APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and EvaluationI

APA GUIDELINES

for Psychological Assessment

and Evaluation

APA TASK FORCE ON PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

AND EVALUATION GUIDELINES

APPROVED BY APA COUNCIL OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2020

IIAPA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

acknowledgment is given to the American Psychological Association. This material may not be reprinted, translated, or distributed electronically without

prior permission in writing from the publisher. For permission, contact APA, Rights and Permissions, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.

This document will expire as APA policy in 10 years (2030). Correspondence regarding the APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

should be addressed to the American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, 20002-4242.

Suggested Citation

American Psychological Association, APA Task Force on Psychological Assessment and Evaluation Guidelines. (2020). APA Guidelines for Psychological

Assessment and Evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-psychological-assessment-evaluation.pdf

APA GUIDELINES

for Psychological Assessment

and Evaluation

APA TASK FORCE ON PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

AND EVALUATION GUIDELINES

APPROVED BY APA COUNCIL OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2020

Task Force Workgroup

Linda F. Campbell, PhD (co-chair)

University of Georgia

Lisa D. Stanford, PhD, ABPP (co-chair)

Akron Children’s Hospital

Vincent C. Alfonso, PhD

Gonzaga University, School of Education

Michael J. Cuttler, PhD, ABPP

Law Enforcement Services, Inc.

Stephen T. DeMers, EdD

University of Kentucky

Giselle A. Hass, PsyD, ABAP

Independent Practice

APA Staff

Catherine L. Grus, PhD

Chief Education Officer

Education Directorate

C. Vaile Wright, PhD

Senior Director, Health Care Innovation

Practice Directorate

AUTHOR’S NOTE

This document was developed by representatives from the Board of Professional Affairs, the

Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment, the Committee for the Advancement of

Professional Psychology, the Committee on Professional Practice and Standards, the Board

of Educational Affairs, and the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards in col-

laboration with APA staff. The work group included Vincent C. Alfonso, PhD; Linda F. Campbell,

PhD (co-chair); Michael J. Cuttler, PhD, ABPP; Stephen T. DeMers, EdD; Giselle A. Hass, PsyD,

ABAP; Lisa D. Stanford, PhD, ABPP (co-chair); and APA staff members Catherine L. Grus, PhD,

and C. Vaile Wright, PhD.

The work group also acknowledges the earlier contributions from April Harris-Britt, PhD,

representing the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest, and several

members of CPTA who made substantive contributions to Guideline 5. The work group

extends its appreciation to the APA staff members who facilitated the work of the guideline,

including Marianne Ernesto, Mary G. Hardiman, MS, and Sarah A. Rose..

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 

Scope 

Audience and Stakeholders 

Statement Distinguishing Between Guidelines and Standards 

Compatibility With APA Ethics Code 

Definition of Terms 

Documentation of NeedPublic Benefit 

Development of the Guidelines 

Selection of Evidence 

Competence 

Psychometric and Measurement Knowledge 

Selection Administration and Scoring of Tests 

Diverse Underrepresented and Vulnerable Populations 

Training and Supervisory Qualifications and Role 

Technology 

References 

2APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation3

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the American Psychological Association (APA) Guidelines for Psychological

Assessment and Evaluation (PAE) is to assist and inform psychologists of best practice when

psychological instruments, including psychometric tests and collateral information, are used

within the practice of psychological assessment and/or evaluation. As the discipline of psy-

chology has expanded, the application of psychological assessment has also developed in

response to new areas of practice. Integrated medical and primary care, online assessment

and scoring, and global initiatives are examples of these new areas. Since the last publication

of test user qualifications guidelines (APA, 2001), neuropsychology, forensic psychology,

cognitive science, consulting, industrial/organizational, integrated health, and other fields

have evolved into more defined and recognized specific areas of practice with developing

professional practice guidelines, standards of practice, and identified consistency with the

APA Ethics Code (APA, 2017a). Commensurate with the growth and varied expertise in the

assessment field is the need for (a) core knowledge and skills that are essential for all psy-

chologists whose assessment services impact individuals, groups, organizations, and the

public and (b) specific domains of expertise within the field requiring additional knowledge,

skills, and clinical experience to address the expansion of assessment service delivery across

new populations and settings. These guidelines focus on the core knowledge and skills that

psychologists, including those in specialty areas of practice, should strive to possess to

deliver assessment services competently. Additionally, the purpose of these guidelines is to

inform clients/patients, the public, other professionals collaborating with psychologists, reg-

ulatory bodies, and training programs of the qualification expected to acquire professional

competency as defined by the APA Ethics Code and to maintain high professional standards

of practice. The guidelines apply to standardized tests of ability, aptitude, achievement, atti-

tudes, interests, personality, cognitive functioning, mental health, and other construct

domains.

APA’s (2001) “Guidelines for Test User Qualifications” were responsive to the identified

problem of misuse of tests within the United States and internationally. The competence of

the test users was the primary reason for concern, and the International Test Commission

(2001) and several other countries have issued guidelines to address this concern. Compe-

tence of test users continues to be a growing problem despite the development of multiple

guidelines, procedures, and standards. The current guidelines focus on two areas identified

as deficits in the 2001 guidelines: the need for greater specificity of assessment constructs

and foundational knowledge, and the need to address the expanded and more specialized

roles of psychologists using assessment and evaluation tools in various clinical and other

professional settings.

4APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

Scope

The scope of the APA PAE Guidelines addresses the use of psycholog-

ical instruments, including psychometric tests and collateral data

when used within the context of psychological assessment, and

focuses on (a) assessment procedures, (b) professional competen-

cies in psychological assessment and evaluation, and (c) assess-

ment knowledge competencies. There are several topics that are

outside the scope of these guidelines. These include, but are not

limited to, an in-depth treatment of technology-based assessments,

test security, and the use of assessments for certification and licen-

sure. These PAE guidelines apply to all assessment procedures

whether or not the tests are referenced by psychological terminol-

ogy (e.g., psychological testing) and apply to any assessment and

evaluation procedures (e.g., job selection, performance appraisals,

clinical assessment of mental health status, psychoeducational/

multifactored evaluation of learning issues) that could result in psy-

chological distress for the individual being assessed, result in the

diagnosis of a deficit, or impact the individual’s well-being. The

guidelines apply broadly to professional competencies of psycholo-

gists conducting assessments and evaluations, including selection

and evaluation of tests used, test administration, scoring, interpre-

tation, report writing and feedback, and work within the limits of

documented training and experience with specific tests used.

Psychologists strive to meet the knowledge and skill-based compe-

tencies established to set a high standard in psychological practice

such as professional and ethical decision-making, rights of test tak-

ers, justification for use of tests, sensitivity to diversity, and technical

knowledge of tests used. The individual guidelines address clinical

and knowledge competencies that are recommended to psycholo-

gists, and seek to inform psychologists’ understanding of the scope

of assessment practice in psychological testing.

Audience and Stakeholders

The APA PAE guidelines are important for those directly involved in

the process of testing, assessment, and evaluation, including the

following:

• Psychologists who directly conduct assessments, such as admin-

ister, score, and accurately interpret tests, compose reports, or

give feedback or any component thereof.

• Psychology students pursuing a higher degree.

• Those responsible for selecting psychological tests, assessing the

need, determining the use of tests, and making recommendations.

• Those who purchase and/or oversee the acquisition and mainte-

nance of psychological assessment tools and procedures.

• Those who supervise others in conducting aspects of assessment

and those who work under the oversight of a higher credentialed

person.

• Those who generate, use, interpret, and/or give feedback to those

who have been evaluated.

• Test developers, who generate test content and are involved in

collecting evidence for psychometric reliability, validity in pre-

dicting key outcomes, and equity across different subgroups of

interest.

• Educators and trainers who are responsible for instruction on

psychological assessment, testing, and evaluation.

• Employers who use assessments to make personnel decisions.

• The public, test takers, and those impacted by test results given

to others.

• Legislative and regulatory bodies that make decisions about or

monitor psychological assessment and evaluation.

• Relevant professional psychology associations.

Statement Distinguishing Between Guidelines

and Standards

The term guidelines refers to statements that suggest or recommend

specific professional behavior, endeavor, or conduct for psycholo-

gists. Guidelines differ from standards. Standards are mandatory

and thus may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism (e.g.,

the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct; APA, 2017a).

By contrast, guidelines are aspirational in intent; they are not man-

datory, definitive, or exhaustive. They aim to facilitate the continued

systematic development of the professional and to promote a high

level of professional practice by psychologists. A set of guidelines

may not apply to every professional and clinical situation within the

scope of that set. As a result, guidelines are not intended to take

precedence over the professional judgments of psychologists that

are based on the scientific and professional knowledge of the field

and the ethics code. Further, federal and state laws also supersede

guidelines.

These guidelines are professional practice guidelines that are

applied to the practice of psychology and not to specific treatments

that may be used in the practice of psychology. Professional practice

guidelines are directed to practitioners and are intended to provide

aspirational guidance in ethical and professional decision-making in

professional practice.

Compatibility With APA Ethics Code

These guidelines are consistent with the current APA Ethics Code

(APA, 2017a). The guidelines are also consistent with and acknowl-

edge other relevant APA policy such as the Standards of Accreditation

for Health Service Psychology (APA, Commission on Accreditation,

2015), the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

(American Educational Research Association [AERA] et al., 2014),

and the Professional Practice Guidelines: Guidance for Developers and

Users (APA, 2015b).

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation5

Deﬁnition of Terms

ASSESSMENT QUALIFICATIONS

The term assessment qualifications refers to the combination of

knowledge, skills, abilities, training, experience, and practice creden-

tials that are deemed desirable for the use of psychological tests and

assessment materials. However, the term describes two types of

qualifications: (a) generic assessment knowledge and skills neces-

sary for typical uses of tests and (b) specific qualification for the

responsible use of tests in specific settings and for specific purposes

(APA, 2001).

ASSESSMENT

The term assessment refers to a complex activity integrating knowl-

edge, clinical judgment, reliable collateral information (e.g., observa-

tion, semistructured or structured interviews, third-party report), and

psychometric constructs with expertise in an area of professional

practice or application. Psychological assessment is a problem-solv-

ing process of identifying and using relevant information about indi-

viduals, groups, or institutions for the purpose of decision-making and

recommendations (APA, 2001). This includes sensitivity toward the

inclusion of diverse and underserved populations.

EVALUATION

Although the terms evaluation and assessment are often used inter-

changeably, evaluationis a component and often end product of the

assessment process.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING

Psychological tests are defined as any psychometrically derived mea-

surement instrument that assesses the psychological constructs in

which a structured sample of an examinee’s behavior in a specified

domain is obtained and subsequently quantified, scored, interpreted,

and synthesized using a standardized process for the purpose of

evaluative conclusion or recommendation (AERA et al., 2014).

