NCHERM-affiliated consultant Brian Van Brunt has suggested ten questions you may want to pose when choosing outside assessors to perform evaluations on students:
1) Does the mandated assessment create a “counseling” relationship with the student. If so, what does the informed consent for treatment and assessment look like (can we see a copy?). Is the relationship covered by HIPAA or FERPA---or is it medical in nature without electronic billing (HIPAA)
2) Is the student required to have information shared with the referring party regardless of the results or their wishes? If so, what does this release of information form look like (can we see a copy?)
3) What is the scope of the assessment? Will previous records (e.g. judicial files, out of state criminal records, third-party interviews, review of transcripts/GPA/class attendance, contact with RA or RD to determine residential life performance) be considered. If so, is the student informed of this prior to the assessment starting.
4) What kind of testing will be used to augment the clinical interview (e.g. symptom based measures (beck scales, EDIT, STAXI…), outcome measures (SCL-90-R, OQ-45, QOLI), personality testing (MMPI-2, TAT, Rorschach). How are the results reported back to the referring agent (e.g. letter, summary vs. overly technical data). Is there an additional costs for these assessments or are they provided as part of the overall cost?
5) What is a reasonable time frame for a first meeting? How long does a letter or results typically take to generate?
6) Is there a limit on the number of assessments that can be completed in a time frame (e.g. we know there are busy times where multiple students may be referred for an assessment---will this slow down the process)
7) Are there choices for the student in terms of who can do the assessment (e.g. is it only one person or a team that the student can switch to another person if they are uncomfortable)
8) What kind of ways does the assessment address concerns of “faking” or malingering responses? If assessments are used, do they address valid responses?
9) Who is paying for the assessment? If the student pays, do they then have a right to refuse having the results shared? If the school pays, how to you address the students right to see the results? (who gets the results first? Are both parties given the same results?)
10) What are the credentials of the person doing the assessment? Do they have specific training in the area of assessment and college student development?
Hope you find these helpful.
Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Mandated Psychological Assessment
Another look at mandated assessment
The second step in Covey’s seven habits of highly effective people is “begin with the end in mind.” Keeping this simple statement in mind has the potential to improve the quality of any mandated suicide or risk assessment. Too often, clinicians become distracted by non-essential questions or external pressures which lead them away from what the referral source is really looking for in terms of feedback.
What is that primary focus when performing an assessment? Well, it depends. It may be a Dean or VP of Student Affairs needs to determine if the student is likely to be safe remaining on campus or if he should be removed them from campus housing. Police may be looking to gauge the severity of a given situation, perhaps a note that lists “people I hate” left on the outside of the student’s door or a creative writing essay that outlines a campus shooting scenario.
Before I start digging into the magic bag of assessments and structured clinical interviews, it is helpful to being any assessment with the end in mind. What is the referral source looking for? It is rarely a 10 page psycho-social assessment or summary of developmental milestones. More often, referral sources are looking for counseling to assist in their process of determining risk. Too much time and effort is spent on answering questions that no one is asking.
Deans, Housing directors and campus police know we can’t predict the future. They understand that a counseling assessment isn’t a guaranteed prediction of future behavior. What they are looking for is assistance in determining a future course of action. Too often, psychologists and counselors don’t focus enough on providing assistance to the questions being asked by the referral source.
Many of the difficulties which arise between counselors and BIT teams center on the lack of effort put into developing the expectations of the beginning of the referral process. Counselors end up guessing at what kind of information they need to provide and BIT teams try to decipher overly technical assessment reports that may be thorough, but miss answering the key questions.
I would suggest counselors and BIT teams come together and discuss what kind of help they can offer each other to build a better foundational conversation prior to beginning any assessment. Some of these questions might include:
1) Are decision makers trying to determine whether the student can live on campus? The real question or threat may be more focused on the dangers or difficulty experienced by roommates and community members. The assessment may want to focus on the relationships the student has and the likelihood of these relationships being disruptive to the residential life community.
