tracker are absent from a photograph. The varying depths of parts of the foot impression are not visible in the photograph, and the individual peculiarities other than general shape and size of the footprint may not be brought out clearly. Hence we must expect that the aboriginal subjects would be under some disadvantage in matching these photographs of footprints, as against recognition of the footprints themselves. (pp. 399–400)

In a similar vein, DuBois (1939 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib437) ) found that Pueblo Indian children displayed superior ability on his specially devised horse drawing test of mental ability, whereas they performed less well on the mainstream Goodenough (1926 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib616) ) Draw-A-Man test. From these early studies onward, psychologists have maintained a keen interest in the impact of language and culture on the meaning of test results.

The Impact of Cultural Background on Test Results Practitioners need to appreciate that the cultural background of examinees will impact the entire process of assessment. For this reason, Sattler (1988

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 46/133

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1437) ) advises assessment psychologists to approach their task from a pluralistic standpoint:

Cultural groups may vary with respect to cultural values (stemming in part from cultural shock, discontinuity, or con�lict); language and nuances in language style; views of life and death; roles of family members; problem-solving strategies; attitudes toward education, mental health, and mental illness; and stage of acculturation (the group may follow traditional values, accept the dominant group’s values, or be at some point between the two). You should adopt a frame of reference that will enable you to understand how particular behaviors make sense within each culture. (p. 505)

For example, it is often noted that Native Americans display a distinctive conception of time, emphasizing present-time as opposed to the future-time orientation that is so powerfully formative in white, middle- class America (Panigua, 1994 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1265) ). A possible implication of this cultural difference is that time limits might not mean the same thing for a Native American child as for a child from the mainstream culture. Perhaps the minority child will disregard the subtest instructions and work at a careful, measured pace rather than seeking quick solutions. Of course, this child would then obtain a misleadingly low score on that measure.

While acknowledging the impact of cultural differences on testing, it is also important to avoid stereotypical overgeneralization. Culture is not monolithic. Every person is unique. Some Native Americans will exhibit a distinctive orientation to time but perhaps most will not. The challenge for the practitioner is to observe the clinical details of performance and to identify the culture-based nuances of behavior that help determine the test results.

An ingenious study by Moore (1986 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1170) ) powerfully illustrates the relevance of cultural background for understanding the test performance of ethnic minority examinees. She compared not only the intelligence test scores but also the qualitative manner of responding to test demands in two groups of adopted African American children. One group of 23 children had been transracially adopted into middle-class white families. The other group of 23 children had been intraracially adopted into middle-class African American families. All children were adopted prior to age 2 and the backgrounds of the adoptive families were similar in terms of education and social class. Thus, group difference in test scores and test behaviors could be attributed mainly to differences in cultural background arising from the fact that one group was adopted into African American families, the other adopted into white families. Testing and observations were completed by two female African American examiners who were “blind” to the purposes of the study. Tested at 7 to 10 years of age, the transracially adopted children scored an average IQ of 117 on the WISC compared to an average IQ of 104 for the traditionally adopted children. These IQ results were not remarkable, insofar as Scarr and Weinberg reported similar �indings years before.

The surprising and informative outcome of the study was that the two groups of children showed very different qualitative behaviors during testing. As a group, the children with lower IQ scores (those adopted by African American families) were less likely to spontaneously elaborate on their work responses and more likely simply to refuse to respond when presented with a test demand. Moore (1986 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1170) ) offers the following interpretations:

Children’s tendency to spontaneously elaborate on their work responses may be a very important index of their level of involvement in task performance, strategies for problem solving, level of

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 47/133

motivation to generate a correct response, and level of adjustment to the standardized test situation. . . . Although the terminal not-work response is treated as an incorrect response, it does not actually provide any empirical documentation of what the child does or does not know or of what the child can and cannot do. The only information available is that the child did not respond to the demand. (p. 322)

The essential lesson of this study is that culturally based differences in response style may function to conceal the underlying competence of some examinees. Cautious interpretation of test results is always advisable, but this is especially important for examinees from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The in�luence of cultural factors is not limited to the test performance of children but extends to adults as well. Terrell, Terrell, and Taylor (1981 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1631) ) investigated the effects of racial trust/mistrust on the intelligence test scores of African American college students. They identi�ied African American students with high and low levels of mistrust of whites. Using a 2 × 2 design, half of each group was then administered an individual intelligence test by a white examiner, the other half by an African American examiner. As predicted, the analysis of variance revealed no differences for the main effects of race of examiner (white versus African American) or level of mistrust (high versus low) (Figure 1.6 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec14#ch01�ig6) ). But a substantial interaction was revealed; namely, the high-mistrust group with an African American examiner scored much better than the high-mistrust group with a white examiner (average IQs of 96 versus 86, respectively). Put simply, cultural mistrust among African Americans was associated with signi�icantly lower IQ scores, but only when the examiner was white.

Further illustrating cultural in�luences, Steele (1997 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1546) ) has proposed a theory that societal stereotypes about groups in�luence the immediate intellectual performance and also the long-term identity development of individual group members. He has applied this theory both to women—when stereotypes affect their achievement in math and sciences—and to African Americans— when stereotypes apparently depress their performance on standardized tests. Here we discuss his research on stereotype threat with African American college students (Steele & Aronson, 1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1547) ).

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 48/133

FIGURE 1.6 Mean IQ Scores of African American Students as a Function of Race of Examiner and Cultural Mistrust Source: Based on data in Terrell, F., Terrell, S., & Taylor, J. (1981). Effects of race of examiner and cultural mistrust on the WAIS performance of Black students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 750–751.

The idea of stereotype threat is essentially a sophisticated version of a self-ful�illing prophecy. The researchers de�ine stereotype threat (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss315) as the threat of con�irming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group. For example, based on published data and media coverage about race and IQ scores, African Americans are stereotyped as possessing less intellectual ability than others. As a consequence, whenever they encounter tests of intelligence or academic achievement, individuals from this group may perceive a risk that they will con�irm the stereotype. In the short run, stereotype threat is hypothesized to depress test performance through heightened anxiety and other mechanisms. In the long run, it may have the further impact of pressuring African American students to “protectively disidentify” with achievement in school and related intellectual domains.

Steele and Aronson (1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1547) ) conducted a series of four studies to evaluate the hypothesis of stereotype threat. All the investigations supported the hypothesis. We focus here on the �irst study, in which African American and white college students were given a 30-minute test composed of challenging items from the verbal Graduate Record Examination. Students from both racial groups were randomly assigned to one of three test conditions: stereotype- threat, in which the test was described as diagnostic of individual verbal ability; control, in which the test was described as a research tool only; and control-challenge, in which the test was described as a research tool only but participants were exhorted to “take this challenge seriously.” Scores on the verbal test were adjusted (covariate analysis) on the basis of prior achievement scores so as to eliminate the effects of preexisting differences between groups.

Race differences were small and nonsigni�icant in the control and control-challenge conditions, whereas African Americans scored much lower than whites in the stereotype-threat condition (Figure 1.7 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec14#ch01�ig7) ). In other studies, Steele and Aronson (1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1547) ) investigated the mechanism of mediation by which stereotype threat caused African Americans to score lower on standardized tests. The details are beyond the scope of this text, but the overall conclusion is not:

Our best assessment is that stereotype threat caused an inef�iciency of processing much like that caused by other evaluative pressures. Stereotype-threatened participants spent more time doing fewer items more inaccurately—probably as a result of alternating their attention between trying to answer the items and trying to assess the self-signi�icance of their frustration. (Steele & Aronson, 1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1547) , p. 809)

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 49/133

FIGURE 1.7 Average Verbal Items Correct for Whites and African Americans under Three Conditions Source: Based on data in Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.

In sum, the authors propose a social-psychological perspective on the meaning of lower test scores in African Americans and perhaps other stereotype-threatened groups as well. Their viewpoint emphasizes that test results do not reside within individuals. Test scores occur within a complex social-psychological �ield that is potentially in�luenced by national history, predicaments of race, and many other subtle factors.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 50/133

1.15 UNINTENDED EFFECTS OF HIGH-STAKES TESTING The prevailing view in the general public is that cheating rarely or never occurs in nationally administered testing programs. We tend to think that the risks are too high and the opportunities too limited for cheaters to prevail. Therefore, we rest assured that test fraud must be a rare event. Unfortunately, this view is probably naive. After all, a growing number of people must pass a test to gain college entry, get a job, or obtain a promotion. Furthermore, school of�icials increasingly are evaluated on the basis of average test scores in their district. Precisely because the stakes are so high, unscrupulous individuals will try to beat the system.

Widespread cheating in public school systems is sporadically reported in many large cities across the United States. In most cases, the cheating is motivated by the desire of teachers and principals to further their own careers by creating the illusion of educational excellence. For example, in 1999, dozens of teachers and two principals in the New York City public school system were charged with helping students cheat on the standardized reading and math tests used to rank schools and determine whether students move on to the next grade (New York Times, December 12, 1999). The cheating scheme was described as “one of the largest in the recent history of American public schools.” In 2000, an entire eighth-grade class in a Chicago elementary school was required to retake the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) because a school administrator allegedly �illed in incomplete tests and changed incorrect answers to correct ones (Chicago Tribune, June 2, 2000). Of�icials were tipped off to the fraud because the test scores were simply too good to be true—the average score for the class was two years above their standing. In 2005, the Dallas Morning News reported strong evidence of “organized, educator-led cheating” in dozens of schools on the statewide achievement test and found suspicious scores in hundreds more (www.dallasnews.com (http://www.dallasnews.com) , March 21, 2005). Disturbingly, one assessment expert noted, “You’re catching the dumb cheaters. The smart cheaters you’re not going to be able to detect.” We only read about the cases of cheating that are detected. The number of undetected cases is simply unknown, although probably larger than the public would like to believe.

Cheating in public school systems is not a thing of the past. It continues unabated, year after year. In 2011, a decade long cheating scandal was revealed in the Atlanta, Georgia, public school system (Atlanta Journal- Constitution, July 6, 2011). Teachers and principals routinely changed students’ answer sheets to produce higher scores. The school system scores soared dramatically, bringing national acclaim to the district and the superintendent. But it was all based on fraud perpetrated by 178 educators, including 38 principals. Cheating was con�irmed in 44 of 56 schools examined. In 2011, six charter schools in Los Angeles were threatened with closure when it was discovered that the founding director had ordered principals to open the state standardized tests and train students on actual test questions (Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2011). Suspiciously, scores for the schools had vaulted upward in recent years. The director and the six principals were terminated.

An especially �lagrant instance of cheating on national tests was uncovered in Louisiana in 1997. This case involved wholesale circulation of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) exam administered to teachers who want to be school principals. As reported in the New York Times (September 28, 1997), copies of the 145-item test, along with correct answers, had circulated among teachers throughout southern Louisiana, most likely for several years. In a state ranked at or near the bottom on nearly every educational index, it appears that many potentially unquali�ied persons cheated their way into running the schools. ETS handled this case quietly by asking more than 200 teachers to retake the test so as to “con�irm” their initial scores. Unfortunately, the Louisiana case was not an isolated instance. In another case, ETS allegedly failed to monitor its handling of the federal government’s test for immigrants who want to become

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 51/133

citizens, with the likely result that test supervisors accepted bribes. English-pro�iciency tests for foreign students also were vulnerable to cheating. In 1994, ETS canceled the scores of 30,000 students from China after discovering a ring that was selling the examinations abroad. Cizek (1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib307) ) catalogues literally dozens of ingenious ways that students have developed for cheating on tests: writing information on the �loor, in tissues, on the back of a bottled water label; using an ultraviolet pen to write information on “blank” paper; and using a video transmitter (e.g., hidden in an eyeglass case) to send pictures of the test to an outside accomplice who then coaches the student by means of an audio receiver (e.g., hidden in the ear).

Stories about miniature transmitters are not fanciful. Consider the following story reported from a monolithic culture where test results literally make or break a child’s future. In China, 10 million 18-year- olds take a two day exam each year that determines whether they will be allowed to attend public universities. Success or failure drastically impacts their lives and those of their families who might depend on their future income. In 2009, eight parents were jailed for up to three years after it was determined that they were transmitting stolen test answers to their children through miniature earpieces. The subterfuge was discovered when police detected unusual radio signals near the school (www.guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk) , April 3, 2009).

In 2012, cheating was brought to light on the board certi�ication test for radiology (CNN, Prescription for Cheating, January 13, 2012). For years, doctors around the country have helped one another cheat by each memorizing one or two test questions verbatim, writing down the questions after taking the test, and circulating the ever-expanding list of questions (dubbed “recalls”) to cooperating programs. The practice is so widespread and considered so egregious that the American Board of Radiology released a sternly worded video condemning the use of recalls as unethical. CNN found at least 15 years’ worth of test questions (with answers) on a website for residents in radiology.

Recently, efforts to circumvent exam security have become even more brazen, with some test preparation companies encouraging students to steal copies of college entrance exams such as the Scholastic Assessment Tests (SAT) (Los Angeles Times, October 12, 2005). Fortunately, the publisher of the SAT was granted a restraining order in federal court, prohibiting individuals or companies from soliciting stolen copies of the test. Even so, this episode illustrates once again that high-stakes testing has had a corrupting in�luence on the testing process.

Dishonest and inappropriate practices by school of�icials are implicated in the recent in�lation of scores on nationally normed group tests of achievement. By de�inition, for a norm-referenced test, 50 percent of the examinees should score above the 50th percentile, 50 percent below. If the same test is used in a large sample of typical and representative school systems, average scores for the school systems should be split evenly—about half above the nationally normed 50th percentile, half below.

According to a survey reported in the news media (Foster, 1990), virtually all states of the union claim that average achievement scores for their school systems exceed the 50th percentile. The resulting overly optimistic picture of student achievement is labeled the Lake Wobegon Effect (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss181) , in reference to humorist Garrison Keillor’s mythical Minnesota town where “all the children are above average.”

How does in�lation of achievement test scores arise? According to Cannell (1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib267) ), the major cause is educational administrators who are desperate to demonstrate the excellence of their school systems.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 52/133

Precisely because our society attaches so much importance to achievement test results, some educators apparently help students cheat on standardized tests. The alleged cheating includes the following:

Teachers and principals coach students on test answers. Examiners give more than the allotted time to take tests. Administrators alter answer sheets. Teachers teach directly to the speci�ic test items. Teachers make copies of the tests to give to their students.

In sum, the importance that our society attaches to achievement test scores has caused a number of unappealing side effects that undermine the very foundations of nationally normed group-testing programs.

Moore (1994 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1172) ) reports on a special case in educational testing, namely, the districtwide consequences of court-ordered achievement testing. He surveyed 79 teachers from third- through �ifth-grade level in a midwestern town in which the court required the use of a standardized test to determine the effectiveness of a desegregation effort. The test in question, the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), is a well-respected group achievement test that requires strict adherence to instructions and time limits for obtaining valid results. Yet the teachers found little value in the testing program, complaining that its bene�its did not offset the time and costs involved. As a consequence of their devaluing the effort, nonstandard testing was practically the rule rather than the exception. The teachers engaged in several nonstandard practices, most of which tended to in�late the test scores. Inappropriate testing practices included praising students who answered a question correctly during the test (67 percent), using last year’s test questions for practice (44 percent), recoding a student’s answer sheet because he or she just “miscoded” the answer (26 percent), giving students as much time as they needed (24 percent), giving students items that were directly off the test (24 percent), and giving hints or clues during the test (23 percent). In general, Moore (1994 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1172) ) notes that teachers modi�ied their instructional efforts and curriculum in anticipation of having their students take the test. More than 90 percent of the teachers added test-related lessons to the curriculum, and more than 70 percent eliminated topics so that they could spend more time on test-related skills.

What this study demonstrates is that mandated educational testing can have the unanticipated consequence of polluting the validity of a worthy test—especially when crucial stakeholders have no voice in the process.

Further, in teaching to the tests, educators may emphasize bits and pieces of factual knowledge rather than imparting a general ability to think clearly and solve problems. In conclusion, it appears that an excessive emphasis on nationally normed achievement tests for selection and evaluation promotes inappropriate behavior, including outright fraud and cheating on the part of students and school of�icials. Just how widespread is the problem? Although we live with the optimistic assumption that fraud in nationally normed testing programs is rare, the disturbing truth is that we really don’t know how often this occurs.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 53/133

1.16 REPRISE: RESPONSIBLE TEST USE We return now to the real-life quandaries of testing mentioned at the beginning of the topic. The reader will recall that the �irst quandary had to do with whether a consulting psychologist responsibly could refuse to provide feedback to police of�icer candidates referred for preemployment screening. Surprisingly, the answer to this query is “Yes.” Under normal circumstances, a practitioner must explain assessment results to the client. But there are exceptions, as explained by Principle 9.10 of the APA Ethical Code:

Psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that explanations of results are given to the individual or designated representative unless the nature of the relationship precludes provision of an explanation of results (such as in some organizational consulting, preemployment or security screenings, and forensic evaluations), and this fact has been clearly explained to the person being assessed in advance.

The second quandary concerned a counselor who continued to use the MMPI even though the MMPI-2 has been available for several years. Is the counselor’s refusal to use the MMPI-2 a breach of professional standards? The answer to this query is probably “Yes.” The MMPI-2 is well validated and constitutes a signi�icant improvement upon the MMPI. As mentioned previously, the MMPI-2 is now the standard of care in MMPI-based assessment of psychopathology. The counselor who continued to rely on the original MMPI could be liable for malpractice suits, especially if his test interpretations resulted in misleading interpretive statements or a false diagnosis.

The third predicament involved the use of a neighborhood friend as translator in the administration of the WISC-IV to a 9-year-old boy whose �irst language was Spanish. This is usually a mistake as it sacri�ices strict control of the testing material. The examiner was not bilingual and, therefore, he would have no way of knowing whether the translator was remaining faithful to the original text or was possibly supplying additional cues. In an ideal world, the proper procedure would be to enlist a Spanish-speaking examiner who would use a test formally translated and also standardized with Hispanic examinees. For example, the Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler Para Ninos-Revisada de Puerto Rico (EIWN-R PR) would be a good choice.

The �inal quandary concerned the client who informed a psychologist that her recently deceased brother was most likely a pedophile. Is the psychologist obligated to report this case to law enforcement? The answer to this query is probably “Yes,” but it may depend on the jurisdiction of the psychologist and the wording of the relevant statutes. In fact, the psychologist did report the case to authorities with unexpected consequences. Police obtained a search warrant, went to the home of the client’s mother (where the brother had lived), and ransacked the brother’s bedroom. The mother was traumatized by the unexpected visit from the police and blamed the �iasco on her daughter. A bitter estrangement followed, and the client then sued the psychologist for violation of con�identiality!

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 54/133

REFERENCES

Aamodt, M. G., Keller, R., Crawford, K., & Kimbrough, W. (1981). A critical incident job analysis of the university housing resident assistant position. Psychological Reports, 49, 983–986.

Abel, E. L. (1995). An update on incidence of FAS: FAS is not an equal opportunity birth defect. Neurobehavioral Toxicology, 17, 437–443.

Abel, E. L. (2009). Fetal alcohol syndrome: Same old, same old. Addiction, 104, 1274–1275. Abell, S. C., Briesen, P., & Watz, L. (1996). Intellectual evaluations of children using human �igure drawings:

An empirical investigation of two methods. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 67–74. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 Pro�ile. Burlington: University of

Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2–3 and 1992 Pro�ile. Burlington:

University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and pro�iles. Burlington:

University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families. Adams, G. A., Elacqua, T., & Colarelli, S. (1994). The employment interview as a sociometric selection

technique. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama, and Sociometry, 47 (Fall), 99–113. Adams, K. M., & Heaton, R. K. (1985). Automated interpretation of neuropsychological test data. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 790–802. Agbenyega, S., & Jiggetts, J. (1999). Minority children and their over-representation in special education.

Education, 119, 619–633. Aguinis, A., Culpepper, S. A., & Pierce, C. A. (2010). Revival of test bias research in preemployment testing.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 648–680. Ahrens, J., Evans, R., & Barnett, R. (1990). Factors related to dropping out of school in an incarcerated

population. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 611–617. Aiken, L. R. (1989). Assessment of personality. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ainsworth, M., & Bowlby, J. (1965). Child care and the growth of love. London: Penguin Books. Albers, C., & Grieve, A. (2007). Test Review: Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler

Development—Third Edition. San Antonio, TX—Harcourt Assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 180–190.

Albert, S., Fox, H. M., & Kahn, M. W. (1980). Faking psychosis on the Rorschach: Can expert judges detect malingering? Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 115–119.

Alkhadher, O., Clarke, D., & Anderson, N. (1998). Equivalence and predictive validity of paper-and-pencil and computerized adaptive formats of the Differential Aptitude Tests. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 205–217.

Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. (1936). Trait names, a psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47

(Whole No. 211). Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 5, 432–443.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 55/133

Altepeter, T. S. (1989). The PPVT-R as a measure of psycholinguistic functioning: A caution. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 935–941.

Altepeter, T. S., & Johnson, K. A. (1989). Use of the PPVT-R for intellectual screening with adults: A caution. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 7, 39–45.

Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association. (2000). General statistics/demographics. Chicago: Author.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Ambrosini, P. J. (2000). Historical development and present status of the schedule for affect disorders and

schizophrenia for school-age children (K-SADS). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 49–58.

American Association for Counseling and Development. (1988). Ethical standards. Washington, DC: Author.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

American Federation of Teachers, National Council on Measurement in Education, & National Education Association. (1990). Standards for teacher competence in educational assessment of students. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1953). Ethical standards of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association. (1986). Guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations.

Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association. (1988). In the Supreme Court of the United States: Clara Watson v.

Fort Worth Bank & Trust. American Psychologist, 43, 1019–1028. American Psychological Association. (1992a). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.

American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611. American Psychological Association. (1992b). Psychological testing of language minority and culturally

different children. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association. (1993). Guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic,

linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. American Psychologist, 48, 45–48. American Psychological Association. (1994). Report of the ethics committee, 1993. American Psychologist,

49, 659–666. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.

American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. American Psychological Association. (2012). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American

Psychologist, 68, 7–19. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1991). Code of ethics of the American Speech-Language

Hearing Association. Rockville, MD: Author. Ammer, C. (2003). The American Heritage dictionary of idioms. New York: Houghton Mif�lin Harcourt.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 56/133

Anastasi, A. (1975). Review of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. The seventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Anastasi, A. (1985). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Anastasi, A. (1986). Emerging concepts of test validation. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 1–15. Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Andersen, P., & Vandehey, M. A. (2011). Career counseling and development in a global economy (2nd ed.).

Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Andersson, H. W. (1996). The Fagan Test of Infant Intelligence: Predictive validity in a random sample.

Psychological Reports, 78, 1015–1026. Andreasen, N. (2001). Brave new brain: Conquering mental illness in the era of the genome. New York:

Oxford University Press. Andreasen, N. C., & Black, D. (1995). Introductory textbook of psychiatry (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:

American Psychiatric Press. Andrew, D. M., Peterson, D. G., & Longstaff, H. P. (1979). Minnesota Clerical Test Manual. San Antonio, TX:

The Psychological Corporation. Andrews, F. M. (1975). Social and psychological factors which in�luence the creative process. In I. A. Taylor

& J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity. Chicago: Aldine. Ansorge, C. J. (1985). Review of the Cognitive Abilities Test. Ninth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press. Anstey, K. J., Jorm, A. F., Reglade-Méslin, C., & others. (2007). Weekly alcohol consumption, brain atrophy,

and white matter hyperintensities in a community-based sample aged 60 to 64 years. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 778–785.

Anthony, J. C., LeResche, L., Niaz, U., Von Korff, M., & Folstein, M. (1982). Limits of the Mini-Mental State as a screening test for dementia and delirium among hospital patients. Psychological Medicine, 12, 397– 408.

Anthony, J., & Assel, M. (2007). A �irst look at the validity of the DIAL-3 Spanish version. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 165–179.

APA Task Force. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285. Arizona Senate Research Staff. (2008, August 27). Arizona State Senate issue brief: AIMS (Arizona

Instrument to Measure Standards). Phoeniz, AZ: Author. Arnau, R. C., Meagher, M. W., Norris, M. P., & Bramson, R. (2001). Psychometric evaluation of the Beck

Depression Inventory-II with primary care medical patients. Health Psychology, 20, 112–119. Arvey, R. D., & Campion, J. E. (1982). The employment interview: A summary and review of recent

research. Personnel Psychology, 35, 281–332. Arvey, R. D., & Faley, R. H. (1988). Fairness in selecting employees. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology,

49, 141–168. Asher, J. J., & Sciarrino, J. A. (1974). Realistic work samples: A review. Personnel Psychology, 27, 519–533. Assel, M., & Anthony, J. (2009). Factor structure of the DIAL-3: A test of a theory-driven conceptualization

versus an empirically driven conceptualization in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 113–124.

Atkins v. Virginia. (2002). U.S. Supreme Court Cases, 536, 304–354. Retrieved from http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/536/304.pdf (http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/536/304.pdf)

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 57/133

Atkinson, L., Bevc, I., Dickens, S., & Blackwell, J. (1992). Concurrent validities of the Stanford-Binet (Fourth Edition), Leiter, and Vineland with developmentally delayed children. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 165–173.

Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836–874.

Axelrod, B. N., Greve, K., & Goldman, R. (1994). Comparison of four Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Scoring guides with novice raters. Assessment, 1, 115–121.

Aylward, G. P., & Carson, A. (2005, April 1). Use of the Test Observation Checklist with the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales for Early Childhood, Fifth Edition (Early SB5). Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists, Atlanta, GA.

Bach, P. J., Harowski, K., Kirby, K., Peterson, P., & Schulein, M. (1981). The interrater reliability of the Luria- Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. Clinical Neuropsychology, 3, 19–21.

Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press. Baer, D. M., Harrison, R., Fradenburg, L., Petersen, D., & Milla, S. (2005). Some pragmatics in the valid and

reliable recording of directly observed behavior. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 440–451. Bagby, R. M., Rogers, R., Buis, T., & Kalemba, V. (1994). Malingered and defensive response styles on the

MMPI-2: An examination of validity scales. Assessment, 1, 31–38. Bailey, D., Larson, L., Borgen, F., & Gasser, C. (2008). Changing of the guard: Interpretive continuity of the

2005 Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 135–155. Baker, C., Koenig, A., & Sowell, V. (1995). Relationship of the Blind Learning Aptitude Test to Braille reading

skills. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 89, 440–447. Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). College Park, MD: ERIC Clearing House on

Assessment and Evaluation. Balboni, G., Pedrabissi, L., Molteni, M., & Villa, S. (2001). Discriminant validity of the Vineland Scales: Score

pro�iles of individuals with mental retardation and a speci�ic disorder. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 106, 162–172.

Ballard, J., & Zettel, J. (1977). Public Law 94-142 and Sec. 504: What they say about rights and protections. Exceptional Children, 44, 177–185.