According to these AERA, APA, and National Council on

Measurement in Education (NCME) standards, although tests may

differ vastly in terms of item and presentation design, response

format, and purpose, the commonality across all test instruments is

that the process by which the subject’s responses are evaluated and

scored is standardized. In addition, other instruments that can be

included in psychological assessment protocols where subject

responses are aggregated and scored in a standardized fashion, such

as structured diagnostic interviewing systems (e.g., Structured Clini-

cal Interview for DSM-5 Disorders, Clinician Version; First et al., 2016)

and/or structured life history (i.e., biodata; Oswald et al., 2004)

inventories and other job performance prediction instruments

(Schmidt & Hunter, 1998) developed using psychological assessment

principles and used with concurrent declarations of generalized

predictive utility in similar settings, also fall within the purview of the

AERA/APA/NCME standards.

Documentation of Need/Public Beneﬁt

AVOIDANCE OF HARM

Psychological testing, assessment, and evaluation is a core compo-

nent of psychological practice, treatment planning, and subsequent

decisions regarding those served. Psychologists are guided by pro-

fessional standards of practice in engaging in psychological testing,

assessment, and evaluation to be compliant with competency

expectations and to avoid harm to clients. Guidelines for psycholog-

ical assessment and evaluation are important for use by psycholo-

gists to aspire to fair, respectful, and competent service delivery and

treatment of examinees.

EMERGING UNDERSERVED OR VULNERABLE CLIENT

POPULATIONS

The population served by psychologists continues to reflect the shift

of focus to underserved, rural, older adult, immigrant and refugee,

and other vulnerable populations. Ongoing research and empirical

evidence support the need to recognize culture, language, ethnicity,

socioeconomic status, gender, disability, and other forms of human

diversity in decisions regarding service delivery. Several factors

contribute to one’s ability to conduct an assessment, formulate

differential diagnoses, and develop contextually and culturally rele-

vant treatment recommendations: choice of test instruments, rela-

tive weight of multiple data points, and contextual factors relevant

to decision-making all must be considered when assessing the

increasingly diverse population that psychologists serve. Guidelines

are important in identifying expectations for competent service to

varied populations.

PUBLIC INFORMATION

Adoption of assessment qualifications and competencies for psy-

chologists provides the public with identifiable information regard-

ing training, evaluation, supervision, and competence of those from

whom they seek services. In turn, competency in assessment pro-

tects the recipients of assessment services by clarifying appropriate

assessment processes and supporting quality in assessment service

delivery, validity and accuracy of psychological reports, and appro-

priate use of assessment results. Further, professional practice

guidelines are not legal or regulatory documents and are not enforce-

able by law or through professional association codes of ethics.

Guidelines rather serve as an aspirational template from which

psychologists can identify decision-making factors for assessment

determinations for protection of the public and in conformance with

the standard of within the profession of psychology.

PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE

Advances in Knowledge and Practice. Research and ongoing studies

continue to expansively and specifically increase our understanding

of human behavior, cognition, and affect. As a means of measure-

ment and evaluation of these factors, existing psychological tests are

revised, and newly developed tests are designed to improve accu-

racy and validity of testing. Professional practice guidelines are

6APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

necessary to assist psychologists in their professional development

and ongoing commitment to be knowledgeable in current and

improved means of assessment.

Specialized Areas of Practice. Psychology has continued to grow

into new areas of practice and into multidisciplinary roles across differ-

ent settings and specialties (e.g., forensics, neuropsychology, geropsy-

chology, technology, integrated and primary care). Specialized areas

of practice call upon psychologists to be competent in specific aspects

of testing and evaluation that may extend beyond traditional and

general areas of assessment. Guidelines apply to all psychologists and

therefore provide a common set of practice expectations that include

those engaging in specialized practice. Guidelines offer information

and education not only for those engaging in specialized assessment

but also for all psychologists to have an informed understanding of

practice in multiple areas of specialization.

Specialized Populations. Professional practice guidelines express

broad and general expectations for psychologists conducting assess-

ments and evaluations, increase awareness of individual differences

that may affect assessment, and assist psychologists in differentiating

general assessment principles and practices from those specific to

specialized settings. Psychologists, by virtue of core training, are

expected to demonstrate general assessment competency. However,

those who work with populations with distinct characteristics or in a

service delivery context that may require specialized knowledge and

skills will benefit from guidelines that specify the fields of knowledges

and skills appropriate for specialized populations and settings.

Professional Risk-Management. Professional practice guidelines

lend direction to psychologists in those areas not governed by federal

or state regulations. Therefore, these guidelines assist psychologists

in understanding the parameters of practice for assessment and evalu-

ation in those circumstances when regulation have not been developed.

Guidelines may also provide documentation for best practice for

protection of psychologists in litigious situations.

Development of New Technology. The APA (2013) Guidelines for

the Practice of Telepsychology identify ethical factors in telepsychology

practice (e.g., competence, informed consent, standards of care,

testing and assessment). The Guidelines for PAE are a critical compan-

ion document to the telepsychology guidelines, as they will assist

and inform psychologists who are contemplating and/or actively

adapting existing assessment protocols to online and other electron-

ically enhanced technology platforms.

Changing Social Norms. Provision of psychological services has

been affected by increasingly diverse populations (e.g., gender, socio-

economic status, race, ethnicity), electronic communication, increased

access to information via social media, and other factors that affect

the context of assessment and qualifications for assessments. Publish-

ers are preparing online versions of traditional assessment instruments

and are encouraging practitioners to use automated applications such

as online administration, scoring, and interpretation. Professional

practice guidelines addressing assessment competency will support

these evolving changes from traditional practice in a competent and

effective manner in response to the expanding scope of assessment

in integrated health, services through teleconferencing, services to

diverse populations, and forensic settings.

LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS

Laws. Changes in federal and state laws or absence of applicable laws

often generate the need for guidelines. Assessment user credentials

and scope of practice in testing, assessment, and evaluation have

been the subject of new legislation, particularly at the state, provin-

cial, and territorial jurisdictional levels. Guidelines for psychologists

conducting assessment will provide an important resource for those

who practice in jurisdictions that have revised or created new regu-

lations as well as for psychologists in those jurisdictions that have

not specifically addressed testing, assessment, and evaluation.

Court Decisions and Case Law. Periodically, federal laws make

changes that affect the practice of psychology (e.g., qualification

as an expert witness). Psychological assessment is often an integral

part of forensic evaluation. Guidelines for assessment and evalua-

tion can serve as an important deliberative component for the deter-

mination of expert status (e.g., Daubert v. Dow Pharmaceuticals),

special education eligibility (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act), and disability determination (e.g., Social Security

Administration). Psychologists who have used test instruments and

other means of assessment related to a court case or eligibility

decision are supported by the profession’s endorsement of assess-

ment guidelines.

Development of the Guidelines

The APA 2001 Guidelines for Test User Qualifications were scheduled

to expire in 2016. During the 2016 Spring Consolidated meeting, the

Board of Professional Affairs (BPA) and the Committee on

Psychological Tests and Assessment (CPTA), which are the two

oversight groups for these guidelines, proposed the formation of a

working group to identify competencies necessary for test users that

would address the misuse of psychological tests. The item was dis-

cussed during the 2016 Spring and Fall Consolidated meetings, and

a recommendation was made by BPA, CPTA, and the Committee for

the Advancement of Professional Psychology (CAPP) to (a) endorse

a working group with the purpose of developing professional prac-

tice guidelines and (b) to expand the working group to include rep-

resentatives from the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in

the Public Interest and the Board of Educational Affairs. Additionally,

a representative from the Association of State and Provincial

Psychology Boards was included.

The BPA, CPTA, CAPP, and APA staff identified the importance

of a consensus document that (a) includes competencies, (b) incor-

porates training and experience criteria, and (c) addresses the

setting-specific nature of psychological assessment as it relates to

these qualifications and competencies. These criteria are central to

the mission and scope of the document and the guidelines.

The reasonable options for going forward were to develop a new

document or to revise the 2001 Guidelines. The Committee on

Professional Practice and Standards reviewed a 2009 proposal to

revise the 2001 guidelines and determined that, given the prescribed

format and structure of the 2015 document, Professional Practice

Guidelines: Guidance for Developers and Users, revision would be a more

extensive project than commissioning a newly developed document.

A decision was made by the work group to develop a new consensus

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation7

document of guidelines in the current 2015 format and structure. A

significant identified need for new guidelines was the importance of

application to clinical and health practice areas, which was not

achieved in the 2001 guidelines.

The working group was composed of seven members who repre-

sented and were appointed by the aforementioned groups. The

funding for the project was provided by the APA Practice

Directorate.

Selection of Evidence

The working group relied on prior documentation relevant to guide-

line development, including the Guidelines for Test User Qualifications

(APA, 2001) and peer-reviewed publications from a diverse range of

related topics on assessment, testing, competencies, and relevant

policies and procedures. Given the setting-specific nature, purpose

and scope, population targets, diversity factors, and desired educa-

tion and training experience of psychological assessment, other

approved guidelines and association policies were used.

APA Guidelines for

Psychological Assessment

and Evaluation

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation9

COMPETENCE

GUIDELINE 1

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation strive to develop

and maintain their own competence.

This includes competence with

selection, use, interpretation,

integration of findings,

communication of results,

and application of measures.

Rationale

Competence is defined as “demonstrable

elements or components of performance

(knowledge, skills, and attitudes in their

integration)” (Kaslow et al., 2009, p. 34).

Competence can be diminished through

not only failure of adequate initial training

but also failure to self-monitor adaptation

to revisions, new instruments and methods,

and general advancements in assessment.

The competency movement referenced as

the “culture of competency” additionally

specifies a “culture of assessment” outlin-

ing the importance of self-assessed com-

petence (Roberts et al., 2005). Continual

monitoring and self-assessment of compe-

tency boundaries are important in meeting

standards of practice defined elsewhere.

Rapid and ongoing development of instru-

ments, procedures, norming advancements,

technology, and evolving evidence-based

practices can render a once-competent

psychologist examiner to unethical prac-

tice through habituation of patterns and

personal preferences in assessment proce-

dure and application.

The complexity, breadth, and diversity

of psychological testing, assessment, and

evaluation necessitate a distinct delineation

of areas of expertise. That is, psychologists

consider their boundaries of expertise and

practice within the legal, ethical, and profes-

sional scope of practice and competence of

those boundaries. Psychologists strive to

understand the limits of their expertise

when the same instruments may be used for

different purposes. Psychologists may be

competent to administer measures of cogni-

tive ability for the purpose of psychoeduca-

tional determinations of a learning disability

but not competent to use the same tests to

determine competency to stand trial.

Competency is determined by both techni-

cal mastery over a particular test and the

appropriately identified need for the test in

the overall purpose of the assessment.

