APRN Relevant Literature

Literature Relevant to the Utility and Impact of Psychological Assessment

Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2021). A Comment on Krishnamurthy et al.’s (2022) Professional Practice Guidelines for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(1), 17–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.2006675

Bram, A.D. (2013). Psychological testing and treatment implications: We can say more. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(4), 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.736907

Bram, A.D. (2010). The relevance of the Rorschach and patient-examiner relationship in treatment planning and outcome assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 91-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890903508112

Bram, A.D. (2017). A clinical illustration: Tool-based assessment (pp. 943-956). In V. Lingiari & N. McWilliams (Eds.) Psychodynamic diagnostic manual (2nd ed.). Guilford.

Bram, A.D. (2015). To resume a stalled psychotherapy? Psychological testing to understand an impasse and reevaluate treatment options. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(3), 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2014.997824

Bram, A. (2018). Understanding a therapeutic impasse: Use of R-PAS in a multi-method assessment of alliance dynamics and underlying developmental disruption. In J. Mihura & G. Meyer (Eds.) Applications of the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (pp. 119-137). Guilford.

Bram, A.D., & Peebles, M.J. (2014). Psychological testing that matters: Creating a road map for effective treatment. American Psychological Association. 

De Saeger, H., Kamphuis, J. H., Finn, S. E., Smith, J. D., Verheul, R., van Busschbach, J. J. V., Feenstra, D. J., & Horn, E. (2014). Therapeutic assessment promotes treatment readiness but does not affect symptom change in patients with personality disorders: Findings from a randomized clinical trial. Psychological Assessment, 26, 474-483. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0035667

Jenkins, S. R. (2021). A Strong First Step: Comment on Krishnamurthy et al. (2022). Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(1), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.2001747

Kamphuis, J. H., Noordhof, A., & Hopwood, C. J. (2021). When and how assessment matters: An update on the Treatment Utility of Clinical Assessment (TUCA). Psychological Assessment33(2), 122-132. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000966

Krishnamurthy, R., Hass, G., Natoli, A. P., Smith, B., Arbisi, P., & Gottfried, E. (2022). Professional practice guidelines for personality assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1942020

Krishnamurthy, R., Natoli, A. P., Arbisi, P. A., Hass, G. A., & Gottfried, E. D. (2022). Professional practice guidelines for personality assessment: Response to comments by Ben-Porath (2022), Lui (2022), and Jenkins (2022). Journal of Personality Assessment, 104, 27-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.2005075

Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Hawkins, E. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Smart, D. W. (2003). Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 288-301. http://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg025

Lui, P. P. (2021). Whose Evidence? Enhancing Cultural Competency and Humility in Personality Assessment: Commentary on Krishnamurthy et al. (2022). Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.2006674

Natoli, A. P. (2019). More methods can result in more knowledge: Why psychology needs to use multi-method approaches. The PsyPAG Quarterly, 112, 11-13. Link

Natoli, A. P. (2021). Integrating the assessment of implicit personality factors into clinical practice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103, 427-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1903909

Natoli, A. P., Gottfried, E. D., & Mulay, A. L. (2023). The process-focused model for assessing risk in forensic populations: Explanation, case example, and initial plans for establishing the necessary evidence base. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 23, 154-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2021.2016118

Olsson, T. M., & Fridell, M. (2018). The five-year costs and benefits of extended psychological and psychiatric assessment versus standard intake interview for women with comorbid substance use disorders treated in compulsory care in Sweden. BMC Health Services Research, 18, 53. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2854-y

Poston, J. M., & Hanson, W. E. (2010). Meta-analysis of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention. Psychological Assessment, 22, 203-212. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018679

Schulte, D., Kunzel, R., Pepping, G., & Schulte-Bahrenberg, T. (1992). Tailor-made versus standardized therapy for phobic patients. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 14, 67-92. http://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(92)90001-5

Weekers, L. C., Hutsebaut, J., De Saeger, H., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2024). Comparing the clinical utility of the alternative model for personality disorders to the Section II personality disorder model: A randomized controlled trial. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000651

Wendt, L. P., Klein, E. M., Benecke, C., Singer, S., Dotzauer, L., Engesser, D., van Haaren, Y., & Zimmermann, J. (2024). Clinical Utility of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale: A Survey of German Mental Health Professionals. Preprint Version 1.0. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u9ycr