HANDBOOK OFCLINICAL

PSYCHOLOGY

Volume 2 Children and Adolescents

Edited by

MICHEL HERSENALAN M. GROSS

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

File AttachmentC1.jpg

HANDBOOK OFCLINICAL

PSYCHOLOGY

HANDBOOK OFCLINICAL

PSYCHOLOGY

Volume 2 Children and Adolescents

Edited by

MICHEL HERSENALAN M. GROSS

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. ©∞Copyright © 2008 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or byany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted underSection 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission ofthe Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright ClearanceCenter, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web atwww.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department,John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online athttp://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparingthis book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contentsof this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice andstrategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional whereappropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages,including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject mattercovered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. Iflegal, accounting, medical, psychological or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competentprofessional person should be sought.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instanceswhere John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters.Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarksand registration.

For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department withinthe United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not beavailable in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.

ISBN: 978-0-471-94678-6 (Vol. 2, cloth)

Printed in the United States of America.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

www.wiley.com

Contents

Preface ix

Contributors xi

PART IGeneral Issues

1∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Historical Perspectives 3

Thomas R. Kratochwill, Richard J. Morris, and Joseph Robinson

2∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Clinical Training 39

Debora J. Bell and Aaron M. Luebbe

3∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Professional Practice 74

Daniel B. Chorney and Tracy L. Morris

4∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Ethical and Legal Issues 94

David Mark Mantell

5∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Professional Roles 138

James H. Johnson, David M. Janicke, and Steven K. Reader

PART IITheoretical Models

6∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Psychodynamic 173

Sandra W. Russ

7∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Family Systems 192

James P. McHale and Matthew J. Sullivan

v

vi Contents

8∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Applied Behavior Analysis 227

Amy R. Murrell, Cicely Taravella LaBorde, Audra L. Crutchfield, andJessica Madrigal-Bauguss

9∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Cognitive-Behavioral Theory 263

Stephen D. A. Hupp, David Reitman, and Jeremy D. Jewell

PART IIIResearch Contributions

10∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Statistical Considerations: Moderators and Mediators 291

Barbara Jandasek, Grayson N. Holmbeck, and Brigid M. Rose

11∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Single-Case Research Designs 322

Kurt A. Freeman and Eric J. Mash

12∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Personality in Childhood and Adolescence 351

Randall T. Salekin and Courey A. Averett

13∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Treatment Research 386

Mark D. Rapport, Michael J. Kofler, Jennifer Bolden, and Dustin E. Sarver

PART IVDiagnosis and Evaluation

14∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Assessment, Diagnosis, Nosology, and Taxonomy of Child

and Adolescent Psychopathology 429Thomas M. Achenbach

15∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Diagnostic Interviewing 458

Amie Grills-Taquechel and Thomas H. Ollendick

16∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Intellectual Assessment 480

Lloyd A. Taylor, Cara B. Reeves, and Erin Jeffords

17∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Pediatric Neuropsychological Evaluation 497

Leslie D. Berkelhammer

18∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Assessment of Psychopathology 520

Stefan E. Schulenberg, Jessica T. Kaster, Carrie Nassif, andErika K. Johnson-Jimenez

19∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Behavioral Assessment 551

Christopher A. Kearney, L. Caitlin Cook, Adrianna Wechsler,Courtney M. Haight, and Stephanie Stowman

Contents vii

PART VTreatment

20∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Play Therapy 577

Sue C. Bratton, Dee Ray, and Garry Landreth

21∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Behavior Modification 626

Raymond G. Miltenberger

22∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Parent Training 653

Mark W. Roberts

23∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment 694

Lisa W. Coyne, Angela M. Burke, and Jennifer B. Freeman

24∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Primary Care Behavioral Pediatrics 728

Patrick C. Friman

25∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Peer Intervention 759

Michelle S. Rivera and Douglas W. Nangle

PART VISpecial Issues

26∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Cultural Issues 789

Laura Johnson and Christina Tucker

27∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Divorce and Custody 833

Shannon M. Greene, Kate Sullivan, and Edward R. Anderson

28∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Child Maltreatment 856

Christine Wekerle, Harriet L. MacMillan, Eman Leung, andEllen Jamieson

29∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Autism Spectrum Disorders and Related

Developmental Disabilities 904Jennifer M. Gillis and Raymond G. Romanczyk

30∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Parental Psychopathology and Its Relation to

Child Psychopathology 937Sherryl H. Goodman and Sarah R. Brand

31∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Problems in Infancy 966

Tiffany Field

32∣∣∣

∣∣∣ Psychopharmacology as Practiced by Psychologists 1012

Alan Poling, Kristal Ehrhardt, and Matthew Porritt

Author Index 1039

Subject Index 1081

Preface

HANDBOOK OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY (VOLUMES 1 AND 2)

Over the past 3 decades the field of clinical psychology has periodically been re-viewed in large tomes in multiauthor editions. Indeed, the senior editor of the presentwork has been involved in three such projects, published in 1983, 1991, and 1998.Since publication of the last of these works there have been major developments inclinical psychology, both with adults and with children and adolescents. Some ofthe most interesting innovations have appeared in the areas of ethics, legal issues,professional roles, cross-cultural psychology, psychoneuroimmunology, cognitive-behavioral treatment, psychopharmacology as practiced by clinical psychologists,political issues, geropsychology, parent training, pediatric psychology, assessmentof child maltreatment and its remediation, and problems in infancy. The veritableexplosion of new data has been fueled by the advent of new journals in highly spe-cialized areas, in addition to the rapid dissemination of new ideas and data rapidlypresented through electronic publication.