(Illustrations of these diverse areas of exper-

tise that share testing elements are noted in

Guideline 4.)

Assessments are typically accompa-

nied by referral questions. Psychologists

seek to acquire the competency to deter-

mine the need and the purpose for assess-

ment, the characteristics of the examinee,

and the context and setting for the assess-

ment typically through clinical interviews,

psychometric data (e.g., cognitive, person-

ality, performance, learning, memory,

executive functioning) and collateral or

supplemental materials (e.g., socioemo-

tional measures). Without complete under-

standing of the need and purpose for the

assessment, the characteristics of the

examinee, the appropriateness of the

instruments chosen, and the context and

setting in which assessment occurs, inter-

pretation and application of the results of

the assessment are more likely to be limited

and/or inaccurate.

In addition to technical and clinical

competence, aspired-to professional compe-

tence encompasses (a) skilled communica-

tion with the examinee or client that

promotes an effective working relationship;

(b) the commitment to explain the risks,

benefits, and possible outcomes of assess-

ment, including in high-stakes scenarios, to

the best of the examiner’s knowledge and

understanding; and (c) demonstration of

respect for the recipients of services and the

commitment to nondiscrimination and

equity in professional practice. The need,

purpose, and referral question are core

elements in assessment decision-making;

however, an environmental scan of the

context in which the examinee or client is

functioning related to the reason for assess-

ment is typically considered a critical compo-

nent of psychologists’ competence.

Psychologists attempt to identify the

most effective means by which they may

remain competent in continued areas of

expertise as well as in the acquisition of new

skills for the purpose of expansion of scope

of practice. These means may include, but

are not limited to, postdoctoral courses,

targeted continuing education (CE), super-

vision, and consultation. Engagement in

assessment and evaluation often has limita-

tions based on licensure, professional

education, and training. Psychologists are

encouraged to seek appropriate proficiency

and/or board-level certifications through a

peer-review process when such certifica-

tions are available and related specifically to

the psychologists’ area(s) of specialized

assessment practice(s). Section 9 of the

APA (2017a) Ethical Principles of Psycholo-

gists and Code of Conduct delineates

standards of practice when performed by

psychologists but does not directly address

assessment competency.

Application

Profession-wide and specialty-specific

competencies are recognized and refer-

enced by quality assurance documents and

entities in psychology (e.g., Ethical

Principles and Code of Conduct: APA,

2017a; Standards of Accreditation: APA,

COA, 2015; Association of State and

Provincial Psychology Boards, 2014) and in

specific areas of practice (e.g., Hessen et al.,

2018). Assessment is identified as a pro-

fession-wide competency in these and

other quality assurance measures.

Profession-wide competencies are evalu-

ated by the criteria of whether they are

observable, measurable, and quantifiable.

This consistency is necessary to maintain

continuity and objectivity across and within

competencies. Assessment competency

entails several functional competencies

that include but are not limited to selection,

use, interpretation, report of results, and

use of results in response to the purpose of

the assessment.

Selection of tests or evaluation measures.

Psychologists seek to become knowledge-

able of the psychometric characteristics of

test instruments as well as other factors

likely to impact the applicability of specific

test instruments and evaluation measures

to the assessment question at hand (e.g.,

reading levels, physical requirements,

cultural background, characteristics of the

10APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

standardization/normative group). Similarly,

psychologists strive to maintain appropriate

knowledge of the context and environment

in which the assessment is to be performed,

as well as any additional relevant factors

that might affect outcome and recommen-

dations. In addition, psychologists are encour-

aged to obtain and to review carefully available

collateral and supplemental information such

as treatment histories, previous assessments,

third-party observations, and/or perfor-

mance reviews for consideration and incorpo-

ration when reaching conclusions and/or

making recommendations. Other factors to

be considered in selection of measurement

instruments may include characteristics of

the examinee, appropriateness of the norma-

tive group, cultural relevance, and alignment

of the test instrument construct with the

purpose of the testing.

Use. Fidelity to the purpose and use of

a given instrument are often critical to the

validity of a test instrument as well as the

accuracy of the assessment results. As such,

psychologists consider the reason for

testing as well as the anticipated contribu-

tion of the selected test or battery to the

operative referral question and/or process

to which the results will be applied. In this

regard, specific examples of the utility of

assessment measures are often prescribed

in the technical manual of an instrument,

and as such, psychologists strive to

thoroughly and critically evaluate the appli-

cability and/or supporting scientific

evidence for use of a given instrument in

settings that differ substantially from those

specified by the publisher.

Psychologists understand that test

instruments are not typically used as singular

measures but rather are integrated with other

standard measures as well as nonstandard-

ized yet valuable data points (e.g., collateral

interviews, behavioral checklists, paper

review of prior documents). Tests and other

measurement instruments can be cited in the

technical manual for multiple uses. Psychol-

ogists remain aware that although their area

of expertise may support use of a test for a

particular purpose, other uses of the test may

fall outside the psychologists’ scope of

competence. Similarly, psychologists are

advised that assessment is most comprehen-

sive and accurate when multiple data points

are used to arrive at a determination (e.g.,

diagnosis, recommendation, disposition),

and as such they are encouraged to include

all additive data sources in drawing conclu-

sions, inferences, and decisions.

Integration of data. Psychologists seek

the competency to integrate all data points

and other form of findings in the writing or

oral reporting of results. Multiple data points

include but are not limited to standardized

tests, clinical interview, collateral reporting,

behavioral checklists, environmental

context, and client variables. Integration of

data points is a distinct skill from interpre-

tation but results in interpretation and the

formation of case conceptualization, which

advances decision-making and initial forma-

tion of recommendations. The weighting of

data points in the integration of data is a

process that considers the cultural, ethnic,

and other diversity variables that influence

the context and interpretation of data points.

Interpretation. To accurately interpret

findings, psychologists strive to understand

the conceptual meaning of scores and the

technical range of interpretation of any given

set of individual scores (see Section 2 of these

guidelines). Accurate interpretation is depen-

dent on the psychologist’s ability to integrate

multiple sources of data points. Insofar as

primary sources of data can be inconsistent

rendering a clear determination difficult,

psychologists seek to develop the knowledge

and skills to critically evaluate these apparent

data inconsistencies and arrive at the most

viable interpretation of the data that serves

the purpose of the assessment accurately

(Hopwood & Bornstein, 2014).

Psychologists aspire to reflect accuracy

in their interpretation of test and assess-

ment instrument results and to carefully

consider and control potential sources of

error and/or bias, particularly when these

errors may contribute to a diagnosis, recom-

mendation, disposition, or other high-stakes

decisions (e.g., custody, employment,

guardianship determination, competence

and decisional capacity, disability compen-

sation, incarceration). In this regard, errors

in reporting assessment results can include

overinterpretation, inconsistent interpreta-

tion, selective interpretation, and/or other

misinterpretations of results. Although

sources of these errors can be attributable

to lack of technical knowledge, the most

common sources of bias effecting interpre-

tation of psychological assessment data

include distortions and subjective weighting

errors based on preconceived beliefs, and/

or other intervening factors such as anchor-

ing effects (i.e., overweighting initial data),

attribution effects (i.e., favoring data from

one source over another), and/or confirma-

tion effects (i.e., selectively weighting data

based on personally held beliefs). An excel-

lent and thorough discussion of these and

other biases effecting psychological assess-

ment that affect accurate interpretability of

multiple data can be found in Reynolds and

Suzuki (2013).

Reporting results. Psychologists typically

deliver assessment results through a written

report often enhanced by oral explanation,

depending on context and purpose. Because

the functional definition of scores often

employs terminology that may not be in the

typical vernacular of examinees and recipi-

ents of assessment feedback, psychologists

are encouraged to become aware of the

meaning of scores that underlie the interpre-

tation and strive to describe findings in a

report in a suitably interpretable manner.

Psychologists seek to become aware of the

preferred language of the report recipient(s),

reading level, and general ability to compre-

hend the information.

Psychological reports typically include

a summary section that integrates key

elements from the findings in relation to the

purpose for the assessment and cohesively

presents the information in an organized,

comprehensible, and interpretable manner.

Psychologists attempt to develop the skills

to create summaries of the key findings and

to identify recommendations based on the

summaries that are recognized in the field

as effective treatment components.

Psychologists aspire to develop the compe-

tency to construct comprehensive evidence-

based recommendations, recognized in the

field, that address possible treatments or

accommodations resulting from the

findings. Psychologists working in profi-

ciency areas that result in disposition, selec-

tion, third-party decisions, and other

high-stakes assessment purposes are

encouraged to develop competencies

commensurate with their areas of specialty

practice and expertise.

Explanation of use and implementation.

Psychologists seek to develop the compe-

tency to explain to the recipients of the

report or findings how the recommenda-

tions derived from the summaries can or

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation11

will be used to accomplish the purpose of

the assessment. The various areas of

specialty or proficiency in psychology can

render significantly different findings and

recommendations or can render similar

findings and summaries that result in very

different recommendations and are imple-

mented in significantly different ways. The

scores and summaries of cognitive tests of

intelligence, executive functioning, memory,

achievement, and personality could be the

same for two people, yet the recommenda-

tions and implementation could differ

depending on the purpose of the assess-

ment (e.g., psychoeducational, child

custody, competency to stand trial,

preemployment screening, fitness for duty

evaluations management selection,

diagnostic classification, developmental

disability, workers’ compensation, and

immigration hardship waivers). Psycholo-

gists are best advised to self-monitor their

professional boundaries to appropriately

conduct the elements of assessment or

evaluation within their scope of practice.

GUIDELINE 2

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation seek appropriate

training and supervised experience

in relevant aspects of testing,

assessment, and psychological

evaluation.

Rationale

Training programs of recent years incorpo-

rate competency expectations for assess-

ment and conducting psychological testing

that reflect accreditation standards, ethical

standards, jurisdictional laws, and regula-

tions (e.g., Hessen et al., 2018). Psychologists

in practice have experienced variable qual-

ity and content in initial graduate training

and subsequent CE, proficiency acquisition,

or self-directed access to education and

training. That is, a trajectory has not been

established for the acquisition of compe-

tence, the maintenance of competence,

supervised work experience, or criteri-

on-based expectations for practitioners

who expand their scope of practice post

graduate training. The APA Ethics Code

(APA, 2017a), the AERA et al. (2014), and

other professional associations delineate

standards of practice in assessment, mea-

surement, and evaluation. The APA Ethics

Code requires that psychologists practice

within their boundaries of competence

(APA, 2017a) and that psychologists in

practice who seek to expand their scope of

practice in assessment undertake relevant

education, training, supervised experience,

consultation, or study (APA, 2017a).

