|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
|The content of Clinical method was merged into Psychological evaluation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): J-Marie B.|
I think it would be interesting to present some examples of tests, as projective tests. It may required more than just an explanation of the principle of psychological evaluation. I have found the definition of projective tests on the American Psychology Association website : http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan06/assessment.aspx
And I've found an article talking about test anxiety, which can happen if we use tests to evaluate the psychological state or history of someone. Kowal, D. S., Masood, A., & Jha, V. (2017). Test anxiety and performance over battery of projective test used for personality assessment in selection. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 8(7), 633-641. Retrieved from https://login.glacier.sou.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.glacier.sou.edu/docview/1961765535?accountid=26242J-Marie B (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
In the section about situations requiring a psychological evaluation, I think it should be added that it may be required to determine whether someone who is seeking disability is disabled or not. I am not editing the page because I have no source for this other than personal experience. Perhaps someone could find a source, and make the edit.
Perhaps "...lead to a diagnosis..." would be a more appropriate wording than "...result in a diagnosis...".
this is an article about psychological evaluation. in my experience this normally results in a formulation - and can assist with diagnosis. this article needs citations please Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Not all evaluations are for the purpose of diagnostic clarification, and disability eligbility (ooh, what an awful-sounding pair of words) is one of the other purposes. Noted. Mirafra (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Right now Psychological assessment leads as a redirect to this article, although in the professional literature the terms are somewhat distinct. I'll try to add some references meanwhile. Later the distinct articles will both need development. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
1. the serch term "psychiatric evaluation" redirects in a totally and factually inappropriate manner to "psychological evaluation". Even like2do.com resource itself takes great pains in showing the very significant difference between psychiatry and psychology, and most certainly a psychiatric evaluation is not the same as a psychological evaluation, does not contain the same elements, examines different aspects of human consciousness, and furthermore the first one is performed in totally different manner by a psychiatrist than the second one which is performed by a psychologist;
2. while the page with the definition and description of the "psychiatric evaluation" is missing altogether, which may be OK for the time being, because then one would ethically also have to take under serious consideration separate articles for each of the specific types of evaluations for each specific medical specialty, such as "ophthalmology evaluation", or "gastroenterology evaluation", etc., I nevertheless feel that the need for clarification for the educational benefit of the general public is great enough to actually justify the suggestion to at least start thinking about opening a new article named "psychiatric evaluation", linked to the page which generally describes what "psychiatry" is;
3. even this definition and description of the "psychological evaluation" is so unbelievably weak and incomplete that I would literally suggest scrapping it and starting from scratch; I tend to actually partially agree with the previous commentator-contributor in the sense that I think that a more correct and proper name for this page altogether would be the one of "psychological assessment", which is an expression which is large usage these days, while the expression "psychological evaluation" is much more vague, is not in large usage, and may lend itself to further unjudicious and unwarranted misinterpretation;
4. I would personally also suggest as ethical a little mention somewhere, either on the "psychiatry" page, or on the "psychology" page, or even on both pages, a little "warning !" sign with the written exhortation, "not to be confused with...[insert "psychology" on the "psychiatry" page or vice-versa]".
Rudolph Aspirant 12th August, 2011 03:01, Rome
Since the state mandates so many that are not related to committing someone but to deciding how to charge, prosecute or sentence them for crimes under statutory law, including especially things like stalking and harassing and spousal abuse. I don't know if you can get one in civil suits, though those $500 an hour defense attorneys probably will ask for one as an excuse for the psychologically disturbed behavior, hoping for a jury's mercy from huge settlements that will in debt someone for the rest of their lives. CarolMooreDC? 16:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
|This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.
Formal and informal evaluation information could be more separated to better show a clearer picturing of what both look like independently and, as another user stated, more examples could be added to each. Currently the information in the "formal and informal evaluation" section is mostly comparing the two to each other instead of talking about each. Modern uses heading could be split into subheadings as it is currently separated into categories but doesn't have a lot of information for each. I tried to split up the history by modern and ancient history since that section was also getting to be quite long and the time periods covered were very disjoint. Jakebeinart (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)