The plethora of data is distilled into 33 chapters for Volume 1 on adults and32 chapters for Volume 2 on children. To enable the reader to easily traverse thetwo volumes we decided on a parallel structure. Therefore, each of the volumes isdivided into six parts (Part I: General Issues, Part II: Theoretical Models, Part III:Research Contributions, Part IV: Diagnosis and Evaluation, Part V: Treatment, andPart VI: Special Issues). In both volumes a case illustration has been included in thesection on Treatment. Authors here have been encouraged, to the extent possible,to use a relatively standard format: Identifying Features of the Client, PresentingComplaints, History, Assessment, Case Conceptualization, Course of Treatmentand Assessment of Progress, Complicating Factors, Managed Care Considerations,Follow-up,Treatment Implications of the Case, and Recommendations to Cliniciansand Students. In the volume on children and adolescents Developmental Factorsand Parental Factors are added considerations that the authors have outlined.

These two volumes were conceived with graduate students and professionals inthe field in mind. We believe that the material systematically presented herein issuitable both as a general reference work and separately as a major course text forclinical psychology with adults and clinical psychology applied to children. We, ofcourse, eagerly anticipate the comments of both professors and students.

Many individuals have been involved in the development and fruition of thistwo-volume work. First and foremost we thank our contributors for taking time out

ix

x Preface

from their busy schedules to share their expertise with us. Second, we thank ourfriends at John Wiley and Sons for their appreciation of clinical psychology andthe technical processing of this two-volume set. Third, once again we thank CaroleLonderee for helping us to track all of the authors and manuscripts in her typicalorderly and competent manner. Without her terrific help this could not have beenaccomplished. Finally, we thank Christopher Brown and Blake Kirschner for theirwonderful technical work related to the indexes.

Michel HersenHillsboro, OregonAlan M. GrossOxford, Mississippi

Contributors

Thomas M. Achenbach, PhDDepartment of PsychiatryUniversity of VermontBurlington, Vermont

Edward R. Anderson, PhDDepartment of Human Ecology and

Population Research CenterUniversity of Texas—AustinAustin, Texas

Courey A. Averett, BADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosa, Alabama

Debora J. Bell, PhDDepartment of Psychological SciencesUniversity of Missouri—ColumbiaColumbia, Missouri

Leslie D. Berkelhammer, PhDDivision of Behavioral MedicineSt. Jude Children’s Research HospitalMemphis, Tennessee

Jennifer Bolden, BADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando, Florida

Sarah R. Brand, BADepartment of PsychologyEmory UniversityAtlanta, Georgia

Sue C. Bratton, PhDDepartment of Counseling and

Higher EducationUniversity of North TexasDenton, Texas

Angela M. Burke, BADepartment of PsychologySuffolk UniversityBoston, Massachusetts

Daniel B. Chorney, MSDepartment of PsychologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantown, West Virginia

L. Caitlin Cook, BADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada—Las VegasLas Vegas, Nevada

Lisa W. Coyne, PhDDepartment of PsychologySuffolk UniversityBoston, Massachusetts

Audra L. Crutchfield, MADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of North TexasDenton, Texas

Kristal Ehrhardt, PhDDepartment of Special Education and

Literacy StudiesWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazoo, Michigan

xi

xii Contributors

Tiffany Field, PhDTouch Research InstitutesUniversity of Miami School

of MedicineMiami, Florida

Jennifer B. Freeman, PhDChild and Family PsychiatryBrown Medical School and Rhode

Island HospitalProvidence, Rhode Island

Kurt A. Freeman, PhDChild Development and Rehabilitation

CenterOregon Health and Science

UniversityPortland, Oregon

Patrick C. Friman, PhD, ABPPGirls and Boys Town Outpatient

Behavioral Pediatrics andFamily Services

Boys Town, Nebraska, andDepartment of Clinical PediatricsUniversity of Nebraska Medical

CenterOmaha, Nebraska

Jennifer M. Gillis, PhD, BCBADepartment of PsychologyAuburn UniversityAuburn, Alabama

Sherryl H. Goodman, PhDDepartment of PsychologyEmory UniversityAtlanta, Georgia

Shannon M. Greene, PhDDepartment of Human Ecology

and Population Research CenterUniversity of Texas—AustinAustin, Texas

Amie Grills-Taquechel, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of HoustonHouston, Texas

Courtney M. Haight, MADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada—Las

VegasLas Vegas, Nevada

Grayson N. Holmbeck, PhDDepartment of PsychologyLoyola University ChicagoChicago, Illinois