Assessment, among other specialty

and proficiency areas in psychology, has

evolved over recent years given the expan-

sion of specialty practice in assessment and

evaluation (e.g., psychoeducational, foren-

sic, child custody, geropsychology, person-

ality, neuropsychological, development).

New and revised testing instruments and

materials continue to develop given psycho-

metric improvements (e.g., norming

methods), research findings on learning,

motivation, memory, and other factors.

Knowledge, skills, and attitude that would

meet standards of practice at an earlier time

would likely be inadequate in contemporary

practice. Not only the acquisition of compe-

tence but the maintenance of competence

is typically required by the aforementioned

standards of practice. That is, failure to gain

initial competency and failure to maintain

competency may both result in unethical

practice (APA, 2017a).

The means by which psychologists

competently expand scope of practice post

formal training may occur through CE,

seminars, supervised experience, and

consultation. Further, the recent and devel-

oping application of technology to knowl-

edge and skills acquisition (e.g., webinars,

online CE) increases opportunities for

self-directed study. Psychologists attempt

to identify the most effective means through

which to gain the desired set of competen-

cies. Psychologists who want to expand

their scope of practice in psychoeduca-

tional assessment are likely to pursue a

somewhat different set of knowledge and

skills than those who wish to conduct foren-

sic evaluations, acceding, however, to the

point of common foundational principles

and standards.

Assessment is a fluid and dynamic

activity that calls for focused and ongoing

attention to maintenance of competence.

Psychologists will be mindful that compe-

tency evolves as subject matter matures

over time and that acquisition and mainte-

nance of competency is an ongoing process

that requires self-assessment and aware-

ness of contemporary standards of practice.

The ongoing process of self-assessment

includes attention to the potential

emergence of complex interpersonal

dynamics between client and assessor (e.g.,

Bram & Peebles, 2014; Yalof, 2019).

Application

Psychologists who wish to acquire or main-

tain competence in assessment recognize

the importance of foundational competen-

cies and special focus competencies. With

the exception of specialists in neuropsy-

chology (Hessen et al., 2018; Roper et al.,

2018 Smith, 2019), a trajectory has not yet

been established for the acquisition of com-

petency. These foundational areas are

described as including measurement theory

and psychometrics, the components of con-

ducting assessments (e.g., selection,

administration, and scoring), integration of

data points, interpretation of scores, con-

ceptualization, and communication of

results and recommendations. Psychologists

may acquire foundational knowledge

through coursework, webinars, self-study,

CE, and other sources. These areas of foun-

dational assessment factors are well

described in several documents: PAE

Guidelines (this document), the AERA Code

of Ethics, the Recommended Competencies

for Users of Psychologist Tests, the NCME,

and the Standards for Educational and

Psychological Testing.

Psychologists consider the

decision-making factors that meet the

standards of practice in their select subject

matter area. Psychologists who identify an

area of expanded scope of practice strive to

determine their existing level of competency

as well as the knowledge and skills to be

attained. This determination can be made

through consultation with those who are

recognized for their practice in that area of

expertise. Multiple methods of acquiring

knowledge and skills can be adopted to

include coursework, workshops, webinars,

and other CE that is specifically focused on

the target area of practice. Psychologists are

encouraged to develop their specialty skills

through subject matter instruction and

12APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

education (e.g., forensics, child custody)

coupled with consultation. The subject

matter component of competency frequently

includes supervised experience. Knowledge

of the subject matter is integrated with skill

development, typically under consultation or

supervision of an expert in the area.

Psychologists comply with the APA

(2017a) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and

Code of Conduct. Section 2, Competence,

specifically delineates the importance of

relevant education, training, supervised

experience, and consultation when expand-

ing scope of practice into areas new to

psychologists. Further, the maintenance of

competence requires ongoing effort to meet

the standard of practice. Failure to maintain

competence can result in inadvertent

practice beyond the data necessary to

substantiate findings, inappropriate use of

instruments, and inaccurate interpretation.

Psychologists recognize the importance of

fair and equitable treatment in conducting

assessments with diverse and underrepre-

sented populations. They strive to use

methods that are age and language appro-

priate and, when needed, employ the

services of professional interpreters to

achieve more accurate assessment results.

GUIDELINE 3

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation strive to be mindful

of the potential negative impact

and subsequent outcome of those

measures on clients/patients/

examinees/employees, supervisees,

other professionals, and the

general public.

Rationale

Psychologists recognize their ethical and, in

some situations, legal obligations regarding

the prevention of negative impact that

could result from their selection, adminis-

tration, interpretation, or reporting of results

from psychological tests and measurements.

The exception to this may be forensic evalu-

ations, which often require an independent

opinion that may negatively impact the

examinee. Existing ethical and legal obliga-

tions to prevent negative impact stems from

the recognition that all tests and measure-

ment procedures have both appropriate and

inappropriate uses depending on purpose

and setting of the assessment, the limita-

tions of the test or assessment procedure to

address that purpose in that setting, the

characteristics of the test taker in relation to

the normative sample that supports the

valid interpretation of the test results, and

the human confidence that can be placed in

the interpretation of the results obtained for

that client in that setting for that purpose. In

addition, psychologists remain alert to any

ethical and, in some cases, legal obligation

to protect the client from misuse or misrep-

resentation of the data. Further, psycholo-

gists may find themselves called upon to

guard against reports generated by

untrained individuals who could misunder-

stand or misuse this information in such a

way that could harm a client, a recipient of

test results such as an employer, a court, or

a health care system or test publisher.

Copyrights on proprietary assessment

material are designed to be unavailable to

individuals without proper training and eth-

ical obligations to maintain security.

Application

Psychologists strive to understand and

maintain their competence in the selection,

administration, and interpretation of psy-

chological tests as well as their client’s

ability to engage in and understand fully the

assessment process including the potential

risks and negative outcomes that could

result in addition to any positive benefits

they may be seeking. Psychological tests

are continually changing through test revi-

sions, research findings about appropriate

or inappropriate applications or unantici-

pated complications, or threats to validity in

using the test with a particular client popu-

lation or for a particular purpose or in a

particular setting. Psychologists assume an

appropriate degree of responsibility to

understand the strengths and weaknesses

of all assessment procedures they employ,

to use the latest versions or forms of all

tests and procedures, and to seek informa-

tion and understanding about any limita-

tions or concerns in using the tests they

have selected with the client in the setting

and for the purpose of their assessment.

Psychologists also strive to prevent or min-

imize misuse of assessment results that can

be anticipated and to correct misuse or

misinterpretation of assessment findings

that come to their attention following the

release of this material.

Psychological assessments are

typically used in the hope of gaining infor-

mation that can direct an intervention,

ameliorate a problem or difficulty, gain

insight into abilities and skills, or inform

decision-making. Sometimes the results of

psychological assessment reveal findings

that could be seen as detrimental to the

interests of the examinee achieving their

goals or problematic in some way unrelated

to the original purpose. Where appropriate,

psychologists strive to obtain informed

consent, which may include capacity to

consent and freedom to withdraw, such that

the examinee understands that the results

of assessment may not provide the desired

outcome and, depending on the context of

the assessment, may not be protected from

unwanted disclosure. There may be such

instances in which safeguards should be

taken if the disclosure of the purpose of

testing will spoil or influence the results.

These safeguards might include debriefing

after the assessment rather than full disclo-

sure prior to beginning the assessment. For

example, an individual who agrees to

undergo psychological assessment to

demonstrate appropriateness for advance-

ment in their job may not receive the individ-

ual’s desired result, and results would be

shared with the potential employer. The

examinee agrees to release the results of the

assessment to their employer as a condition

of employment. The results of the assess-

ment reveal significant difficulties in job-re-

lated abilities that might not only preclude

promotion but even threaten their continued

employment. This highlights the need to

recognize that there are many consumers to

assessment results, including an employer

or organizational client. The psychologist is

typically expected to seek the client’s

informed consent and full understanding of

the range of outcomes that could result from

the assessment and the potential recipients

who might gain access to the results before

consent is given.

Psychologists strive to use tests appro-

priately and to understand the strengths and

weaknesses of the assessment procedures

they use and to correct any misuse they

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation13

discover not only for the benefit of the client

being assessed or the client or agency or

sponsor requesting the evaluation but also to

maintain the reputation of the profession of

psychology and the public’s confidence that

psychologists are competent, current, and

responsible in their selection, administration,

and interpretation of assessment procedures.

GUIDELINE 4

Psychologists strive to consider the

multiple and global settings (e.g.,

forensic, education, integrated care)

in which services are being provided.

Rationale

Psychological tests are used in a variety of

settings for a variety of purposes. Validity is

not a unitary property of the test instrument.

Rather, validity evidence is evaluated within

the context of these multiple settings and

purposes. In addition, most tests are devel-

oped within a cultural or regional context

where the test developer has an intended

target population of test takers for a specific

purpose. The psychologist, however, strives

to recognize when the selection and use of

this instrument deviates from the expected or

intended purpose and recognize the signifi-

cance and implications of such deviations.

The psychologist considers these deviations

when interpreting test results for a particular

client and reporting results for a specific pur-

pose and within a specific context. These

deviations can include not only using a test in

a setting for which it was not designed (e.g., a

broad assessment of academic achievement

intended as a screening tool for adults used

for diagnostic assessment of a child’s learn-

ing difficulties) but also using a test designed,

developed, and normed in one country or

region of the world in a different country or

region. The psychologist strives to under-

stand the significance of such cultural and

linguistic deviations and to acknowledge

possible influences, including limitations and

potential errors, in their use and interpreta-

tion of tests.

Application

Competence in psychological assessment

is typically situation specific or setting

specific. A competent psychologist main-

tains a foundational fund of knowledge and

skill about tests and test procedures in

general (e.g., validity, reliability, normative

population) that supports selection and use

of a test instrument or assessment proce-

dure in a given situation. However, a specific

individual is rarely, if ever, a competent user

of psychological assessment in all the set-

tings and contexts where assessment tools

are used. Psychologists strive to develop the

contextual knowledge and skill to be com-

petent in one or perhaps two of the primary

arenas where psychological tests are

employed. These primary arenas may

change as the profession evolves and/or as

the professional in question develops addi-

tional skills and experience. At present, the

following areas of professional practice

tend to be the primary areas in the use of

psychological assessment: clinical, forensic,

neuropsychology, police and public safety

psychology, educational/school psychol-

ogy, geropsychology, industrial and organi-

zational psychology, employment selection/

coaching, and integrated health care.

Each of these practice settings calls for

the psychologist to develop adequate knowl-

edge of practice standards, legal standards,

collaborative professional roles and desired

purposes, methods and outcomes that call

for the use of psychological tests and proce-

dures. For example, a psychologist working in

a forensic setting is expected to be not only

suitably competent in their knowledge of

psychological testing, individual differences,

psychopathology, and other aspects of

psychological theory and research but also

appropriately knowledgeable about the legal

context in which the results of their psycho-

logical testing will be reported and used.

