Individual Psychological Assessment

Transcription

1 Professor: Jerry Haeffel Office Hours: Pop-in or by Appointment Contact: Office: 108 Class Info: Psychology Wednesday, 9:45 a.m. -11:45 a.m. Phone: Course Web Page: Learning Goals The course has 5 main learning goals: (1) identify and describe the major classes of psychological measures, (2) use empirical evidence to critique the reliability and validity of psychological measures, (3) develop a deeper appreciation for the role of measurement in theory construction and theory testing, (4) evaluate the status of psychological measurement in your area of research, and (5) gain further experience writing and presenting your scientific arguments. The issues discussed in this course should leave an indelible mark on the way you think about your research and clinical work. Note. The course is the first component of a two-semester series in psychological assessment. You will not learn to administer psychological assessments this semester. Rather, the course will provide a conceptual/theoretical overview of psychological assessment. You will learn to administer, interpret, and present the results of specific assessment instruments next semester. Basic Structure This is a seminar course. Although each class will have a short lecture, most of the time will be devoted to discussion. This means you are expected to dive deeply into the readings. The course assignments are designed to facilitate discussion, and more importantly, provide you with experiences directly related to your academic future -- debating scientific topics, writing grants, and presenting your research. Each week we will discuss a set of readings, and YOU will be partially responsible for leading discussion. Each week, one of you will be in charge of starting and stimulating discussion about the readings. To this end, you will prepare a set of 5-10 discussion questions that you will to the class before the end of week (i.e., the Monday before Wednesday s class). All students should come to class with the questions answered, in writing, and be ready to discuss and debate the articles. Be creative when creating your discussion questions! The articles you will read are among the most famous, stimulating, and debated articles in all of psychology. -- if they do not get you thinking, then you are likely pursuing the wrong career! Take advantage of these articles and see how lively you can get the discussion. Think deeply about the issues, be critically minded, and think outside the box. The discussion format is wide open (e.g., you can put your classmates on the spot, create a game or debate, etc.). Text Books Garb, H.N. (1998). Studying the Clinician: Judgment Research and Psychological Assessment. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Lilienfeld, S. Lynn, S., and Lohr, J. (2004). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. New York, New York: The Guilford Press. Grading 15% Class Participation 20% Leading Class Discussion 25% Symposium Presentation 40% Mini-Grant Proposal A A- B+ B B- Failing % 92-89% 88-87% 86-80% 79% < 78% -- Fall Syllabus 1

2 Assignment Descriptions Mini Grant Proposal: The proposal should be modeled, in part, after the NIH F31/F32, which is a fellowship for graduate students/ postdocs, ( The proposal will consist of sections A, B, and D from the NIH Research Training Plan: Specific Aims, Background and Significance, and Research Design and Methods. Consistent with the NIH guidelines, your proposal cannot exceed 10 pages (single spaced), including tables and figures (references excluded). I will provide you with some hand-outs and suggestions that will help with grantsmanship. The basis for your proposal should be the issues discussed in class -- a critical analysis of the status of measurement in your area of research, theory construction, and theory testing. Decide on a major limitation of the field, and then propose a research study that addresses the problem. Be theoretical! Please run your proposal ideas by me prior to starting the mini-grant. I will be willing to review one draft of your mini grant proposal prior. The draft is due by November 17. Symposium Presentation: You will prepare a 20 minute presentation of your mini-grant proposal. Following your presentation, there will be 10 minutes for questions. Remember to frame your presentation in the context of a theory. We will discuss presentation strategies and grading criteria prior to the in-class symposium. Feedback about your presentation can be used to add the final touches to your mini-grant. Important Dates October 21 November 25 December 2 December 9 No Class (Fall Break) No Class (Thanksgiving) In-Class Symposium Mini-grant due Policies All submitted work must be your own. You are encouraged to discuss the readings and issues from class with your colleagues. However, you must complete the course assignments (short write-ups, grant, and presentation) individually. Remember, As a member of the Notre Dame community, I will not participate in or tolerate academic dishonesty. -- Fall Syllabus 2