Stephen D. A. Hupp, PhDDepartment of PsychologySouthern Illinois University—

EdwardsvilleEdwardsville, Illinois

Ellen Jamieson, MEdDepartments of Psychiatry and

Behavioral Neurosciences andPediatrics

McMaster UniversityHamilton, Ontario, Canada

Barbara Jandasek, MADepartment of PsychologyLoyola University ChicagoChicago, Illinois

David M. Janicke, PhDDepartment of Clinical and Health

PsychologyUniversity of FloridaGainesville, Florida

Erin Jeffords, BADepartment of PsychologyThe CitadelCharleston, South Carolina

Contributors xiii

Jeremy D. Jewell, PhDClinical Child and School Psychology

ProgramSouthern Illinois University—

EdwardsvilleEdwardsville, Illinois

James H. Johnson, PhD, ABPPDepartment of Clinical and Health

PsychologyUniversity of FloridaGainesville, Florida

Laura Johnson, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MississippiUniversity, Mississippi

Erika K. Johnson-Jimenez, PhDForensic Health ServicesNew Mexico Women’s Correctional

FacilityGrants, New Mexico

Jessica T. Kaster, PhDLakeland Mental Health Center, Inc.Moorhead, Minnesota

Christopher A. Kearney, PhDChild School Refusal and Anxiety

Disorders Clinic andDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada—Las VegasLas Vegas, Nevada

Michael J. Kofler, MSDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando, Florida

Thomas R. Kratochwill, PhDSchool Psychology Program and

Educational and PsychologicalTraining Center

University of Wisconsin—MadisonMadison, Wisconsin

Garry Landreth, EdDDepartment of Counseling and Higher

EducationUniversity of North TexasDenton, Texas

Eman Leung, PhDDepartments of Psychiatry and

Behavioral Neurosciences andPediatrics

University of Western OntarioLondon, Ontario, Canada

Aaron M. Luebbe, MADepartment of Psychological SciencesUniversity of Missouri—ColumbiaColumbia, Missouri

Harriet L. MacMillan, MD,FRCP(C)

Departments of Psychiatry and Behav-ioral Neurosciences and Pediatrics

McMaster UniversityHamilton, Ontario, Canada

Jessica Madrigal-Bauguss, BADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of North TexasDenton, Texas

David Mark Mantell, PhDJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeUniversity of Connecticut Medical

SchoolNew Britain, Connecticut

Eric J. Mash, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgary, Alberta, Canada

James P. McHale, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of South Florida—

St. PetersburgSt. Petersburg, Florida

xiv Contributors

Raymond G. Miltenberger, PhDDepartment of Child and Family

StudiesUniversity of South FloridaTampa, Florida

Richard J. Morris, PhDSchool Psychology Program,

Department of Special Education,Rehabilitation, and SchoolPsychology

University of ArizonaTucson, Arizona

Tracy L. Morris, PhDDepartment of PsychologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantown, West Virginia

Amy R. Murrell, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of North TexasDenton, Texas

Douglas W. Nangle, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MaineOrono, Maine

Carrie Nassif, PhDDepartment of PsychologyFort Hays State UniversityHays, Kansas

Thomas H. Ollendick, PhDDepartment of PsychologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State

UniversityBlacksburg, Virginia

Alan Poling, PhDDepartment of PsychologyWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazoo, Michigan

Matthew Porritt, MADepartment of PsychologyWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazoo, Michigan

Mark D. Rapport, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando, Florida

Dee Ray, PhDDepartment of Counseling and Higher

EducationUniversity of North TexasDenton, Texas

Steven K. Reader, PhDDepartment of Clinical and Health

PsychologyUniversity of FloridaGainesville, Florida

Cara B. Reeves, PhDCollege of Health ProfessionsMedical University of South

CarolinaCharleston, South Carolina

David Reitman, PhDCenter for Psychological

StudiesNova Southeastern UniversityFort Lauderdale, Florida

Michelle S. Rivera, MADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MaineOrono, Maine

Mark W. Roberts, PhDDepartment of PsychologyIdaho State UniversityPocatello, Idaho

Contributors xv

Joseph Robinson, BSSchool Psychology ProgramUniversity of Wisconsin–

MadisonMadison, Wisconsin

Raymond G. Romanczyk,PhD, BCBA

Department of PsychologyState University of New York—

BinghamtonBinghamton, New York

Brigid M. Rose, PhDVA Northern California

Health Care SystemMartinez, California

Sandra W. Russ, PhDDepartment of PsychologyCase Western Reserve UniversityCleveland, Ohio

Randall T. Salekin, PhDDepartment of Psychology andCenter for the Prevention of Youth

Behavior ProblemsUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosa, Alabama

Dustin E. Sarver, BADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando, Florida

Stefan E. Schulenberg, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MississippiUniversity, Mississippi

Stephanie Stowman, MADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada—Las VegasLas Vegas, Nevada

Kate Sullivan, MADepartment of Human Ecology

and Population Research CenterUniversity of Texas—AustinAustin, Texas

Matthew J. Sullivan, PhDPrivate PracticePalo Alto, California

Cicely Taravella LaBorde, BSDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of North TexasDenton, Texas

Lloyd A. Taylor, PhDThe CitadelCharleston, South Carolina

Christina Tucker, BADepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MississippiUniversity, Mississippi

