What Is an "Objective" Assessment?
A psychological assessment should incorporate all sources of information: interview, clinical observation, psychological testing, file review, etc.
While it is legitimate for different assessors to place weight on different pieces of evidence, it is clear that, when an assessor signs Form 53, they are obligated to conduct an objective assessment for the Court, not unduly influenced by the source of the referral.
To my mind, that means that the clinical judgment I bring to an independent assessment should be generally consistent with the clinical judgment I use with my clients. Yes, there are differences—I may be asked questions as an IE assessor I would rarely be asked on the plaintiff side—but I believe that those who contract my services are seeking an unbiased assessment (or that it’s my obligation to provide one, no matter what they want) and that means that the brain of Dr Jonathan Douglas is going to provide some reasonably consistent opinions, whether my patient is there for treatment, referred by a lawyer, or referred by an insurer.
That also means that psychological tests represent only one aspect of an “objective” assessment; clinical observation and file review have a role to play as well. I would likely conclude that a patient in obvious distress, who produces invalid test results, warrants treatment. If that’s what my opinion would be if the person presented for treatment, then that is what my opinion should be as an IE psychologist; that, it seems to me, is truly being “objective,” as in reasonable and unbiased, relying on multiple sources of information, and resolving conflicts between them in the most responsible manner.
There’s room for my opinion to differ from that of other psychologists. However, if my own opinion differs from my own opinion, based on what role I happen to be playing, I’m hardly being objective; I’m clearly engaging in some form of distortion of my usual clinical judgment. That strikes me as wrong, and does not represent what the court wants from me.
Psychological test results can provide objective information, by allowing us to compare test responses to a normative database. But tears running down a face, or a file full of evidence of longstanding distress, are also forms of "objective" evidence. It would be irresponsible to ignore them because of a flunked measure of validity on psychological testing.
Integrative Counselling and Restorative Justice approaches to stress, trauma and conflict
8yA much needed perspective...Thank you. I used to work as a medical scientist in general pathology. I recall a doctor telling me that he treats the patient, not the report. It's looks like you have a similar heart and ethos. I also recall thinking I could write thousands of provisional diagnoses based on closed-system molecular assays, but if doctors did not really "see" their patients, any clinical diagnoses that resulted did not really tell the full story.
Who's Exceptional? Psychotherapy for the Everyperson in the Everyday
8yBeing objective may be more of a matter of degree. As humans we present our own piece of bias. By putting that out there for conscious acknowledgement we can work to strengthen our 'observer role'. Our work quality matures as we mature into recognizing this distinction. What we 'assess' we do (as being objective) needs to come from a place of ongoing deep personal work.
Regulatory defence and professional liability, employment law, commercial and insurance litigation
9yWonderful article! Belated congrats on your appointment :)