Jed Yalof

Critical Issues in Response-To-Intervention, Comprehensive Evaluation, and Specific Learning Disabilities Identification and Intervention: An Expert White Paper Consensus

Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a “third method” approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.

Case Illustration of a Boy With Nonverbal Learning Disorder and Asperger's Features: Neuropsychological and Personality Assessment

I present a case study of a latency-age boy referred for assessment of a nonverbal learning disability/disorder (NLD) who also had features of Aspergers syndrome (AS). I review NLD terminology, presumed brain–behavior relationship, neuropsychological profile, and diagnosis/classification issues. I discuss the challenge of differentiating NLD from AS in relation to the clients pattern of visual-spatial, communication, social-emotional, and behavioral NLD correlates. I integrate neuropsychological and personality assessment data with interviews, observations, prior testing, and input from teacher and therapist in formulating a diagnostic impression. I discuss Rorschach (Exner, 2003) and neuropsychological consultations in relation to subtle language and interpersonal features of the clients communication style. I provide parent feedback at 18 and 24 months posttesting. I discuss implications relative to a model of school neuropsychological assessment that includes the Rorschach test.

The assessment competency.

Liaison with the body requesting the assessment or review is intended to ensure that RANZCOG members approached to participate in such activities, do not have a conflict of interest and possess the appropriate background and experience. It is important that the requesting body and RANZCOG member(s) are aware of the relationships existing between the parties involved; i.e. the member(s) who will be undertaking the assessment/review will be doing so independently of the College, with remuneration and indemnity arrangements negotiated by the member(s) and the requesting body to the satisfaction of both parties. It is essential that indemnity arrangements and / or qualified privilege / statutory immunity cover are in place for College members involved in the assessment process.

Psychoanalytic Interpretation of Superego Functioning Following CS Readministration Procedures: Case Illustration

The Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003) has specific procedures to address brief Rorschach protocols when the first administration yields fewer than 14 responses. These procedures involve the assessors asking the client to retake the test by providing more responses on the second administration than the first administration. The request carries with it an implicit criticism of the clients initial effort and a mandate to improve performance on retake. The retake request, with its ambiguously worded demand for improved performance, engages the clients superego (i.e., the client feels judged) and makes it possible to study superego manifestations (e.g., guilt, shame) on the Rorschach test, using a model of (a) brief first record, (b) retake directive, and (c) second administration. We present a case that illustrates a clinical strategy, modeled on a psychoanalytic understanding of the CS retake procedure, for studying the clients superego functioning under retest conditions.

Quantifying Complexity: Personality Assessment and Its Relationship with Psychoanalysis

The fields of personality assessment and psychoanalysis have an entwined history and share much in common, notably an appreciation of the importance of understanding a person with complexity and depth, including the role of unconscious (or implicit) psychological processes. Personality assessment (or diagnostic psychological testing) offers a complement to psychoanalysis’ primarily idiographic approach by integrating it with a nomothetic one; that is, applying quantitative methods to determine in what ways and to what extent a person is similar or different relative to normative data. It is surprising, then, that contemporary psychoanalysts are largely unfamiliar with the field of personality assessment and seldom refer their patients for evaluation to assist with diagnostic formulation and treatment planning. In this article, we offer practicing analysts (1) a general description of the ways that testing can assist diagnostically, (2) an introduction to categories of psychological tests that sample functioning under varying conditions or from different vantage points, (3) a survey of assessment research that has provided empirical validation of key psychoanalytic concepts, (4) a window into the assessment process as it is applied clinically, and (5) cases to illustrate when and to what benefit analysts might consider referrals for testing. Examples include use of testing in instances when a new patient reports a history of repeated treatment failures; when patient and analyst are embroiled in a protracted impasse; and when a fine-tuned assessment of analyzability is warranted.

Teaching Psychoanalytic Concepts in the University Setting: Issues, Challenges, and Promises

Psychoanalysis has had a longstanding, but not always easy, relationship with scientific psychology and the university environment. Reasons for this tension include challenges related to empirical support for analytic concepts, the co-opting of analytic ideas by other theories without always citing the psychoanalytic foundations of these ideas, and difficulty teaching these ideas to students. Recently, there has been a call for closer scrutiny of teaching practices and advocacy for more research in psychoanalytic societies and institutes. Thus, conflict is both external against misperception by others outside of the psychoanalytic enclave and internal over longstanding attitudes about teaching and training analytic candidates. In this article, I focus on the way psychoanalysis is perceived and misperceived in academic psychology, relevance of empirical psychoanalytic research for educators, and what this means for the future of graduate education in psychology and psychoanalysis. I also present a sampling of creative teaching approaches beyond the traditional pedagogical strategies of lecture and examination for encouraging student learning of psychoanalytic concepts.

