Rick:
I hope you won't mind reposting what you sent me privately to the list, as
I thought it nicely articulated, and there does in fact seem to be a small
group interested in this topic.
I was reviewing the posts I have received from TIPSters with the faculty
member primarily responsible for teaching the PA course here, and she also
articulated a good point, in favor of abolishing the prerequisite, and that
was the question: "Are they learning material necessary for the next
course?" Note she referred to the next COURSE, as opposed to the activity
of a complete personality assessment. All students will take both classes,
the only question is whether order matters (suddenly having a flashback to
graduate-level statistics). While it is true that intellectual functioning
is a necessary component to doing a full personality assessment, is it
necessary for the course? I think Rick's second point is a good one, too,
though, involving the structure. Again, most students would end up taking
IA first, but is it NECESSARY to do so to succeed in PA and derive the
necessary skills? If this last question is yes, then to me, Intellectual
Assessment is a necessary prereq to Personality Assessment. Any thoughts?
(hoping I'm not dragging this out too long)
David W.
At 12:49 PM 9/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
>David--
>
>Boy, talk about timing (did one of my colleagues set you up for this?), we
>are struggling with just this issue. It is my contention that Intelligence
>Assessment should be a prerequisite for Personality Assessment for 2
>reasons:
>
>First, I believe that a good assessment of personality includes an
>assessment of intelligence because there are a number of personality traits
>and intellectual traits that are tied together (see Ackerman & Heggestad's
>1997 Psychological Bulletin article for more detail). I argue that you need
>to do at least an intelligence screener (e.g., Slosson) with every
>personality assessment.
>
>Second, I think that it is easier to learn how to do intellectual
>assessment. The tests and interpretations are straight-forward. They have
>definite standardized rules and if you break standardization you cannot do
>interpretation. Personality assessment, on the other hand, sometimes is a
>bit more flexible--you can choose different instruments depending on the
>presenting problem/referral question and there are some personality
>assessment instruments that have very little in the way of standardized
>instruction/interpretation. I feel that it is easier for students to go from
>structured to less structured than it is to go from less structured to
>structured.
>
>Those are my two reasons for having students begin with Intellectual
>Assessment and proceed to Personality Assessment. The way I've taken care of
>the problem of Spring admissions is that I, as Coordinator of the Clinical
>Master's program, discourage Spring admissions--students who want to come in
>the Spring are told that they can take content area classes, but that since
>the applied courses are only offered in the fall (our Theories of Counseling
>course is also only offered in the fall) that they will be officially
>admitted into the program in the Fall.
>
>Anyway, that's my argument and our solution here at APSU. Let me know if I
>can be of further help.
>
>--Rick
>
>Rick Grieve, Ph.D.
>Department of Psychology
>Austin Peay State University
>Clarksville, TN 37044
>
>I am here to chew bubblegum and take names.
>
>
David Wasieleski, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
912-333-5930
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dtwasieleski
"Thinking is the hardest work there is,
which is probably the reason so few engage in it."
--Henry Ford