Adrianna Wechsler, EdMDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada—Las VegasLas Vegas, Nevada

Christine Wekerle, PhDDepartments of Education,

Psychology, and PsychiatryUniversity of Western OntarioLondon, Ontario, Canada

PART I

General Issues

CHAPTER 1

Historical Perspectives

Thomas R. Kratochwill, Richard J. Morris, and Joseph Robinson

In this chapter, we trace the historical development of the assessment and treatmentof children’s and adolescents’ mental health issues. Although our overview is brief(see several sources for more detailed historical accounts: Doyle, 1974; Dubois,1970; Linden & Linden, 1968; P. McReynolds, 1975), we provide some perspectiveson contemporary evidence-based assessment and treatment. An examination of thehistorical factors in assessment and treatment is important for several reasons. First,it is important to understand that many of the contemporary issues in evidence-basedpractice have their origin in past practices. Second, it is important to realize thatmany contemporary issues are related to social or even political concerns that havetheir origin in the past. Third, the past has sometimes provided or even imposeda structure on assessment and treatment practices. It is important to understandthis structure to understand contemporary models and the scope of psychologicalpractices. Finally, it is important to focus on historical factors to introduce a varietyof scholarly perspectives into the discussion of the issues surrounding evidence-based practice. We first review historical features of diagnosis and assessment andthen turn our attention to child and adolescent therapy. However, the conceptual,theoretical, and practice issues in these domains overlap.

ASSESSMENT AND DIAGNOSIS: ANCIENT INFLUENCES

Most historical treatments of the assessment literature typically begin with a dis-cussion of the work of Galton in England and Cattell in the United States (i.e.,many books on assessment begin with this period; e.g., Sunberg, 1977). However,assessment has a much richer history, attesting to the assumption that many fea-tures of contemporary assessment actually date back to the beginnings of recordedhistory. L. V. McReynolds (1974) traced the historical antecedents of the currentpractices in assessment beginning with antiquity and extending to the second halfof the twentieth century. Four phases were reviewed: antiquity, the medieval periodand the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and the period from Thomesius to Galton.We adopt this framework in this section of the chapter.

Antiquity

An examination of early assessment practices shows that there was a close interplaybetween the methods used and the cultural views held during that particular time.

3

4 General Issues

This perspective is not unlike the contemporary views in the United States that led tothe development of special education services for children (Kratochwill, Clements,& Kalymon, 2007), with its emphasis on fair assessment practices for handicappedchildren. It is possible that the first personality assessment procedure was basedon astrology, and that the first psychological “test” was the horoscope. Althoughastrology can be regarded as invalid on scientific grounds, it did contribute to(a) the view that individual personalities represent the focus of assessment, (b) thebelief that the psychological makeup of the individual is predetermined, and (c) thedevelopment of taxonomical (diagnostic) categories.

Another early assessment strategy involved physiognomy, the interpretation ofan individual’s character from body physique. Physiognomics, also a very lim-ited assessment procedure, assumed a relatively fixed conception of personalitybut shared some methodological features with naturalistic observation, not unlikethe naturalistic observations conducted using behavior modification procedures(Kazdin, 1978). L. V. McReynolds (1974) noted that the longest continued assess-ment technique with some claim to rationality and one that remains with us todayis physiognomy. Thus, work by Mahl (1956) and Gleser, Gottshalk, and Springer(1961) on speech patterns; by Hall (1959), Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1971), and Haas (1972)on methodology of movements; of Izard (1971) and Ekman and associates (Ekman,1973; Ekman, Friesen, & Ellsworth, 1972) on emotions and facial expressions; andof Hess and associates (Hess & Polt, 1960; Hess, Seltzer, & Schlien, 1965) on therelation of pupil size to affect can be related to earlier physiognomic conceptions(cf. L. V. McReynolds, 1974).

Developments in assessment during early times were not always limited to thearea of personality assessment. For example, Civil Service examinations were usedin ancient China for selection purposes. Dubois (1966, pp. 30–31) notes:

The earliest development seems to have been a rudimentary form of proficiency testing.About the year 2200 B.C. the emperor of China is said to have examined his officials everythird year. . . . A thousand years later in 1115 B.C., at the beginning of the Chan dynasty,formal examining procedures were established. Here the record is clear. Job sample testswere used requiring proficiency in the five basic arts: music, archery, horsemanship, writ-ing, and arithmetic. . . . Knowledge of a sixth act was also required—skill in the rites andceremonies of public and social life.

Medieval Period and the Renaissance

L. V. McReynolds (1974) notes that during this period, the acceptance of humeralpsychology and physiognomic strategies of evaluating people were widespread.Generally, this period supported the recognition of the individual, and so we againsee an example of cultural influences on assessment practices. In some respectsthis period set the occasion for what would later be a debate on research method-ology, especially surrounding the use of group versus single-case research designin therapy research (Kratochwill & Levin, 1992).

Historical Perspectives 5

Age of Reason

The Age of Reason covers the period from approximately the middle of the six-teenth century to the second half of the eighteenth.Amajor theme of this period wasthe focus on individual differences, as reflected in some important works on assess-ment: Huarte’s Tryal of Wits, Wright’s Passions of the Minde, and Thomesius’s NewDiscovery. During this period, the recognition of individual differences promptedmeasurement so that an individual’s sense of well-being could be more fullyrealized.