Baltes, P. B., Reese, H., & Nesselroade, J. (1977). Life-span developmental psychology: Introduction to research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bandura, A. (1965). Vicarious processes: A case of no-trial learning. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-ef�icacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-ef�icacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-ef�icacy scales. In T. Urdan & F. Pajares (Eds.), Self-ef�icacy

beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston. Barber, M., & Stott, D. (2004). Validity of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) in post-stroke

subjects. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19, 75–79. Barkley, R. A. (1996). Attention-de�icit/hyperactivity disorder. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child

psychopathology (pp. 63–112). New York: Guilford. Barlow, D. (2005). What’s new about evidence-based assessment? Psychological Assessment, 17, 308–311.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 58/133

Barnett, W. S., & Camilli, G. (2002). Compensatory pre-school education, cognitive development, and “race.” In J. Fish (Ed.), Race and intelligence: Separating science from myth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual (EQ-i). Toronto, Canada: Multi- Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ- i). In R. Bar-On & J. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363–388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. (2000). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth version. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Incorporated.

Barrett, L. F. (2009). The future of psychology: Connecting mind to brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 326–339.

Barrett, P. K. (2000). Validation of the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Third Edition (TONI-3) for Jamaican students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

Barrick, M. R., Swider, B. W., & Stewart, G. L. (2010). Initial evaluations in the interview: Relationships with subsequent interviewer evaluations and employment offers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1163–1172.

Barron, F. (1953). An ego-strength scale which predicts response to psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 327–333.

Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 478– 485.

Barron, F. (1968). Creativity and personal freedom. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of

Psychology, 32, 439–476. Barry, A. E. (2005). How attrition impacts the internal and external validity of longitudinal research.

Journal of School Health, 75, 267–270. Bartol, C., & Bartol, A. (2004). Introduction to forensic psychology: Research and application. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. Bartsch, A. J., Homola, G., Biller, A., & others. (2007). Manifestations of early brain recovery associated with

abstinence from alcoholism. Brain, 130, 36–47. Bate, A., Mathias, J., & Crawford, J. (2001). Performance on the Test of Everyday Attention and standard

tests of attention following severe traumatic brain injury. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 405–422. Batey, M. (2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University College, London. Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered

literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355–429. Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological

perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Bausell, R. B. (1986). A practical guide to conducting empirical research. New York: Harper & Row. Bayless, J. D., Varney, N. R., & Roberts, R. J. (1989). Tinker Toy Test performance and vocational outcome in

patients with closed-head injuries. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11, 913–917. Bayley, N. (1969). Bayley Scales of Infant Development. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development—Third Edition. San Antonio, TX:

Harcourt Assessment. Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: New American Library.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 59/133

Beck, A. T. (1983). Negative cognitions. In E. Levitt, B. Lubin, & J. Brooks (Eds.), Depression: Concepts, controversies, and some new facts (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beck, A. T. (1987). Cognitive models of depression. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 1, 5–37.

Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Manual for the revised Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-�ive years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77–100.

Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelsohn, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561–571.

Behling, O. (1998). Employee selection: Will intelligence and conscientiousness do the job? Academy of Management Executive, 12, 77–86.

Beirne-Smith, M., Ittenbach, R. F., & Patton, J. R. (2002). Mental retardation (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill (Prentice Hall).

Belcher, M. J. (1992). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Bell, L., & Casebourne, J. (2008). Increasing employment for ethnic minorities: A survey of research �indings. London: Center for Economic and Social Inclusion.

Bell, N., Lassiter, K., Matthews, T., & Hutchinson, M. (2001). Comparison of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition with university students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 417–422.

Bell, N., Matthews, T., Lassister, K., & Leverett, J. (2002). Validity of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a measure of �luid or crystallized intelligence: Implications for career assessment. North American Journal of Psychology, 4, 113–120.

Bellak, L. (1992). The Thematic Apperception Test, the Children’s Apperception Test, and the Senior Apperception Technique in clinical use (5th ed.). Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.

Bellak, L., & Bellak, S. S. (1991). Children’s Apperception Test Manual (CAT) (8th rev. ed.). Larchmont, NY: C. P. S.

Bellak, L., & Bellak, S. S. (1994). Children’s Apperception Test Human Figures (CAT-H) (11th ed.). Larchmont, NY: C. P. S.

Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). The nature (and nurture?) of plasticity in early human development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 345–351.

Bem, D., & Funder, D. (1978). Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Review, 85, 485–501.

Bender, L. (1938). A visual motor gestalt test and its clinical use. New York: American Orthopsychiatric Association.

Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1974). Fifth edition manual for the Differential Aptitude Tests, Forms S and T. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1982). Differential Aptitude Tests: Administrator’s handbook. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1984). Differential Aptitude Tests: Technical Supplement. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 60/133

Bennett, T. (1988). Use of the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery in the assessment of head injury. Cognitive Rehabilitation, 6, 18–25.

Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1989). Psychometric stability of rewritten MMPI items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 645–653.

Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Benson, D. F. (1988). Disorders of visual gnosis. In J. W. Brown (Ed.), The neuropsychology of visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Benson, D. F. (1994). The neurology of thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. Benson, P. G. (1985). Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test

critiques (vol. 2). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America. Benson, P., Donahue, M., & Erickson, J. (1993). The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualization, measurement,

and empirical validation. In M. L. Lynn & D. O. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the social scienti�ic study of religion (vol. 5). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

Benton, A., Hamsher, K., Rey, G., & Sivan, A. (1994). Multilingual Aphasia Examination (3rd ed.). Iowa City, IA: AJA Associates.

Benton, A., Sivan, A., Hamsher, K., Varney, N., & Spreen, O. (1994). Contributions to neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Beran, T. (2007). Differential Ability Scales (2nd ed.). Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 22, 128–132. Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective test for measuring �lexibility in thinking. Journal of General

Psychology, 39, 15–22. Berger, S. G., Chibnall, J., & Gfeller, J. (1994). The Category Test: A comparison of computerized and

standard versions. Assessment, 3, 255–258. Berk, R. A. (Ed.). (1984). A guide to criterion-referenced test construction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press. Bernreuter, R. G. (1931). The personality inventory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bernstein, D. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2009). How to tell if a particular memory is true or false. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 4, 370–374. Bernstein, I., & Nunnally, J. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Berry, C., Sackett, P., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research.

Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301. Berry, D. J., Bridges, L. J., & Zaslow, M. J. (2004). Early childhood measures pro�iles. Washington, DC: Child

Trends. Bersoff, D. N. (1988). Should subjective employment devices be scrutinized? Its elementary, my dear Ms.

Watson. American Psychologist, 43, 1016–1018. Bertrand, J., Floyd, R., Weber, K., & others. (2004). National task force on fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal

alcohol effect. Fetal alcohol syndrome: Guidelines for referral and diagnosis. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bialik, C. (2010, September 4). Seven careers in a lifetime? Think twice, researchers say. Wall Street Journal.

Bianchini, K., Etherton, J., Greve, K., Heinly, M., & Meyers, J. (2008). Classi�ication accuracy of MMPI-2 validity scales in the detection of pain-related malingering: A known-groups study. Assessment, 15, 435–449.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 61/133

Bickley, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Wolfe, L. M. (1995). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities: Test of the structure of intelligence across the life span. Intelligence, 20, 309–328.

Bilker, W. B., Hansen, J. A., Brensinger, C. M., & others. (2012). Development of abbreviated nine-item forms of the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Test. Assessment, 19, 354–369.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Methodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux. Annee Psychologique, 11, 191–244.

Blake, R. J., Potter, E., III, & Sliwak, R. (1993). Validation of the structural scales of the CPI for predicting the performance of junior of�icers in the U.S. Coast Guard. Journal of Business Psychology, 7, 431–448.

Blin, Dr. (1902). Les debilites mentales. Revue de Psychiatrie, 8, 337–345. Bloch, A. (2002). Refugees’ opportunities and barriers in employment and training, Research Report 179.

Leeds, UK: Department for Work and Pensions. Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Spring�ield, IL:

Charles C. Thomas. Block, J. (2008). The Q-Sort in character appraisal: Encoding subjective impressions of persons

quantitatively. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Blum, G. (1950). The Blacky Pictures. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Blumenthal, J. A. (1985). Review of Jenkins Activity Survey. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.). The ninth mental

measurements yearbook (vol. 1). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective. New York: Routledge. Blustein, D. L., Kenna, A., Gill, N., & DeVoy, J. (2008). The psychology of working: A new framework for

counseling practice and public policy. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 294–308. Boake, C. (2002). From the Binet-Simon to the Wechsler-Bellevue: Tracing the history of intelligence

testing. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 383–405. Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. (2005). The status of the Rorschach in clinical

and forensic practice: An of�icial statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 219–237.

Boccaccini, M., Turner, D., & Murrie, D. (2008). Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower PCL-R scores than others? Findings from a statewide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 262–283.

Boden, M. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Boggs, D. H., & Simon, J. R. (1968). Differential effect of noise on tasks of varying complexity. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 52, 148–153. Boggs, K. (1999). Campbell Interest and Skill Survey: Review and critique. Measurement and Evaluation in

Counseling and Development, 32, 168–182. Bond, L. (1996). Norm- and criterion-referenced testing. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation,

[Online journal], 5. Available: ericae.net (http://ericae.net) . Bonner, C. M. (1988). Utilization of spiritual resources by patients experiencing a recent cancer diagnosis.

Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Pittsburgh. Bonner, M. F., Ash, S., & Grossman, M. (2010). The new classi�ication of primary progressive aphasia into

semantic, logopenic, or non�luent/agrammatic variants. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 10, 484–490.

Boring, E. G. (1923, June). Intelligence as the tests test it. New Republic, 35–37. Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 62/133

Borkowski, J. (1985). Signs of intelligence: Strategy generalization and metacognition. In S. R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of re�lection in children. Orlando: Academic Press.

Borman, W., Ilgen, D., Klimoski, R., & Weiner, I. (2003). Handbook of psychology, industrial and organizational psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bornstein, M. H. (1994). Infancy. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Bornstein, R. F., & Masling, J. M. (2005). Scoring the Rorschach: Seven validated systems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Boter, R., & Hoekstra-Vrolijk, S. (1994). ITVIC, an intelligence test for visually impaired children. In A. Kooijman & P. Looijestijn (Eds.), Low vision: Research and new developments in rehabilitation (pp. 135– 138). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1994). Twin studies. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Lykken, D., McGue, M., Segal, N., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science, 250, 223–228.

Bowden, E., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 634–639.

Bowers, T., & Pantle, M. (1998). Shipley Institute for Living Scale and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test as screening instruments for intelligence. Assessment, 5, 187–195.

Bowling, A. (1997). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Bowling, A. (2001). Measuring disease: A review of disease-speci�ic quality of life measurement scales (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Bowman, M. (1989). Testing individual differences in ancient China. American Psychologist, 44, 576–578. Boyd, T. M., & Sauter, S. (1993). Route-�inding: A measure of everyday executive functioning in the head-

injured adult. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 171–181. Bracken, B. A., & Fagan, T. K. (1990). Guest editors’ introduction to the conference “Intelligence: Theories

and Practice.” Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 221–222. Brackett, M., & Mayer, J. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures

of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158. Braden, J. (1992). Intellectual assessment of deaf and hard of hearing people: A quantitative and

qualitative research synthesis. School Psychology Review, 21, 82–94. Braden, J., & Hannah, J. (1998). Assessment of hearing impaired and deaf children with the WISC-III. In D.

Saklofske & A. Pri�itera (Eds.), Use of the WISC-III in clinical practice. New York: Houghton Mif�lin. Bradley, K., Boyd-Wickizer, J., Powell, S., & Burman, M. (1998). Review: Some alcohol screening tests have

acceptable test properties for use in general clinical populations of U.S. women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 166–171.

Bradley, R., Corwyn, R., Pipes McAdoo, H., & Garcia Coll, C. (2001). The home environments of children in the United States Part I: Variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child Development, 72, 1844– 1867.

Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). 174 children: A study of the relationship between home environment and cognitive development during the �irst 5 years. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early cognitive development: Longitudinal research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Bradley, R. H., & Rock, S. L. (1985). The HOME Inventory: Its relation to school failure and development of an elementary-age version. In W. K. Frankenburg, R. N. Emde, & J. W. Sullivan (Eds.), Early identi�ication

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 63/133

of children at risk. New York: Plenum. Bradley, R. H., Mundfrom, D., Whiteside, L., Case, P., & Barrett, K. (1994). A factor analytic study of the

Infant-Toddler and Early Childhood versions of the HOME Inventory administered to white, Black, and Hispanic American parents of children born preterm. Child Development, 65, 880–888.

Bradley, R. H., Rock, S. L., Caldwell, B. M., & Brisby, J. A. (1989). Use of the HOME Inventory for families with handicapped children. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 313–330.

Bradley-Johnson, S. (2001). Cognitive assessment for the youngest children: A critical review of tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 19–44.

Bradshaw, J. L., & Mattingley, J. B. (1995). Clinical neuropsychology: Behavioral and brain science. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bradway, K. P. (1944). IQ constancy on the Revised Stanford-Binet from the preschool to the junior high school level. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 65, 197–217.

Braithwaite, V., & Law, H. (1985). Structure of human values: Testing the adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 250–263.

Brannick, M. T., Michaels, C. E., & Baker, D. P. (1989). Construct validity of in-basket scores. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 957–963.

Brannigan, G. G., & Decker, S. L. (2003). Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Brass, D. J., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Validating an in-basket test using an alternative set of leadership scoring dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 652–657.

Brauer, B., Braden, J., Pollard, R., & Hardy-Braz, S. (1998). Deaf and hard of hearing people. In J. Sandoval, C. Frisby, K. Geisinger, J. Scheuneman, & J. Grenier (Eds.), Test interpretation and diversity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brazelton, T. B., & Nugent, J. (1995). Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (3rd ed.). London: Cambridge University Press.

Breaugh, J. A. (2009). The use of biodata for employee selection: Past research and future directions. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 219–231.

Bremner, J. D. (2005). Brain imaging handbook. New York: Norton. Breslau, N. (1994). A gradient relationship between low birth weight and IQ at age 6 years. Archives of

Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 148, 377–383. Breslau, N., Chilcoat, H., Susser, E., & others. (2001). Stability and change in children’s Intelligence Quotient

scores: A comparison of two socioeconomically disparate communities. American Journal of Epidemiology, 154, 711–717.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1893–1895). Studies on hysteria. In J. Strachey (Ed., in collaboration with A. Freud). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (vol. 2). London: Hogarth, 1955.

Brief, D. E., & Comrey, A. L. (1993). A pro�ile of personality for a Russian sample: As indicated by the Comrey Personality Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 267–284.

Britt, G., & Myers, B. (1994). The effects of Brazelton intervention: A review. Infant Mental Health Journal, 15, 278–292.

Brodal, A. (1981). Neurological anatomy (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Brody, E. B., & Brody, N. (1976). Intelligence: Nature, determinants and consequences. New York: Academic

Press. Bromberg, W. (1959). The mind of man: A history of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. New York: Harper &

Row.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 64/133

Brooks, B., Holdnack, J. A., & Iverson, G. L. (2011). Advanced clinical interpretation of the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV: Prevalence of low scores varies by level of intelligence and years of education. Assessment, 18, 156–167.

Brooks, B., Iverson, G., Holdnack, J., & Feldman, H. (2008). Potential for misclassi�ication of mild cognitive impairment: A study of memory scores on the Wechsler Memory Scale-III in healthy older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14, 463–478.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P., & Duncan, G. (1996). Ethnic differences in children’s intelligence test scores: Role of economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal characteristics. Child Development, 67, 396–408.

Brown, I. T., Chen, T., Gehlert, N. C., & Piedmont, R. L. (2012, October 8). Age and gender effects on the Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) Scale: A cross-sectional analysis. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality [online publication].

Bruininks, R. H., Woodcock, R. W., Weatherman, R. F., & Hill, B. K. (1996). Scales of Independent Behavior- Revised, Interviewer’s Manual. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

Bruyere, S. M., & O’Keeffe, J. (Eds.). (1994). Implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act for psychology. New York: Springer.

Buck, J. (1948). The H-T-P technique, a qualitative and quantitative scoring method. Journal of Clinical Psychology Monograph Supplement, 5, 1–120.

Buck, J. (1981). The House-Tree-Person technique: A revised manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Bufford, R., & Parker, T., Jr. (1985). Religion and well-being: Concurrent validation of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

Bufford, R., Paloutzian, R., & Ellison, C. (1991). Norms for the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 56–70.

Bullock, E., & Reardon, R. (2008). Interest pro�ile elevation, Big Five personality traits, and secondary constructs on the Self-Directed Search: A replication and extension. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 326–338.

Burke, H. R. (1958). Raven’s Progressive Matrices: A review and critical evaluation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 93, 199–228.

Buschke, H., & Fuld, P. A. (1974). Evaluating storage, retention, and retrieval in disordered memory and learning. Neurology, 24, 1019–1025.

Buss, A. (1997). Evolutionary perspectives on personality traits. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359–366.

Butcher, J. N. (1985). Introduction to the special series. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 746–747.

Butcher, J. N. (1993). The Minnesota Report user’s guide. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer System. Butcher, J. N. (2005). MMPI-2: A practitioner’s guide. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Butcher, J. N. (2011). A beginner’s guide to the MMPI-2 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association. Butcher, J. N. (Ed.). (1987). Computerized psychological assessment: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Basic

Books. Butcher, J. N. (Ed.). (2000). Basic sources on the MMPI-2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 65/133

Butcher, J. N., & Williams, C. L. (1992). Essentials of MMPI-2 and MMPI-A interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J. N., & Williams, C. L. (2000). Essentials of MMPI-2 and MMPI-A interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Williams, C. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1990). Development and use of the MMPI-2 content scales. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J., Perry, J., & Atlis, M. (2000). Validity and utility of computer-based test interpretation. Psychological Assessment, 12, 6–18.

Buxbaum, L. J., Dawson, A. M., & Linsley, D. (2012). Reliability and Validity of the Virtual Reality Lateralized Attention Test in Assessing Hemispatial Neglect in Right-Hemisphere Stroke. Neuropsychology, 26, 430–441.

Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1994). Environmental issues in developmental follow-up research. In S. L. Friedman & H. C. Haywood (Eds.), Developmental follow-up: Concepts, domains, and methods. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Caldwell, B. M., & Richmond, J. (1967). Social class level and the stimulation potential of the home. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), The exceptional infant (vol. 1). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications.

Callahan, L. A., McGreevy, M., Cirincione, C., & Stead-man, H. (1992). Measuring the effects of the Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) verdict. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 447–462.

Campbell, C. D. (1988). Coping with hemodialysis: Cognitive appraisals, coping behaviors, spiritual well- being, assertiveness, and family adaptability and cohesion as correlates of adjustment (Doctoral dissertation, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 538B.

Campbell, D. (2002). The history and development of the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 150–168.

Campbell, D. P. (1971). Handbook for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Campbell, D. P. (1974). Manual for the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Blank. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S., & Nilsen, D. (1992). Manual for the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M., & Oswald, F. (1996). The substantive nature of job performance variability. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, J., & McCord, D. (1996). The WAIS-R Comprehension and Picture Arrangement Subtests as measures of social intelligence: Testing traditional interpretations. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 240–249.

Campbell, J., Bell, S., & Keith, L. (2001). Concurrent validity of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition as an intelligence and achievement screener for low SES African American children. Assessment, 8, 85–94.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 66/133

Campion, J. E. (1972). Work sampling for personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 40–44. Campion, M. A., Pursell, E. D., & Brown, B. K. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the psychometric

properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25–42. Campione, J., & Brown, A. (1978). Toward a theory of intelligence: Contributions from research with

retarded children. Intelligence, 2, 279–304. Can�ield, A. A. (1951). The “sten” scale—A modi�ied C-scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

11, 295–297. Cannell, J. J. (1988). Nationally normed elementary achievement testing in America’s public schools: How

all 50 states are above the national average. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7, 5–9. Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. (2002). Myers-Briggs Typica Indicator score reliability across studies: A meta-

analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 590–602. Carless, S. (2000). The validity of scores on the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 60, 592–603. Carlson, C. F., Kula, M., & St. Laurent, C. (1997). Rorschach revised DEPI and CDI with inpatient major

depressives and borderline personality disorder with major depression: Validity issues. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 51–58.

Carpenter, M. B. (1991). Core text of neuroanatomy (4th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Carroll, D. (1988). How accurate is polygraph lie detection? In A. Gale (Ed.), The polygraph test: Lies, truth

and science. London: Sage. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press. Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity and factor structure of the Creative

Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50. Carter, C., Mintun, M., Nichols, T., & Cohen, J. (1997). Anterior cingulate gyrus dysfunction and selection

attention de�icits in schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 1670–1675. Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive

psychology (pp. 434–445). New York: Oxford University Press. Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (2003). Optimism. In S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological

assessment: A handbook of models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cascio, W. F. (1976). Turnover, biographical data, and fair employment practice. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 61, 576–580. Cascio, W. F. (1987). Applied psychology in personnel management (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall. Cathers-Schiffman, T., & Thompson, M. (2007). Assessment of English- and Spanish-speaking students

with the WISC-III and Leiter-R. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 41–52. Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In G. J. Boyle, G.

Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (vol. 2, pp. 135–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishers.

Cattell, J. McK. (1890). Mental tests and measurements. Mind, 15, 373–380. Cattell, R. (1950). Personality: A systematic theoretical and factual study. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cattell, R. B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testing. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 592

(abstract). Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mif�lin. Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality pinned down. Psychology Today, 7, 40–46. Cautela, J. R. (1977). Behavioral analysis forms for clinical intervention. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 67/133

Ceci, S. (1996). On intelligence: A bio-ecological treatise on intellectual development. (Expanded ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ceci, S. J. (1994). Bioecological theory of intellectual development. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Alcohol use and binge drinking among women of child-bearing age—United States, 2006–2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61, 534–538.

Chaffee, J. W. (1985). The thorny gates of learning in Sung China: A social history of examinations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chalmers, T. (1833). On the power, wisdom, and goodness of God as manifested in the adaptation of external nature to the moral and intellectual constitution of man. London: William Pickering.

Chamberlin, J. (2009). How do you spot raw legal talent? Take this test. Monitor on Psychology, 40(6), 12. Chan, R. (2000). Attentional de�icits in patients with closed head injury: A further study to the

discriminative validity of the Test of Everyday Attention. Brain Injury, 14, 227–236. Chan, R., & Lai, M. (2006). Latent structure of the Test of Everyday Attention: Convergent evidence from

patients with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 20, 653–659. Chan, R., Lai, M., & Robertson, I. (2006). Latent structure of the Test of Everyday Attention in a non-clinical

Chinese sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 477–485. Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., & others. (2005). Test Anxiety and Academic Performance

in Undergraduate and Graduate Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 268–274. Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1967). Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 271–280. Chase, C. I. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Ninth mental measurements

yearbook. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Cherpitel, C. (2002). Screening for alcohol problems in the U.S. general population: Comparison of the

CAGE, RAPS4, and RAPS4-QF by gender, ethnicity, and service utilitzation. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26, 1686–1691.

Chiaravalloti, N. D., & DeLuca, J. (2003). Assessing the behavioral consequences of multiple sclerosis: An application of the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe). Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 16, 54– 67.

Chibnall, J., & Detrick, P. (2003). The NEO-PI-R, Inwald Personality Inventory, and MMPI-2 in the prediction of police academy performance: A case for incremental validity. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 233–248.

Chin, C., Ledesma, H., Cirino, P., & others. (2001). Relation between Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test and WISC-III scores of children with RD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 2–8.

Choi, H., & Proctor, T. (1994). Error-prone subtests and error types in the administration of the Stanford- Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 165–171.

Chung, J. (2009). Clinical validity of Fuld Object Memory Evaluation to screen for dementia in Chinese society. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24, 156–162.

Chung, J., & Ho, W. (2009). Validity of Fuld Object Memory Evaluation for the detection of dementia in nursing home residents. Aging and Mental Health, 13, 274–279.

Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Clark, D. A. (1988). The validity of measures of cognition: A review of the literature. Cognitive Therapy and

Research, 12, 1–20. Clarkin, J. F., Hull, J., Cantor, J., & Sanderson, C. (1993). Borderline personality disorder and personality

traits: A comparison of SCID-II BPD and NEO-PI. Psychological Assessment, 5, 472–476.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 68/133

Clarren, S., Randels, S., Sanderson, M., & Fineman, R. (2001). Screening for fetal alcohol syndrome in primary schools: A feasibility study. Teratology, 63, 3–10.

Cleary, T. A., Humphreys, L. G., Kendrick, S. A., & Wesman, A. (1975). Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students. American Psychologist, 30, 15–41.

Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby. Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Clemans, W. V. (1971). Test administration. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.).

Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence

and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 130–135. Cohen, J. (1960). A coef�icient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 20, 37–46. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, M. (1997). Children’s Memory Scale. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Cohen, S., & Janicki-Deverts, D. (2009). Can we improve our physical health by altering our social

networks? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 375–378. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment (vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J. C., & others. (1978). Measuring moral judgment: Standardized scoring

manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Moral Education Research Foundation. Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment.

Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 48, 1, 2. Cole, N. S., & Moss, P. A. (1989). Bias in test use. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New

York: ACE/Macmillan. College Board. (2005). Retrieved from www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/

(http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/) on September 21, 2005. Collins, J. M., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: A construct validity

study. Personnel Psychology, 46, 295–311. Colom, R., Quiroga, M., & Juan-Espinosa, M. (1999). Are cognitive sex differences disappearing? Evidence

from Spanish populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1189–1195. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic

psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655–665. Community Research Partners. (2007). School readiness assessment: A review of the literature. Columbus,

OH: Author. Comrey, A. (1995). Career assessment and the Comrey Personality Scales. Journal of Career Assessment, 3,

140–156. Comrey, A. L. (1970). Manual for the Comrey Personality Scales. San Diego, CA: EdITS. Comrey, A. L. (1973). A �irst course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press. Comrey, A. L. (1980). Handbook of interpretations for the Comrey Personality Scales. San Diego, CA: EdITS. Comrey, A. L. (2008). The Comrey Personality Scales. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.),

The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, vol 2: Personality measurement and testing (pp. 113–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Comrey, A. L., & Backer, T. (1970). Construct validation of the Comrey Personality Scales. Multivariate Behavior Research, 5, 469–477.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 69/133

Comrey, A. L., & Schiebel, D. (1983). Personality test correlates of psychiatric outpatient status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 756–762.

Comrey, A. L., & Schiebel, D. (1985). Personality test correlates of psychiatric case history data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 470–479.

Conn, H. O. (2011). Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH): More about NPH by a physician who is the patient. Clinical Medicine, 11(2), 162–165.