An integrative approach to assessment supervision

Psychological assessment supervision requires the application of technical, conceptual, and interpersonal interventions that address the supervisees skills, knowledge, and ethical competencies. This article discusses assessment domains that are fundamental to helping trainees refine technical and reasoning skills, and utilizes Jacob, David, and Meyers (1995) application of Johnson-Lairds (1988) typology of thought as a supervisory technique that encourages the supervisees inductive, associative, creative, and self-reflective thinking in response to clinical situations. A clinical illustration is presented.

Introduction to the Special Section

Psychologists who invest substantial amounts of professional time in personality assessment are likely to encounter individual cases that are both atypically perplexing and enriching because of the substantive insights about the client arising from the assessment findings. These cases force the assessor to think harder than usual, require more time to formulate, and often involve clients whose psychological needs are a cut above the norm. As such, translating the richness of diagnostic inferences into their therapeutic applications is always a special challenge. What follows are three articles by experts in personality assessment that skillfully, thoughtfully, and engagingly encapsulate these points. Dr. Anthony D. Bram’s article, “To Resume a Stalled Psychotherapy? Psychological Testing to Understand an Impasse and Reevaluate Treatment Options,” provides a detailed, sophisticated, and very sensitive description of working with a difficult client both as assessor and therapist, and discusses the transference–countertransference enactments that can arise from this work. Dr. Odile Husain’s article, “From Persecution to Depression: A Case of Chronic Depression—Associating the Rorschach, the TAT, and Winnicott.” bridges the French–Swiss perspective on the interpretation of personality tests with a uniquely sensitive analysis of particular verbalizations that form the cornerstone of her assessment and treatment understanding of a long-term clinical case. Dr. James H. Kleiger’s article, “From Waiting Room to Mother’s Lap: Parameters in Testing a Psychotic, SchoolPhobic Child,” also draws on the interpersonal aspects of the test situation in a way that illustrates both the importance of the assessor’s ability to self-observe and develop diagnostic inferences from subjective reactions to a client (and parents), and the different ways in which thought disturbance can manifest unexpectedly during a personality evaluation. These articles emerged from a symposium at the March 2014 meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment in Arlington, VA. I had the good fortune to chair the symposium, which was titled “Difficult Assessment Cases and Then Some: Psychodynamic Perspectives.” These articles, along with the discussion article that follows, illustrate not only the way in which the hats of therapist and assessor inform each other, but also demonstrate different applications of a psychodynamically oriented approach to personality evaluation.

Discussion of Difficult Assessment Cases: Psychodynamic Perspectives

I discuss the papers of Kleiger (this issue), Husain (this issue), and Bram (this issue), each of whom described their personality assessment of a very challenging case. Each case illustrates the way in which experienced personality assessors integrate psychoanalytic theory with clinical reasoning, multi-method assessment, and an understanding of the patient–examiner relationship when evaluating patients with serious psychiatric needs. The discussion elaborates particular aspects of each case and integrates the different estuaries through which personality assessors use psychoanalytic theory to develop diagnostic and treatment inferences.

Teaching and Learning Personality Assessment

Jed Yalof received his PsyD in Clinical Psychology from the Illinois School of Professional Psychology. He served his internship at Philadelphia State Hospital and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Devereux Foundation and holds an ABPP in Clinical Psychology. He is Professor of Psychology at Immaculata College, where he is Chair of the Department of Graduate Psychology and Coordinator of the PsyD Program in Clinical Psychology. His practice and research interests are in the areas of psychoanalytic applications to the understanding of teaching and learning, school and clinical psychology assessment, supervision, and psychotherapy. Cynthia Calla, MS, Heidi Dalzell, MA, Susan Hayes, MS, and Nancy Moran, MA, are doctoral students in the PsyD program in Clinical Psychology at Immaculata College.