From Thomesius to Galton

A significant contribution to assessment during this period, particularly in the nine-teenth century, was phrenology. Phrenology bears a similarity to physiognomy, butwhereas physiognomy emphasized assessment of external body features such asfacial and other characteristics, phrenology emphasized the assessment of the exter-nal formations of the skull. Phrenology assumed that mental functions were basedon specific processes localized in certain areas of the brain and that the intensity ormagnitude of these functions was indicated in the contours and external topographyof the skull (L. V. McReynolds, 1974).

Four positive contributions of phrenology that have a resemblance to contempo-rary assessment practices or activities were identified (L. V. McReynolds, 1974).First, there was an emphasis on individual differences. Second, the assessmentparadigm emphasized the notions of assessor and subject, the systematic collec-tions of data during a single session, and written reports that usually includedqualitative profiles. Third, the phrenological movement helped advance objectivitythrough blind assessment and rating scales. Fourth, phrenology contributed to thedevelopment of a primitive taxonomical system, which included affective faculties(e.g., propensities, sentiments) and intellectual faculties (e.g., perceptive, reflec-tive). This line of reasoning was likely influential in later conceptualizations ofdiagnostic and classification systems.

Implications

This brief historical overview of ancient influences points out that many contem-porary assessment practices have their roots deep in our past. Noteworthy is thefact that the work of the phrenologists (and later, Quetelet’s work on psychologicalstatistics) set the stage for the emergence of Galton’s contributions and the subse-quent more modern era in assessment. It is interesting to speculate how some ofthe ancient procedures might have set the stage for child diagnoses specifically.L. V. McReynolds (1974, pp. 524–525) raises an interesting point:

We know that such techniques as chiromancy, metaposcopy, and phrenology are in prin-ciple all totally invalid, yet I suggest that in the hands of insightful and discerning practi-tioners they may, at least on occasion, have been more valid than we suppose, even if fordifferent reasons than their users, much less their clients imagined.

6 General Issues

ASSESSMENT AND DIAGNOSIS:NINETEENTH-CENTURY INFLUENCES

During the nineteenth century significant developments were taking place in West-ern Europe and the United States that would shape the future of psychological andeducational assessment (cf. Carroll, 1978; Dubois, 1970; Laosa, 1977). Specifi-cally, events were occurring in France, Germany, England, and the United Statesthat were to have a profound influence on assessment practices in child therapy andeducation.

France

Attention to two movements occurred in France that made a significant impact onthe history of testing and assessment in general and child assessment in particu-lar (Maloney & Ward, 1976). One movement, pioneered by Berhheim, Liebault,Charcot, and Freud, was focused on a new view of deviant behavior. The influ-ence of this movement was to take abnormal behavior out of the legal or moralrealm with which it had been previously associated and cast it as a psychological orpsychosocial problem. This focus prompted psychological assessment rather thanmoral or legal sanction, as had been common prior to this period.

Also noteworthy was the movement called “the science of education.” JacquesItard, a French physician, taught Victor, the “Wild Boy of Aveyron,” various skills.Many of the procedures used in Itard’s work were similar to later behavior modi-fication procedures that emphasized environmental stimulus and response changesduring intervention. Itard’s contributions also provided a background for Binet’swork on measurement of intelligence.

Esquivol’s (1722–1840) work, represented in his book Des Maladies Mentales,was influential in that he distinguished between “emotional disorders” and “subav-erage intellect.” According to his views, subaverage intelligence consists of levelsof individual performance: (a) those making cries only, (b) those using monosylla-bles, and (c) those using short phrases but not elaborate speech. Thus, here we seethe basis for an early classification scheme that could organize human behavior.

Germany

Although some of the work in France emphasized individual differences in pathol-ogy and cognitive ability, German scientists perceived individual differences asa source of measurement error. A significant contribution to the individual differ-ences theme is found in the “Maskelyne-Kinnebrook affair.”The difference betweenMaskelyne (the astronomer) and Kinnebrook (the assistant) in their measurementof the timing of stellar transits was later analyzed by Bessel. Bessel concluded thatdifferent persons had different transit tracking times, and that when all astronomerswere checked against one standard, individual error could be calculated; thus, asort of “personal equation” was developed (cf. Boring, 1950).

Another significant influence on assessment came from Wundt, who set up apsychological laboratory in Leipzig to study such processes as reaction time, sen-sation, psychophysics, and association. This work, as well as the general work

Historical Perspectives 7

occurring on measurement, was helpful to popularize the notion of measurement ofdifferences between individuals. Some Americans who studied with Wundt wereG. Stanley Hall and James McKeen Cattell. Both of these individuals were to havea large impact on future child psychological assessment.