Depending on their area of practice, a compe-

tent forensic psychologist might be expected

to know courtroom procedure; rules of

evidence; rules of jury selection; or legal

definition or elements of terms such as insan-

ity, dangerousness, and consciousness of guilt

(Weiner & Otto, 2014). The work of neuro-

psychologists may, at times, overlap with the

work of forensic psychology (Demakis, 2012),

calling for attention to both legal and clinical

issues associated with this type of special-

ized assessment.

Similarly, a psychologist working in a

school environment with a task of identifying

children in need of special educational

services not only strives to be competent in

knowing how to select, administer, and

interpret a psychological test of cognitive

ability, academic achievement, or emotional

adjustment and functioning but also seeks

to know and understand special education

law and requirements around eligibility for

services (Wright & Wright, 2015), as well as

the student’s cultural context, the classroom

context, and how it affects manifestation of

learning and adjustment difficulties. In

addition, a suitable level of knowledge about

best practices in classroom methods is

important to make helpful and appropriate

recommendations of educational interven-

tions based on test data gleaned from the

use of psychological tests.

In the employment/coaching area of

practice, the competent user of psycholog-

ical tests strives to understand the purpose

of any evaluation, who is the client, who has

a legal right to access the results of an

assessment, and whether the procedures

selected to be used provide sufficient

reliability and validity for this purpose and

this client in this context. Psychologists

working in this area seek to understand

employment law and the legal standards for

what constitutes employment discrimina-

tion versus assessment of job appropriate

aptitudes and skills.

With clinical service providers and

those working in health care delivery

systems, the competent psychologist strives

to understand how the results of any

psychological assessment will be used so

that the appropriateness of that use can be

evaluated and any cautions or limitations in

use of the findings can be noted in any report.

In systems of integrated care where psychol-

ogists work as part of a multidisciplinary

team, the psychologist strives to make sure

that the presentation of assessment results

is understandable for the other team

members as well as the client and presented

in such a way that any possible complica-

tions or limitations in the interpretation of

the findings is made known and addressed

in the report.

Psychologists also strive to be mindful of

the problems associated with the increasing

use of the psychological tests globally, includ-

ing delivering tests across legal boundaries of

states, provinces, territories, or countries. In

some instances, using psychological tests

across legal boundaries, such as states in the

same country, may provoke a concern about

intentionally or unintentionally circumventing

14APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

mechanisms of public protection such as

state licensing laws but not necessarily issues

about validity or appropriateness of the test

use. In some situations where tests are given

to test taker populations that were not repre-

sented in the normative sample, or where no

validity studies are available to demonstrate

that the same constructs are being assessed

adequately in this population, then such use

of psychological tests across legal boundar-

ies may be not only inconsistent with regula-

tory standards but may also wind up being

deemed invalid, incompetent, and unethical.

Psychologists seek to use psychological

tests only in contexts and with populations

and for purposes that are valid and

appropriate based on empirical evidence that

the normative sampling, the language or

translation used, the administration proce-

dures employed, and the clarity and accuracy

of the results reported are legal, reliable, valid,

and appropriate.

PSYCHOMETRIC AND MEASUREMENT KNOWLEDGE

GUIDELINE 5

Psychologists who provide

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation demonstrate

knowledge in and seek to

appropriately apply psychometric

principles and measurement

science as well as the effects of

external sources of variability such

as context, setting, purpose, and

population.

Rationale

The organization, as well as some text and

references that appear in this section, has

been sourced from the Recommended

Competencies for Users of Psychological Tests,

originated by the APA CPTA in 2015. To

effectively choose, administer, interpret,

and evaluate psychometric instruments,

practitioners are encouraged to maintain

thorough and current working knowledge of

the psychometric principles that underlie

the design and utility of the test instruments

they use. The primary components of this

knowledge are described under the follow-

ing headings.

Descriptive Statistics. Descriptive statis-

tics are the foundational components of test

construction and interpretation. Psycholo-

gists should be familiar with the basic

descriptive functions defining the composi-

tion and distribution of standardization

samples upon which instruments are based

and apply that knowledge when choosing

instruments and/or interpreting individual

results. Similarly, suitable knowledge of the

characteristics of means and standard

deviations is critical when comparing

individual performance on various test

scales, especially those that are norm refer-

enced. Common descriptive statistics

relevant in this regard include measures of

central tendency (e.g., mean, median, and

mode) and measures of variation (e.g.,

variance and standard deviation). Likewise,

correlations and other indices of association

(e.g., chi-square) are commonly used for

examining the degree of convergence or

divergence between two or more test score

scales, whereas frequency distributions of

scores describe the varying levels of the

construct or other predicted criterion

outcome found in groups of test takers.

Test Theory. Critical evaluation of the

efficacy and applicability of individual test

instruments to the assessment question at

hand, as well as the confidence with which

results may be interpreted and conclusions

drawn, requires working knowledge of the

fundamental theories and techniques of test

construction. Competency in this regard

typically includes knowledge of the concep-

tual foundations, assumptions, and exten-

sions of the basic premises of classical test

theory (Kline, 2000), such as item difficulty,

item discrimination, item and test informa-

tion functions, latent trait or ability parame-

ters, generalizability theory (Brennan, 2001),

and/or item response theory when appro-

priate (Embretson & Reise, 2000). In this

regard, psychologists strive to understand

the advantages and disadvantages of these

test theories in operationalizing the

construct being measured to ensure appro-

priate inferences are made.

Scaled Scores and Transformations.

Individual results of most tests are derived

from item responses, which are grouped

together in some manner to form scales and

then subsequently either reported as raw

scores or transformed mathematically in

some manner and presented as normative

comparative or standardized scores. As

such, knowledge of the process and assump-

tions through which these groupings and

transformations are created is typically

considered essential for proficient test use.

Reliability/Precision and Measurement

Error. According to the AERA et al. Standards,

the reliability/precision of scores depends

on how much scores vary across replications

of a testing procedure, and analyses of

reliability/precision depend on the kinds of

variability allowed in the testing procedure

(e.g., over tasks, contexts, raters) and the

proposed interpretation of the test scores.

Several approaches to the estimation of

reliability/precision of test scores (e.g.,

Haertel, 2006) vary in their applicability and

appropriateness across measurement situa-

tions. Psychologists are encouraged to

become familiar with various approaches to

reliability/precision estimation, factors that

influence the index (or set of indexes) of

reliability/precision that is appropriate for

their given situation, factors that can influ-

ence the magnitude of those indexes, and

professional standards pertinent to assess-

ing the reliability/precision of test scores

(see Chapter 2 in AERA et al., 2014).

Validity and Meaning of Test Scores.

According to the AERA et al. (2014)

Standards, validity refers to “the degree to

which evidence and theory support the

interpretations of test scores for proposed

uses of tests” (p. 11). Thus, psychologists

strive to understand that validity is not an

inherent property of a test but rather refers

to the degree to which evidence and theory

support the use of a test for a particular

purpose. In evaluating tests for a particular

purpose, psychologists should become

suitably aware of the five sources of validity

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation15

evidence described by the AERA et al.

Standards: validity evidence based on test

content, response processes, internal struc-

ture, relations to other variables, and testing

consequences. For a valid inference to be

drawn based on a test score, psychologists

are encouraged to demonstrate that the

scores generated are directly, demonstrably,

and consistently related to the outcome or

purpose for which the test instrument is

used. Conclusions and/or recommenda-

tions resulting from use of instruments are

expected to be fair; minimize bias; and are

consistent with applicable standards of

practice, policies, and laws.

In addition to seeking an understand-

ing the different sources of validity evidence,

psychologists strive to develop an under-

standing of strategies for obtaining, evaluat-

ing, and establishing each source of validity

evidence; the limits of any one source of

validity evidence; and the implications of

how different sources of evidence can be

integrated into a comprehensive validity

argument to support the use of a test for a

particular purpose (Kane, 1992, 2013).

The test developer and the test users

may be considered jointly responsible for

development and evaluation of validity

evidence to support the use of a test for a

particular purpose, especially when the test

is used in a specialized setting and/or with a

specific population whose characteristics

may differ from the original population or

setting upon which the test was originally

developed. Similarly, when interpreting test

results in settings and with populations that

differ from those studied by the test devel-

oper, psychologists strive to account for the

measurement effects likely to be associated

with these differences and report these differ-

ences (e.g., restrictions in range and base rate

of outcome criterion; Finn, 2009).

Application

Psychologists may familiarize themselves

with basic statistical principles related to

test validation by reviewing available

knowledge sources and/or CE opportuni-

ties. In this regard, although certainly not

the only source available, an excellent prac-

tical review of descriptive statistics, includ-

ing measures of central tendency, variation

characterization of normal curves and fre-

quency distributions, correlations and other

indices of association degree of conver-

gence or divergence found in groups of test

takers, as well as other basic statistical

principles, may be found in Keller (2006). In

addition, a comprehensive review of funda-

mental measures of association as well as

various models of prediction and test con-

struction prediction may be found in

Bandalos (2018).

Psychologists strive to understand and

know when to apply the various methods for

representing test information (e.g., achieve-

ment/mastery levels, diagnostic classifica-

tions, raw scores, standard scores, percentiles).

Relevant concepts include types of scales,

types of scores (e.g., raw, transformed,

percentile, standard, norm-referenced, crite-

rion-referenced), scale score equating, and

methods for establishing cut scores (e.g.,

Cizek & Bunch, 2007). Psychologists are also

encouraged to be aware of the advantages

and disadvantages of automated scoring.

There is no absolute standard for estab-

lishing that an inference one desires to make

based on test scores is “valid” for a particular

purpose. Thus, psychologists strive to be

able to locate and evaluate available validity

evidence to judge the suitability of using a

test for an intended purpose. Psychologists

seek to consider the positive and negative

consequences of test administration and

score use, to help in ensuring that the testing

process will provide more good (e.g.,

diagnostic information that is useful for

educational or clinical purposes) than harm

(e.g., negative stereotyping) to examinees.

In addition to the AERA et al. (2014)

Standards, guidance for evaluating the valid-

ity of the use of a test for a particular purpose

can be found in the Principles for the Valida-

tion and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures

(Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, 2018) as well as in federal

employment statutes such as the Civil

Rights Act Title VII (1964, 1991) and Part

1607 of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (1978), and the Americans

with Disabilities Act (1990).