Conners, C. K. (1990). Conners’ Rating Scales. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Conners, C. K. (1991). Conners’ Teacher Rating Scales- 39. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Conners, C. K. (1995). Conners’ Continuous Performance Test II (CPT II). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-

Health Systems, Inc. Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners’ Rating Scales-Revised. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems. Conoley, C. W. (1992). Review of Beck Depression Inventory. The eleventh mental measurements yearbook.

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Conoley, C. W., Plake, B., & Kemmerer, B. (1991). Issues in computer-based test interpretive systems.

Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 97–101. Constantino, G., & Malgady, R. (1996). Development of TEMAS, a multicultural thematic apperception test:

Psychometric properties and clinical utility. In G. R. Sodowsky & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Multicultural assessment in counseling and clinical psychology. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Constantino, G., & Malgady, R. (2000). Multicultural and cross-cultural utility of the TEMAS (Tell-Me-A- Story) Test. In R. Dana (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural personality assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Constantino, G., Malgady, R., & Rogler, L. (1988). Tell-Me-A-Story (TEMAS): Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Conte, J. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 433–440.

Conway, J. M., Jako, R., & Goodman, D. (1995). A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565–579.

Cooper, D., & Shepard, K. (1992). Review of DIAL-R. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 171–174. Corkin, S. (1968). Acquisition of motor skill after bilateral medial temporal-lobe excision.

Neuropsychologia, 6, 255–265. Cornelius, S. W., & Caspi, A. (1987). Everyday problem solving in adulthood and old age. Psychology and

Aging, 2, 144–153. Cosden, M. (1992). Review of the Draw A Person: A Quantitative Scoring System. The eleventh mental

measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the NEO Five Factor

Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., & Siegler, I. C. (2000). Personality at midlife: Stability, intrinsic

maturation, and response to life events. Assessment, 7, 365–378. Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Clinical use of the �ive-factor model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 393–398. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. (1989). NEO Five-Factor Inventory test manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma

Assessment Systems. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO PI-R test manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems. Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390–400.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 70/133

Costa, P., McCrae, R., & Martin, T. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261–270.

Costa, P., McCrae, R., & Martin, T. (2008). Incipient adult personality: The NEO-PI-3 in middle-school-aged children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 71–89.

Costenbader, V., & Ngari, S. (2001). A Kenya standardization of the Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices. School Psychology International, 22, 258–268.

Cote, L., & Crutcher, M. D. (1991). The basal ganglia. In E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, & T. M. Jessell (Eds.), Principles of neural science (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier.

Courvoisier, D. S., Eid, M., & Lischetzke, T. (2012). Compliance to a cell phone-based ecological momentary assessment study: The effect of time and personality characteristics. Psychological Assessment, 24, 713–720.

Coveny, T. E. (1972). A new test for the visually handicapped: Preliminary analysis of reliability and validity of the Perkins-Binet. Education of the Handicapped, 4, 97–101.

Cowdery, K. M. (1926–27). Measurement of professional attitudes: Differences between lawyers, physicians, and engineers. Journal of Personnel Research, 5, 131–141.

Craig, R. J. (Ed.). (1993). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory: A clinical research information synthesis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 283–291.

Crandall, J. E. (1981). Theory and measurement of social interest: Empirical tests of Alfred Adler’s concept. New York: Columbia University Press.

Crawford, J. R., Sommerville, J., & Robertson, I. (1997). Assessing the reliability and abnormality of subtest differences on the Test of Everyday Attention. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 609–617.

Creed, P., Patton, W., & Bartrum, D. (2002). Multidimensional properties of the LOT-R: Effects of optimism and pessimism on career and well-being related variables in adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 42–61.

Cripe, L. (1996). The ecological validity of executive function testing. In R. J. Sbordone & C. J. Long (Eds.), Ecological validity of neuropsychological testing. Delray Beach, FL: GR Press/St. Lucie Press.

Critchley, M. (1953). The parietal lobes. London: Edward Arnold. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coef�icient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.).

Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on the validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test

validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52,

281–302. Culbertson, J., & Edmonds, A. (1996). Learning Disabilities. In R. Adams, O. Parsons, J. Culbertson, & S.

Nixon (Eds.). Neuropsychology for clinical practice: Etiology, assessment, and treatment of common neurological disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cullen, M., & Sackett, P. (2004). Integrity testing in the workplace. In J. Thomas (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 4: Industrial and organizational assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Cummings, N. A. (2007). Treatment and assessment take place in an economic context, always. In S. O. Lilienfeld & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), The great ideas of clinical science: 17 principles that every mental

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 71/133

health professional should understand (pp. 163–184). New York: Routledge. Cummings, R., Maddux, C., Harlow, S., & Dyas, L. (2002). Academic misconduct in undergraduate teacher

education students and its relationship to their principled moral reasoning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 286–296.

Cunningham, M., Wong, D., & Barbee, A. (1994). Self-presentation dynamics on overt integrity tests: Experimental studies with the Reid Report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 643–658.

Cureton, E. E. (1950). Validity, reliability, and baloney. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10, 94– 96.

Cutler, B. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2011). Expert psychological testimony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 53–57.

da Costa Armentano, C. G., Porto, C. S., Brucki, S., & Nitrini, R. (2009). Study on the Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS) performance in healthy individuals, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: A preliminary study. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 3, 101–107.

Dahlstrom, W. G., Welsh, G. S., & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1975). An MMPI handbook: Vol. II. Research applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Daley, T., Whaley, S., Sigman, M., Espinosa, M., & Neumann, C. (2003). IQ on the rise: The Flynn effect in rural Kenyan children. Psychological Science, 14, 215–219.

Dana, R. H. (1959). Proposal for objective scoring of the TAT. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 10, 27–43. Das J. P., Naglieri, J., & Kirby, J. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes: The PASS theory of intelligence.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Das, J. P. (1994). Serial and parallel processing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence.

New York: Macmillan. Das, J. P., & Naglieri, J. A. (1993). Cognitive assessment system: Standardization version. Chicago: Riverside. Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous and successive cognitive processes. New York:

Academic Press. Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous and successive cognitive processes. Orlando, FL:

Academic Press. Davis, A. S., Johnson, J. A., & D’Amato, R. C. (2005). Evaluating and using long-standing school neuro-

psychological batteries: The Halstead-Reitan and the Luria-Nebraska neuropsychological batteries. In R. C. D’Amato, E. Fletcher-Jansen, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school neuropsychology (pp. 236–263). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Davis, C. (1980). Perkins-Binet Tests of Intelligence for the blind. Watertown, MA: Perkins School for the Blind.

Davis, E., Glynn, L., Schetter, C., & others. (2007). Prenatal exposure to maternal depression and cortisol in�luences infant temperament. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 737–746.

Davison, M., Gasser, M., & Ding, S. (1996). Identifying major pro�ile patterns in a population: An exploratory study of WAIS and GATB patterns. Psychological Assessment, 1, 26–31.

Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674. Dawis, R. V. (1996). The theory of work adjustment and person-environment correspondence counseling.

In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 75–120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dawis, R. V. (2002). Person-Environment Correspondence theory. In D. Brown & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 427–464). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 72/133

Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Dawson, A., Buxbaum, L. J., & Rizzo, A. A. (2008). The Virtual Reality Lateralized Attention Test: Sensitivity and validity of a new clinical tool for assessing hemispatial neglect. Virtual Rehabilitation, 2008, 77–82.

Dayan, K., Fox, S., & Kasten, R. (2008). The preliminary employment interview as a predictor of assessment center outcomes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 102–111.

de Bildt, A., Kraijere, D., Sytema, S., & Minderaa, R. (2005). The psychometric properties of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales in children and adolescents with mental retardation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 53–62.

de Raad, B., & Perugini, M. (Eds.). Big �ive assessment. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers. Decker, S. L. (2008). Measuring growth and decline in visual-motor processes with the Bender-Gestalt

second edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 3–15. DeCrans, M. (1990). Spiritual well-being in the rural elderly. Unpublished manuscript, Marquette

University, Milwaukee, WI. Delis, D. C., & Kaplan, E. (1982). Assessment of aphasia with the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological

Battery: A conceptual critique. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 32–39. Delis, D. C., Kramer, J., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. (2000). California Verbal Learning Test—Second Edition. San

Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Dellas, M., & Gaier, E. L. (1970). Identi�ication of creativity: The individual. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 55–

73. Deri, S. (1949). Introduction to the Szondi Test. New York: Grune & Stratton. Dey, A. N., Schiller, J. S., & Tai, D. A. (2004). Summary health statistics for U.S. children: National Health

Interview Survey, 2002. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics. Diamond, S. (1980). Wundt before Leipzig. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), Wilhelm Wundt and the making of a

scienti�ic psychology. New York: Plenum Press. Dickens, W., & Flynn, J. (2006). Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap. Psychological Science, 17, 913–

920. Dickens, W., & Flynn, J. R. (2006). Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization

samples. Psychological Science, 17, 913–920. Diener, E. (2009). Editor’s introduction: Special issue on the next big questions in psychology. Perspectives

on Psychological Science, 4, 325. Diessner, R., & Lewis, G. (2007). Further validation of the Gratitude, Resentment, and Appreciation Test.

Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 445–447. Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the �ive-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology,

41, 417–440. Dikmen, S., Machamer, J., Winn, H., & Temkin, N. (1995). Neuropsychological outcome at 1-year post head

injury. Neuropsychology, 9, 80–90. DiLalla, L. F., Thompson, L. A., Plomin, R., & others. (1990). Infant predictors of preschool and adult IQ: A

study of infant twins and their parents. Developmental Psychology, 26, 759–769. Dillon, R. F., Pohlmann, J. T., & Lohman, D. F. (1981). A factor analysis of Raven’s Advanced Progressive

Matrices freed of dif�iculty factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1295–1302. Dixon, C. E. (2011, May 16). Traumatic brain injury produced by exposure to blasts, a critical problem in

current wars: Biomarkers, clinical studies, and animal modes. Proceedings of the Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 80290M.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 73/133

Dodge, K. A. (2009). Mechanisms of gene-environment interaction effects in the development of Conduct disorder. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 408–414.

Dodrill, C. B. (1979). Sex differences on the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery and on other neuropsychological measures. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 236–241.

Dodrill, C. B. (1981). An economical method of measuring general intelligence in adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 668–673.

Dodrill, C. B., & Warner, M. H. (1988). Further studies of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief measure of intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 145–147.

Doll, E. A. (1935). The Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Training School Bulletin, 32, 1–7, 25–32, 48–55, 68– 74.

Dolliver, R. H., Irvin, J. A., & Bigley, S. E. (1972). Twelve-year follow-up of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 212–217.

Donders, J. (1995). Validity of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT) in children with traumatic brain injury. Assessment, 2, 219–224.

Donders, J., & Levitt, T. (2012). Criterion validity of the neuropsychological assessment battery after traumatic brain injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27, 440–445.

Donders, J., Tulsky, D., & Zhu, J. (2001). Criterion validity of new WAIS-III subtest scores after traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7, 892–898.

Donlon, T. F. (Ed.). (1984). The College Board technical handbook for the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Donnay, D., & Borgen, F. (1996). Validity, structure, and content of the 1994 Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 275–291.

Donnay, D., Thompson, R., Morris, M., & Schaubhut, N. (2004). Technical brief for the newly revised Strong Interest Inventory assessment: Content, reliability and validity. Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Drakeley, R. J., Herriot, P., & Jones, A. (1988). Biographical data, training success and turnover. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 145–152.

Drasgow, F., Olson-Buchanan, J., & Moberg, P. (1999). Development of an interactive assessment: Trials and tribulations. In F. Drasgow & J. Olson-Buchanan (Eds.), Innovations in computerized assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Drebing, C., Van Gorp, W., Stuck, A., Mitrushina, M., & Beck, J. (1994). Early detection of cognitive decline in higher cognitively functioning older adults: Sensitivity and speci�icity of a neuropsychological screening battery. Neuropsychology, 8, 31–37.

DuBois, P. E. (1939). A test standardized on Pueblo Indian children. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 523. DuBois, P. H. (1970). A history of psychological testing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Dumenci, L. (1995). Construct validity of the Self-Directed Search using hierarchically nested structural

models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 21–34. Dumont, R., Cruse, C., Price, L., & Whelley, P. (1996). The relationship between the Differential Ability

Scales (DAS) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III). Psychology in the Schools, 33, 203–209.

Dunai, F., & Porter, R. (2001). Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery predictors of entry-level radiography students’ success. Military Medicine, 166, 422–426.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Examiner’s manual: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Fourth Edition. New York: Pearson.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 74/133

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1998). Examiner’s Manual: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Dyce, J. A. (1996). Factor structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 555– 558.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Translated by Henry A. Ruger & Clara E. Bussenius. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1897). Ueber eine neue Methode zur Pruefung geistiger Faehigkeiten und ihre Anwendung bei Schulkindern. Zeitschrift fuer Angewandte Psychologie, 13, 401–459.

Eccles, J. C. (1973). The understanding of the brain. New York: McGraw-Hill. Educational Testing Service. (1989). Guidelines for proper use of GRE scores. Princeton, NJ: Author. Eggerth, D. D. (2008). From theory of work adjustment to person-environment correspondence

counseling: Vocational psychology as positive psychology. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 60–74. Eisenstein, N., & Engelhart, C. (1997). Comparison of the KBIT with short forms of the WAIS-R in a

neuropsychological population. Psychological Assessment, 9, 57–62. Elder, G. (1974). Children of the great depression: Social change in life experience. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press. Elliott, C. D. (1990). The Differential Ability Scales: Introductory and technical handbook. San Antonio, TX:

The Psychological Corporation. Elliott, C. D. (2007). Differential Ability Scales—Second Edition: Introductory and technical manual. San

Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart. Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Psychology and

Theology, 11, 330–340. Ellison, C. W., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward an integrative measure of health and well-being. Journal of

Psychology and Theology, 19, 35–48. Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8, 341–349. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Emmons, R., McCullough, M., & Tsang, J. (2003). The assessment of gratitude. In S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder

(Eds.), Positive psychological assessment (pp. 345–360). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Eonta, S. E., Carr, W., McArdle, J. J., & others. (2011). Automated neuropsychological assessment metrics: Repeated assessments with two military samples. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 82, 34– 39.

Erard, R. E. (2012). Expert testimony using the Rorschach Performance Assessment System in psychological injury cases. Psychological Injury and the Law, 5, 122–134.

Erdberg, P. (1985). The Rorschach. In C. S. Newmark (Ed.), Major psychological assessment instruments. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Esquirol, J. E. D. (1845/1838). Mental maladies. (trans. E. K. Hunt). Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. Estes, W. K. (1974). Learning theory and intelligence. American Psychologist, 29, 740–749. Evans, D. A., Funkenstein, H., Albert, M., & others. (1989). Prevalence of Alzheimer’s Disease in a

community population of older persons. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 2551–2556. Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 252, 1905–1907.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 75/133

Exner, J. E., Jr. (1991). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Volume 2. Current research and advanced interpretation (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Exner, J. E., Jr. (1993). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Volume 1. Basic foundations (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Exner, J. E., Jr. (1995). Issues and methods in Rorschach research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Exner, J. E., Jr., & Weiner, I. B. (1994). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Volume 3. Assessment of

children and adolescents (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Eyde, L. D., & Primhoff, E. S. (1992). Responsible test use. In M. Zeidner and R. Most (Eds.), Psychological

testing: An inside view. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Eyde, L. D., Robertson, G. J., & Krug, S. (2009). Responsible test use: Case studies for assessing human

behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Eyde, L. D., Robertson, G. J., Krug, S., & others. (1993). Responsible test use: Case studies for assessing human

behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Is intelligence? In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence?

Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and de�inition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Toward a new model of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 731–

736. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego:

Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach.

New York: Plenum Press. Factor, S., & Weiner, W. (2008). Parkinson’s disease: Diagnosis and clinical management (2nd ed.). New

York: Demos Medical Publishing. Fagan, J. F. III, & Haiken-Vasen, J. (1997). Selective attention to novelty as a measure of information

processing across the lifespan. In J. Burack & J. Enns (Eds.), Attention, development, and psychopathology. New York: Guilford.

Fagan, J. F. III, & McGrath, S. K. (1981). Infant recognition memory and later intelligence. Intelligence, 5, 121–130.

Fagan, J. F. III, & Shepherd, P. A. (1986). The Fagan Test of Infant Intelligence: Training manual. Cleveland, OH: Infantest Corporation.

Fagan, J. F. III, Singer, L., Montie, J., & Shepherd, P. (1986). Selective screening device for the early detection of normal or delayed cognitive development in infants at risk for later mental retardation. Pediatrics, 78, 1021–1026.

Fagan, J. F. III. (1984). Infant memory. In M. Moscovitch (Ed.), Infant memory. New York: Plenum Press. Fagan, J., & Holland, C. (2006). Racial equality in intelligence: Predictions from a theory of intelligence as

processing. Intelligence, 15, 319–334. Fancher, R. E. (1985). The intelligence men: Makers of the IQ controversy. New York: Norton. Farrell, M., & Phelps, L. (2000). A comparison of the Leiter-R and the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test

(UNIT) with children classi�ied as language impaired. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 268–274.

Faul, M., Xu, L., Wald, M. M., & Coronado, V. G. (2010). Traumatic brain injury in the United States: Emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates. (1975). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 76/133

Fehring, R., Brennan, P., & Keller, M. (1987). Psychological and spiritual well-being in college students. Research in Nursing and Health, 10, 391–398.

Feist, G. (1999). Autonomy and independence. Encyclopedia of creativity (vol. 1, pp. 157–163). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Feist, G., & Barron, F. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 62–88.

Feldman, R. D. (1982). Whatever happened to the quiz kids? Chicago: Chicago Review Press. Feldstein, S., & Miller, W. (2007). Does subtle screening for substance abuse work? A review of the

Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI). Addiction, 102, 41–50. Feldt, L. S., & Brennan, R. L. (1989). In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York:

American Council on Education/Macmillan. Ferris, G., Judge, T., Rowland, K., & Fitzgibbons, D. (1994). Subordinate in�luence and the performance

evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 101– 135.

Ferris, S. H. (1992). Diagnosis by specialists: Psychological testing. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 85, 32– 35.

Finholt, T., & Olson, G. (1997). From laboratories to col-laboratories: A new organizational form for scienti�ic collaboration. Psychological Science, 8, 28–36.

Finn, S. E. (1996). A manual for using the MMPI-2 as a therapeutic intervention. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Finn, S. E., & Tonsager, M. E. (1992). Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-2 feedback to college students awaiting therapy. Psychological Assessment, 9, 374–385.

Finn, S. E., & Tonsager, M. E. (1992). Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-2 test feedback to college students awaiting therapy. Psychological Assessment, 4, 278–287.

Finn, S. E., & Tonsager, M. E. (1997). Information-gathering and therapeutic models of assessment: Complementary paradigms. Psychological Assessment, 9, 374–385.

Fiorello, C. A., & Primerano, D. (2005). Research into practice: Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive assessment in practice: Eligibility and program development issues. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 525–536.

First, M., & Gibbon, M. (2004). The structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders (SCID-I) and the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis II disorders (SCID-II). In M. Hilsenroth & D. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol 2: Personality Assessment (pp. 134– 143). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Fish, J. M. (Ed.). (2002). Race and intelligence: Separating science from myth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fisher, S., & Greenberg, R. P. (1984). The scienti�ic credibility of Freud’s theories and therapy. New York:

Columbia University Press. Fiske, D. W. (1986). The trait concept and the personality questionnaire. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins

(Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires: Current issues in theory and measurement. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358. Flanagan, J. C. (1956). The evaluation of methods in applied psychology and the problem of criteria.

Occupational Psychology, 30, 1–9. Flanagan, R., & di Guiseppe, R. (1999). Critical review of the TEMAS: A step within the development of

thematic apperception instruments. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 21–30. Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 77/133

Fletcher, J., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic dif�iculties. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 30–37.

Floyd, R. G., Evans, J. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2003). Relations between measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and mathematics achievement across the school-age years. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 155–171.

Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29– 51.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191.

Flynn, J. R. (1994). IQ gains over time. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Flynn, J. R. (2007a). What is intelligence: Beyond the Flynn effect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flynn, J. R. (2007b). Solving the IQ puzzle. Scienti�ic American Mind, 18, 25–31. Flynn, J. R., & Rossi-Casé, L. (2012). IQ gains in Argentina between 1964 and 1998. Intelligence, 40, 145–

150. Folstein, M., Folstein, S., & McHugh, P. (1975). Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the

cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198. Fonseca, R., Scherer, L., de Oliveira, C., & others. (2009). Hemisphere specialization for communicative

processing: Neuroimaging data on the role of the right hemisphere. Psychology and Neuroscience, 2, 25–33.

Forbey, J., & Ben-Porath, Y. (2002). Use of the MMPI-2 in the treatment of offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 308–318.

Forbey, J., & Ben-Porath, Y. (2007). Computerized adaptive personality testing: A review and illustration with the MMPI-2 computerized adaptive version. Psychological Assessment, 19, 14–24.

Forrest, D. W. (1974). Francis Galton: The life and work of a Victorian genius. New York: Taplinger Publishing.

Forster, A. A. (1994). Learning Disability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Fowler, R. D. (1985). Landmarks in computer-assisted psychological assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 748–759.

Frank, G. (1983). The Wechsler enterprise: An assessment of the development, structure, and use of the Wechsler tests of intelligence. New York: Pergamon Press.

Frank, G. (1990). Research on the clinical usefulness of the Rorschach: 1. The diagnosis of schizophrenia. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 573–578.

Frank, L. K. (1939). Projective methods for the study of personality. Journal of Psychology, 8, 389–413. Frank, L. K. (1948). Projective methods. Spring�ield, IL: Thomas. Franke, W. (1963). The reform and abolition of the traditional Chinese examination system. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. Frankenburg, W. K. (1985). The Denver approach to early case �inding: A review of the Denver

Developmental Screening Test and a brief training program in developmental diagnosis. In W. K. Frankenburg, R. M. Emde, & J. W. Sullivan (Eds.), Identi�ication of children at risk: An international perspective. New York: Plenum Press.

Frankenburg, W. K., & Dodds, J. B. (1967). The Denver developmental screening tests. Journal of Pediatrics, 71, 181–191.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 78/133

Frankenburg, W. K., Dodds, J., Archer, P., & others. (1990). Denver II: Technical manual. Denver, CO: Denver Developmental Materials.

Frankl, V. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York: Washington Square Press.

Frauenheim, J. G., & Heckerl, J. R. (1983). A longitudinal study of psychological and achievement test performance in severe dyslexic adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 339–347.

Frechtling, J. A. (1989). Administrative uses of school testing programs. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Frederickson, L. C. (1985). Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.). Test critiques (vol. 2). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.

Frederiksen, N. (1962). Factors in In-basket Performance. Psychological Monographs, 76, Whole No. 541. Freud, A. (1946). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York: International Universities Press. Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. In J. Strachey, (Ed., in collaboration with A. Freud). The

standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth, 1955, vols. 4 and 5.

Freud, S. (1927/1961). The future of an illusion (J. Strachey, trans.). New York: Basic Books. (Originally published 1900).

Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. New York: Norton. Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic Assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic

assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15, 373–378. Fridlund, A. J., Ekman, P., & Oster, H. (1987). Facial expressions of emotion: Review of literature 1970–

1983. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Nonverbal behavior and communication (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Friedman, A. F. (1987). Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques compendium. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.

Friedman, T. L. (2009). The world is �lat 3.0: A brief history of the twenty-�irst century. New York: Picador. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers,

and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57–61. Fuess, C. M. (1950). The College Board: Its �irst �ifty years. New York: Columbia University Press. Fuld, P. A. (1977). Fuld Object-Memory Evaluation. Chicago: Stoelting Co. Fuld, P. A., Masur, D. M., Blau, A. D., Crystal, H., & Aronson, M. K. (1990). Object-Memory Evaluation for

prospective detection of dementia in normal functioning elderly: Predictive and normative data. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12, 520–528.

Fuller, G. B., Parmelee, W. M., & Carroll, J. L. (1982). Performance of delinquent and nondelinquent highschool boys on the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 506– 510.

Funder, D. C. (2009). Naıv̈e and obvious questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 340–344. Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (1994). An evaluation of the Career Beliefs Inventory. Journal of Counseling

and Development, 72, 429–430. Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Man�ield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity.

Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060–1069. Furnham, A., Moutari, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The relationship between the revised NEO-Personality

Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 577–584. Furnham, A., Toop, A., Lewis, C., & Fisher, A. (1995). P-E �it and job satisfaction: A failure to support

Holland’s theory in three British samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 677–690.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 79/133

Galton, F. (1879). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149–162. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: Macmillan. Galton, F. (1888). Natural inheritance. London: Macmillan. Garb, H. N. (1994). Judgment research: Implications for clinical practice and testimony in court. Applied

and Preventive Psychology, 3, 173–183. Garb, H. N., Florio, C., & Grove, W. (1998). The validity of the Rorschach and the MMPI: Results from meta-

analyses. Psychological Science, 9, 402–404. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1986). The waning of intelligence tests. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is

intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and de�inition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gardner, H. (1992). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In B. R. Gifford & M. C.

O’Connor (Eds.), Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction. Boston: Klummer. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1998). Are there additional intelligences? The case for naturalistic, spiritual, and existential

intelligences. In J. Kane (Ed.), Education, information, and transformation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gardner, J. (1967). The adjustment of drug addicts as measured by the sentence completion test. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 31, 28–29.

Gardner, R. A. (1981). Digits forward and digits backward as two separate tests: Normative data on 1567 school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 10, 131–135.

Gast, J., & Hart, K. J. (2010). The performance of juvenile offenders on the Test of Memory Malingering. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10, 53–68.

Gaudry, E., Vagg, P., & Spielberger, C. D. (1975). Validation of the state-trait distinction in anxiety research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 331–341.

Gavett, B. E., Lou, K. R., Daneshvar, D. H., & others. (2012). Diagnostic accuracy statistics for seven Neuro- psychological Assessment Battery (NAB) test variables in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Applied Neuro-psychology, 19, 108–115.

Gazzaniga, M. S. (1970). The bisected brain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Gazzaniga, M. S., & LeDoux, J. E. (1978). The integrated mind. New York: Plenum Press. Geary, D. C., & Whitworth, R. H. (1988). Is the factor structure of the WISC-R different for Anglo- and

Mexican-American children? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 253–260. GED Testing Service (1991). Examiner’s manual: Test of General Educational Development. Washington, DC:

GED Testing Service of the American Council on Education. Gelb, S. (1986). Henry H. Goddard and the immigrants, 1910–1917: The studies and their social context.

Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 22, 324–332. George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and care-giving: The caregiving behavioral system. In J.

Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical application (pp. 649– 670). New York: Guilford Press.