England

The work of Charles Darwin was most influential in psychological and educationalassessment, particularly through his theory of evolution presented in 1859 in Originof the Species. Darwin’s work emphasized that there were measurable and meaning-ful differences among members of each species. Galton, Darwin’s half-cousin, wasinfluential in applying evolutionary theory to humans. In his 1869 book, HereditaryGenius, Galton argued that genius has a tendency to run in families. He was greatlyinfluenced by the Belgian statistician Quetelet (1770–1864), who was the first toapply the normal probability curve of Laplace and Gauss to human data. This worktranslated into the notion that nature’s mistakes were represented as deviations fromthe average.

Several implications of this work for child assessment and treatment are notewor-thy. First, Galton’s system of classification represented a fundamental step towardthe concept of standardized scores (Wiseman, 1967). Second, in the application ofQuetelet’s statistics, Galton demonstrated that many human variables, both physicaland psychological, were distributed normally. This concept is a direct precursor tothe notion of a norm and application of standardization (Laosa, 1977). Third, a ma-jor influence of this work was to establish that certain variables should be subjectedto quantitative measurement. Galton’s work was significant in that it encouragedother efforts in the area of measurement of individual differences in mental abilitiesthat were considerably more sophisticated than previous efforts (Cooley & Lohnes,1976). Finally, through the application of the normal curve, individual performanceor standing could be classified as deviant or even as a mistake of nature. We knowthat although Galton was influenced by the phrenologists, he rejected this form ofassessment. He noted in 1906, “Why capable observers should have come to suchstrange conclusions [can] be accounted for . . . most easily on the supposition ofunconscious bias in collecting data” (quoted in Pearson, 1930, p. 577).

United States

Early work in the United States contributed to what was called the “mental testing”movement, a major part of clinical and school psychology. Cattell (1860–1944) wasthe first to use the term “mental test,” and he is generally referred to as the father ofmental testing (DuBois, 1970; Hunt, 1961). Cattell also introduced experimentalpsychology into the United States. A significant contribution to assessment was thathe advocated testing in schools; he was also generally responsible for instigatingmental testing in the United States (Boring, 1950).

In 1895, Cattell chaired the first American Psychological Association (APA)Committee on Mental and Physical Tests. Although Cattell made major changesin the nature of testing, his work was not accepted unconditionally. For example,Sharp (1899) published an article questioning the reliability of mental tests. Wissler

8 General Issues

(1901) compared the reliability of some of Cattell’s psychological measures withvarious measurement approaches from the physical sciences and concluded thattests used in Cattell’s lab showed little correlation among themselves, did not relateto academic grades, and were unreliable (Maloney & Ward, 1976). Even Wundtwas not supportive of Cattell’s focus on mental measurements (Boring, 1950).Nevertheless, Cattell’s work, as well as work in France, promoted the developmentof a movement called “differential psychology.”

INTELLIGENCE TESTING MOVEMENT

Around the beginning of the twentieth century, assessment was given a new impetusthrough the development of differential psychology (Binet & Henri, 1895; Stern,1900; Stern & Whipple, 1914). Stern and Whipple (1914) suggested that mentalage be divided by chronological age to produce a “mental quotient,” a procedure,with refinements, that evolved into the IQ concept (Laosa, 1977).

The work of Binet and his associates was quite influential, although not neces-sarily in the direction that Binet had envisioned or desired (Sarason, 1976; Wolf,1973). Binet initially focused his efforts on the diagnosis of “mentally retarded”children around the late 1880s. At this time he was assisted by Theodore Simon,with whom he later worked in the development of the first formal measure of in-tellectual assessment for children (Wolf, 1973). Based on a study conducted forthe Ministry of Public Instruction, he focused efforts on predicting which childrenwould be unable to succeed in school (Resnick, 1982). Binet noted that performanceon his scale had implications for diagnostic classification and education. Resnick(1982, p. 176) notes:

A scale of thirty questions was developed, each of increasing difficulty. Idiots were thosewho could not go beyond the sixth item, and imbeciles were stymied after the twelfth.Morons were found able to deal with the first twenty-three questions. They were able to dothe memory tests and arrange lines and weights in a series, but no more . . . the test . . . wasdesigned as an examination to remove from the mainstream of schooling, and place innewly developed special classes for the retarded, those who would be unable to follow thenormal prescribed curriculum. As such, it was a test for selection, removing from normalinstruction those with the lowest level of ability. Binet argued, however, that the treatmentthe children would receive in the special classes would be more suited to their learningneeds. The testing, therefore, was to promote more effective and appropriate instruction.

Interest in testing the abilities of children was at a high level during this time. Thisinterest was prompted, in part, by the growing population of children in schools dueto natural population growth and immigration and the fact that students began tostay in school longer (Chapman, Terman, & Movement, 1979). With the growingnumber of children in schools, it became clear that not all children could profitfrom regular instruction. The policies and procedures for diagnosis and assessmentof children during this time set a direction that has only recently been changedwith new federal regulations that has, as one focus, to reduce the emphasis onan IQ-achievement discrepancy to make a determination of disability status forchildren with learning problems. The new focus in assessment is called “response

Historical Perspectives 9

to intervention” and involves determining the child’s response to instruction as partof the diagnostic process (Kratochwill et al., 2007).

