Division Between Neuropsychology and Personality Assessment.

660 Words3 Pages
There is an Indian parable of six blind men who encounter different parts of a large elephant and are asked to describe what it is they are feeling. The man who grasps the trunk reports that he’s holding a snake; the next man, who is holding one of the large tusks, insists that it is a spear; another man, grasping one of the animal’s large legs, says that it is a tree. The point of the parable is that incomplete evidence results in incomplete conclusions and a narrow perspective of the entire beast. As applied psychology becomes increasingly specialized, psychologists also run the risk of drawing incomplete conclusions about patients and their functioning. Understanding something as complex as human phenomenology through only one narrow lens guarantees that our perceptions and conclusions will be similarly narrow. I argue, as have others (Meyer, 2002; Ready, Stieman, & Paulsen, 2001; Wilson, 1993), that we can and should have both breadth and depth as our goal in all clinical activities, including psychological assessment. In this chapter, I discuss the current division between neuropsychology and personality assessment. I examine differences in training, test usage, and scientific literature that give rise to somewhat different (and perhaps incomplete) perspectives of our patients. I then discuss the neuropsychological challenges posed by traditional personality assessment and behavioral measurement of children and adolescents and the types of “lessons” that personality assessors can learn from neuropsychology. Similarly, I explore ways in which neuropsychology practice can inform the assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior. Last, I present a case example and provide some recommendations fo... ... middle of paper ... ... International Neuropsychological Society, and APA’s Division 40 (Clinical Neuropsychology) to determine what measures are most commonly given by neuropsychologists. In this survey, respondents were asked to rate their top three assessment measures. A similar survey was conducted by Camara, Nathan, and Puente (2000), who surveyed both neuropsychologists and clinical psychologists in APA. The results of both surveys are displayed in Table 3.1. The question asked by the two surveys was slightly different (i.e., “top three” in Rabin et al. [2005] versus “most common” in Camara et al. [2000]), but it seems that neuropsychologists appear quite unlikely to use traditional measures of personality and psychopathology (e.g., the Rorschach was listed as 34th) and that most assessment by clinical psychologists is focused on either personality or cognitive functioning.

More about Division Between Neuropsychology and Personality Assessment.

Open Document