When psychologists evaluate the valid-

ity of inferences drawn from test scores, it is

typically for use of scores in a given setting

or with a given group of individuals. Valida-

tion evidence presented by test developers

and publishers primarily addresses the use

of the test scores for specific stated proposes

and with subject cohorts similar to the

standardization sample(s) on whom the test

was originally constructed. Thus, psycholo-

gists strive to remain cognizant of the

specific setting in which a test will be used,

particularly if this setting differs from the

original setting or purpose for which the test

was designed. Similarly, when a test is used

for purposes that differ from those investi-

gated by the test developer, and/or when the

characteristics of the population tested

differ from the characteristics of the publish-

er’s standardization sample, psychologists

are encouraged to evaluate the validity

evidence for this specific use.

16APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

SELECTION, ADMINISTRATION,

AND SCORING OF TESTS

GUIDELINE 6

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation endeavor to select

(a) assessment tools that

demonstrate sufficient validity

evidence for their uses, sufficient

score reliability, and sound

psychometric properties and (b)

measures that are fair and

appropriate for the evaluation

purpose, population, setting, and

context at hand.

Rationale

Psychologists seek to provide assessment

services only within the boundaries of their

competence that is based on their educa-

tion, training, supervised experience, con-

sultation, study, and professional experience.

Psychological testing and other assessment

procedures are areas of professional prac-

tice in which psychologists have been

trained and are uniquely qualified to con-

duct. Psychologists are thus encouraged to

be knowledgeable about and account for

the impact of test results in diverse popula-

tions and across different settings, as well

as the limitations of measures even when

guidelines are followed for test selection.

When conducting assessments and evalua-

tions, psychologists are aware of the

responsibility that may be ascribed to them

for the appropriate choice of measures that

reflect evidence-based practice, sound psy-

chometric properties, and awareness of the

context, including patient characteristics,

that can impact test results. Careful and

informed measurement selection benefits

the intended examinees by ensuring valid

assessment, fair utility of results, and gen-

eration of recommendations that are appli-

cable to the intended context. These

guidelines are consistent with the standards

articulated in the most recent edition of

Standards for Educational and Psychological

Testing (AERA et al., 2014).

Application

To choose the best test or instrument for the

testing, assessment, or evaluation purpose

for the population, setting, and context at

hand, psychologists strive to determine who

they are evaluating, for what reason, where,

and under what conditions, as well as what

domains are to be addressed. The more

information gathered prior to the testing,

assessment, or evaluation and an under-

standing of these characteristics or variables

should assist in selecting a reliable and valid

test or instrument to use among the myriad

ones available commercially or in research.

Choosing a test or instrument may seem

daunting, but there are ways to make deci-

sions efficiently. For example, knowing the

question(s) to be answered ahead of time

shortens the selection time. Consulting with

colleagues who conduct testing, assess-

ments, or evaluations or who are engaged in

test or instrument development or research

in a particular area may prove very beneficial.

Psychologists are encouraged to

become familiar with the psychometric

properties of any test or instrument they use

to make screening, diagnostic, or interven-

tion decisions and/or status recommenda-

tions. Psychometric characteristics of tests

and other instruments include but are not

limited to standardization, reliability, and

validity. These psychometric characteristics

are foundational to decision-making and

form the basis of interpretation. The follow-

ing steps, adapted from Alfonso (2004), may

be considered by psychologists to assist in

selecting the best test or instrument to use:

• Read and evaluate reviews of the tests or

instruments and research studies that

used them, including meta-analyses, sys-

tematic reviews, and specialized practice

parameters, in addition to edited hand-

books and volumes on assessment.

• Read the test or instrument publisher’s

technical manual(s) and review carefully

the design, standardization sample(s)

characteristics, descriptive statistics of

standardization sample(s), composition

and independence of scales, and support-

ing evidence of validity and reliability.

• Make sure the tool is accessible, appro-

priate for the purpose, and in the lan-

guage that one would need to use, within

the context of evidence-based practice.

• Become familiar with the administration

instructions, scoring, and accurate com-

pletion of test protocols and record forms.

A thorough review of the items also pro-

vides psychologists with an opportunity

to evaluate the content validity of the

instrument with particular reference to

the referral question and/or the purpose

to which the results will be applied.

• Practice and observe the administration

of an instrument with an appropriate

colleague. There is no better way to learn

a test or instrument than to be the exam-

inee and know what it is like to be asked

to solve problems, rate behavior, or dis-

close personal information.

• Attend training seminars or workshops

with the test or instrument’s author(s) or

experts in the field.

• Explore publishers’ websites for up-to-

date information on their tests and

instruments.

• Join a professional listserv where intel-

lectual discussions take place.

• Attend a graduate class or several ses-

sions of a course to learn about new

developments in evaluation or to learn

about specific tests or instruments.

Several tests and measurement texts and

resources are available for psychologists to

update their psychometric knowledge base

and test, assessment, or evaluation skills.

Some examples include Bandalos (2018);

Graham et al. (2013); Psychological Testing:

Principles, Applications, and Issues (Kaplan &

Saccuzzo, 2017); and

Standards for

Educational and Psychological Testing

(AERA et al., 2014).

Reading or even perus-

ing these resources can be helpful when

evaluating the psychometric properties of

tests and other instruments and in selecting

the best one to answer the referral ques-

tions and address the purpose of the testing,

assessment, or evaluation.

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation17

GUIDELINE 7

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation strive to use multiple

sources of relevant and reliable

clinical information collected

according to established principles

and methods of assessment.

Rationale

Individual performance on psychological

tests is only one piece of assessment and is

conceptualized in a context of presenting

concerns, reason for referral, background,

course of illness, influential factors, and pop-

ulation-specific contributions that are

secured from multiple sources. These may

include clinical interview with the examinee,

clinical interview with sources other than the

examinee, completion of valid self-report

and third-party report measures, observa-

tion of behavior, and review of relevant

records. Additionally, psychologists strive to

recognize that more than one reliable and

valid measure is appropriate to assess all

relevant domains of functioning to examine

convergence and deviation of findings.

Convergence and divergence of information

from multiple sources informs the assess-

ment process and increases confidence in

and appropriate utility of test results (AERA

et al., 2014). Information from multiple

resources is valuable and useful but may not

be feasible in some situations.

Application

Best practices in testing, assessment, and

evaluation suggest a multisource, multi-

method, and multisetting approach because

human behavior and functioning are highly

complex (Sattler, 2014). Typically but not

always, the younger the client, the more

variable behavior is with different people

and across settings (Bracken & Theodore, in

press). Similarly, it is not uncommon to

obtain moderate to markedly different rat-

ings from various individuals in the client’s

life. Thus, multiple sources including par-

ents, extended family members, colleagues,

supervisors, teachers, and sometimes com-

munity members are typically considered

important in the testing, assessment, or

evaluation process (Achenbach, 2017;

Burns & Haynes, 2006; Stage et al., 2006).

It is the psychologist’s challenge to inte-

grate data from multiple sources. This pro-

cess includes drawing upon research, theory,

and clinical experience in situations where

different data sources are seemingly incon-

gruent (Bram & Peebles, 2014). Likewise,

psychologists strive to recognize the advis-

ability of using multiple methods more

often than not. For example, standardized,

norm-referenced tests, interviews, behavior

observations, performance-based mea-

sures, patient–examiner relationship, and

rating scales are some methods that may

assist in gathering the information needed

to address the concerns of the client. It may

be rare but nonetheless important to test,

assess, or evaluate clients across settings

such as school, home, and place of work.

Psychologists should strive to be aware of

situation-specific behavior and to address

the possibility or variable functioning based

on setting. Psychologists attempt to remain

cognizant of the importance of interpreting

tests and measures in a way that is consis-

tent with their intended use, empirical liter-

ature, and other evidence-based factors.

GUIDELINE 8

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation strive to be aware of

the need for test selection, scoring,

and administration to reflect the

appropriate normative comparison,

situational influences, effort, and

standardized administration as

indicated.

Rationale

In psychological assessment and testing,

psychologists recognize the importance of

considering age, gender, ethnicity, primary

language, and individual influences when

selecting and administering appropriate

tests. This procedure allows for valid nor-

mative comparisons, classifications, ipsa-

tive profiles, and other interpretations to

inform recommendations based on test

results. Additionally, the agedness of the

norms and the continued relevance and

definition of the constructs

being measured

by a particular test can be particularly

important considerations in test selection.

There is also increasing literature to indi-

cate the importance of assessing effort,

both in symptom presentation and with

suboptimal performance, when conduct-

ing psychological testing. Examinees may

underperform for many reasons, and not

adequately assessing effort limits the

interpretation of test results. Without sys-

tematically assessing effort, it becomes

difficult to discern if variability and pat-

terns of test results reflect actual perfor-

mance or the influence of low effort,

motivation, or some other factor besides

ability. Psychologists strive to conduct

assessment in adherence with standard-

ized administration procedures to support

valid interpretations of norms, classifica-

tion decisions, comparisons, and other test

score–based inferences and applicable to

the circumstances. Adhering to standard-

ized testing conditions will minimize con-

founds that could lead to misinterpretations

of test results. Psychologists are also

encouraged to judiciously test the limits of

standardized administration when doing

so is necessary to answer referral ques-

tions, determine meaningful treatment

implications, and/or clarify conditions

under which functioning varies (see Bram

& Peebles, 2014).

Application

Psychologists

strive to select the most

appropriate test or instrument for a spe-

cific purpose and seek to cultivate knowl-

edge of testing, assessment, or evaluation

practice in the context area and associ-

ated norms when more than one norma-

tive set is available. Knowledge of test or

instrument characteristics such as psy-

chometric properties (presented earlier),

basis in theory and research, and norma-

tive data (where appropriate) is typically

expected to influence test selection. For

example, normative data or decision rules

may not be accurate when (a) important

features of the client are not represented

in the norm group, (b) administration or

scoring procedures do not follow those

used in standardizing the test or instru-

ment, (c) characteristics of the test or

instrument may affect its utility for the

situation (e.g., ceiling and floor effects),

(d) the test or instrument contains tasks

18APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

that are not culturally relevant to the cli-

ent, or (e) the validity evidence does not

support decisions made on the basis of

the obtained data. In these cases, alterna-

tive instruments and/or other data

sources might be considered.

Psychologists strive to remain aware of

the importance of integrating examinee

motivation and standardized assessment

of effort (e.g., symptom validity testing,

performance validity testing) into perfor-

mance interpretation.

Psychologists seek an understanding

of how the construction, administration,

scoring, and interpretation of tests or

other instruments match the purpose of

testing. Mismatches in these dimensions

between the selected test or instrument

and the testing purpose are important

factors that psychologists strive to consider,

as these may invalidate usual interpretation

of a client’s performance. For psychologists

to select an appropriate test or instrument

for a particular use, it is important that they

seek to understand and consider the

intended use of any scores, the method and

procedures used to develop or revise the test

or instrument under consideration, the

definition of the construct that the test or

instrument purports to measure, and the

definition of the test or instrument purpose

and its intended context of use.