Several American psychologists promoted Binet’s work. For example, Goddardpublished the first revision of the Binet scale, and Terman developed the Stanford-Binet. Thereafter, the Binet scale was used to identify children who were regardedas “backwards” or “feebleminded.” In 1911 the Binet scale was being used in 71of 84 cities that administered tests to identify feebleminded children. However,the Binet scale was also being used experimentally to screen out and turn back“retarded” immigrants (Knox, 1914, as cited in Widgor & Garner, 1982).

The Stanford version of the Binet-Simon scale was originally published in 1916by Terman; it was revised by Terman and Merrill in 1937 and 1960 and renormed in1972 and subsequently. This translation and revision of Binet’s earlier work firmlyestablished intelligence testing in schools and clinics throughout the United States(DuBois, 1970).

Development of Group Testing

The assessment movement was given a major thrust through the development ofgroup tests during World War I. Many assessment efforts during this time reflecteda pattern of procedures similar to that used by Binet (T. E. Newland, 1977). Ebbing-haus demonstrated the feasibility of group tests, and some American psychologists(e.g., Otis, 1918; Whipple, 1910) recognized that the Binet-Simon scale could beadapted for group testing. However, there were important differences. Whereas theBinet-type items typically required a definite answer provided by the child, grouptests usually called for recognition of a correct answer among several alternatives(Carroll, 1978).

A committee of the APA chaired by Robert M. Yerkes developed the Army AlphaandArmy Beta group tests. TheArmy Beta (a nonverbal group test) was designed soas not to discriminate against illiterates and individuals speaking foreign languages.Although the impact of this development was to create a new interest in and rolefor testing, a review of the tests used revealed that the source of many tests wasincreasingly used for nonmilitary purposes (T. E. Newland, 1977).

Following the war, many clinical psychologists who were involved in wartimetesting sought employment in the civilian ranks, and many became involved in theschools. Resnick (1982, p. 183) notes:

Aiding this movement was Philander P. Clarxton, U.S. Commissioner of education, whocommunicated to school superintendents throughout the country about the reserve oftrained people that could be tapped for the needs of the schools. He wrote enthusiasti-cally about the “unusual opportunity for city schools to obtain the services of competentmen.” Among the services that they could render was “discovering defective children andchildren of superior intelligence.”

This movement, in part, facilitated the use of group intelligence tests in the pub-lic schools for purposes of diagnosis and classification. Many of these tests wereadministered to identify children who could not profit from regular instruction. Al-though some schools had made provisions for special children, the intelligence tests

10 General Issues

formalized the decision-making process for these special services. Also, between1919 and 1923, Terman introduced the National Intelligence Test for grades three toeight and the Terman Group Test, for grades seven to 12 and found that the schoolswere most receptive (Resnick, 1982). Resnick reported that the most important useof the tests was for placement of children into homogeneous groups:

Sixty-four percent of the reporting cities used group intelligence tests for this purpose inelementary schools, 56% in junior high schools, and 41% in high schools. Enthusiasmfor the use of testing systemwide for this purpose was at a high level. In 1923, Terman’sgroup test for grades seven to thirteen sold more than a half-million copies. (pp. 184–185)

The stage for the rapid development of ability tests was also set by such psy-chologists as Spearman, Thorndike, and Thurstone and their respective theoriesof intelligence. For example, Spearman developed an elaborate theory of the or-ganization of human abilities in which he concluded that all intellectual abilitieshave a common factor, g, and a number of specific factors, s, which relate uniquelyto each presumed ability. Spearman’s two-factor theory was the basis on whichtests examining specific abilities (Edwards, 1971) rather than global scores weredeveloped (Laosa, 1977).

Thorndike viewed intelligence as comprising a multitude of separate elements,each of which represented a specific ability. Intelligence was also perceived ashaving both hereditary and environmental components. Thurstone concluded thatthere were seven primary mental abilities (in contrast to Spearman’s s and g factors)and developed the Primary Mental Abilities Test to measure each specific ability.

Intelligence tests gradually evolved into major diagnostic instruments throughoutthe world. Such instruments became an important diagnostic tool for identifyingchildren with cognitive disabilities. However, not all countries accepted the use ofthese tests. For example, in the Soviet Union such tests were banned in 1936 by theCommunist Party because they were considered methods that discriminated againstthe peasants and the working class in favor of the culturally advantaged (Sunberg,1977; Wortis, 1960). As an alternative, diagnosis in the USSR was based primarilyon neurophysiological evidence. The neurologist and psychophysiologist, ratherthan the clinical psychologist, were primarily engaged in diagnosing children withmental retardation (Dunn & Kirk, 1963).

Work in these areas, as well as other contributions prior to and during this period,led to diverse views on the nature of intelligence and its assessment. A major contri-bution to the testing movement was the development of the Wechsler intelligencescales. Psychologist David Wechsler developed the Wechsler Adult IntelligenceScale (WAIS) by including a group of subtests from WWI vintage that he foundvaluable in his work with adults. His criterion of “general adaptability” (Wechsler,1975) was extended downward in the development of the Wechsler IntelligenceScale for Children (WISC) and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of In-telligence (WPPSI). The work of Wechsler contrasted with that of Binet. WhereasWechsler’s scales emerged from work with adults and were later developed foruse with children, Binet’s emerged from work with young children and later weredeveloped for use with older children (T. E. Newland, 1977).