Gerard, A. B. (1993). Manual for Parent–Child Relationship Inventory. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Geschwind, N. (1972). Language and the brain. Scienti�ic American, 226, 76–83. Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1987). Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and

pathology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Getz, I. R. (1984). Moral judgment and religion: A review of the literature. Counseling and Values, 28, 94–

116.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 80/133

Ghez, C. (1991). The cerebellum. In E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, & T. M. Jessell (Eds.), Principles of neural science (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier.

Ghiselli, E. E. (1966). The validity of occupational aptitude tests. New York: Wiley. Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San

Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Gibbons, R., Weiss, D., Kupfer, D., Frank, E., Fagiolini, A., & others. (2008). Using computerized adaptive

testing to reduce the burden of mental health assessment. Psychiatric Services, 59, 361–368. Gifford, R. (1991). Applied psychology: Variety and opportunity. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gignac, G. (2006). A con�irmatory examination of the factor structure of the Multidimensional Aptitude

Battery: Contrasting oblique, higher order, and nested factor models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 136–145.

Gilberstadt, H., & Duker, J. (1965). A handbook for clinical and actuarial MMPI interpretation. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Glascoe, F. P. (1991). Developmental screening: Rationale, methods and application. Infants and Young Children, 4, 1–10.

Glascoe, F. P. (2005). Commonly used screening tests. Retrieved from www.dbpeds.org/articles (http://www.dbpeds.org/articles) on September 2, 2005.

Glascoe, F. P., & Byrne, K. E. (1993). The accuracy of three developmental screening tests. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 368–379.

Glascoe, F. P., & Shapiro, H. (2005). Introduction to developmental and behavioral screening. Retrieved from www.dbpeds.org/articles (http://www.dbpeds.org/articles) on September 2, 2005.

Goddard, H. H. (1910a). A measuring scale for intelligence. The Training School, 6, 146–155. Goddard, H. H. (1910b). Four hundred feebleminded children classi�ied by the Binet method. Pedagogical

Seminary, 17, 387–397. Goddard, H. H. (1911). Two thousand normal children measured by the Binet measuring scale of

intelligence. Pedagogical Seminary, 18, 232–259. Goddard, H. H. (1912). Feeble-mindedness and immigration. Training School Bulletin, 9, 91. Goddard, H. H. (1917). The mental level of a group of immigrants. Psychological Bulletin, 14, 68–69. Goddard, H. H. (1919). Psychology of the normal and sub-normal. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co. Goddard, H. H. (1928). Feeblemindedness: A question of de�inition. Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 33, 219–

227. Gof�in, R. D., Rothstein, M., & Johnston, N. (1996). Personality testing and the assessment center:

Incremental validity for managerial selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 746–756. Gof�in, R., Rothstein, M., & Johnston, N. (2000). Predicting job performance using personality constructs:

Are personality tests created equal? In R. Gof�in & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Diagnosticians vs. diagnostic signs: The diagnosis of psychosis vs. neurosis from the MMPI. Psychological Monographs, 79 (9, Whole No. 602).

Goldberg, L. R. (1981a). Developing a taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms. In D. Fiske (Ed.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Problems with language imprecision (no. 9). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981b). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-�ive factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 81/133

Golden, C. (2004). The Adult Luria-Nebraska Neuro-psychological Battery. In G. Goldstein, S. Beers, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Intellectual and neuropsychological assessment (pp. 133–146). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Golden, C. J., Purish, A. D., & Hammeke, T. A. (1980). Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Golden, C. J., Purish, A. D., & Hammeke, T. A. (1986). Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Forms I and II. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Goldfried, M. R., & Zax, M. (1965). The stimulus value of the TAT. Journal of Projective Techniques, 29, 46– 57.

Golding, S. (1993). Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview—Revised: A training manual. State of Utah Division of Mental Health.

Goldstein, I. L. (1991). Training in work organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Goldstein, I. L. (1992). Training (3rd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Goldstein, K. (1944). The mental changes due to frontal lobe damage. Journal of Psychology, 17, 187–208. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam. Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Goodenough, F. L. (1949). Mental testing: Its history, principles, and applications. New York: Rinehart. Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2000). Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (3rd ed.). Austin, TX:

The Psychological Corporation. Goodman, J. (1990). Infant intelligence: Do we, can we, should we assess it? In C. C. Reynolds & R. W.

Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Intelligence and achievement. New York: Guilford.

Gordon, G., & Charanian, T. (1964). Measuring the creativity of research scientists and engineers. Working paper cited in I. A. Taylor and J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity. Chicago: Aldine.

Gordon, M., & Keiser, S. (1998). Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). DeWitt, NY: GSI Publications.

Gordon, M., & Mettelman, B. B. (1988). The assessment of attention: I. Standardization and reliability of a behavior-based measure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 688–690.

Goslin, D. A. (1963). The search for ability: Standardized testing in social perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gothard, S., Viglione, D., Meloy, J. R., & Sherman, M. (1996). Detection of malingering in competency to stand trial evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 493–505.

Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1975). Vocational choices of men and women: A comparison of predictors from the Self-Directed Search. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 28–34.

Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1989). Dictionary of Holland Occupational Codes (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Using Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise in career guidance and counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lendt (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71–100). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Gough, H. (1995). Career assessment and the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 101–122.

Gough, H. G. (1984). A managerial potential scale for the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 233–244.

Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 82/133

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1992a). Comparing two strategies for developing personality scales. In M. Zeidner & R. Most (Eds.), Psychological testing: An inside view. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1992b). Delinquent and criminal behavior as assessed by the Revised California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 298–307.

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton. Gow, A. J., Johnson, W., Pattie, A., & others. (2011). Stability and change in intelligence from age 11 to ages

70, 79, and 87: The Lothian Birth Cohorts of 1921 and 1936. Psychology and Aging, 26, 232–240. Grace, J., & Malloy, P. F. (2001). Frontal Systems Behavior Scale professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources. Graham, J. (1961). Lavater’s physiognomy in England. Journal of the History of Ideas, 22, 561–572. Graham, J. R. (1987). The MMPI: A practical guide (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Graham, J. R. (1993). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New York: Oxford. Graham, J. R. (2000). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford

University Press. Granstrom, S. L. (1987). A comparative study of loneliness, Buberian religiosity and spiritual well-being in

cancer patients. Paper presented at the conference of the National Hospice Organization. Gray, B. (2001). A factor analytic study of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI).

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 102–118. Green, D., & Rosenfeld, B. (2011). Evaluating the gold standard: A review and meta-analysis of the

Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms. Psychological Assessment, 23, 95–107. Greenough, W. T., Black, J. E., & Wallace, C. S. (1987). Experience and brain development. Child

Development, 58, 539–559. Gregory, R. J. (1987). Adult intellectual assessment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gregory, R. J. (1994a). Aptitude tests. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York:

Macmillan. Gregory, R. J. (1994b). Pro�ile interpretation. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence.

New York: Macmillan. Gregory, R. J. (1994c). Classi�ication of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

intelligence. New York: Macmillan. Gregory, R. J. (1998). Testing in clinical psychology. In S. Cullari (Ed.), Foundations of clinical psychology.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gregory, R. J. (1999). Foundations of intellectual assessment: The WAIS-III and other tests in clinical practice.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gregory, R. J. (2009). Testing bias. In I. Weiner & E. Craighead (Eds.), Corsini’s encyclopedia of psychology.

New York: Wiley. Gregory, R. J., & Gernert, C. H. (1990). Age trends for �luid and crystallized intelligence in an able

subpopulation. Unpublished manuscript. Gresham, F. M. (1993). “What’s wrong in this picture?”: Response to Motta et al.’s review of human �igure

drawings. School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 182–186. Greve, K., Love, J., Sherwin, E., & others. (2002). Temporal stability of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in a

chronic traumatic brain injury sample. Assessment, 9, 271–277.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 83/133

Grös, D. F., Antony, M. M., Simms, L. J., & McCabe, R. E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): Comparison to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psychological Assessment, 19, 369–381.

Grossman, S. A., Richards, C., Anglin, D., & Hutson, H. (2000). Caring for the patient with mental retardation in the ED. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 35, 69–76.

Groth-Marnat, G. (1997). Handbook of psychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Grove, W., & Barden, C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The admissibility of testimony

from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 224– 242.

Grove, W., Barden, C., Garb, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (2002). Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive-System-Based testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho standard. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 216–234.

Grove, W., Zald, D., Lebow, B., Snitz, B., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta- analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.

Guaiana, G., Tyson, P., & Mortimer, A. (2004). The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test can predict social functioning among schizophrenic patients treated with clozapine. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 8, 245–249.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1995). The Standard Progressive Matrices: Methodological problems associated with the administration of the 1992 adult standardisation sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 441–442.

Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. (1985). The Structure-of-Intellect model. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence:

Theories, measurements, and applications. New York: Wiley. Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P., & Guilford, J. S. (1980). Christensen-Guilford Fluency Tests. Orange, CA: Sheridan

Psychological Services. Guilford, J. P., & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guion, R. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley. Gunning, M. D., Denison, F. C., Stockley, C. J., & others. (2010). Assessing maternal anxiety in pregnancy

with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Issues of validity, location and participation. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 28, 266–273.

Gutkin, R. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (1981). Factorial similarity of the WISC-R for white and black children from the standardization sample. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 227–231.

Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 9, 139–150. Guttman, L. (1947). The Cornell technique for scale and intensity analysis. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 7, 247–280. Gynther, M. D., & Gynther, R. A. (1976). Personality inventories. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Clinical methods in

psychology. New York: Wiley. Haaland, K. Y., & Delaney, H. D. (1981). Motor de�icits after left or right hemisphere damage due to stroke

or tumor. Neuropsychologia, 19, 17–27.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 84/133

Haber, A., & Fichtenberg, N. (2006). Replication of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in a traumatic brain injury and head trauma sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20, 524–532.

Hachinski, V. C., Iliff, L., Zilha, E., & others. (1975). Cerebral blood �low in dementia. Archives of Neurology, 32, 632–637.

Hack, M., Taylor, G., Drotar, D., & others. (2005). Poor predictive validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for cognitive function of extremely low birth weight children at school age. Pediatrics, 116, 333–341.

Haedt-Matt, A. A., & Keel, P. K. (2011). Revisiting the affect regulation model of binge eating: A meta- analysis of studies using ecological momentary assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 660–681.

Hain, J. (1964). The Bender-Gestalt Test: A scoring method for identifying brain damage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 28, 34–40.

Haladyna, T. M. (1992). Review of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II. Eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Hale, J., Fiorello, C., Dumont, R., & others. (2008). “Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition”: (Neuro) Psychological predictors of math performance for typical children and children with math disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 838–858.

Hall, P., & Hall, D. (1983). The handshake as interaction. Semiotica, 45, 249–264. Hambleton, R. K. (1984). Validating the test scores. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), A guide to criterion-referenced test

construction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hambleton, R. K. (1989). Principles and selected applications of item response theory. In R. L. Linn (Ed.),

Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan. Hambleton, R. K., & Zenisky, A. (2003). Advances in criterion-referenced testing methods and practices. In

C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Intelligence, aptitude, and achievement (2nd ed., pp. 377–404). New York: Guilford Press.

Hammill, D. D. (1999). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-4 (DTLA-4). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Handler, L., & Clemence, A. (2005). The Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale. In R. F. Bornstein & J. M.

Masling (Eds.), Scoring the Rorschach: Seven validated systems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hansen, J. (2007). Evidence of validity for the skill scale scores of the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 23–44. Hansen, J. C. (1992). Strong user’s guide, Revised edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hansen, J. C., & Campbell, D. P. (1985). Manual for the Strong Interest Inventory Form T325 of the Strong

Vocational Interest Blanks, Fourth Edition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hansen, J.-I., & Neuman, J. (1999). Evidence of concurrent prediction of the Campbell Interest and Skill

Survey (CISS) for college major selection. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 239–247. Hanson, G. A. (1991). To catch a thief: The legal and policy implications of honesty testing in the

workplace. Law and Inequality, 9, 497–531. Hanzel, E. P. (2003). Assessment of cognitive abilities in high-functioning children with autistic disorder: A

comparison of the WISC-III and the Leiter-R. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64(3-B), 1492.

Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54.

Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D., & McPherson, L. (1984). Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 35–50.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 85/133

Hare, R. D., Harpur, T., & Hakstian, R., & others. (1990). The Revised Psychopathy Checklist: Descriptive statistics, reliability, and factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 6–17.

Hare, R., & Neuman, C. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy: Development, structural properties, and new directions. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58–88). New York: Guilford.

Hargrave, G., & Hiatt, D. (1989). Use of the California Psychological Inventory in law enforcement of�icer selection. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 267–277.

Hargrave, G., Hiatt, D., Ogard, E., & Karr, C. (1994). Comparison of the MMPI and the MMPI-2 for a sample of peace of�icers. Psychological Assessment, 6, 27–32.

Harmon, L. W. (1989). Counseling. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F., & Hammer, A. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Harrell, T. H., Honaker, L., & Parnell, T. (1992). Equivalence of the MMPI-2 with the MMPI in psychiatric patients. Psychological Assessment, 4, 460–465.

Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effect of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 43, 434–454.

Harris, D. B. (1963). Children’s drawings as measures of intellectual maturity. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 38, 43–62.

Harrison, D. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1989). Investigations of absenteeism: Using event history models to study the absence-taking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 300–316.

Harrison, D. A., & Shaffer, M. (1994). Comparative examinations of self-reports and perceived absenteeism norms: Wading through Lake Wobegon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 240–251.

Harrison, P. L., & Schock, H. H. (1994). Draw-A-Figure test. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Hartung, P., Borges, N., & Jones, B. (2005). Using person matching to predict career specialty choice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 102–117.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1942). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): III. The measurement of symptomatic depression. Journal of Psychology, 14, 73–84.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hawkins, D. B. (1988). Interpersonal behavior traits, spiritual well-being, and their relationships to blood pressure (doctoral dissertation, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 3680B.

Hawkins, D. B., & Larson, R. (1984). The relationship between measures of health and spiritual well-being. Unpublished manuscript, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, OR.

Hawkins, K. A., Faraone, S. V., Pepple, J. R., Seidman, L. J., & Tsuang, M. T. (1990). WAIS-R validation of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief intelligence measure in a psychiatric sample. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 198–201.

Hawkins, K., Dean, D., & Pearlson, G. (2004). Alternative forms of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test: A review. Behavioral Neurology, 15, 99–107.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 86/133

Hawthorne, J. (2009). Promoting development of the early parent-infant relationship using the Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale. In J. Barlow & P. Svanberg (Eds.), Keeping the baby in mind: Infant mental health in practice. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Hayes, P. A. (2008). Addressing cultural complexities in practice: Assessment, diagnosis, and therapy (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Haynes, S. G., Feinleib, M., & Eaker, E. (1983). Type A behavior and the ten-year incidence of coronary heart disease in the Framingham heart study. In R. H. Rosenman (Ed.), Psychosomatic risk factors and coronary heart disease. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

Haynes, S. N. (2001). Introduction to the special section on clinical applications of analogue behavioral observation. Psychological Assessment, 13, 3–4.

Hayslip, B., & Panek, P. E. (1989). Adult development and aging. New York: Harper & Row. Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G., Talley, J., & others. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test manual: Revised and

expanded. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Heaton, R. K., Smith, H. H., Jr., Lehman, R. A. W., & Vogt, A. T. (1978). Prospects for faking believable de�icits

on neuropsychological testing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 892–900. Hebb, D. O. (1939). Intelligence in man after large removals of cerebral tissue: Report of four left frontal

lobe cases. Journal of General Psychology, 21, 73–87. Heilbrun, A. B., Jr., & Georges, M. (1990). The measurement of principled morality by the Kohlberg Moral

Dilemma Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 183–194. Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 16,

257–272. Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing?

American Psychologist, 47, 1083–1101. Helson, R., & Soto, C. J. (2005). Up and down in middle age: Monotonic and nonmonotonic changes in roles,

status, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 194–204. Helson, R., Kwan, V., John, O. P., & Jones, C. (2002). The growing evidence for personality change in

adulthood: Findings from research with personality inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 287–306.

Hendriks, A., Hofstee, W., & De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307–325.

Herman, D. O. (1988). Blind Learning Aptitude Test. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (vol. 5). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.

Hernandez-Reif, M., Field, T., Diego, M., & Ruddock, M. (2006). Greater arousal and less attentiveness to face/voice stimuli by neonates of depressed mothers on the Brazelton neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale. Infant Behavior and Development, 29, 594–598.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.

Hersen, M., & Bellack, A. S. (Eds.). (1988). Dictionary of behavioral assessment techniques. New York: Pergamon.

Herzberg, P., Glaesmer, H., & Hoyer, J. (2006). Separating optimism and pessimism: A robust psychometric analysis of the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R). Psychological Assessment, 18, 433–438.

Heyman, R. (2001). Observation of couple con�licts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13, 5–35.

Hiatt, D., & Hargrave, G. E. (1988). MMPI pro�iles of problem peace of�icers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 722–731.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 87/133

Higgs, M. (2001). Is there a relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and emotional intelligence? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 509–533.

Highhouse, S., & Nolan, K. P. (in press). One history of the assessment center. In D. J. R. Jackson, C. E. Lance, & B. J. Hoffman (Eds.), The psychology of assessment centers (pp. 25–44). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Hill, B. (2005). ICAP User’s Group Home Page. Retrieved from www.cpinternet.com/bhill/icap (http://www.cpinternet.com/bhill/icap) on September 13, 2005.

Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press. Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2008). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and

spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, S(1), 3–17.

Hilliard, A. G. (1984). IQ testing as the emperor’s new clothes: A critique of Jensen’s Bias in Mental Testing. In C. R. Reynolds & R. T. Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on bias in mental testing. New York: Plenum Press.

Hintze, J., Volpe, R., & Shapiro, E. (2002). Best practices in the systematic direct observation of student behavior. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Hiskey, M. S. (1966). Manual for the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude. Lincoln, NE: Union College Press.

Hofer, S., Sliwinski, M., & Flaherty, B. (2002). Understanding ageing: Further commentary on the limitations of cross-sectional designs for ageing research. Gerontology, 48, 22–29.

Hoffart, A., Friis, S., Strand, J., & Olsen, B. (1994). Symptoms and cognitions during situational and hyperventilatory exposure in agoraphobic patients with and without panic. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 15–32.

Hoffman, F. J., Sheldon, K. L., Minskoff, E. H., & others. (1987). Needs of learning disabled adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 43–52.

Hofmann, S. G., & Reinecke, M. A. (2010). Cognitive-behavioral therapy with adults. A guide to empirically- informed assessment and intervention. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hogan, A. E., Scott, K. G., & Bauer, C. R. (1992). The Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI): A new assessment of social competence in high-risk three-year-olds. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 230–239.

Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1986). Manual for the Hogan Personnel Selection System. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Hogan, R. (2002). The Hogan Personality Inventory. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big �ive assessment (pp. 329–346). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe and Huber.

Hogan, R. T. (1986). Manual for the Hogan Personality Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Hoge, C. W., McGurk, D., Thomas, J. L., & others. (2008). Mild traumatic brain injury in U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(5), 453–463.

Hoge, D. R. (1996). Religion in America: The demographics of belief and af�iliation. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hoge, S., Bonnie, R., Poythress, N., & Monahan, J. (1999). The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool— Criminal Adjudication. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35–44. Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 88/133

Holland, J. L. (1978). The occupations �inder. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Holland, J. L. (1985). Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) manual—1985 edition. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L. (1985a). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work

environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Holland, J. L. (1985b). Self-Directed Search: Professional manual—1985 edition. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L. (1985c). Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) manual—1985 edition. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L. (1987). 1987 manual supplement for the Self-Directed Search. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L., Johnston, J., Asama, N. F., & Polys, S. (1993). Validating and using the Career Beliefs Inventory.

Journal of Career Development, 19, 233–244. Hollander, E., Kolevzon, A., & Coyle, J. (2011). Textbook of autism spectrum disorders. Washington, DC:

American Psychiatric Publishing. Hollingshead, A., & Redlich, F. (1958). Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley. Hollingworth, H.L. (1943). Leta Stetter Hollingworth. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Hollingworth, L. (1914). Variability as related to sex differences in achievement: A critique. American

Journal of Sociology, 19, 510–530. Hollingworth, L. (1928). Children clustering at 165 IQ and children clustering at 146 IQ compared for

three years in achievement. In G. Whipple (Ed.), The twenty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Nature and nurture, Part II—Their in�luence upon achievement. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.

Hollingworth, L. (1935). The comparative beauty of the faces of highly intelligent adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 47, 268–281.

Hollingworth, L., & Monahan, J. (1926). Tapping-rate of children who test above 135 IQ (Stanford-Binet). Journal of Educational Psychology, 17, 505–518.

Holmes, T., & Rahe, R. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213–218.

Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1939). A study in factor analysis: The stability of a bi-factor solution. University of Chicago, Supplementary Educational Monographs, No. 48.

Holzinger, K., & Harman, H. (1941). Factor analysis: A synthesis of factorial methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Holzman, P., Levy, D., & Johnston, M. H. (2005). The use of the Rorschach technique for assessing formal thought disorder. In R. F. Bornstein & J. M. Masling (Eds.), Scoring the Rorschach: Seven validated systems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Honzik, M. (1957). Developmental studies of parent-child resemblance in intelligence. Child Development, 28, 215–228.

Hooper, S., Hatton, D., Baranek, G., Roberts, J., & Bailey, D. (2000). Nonverbal assessment of IQ, attention, and memory abilities in children with fragile-X syndrome using the Leiter-R. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 255–267.

Horn, J. L. (1968). Organization of abilities and the development of intelligence. Psychological Review, 75, 242–259.

Horn, J. L. (1985). Remodeling old models of intelligence. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurements, and applications. New York: Wiley.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 89/133

Horn, J. L. (1994). Theory of �luid and crystallized intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Re�inement and test of the theory of �luid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.

Horn, J. L., & Masunaga, H. (2000). New directions for research into aging and intelligence: The development of expertise. In T. J. Perfect & E. A. Maylor (Eds.), Models of cognitive aging (pp. 125–159). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Horton, A. (2008). The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: Past, present, and future. In A. Horton & D. Wedding (Eds.), The neuropsychology handbook (3rd ed.) (pp. 251–278). New York: Springer.

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N., Dunnette, M., Kamp, J., & McCloy, R. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.

Howell, R. J., & Richards, L. (1989). Review of the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales. The tenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Huffcutt, A. (2007). Employment interviews. In D. Whetzel & G. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management (pp. 181–199). New York: Taylor & Francis/Erlbaum.

Huffcutt, A. I., & Roth, P. (1998). Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 179–189.

Hughes, J. L., & McNamara, W. J. (1959). Manual for the revised Programmer Aptitude Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Human Rights Watch. (2001). Beyond reason: The death penalty and offenders with mental retardation. Human Rights Watch Publications, 13, 1–50.

Humphreys, L. G. (1971). Theory of intelligence. In R. Cancro (Ed.), Intelligence: genetic and environmental in�luences. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Hunsberger, B. (1995). Religion and prejudice: The role of religious fundamentalism, quest, and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 113–129.

Hunsley, J., & Bailey, J. (1999). The clinical utility of the Rorschach: Unful�illed promises and an uncertain future. Psychological Assessment, 11, 266–277.

Hunsley, J., & Mash, E. J. (2005). Introduction to the special section on developing guidelines for the evidence-based assessment (EBA) of adult disorders. Psychological Assessment, 17, 251–255.

Hunter, J. E. (1989). The Wonderlic Personnel Test as a predictor of training success and job performance. North�ield, IL: E. F. Wonderlic Personnel Test.

Hunter, J. E. (1994). General Aptitude Test Battery. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1976). Critical analysis of the statistical and ethical implications of various de�initions of test bias. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1053–1071.

Hurtz, G., & Donovan, J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 869–879.

Hutt, M. L. (1977). The Hutt Adaptation of the Bender-Gestalt Test. New York: Grune & Stratton. Hutt, M. L., & Briskin, G. J. (1960). The clinical use of the revised Bender-Gestalt Test. New York: Grune &

Stratton. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 90/133

International Psychogeriatric Association. (2002). Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD) educational pack. Skokie, IL: Author.

Inwald, R. (2008). The Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI) and Hilson Research Inventories: Development and rationale. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 298–327.

Inwald, R. E. (1988). Five-year follow-up of departmental terminations as predicted by 16 preemployment psychological indicators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 703–710.

Irwin, P. M. (1992). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: FY 1993 Guide to Programs. Congressional Research Service. Washington, DC: Government Printing Of�ice.

Itard, J. M. G. (1932/1801). The wild boy of Aveyron. Trans. by G. & M. Humphrey. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.

Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 152–165.

Iversen, G., Williamson, D., Ropacki, M., & Reilly, K. (2007). Frequency of abnormal scores on the Neuro- psychological Assessment Battery Screening Module (S-NAB) in a mixed neurological sample. Applied Neuropsychology, 14, 178–182.

Jaberg, P. E., Dixon, D. J., & Weis, G. M. (2009). Replication evidence in support of the psychometric properties of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 158–166.

Jackson, A., Brooks-Gunn, J., Huang, C., & Glassman, M. (2000). Single mothers in low-wage jobs: Financial strain, parenting, and preschoolers’ outcomes. Child Development, 71, 1409–1423.

Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (vol. 2). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Jackson, D. N. (1984a). Manual for the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.

Jackson, D. N. (1984b). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. Jackson, D. N. (1991). Jackson Vocational Interest Survey manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research

Psychologists Press. Jackson, D. N. (1998). Manual for the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery, Second Edition. Port Huron, MI:

Research Psychologists Press. Jackson, D. N. (2000). Career Directions Inventory manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems. Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1968). Creativity. In P. London & D. Rosenhan (Eds.). Foundations of abnormal

psychology. New York: Holt. Jackson, J., Mulick, J., & Rojahn, J. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of intellectual and developmental disabilities.

New York: Springer. James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience. New York: Longman. Jankowski, D. (2002). A beginner’s guide to the MCMI-III. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association. Jennett, B., & Teasdale, G. (1981). Management of head injuries. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis. Jennett, B., Teasdale, G. M., & Knill-Jones, R. P. (1975). Predicting outcome after head injury. Journal of

Royal College of Physicians of London, 9, 231–237. Jensen, A. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review,

39, 1–123. Jensen, A. R. (1977). Cumulative de�icit in IQ of blacks in the rural south. Developmental Psychology, 13,

184–191.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 91/133

Jensen, A. R. (1979). g: outmoded theory or unconquered frontier? Creative Science and Technology, 2, 16– 29.

Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. Jensen, A. R. (1981). Raising the IQ: The Ramey and Haskins Study. Intelligence, 5, 29–40. Jensen, A. R. (1984). Test bias: Concepts and criticisms. In C. R. Reynolds & R. T. Brown (Eds.), Perspectives

on bias in mental testing. New York: Plenum Press. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the mind: Mental chronometer individual differences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Jensen, A. R. (2011). The theory of intelligence and its measurement. Intelligence, 39, 171–177. Jensen, A. R., & Osborne, R. T. (1979). Forward and backward digit span interaction with race and IQ: A

longitudinal developmental comparison. Berkeley: University of California. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 173 384).