Standardized administration is most

important in that the validity of the responses

leading to data points may be compromised

when adherence to standardization is not

met. Important points that contribute to

standardization of administration include (a)

a high level of knowledge of instructions

given the presentational variance within

instrument; (b) awareness of instructions on

feedback, query, prompts, and response to

questions; (c) facility with supplemental

material and audio/visual components; (d)

inclusion of behavioral observations; and (e)

compliance with equipment and placement

of materials.

Scoring of responses lends itself to error

more than most other aspects of testing in

that there is often little uniformity within

instrument and errors in scoring are unforgiv-

ing in that the examiner cannot typically

return to make corrections but rather the

subtest becomes spoiled. Examiners strive to

be alert to common mistakes, which include

(a) miscalculation of base and ceiling, (b)

simple arithmetic errors, (c) reversal and

discontinuance mistakes, (d) failure to record

examinee comments in addition to scores,

and (e) imprecise timing on timed tests.

Knowledge about procedural require-

ments, confidentiality of information,

communication of results, and security are

important for many applications, as is knowl-

edge of standardized administration and

scoring procedures and understanding a

psychologist’s ethical and legal responsibili-

ties and the legal rights of test takers. Psychol-

ogists are encouraged to understand the legal

and ethical issues related to the release of

test data, including issues of confidentiality,

depending on the context of the testing,

assessment, or evaluation and the character-

istics of the client such as motivation or effort

expended to perform successfully. Psycholo-

gists strive to be able to explain results and

limitations to diverse audiences, and to

include in the report the purpose of the test,

assessment, or evaluation and the setting in

which it occurred.

DIVERSE, UNDERREPRESENTED,

AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

GUIDELINE 9

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation strive to practice

with cultural competence.

Rationale

The foundation to the integration of individ-

ual differences and cultural identity to psy-

chological assessment is based on the value

that every person assessed should have an

opportunity to demonstrate their standing

on the talents, capacities, and traits being

assessed without being impeded by con-

struct irrelevant sources. Therefore, psychol-

ogists endeavor to select and use instruments,

assessment techniques, interpretations, and

analysis that do not introduce, perpetuate, or

contribute to biased or unfair results.

Providing multiculturally competent

assessment services to individuals goes

beyond the consideration of individual differ-

ences and includes a conceptual framework

that limits inferences on the sole basis of

group labels as to include the social and cul-

tural world of the client and the intersection-

ality of the client’s identities, as well as the

influence of cultural identities of client and

examiner in the therapeutic relationship or

any evaluative setting. Psychologists strive

to understand how culture can interact with

every aspect of the assessment process and

that they adapt their practices as needed.

Application

Psychologists strive to gain knowledge of

the cultural identities of their clients and the

state-of-the-art literature regarding the

best fit of the client with assessment proce-

dures and instruments. Psychologists strive

to consider how test administration, results,

and interpretation may be influenced by

individual diversity factors (e.g., age, dis-

ability, race, ethnicity, gender, religion/spir-

ituality, sexual orientation and gender

diversity, social class, language, accultura-

tion, immigration/refugee status; APA,

2017b) and also to consider the intersection

of cultural identities. Given the current

abundance of scholarship related to race/

ethnicity as well as the scholarship focused

on other identity groups (e.g., age, disability,

race, ethnicity, gender, religion/spirituality,

sexual orientation and gender diversity,

social class, language, immigration/refugee

status; APA, 2017b), psychologists have

strong scientific resources and frameworks

to consider when conducting psychological

assessments. Psychologists endeavor to

learn about their own cultural identities and

cultural attitudes and beliefs to minimize

the negative influence of these issues in

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation19

their professional competence with diverse

clients. Psychologists cultivate an under-

standing that achieving cultural compe-

tence is a lifelong process that involves, in

addition to acquiring cultural knowledge,

continuous cultural humility (Hook &

Watkins, 2015), self-awareness and evalua-

tion of the attitudes, values, interactions,

and power dynamics with the clients. When

the use of gender, race, and ethnicity is

restricted in the testing, scoring, interpreta-

tion, or analysis by legal requirements in

certain fields (e.g., employment), examin-

ers endeavor to familiarize themselves with

legal and regulatory requirements to use

test information in a manner consistent

with those regulatory standards.

GUIDELINE 10

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation aspire to ensure

awareness of individual differences,

various forms of biases or potential

biases, cultural attitudes,

population appropriate norms, and

potential misuse of data.

Rationale

Research in many areas of specialty and

proficiency has established that demo-

graphic and individual factors such as race,

ethnicity, gender, age, geography, dominant

language, socioeconomic status, and cul-

tural variables of the examinee exert an

important impact on the validity and reli-

ability of results of psychological tests

(Sandoval et al., 1998). These individual

factors, to the extent that they make the

examinee deviate from the test’s normative

standards, may modify the way in which

personal characteristics will be manifested

or are interpreted by the examiner and may

provide a profile that is completely at odds

with the reality of the examinee. Individuals

from nondominant cultural, racial/ethnic,

and other identity groups have been found

to demonstrate unique presentation of

symptoms, have different awareness and

explanation of psychological distress, and

are more likely to distrust providers and

authority, factors that limit the generaliz-

ability of findings derived from most psy-

chological instruments (Sue & Sue, 2013).

Similarly, the test construct may function

differently in different populations, with

research accumulating to suggest that the

scores of some instruments did not capture

the intended psychopathology and unique

cultural differences across groups (Janssen,

2011; Kim et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2011).

Cultural factors, attitudes, and

demographic characteristics of the examinee

also impact the applicability of the standard

administration and related factors of the

assessment process, such as the relationship

between examiner and examinee (Butcher et

al., 2016). For instance, test-taking demands

that are irrelevant to the construct being

measured and that impact an individual’s

ability to demonstrate their ability such as

education, mastery of the test language,

diverse values, expectations, acculturation,

and psychosocial stresses derived from their

minority status may compromise the

test-taking performance and subsequently

render the findings invalid (Diaz-Santos &

Hough, 2016). Personal values, expectations,

and attitudes of the examiner equally have

been found to impact the judgment of

examiners to the point that it may diminish

the accuracy of their test selection, use, and

interpretations (APA, 2003).

Application

When choosing a test to administer, exam-

iners endeavor to use the available informa-

tion regarding the test psychometric

properties, including measurement equiva-

lence and standardization sample, to evalu-

ate the fit with the examinee’s individual

and demographic characteristics. Examiners

strive to become familiar with the examin-

ee’s culture and subcultural context to com-

pare with the culture of the normative

sample and the test development and

decide if the test will afford a fair assess-

ment. Examiners strive to avoid using a test

in a manner or for a purpose not supported

by evidence-base studies. When having to

modify a test or administration procedure

to fit the characteristics of an examinee,

examiners aspire to consider the impact of

those changes on the test results. Similarly,

examiners aspire to understand the cultural

idiosyncrasies in performance and response

style, including cultural response bias that

impacts standard validity, by consulting

experts or studying research that docu-

ments the use of the test with the examin-

ee’s specific group. Examiners strive to

obtain the training to competently assess

individuals from diverse groups and learn

about the range of testing procedures’ appli-

cability across diverse groups. Psychologists

aspire to understand their own worldviews

and sociocultural histories’ impact on the

attitudes, beliefs, and values they hold with

individuals with characteristics different

from their own and consider how these fac-

tors impact their approach to assessment,

interpretation of psychological test data,

use of labels, and clinical decisions.

GUIDELINE 11

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation endeavor to

recognize the nature of and

relationship among individual,

cohort, and group differences.

Rationale

Assessment and interpretation of psycho-

logical tests involve an understanding of the

similarities and differences within the

examinee, the cohort to which the exam-

inee belongs, and the group norm samples

used in test construction. Some norm-refer-

enced tests (i.e., using standard, scaled,

percentile and T-scores) imply categories of

score deviation based on comparisons of

the participants’ performance with norma-

tive data. Scores that are outside the broad

range of average in a normal distribution

may be classified as deviant from the mean.

Due to the inherent limitations in the diver-

sity and variability of a test normative sam-

ple, there is a potential that the

characteristics of an individual examinee

are poorly represented or are completely

absent in the normative group. This means

that individuals who are not appropriately

represented in the normative sample (e.g.,

due to cultural, racial, age, and ethnic differ-

ences) have a greater chance of misinter-

pretation of their performance because of

different individual and cultural characteris-

tics rather than poor performance.

20APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

Even when the individual examinee can

be placed within a cohort of the general

normative group in characteristics such as

race, ethnicity, gender, education, or

geographic issues, it is inevitable that

members from certain minority or vulnera-

ble groups will still differ in some variables.

For instance, it has been found that most test

norms do not include information regarding

the socioeconomic status of the population

(Dana, 2001). Socioeconomic status has

been found to be a variable that, in cases of

high socioeconomic status, eliminates

racial/ethnic differences in certain psycho-

logical instruments (Beiser & Gotowiec,

2000; Thakker et al., 1999). Similarly, many

neuropsychological test norms were devel-

oped without sufficient numbers of older

adults. Older adults are at high risk of being

misclassified as having significant impair-

ment when age, education, and race/ethnic-

ity specific norms are not used (Miller et al.,

2015; Schneider et al., 2015).

Application

Psychologists strive to consider the examin-

ee’s individual and demographic charac-

teristics when choosing a test to administer,

vis-à-vis the test’s normative sample to

assess the test appropriateness to the

examinee. Psychologists aspire to under-

stand the test manual information regard-

ing the characteristics of the sample, the

procedures for examining between-groups

differences in test performance, and use

the meaning of this information when con-

sidering the scores of an examinee and the

interpretation of tests results. Examiners

strive to culturally contextualize tests

results with examinees who do not closely

match the characteristics of the normative

group. Psychologists endeavor to consult

or review scientific literature that helps

them understand the potential limitations

and risks of using certain normative cate-

gories on examinees from a minority or

vulnerable group.

GUIDELINE 12

Psychologists who conduct

psychological testing, assessment,

and evaluation seek to consider the

unique issues that may arise when

test instruments and assessment

approaches designed for specific

populations are used with diverse

populations.

Rationale

Psychological assessment instruments and

interpretive methods are culture specific

because they are developed from a specific

sociocultural context, most often Western.

This cultural context is also explicitly or

implicitly linked to the individual character-

istics represented in the population used in

the test standardization and may be less

applicable to groups with other characteris-

tics and cultures. Assessment techniques,

data-generating procedures, and standard-

ized instruments designed for a specific

population have their validity and reliability

tied to this normative group and cannot be

assumed to apply to other groups unless

they undergo adaptations and validity, reli-

ability, and measurement equivalence have

been tested across culturally diverse sam-

ple groups (APA, 2017b).