2) Does the referral source need help developing educational sanctions or monitoring if the student remains on campus? Counseling may not be the office providing these, but often those performing these assessments are in an excellent position to offer some advice about what kinds of corrective action or treatment would be helpful to avoid future problems.
3) Does the student seem remorseful and show insight into the severity of the situation?
4) Are there personality or psychological issues that may impact the likelihood of the threat occurring again (future suicide attempts, poor impulse control, past behavior, difficult environmental stressors)?
5) Is there a specific timeline that needs to be adhered to? Performing a detailed assessment that will not be ready for a hearing will not be as helpful to the threat team.
6) How can the information best be shared? Is a formal letter needed or a conversation more helpful?
Have a great weekend.
Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D.
Director of Counseling and Testing, WKU
NCHERM-Affiliated Consultant
Brian@NCHERM.org
Brian Van Brunt and Brett Sokolow will explore the topic, "We've Intervened -- Now What?" in a webinar this Friday, November 6th. Details are posted at http://www.ncherm.org/webinars.html
The second step in Covey’s seven habits of highly effective people is “begin with the end in mind.” Keeping this simple statement in mind has the potential to improve the quality of any mandated suicide or risk assessment. Too often, clinicians become distracted by non-essential questions or external pressures which lead them away from what the referral source is really looking for in terms of feedback.
What is that primary focus when performing an assessment? Well, it depends. It may be a Dean or VP of Student Affairs needs to determine if the student is likely to be safe remaining on campus or if he should be removed them from campus housing. Police may be looking to gauge the severity of a given situation, perhaps a note that lists “people I hate” left on the outside of the student’s door or a creative writing essay that outlines a campus shooting scenario.
Before I start digging into the magic bag of assessments and structured clinical interviews, it is helpful to being any assessment with the end in mind. What is the referral source looking for? It is rarely a 10 page psycho-social assessment or summary of developmental milestones. More often, referral sources are looking for counseling to assist in their process of determining risk. Too much time and effort is spent on answering questions that no one is asking.
Deans, Housing directors and campus police know we can’t predict the future. They understand that a counseling assessment isn’t a guaranteed prediction of future behavior. What they are looking for is assistance in determining a future course of action. Too often, psychologists and counselors don’t focus enough on providing assistance to the questions being asked by the referral source.
Many of the difficulties which arise between counselors and BIT teams center on the lack of effort put into developing the expectations of the beginning of the referral process. Counselors end up guessing at what kind of information they need to provide and BIT teams try to decipher overly technical assessment reports that may be thorough, but miss answering the key questions.
I would suggest counselors and BIT teams come together and discuss what kind of help they can offer each other to build a better foundational conversation prior to beginning any assessment. Some of these questions might include:
1) Are decision makers trying to determine whether the student can live on campus? The real question or threat may be more focused on the dangers or difficulty experienced by roommates and community members. The assessment may want to focus on the relationships the student has and the likelihood of these relationships being disruptive to the residential life community.
2) Does the referral source need help developing educational sanctions or monitoring if the student remains on campus? Counseling may not be the office providing these, but often those performing these assessments are in an excellent position to offer some advice about what kinds of corrective action or treatment would be helpful to avoid future problems.
3) Does the student seem remorseful and show insight into the severity of the situation?
4) Are there personality or psychological issues that may impact the likelihood of the threat occurring again (future suicide attempts, poor impulse control, past behavior, difficult environmental stressors)?
5) Is there a specific timeline that needs to be adhered to? Performing a detailed assessment that will not be ready for a hearing will not be as helpful to the threat team.
6) How can the information best be shared? Is a formal letter needed or a conversation more helpful?
Have a great weekend.
Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D.
Director of Counseling and Testing, WKU
NCHERM-Affiliated Consultant
Brian@NCHERM.org
Brian Van Brunt and Brett Sokolow will explore the topic, "We've Intervened -- Now What?" in a webinar this Friday, November 6th. Details are posted at http://www.ncherm.org/webinars.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)