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory: Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.

Johnson, J. H., & Williams, T. A. (1975). The use of online computer technology in a mental health admitting system. American Psychologist, 30, 388–390.

Johnson, R. C., McClearn, G. E., Yuen, S., Nagoshi, C. T., Ahern, F. M., & Cole, R. E. (1985). Galton’s data a century later. American Psychologist, 40, 875–892.

Johnson, S. T. (1994). Scholastic Assessment Tests. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Johnston, D. W. (1986). Behavior therapy. In R. Harre & R. Lamb (Eds.), The dictionary of physiological and clinical psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Johnston, W. T., & Bolen, R. M. (1984). A comparison of the factor structures of the WISC-R for Blacks and Whites. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 42–44.

Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (1988). Code of fair testing practices in education. Washington, DC: Author.

Jones, K. L., Smith, D. W., Ulleland, C. N., & Streissguth, A. P. (1973). Patterns of malformation in offspring of chronic alcoholic mothers. Lancet, 1, 1267–1271.

Jones, K., & Barber, J. (2012). Help for unemployed Americans. APA Monitor, 43(1), 18–19. Julian, E. (2005). Validity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting medical school

performance. Academic Medicine, 80, 910–917. Jung, C. G. (1910). The association method. American Journal of Psychology, 21, 219–269. Kaiser, H. F., & Michael, W. B. (1975). Domain validity and generalizability. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 35, 31–35. Kalat, J. (2012). Biological psychology (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kamin, L. J., & Goldberger, A. S. (2001). Twin studies in behavioral research: A skeptical view. Unpublished

manuscript. Kamphaus, R. W. (1993). Clinical assessment of children’s intelligence. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kanaya, T., Scullin, M., & Ceci, S. (2003). The Flynn effect and U.S. Policies: The impact of rising IQ scores on

American society via mental retardation diagnoses. American Psychologist, 58, 778–790. Kandel, E. R. (1991). Perception of motion, depth, and form. In E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, & T. M. Jessell

(Eds.), Principles of neural science (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 92/133

Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., & Jessell, T. M. (1995). Essentials of neural science and behavior. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.

Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., Jessel, T. M., Siegelbaum, S. A., & Hudspeth, A. J. (2013). Principles of neural science (5th ed. rev.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical.

Kane, R. L. (1991). Standardized and �lexible batteries in neuropsychology: An assessment update. Neuropsychology Review, 2, 281–339.

Kapuscinski, A. N., & Masters, K. S. (2010). The current status of measures of spirituality: A critical review of scale development. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 191–205.

Kaufman, A. S. (1983). Test review: WAIS-R. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 309–319. Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). K-ABC administration and scoring manual. Circle Pines, MN:

American Guidance Service. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004a). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN:

American Guidance Service. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004b). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (2nd ed.). Circle Pines,

MN: American Guidance System Publishing. Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2002). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence (2nd ed.). Boston:

Allyn & Bacon. Kaufman, A. S., McLean, J. E., & Reynolds, C. R. (1988). Sex, race, residence, region, and education

differences on the 11 WAIS-R subtests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 231–248. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Hawking’s Haiku, Madonna’s math: Why it is hard to be creative in every

room of the house. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 3–19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: A structural model for self-reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 119–134.

Kaufman, J. D. (2012). Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 298–308.

Kausler, D. (1991). Experimental psychology, cognition, and human aging (2nd ed.). New York: Springer- Verlag.

Kazdin, A. E. (1990). Evaluation of the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire: Negative cognitive processes and depression among children. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 73–79.

Keith, T. Z. (1999). Effects of general and speci�ic abilities on student achievement: Similarities and differences across ethnic groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 239–262.

Kelley, T. L. (1928). Crossroads in the mind of man: A study of differentiable mental abilities. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. (1951). The prediction of performance in clinical psychology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kendall, P. C., & Hollon, S. D. (1989). Anxious self-talk: Development of the Anxious Self-Statements Questionnaire (ASSQ). Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 81–93.

Kennedy, C., & Moore, J. (Eds.). (2010). Military neuro-psychology. New York: Springer Publishing. Kennedy, W. A., Van de Riet, V., & White, J. C., Jr. (1963). A normative sample of intelligence and

achievement of negro elementary school children in the southeast United States. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 28 [No. 90], 68.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 93/133

Kent, G. H., & Rosanoff, A. J. (1910). A study of association in insanity. American Journal of Insanity, 67, 37– 96; 317–390.

Kerr, B., & Gagliardi, C. (2003). Measuring creativity in research and practice. In S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kertesz, A. (1982). Aphasia and associated disorders: Taxonomy, localization, and recovery. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Kertesz, A. (2006). Western Aphasia Battery-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt. Keyser, D. J., & Sweetland, R. C. (Eds.). (1984–1994). Test Critiques (volumes I–X). Kansas City, MO: Test

Corporation of America. Khaleefa, O., & Lynn, R. (2008). Normative data for Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices Scale in Yemen.

Psychological Reports, 103, 170–172. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2009). Psychoneuroimmunology: Psychology’s gateway to the biomedical future.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 367–369. Kiernan, R., Mueller, J., & Langston, J. W. (2009). Cognistat manual. Fairfax, CA: Cognistat, Inc. Kifer, E. (1985). Review of ACT Assessment Program. Ninth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press. Killian, G. A. (1987). House-Tree-Person technique. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques

compendium. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America. Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking

(TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18, 3–14. Kim, W. J., Kim, L. I., & Rue, D. S. (1997). Korean American children. In G. Johnson-Powell, J. Yamamoto, G. E.

Wyatt, & W. Arroyo (Eds.), Transcultural child development: Psychological assessment and treatment (pp. 183–207). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kim, Y., Pilkonis, P. A., Frank, E., Thase, M. E., & Reynolds, C. F. (2002). Differential functioning of the Beck Depression Inventory in late-life patients: Use of item response theory. Psychology and Aging, 17, 379– 391.

King, K. (2001). A critique of behavioral observational coding systems of couples’ interaction: CISS and RCISS. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 1–23.

Kinnear, P. R., & Gray, C. D. (1997). SPSS for Windows made simple (2nd ed.). Trowbridge, UK: Psychology Press.

Kinsbourne, M. (1994). Neuropsychology of attention. In D. W. Zaidel (Ed.), Neuropsychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kirk, J. W., Harris, B., Hutaff-Lee, C. F., & others. (2010). Performance on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) among a large clinic-referred pediatric sample. Child Neuropsychology, 17, 242–254.

Kirkpatrick, L., & Hood, R. (1990). Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious Orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion? Journal for the Scienti�ic Study of Religion, 29, 442–462.

Kleiman, L., & Faley, R. (1985). The implications of professional and legal guidelines for court decisions involving criterion-related validity: A review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 303–833.

Klieger, D. M., & Franklin, M. E. (1993). Validity of the fear survey schedule in phobia research: A laboratory test. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 15, 207–218.

Klimoski, R., & Palmer, S. (1994). The ADA and the hiring process in organizations. In S. M. Bruyere & J. O’Keeffe (Eds.), Implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act for psychology. New York: Springer.

Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction. New York: Methuen. Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 94/133

Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Klingler, D. E., Miller, D., Johnson, J., & Williams, T. (1977). Process evaluation of an online computer-

assisted unit for intake assessment of mental health patients. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 9, 110–116.

Klove, H. (1963). Clinical neuropsychology. In F. M. Forster (Ed.), The medical clinics of North America. New York: Saunders.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years ten to sixteen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1. The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L., & Elfenbein, D. (1975). The development of moral judgments concerning capital punishment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 614–639.

Kohlberg, L., & Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities in children and adult moral development. Human Development, 12, 225–252.

Kolb, B., & Milner, B. (1981). Performance of complex arm and facial movements after focal brain lesions. Neuropsychologia, 19, 491–503.

Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (2002). Fundamentals of human neuropsychology (5th ed.). New York: Worth/Freeman.

Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (2011). An introduction to brain and behavior (3rd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Kolb, B., Milner, B., & Taylor, L. (1983). Perception of faces by patients with localized cortical excisions. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 8–18.

Koppitz, E. (1963). The Bender Gestalt Test for young children. New York: Grune and Stratton. Koppitz, E. (1975). The Bender Gestalt Test for young children, Volume II: Research and application, 1963–

1975. New York: Grune and Stratton. Koss, E., Patterson, M., Mack, J., Smyth, K., & Whitehouse, P. (1998). Reliability and validity of the Tinkertoy

Test in evaluating individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 325–329. Kostrubala, C., & Braden, J. (1998). The American Sign Language translation of the WAIS-III. San Antonio,

TX: The Psychological Corporation. Kraus, J. F., & MacArthur, D. L. (1996). Epidemiologic aspects of brain injury. Neurologic Clinics, 14(2): 435–

450. Krikorian, R., & Bartok, J. (1998). Developmental data for the Porteus Maze Test. Clinical

Neuropsychologist, 12, 305–310. Krokoff, L. J., Gottman, J., & Hass, S. (1989). Validation of a global rapid couples interaction scoring system.

Behavioral Assessment, 11, 65–79. Krugman, M. (1970). H-T-P: House, Tree, and Person. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), Personality tests and reviews.

Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press. Krumboltz, J. (1999). Career Beliefs Inventory: Applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press. Krumboltz, J. D. (1993). Integrating career and personal counseling. Career Development Quarterly, 42,

143–148. Krumboltz, J. D. (1996). A learning theory of career counseling. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.),

Handbook of career counseling theory and practice (pp. 55–80). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 95/133

Krumboltz, J. D. (2009). The happenstance learning theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 135–154. Krumboltz, J. D., & Vosvick, M. A. (1996). Career assessment and the Career Beliefs Inventory. Journal of

Career Assessment, 4, 345–361. Kuder, G. F. (1934). Kuder preference record. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151–

160. Kuncel, N. R., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Selective citation mars conclusions about test validity and predictive

bias. American Psychologist, 62, 145–146. Kuncel, N., Campbell, J., & Ones, D. (1998). Validity of the Graduate Record Examination: Estimated or

tacitly known? American Psychologist, 53, 567–568. Kuncel, N., Hezlett, S., & Ones, D. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the

Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162–181.

Kupfermann, I. (1991). Hypothalamus and limbic system: Peptidergic neurons, homeostasis, and emotional behavior. In E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, & T. M. Jessell (Eds.), Principles of neural science (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier.

Kurtines, W., & Greif, E. B. (1974). The development of moral thought: Review and evaluation of Kohlberg’s approach. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 453–470.

Kvaal, K., Ulstein, I., Nordhus, I. H., & Engedal, K. (2005). The Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI): The state scale in detecting mental disorders in geriatric patients. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 629–634.

Kwate, N. (2001). Intelligence or misorientation? Eurocentrism in the WISC-III. Journal of Black Psychology, 27, 221–238.

La Rue, A. (1992). Aging and neuropsychological assessment. New York: Plenum. Laatsch, L., & Choca, J. (1994). Cluster-branching methodology for adaptive testing and the development of

the Adaptive Category Test. Psychological Assessment, 6, 345–351. LaBarbera, D. (2005). Physician assistant Self-Directed Search Holland Codes. Journal of Career

Assessment, 13, 337–346. Lachar, D. (1974). The MMPI: Clinical assessment and automated interpretation. Los Angeles: Western

Psychological Services. Lachar, D. (1987). Automated assessment of child and adolescent personality. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.),

Computerized psychological assessment: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Basic Books. Lachar, D., & Gdowski, C. L. (1979). Actuarial assessment of child and adolescent personality: An interpretive

guide for the Personality Inventory for Children pro�ile. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Lachar, D., & Gruber, C. (2001). Manual: Personality Inventory for Children-2. Los Angeles: Western

Psychological Services. Lacks, P. (1999). Bender-Gestalt screening for brain dysfunction (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Lah, M. I. (1989). New validity, normative, and scoring data for the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 607–620. Lah, M. I., & Rotter, J. B. (1981). Changing college student norms on the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 985. Lamp, R., & Krohn, E. (2001). A longitudinal predictive validity investigation of the SB:FE and K-ABC with

at-risk children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 334–349. Landy, F. (1996). The psychology of work behavior (5th ed.) Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 96/133

Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory and applications. New York: Academic Press.

Lane, S. (1992). Review of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

LaPiana, W. P. (1998). A history of the Law School Admission Council and the LSAT. Keynote Address to the 1998 LSAC Annual Meeting.

Larrabee, G. (2008). Flexible vs. �ixed batteries in forensic neuropsychological assessment: Reply to Bigler and Hom. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(7–8), 763–776.

Larson, G. E. (1994). Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Larson, G. E., & Wolfe, J. (1995). Validity results for g from an expanded test base. Intelligence, 20, 15–25. Lassiter, K., & Bardos, A. (1995). The relationship between young children’s academic achievement and

measures of intelligence. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 170–177. Latham, G. P., & Skarlicki, D. (1995). Criterion-related validity of the situational and patterned behavior

description interviews with organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 8, 67–80. Lau, B. C., Collins, M. W., & Lovell, M. R. (2011). Sensitivity and speci�icity of subacute computerized

neurocognitive testing and symptom evaluation in predicting outcomes after sports-related concussion. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(6), 1209–1216.

Laux, J., Salyers, K., & Kotova, E. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of the SASSI-3 in a college sample. Journal of College Counseling, 8, 41–51.

LaVoie, A. L. (1987). The Blacky Pictures. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques compendium. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.

LeBuffe, P. A., & Naglieri, J. A. (1999a). Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA): A measure of within-child protective factors in preschool children. NHSA Dialog, 3, 75–80.

LeBuffe, P. A., & Naglieri, J. A. (1999b). Devereux Early Childhood Assessment Program: Technical manual. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Press.

LeBuffe, P. A., & Naglieri, J. A. (2003). The Devereux Early Childhood Assessment Clinical Form (DECA-C): A measure of behaviors related to risk and resilience in preschool children. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Press.

Ledbetter, M., Smith, L., Vosler-Hunter, W., & Fischer, J. (1991). An evaluation of the research and clinical usefulness of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 49–55.

Lee, M. S., Wallbrown, F., & Blaha, J. (1990). Note on the construct validity of the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery. Psychological Reports, 67, 1219–1222.

Lefebvre, M. F. (1981). Cognitive distortion and cognitive errors in depressed psychiatric and low back pain patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 517–525.

Lehman, R. E. (1978). Symptom contamination of the Schedule of Recent Events. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1564–1565.

Leiter, R. G. (1948). Leiter International Performance Scale. Chicago: Stoelting Co. Leiter, R. G. (1979). Leiter International Performance Scale: Instruction manual. Chicago: Stoelting Co. Leli, D. A., & Filskov, S. B. (1984). Clinical detection of intellectual deterioration associated with brain

damage. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1435–1441. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social

cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49. Lester, B. M. (1984). Data analysis and prediction. In T. B. Brazelton (Ed.), Neonatal Behavioral Scale (2nd

Ed.). London: Spastics International Medical Publications.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 97/133

Levashina, J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2012). Tell me some more: Exploring how verbal ability and item veri�iability in�luence responses to biodata questions in a high-stakes selection context. Personnel Psychology, 65, 359–383.

Levin, H., Song, J., Ewing-Cobbs, L., & Roberson, G. (2001). Porteus Maze performance following traumatic brain injury in children. Neuropsychology, 15, 557–567.

Levinson, E. M. (1990). Vocational assessment involvement and use of the Self-Directed Search by school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 217–228.

Lewinsohn, P. M. (1965). Psychological correlates of overall quality of �igure drawings. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 504–512.

Lewinsohn, P. M., Munoz, R. F., Youngren, M. A., & Zeiss, A. M. (1986). Control your depression: Reducing depression through learning self-control techniques, relaxation training, pleasant activities, social skills, constructed thinking, planning ahead, and more (rev. ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Lewinsohn, P., & Talkington, J. (1979). Studies on the measurement of unpleasant events and relations with depression. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 83–101.

Lewis, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1981). Visual attention at three months as a predictor of cognitive functioning at two years of age. Intelligence, 5, 131–140.

Lewis, M., & Sullivan, M. W. (1985). Infant intelligence and its assessment. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurements, and applications. New York: Wiley.

Lezak, M. (1982). The problem of assessing executive functions. International Journal of Psychology, 17, 281–297.

Lezak, M. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Lezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Lezak, M. D., & O’Brien, K. P. (1990). Chronic emotional, social, and physical changes after traumatic brain

injury. In E. D. Bigler (Ed.), Traumatic brain injury: Mechanisms of damage, assessment, intervention, and outcome. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., Bigler, E. D., & Tranel, D. (2012). Neuropsychological assessment (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lezak, M., Howieson, D., & Loring, D. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lichtenberg, P., Manning, Vangel, S., & Ross. T. (1995). Normative and ecological validity data in older urban medical patients: A program of neuropsychological research. Advances in Medical Psychotherapy, 8, 121–136.

Lichtenberger, E., & Kaufman, A. (2009). Essentials of WAIS-IV assessment. New York: Wiley. Lien, M. T., & Carlson, J. S. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment in

a Head Start sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 386–396. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140. Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Land�ield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on

correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 390–398. Lilienfeld, S., Wood, J., & Garb, H. (2000). The scienti�ic status of projective techniques. Psychological

Science in the Public Interest, 2, 27–66. Lilienfeld, S., Wood, J., & Garb, H. (2001, May). What’s wrong with this picture? Scienti�ic American, 81–87. Lindal, E., & Stefansson, J. (1993). Mini-Mental State Examination scores: Gender and lifetime psychiatric

disorders. Psychological Reports, 72, 631–641. Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P. (1994). Aging and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 98/133

Lindvall, C. M. (1967). Measuring pupil achievement and aptitude. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Lindzey, G. (1959). On the classi�ication of projective techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 158–168. Linn, R. L. (1989). Review of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Tenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press. Lipsitt, P. D. (1970). Competency Screening Test. Boston: Competency to Stand Trial and Mental Illness

Project. Lipsitz, J. D., Dworkin, R., & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (1993). Wechsler Comprehension and Picture

Arrangement subtests and social adjustment. Psychological Assessment, 5, 430–437. Lishman, W. A. (1997). Organic psychiatry: The psychological consequences of cerebral disorder (3rd ed.).

Oxford: Blackwell Scienti�ic Publications. Liskow, B., Campbell, J., Nickel, E., & Powell, B. (1995). Validity of the CAGE questionnaire in screening for

alcohol dependence in a walk-in (triage) clinic. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 277–281. Loe, S. A., Kadlubek, R. M., & Williams, W. J. (2007). Administration and scoring errors on the WISC-IV

among graduate student examiners. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 237–247. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1991). Essentials of person-environment correspondence counseling.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lohman, D., & Hagen, E. (2001). Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 6; Examiner’s manual. Boston: Houghton

Mif�lin. Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.). (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and

measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lopez, S., & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.). (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and

measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-

Wesley. Lord, F., & Novick, M. (1968). Statistical theories of mental tests. New York: Addison-Wesley. Lovell, M. R. (2006). The ImPACT neuropsychological test battery. In R. J. Echemendia (Ed.), Sports neuro-

psychology: Assessment and management of traumatic brain injury (pp. 193–215). New York: Guilford Press.

Lovell, M. R., Iverson, G. L., Podell, M. W., & others. (2006). Measurement of symptoms following sports- related concussion: Reliability and normative data for the post-concussion scale. Applied Neuropsychology, 13(3), 166–174.

Lowe, P. A., Lee, S. W., Witteborg, K. M., & others. (2008). The Test Anxiety Inventory for Children and Adolescents (TAICA): Examination of the psychometric properties of a new multidimensional measure of test anxiety among elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 215–230.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C., & Ryan, J. (1995). Stability of vocational interests among the intellectually gifted from adolescence to adulthood: A 15-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 196– 200.

Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Trautwein, U., & Nagy, G. (2011). A random walk down university avenue: Life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 620–637.

Lukasik, C. (2004). The physiognomy of biometrics. Retrieved from www.common-place.org (http://www.common-place.org) , 5, 1–4.

Lukin, M. E., Dowd, E. T., Plake, B., & Kraft, R. (1985). Comparing computerized vs. traditional psychological assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 49–58.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 99/133

Lunz, M., & Bergstrom, B. (1994). Computer adaptive testing: A national pilot study. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (vol. 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lunz, M., Bergstrom, B., & Wright, B. (1994). Reliability of alternate computer-adaptive tests. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (vol. 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books. Luria, A. R. (1970). The functional organization of the brain. Scienti�ic American, 222, 66–78. Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. New York: Basic Books. Lynn, R. (1987). Japan: Land of the rising IQ. A reply to Flynn. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society,

40, 464–468. Lynn, R. (2009). What has caused the Flynn effect? Secular increases in the Development Quotients of

infants. Intelligence, 37, 16–24. Lyon, G. R. (1996b). Special education for students with disabilities. The Future of Children, 6, 1–19. Lyon, G. R., (1996a). Learning disabilities. Special Education for Students With Disabilities, 6, 1–18. MacAndrew, C. (1965). The differentiation of male alcoholic out-patients from nonalcoholic psychiatric

patients by means of the MMPI. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 26, 238–246. Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human �igure. Spring�ield, IL: Charles C.

Thomas. Machover, K. (1951). Drawing of the human �igure: A method of personality investigation. In H. Anderson

& G. Anderson (Eds.), An introduction to projective techniques. New York: Prentice Hall. Mack, J., & Patterson, M. (1995). Executive dysfunction and Alzheimer’s disease: Performance on a test of

planning ability, the Porteus Maze Test. Neuropsychology, 9, 556–564. Mackenzie Ross, S. J., Brewin, C., Curran, H. V., & others. (2010). Neuropsychological and psychiatric

functioning in sheep farmers exposed to low levels of organo-phosphate pesticides. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 32, 452–459.

MacPhillamy, D. J., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1982). The Pleasant Events Schedule: Studies on reliability, validity, and scale intercorrelation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 363–380.

Maddi, S. R. (2000). Personality theories: A comparative analysis (6th ed.). Prospective Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Mahoney, M., & Arnkoff, D. (1978). Cognitive and self-control therapies. In S. Gar�ield & A. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: An empirical analysis. New York: Wiley.

Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 161–182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new, insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95–124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Majnemer, A., & Mazer, B. (1998). Neurologic evaluation of the newborn infant: De�inition and psychometric properties. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 40, 708–715.

Malgady, R. G., Constantino, G., & Rogler, L. H. (1984). Development of a Thematic Apperception Test (TEMAS) for urban Hispanic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 986–996.

Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1979). Mental retardation and modern society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Man, D., Chung, J., & Mak, M. (2009). Development and validation of the Online Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test (OL-RBMT) for people with stroke. Neurorehabilitation, 24, 231–236.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 100/133

Manly, T., Nimmo-Smith, I., Watson, P., & others. (2001). The differential assessment of children’s attention: The Test of Everyday Attention for Children (TEA-Ch), normative sample and ADHD performance. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 1065–1081.

Manning, W. H., & Jackson, R. (1984). College entrance examinations: Objective selection or gatekeeping for the economically privileged. In C. R. Reynolds & R. T. Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on bias in mental testing. New York: Plenum Press.

Manto, M., & Pandolfo, M. (Eds.). (2002). The cerebellum and its disorders. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Marcus, D. K., Fulton, J. J., & Clarke, E. J. (2010). Lead and conduct problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 234–241.

Mardell, C., & Goldenberg, D. (2011). Developmental indicators for the assessment of learning—Fourth edition (DIAL-4). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Marks, P. A., & Seeman, W. (1963). The actuarial description of abnormal personality. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Markwardt, F. C. (1997). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised/Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Marnic, L. R. (2011). Evaluating the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test II as a diagnostic screening instrument among clinically referred children and adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 72(5-B), 3118.

Martell, D. A. (1992). Forensic neuropsychology and the criminal law. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 313– 336.

Martin, J. C. (1994). Birth defects. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Martin, R. (2003). Sense of Humor. In S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Martin, R. A. (1996). The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) and Coping Humor Scale (CHS): A decade of research �indings. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 251–272.

Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between stressors and moods. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 45, 1313–1324.

Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1984). Situational Humor Response Questionnaire: Quantitative measure of sense of humor. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 47, 145–155.

Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.

Martin, S. (2010). The internet’s ethical challenges. APA Monitor, 41(7), 32. Martindale, C. (1981). Cognition and consciousness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Martuza, V. R. (1977). Applying norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measurement in education.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study

of children who overcame adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. Masters, K. S., & Hooker, S. A. (2012, November 12). Religiousness/spirituality, cardiovascular disease, and

cancer: Cultural integration for health research and intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, online publication.

Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler’s measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (5th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 101/133

Matarazzo, J. D. (1990). Psychological assessment versus psychological testing: Validation from Binet to the school, clinic, and courtroom. American Psychologist, 45, 999–1017.

Matarazzo, J. D. (1992). Psychological testing and assessment in the 21st century. American Psychologist, 47, 1007–1018.

Matson, J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of assessment in persons with intellectual disability. London: Academic Press.

Matson, J. L., & Tureck, K. (2012). Early diagnosis of autism: Current status of the Baby and Infant Screen for Children with Autism Traits (BISCUIT-Parts 1, 2, and 3). Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1135–1141.

Matson, J. L., Boisjoli, J. A., & Wilkins, J. (2007). Baby and Infant Screen for Children with Autism Traits (BISCUIT). Baton Rouge, La: Disability Consultants, LLC.

Matson, J. L., Boisjoli, J. A., Hess, J. A., & Wilkins, J. (2010). Factor structure and diagnostic �idelity of the Baby and Infant Screen for Children with Autism Traits-Part 1 (BISCUIT-Part 1). Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13, 72–79.

Matson, J. L., Wilkins, J., & Fodstad, J. C. (2011). The validity of the Baby and Infant Screen for Children with Autism Traits: Part 1 (BISCUIT: Part 1). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 1139–1146.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mattis, S. (2001). Dementia Rating Scale-2. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Maxwell, J. K., & Wise, F. (1984). PPVT IQ validity in adults: A measure of vocabulary, not of intelligence.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1048–1053. May, P. A., Gossage, J. P., Kalberg, W. O., & others. (2009). Prevalence and epidemiologic characteristics of

FASD from various research methods with an emphasis on recent in-school studies. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15, 176–192.

Mayer, J. D. (2007–2008). The big questions of personality psychology: De�ining common pursuits of the discipline. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 27, 3–26.

Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433–442. Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) user’s

manual. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems. Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, �indings, and implications.

Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197–215. Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American

Psychologist, 63, 503–517. Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT

V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97–105. Mayers, L., & Redick, T. S. (2012). Clinical utility of ImPACT assessment for postconcussion return-to-play

counseling: Psychometric issues. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34, 235–242. Mayeux, R., & Kandel, E. R. (1991). Disorders of language: The aphasias. In E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, & T.