3 Topics & Readings August 26 Introductions and Overview McFall, R.M. (1991). Manifesto for a science of clinical psychology. Clinical Psychologist, 44, McFall, R.M (2006). The Quest for a science of clinical psychology: A progress report. Clinical Science, Fall Issue, 4-7. Bootzin, R.R. (2007). Psychological Clinical Science: Why and How We Got to Where We Are. In T. Treat, R. Bootzin, & T. Baker (Eds), Psychological Clinical Science: Papers in honor of Richard McFall. Psychology Press, New York, NY. McLean, C.P et al. (2007). Teaching students to think like scientists. The Behavior Therapist, September 2 Progress of Psychology and Theory Testing Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson of London. Read pages 3-26; 57-73; Stanovich, K. (2007). Falsifiability: A discourse on how to foil little green men in the head. How to think straight about psychology, 8th Edition. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. Peterson, C. (2009). Minimally sufficient research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 7-9. Underwood, B.J. (1975). Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. American Psychologist, 30, Waller, N.G. (2004). The Fallacy of the null hypothesis in soft psychology. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 11, September 9 Progress of Psychology and Psychological Constructs Stanovich, K. (2007). Operationalism and essentialism: But doctor, what does it really mean? How to think straight about psychology, 8th Edition. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. Meehl, P.E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, Miller, G.A. (2004). Another quasi-30 years of slow progress. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 11, Sternberg, R.J. (2007). The importance of problem-driven research: Bringing Wachtel s argument into the present. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 12, Fall Syllabus 3

4 September 16 Validity, Reliability, and Scale Construction Stanovich, K. (2007). But it s not real life! The artificiality criticism and psychology. How to think straight about psychology. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, September 23 Classification of Psychopathology Clark, L.A. (2005). Temperament as a unifying basis for personality and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, Hemple, C.G. (1965). Fundamentals of taxonomy. In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press. Follette, W.C., & Houts, A.C. (1996). Models of scientific progress and the role of theory in taxonomy development: A case study of the DSM. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, Spitzer, R.L., Endicott, J., & Robbins, E. (1978). Research diagnostic criteria: Rationale and reliability. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, Wakefield, J.C. (1992). The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist, Not Required, but a good article if interested: Meehl, P.E. (1995). Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50. September 30 Assessment of Psychopathology and Personality Studying the Clinician, Chapters 1 and 2 October 7 Behavioral Predictions and Clinical Judgement (Part I) Studying the Clinician, Chapter 4 Science & Pseudoscience, Chapters 1, 2, and 3 Lilienfeld, S.O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psych logical research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare. Perspective on Psychological Science, 4, Fall Syllabus 4

5 October 14 Behavioral Predictions and Clinical Judgement (Part II) Studying the Clinician, Chapters 7, 8, and 9 October 28 Self-Report Assessment Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, November 4 Biological/Genetic Assessment Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., & Rutter, M. (2006). Gene-environment interactions in psychopathology: Concepts, research strategies, and implications for research, intervention, and public understanding of genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, Caacioppo, J.T., Berntson, G.G., Lorig, T.S., Norris, C.J., Rickett, E., & Nusbaum, H. (2003). Just because you re imaging the brain doesn t mean you can stop using your head: A primer and set of first principles. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85, Cole, S.W. (2009). Social regulation of human gene expression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, Kagan, J. (2007). A trio of concerns. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, Miller, G.A. & Keller, J. (2000). Psychology and neuroscience: Making peace. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, November 11 Projective Assessment Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., & Stejskal, W. J. (1996). The Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A critical examination. Psychological Science, 7, Lilienfeld, S.O. Wood, J.M., & Garb, H. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, Hibbard, S. (2003). A critique of Lilienfeld et al. s (2000) The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, Transcripts from 8/09 SSCP DISCUSSION -- Fall Syllabus 5

6 November 18 Animal Research, Neuropsychological and Cognitive Assessment Domjan, M. & Purdy, J.E. (1995). Animal Research in Psychology: More than meets the eye of the general psychology student. American Psychologist, 50, Davis, M., Ressler, K., Rothbaum, B.O. & Richardson, R. (2006). Effects of D-Cycloserine on extinction: Translation from preclinical to clinical work. Biological Psychiatry, 60, McGown, P.O., Sasaki, A., D Alessio, A.C., Dymov, S., Labonte, B., Szyf, M., Turecki, G., Meaney, M.J. (2009). Epigenetic regulation of the glucocorticoid receptor in human brain associates with childhood abuse. Nature Neuroscience, 12, Studying the Clinician, Chapter 6 December 2 In-Class Symposium -- Advancing Science by Testing Good Theories December 9 No Class --- Mini-Grant Due by 12:00 pm -- Fall Syllabus 6