A. Levels of Interpretation
1. Level I
2. Level II
3. Level III
B. Avoiding Errors in Clinical Interpretations
A. Levels of Interpretation
Level I
· There is minimal amount of any sort of interpretation
· There is a minimal concern with intervening process
· Data are primarily treated in a sampling or correlate way
· There is no concern with underlying constructs
· Found in large-scale selection testing
· For psychometric approaches
Note: There is no underlying guilt or unresolved conflict associated with this level; job application in industrial setting, school admission tests, and PNP selection procedure are examples
Level II
There are two kinds of interpretation
· Descriptive generalization. For example, seeing an aggressive client and making generalization about it (but, it should be done with careful observation and must be corroborated by other findings)
· Hypothetical construct. The assumption of an inner state which goes logically beyond the description of visible behavior. For example, frequent handwashing might mean an unconscious attempt to expiate one’s guild and sins. (Again, this is just an example and there are other examples)
Note: Clinical approaches to psychological assessment mean using clinical interviews and projective technique
Level III
· This is a level that utilizes idiographic approach. The idiographic approach is being specific in analyzing the client by studying his uniqueness.
· The effort is to develop a coherent and inclusive theory of the individual life of the patient/client.
· In terms of general theoretical orientation, the clinician attempts a full-scale exploration of the individual personality, psychosocial situation, and development history
· Clinical approach
B. Avoiding Errors in Clinical Interpretations
· Information-overload
· Schematization. Simplify the information to the point of disregarding important aspects of the person that might help the clinician understand the behavior of the client.
· Insufficient internal evidence for interpretation. For example, administering one test and make generalizations about it is inadequate. Thus, insufficient internal evidence that explains the actual behavior of the person. We need to prevent this by providing enough number of tests to suffice the internal evidence.
· Insufficient external verification of interpretation. Always bear in mind that tests should be complementary and must also consider the actual display of behavior. We need to interview the significant people of the client or consider looking at previous records to verify the results of the test.
Note:
Aggressiveness of the client
“The psychological test results showed…as evidenced by his frequent bullying and quarrels at home…”
· Overinterpretation. For example, long nose from the drawing of the client was interpreted by the test examiner as sexual preoccupation or aggression without considering the fact that the client’s long nose represents his actual nose.
Note: Always interpret the results against the background of the client. There is no universal interpretation for all people.
· Lack of individuation. Writing a psych report that can describe anyone such as “a patient has anxiety and insecurity” and “has aggressive tendencies.” All people, to some extent, has anxiety, insecurity, and aggressive tendencies. Note: “Barnum Effect”
· Lack of integration. Do not use conflicting statements. Try to see the common theme. If you administered different tests, just get the common theme.
· Over “pathologizing.” Avoid using too many negative statements. Remember, even the most disliked person possess some innate goodness. Include positive traits that you observed because these positive traits can be used in developing a treatment plan.
· Over “psychologizing.” For example, your client scratched his nose and interpreted as anxious, nervousness, or tension when in fact it’s just a scratch due to itch.