M. Jessel (Eds.), Principles of neural science (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier. McAllister, L. W. (1986). A practical guide to CPI interpretation. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press. McCall, R. B. (1976). Toward an epigenetic conception of mental development in the �irst three years of

life. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Origins of intelligence: Infancy and early childhood. New York: Plenum Press. McCall, R. B. (1979). The development of intellectual functioning in infancy and the prediction of later IQ.

In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development. New York: Wiley.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 102/133

McCall, W. A. (1939). Measurement. New York: Macmillan. McCallum, R. S. (1990). Determining the factor structure of the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition—the right

choice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 436–442. McCoy, B. (2000). Quack! Tales of medical fraud from the museum of questionable medical devices. Santa

Monica, CA: Santa Monica Press. McCrae, R. R. (1985). Review of the De�ining Issues Test. Ninth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the �ive-factor model of personality across instruments

and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 81–90. McCrae, R., Costa, P., & Martin, T. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO Personality

Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261–270. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The Grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical

topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112–127. McDermott, B. E., & Sokolov, G. (2009). Malingering in a correctional setting: The use of the structured

interview of reported symptoms in a jail sample. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 753–765. McDonald, A., Nussbaum, D., & Bagby, R. (1992). Reliability, validity, and utility of the Fitness Interview

Test. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 480–484. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A uni�ied approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McGee, R., Clark, S., & Symons, D. (2000). Does the Conners’ continuous performance test aid in ADHD

diagnosis? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 415–424. McGlynn, F. D., & Rose, M. P. (1998). Assessment of anxiety and fear. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.),

Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. McGrath, E., Wypij, D., Rappaport, L., Newburger, J., & Bellinger, C. (2004). Prediction of IQ and

achievement at age 8 from neurodevelopmental status at age 1 in children with D-transposition of the great arteries. Pediatrics, 114, 572–576.

McGrath, R., Pogge, D., Stokes, J., & others. (2005). Field reliability of Comprehensive System scoring in an adolescent inpatient sample. Assessment, 12, 199–209.

McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151–179). New York: Guilford.

McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McGue, M., Bouchard, T., Iacono, W., & Lykken, D. (1993). Behavior genetics of cognitive ability: A lifespan perspective. In R. Plomin & G. McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture, and psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McGurk, F. C. J. (1953a). On white and Negro test performance and socio-economic factors. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 448–450.

McGurk, F. C. J. (1953b). Socioeconomic status and culturally-weighted test scores of Negro subjects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 276–277.

McGurk, F. C. J. (1975). Race differences—twenty years later. Homo, 26, 219–239. McKee, A. C., Cantu, R. C., Nowinski, C. J., & others. (2009). Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in athletes:

Progressive tauopathy following repetitive head injury. Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, 68, 709–735.

McKee, A. C., Stein, T. D., & Nowinski, C. J. (2012, October 1). The spectrum of disease in chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Brain, online publication

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 103/133

McKee-Ryan, F. M., Song, Z., Wanberg, C., & Kinicki, A. (2005). Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 53–76.

McKey, R. H., & others. (1985). The impact of Head Start on children, families and communities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of�ice.

McKinley, J. C., & Hathaway, S. R. (1940). A Multiphasic Personality Schedule (Minnesota): II. A differential study of hypochondriasis. Journal of Psychology, 10, 255–268.

McKinley, J. C., & Hathaway, S. R. (1944). The MMPI: V. Hysteria, hypomania and psychopathic deviate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 153–174.

McKinley, J. C., Hathaway, S. R., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). The MMPI: VI. The K scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 12, 20–31.

McLean, C. P., Asnaani, A., Litz, B. T., & Hofmann, S. G. (2011). Gender differences in anxiety disorders: Prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45, 1027–1035.

McMillan, D., Hastings, R., & Coldwell, J. (2004). Clinical and actuarial prediction of physical violence in a forensic intellectual disability hospital: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17, 255–265.

McNulty, J., Graham, J., Ben-Porath, Y., & Stein, L. (1997). Comparative validity of MMPI-2 scores of African American and caucasian mental health center clients. Psychological Assessment, 9, 464–470.

McReynolds, P., & Ludwig, K. (1984). Christian Thomasius and the origin of psychological rating scales. Isis, 75, 546–553.

McReynolds, P., & Ludwig, K. (1987). On the history of rating scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 281–283.

Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 3, 220–232. Mednick, S., & Mednick, M. (1966). Manual: Remote Associates Test. Boston: Houghton Mif�lin. Medoff-Cooper, B., & Ratcliffe, S. (2005). Development of preterm infants: Feeding behaviors and Brazelton

Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale at 40 and 44 weeks’ post-conceptual age. Advances in Nursing Science, 28, 356–363.

Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Meehl, P. E. (1965). Seer over sign: The �irst good example. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality,

1, 29–32. Meehl, P. E. (1986). Causes and effects of my disturbing little book. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50,

370–375. Megargee, E. (1972). The California Psychological Inventory handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modi�ication: An integrative approach. New York: Plenum

Press. Meier, S. T. (1984). The construct validity of burnout. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 211–219. Meier, V. J., & Hope, D. A. (1998). Assessment of social skills. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Behavioral

assessment: A practical handbook (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Meijer, E., Verschuere, B., Merckelbach, H., & Crombez, G. (2008). Sex offender management using the

polygraph: A critical review. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 423–429. Meisels, S., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2005). Developmental screening in early childhood: A guide (5th ed.).

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Meisels, S., Marsden, D., Wiske, M., & Henderson, L. (1997). Early Screening Inventory-Revised. San Antonio,

TX: The Psychological Corporation.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 104/133

Meisels, S., Wiske, M., & Henderson, L. (2008). Early Screening Inventory—Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Melton, G. B. (1995). Review of the Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody. The Twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (1998). Psychological evaluation for the courts (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Mendez, M., Licht, E., & Saul, R. E. (2008). The Frontal Systems Behavior Scale in the evaluation of dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23, 1203–1204.

Menzies, G. (2003). 1421: The year China discovered America. New York: William Morrow. Mercer, J. R., & Lewis, J. F. (1978). System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment. San Antonio, TX: The

Psychological Corporation. Merenda, P. F. (1985). Comrey Personality Scales. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (vol.

4). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America. Messiah, A., Encrenaz, G., Sapinho, D., & others. (2007). Paradoxical increase of positive answers to the

Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilt, Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire during a period of decreasing alcohol consumption: Results from two population-based surveys in Ile-de-France, 1991 and 2005. Addiction, 103, 598–603.

Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012–1027. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses

and performances as scienti�ic inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. Mevarech, Z. (1995). Metacognition, general ability, and mathematical understanding. Early Education and

Development, 6, 155–168. Meyer, G. J. (1997). Assessing reliability: Critical corrections for a critical examination of the Rorschach

Comprehensive System. Psychological Assessment, 9, 480–489. Meyer, G. J., & Eblin, J. J. (2012). An overview of the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS).

Psychological Injury and Law, 5, 107–121. Meyer, G. J., & Handler, L. (1997). The ability of the Rorschach to predict subsequent outcome: A meta-

analysis of the Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 1–38. Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L., Erard, R. E., & Erdberg, P. (2011). Rorschach Performance

Assessment System: Administration, coding, interpretation, and technical manual. Toledo, OH: Rorschach Performance Assessment System.

Mickley, J. (1990). Spiritual well-being, religiousness, and hope: Some relationships in a sample of women with breast cancer. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Maryland, School of Nursing, College Park, MD.

Middleton, H., Keene, R., & Brown, G. (1990). Convergent and discriminant validities of the Scales of Independent Behavior and the revised Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 94, 669–673.

Miele, F. (1979). Cultural bias in the WISC. Intelligence, 3, 149–164. Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How can decision making be improved? Perspectives

on Psychological Science, 4, 379–383. Miller, F. G., & Lazowski, L. (1999). The adult SASSI-3 manual. Springville, IN: The SASSI Institute. Miller, F. G., Roberts, J., Brooks, M., & Lazowski, L. (1997). SASSI-3 user’s guide: A quick reference for

administration and scoring. Bloomington, IN: Baugh Enterprises. Miller, G. (2012). The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 221–237. Miller, L. K. (1989). Musical savants: Exceptional skill in the mentally retarded. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 105/133

Miller, S. D., & Duncan, B. L. (2000). Outcome and Session Rating Scales: Administration and scoring manual. Chicago: Institute for the Study of Therapeutic Change.

Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., Brown, J., Sparks, J., & Claud, D. (2003). The Outcome Rating Scale: A preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual analog measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 2, 91–100.

Miller, T. R. (1991). Personality: A clinician’s experience. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 415–433. Millman, J., & Greene, J. (1989). The speci�ication and development of tests of achievement and ability. In

R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: ACE/Macmillan. Millon, T. (1969). Modern psychopathology: A biosocial approach to maladaptive learning and functioning.

Philadelphia: Saunders. Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality: DSM-III, Axis II. New York: Wiley. Millon, T. (1983). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory manual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National

Computer Systems. Millon, T. (1986). A theoretical derivation of pathological personalities. In T. Millon & G. Klerman (Eds.),

Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM-IV. New York: Guilford. Millon, T. (1987). Manual for the Millon Clinical Multi-axial Inventory-II (MCMI-II) (2nd ed.). Minneapolis,

MN: National Computer Systems. Millon, T. (1994). Manual for the Millon Clinical Multi-axial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) (3rd ed.). Minneapolis,

MN: National Computer Systems. Millon, T., & Davis, R. (1996). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III). In C. S. Newmark

(Ed.), Major psychological assessment instruments (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Mills, C., & Tissot, S. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from underrepresented

populations: Is using the Raven’s Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209–217. Mills, C., & Tissot, S. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from underrepresented

populations: Is using the Raven’s Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209–217. Mills, C., Potenza, M., Fremer, J., & Ward, W. (2002). Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for

future assessments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Milner, B. (1968). Disorders of memory after brain lesions in man. Neuropsychologia, 6, 175–179. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2002). Situation-behavior pro�iles as a locus of consistency

in personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 50–54. Mitchell, T. W., & Klimoski, R. J. (1986). Estimating the validity of cross-validity estimation. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71, 311–317. Mitchell, V. (2007). Earning a secure attachment style: A narrative of personality change in adulthood. In R.

Josselson, A. Lieblich, & D. P. McAdams (Eds.), The meaning of others: Narrative studies of relationships (pp. 93–116). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Moberg, D. O. (1971). Spiritual well-being: Background and issues. Washington, DC: White House Conference on Aging.

Montague, M., & Bos, C. S. (1990). Cognitive and meta-cognitive characteristics of eighth grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 371–388.

Moore, E. G. J. (1986). Family socialization and the IQ-test performance of traditionally and transracially adopted children. Developmental Psychology, 22, 317–326.

Moore, R. C., Viglione, D. J., Rosenfarb, I. S., Patterson, T. L., & Mausbach, B. T. (2012, November 12). Rorschach measures of cognition relate to everyday and social functioning in schizophrenia. Psychological Assessment, online publication.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 106/133

Moore, W. P. (1994). The devaluation of standardized testing: One district’s response. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 343–368.

Moreland, K. L. (1992). Computer-assisted psychological assessment. In M. Zeidner & R. Most (Eds.), Psychological testing: An inside view. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moreno, K. E., & Segall, D. O. (1997). Reliability and construct validity of the CAT-ASVAB In W. A. Sands, B. K. Waters, & J. R. McBride (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for investigating phantasies: The Thematic Apperception Test. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 34, 289–306.

Morgan, C. D., Shoenberg, M., Dorr, D., & Burke, M. (2002). Overreport on the MCMI-III: Concurrent validation with the MMPI-2 using a psychiatric inpatient sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 288–300.

Mori, L., & Armendariz, G. (2001). Analogue assessment of child behavior problems. Psychological Assessment, 13, 36–45.

Morrison, M. W., Gregory, R. J., & Paul, J. J. (1979). Reliability of the Finger Tapping Test and a note on sex differences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48, 139–142.

Morrison, T., & Morrison, M. (1995). A meta-analytic assessment of the predictive validity of the quantitative and verbal components of the Graduate Record Examination with graduate grade point average representing the criterion of graduate success. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 309–316.

Morrow, C., Bandstra, E., Anthony, J., & others. (2001). In�luence of prenatal cocaine exposure on full-term infant neurobehavioral functioning. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 23, 533–544.

Moruzzi, G., & Magoun, H. W. (1949). Brain stem and reticular formation and activation of the EEG. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1, 455–473.

Motowidlo, S. J., Carter, G., Dunnette, M., Tippins, N., Werner, S., Burnett, J., & Vaughan, M. (1992). Studies of the structured behavioral interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 571–587.

Motta, R. W., Little, S., & Tobin, M. (1993). The use and abuse of human �igure drawings. School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 162–169.

Mount, M., Witt, L., & Barrick, M. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically keyed biodata scales over GMA and the �ive factor personality constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53, 299–323.

Mountain, M., & Snow, W. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test as a measure of frontal pathology: A review. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 108–118.

Muchinsky, P. (2003). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Murphy, K. R. (1984). Review of Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. In D. Keyser & R. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (vol. 1). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.

Murphy, K. R. (1992). Review of TONI-2. The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). Psychological testing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2004). Psychological testing (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall. Murphy, K. R., & Pardaffy, V. A. (1989). Bias in behaviorally anchored rating scales: Global or scale-speci�ic?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 343–346. Murphy, K. R., Jako, R., & Anhalt, R. (1993). Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 218–225.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 107/133

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test—Manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Museum of Modern Art. (1955). The family of man. New York: Maco Magazine Corporation. Myers, D. (2002). Social psychology (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. (1985). A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myrtek, M. (2007). Type a behavior and hostility as independent risk factors for coronary heart disease. In

J. Jordan, B. Bardé, & A. M. Zeiher (Eds.), Contributions toward evidence-based psychocardiology: A systematic review of the literature (pp. 159–183). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Naglieri, J. A. (1981). Concurrent validity of the Revised Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 286–289.

Naglieri, J. A. (1988). Draw A Person: A quantitative scoring system. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2005a). Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) cognitive processes as a model for intelligence. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 303–337.

Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2005b). Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) theory: A revision of the concept of intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 120–135). New York: Guilford Press.

Naglieri, J. A., & Paolitto, A. (n.d.). Attention de�icit diagnosis and treatment: Current status/future directions. Unpublished paper available at: www.riverpub.com/products/cas/cas_add.html (http://www.riverpub.com/products/cas/cas_add.html) .

Naglieri, J. A., & Pfeiffer, S. (1983). Stability, concurrent and predictive validity of the PPVT-R. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 965–967.

Naglieri, J. A., & Pfeiffer, S. (1992). Performance of disruptive behavior disordered and normal samples on the Draw A Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance. Psychological Assessment, 4, 156– 159.

Naglieri, J. A., & Rojahn, J. (2001). Intellectual classi�ication of Black and White children in special education programs using the WISC—III and the cognitive assessment system. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106, 359–367.

Naglieri, J. A., & Yazzie, C. (1983). Comparison of the WISC-R and PPVT-R with Navajo children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 598–600.

Naglieri, J. A., Das, J. P., & Goldstein, S. (2012). Cognitive Assessment System—Second edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Naglieri, J. A., Rojahn, J., Matto, H. C., & Aquilino, S. A. (2005). Black-White differences in cognitive processing: A study of the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive theory of intelligence. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 146–160.

Naglieri, J. A., Taddei, S., & Williams, K. M. (2012, September 17). Multigroup con�irmatory factor analysis of U.S. and Italian children’s performance on the PASS theory of intelligence as measured by the Cognitive Assessment System. Psychological Assessment, online publication.

Naglieri, J., & Das, J. (1990). Planning, attention, successive, and simultaneous cognitive processes as a model for intelligence. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 165–170.

Naglieri, J., McNeish, T., & Bardos, A. (1991). Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance. Austin, TX: ProEd.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 108/133

National Association of School Psychologists. (1992). Principles for professional ethics. Silver Spring, MD: Author.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Principles for professional ethics. Silver Springs, MD: Author.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1988). A position paper of the National Trust Committee on Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 53–55.

Naugle, R. I., Chelune, G., & Tucker, G. (1993). Validity of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. Psychological Assessment, 5, 182–186.

Nauta, W. J. H. (1971). The problem of the frontal lobe. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 8, 167–187. Naveh-Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W. J., & Lin, Y. (1987). Two types of test-anxious students: Support for an

information processing model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 131–136. Needleman, H. L., Gunnoe, C., Leviton, A., Reed, R., Peresie, H., Maher, C., & Barrett, P. (1979). De�icits in

psychologic and classroom performance of children with elevated dentine lead levels. The New England Journal of Medicine, 300, 689–695.

Needleman, H. L., Schell, A., Bellinger, D., Leviton, A., & Allred, E. (1990). The long-term effects of exposure to low doses of lead in childhood. New England Journal of Medicine, 322, 83–88.

Neisser, U. (Ed.). (1998). The rising curve: Long-term gains in IQ and related measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., & Bouchard, T., & others. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.

Nelson, R., & Piedmont, R. L. (2008, August). Psychometric utility of the ASPIRES Scales in non-Christian samples. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Conference, Boston.

Nester, M. A. (1994). Psychometric testing and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. In S. M. Bruyere & J. O’Keeffe (Eds.), Implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act for psychology. New York: Springer.

Nestor, P. G., & Schutt, R. K. (2012). Research methods in psychology: Investigating human behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Nettelbeck, T., & Wilson, C. (2004). The Flynn effect: Smarter, not faster. Intelligence, 32, 85–93. Netter, B., & Viglione, D., Jr. (1994). An empirical study of malingering schizophrenia on the Rorschach.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 45–57. Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 287–293. Nevo, B. (1992). Examinee feedback: Practical guidelines. In M. Zeidner & R. Most (Eds.), Psychological

testing: An inside view. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Newland, T. E. (1971). Blind Learning Aptitude Test. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Newsome, S., Day, A., & Catano, V. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence.

Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005–1016. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Problems for

the No Child Left Behind Act. Tempe, AZ: Education Policies Study Laboratory. Nieuwenhuis-Mark, R. E. (2010). The death knoll for the MMSE: Has it outlived its purpose? Journal of

Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 23, 151–157. Nihira, K., Leland, H., & Lambert, N. (1993). Adaptive Behavior Scale-Residential and Community (2nd ed.).

Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Nijenhuis, J., & van der Flier, H. (1997). Comparability of GATB scores for immigrants and majority group

members: Some Dutch �indings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 675–687.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 109/133

Nijenhuis, J., Evers, A., & Mur, J. (2000). Validity of the Differential Aptitude Test for the assessment of immigrant children. Educational Psychology, 20, 99–115.

Nisan, M., & Kohlberg, L. (1982). Universality and cross-cultural variation in moral development: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study in Turkey. Child Development, 53, 865–876.

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., & others. (2012). Intelligence: New �indings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130–139.

Norris, G., & Tate, R. (2000). The Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS): Ecological, concurrent and construct validity. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 10, 33–45.

Nottingham, E. J., & Mattson, R. E. (1981). A validation study of the Competency Screening Test. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 329–335.

Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. O’Neill, J., Jacobson, S., & Jacobson, J. (1994). Evidence of observer reliability for the Fagan Test of Infant

Intelligence (FTII). Infant Behavior and Development, 17, 465–469. Oakes, L. M. (2009). The “Humpty Dumpty Problem” in the study of early cognitive development: Putting

the infant back together again. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 352–358. Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Oei, T., Evans, L., & Crook, G. M. (1990). Utility and validity of the STAI with anxiety disorder patients.

British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 429–432. Offer, D., & Sabshin, M. (1966). Normality: Theoretical and clinical concepts of mental health. New York:

Basic Books. Ogg, Brinkman, T. M., Dedrick, R. F., & Carlson, J. S. (2010). Factor structure and invariance across gender of

the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment Protective Factor Scale. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 107–118.

Ogloff, J. R., Wong, S., & Greenwood, A. (1990). Treating criminal psychopaths in a therapeutic community program. Behavioral Science and the Law, 8, 181–190.

Oles, H. J., & Davis, G. D. (1977). Publishers violate APA standards on test distribution. Psychological Reports, 41, 713–714.

Ollendick, T. H. (1983). Reliability and validity of the Revised Fear Survey Schedule for Children (FSSC-R). Behavior Research and Therapy, 21, 685–692.

Olson, H. C. (1994). Fetal alcohol syndrome. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Olson-Buchanan, J., Drasgow, F., Moberg, P., Mead, A., Keenan, P., & Donovan, M. (1998). Interactive video assessment of con�lict resolution skills. Personnel Psychology, 51, 1–24.

Ornberg, B., & Zalewski, C. (1994). Assessment of adolescents with the Rorschach: A critical review. Assessment, 1, 209–217.

Ortner, T. (2008). Effects of changed item order: A cautionary note to practitioners on jumping to computerized adaptive testing for personality assessment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 249–257.

Ortner, T. M., & Caspers, J. (2011). Consequences of test anxiety on adaptive versus �ixed item testing. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 157–163.

OSS Assessment Staff. (1948). Assessment of men: Selection of personnel for the Of�ice of Strategic Services. New York: Rinehart.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 110/133

Otis, A. S. (1918). An absolute point scale for the group measure of intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9, 238–261, 333–348.

Ottinger, R., & Kurzon, C. (2007, May 21). Biodata: The measure of an applicant?. New York Law Journal, online publication (3 pp.).

Owens, W. A. (1976). Background data. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Ownby, R. L. (1991). Psychological reports: A guide to report writing in professional psychology (2nd ed.). Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co.

Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and the quality of life. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: Wiley.

Panigua, F. (1994). Assessing and treating culturally diverse clients: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Achieving and sustaining a good life. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 422–428.

Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton Mif�lin. Parsons, T. D., Rizzo, A. A., Brennan, J., Bittman, M., & Zelinski, E. (2008). Assessment of executive

functioning using virtual reality: Virtual Environment Grocery Store. Gerontechnology, 7, 189–189. Patterson, C. (1980). An alternative perspective—lead pollution in the human environment. In Lead in the

human environment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Patton, J. R., Payne, J. S., & Beirne-Smith, M. (1986). Mental retardation (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Paul, A. M. (2004). The cult of personality. New York: Free Press. Paul, L. K., Brown, W. S., Adolphs, R., & others. (2007). Agenesis of the corpus callosum: Genetic,

developmental and functional aspects of connectivity. Nature, 8, 287–299. Paulhus, D., Fridhandler, B., & Hayes, S. (1997). Psychological defense: Contemporary theory and research.

In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego: Academic Press.

Paulman, R. G., & Kennelly, K. J. (1984). Test anxiety and ineffective test taking: Different names, same construct? Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 279–288.

Payne, A. F. (1928). Sentence completions. New York: New York Guidance Clinic. Pearson, K. (1914, 1924, 1930ab). The life, letters, and labours of Francis Galton (Volumes I, II, III, IIIb).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pedersen, N. L., Plomin, R., Nesselroade, J., & McClearn, G. (1992). A quantitative genetic analysis of

cognitive abilities during the second half of the life span. Psychological Science, 3, 346–353. Pen�ield, W. (1958). Functional localization in temporal and deep sylvian areas. Research Publication,

Association of Nervous and Mental Disease, 36, 210–217. Pen�ield, W., & Evans, J. (1935). The frontal lobe in man: A clinical study of maximum removals. Brain, 58,

115–133. Pen�ield, W., & Jasper, H. (1959). Epilepsy and the functional anatomy of the human brain. Boston: Little,

Brown. Peretz, H., & Fried, Y. (2012). National cultures, performance appraisal practices, and organizational

absenteeism and turnover: A study across 21 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 448–459. Perry, J. C. (1990). The Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: J. C. Perry. Perry, J. C., & Henry, M. (2004). Studying defense mechanisms in psychotherapy using the defense

mechanism rating scales. In U. Hentschel, G. Smith, J. Draguns, & W. Ehlers (Eds.), Defense mechanisms:

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 111/133

Theoretical, research and clinical perspectives (pp. 165–192). Oxford, England: Elsevier. Perry, J. C., Beck, S. M., Constantinides, P., & Foley, J. (2009). Studying change in defensive functioning in

psychotherapy using the defense mechanism rating scales: Four hypotheses, four cases. In R. A. Levy & J. S. Ablon (Eds.), Handbook of evidence-based psychodynamic psychotherapy: Bridging the gap between science and practice (pp. 121–153). Totowa, NJ, US: Humana Press.

Pervin, L. A. (1993). Personality: Theory and research (6th ed.). New York: Wiley. Petersen, N. S., Kolen, M. J., & Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scaling, norming, and equating. In R. L. Linn (Ed.),

Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan. Peterson, C. (2000). Optimistic explanatory style and health. In J. Gillham (Ed.), The science and optimism

of hope (pp. 145–162). Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press. Pfeiffer, E. (1975). A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain de�icit

in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 23, 433–441. Phelps, L., & Ensor, A. (1986). Concurrent validity of the WISC-R using deaf norms and the Hiskey-

Nebraska. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 138–141. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied

Measurement in Education, 7, 93–120. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Little�ield Adams. Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence

and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 67, 985–1013. Piedmont, R. L. (2001). Spiritual transcendence and the scienti�ic study of spirituality. Journal of

Rehabilitation, 67, 4–14. Piedmont, R. L. (2004). Spiritual transcendence as a predictor of psychosocial outcome from an outpatient

substance abuse program. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 213–222. Piedmont, R. L. (2010). Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES): Technical manual

(2nd ed.). Timonium, MD: Author. Piedmont, R. L., & Weinstein, H. P. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the new NEO-PIR Facet Scales for

Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 302–318. Piedmont, R. L., Werdel, M., & Fernando, M. (2009). The utility of the Assessment of Spirituality and

Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) scale with Christians and Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Research in the Social Scienti�ic Study of Religion, 20, 131–143.

Piersma, H., & Boes, J. (1997). MCMI-III as a treatment outcome measure for psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 825–832.

Piirto, J. (1998). Understanding those who create. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Pinals, D., Tillbrook, C., & Mumley, D. (2006). Practical application of the MacArthur Competence

Assessment Tool—Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) in a public sector forensic setting. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 34, 179–188.

Pintner, R. (1917). The mentality of the dependent child. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 220–238. Pintner, R. (1921). Intelligence. In E. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 123–147, 195–216. Piotrowski, C. (1996). The status of Exner’s Comprehensive System in contemporary research. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 82, 1341–1342. Piotrowski, Z. A. (1964). A digital computer administration of inkblot test data. Psychiatric Quarterly, 38,

1–26.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 112/133

Pirozzolo, F. J., Hansch, E., Mortimer, J., Webster, D., & Kuskowski, A. (1982). Dementia in Parkinson disease: A neuropsychological analysis. Brain and Cognition, 1, 71–83.

Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57, 210–221.

