"Why am I so stuck?": A Collaborative/Therapeutic Assessment Case Discussion.

Assessors from 3 continents worked together on a single multimethod case study. Their goal was to hold the client at the center and forefront of their attitudes and thinking as each assessor focused on a specific measure or group of measures. The adult client requested a neuropsychological assessment and completed a full battery of cognitive measures as well as the MMPI-2, the Rorschach, and the Wartegg. A basic tenet of collaborative/therapeutic assessment holds that the client is a full partner in the assessment process; he or she is also seen as the final arbiter of the usefulness of the ideas derived. With that in mind, the client worked with the lead assessor to create 6 questions she wished answered by the assessment. Feedback and discussion occurred in a number of ways: through discussion sessions with the lead assessor that included extended inquiry; individualized letters from the other assessors, each addressing her 6 questions; a summary letter from the lead assessor; and a metaphorical, therapeutic story that stressed key findings from the assessment. Results converged powerfully, with similar findings from each assessor. The client stated that she felt heard and understood in the process, even by individuals who she had never met personally.

Comments on protecting clients about whom we write (and speak).

This comment lauds Barbara Sieck's article ("Obtaining clinical writing informed consent versus using client disguise and recommendations for practice", Psychotherapy, 49, pp. 3-11.) as a solid review not only for therapists but for all clinicians and researchers. Her review also is relevant for assorted spoken presentations and for presentation of psychological assessment excerpts/reports, film clips, and qualitative research data and findings. Procedures that promote adequate disguise are listed, with an emphasis on the importance of authentically engaging the person-to-be-presented in discussion of the intended audience/readers and of what is being illustrated. The latter step serves not only the integrity of the participant but also their sense of contributing and of being respected.

Bracketing in qualitative research: conceptual and practical matters.

Bracketing is presented as two forms of researcher engagement: with data and with evolving findings. The first form is the well-known identification and temporary setting aside of the researcher's assumptions. The second engagement is the hermeneutic revisiting of data and of one's evolving comprehension of it in light of a revised understanding of any aspect of the topic. Both of these processes are ongoing, and they include the careful development of language with which to represent findings. Extensive everyday examples of bracketing and of interviewing are presented. As a form of disclosure in qualitative research, the background from which this article was written is shared. At that point, Husserl's and Heidegger's historical introductions of bracketing are presented briefly, followed by a discussion of reflexivity and hermeneutics. The article closes with warnings of how residual positivism can work against qualitative rigor and with a suggested qualitative research study on bracketing.

Phenomenology, Bruno Klopfer, and individualized/collaborative assessment.

This presentation celebrates commonalities of Bruno Klopfer's philosophical phenomenological approach to the Rorschach and my similarly grounded approach to individualized/collaborative psychological assessment. The article begins with an excerpt from such an assessment to ground what follows. It then addresses what phenomenology is and is not in relation to psychological assessment, and reviews Klopfer's phenomenological approach to the Rorschach. It presents the findings from an empirical phenomenological research study relevant to collaborative assessment. Finally, the article reviews some common inquiries and observations about individualized/colloaborative assessment and closes with some shifts in American psychology that are consonant with this approach to psychological assessment.

Individualized assessment moderates the impact of HIPAA privacy rules.

In this comment, I express appreciation of Erard's (this issue) review, and urge psychologists to continue to protect test security. I disagree with Erard's belief that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is salient for nonhealth forensic issues. I then review some ways in which individualized assessment practices can moderate the negative impact of the HIPPA privacy rules. Assessors can use tests as a ground forjoint exploration of the client's experience, behavior, and their contexts. Clients may later ask for a review of test data and collaborative life findings, but they rarely are interested in acquiring test records. Attorneys, after discovering that assessment conclusions are based largely on events/contexts provided by the client and others, are less interested in acquiring test records that the psychologist used as tools rather than as evidence for conclusions.