User:Ongmianli/Assessment Template

This is an assessment template that can be used to create Wikipedia articles on noted psychological assessments.

In general, according to WP:MEDRS, medical articles should be written in the following format:

Template for writing medical-test articles

This section is NOT included in the actual page. It is an overview of what is generally included in a page.

• Versions, if more than one kind or variant of the test or procedure exists
• Psychometrics, including validity and reliability of test results
• History of the test
• Use in other populations, such as other cultures and countries
• Research
• Limitations

Lead section

This will be the lead section. This section should give a quick summary of what the assessment is. Here are some pointers (please do not use bullet points when writing article):

• What are its acronyms?
• What is its purpose?
• What population is it intended for? What do the items measure?
• How long does it take to administer?
• Who (individual or groups) was it created by?
• How many questions are inside? Is it multiple choice?
• What has been its impact on the clinical world in general?
• Who uses it? Clinicians? Researchers? What settings?

Versions

• What are the versions of this test that exists, if any? For each section, there should be a description of the test.
• If there are multiple versions, why was the most recent one created? (Usually DSM update or norm update, among other reasons)
• What is its intended population, number of questions and acronyms?

Reliability

The rubrics for evaluating reliability and validity are now on published pages in Wikiversity. You will evaluate the instrument based on these rubrics. Then, you will delete the code for the rubric and complete the table (located after the rubrics). Don't forget to adjust the headings once you copy/paste the table in!

An example using the table from the General Behavior Inventory is attached below.

Rubric tables

Reliability

Reliability refers to whether the scores are reproducible. Unless otherwise specified, the reliability scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample. Here is the rubric for evaluating the reliability of scores on a measure for the purpose of evidence based assessment.

Rubric for evaluating norms and reliability for the General Behavior Inventory (table from Youngstrom et al., extending Hunsley & Mash, 2008; *indicates new construct or category)

Criterion	Rating (adequate, good, excellent, too good*)	Explanation with references
Norms	Adequate	Multiple convenience samples and research studies, including both clinical and nonclinical samples
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, split half, etc.)	Excellent; too good for some contexts	Alphas routinely over .94 for both scales, suggesting that scales could be shortened for many uses
Inter-rater reliability	Not applicable	Designed originally as a self-report scale; parent and youth report correlate about the same as cross-informant scores correlate in general
Test-retest reliability (stability	Good	r = .73 over 15 weeks. Evaluated in initial studies, with data also show high stability in clinical trials
Repeatability	Not published	No published studies formally checking repeatability

Validity describes the evidence that an assessment tool measures what it was supposed to measure. There are many different ways of checking validity. For screening measures such as the CAGE, diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity are probably the most useful ways of looking at validity.

Validity

Validity describes the evidence that an assessment tool measures what it was supposed to measure. There are many different ways of checking validity. For screening measures, diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity are probably the most useful ways of looking at validity. Unless otherwise specified, the validity scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample. Here is a rubric for describing validity of test scores in the context of evidence-based assessment.

Evaluation of validity and utility for the General Behavior Inventory (table from Youngstrom et al., unpublished, extended from Hunsley & Mash, 2008; *indicates new construct or category)

Criterion	Rating (adequate, good, excellent, too good*)	Explanation with references
Content validity	Excellent	Covers both DSM diagnostic symptoms and a range of associated features
Construct validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity)	Excellent	Shows convergent validity with other symptom scales, longitudinal prediction of development of mood disorders, criterion validity via metabolic markers and associations with family history of mood disorder. Factor structure complicated; the inclusion of “biphasic” or “mixed” mood items creates a lot of cross-loading
Discriminative validity	Excellent	Multiple studies show that GBI scores discriminate cases with unipolar and bipolar mood disorders from other clinical disorders effect sizes are among the largest of existing scales
Validity generalization	Good	Used both as self-report and caregiver report; used in college student as well as outpatient and inpatient clinical samples; translated into multiple languages with good reliability
Treatment sensitivity	Good	Multiple studies show sensitivity to treatment effects comparable to using interviews by trained raters, including placebo-controlled, masked assignment trials Short forms appear to retain sensitivity to treatment effects while substantially reducing burden
Clinical utility	Good	Free (public domain), strong psychometrics, extensive research base. Biggest concerns are length and reading level. Short forms have less research, but are appealing based on reduced burden and promising data

Development and history

• Why was this instrument developed? Why was there a need to do so? What need did it meet?
• What was the theoretical background behind this assessment? (e.g. addresses importance of 'negative cognitions', such as intrusions, inaccurate, sustained thoughts)
• How was the scale developed? What was the theoretical background behind it?
• How are these questions reflected in applications to theories, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)?
• If there were previous versions, when were they published?
• Discuss the theoretical ideas behind the changes

Impact

• What was the impact of this assessment? How did it affect assessment in psychiatry, psychology and health care professionals?
• What can the assessment be used for in clinical settings? Can it be used to measure symptoms longitudinally? Developmentally?

Use in other populations

• How widely has it been used? Has it been translated into different languages? Which languages?

Research

• Any recent research done that is pertinent?

Limitations

• If self report, what are usual limitations of self-report?
• State the status of this assessment (is it copyrighted? If free, link to it).

See also

Here, it would be good to link to any related articles on Wikipedia. As we create more assessment pages, this should grow.

For instance:

• Pediatric bipolar disorder

External links

• Publisher's page

Example page

• General Behavior Inventory