Plaisted, J. R., & Golden, C. J. (1982). Test-retest reliability of the clinical, factor and localization scales of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. International Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 163–167.

Plaud, J. J., & Eifert, G. (Eds.). (1998). From behavior theory to behavior therapy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1993). Etiology of binge eating: Psychological mechanisms. In C. G. Fairburn & G.

T. Wilson (Eds.), Binge eating: Nature, assessment, and treatment (pp. 173–205). New York: Guilford Press.

Pollack, R. H. (1971). Binet on perceptual-cognitive development or Piaget-come-lately. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 7, 370–374.

Pollens, R., McBratnie, B., & Burton, P. (1988). Beyond cognition: Executive functions. Cognitive Rehabilitation, 6, 26–33.

Poortinga, Y. H., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Cultures and cognition: Performance differences and invariant structures. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Culture and competence: Contexts of life success (pp. 139–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pope, K. S. (1992). Responsibilities in providing psychological test feedback to clients. Psychological Assessment, 4, 268–271.

Popham, W. J. (1978). Criterion-referenced measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Porch, B. (2001). Porch Index of Communicative Ability—2001 Revision. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Porteus, S. D. (1931). The psychology of a primitive people: A study of the Australian aborigine. London:

Edward Arnold & Co. Porteus, S. D. (1965). Porteus Maze Test. Fifty years’ application. Palo Alto, CA: Paci�ic Books. Powers, D. (2004). Validity of Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) General Test scores for admissions to

colleges of Veterinary Medicine. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 208–219. Powers, K., & Hagans-Murillo, K. (2004). Twenty-�ive years after Larry P.: The California response to over-

representation of African-Americans in special education. California School Psychologist, 9, 145–158. Poythress, N., Monahan, J., Bonnie, R., Otto, R., & Hoge, S. (2002). Adjudicative competence: The MacArthur

studies. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. Prentky, R. (2001). Mental illness and roots of genius. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 95–104. Prewett, P. N. (1995). A comparison of two screening tests (the Matrix Analogies Test-Short Form and the

Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test) with the WISC-III. Psychological Assessment, 7, 69–72. Prout, H., & Schwartz, J. (1984). Validity of the PPVT-R with mentally retarded adults. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 40, 584–587. Psychological Corporation. (1994). WISC-III Writer manual. San Antonio, TX: Author. Purish, A. (2001). Misconceptions about the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

Neurorehabilitation, 16, 275–280. Pyle, W. H. (1913). The examination of school children. New York: Macmillan. Qu, C. (1997). Reliability and validity of the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude (H-NTLA) in

testing China’s deaf children. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 11, 70–72. Quek, K. F., Low, W. Y., Razack, A. H., Loh, C. S., & Chuak, C. B. (2004). Reliability and validity of the

Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) among urological patients: A Malaysian study. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 59, 258–267.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 113/133

Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53, 109– 10.

Ramos, E., Alfonso, V. C., & Schermerhorn, S. M. (2009). Graduate students’ administration and scoring errors on the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 650–657.

Ranseen, J., Campbell, D., & Baer, R. (1998). NEO PI-R pro�iles of adults with attention de�icit disorder. Assessment, 5, 19–24.

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Denmarks Paedagogiske Institut.

Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1–48.

Raven, J. C. (1938). Progressive Matrices. London: Lewis. Raven, J. C. (1965). The Coloured Progressive Matrices Test. London: Lewis. Raven, J. C., & Summers, B. (1986). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales—

research supplement no. 3. London: Lewis. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1983). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales

(Section 3)—Standard Progressive Matrices (1983 edition). London: Lewis. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1986). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales

(Section 2)—Coloured Progressive Matrices (1986 edition, with U.S. norms). London: Lewis. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1992). Standard Progressive Matrices. 1992 Edition. Oxford: Oxford

Psychologists Press. Reddon, J. R., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Readability of three adult personality tests: Basic Personality

Inventory, Jackson Personality Inventory, and Personality Research Form-E. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 180–183.

Reeves, D., & Wedding, D. (1994). The clinical assessment of memory: A practical guide. New York: Springer. Regenwetter, M. (2009). Perspectives on preference aggregation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4,

403–407. Rehm, L. P. (1984). Self-management therapy for depression. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy,

6, 83–98. Rehm, L. P., Kornblith, S. J., O’Hara, M. W., & others. (1981). An evaluation of major components in a self-

control therapy program for depression. Behavior Modi�ication, 5, 459–490. Reid-Arndt, S. A., Nehl, C., & Hinkebein, J. (2007). The Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (frSBe) as a

predictor of community integration following a traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 21, 1361–1369. Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures.

Personnel Psychology, 35, 1–63. Reise, S., Ainsworth, A., & Haviland, M. (2005). Item response theory: Fundamentals, applications, and

promise in psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 95–101. Reitan, R. M. (1984). Aphasia and sensory perceptual de�icits in adults. Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press. Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1993). The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: Theory and

clinical interpretation (2nd ed.). Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press. Reppermund, S., Brodaty, H., Crawford, J. D., & others. (2011). The relationship of current depressive

symptoms and past depression with cognitive impairment and instrumental activities of daily living in an elderly population: The Sydney Memory and Ageing Study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45, 1600–1607.

Reschly, D., Myers, T., & Hartel, C. (2002). Mental retardation: Determining eligibility for Social Security bene�its. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 114/133

Rest, J. R. (1979). The De�ining Issues Test: Manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral research methodology. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg:

Consensus and controversy. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Rest, J. R., & Thoma, S. J. (1985). Relation of moral judgment to formal education. Developmental

Psychology, 21, 709–714. Rest, J. R., Thoma, S., Narvaez, D., & Bebeau, M. (1997). Alchemy and beyond: Indexing the De�ining Issues

Test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 498–507. Rey, A. (1964). L’examen clinique en psychologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Reynolds, C. R. (1994). Bias in testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New

York: Macmillan. Reynolds, C. R. (1998). Cultural bias in testing of intelligence and personality. In A. Bellack & M. Hersen

(Series Eds.) & C. Belar (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive clinical psychology: Sociocultural and individual differences. New York: Elsevier Science.

Reynolds, C. R., & Brown, R. T. (1984a). Bias in mental testing: An introduction to the issues. In Reynolds, C. R., & Brown, R. T. (Eds.), Perspectives on bias in mental testing. New York: Plenum Press.

Reynolds, C. R., & Brown, R. T. (Eds.). (1984b). Perspectives on bias in mental testing. New York: Plenum Press.

Reynolds, C. R., Chastain, R. L., Kaufman, A. S., & McLean, J. E. (1987). Demographic characteristics and IQ among adults: Analysis of the WAIS-R standardization sample as a function of the strati�ication variables. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 323–342.

Reynolds, C. R., Lowe, P. A., & Saenz, A. L. (1999). The problem of bias in psychological assessment. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Riccio, C., Reynolds, C., & Lowe, P. (2001). Clinical applications of continuous performance tests: Measuring attention and impulsive responding in children and adults. New York: Wiley.

Richards, P. S. (1991). The relation between conservative religious ideology and principled moral reasoning: A review. Review of Religious Research, 32, 359–368.

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (2005). Religious and spiritual assessment. In P. S. Richards & A. E. Bergin (Eds.), A spiritual strategy for counseling and psychotherapy (2nd ed., pp. 219–249). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Richards, P. S., & Davison, M. L. (1992). Religious bias in moral development research: A psychometric investigation. Journal for the Scienti�ic Study of Religion, 31, 467–485.

Rieber, R. W. (Ed.). (1980). Wilhelm Wundt and the making of a scienti�ic psychology. New York: Plenum Press.

Rinas, J., & Clyne-Jackson, S. (1988). Professional conduct and legal concerns in mental health practice. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lang.

Ritter, N., Kilinc, E., Navruz, B., & Bae, Y. (2011). Test review: Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-4 (TONI-4). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 384–388.

Ritzler, B. A., Sharkey, K. J., & Chudy, J. (1980). A comprehensive projective alternative to the TAT. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 358–362.

Ritzler, B., Erard, R., & Pettigrew, G. (2002). Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses: A reply to Grove and Barden (1999) Re: The admissibility of testimony under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 201–215.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 1–25.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 115/133

Robertson, I. H., Ward, T., Ridgeway, V., & NimmoSmith, I. (1994). Test of Everyday Attention (TEA). Gaylord, MI: National Rehabilitation Services.

Robertson, I. H., Ward, T., Ridgeway, V., & NimmoSmith, I. (1996). The structure of normal human attention: The Test of Everyday Attention. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2, 525–534.

Robertson, I., & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 441–472.

Robins, D. L. (2008). Screening for autism in primary care settings. Autism, 12, 537–556. Robins, D. L., & Dumont-Mathieu, T. (2006). The Modi�ied Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT): A

review of current �indings and future directions. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 27, S111–S119.

Robins, D. L., Fein, D., & Barton, M. (1999). The Modi�ied Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

Roese, N. J., & Amir, E. (2009). Human-android interaction in the near and distant future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 429–434.

Rogers, B. (1989). Review of Metropolitan Achievement Test, Sixth Edition. The tenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Rogers, B. G. (1992). Review of GED. The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mif�lin.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mif�lin. Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mif�lin. Rogers, C. R., & Dymond, R. F. (Eds.). (1954). Psychotherapy and personality change: Co-ordinated research

studies in the client-centered approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rogers, R. (1984). Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources. Rogers, R. (1986). Conducting insanity evaluations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Rogers, R. (1986). Conducting insanity evaluations. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Rogers, R. (2001). Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS). In R. Rogers (Ed.), Handbook

of diagnostic and structured interviewing. New York: Guilford. Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. Rogers, R., & Johansson-Love, J. (2009). Evaluating competency to stand trial with evidence-based

practice. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law, 37, 450–460. Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. (1999). The R-CRAS and insanity evaluations: A re-examination of construct

validity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 181–194. Rogers, R., Bagby, M., & Dickens, S. (1992). Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) manual.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Rogers, R., Jackson, R., & Cashel, M. (2004). The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia

(SADS). In M. J. Hilsenroth & D. L. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment (vol. 2). New York: John Wiley.

Rogers, R., Sewell, K., & Goldstein, A. (1994). Explanation models of malingering: A prototypical analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 543–552.

Rogoff, B. (1984). What are the interrelations among the three subtheories of Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 300–301.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 116/133

Roid, G. (2002, August). New Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition: Author’s Overview. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

Roid, G. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Roid, G. (2005). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales for Early Childhood (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside

Publishing. Roid, G. H., & Johnson, W. B. (1998). Computer assisted psychological assessment. In A. S. Bellack & M.

Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive clinical psychology (vol. 4). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Roid, G., & Miller, L. (1997). Leiter-R Manual. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Co. Roldán-Tapia, L., Parrón, T., & Sánchez-Santed, F. (2005). Neuropsychological effects of long-term exposure

to organophosphate pesticides. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 27, 259–266. Rorschach, H. (1921). Psychodiagnostik. Berne: Birchen. Rosenberg, S., Ryan, J., & Pri�itera, A. (1984). Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test performance of patients

with and without memory impairment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 785–787. Ross, S. M., Gottfredson, D. K., Christensen, P., & Weaver, R. (1986). Cognitive self-statements in depression:

Findings across clinical populations. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 159–166. Rossier, J., de Stadelhofen, F., & Berthoud, S. (2004). The hierarchical structures of the NEO-PI-R and the 16

PF 5. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 27–38. Rosvold, H. E., Mirsky, A. E., Sarason, I., & others. (1956). A continuous performance test of brain damage.

Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20, 343–350. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609). Rotter, J. B. (1972). Beliefs, social attitudes, and behavior: A social learning analysis. In J. B. Rotter, J.

Chances, & E. J. Phares (Eds.), Applications of a social learning theory of personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rotter, J. B., & Rafferty, J. E. (1950). Manual for the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank: College Form. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Rotter, J. B., Lah, M., & Rafferty, J. (1992). Manual—Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: The Psychological Corporation.

Rotter, J. B., Rafferty, J. E., & Schachtitz, E. (1965). Validation of the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Test. In B. I. Murstein (Ed.), Handbook of projective techniques. New York: Basic Books.

Rozin, P. (2009). What kind of empirical research should we publish, fund, and reward? A different perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 435.

Rubenzer, S., Faschingbauer, T., & Ones, D. (2000). Assessing the U.S. presidents using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7, 403–420.

Rubin, M. (1999). Emotional intelligence and its role in mitigating aggression. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Immaculata College, Immaculata, Pennsylvania.

Rule, W. R., & Traver, M. D. (1983). Test-retest reliabilities of State-Trait Anxiety Inventory in a stressful social analogue situation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 276–277.

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235–294.

Russell, M., Martier, S., Sokol, R., & others. (1994). Screening for pregnancy risk-drinking. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 18, 1156–1161.

Russo, J. (1994). Thurstone’s scaling model applied to the assessment of self-reported depressive severity. Psychological Assessment, 6, 159–171.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 117/133

Rust, J., & Lindstrom, A. (1996). Concurrent validity of the WISC-III and Stanford-Binet-IV. Psychological Reports, 79, 618–620.

Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1987). Pre-employment honesty testing: Fakability, reactions of test takers, and company image. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 248–256.

Ryan, J. J., Sattler, J. M., & Tree, H. A. (2009, August). Exploratory factor analysis of the WAIS-IV. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

Ryan, M. (1985). Review of the Minnesota Clerical Test. The ninth mental measurements yearbook (vol. I). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ryan, R. M. (1987). Thematic Apperception Test. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques compendium. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.

Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (1995). Traditional psychometric tests and proportionate representation: An intervention and program evaluation study. Psychological Assessment, 7, 183–194.

Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2008). High stakes testing in higher education and employment: Appraising the evidence for validity and fairness. American Psychologist, 63, 215–227.

Sadock, B., & Sadock, V. (2004). Kaplan and Sadock’s comprehensive textbook of psychiatry (8th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.

Sala, F. (2002). Emotional Competence Inventory: Technical manual. Philadelphia: McClelland Center for Research, HayGroup.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1989–1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.

Salter, D., Forney, D., & Evans, N. (2005). Two approaches to examining the stability of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scores. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37, 208–219.

Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (2001). Assessment (8th ed). Boston: Houghton Mif�lin. Samelson, F. (1977). World War I intelligence testing and the development of psychology. Journal of the

History of the Behavioral Sciences, 13, 274–282. Sandford, J. A., & Turner, A. (1997). Intermediate Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test (IVA).

Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Sarason, I. G. (1961). Test anxiety, experimental instructions, and verbal learning. American Psychologist,

16, 374. Sashidharan, T., Pawlow, L. A., & Pettibone, J. C. (2012). An examination of racial bias in the Beck

Depression Inventory-II. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 203–209. Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher. Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications. San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler,

Publisher. Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler,

Publisher. Saulle, M., & Greenwald, B. D. (2012). Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy: A review. Rehabilitation

Research and Practice, online journal, Article ID 816069, 9 pages. Savickas, M., Taber, B., & Spokane, A. (2002). Convergent and discriminant validity of �ive interest

inventories. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 139–184. Scarr, S. (1981). Testing for children: Assessment and the many determinants of intellectual competence.

American Psychologist, 36, 1159–1168. Scarr, S. (1987). Foreward. In R. Elliott (Ed.), Litigating intelligence: IQ tests, special education and social

science in the courtroom. Dover, MA: Auburn House.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 118/133

Scarr, S. (1994). Culture-Fair and Culture-Free tests. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1976). IQ test performance of black children adopted by white families. American Psychologist, 31, 726–739.

Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1983). The Minnesota Adoption Studies: Genetic differences and malleability. Child Development, 54, 260–267.

Scarr-Salapatek, S. (1971). Unknowns in the IQ equation. Science, 174, 1223–1228. Schaie, K. W. (1958). Rigidity-�lexibility and intelligence: A cross-sectional study of the adult life span from

20–70. Psychological Monographs, 72, no. 9 (Whole No. 462). Schaie, K. W. (1977). Quasi-experimental designs in the psychology of aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie

(Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Schaie, K. W. (1978). Review of Senior Apperception Techniques. The eighth mental measurements

yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Schaie, K. W. (1980). Cognitive development in aging. In L. K. Obler & M. Alpert (Eds.), Language and

communication in the elderly. Lexington, MA: Heath. Schaie, K. W. (1985). Manual for the Schaie-Thurstone Adult Mental Abilities Test (STAMAT). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press. Schaie, K. W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood: The Seattle Longitudinal Study. New York:

Cambridge University Press. Schaie, K. W. (2005). Developmental in�luences on adult intelligence: The Seattle longitudinal study. New

York: Oxford University Press. Schaie, K. W. (2011). Historical in�luences on aging and behavior. In K. W. Schaie & S. L. Willis (Eds.),

Handbook of the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 41–55). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Schaie, K. W., & Willis, S. L. (1986). Adult development and aging. Boston: Little, Brown. Schaie, K. W., Caskie, G., Revell, A., & others. (2005). Extending neuropsychological assessments in the

Primary Mental Ability space. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 12, 245–277. Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Buntinx, W., & others. (2010). Intellectual disability: De�inition,

classi�ication, and systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disability.

Schalock, R., Luckasson, R., Shogren, K., & others. (2007). The renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding the change to the term Intellectual Disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 116–124.

Schatz, P., Pardini, J., Lovell, M. R., Collins, M. W., & Podell, K. (2006). Sensitivity and speci�icity of the ImPACT test battery for concussion in athletes. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 91–99.

Schear, J. M., & Craft, R. B. (1989). Examination of the concurrent validity of the California Verbal Learning Test. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 3, 162–168.

Scheier, M., Carver, C., & Bridges, M. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.

Scheuneman, J. D. (1987). An argument opposing Jensen on test bias: The psychological aspects. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Arthur Jensen: Consensus and controversy. New York: Falmer Press.

Schmidt, F. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187–211.

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., McKenzie, R. C., & Muldrow, T. W. (1979). Impact of valid selection procedures on work-force productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 609–626.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 119/133

Schmidt, F., & Zimmerman, R. (2004). A counterintuitive hypothesis about employment interview validity and some supporting evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 553–561.

Schmidt, K. S., & Gallo, J. L. (2007). Behavioral and Psychological Assessment of Dementia (BPAD). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Schmitt, N. (1995). Review of the Differential Aptitude Tests, Fifth Edition. The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coef�icient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353. Schmitt, N., & Kunce, C. (2002). The effects of required elaboration of answers to biodata questions.

Personnel Psychology, 55, 569–587. Schmitt, N., & Robertson, I. (1990). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 289–320. Schoenberg, M., Dawson, K., Duff, K., & others. (2006). Test performance and classi�ication statistics for the

Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in selected clinical samples. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 693–703.

Schroeder, M. L., Schroeder, K. G., & Hare, R. D. (1983). Generalizability of a checklist for assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 511–516.

Schroffel, A. (2012). The use of in-basket exercises for the recruitment of advanced social service workers. Public Personnel Management, 41, 151–160.

Schuldberg, D. (1988). The MMPI is less sensitive to the automated testing format than it is to repeated testing: Item and scale effects. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 285–298.

Schuler, M. (1999). Brief report: Frequency of maternal cocaine use during pregnancy and infant neurobehavioral outcome. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 24, 511–514.

Schwab, L. O. (1979). The Nebraska assessment for independent living (Project 93–013). Lincoln: Department of Human Development and the Family, University of Nebraska.

Seashore, C. E. (1938). The psychology of musical talent. Boston: Silver, Burdett. Segal, N. (2012). Born together—Reared apart: The landmark Minnesota Twin Study. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American

Psychologist, 55, 5–14. Seligman, M. E. P., & Kahana, M. (2009). Unpacking intuition: A conjecture. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 4, 399–402. Seligman, M. E. P., Abramson, L. Y., Semmel, A., & Von Baeyer, C. (1979). Depressive attributional style.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 242–247. Sellbom, M., Fishler, G., & Ben-Porath, Y. (2007). Identifying MMPI-2 predictors of police of�icer integrity

and misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 985–1004. Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems workbook. New York: Guilford. Sharkey, K. J., & Ritzler, B. A. (1985). Comparing diagnostic validity of the TAT and a new Picture Projective

Test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 406–412. Shaughnessy, M., & Moore, J. (1994). The KAIT with developmental students, honor students, and

freshmen. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 286–287. Shaw, S., Cullen, J., McGuire, J., & Brinckerhoff, L. (1995). Operationalizing a de�inition of learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 586–597. Shayer, M., Ginsburg, D., & Coe, R. (2007. Thirty years on—a large anti-Flynn effect? The Piagetian test

Volume & Heaviness norms 1975–2003. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 25–41. Sheldon, W., & Stevens, S. (1942). The varieties of temperament: A psychology of constitutional differences.

New York: Harper & Brothers.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 120/133

Shen, H., & Comrey, A. (1997). Predicting medical students’ academic performances by their cognitive abilities and personality characteristics. Academic Medicine, 72, 781–786.

Sheshlow, D., & Adams, W. (2006). Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning (2nd Ed.). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Shiffman, S., & Hufford, M. (2001). Ecological momentary assessment. Applied Clinical Trials, 10, 42–48. Shiffman, S., Hufford, M., & Paty, J. (2001). The patient experience movement. Applied Clinical Trials, 10,

48–56. Shiffman, S., Hufford, M., Hickcox, M., & others. (1997). Remember that? A comparison of real-time versus

retrospective recall of smoking lapses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 292–300. Shurrager, H. C. (1961). A haptic intelligence scale for adult blind. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology. Shurrager, H. C., & Shurrager, P. S. (1964). Manual for the Haptic Intelligence Scale for the Blind. Chicago:

Psychology Research Technology Center, Illinois Institute of Technology. Siegman, A. W. (1956). The effect of manifest anxiety on a concept formation task, a nondirected learning

task, and on timed and untimed intelligence tests. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20, 176–178. Silver, J. M., McAllister, T. W., & Yudofsky, S. C. (Eds.). (2011). Textbook of traumatic brain injury (2nd ed.).

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Silverstein, A. B. (1986). Organization and Structure of the Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude (DTLA-2).

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 1061–1066. Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report

scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 19–34. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in

an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.

Sipps, G. J., Berry, G. W., & Lynch, E. M. (1987). WAIS-R and social intelligence: A test of established assumptions that uses the CPI. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 499–504.

Sisson, E. D. (1948). Forced-choice: The new Army rating. Personnel Psychology, 1, 365–381. Sivan, A. B. (1991). Revised Visual Retention Test: Clinical and experimental applications (5th ed.). San

Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf. Smith, A. (1960). Changes in Porteus Maze scores of brain-operated schizophrenics after an eight year

interval. Journal of Mental Science, 106, 967–978. Smith, A. (1973). Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Smith, A., & Kinder, E. (1959). Changes in psychological test performances of brain-operated subjects after

eight years. Science, 129, 149–150. Smith, G. T. (2009). Why do different individuals progress along different life trajectories? Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 4, 415–421. Smith, J. (2001). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude, Fourth Edition. Fourteenth mental measurements

yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Smith, M., Delves, T., Lansdown, R., Clayton, B., & Graham, P. (1983). The effects of lead exposure on urban

children: The Institute of Child Health/Southampton Study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 25, 1–54.

Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 149–155.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 121/133

Smith, T. W., Follick, M. J., Ahern, D. K., & Adams, A. (1986). Cognitive distortion and disability in chronic low back pain. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 201–210.

Smyth, J., Wonderlich, S., Crosby, R., & others. (2001). The use of ecological momentary assessment approaches in eating disorder research. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 30, 83–95.

Snow, J. H. (1992). Review of Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Forms I and II. The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. (2007). Positive psychology: The scienti�ic and practical explorations of human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Snyder, D. K., Lachar, D., & Wills, R. M. (1988). Computer-based interpretation of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory: Use in treatment planning. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 14, 397–409.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (1987). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (3rd ed.). College Park, MD: Author.

Society for Research in Child Development. (2010). Social policy report brief: Protecting children from lead exposure. Sharing Youth and Child Development Knowledge, 24(1).

Sokol, R. J., & Clarren, S. K. (1989). Guidelines for use of terminology describing the impact of prenatal alcohol on the offspring. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 13, 597–598.

Sonne, J. L. (2012). Mental status examination. In J. L. Sonne (Ed.), PsycEssentials: A pocket resource for mental health practitioners (pp. 47–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sontag, L. W., Baker, C., & Nelson, V. (1958). Mental growth and personality development: A longitudinal study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 23 (Whole No. 68).

Sotile, W. M., Julian, A., Henry, S. E., & Sotile, M. O. (1988). Family Apperception Test manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330–348.

Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.

Spearman, C. (1923). The nature of ‘intelligence’ and the principles of cognition. London: Macmillan. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan. Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmuckle, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course:

The impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the big �ive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862–882.

Special Education Today. (1985). ACALD de�inition of learning disabilities. 2, 1–20. Sperry, R. W. (1964). The great cerebral commissure. Scienti�ic American, 210, 42–52. Spielberger, C. D. (1973). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for children. Palo Alto: Consulting

Psychologists Press. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (form y). Menlo Park, CA: Mind

Garden. Spielberger, C. D. (1989). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI): A comprehensive bibliography (Revised).

Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden. Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (Eds.). (1995). Test anxiety: Theory, assessment, and treatment. Philadelphia:

Taylor & Francis. Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez, H. P., Taylor, C. J., & others. (1980). Test Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 122/133

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Test manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Spitzer, R., & Endicott, J. (1978). Research diagnostic criteria: Rationale and reliability. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 773–782.

Spohr, H., & Steinhausen, H. (Eds.). (1996). Alcohol, pregnancy, and the developing child. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spreen, O. (2001). Learning disabilities and their neurological foundations, theories, and subtypes. In A. Kaufman & N. Kaufman (Eds.), Speci�ic learning disabilities and dif�iculties in children and adolescents. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuro-psychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Springer, S., & Deutsch, G. (1997). Left brain, right brain (5th ed.). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Sreenivasan, S., Walker, S., Weinberger, L., Kirkish, P., & Garrick, T. (2008). Four-facet PCL-R structure and

cognitive functioning among high violent criminal offenders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 197–200.

Stafford-Clark, D. (1971). What Freud really said. New York: Schocken Books. Stanley, J. C. (1971). Reliability. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, DC:

American Council on Education. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.

American Psychologist, 6, 613–629. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African

Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. Steer, R. A., Beck, A. T., & Brown, G. (1989). Sex differences on the Revised Beck Depression Inventory for

outpatients with affective disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 693–702. Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major in�luences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 63, 391–407. Stefan, S. (2001). Unequal rights: Discrimination against people with mental disabilities and the Americans

with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Stehouwer, R. S. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques

compendium. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America. Steinweg, D. L., & Worth, H. (1993). Alcoholism: The keys to the CAGE. American Journal of Medicine, 94,

520–523. Stenner, A. J. (2001). The Lexile Framework: A common metric for matching readers and text. California

School Library Association Journal, 25, 41–42. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. Steptoe, A., Wright, C., Kunz-Ebrecht, S., & Iliffe, S. (2006). Dispositional optimism and health behaviour in

community-dwelling older people: Associations with healthy ageing. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 71–84.