Historical Perspectives 11

PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT MOVEMENT

While tests of cognitive ability were rapidly evolving during the early part ofthe twentieth century, tests of personality were in their infancy. Although suchdevices as the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet were used in the military duringWWI, the personality assessment movement received increased attention throughthe development of projective techniques such as the Rorschach Inkblot Test andthe Thematic Apperception Test (TAT).

World War II, like the first war, did much to set the stage for rapid proliferationof testing practices. Indeed, psychological testing combined with the military needfor assessment was one of the primary factors leading to the development of clinicalpsychology as an independent specialty (Maloney & Ward, 1976).

During the period following WWII, testing practices developed dramatically.Most tests developed during this period were tied to an intrapsychic disease modelor state-trait conceptualization of behavior (cf. W. Mischel, 1968). Psychoanalytictheory generally accelerated assessment procedures that would reveal unconsciousprocesses. Assessment practices emphasized an “indirect-sign” paradigm. Assess-ment was indirect in that measurement of certain facets of behavior were disguisedor hidden from the client (e.g., such as in the TAT). Moreover, within the contextof the intrapsychic model, testing practices were said to predict certain states ortraits. The clinician’s task was to administer a battery of tests to a child and lookfor certain signs of traits or states. An example of this approach was representedin the work of Rappaport, Gill, and Schafer (1945). In their classic book, the au-thors demonstrated how a battery of tests (e.g., TAT, Rorschach, WAIS) could beused to diagnose deviant behavior within the intrapsychic model (in this case, thepsychoanalytic model).

Similar to the sign approach was the “cookbook” method of assessment, whichreached a zenith during the mid-1950s (cf. Meehl, 1956). An example of this ap-proach is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway &McKinley, 1943). As these authors noted, one of the presumed advantages of thecookbook approach was that “it would stress representativeness of behavioral sam-pling, accuracy in recording and cataloguing data from research studies, and op-tional weighting of relevant variables and it would permit professional time andtalent to be used economically” (p. 243).

Emergence of Behavior Modification and Assessment

Behavior modification (also referred to as behavior therapy) and the related assess-ment procedures associated with this model have made a tremendous impact onpsychology and education (Kazdin, 1978; Kratochwill & Bijou, 1987). As somehistorical reviews illustrate (Hersen, 1976; Kazdin, 1978), behavior therapy repre-sented a departure from traditional models of assessment and treatment of abnor-mal behavior, both psychological and educational. Although the history of behaviortherapy cannot be traced along a single line, practice was characterized by diver-sity of viewpoints, a broad range of heterogeneous procedures with vastly differ-ent rationales, open debates over conceptual bases, methodological requirements,

12 General Issues

and evidence of efficacy (Kazdin & Wilson, 1978). Some reports of behavioraltreatment followed Watson and Raynor’s (1920) work in conditioning of fear ina child, but a significant impetus to behavioral assessment and treatment is com-monly traced to the publication in 1958 of Joseph Wolpe’s reciprocal inhibitiontherapy.

Independent of Watson’s and Wolpe’s work was research in the psychology oflearning, in both Russia and the United States. Particularly important in learningresearch was operant conditioning, which Skinner brought into focus in the late1930s (e.g., Skinner, 1938). The evolution of operant work into experimental andapplied behavior analysis had an extremely important influence on the developmentof behavior therapy and assessment practices in general.

Although behavior therapy and assessment evolved considerably over the years,some general characteristics represented unities within the heterogeneity of evolv-ing practice:

1. Focus upon current rather than historical determinants of behavior;

2. Emphasis on overt behavior change as the main criterion by which treatment shouldbe evaluated;

3. Specification of treatment in objective terms so as to make replication possible;

4. Reliance upon basic research in psychology as a source of hypotheses about treat-ment and specific therapy techniques; and

5. Specificity in defining, treating, and measuring the target problem in therapy.(Kazdin, 1978, p. 375)

With the advent of behavior modification and its proliferation, a new assess-ment role also developed, particularly for clinical child and school psychologists.Behavioral assessment emphasized repeated measurement of some target problemprior (baseline), during, and after (follow-up) the intervention. Hersen and Bellack(1976a) noted that the psychologist’s expertise in theory and application of be-havioral therapy techniques (e.g., classical and operant conditioning) also enabledboth an assessment and a treatment role to emerge in psychiatric settings. Thisfocus was also to occur as a basis for the scientist-practitioner model of psycho-logical services (Hayes, Barlow, & Nelson-Gray, 1999) and represented a strongfoundation for the evidence-based treatment movement (Kratochwill & Stoiber,2002) and what is now called response to intervention in psychological practicein schools (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2006; Kratochwill et al., 2007). Thus, thepsychologist in various settings (e.g., clinics, hospitals, schools) became involvedin direct service rather than engaged in only testing and diagnosis, although thiswas slower to evolve in schools. Behavior modification provided the impetus forthese new roles and has continued to move practice forward in both prevention andtreatment.

Developments in behavioral assessment also influenced the field of personal-ity assessment in general. In many respects, assessment has acted as a barome-ter for the thinking of personality theorists. For example, a barometer of changein views about assessment has been the evolution of the title of the journal