Stern, R., & White, T. (2003a). Neuropsychological Assessment Battery: Administration, scoring, and interpretive manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Stern, R., & White, T. (2003a). Neuropsychological Assessment Battery: Psychometric and technical manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Stern, W. L. (1912). Uber die psychologischen Methoden der Intelligenzprufung. American translation by G. M. Whipple (1914). The psychological methods of testing intelligence. Educational Psychology

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 123/133

Monographs, no. 13, Baltimore: Warwick & York. Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Intelligence and nonentrenchment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 1–16. Sternberg, R. J. (1985a). Componential analysis: A recipe. In D. K. Detterman (Ed.), Current topics in human

intelligence (vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied: Understanding and increasing your intellectual skills. San Diego,

CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (Level H). Unpublished test. Sternberg, R. J. (1994). The triarchic theory of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

intelligence. New York: Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Creativity as a decision. American Psychologist, 57, 376. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1994). Encyclopedia of human intelligence (vols. 1, 2). New York: Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (Eds.). (1986). What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its

nature and de�inition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998). Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 479–502. Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. (1997). Does the Graduate Record Examination predict meaningful success

in the graduate training of psychologists? A case study. American Psychologist, 52, 630–641. Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 39, 88–94. Sternberg, R. J., Castejon, J., Prieto, M., Hautamaki, J., & Grigorenko, E. (2001). Con�irmatory factor analysis

of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test in three international samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 1–16.

Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People’s conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 37–55.

Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1992). Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity. Current Directions in Psychological Research, 1, 1–5.

Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales and measurement. Science, 103, 677–680. Stewart, G., Dustin, S., Barrick, M., & Darnold, T. (2008). Exploring the handshake in employment

interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1139–1146. Stewart, P., Reihman, J., Lonky, E., Darvill, T., & Pagano, J. (1999). Prenatal PCB exposure and neonatal

behavioral assessment scale (NBAS) performance. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 22, 21–29. Stockwell, S., Schaeffer, B., & Lowenstein, J. (1991). The SAT coaching coverup. Cambridge, MA: Fairtest. Stokes, G., & Cooper, L. (2001). Content/construct approaches in life history form development for

selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 138–151. Stokes, G., & Cooper, L. (2004). Biodata. In J. Thomas (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological

assessment, Vol. 4: Industrial and organizational assessment (pp. 243–268). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Stokes, G., Mumford, M., & Owens (Eds.). (1994). Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of

biographical information in selection and performance prediction. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Stone, B. J. (1994). Group ability test versus teachers’ ratings for predicting achievement. Psychological Reports, 75, 1487–1490.

Storandt, M., & Hill, R. D. (1989). Very mild senile dementia of the Alzheimer type: 2. Psychometric test performance. Archives of Neurology, 46, 383–386.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 124/133

Stout, J. C., Ready, R. E., Grace, J., Malloy, P. F., & Paulsen, J. S. (2006). Factor Analysis of Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (frSBe). Assessment, 10, 79–85.

Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Strauss, E., Sherman, E., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Strayhorn, J. C., & Strayhorn, J. M. (2012). Lead exposure and the 2010 achievement test scores of children in New York counties. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 6, 4.

Streiner, D. L., Goldberg, J. O., & Miller, H. R. (1993). MCMI-II item weights: Their lack of effectiveness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 471–476.

Streissguth, A., Bookstein, F., & Barr, H. (1996). A dose-response study of the enduring effects of prenatal alcohol exposure: birth to 14 years. In H. Spohr & H. Steinhausen (Eds.), Alcohol, pregnancy, and the developing child. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Streissguth, A., Bookstein, F., Barr, H., & others. (2004). Risk factors for adverse life outcomes in fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 25, 226–238.

Streissguth, A., Martin, D., Barr, H., & Sandman, B. (1984). Intrauterine alcohol and nicotine exposure: Attention and reaction time in 4-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 20, 533–541.

Strong, E. K. (1927). Vocational Interest Blank. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Strong, E. K. (1955). Vocational interests 18 years after college. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Strong, E. K., Hansen, J., & Campbell, D. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18,

643–662. Strub, R. L., & Black, F. W. (2000). The mental status examination in neurology (5th ed.). Philadelphia: F. A.

Davis. Strutt, A. M., Scott, B. M., Lozano, V. J., Tieu, P. G., & Peery, S. (2012). Assessing sub-optimal performance

with the Test of Memory Malingering in Spanish speaking patients with TBI. Brain Injury, 26, 853–863. Sumi, K. (2006). Correlations between optimism and social relationships. Psychological Reports, 99, 938–

940. Sundet, J., Barlaug, D., & Torjussen, T. (2004). The end of the Flynn effect? A study of secular trends in

mean intelligence test scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century. Intelligence, 32, 349–362. Sundet, J., Borren, I., & Tambs, K. (2008). The Flynn effect is partly caused by changing fertility patterns.

Intelligence, 36, 183–191. Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 8(5), 185–190. Super, D. E. (1990). Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Super, D. E. (1994). A life-span, life-space perspective on convergence. In M. L. Savika & R. W. Lent (Eds.),

Convergence in career development theories: Implications for science and practice (pp. 63–74). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Super, D. E., Savickas, M. L., & Super, C. M. (1996). The life-span, life-space approach to careers. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 121–177). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sweeney, J., Slade, H., Ivins, R., & others. (2007). Scienti�ic investigation of brain-behavior relationships using the Halstead-Reitan Battery. Applied Neuropsychology, 14, 65–72.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 125/133

Swenson, W. M., Rome, H., Pearson, J., & Brannick, T. (1965). A totally automated psychological test: Experience in a medical center. Journal of the American Medical Association, 191, 925–927.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Tallent, N. (1993). Psychological report writing (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tamkin, A. S., & Scherer, I. W. (1957). What is measured by the “Cannot Say” scale of the group MMPI?

Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 413–417. Tan, J. E., Hultsch, D. F., Hunter, M. A., & Strauss, E. (2010). Psychometric investigation of the modi�ied

Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised in an elderly sample. Clinical Gerontologist: The Journal of Aging and Mental Health, 33, 69–83.

Tanner, B. A. (1992). Computer-aided reporting of the results of neuropsychological evaluations of traumatic brain injury. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 51–56.

Tasbihsazan, R., Nettelbeck, T., & Kirby, N. (2003). Predictive validity of the Fagan Test of Infant Intelligence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 585–597.

Tasto, D. L., Hickson, R., & Rubin, S. E. (1971). Scaled pro�ile analysis of fear survey schedule factors. Behavior Therapy, 2, 543–549.

Tate, R. L. (2010). A compendium of tests, scales, and questionnaires: The practitioner’s guide to measuring outcomes after acquired brain impairment. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Tauszcik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54.

Taylor, F. S. (1942). The origin of the thermometer. Annals of Science, 5, 129–156. te Nijenhuis, J., Cho, S. H., Murphy, R., & Lee, K. H. (2012). The Flynn effect in Korea: Large gains.

Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 147–151. Teacher, Administrator, and Counselor Manual: Iowa Tests of Educational Development. Forms X-8 and Y-8.

1988. Teare, J. F., & Thompson, R. W. (1982). Concurrent validity of the Perkins-Binet tests of intelligence for the

blind. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 76, 279–280. Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974). The Glasgow Coma Scale. Lancet, 2, 81. Teasdale, T., & Owen, D. (2005). A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The

Flynn effect in reverse. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 837–843. Teichner, G., Golden, C., Bradley, J., & Crum, T. (1999). Internal consistency and discriminant validity of the

Luria Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-III. International Journal of Neuroscience, 98, 141–152. Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. (1992). The new uniform T scores for the MMPI-2: Rationale, derivation, and

appraisal. Psychological Assessment, 4, 145–155. Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2

Restructured Form): Technical manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Temple, R., & Zgaljardic, D. (2009). Ecological validity of the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery

Screening Module in post-acute brain injury rehabilitation. Brain Injury, 23, 45–50. Templeton, A. R. (2002). The genetic and evolutionary signi�icance of human races. In J. Fish (Ed.), Race

and intelligence: Separating science from myth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tendler, A. D. (1930). A preliminary report on a test for emotional insight. Journal of Applied Psychology,

14, 123–126. Teng, S. (1942–43). Chinese in�luence on the western examination system. Harvard Journal of Asiatic

Studies, 7, 267–312. Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mif�lin.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 126/133

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Terrell, F., Terrell, S., & Taylor, J. (1981). Effect of race of examiner and cultural mistrust on the WAIS performance of Black students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 750–751.

Thoma, S. (2006). Research on the de�ining issues test. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 67–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thomas, M., & Watkins, P. (2003, May). Measuring the grateful trait: Development of revised GRAT. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, Vancouver, BC.

Thompson, C. (1949). The Thompson modi�ication of the Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Projective Techniques, 13, 469–478.

Thorndike, E. L. (1912). The permanence of interests and their relation to abilities. Popular Science Monthly, 81, 449–456.

Thorndike, E. L. (1918). The seventeenth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Pt. II. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Co.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227–235. Thorndike, E. L. (1920a). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29. Thorndike, E. L. (1920b). Intelligence and its use. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227–235. Thorndike, E. L. (Ed.). (1921). Intelligence and Its Measurement: A Symposium. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 12, 123–147, 195–216. Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social intelligence.

Psychological Bulletin, 34, 275–285. Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition,

Guide for administering and scoring. Chicago: Riverside. Thurstone, L. L. (1921). Intelligence. In E. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Intelligence and Its Measurement: A

Symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 123–147, 195–216. Thurstone, L. L. (1925). A method of scaling psychological and educational tests. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 16, 433–451. Thurstone, L. L. (1929). Theory of attitude measurement. Psychological Review, 36, 222–241. Thurstone, L. L. (1931). Multiple factor analysis. Psychological Review, 38, 406–427. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric Monographs, no. 1. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. (1930). A neurotic inventory. Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 3–30. Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. (1941). Factorial studies in intelligence. Psychometric Monographs, No. 2.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tif�in, J. (1968). Purdue Pegboard Examiner’s Manual. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Tinius, T. (2003). The Intermediate Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test as a

neuropsychological measure. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 199–214. Tombaugh, T. (1997). The test of memory malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact

and cognitively impaired individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9, 260–268. Tombaugh, T., McDowell, I., Kristjansson, B., & Hubley, A. (1996). Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)

and the Modi�ied MMSE (3MS): A psychometric comparison and normative data. Psychological Assessment, 8, 48–59.

Tomkins, S. S. (1947). The Thematic Apperception Test. New York: Grune & Stratton.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 127/133

Tong, E., Bishop, G., Enkelmann, H., & others. (2005). The use of ecological momentary assessment to test appraisal theories of emotion. Emotion, 5, 508–512.

Torgerson, J. (2009). The response to intervention instructional model: Some outcomes from a large-scale implementation in Reading First schools. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 38–40.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms—Technical Manual (Research Edition). Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms—Technical Manual Research Edition —Verbal Tests, Forms A & B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1998). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms—Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Totsika, V., & Sylva, K. (2004). The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment revisited. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9, 25–35.

Traxler, A. E. (1951). Administering and scoring the objective test. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Treffert, D. A. (1989). Extraordinary people. London: Bantam Press. Tref�linger, D. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr., (Ed.), The

ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1632–1634). Trevisan, M. S. (1992). Review of GED. The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press. Trinidad, D., & Johnson, C. (2002). The association between emotional intelligence and early adolescent

tobacco and alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 95–105. Tröster, A. (2012). Understanding Parkinson’s: Cognition and Parkinson’s. New York: Parkinson’s Disease

Foundation. Trull, T. J., Useda, J., Costa, Jr., P., & McCrae, R. (1995). Comparison of the MMPI-2 Personality

Psychopathology Five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and the NEO-PI-R. Psychological Assessment, 7, 508–516. Trull, T. J., Widiger, T., Useda, J., & others. (1998). A structured interview for the assessment of the �ive-

factor model of personality. Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–240. Tsai, L., & Tsuang, M. (1979). The Mini-Mental State Test and computerized tomography. American Journal

of Psychiatry, 136, 436–439. Turk, A. A., Brown, W. S., Symington, M., & Paul, L. K. (2010). Social narratives in agenesis of the corpus

callosum: Linguistic analysis of the Thematic Apperception Test. Neuropsychologia, 48, 43–50. Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. I. (2003). Socioeconomic status

modi�ies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 4, 623–628. Tzeng, O. C. S. (1987). Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test

critiques compendium. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America. Tzeng, O., Ware, R., & Chen, J. (1989). Measurement and utility of continuous unipolar ratings for the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 727–738. U.S. Department of Education. (1977). De�inition and criteria for de�ining students as learning disabled.

Federal Register, 42(250), 65083. U.S. Department of Education. (1992). Fourteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Uematsu, S., Lesser, R., Fisher, R. S., & others. (1992). Motor and sensory cortex in humans: Topography

studied with chronic subdural stimulation. Neurosurgery, 31(1), 59–71. Ulrich, L., & Trumbo, D. (1965). The selection interview since 1949. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 100–116.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 128/133

United States Employment Service. (1970). Manual for the USES General Aptitude Test Battery. Washington, DC: United States Department of Labor.

Urquhart Hagie, M., Gallipo, P., & Svien, L. (2003). Traditional culture versus traditional assessment for American Indian Students: An investigation of potential test item bias. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29, 15–25.

Vaillant, G. (1971). Theoretical hierarchy of adaptive ego mechanisms. Archives of General Psychiatry, 24, 107–118.

Vaillant, G. (1977). Adaptation to life: How the best and the brightest came of age. Boston: Little, Brown. Vaillant, G. (1992). Ego mechanisms of defense: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Washington, DC:

American Psychiatric Press. Vaillant, G., & Vaillant, C. (1990). Natural history of male psychosocial health, XII: A 45-year study of

predictors of successful aging at age 65. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 31–37. Van de Vijver, F., & Harsveld, M. (1994). The incomplete equivalence of the paper-and-pencil and

computerized versions of the General Aptitude Test Battery. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 852– 859.

Van Gorp, W. (1992). Review of Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Forms I and II. The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Raymark, P. H., & Odle-Dusseau, H. N. (2012). The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 499–530.

Vance, B., Kitson, D., & Singer, M. (1985). Relationship between the standard scores of PPVT-R and Wide Range Achievement Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 691–693.

VanderVeer, B., & Schweid, E. (1974). Infant assessment: Stability of mental functioning in young retarded children. American Journal of Mental De�iciency, 79, 1–4.

Varma, A., DeNisi, A., & Peters, L. (1996). Interpersonal affect and performance appraisal: A �ield study. Personnel Psychology, 49, 341–360.

Vaughn, S., & Haager, D. (1994). The measurement and assessment of social skills. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Vautier, S., & Pohl, S. (2009). Do balanced scales assess bipolar construct? The case of the STAI scales. Psychological Assessment, 21, 187–193.

Vernon, M. C., & Alles, B. F. (1986). Psychoeducational assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing children and adolescents. In P. J. Lazarus & S. S. Strichart (Eds.), Psychoeducational evaluation of children and adolescents with low-incidence handicaps. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Vernon, M. C., & Brown, D. W. (1964). A guide to psychological tests and testing procedures in the evaluation of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 29, 414–423.

Vernon, P. A. (2000). Recent studies of intelligence and personality using Jackson’s Multidimensional Aptitude Battery and Personality Research Form. In R. Gof�in & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Vernon, P. A., Martin, R., Schermer, J., & Mackie, A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of humor styles and their correlations with the Big-5 personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1116–1125.

Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen. Vernon, P. E. (1979). Intelligence: Heredity and environment. San Francisco: Freeman.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 129/133

Viglione, D. J., Blume-Marcovici, A. C., Miller, H. L., Giromini, L., & Meyer, G. (2012). An inter-rater reliability study for the Rorschach Performance Assessment System. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 607– 612.

Vince, J. (2004). Introduction to virtual reality. New York: Springer Publishing. Vincent, A., Roebuck-Spencer, T., Gilleland, K., & Schlegel, R. (2012). Automated Neuropsychological

Assessment Metrics (v4) Traumatic Brain Injury Battery: Military normative data. Military Medicine, 177, 256–269.

Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D., & Schmidt, F. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574.

Wagner, R. (1949). The employment interview: A critical review. Personnel Psychology, 2, 17–46. Wainer, H. (Ed.). (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Walker, C. (2006). Cognitive improvement and alcoholism recovery [fact sheet]. Center City, MN: Hazelden

Publishing. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Wallbrown, F. H., Carmin, C. N., & Barnett, R. W. (1988). Investigating the construct validity of the

Multidimensional Aptitude Battery. Psychological Reports, 62, 871–878. Walls, R. T., Zane, T., & Thvedt, J. E. (1979). The Independent Living Behavior Checklist. Dunbar: West

Virginia Research and Training Center. Walsh, B. D. (1996, March). The psychometric characteristics of the Career Beliefs Inventory. Dissertation

Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 56(9-A), 3516. Walsh, B. D., Thompson, T., & Kapes, J. (1997). The construct validity of scores on the Career Beliefs

Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 31–46. Walsh, W. B., & Holland, J. L. (1992). A theory of personality types and work environments. In W. Walsh, R.

Price, & K. Craik (Eds.), Person-environment psychology: Models and perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wanek, J. (1999). Integrity and honesty testing: What do we know? How do we use it? International

Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7, 183–195. Wang, J., & Kaufman, A. (1993). Changes in �luid and crystallized intelligence across the 20- to 90-year age

range on the K-BIT. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 11, 29–37. Wang, L. (1995). Differential Aptitude Tests. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,

28, 168–171. Wang, L., Beckett, G. H., & Brown, L. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in school

accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 306–328.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What in�luences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 30–43.

Washington, J., & Craig, H. (1999). Performance of at-risk, African American preschoolers on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 75–82.

Wasylkiw, L., & Fekken, G. (2002). Personality and self-reported health: Matching predictors and criteria. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 607–620.

Watkins, C., Campbell, V., Nieberding, R., & Hallmark, R. (1995). Contemporary practice of psychological assessment by clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 54–60.

Watkins, P., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R. (2003). Gratitude and happiness: Development of a measure of gratitude and relationships with subjective well-being. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 431–452.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 130/133

Watson, B. (1983). Test-retest stability of the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude in a sample of hearing-impaired children and adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48, 145–149.

Watson, B. U., & Goldgar, D. E. (1985). A note on the use of the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude with deaf children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 16, 53–57.

Watson, C. G., Thomas, D., & Anderson, P. (1992). Do computer-administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventories underestimate booklet-based scores? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 744– 748.

Wechsler, D. (1932). Analytic use of the Army Alpha examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16, 254– 256.

Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Wechsler, D. (1941). The measurement of adult intelligence (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Wechsler, D. (1944). Measurement of adult intelligence (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Wechsler, D. (1949). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: The Psychological

Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1952). The range of human capacities (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. New York: The Psychological

Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: The

Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. San Antonio, TX: The

Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1989). Manual for the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised. San

Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. San Antonio, TX: The

Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1997). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III. San Antonio, TX: The

Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV: Technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological

Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2008). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX:

Pearson. Wechsler, D., Coalson, D., & Raiford, S. (2008). WAIS-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX:

Pearson. Weekes, N. Y. (1994). Sex differences in the brain. In D. W. Zaidel (Ed.), Neuropsychology (2nd ed.). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press. Weiner, I. B. (1994). The Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is not a test: Implications for theory and

practice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 498–504. Weiner, I. B. (1996). Some observations on the validity of the Rorschach inkblot method. Psychological

Assessment, 8, 206–213. Weiner, I. B., & Kuehnle, K. (1998). Projective assessment of children and adolescents. In A. S. Bellack, & M.

Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive clinical psychology, (vol. 4). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Weiss, D. J. (1985). Adaptive testing by computer. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 774–

789. Weiss, D. J. (Ed.). (1983). New horizons in testing: Latent trait theory and computerized adaptive testing.

New York: Academic Press.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 131/133

Weiss, D. J., & Vale, C. D. (1987). Computerized adaptive testing for measuring abilities and other psychological variables. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Computerized psychological assessment: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Basic Books.

Weiss, D. S., Zilberg, N. J., & Genevro, J. L. (1989). Psychometric properties of Loevinger’s Sentence Completion Test in an adult psychiatric outpatient sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 478– 486.

Weiss, R. A., Rosenfeld, B., & Farkas, M. R. (2011). The utility of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms in a sample of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Assessment, 18, 284–290.

Weller, C. E., & Fields, J. (2011). The Black and White labor gap in America: Why African Americans struggle to �ind jobs and remain employed compared to Whites. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row. Wesman, A. G. (1971). Writing the test item. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.).

Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Westbrook, B. W., & Bane, K. D. (1992). Review of De�ining Issues Test. Eleventh mental measurements

yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Whipple, G. M. (1910). Manual of mental and physical tests. Baltimore: Warwick and York. Whitney, D. R., Malizio, A. G., & Patience, W. M. (1985). The reliability and validity of the GED Tests.

American Council on Education GED Research Brief, May, No. 6. Whyte, J., Polansky, M., Cavallucci, C., Fleming, M., Lhulier, J., & Coslett, H. (1996). Innattentive behaviour

arfter traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2, 274–281. Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview format

and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 275–290.

Wiggins, J. (1997). In defense of traits. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test-III: Administration manual. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.

Wilkinson, G., & Robertson, G. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test—Fourth Edition. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Williams, M. (1979). Brain damage, behaviour, and the mind. New York: Wiley. Williams, R. L. (1970). Danger: Testing and dehumanizing Black children. Clinical Child Psychology

Newsletter, 9, 5–6. Williamson, L., Campion, J., Malo, S., & others. (1997). Employment interview on trial: Linking interview

structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 900–912. Willingham, W. W., Ragosta, M., Bennett, R., & others. (1988). Testing handicapped people. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon. Wilson, B. A., Cockburn, J., & Baddeley, A. (1991). The Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test (2nd ed.). Suffolk,

UK: Thames Valley Test Company. Wilson, B., Alderman, N., Burgess, P., Emslie, H., & Evans, J. (1996). Behavioral Assessment of the

Dysexecutive Syndrome. Bury St. Edmunds, England: Thames Valley Test Company. Wilson, M. N. (1994). African Americans. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New

York: Macmillan. Wilson, M., & Reschly, D. (1996). Assessment in school psychology training and practice. School Psychology

Review, 25, 9–23.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 132/133

Wilson, R. S. (1983). The Louisville Twin Study: Developmental synchronies in behavior. Child Development, 54, 298–316.

Wilson, T. D. (2009). Know thyself. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 384–389. Wing, H. (1992). Review of the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test. The eleventh mental

measurements Yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Winter, D. G., & Stewart, A. J. (1977). Power motive reliability as a function of retest instructions. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 436–440. Wirt, R. D., & Broen, W. E., Jr. (1958). Booklet for the Personality Inventory for Children. Minneapolis, MN:

Authors. Wirt, R. D., Lachar, D., Klinedinst, J. K., & Seat, P. D. (1984). Multidimensional description of child personality:

A manual for the Personality Inventory for Children, Revised 1984. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Wisniewski, J. J., & Naglieri, J. A. (1989). Validity of the Draw A Person: A Quantitative Scoring System with the WISC-R. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 7, 346–351.

Wissler, C. (1901). The correlation of mental and physical tests. The Psychological Review, Monograph Supplement 3(6).

Witchalls, C. (2012, September 27). James R. Flynn: Are we really getting smarter every year? The Independent.

Witelson, S. (2007). Sex and the single hemisphere: Specialization of the right hemisphere for spatial processing. In G. Einstein (Ed.), Sex and the brain (pp. 541–544). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wolf, A. W., Schubert, D., Patterson, M., Grande, T., & Pendleton, L. (1990). The use of the MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale in detecting substance abuse and antisocial personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 747–755.

Wolf, T. H. (1973). Alfred Binet. Chicago: The University of Illinois Press. Wolff, K. C., & Gregory, R. J. (1992). The effects of a temporary dysphoric mood upon selected WAIS-R

subtests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 340–344. Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Wolpe, J. (1973). The practice of behavior therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon. Wolpe, J., & Lang, P. J. (1977). Manual for the Fear Survey Schedule (revised). San Diego, CA: Educational and

Industrial Testing Service. Wonderlic, E. F. (1983). Wonderlic Personnel Test manual. North�ield, IL: E. F. Wonderlic & Associates. Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M., & Stejskal, W. (1996). The Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A critical

examination. Psychological Science, 7, 3–10. Wood, J., Garb, H., & Nezworski, M. T. (2007). Psychometrics: Better measurement makes better clinicians.

In S. O. Lilienfeld & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), The great ideas of clinical science: 17 principles that every mental health professional should understand. New York: Routledge.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Werder, J. K. (1994). Mini-Battery of Achievement: Examiner’s manual. Chicago: Riverside.

Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Woodworth, R. S. (1919). Examination of emotional �itness for warfare. Psychological Bulletin, 16, 59–60. Wortman, J., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012, July 9). Stability and change in the Big Five personality

domains: Evidence from a longitudinal study of Australians. Psychology and Aging, online publication. Wrightsman, L., Nietzel, M., Fortune, W., & Greene, E. (2002). Psychology and the legal system (5th ed.).

Paci�ic Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01l… 133/133

Wulff, D. M. (1996). The psychology of religion: An overview. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wundt, W. (1862). Die Geschwindigkeit des Gedankens. Gartenlaube, 263–265. Yalisove, D. (2004). Introduction to alcohol research: Implications for treatment, prevention, and policy.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Yama, M. (1990). The usefulness of human �igure drawings as an index of overall adjustment. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 54, 78–86. Yerkes, R. M. (1919). Report of the psychology Committee of the National Research Council. Psychological

Review, 26, 83–149. Yerkes, R. M. (Ed.). (1921). Psychological examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the National

Academy of Sciences, vol. 15. Yuan, Y. (2002). Development of the norm for the Fagan Test of Infant Intelligence in a town near

Changsha. Chinese Mental health Journal, 16, 320–322. Zapf, P., & Roesch, R. (1997). Assessing �itness to stand trial: A comparison of institution-based evaluations

and a brief screening interview. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 16, 53–66. Zapf, P., & Roesch, R. (2009). Evaluation of competence to stand trial. New York: Oxford University Press. Zapf, P., Skeem, J., & Golding, S. (2005). Factor structure and validity of the MacArthur Competence

Assessment Tool—Criminal Adjudication. Psychological Assessment, 17, 433–445. Zavala, A. (1965). Development of the forced-choice rating scale technique. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 117–

124. Zeidner, M., Roberts, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). The science of emotional intelligence: Current consensus

and controversies. European Psychologist, 13, 64–78. Zhai, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). Head Start and urban children’s school readiness: A birth

cohort study in 18 cities. Developmental Psychology, 47, 134–152.