Psychologists endeavor to use only

properly up-to-date normed, standardized,

and translated measures chosen specifically

based on the client’s ethnic group, accultur-

ation level, language proficiency, education

level, socioeconomic status, age, disability

status, and other relevant demographic

factors. Recent advances in psychometrics

have made significant progress examining

the measurement equivalence and differen-

tial item functioning between individuals

from groups different from the reference

population for which the test was found to

be reliable. There are many psychological

tests with strong scientific basis for applica-

tion with Western diverse groups with

adequate levels of acculturation and English

language dominance.

For many areas of assessment, includ-

ing cognitive function, it is important for

psychologists to strive to use age-appropri-

ate test norms. For example, slowed process-

ing speed is a normal part of cognitive aging.

As a result, average scores for older adults

on tests requiring fast performance, such as

the Trail Making Test, would be interpreted

as indicating impairment if norms for

younger people were used. The growth in

the older adult population means that many

psychologists who do not have specialized

training in assessment of older adults may

encounter older individuals in a variety of

settings. There are important issues such as

the necessity for test norms specific to older

adults including subgroups such as those

older than age 85 and those with low educa-

tional attainment or low-quality educational

experiences because of historical social

problems such as segregation.

Psychologists are encouraged to recog-

nize that a psychological test needs to have

established research-based validity and

reliability in the culture and language in

which it was constructed before it can be

considered appropriate for adaptation in

other languages and cultures, which may be

necessary for clients with less acculturation

to the Western society and whose English is

not the dominant language (Butcher et al.,

2016). Tests can often be translated, adapted,

and renormed in diverse cultural and

demographic groups following strict guide-

lines for translation, construct analysis, and

norming to ensure that alternative versions

of the test are equivalent to the original.

When a test administration or proto-

col requires translation to match the

language dominance of the examinee

because a test version in the client’s

language and with appropriate cultural

characteristics has not been developed, a

number of strict guidelines have been

recommended by the International Test

Commission (2017). These translations

can include trained professionals conduct-

ing forward and back translations focused

on meaning including local and cultural

context. Nevertheless, those translated

tests or protocols, if not normed, may

produce less meaningful results.

Application

Although it is nearly impossible to match a

test or assessment instrument to all the

diverse characteristics of the client/

patient/examinee, psychologists endeavor

to familiarize themselves with the charac-

teristics and cultural origin of their instru-

ments in order to decide whether the test

taker would be fairly assessed and fairly

compared with the normative group. In

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation21

particular, psychologists strive to use test

versions that better match the most prom-

inent characteristics and culture of the

examinee. One method to advance accept-

able levels of matching is to include a psy-

chological examination with a thorough

psychosocial interview that provides the

client information necessary to match to

the best possible instruments.

Psychologists endeavor to assess the

language dominance and capacity of

nonmonolingual clients to determine the

appropriateness of the intended assessment

instrument. Psychologists strive to interpret

and report the results of the assessment

within a cultural context, and when in doubt,

psychologists may consult with experts at

any time of the assessment process in order

to ensure cultural competence (Aceve-

do-Polakovich et al., 2007).

Psychologists are encouraged to famil-

iarize themselves with the characteristics of

translated versions when they need to use

them, including the impact of language

adaptations on the construct of the test.

Examiners attempt to avoid choosing trans-

lations that have not been researched regard-

ing whether they show results that have

different meaning across groups (AERA et al.,

2014). Moreover, psychologists strive to

avoid using ad hoc translations. When

assessing the applicability of an instrument

that has not been adapted to the character-

istics of the client (e.g., culture of origin,

acculturation, language dominance, ethnicity,

education, gender, age), psychologists

endeavor to find literature or pilot studies that

allow them to assess the validity of the test

for the specific client/examinee including the

differences in performance (APA, 2017b).

When the evaluation requires the use

of nonresearched accommodations or

modifications of the test administration,

stimuli, or method to accommodate the

client’s needs or characteristics, the

psychologist seeks to make the appropriate

adjustment to the interpretations and

report this caveat in the report of findings

with a detailed description of the modified

circumstances.

Psychologists strive to incorporate in

the interpretation and conceptualization of

test results the cultural factors that have

been found to impact psychological assess-

ments, including issues such as historical

trauma effects, spirituality, traditional belief

systems, collectivistic orientation, and

acculturation.

TRAINING AND SUPERVISORY

QUALIFICATIONS AND ROLE

GUIDELINE 13

Psychologists who educate and

train others in testing, assessment,

and evaluation strive to maintain

their own competence in training

and supervision and competency in

assessment practice.

Rationale

Consistent with the APA Ethics Code, psy-

chologists not only develop competence but

make efforts to ensure they maintain compe-

tence (2.03 Maintaining Competence; APA,

2017a). Such efforts should optimally be

deliberate given studies have found that the

rapid increase in the amount of information

available leads to a decreased ability to keep

up to date (Neimeyer, Taylor, & Rozensky,

2012). Training and supervision are consid-

ered core competencies in health service

psychology that require deliberate training

(Falender et al., 2004). Further, the APA

Standards of Accreditation for Health Service

Psychology require training in assessment as

a profession-wide competency. Licensing

boards may view training and supervision as

the practice of psychology, thereby

introducing the standards of practice in

assessment as expectations of competence.

Those who teach assessment strive to be

knowledgeable of the standards of practice,

test instruments and their applicability,

ongoing revisions of assessment and evalua-

tion measures, and new methods of assess-

ment and evaluation that are applicable to

the populations for whom psychologists or

their students are providing services. As

articulated in the APA Guidelines for Clinical

Supervision in Health Service Psychology,

psychologists who supervise are encouraged

to include supervision in their efforts to

maintain competence (APA, 2015a).

Application

A primary mechanism through which psy-

chologists can maintain their competence is

through participation in CE or continuing

professional development (Neimeyer et al.,

2014). At their most effective, such programs

include both a didactic component and an

interactive component (Neimeyer, Taylor, &

Cox, 2012). Psychologists who educate and

train students strive to remain aware of and

to meet the current profession-wide compe-

tency expectations in assessment that

include specific knowledge, skills, and appli-

cation experiences beyond general program-

matic requirements. These may include

coursework in psychometrics, cognition and

intelligence, administration and interpreta-

tion of performance-based and self-report

measures of personality, integration of data,

and reporting of results and the application

of findings to recommendations and treat-

ment. Psychologists who educate and train

students strive to be aware of the develop-

mental competency expectations of stu-

dents at the practicum, internship, and

readiness for practice levels (APA, 2012).

Psychologists who teach assessment and

evaluation but do not provide the experien-

tial practicum or clinical experience are

encouraged to ensure that the external

supervisors meet the professional practice

and knowledge-based competencies that

they are expected to supervise.

Psychologists who train and supervise

students, employees, and others consider

engaging in CE that specifically focuses on

advancements in the teaching, supervision,

and practice of testing, assessment, and

evaluation. Consultation and supervision of

supervision are often effective mechanisms

to maintain one’s competence. Psychologists

22APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

are mindful of the recommendation in the

Guidelines for Clinical Supervision in Health

Service Psychology (APA, 2015a) that,

Education and training in supervision

should include the following: models and

theories of supervision; modalities; relation-

ship formation, maintenance, rupture and

repair; diversity and multiculturalism;

feedback, evaluation; management of

supervisee’s emotional reactivity and inter-

personal behavior; reflective practice; appli-

cation of ethical and legal standards;

decision making regarding gatekeeping; and

considerations of developmental level of the

trainee. (p. 36)

GUIDELINE 14

Psychologists who supervise

employees or individuals who lack

training in testing, assessment, and

evaluation strive to ensure that

supervision ultimately provides

examinees/clients with testing,

assessment, and evaluation that

meets the ethical and professional

standard of care and scope of

practice.

Rationale

Several sections of the APA Ethics Code

speak to the needs to ensure that psycholo-

gists only delegate work to others who they

know have the requisite competencies to

perform such work (2.05 Delegation of

Work to Others; APA, 2017a). Further, psy-

chologists specifically do not allow testing,

assessment, or evaluation to be done by

unqualified persons, except when con-

ducted for training purposes and with

appropriate supervision (9.07 Assessment

by Unqualified Persons; APA, 2017a).

Application

Psychologists who supervise individuals

who will engage in testing, assessment, or

evaluation are first encouraged to gain

understanding of the relevant legal and reg-

ulatory documents that dictate allowable

scope of practice for the supervisee’s profes-

sion. Next, a baseline understanding of the

supervisee’s level of competence can be

obtained. Self-report from the supervisee is

typically considered a necessary, but not

sufficient, method to assess competence.

The supervisor strives to observe the individ-

ual conducting the testing, assessment, or

evaluation with someone other than a

patient/client to make decisions about level

of competence and need for training.

Although training might include didactic

presentations or readings, ideally the individ-

ual who is supervised could watch the super-

visor engage in the activity they will be

conducting and then the supervisor could

watch the individual. Further, psychologists

strive to ensure that assessment of contin-

ued competence is conducted at regular

intervals to ensure fidelity to the require-

ments for proper administration.

TECHNOLOGY

GUIDELINE 15

Psychologists who use technology

when testing, assessing, or

evaluating psychological status

strive to remain aware of

technological advances; of the

influence of technology on

assessment; and of standard

practice, laws, and regulations in

telepsychology.

Rationale

In the past 50 years, advances in technology

have greatly impacted the field of psycholog-

ical assessment (Butcher, 2006). Originally,

use of computers in psychological assess-

ment practice was primarily limited to auto-

mated scoring of paper-and-pencil tests,

reporting of scores on these tests, and occa-

sionally presentation of simple interpretative

hypotheses based on these scores. However,

in more recent times, this use has expanded

to include internet-based administration

platforms facilitating access to multiple test

instruments, some of which are electronic

presentations of traditional (legacy) psycho-

metric instruments originally designed for

paper-and-pencil administration. Other

assessment instruments are specifically

designed for electronic presentation, taking

advantage of the unique presentation,

response, reporting, and data-gathering

capabilities of this medium (Butcher, 2006;

Butcher et al., 2009; Way & Robin, 2016).

Finally, and most recently, advances in com-

puter technology, big data analysis, and

gaming design have facilitated the emer-

gence of completely new paradigms of

assessment using interactive video for tradi-

tional interviews and/or real-time role-play

simulations, virtual reality exercises, big

data analysis, and other specialized diag-

nostic techniques (Wahlstrom, 2017). As

with all other tests and assessments, the

essential criteria for evaluating technology

enhanced measures are reliability, validity,

and fairness.

Application

Inasmuch as computer technology, test

instrument usage, and new instrument

design are constantly evolving, the respon-

sibilities and challenges to the psychologist

practitioner using these modalities are

likewise substantial. Insofar as many or

most (legacy) tests are now electronically

mediated in one way or another in regard to

scoring, administration, and/or interpreta-

tion (Wahlstrom, 2017), when using legacy

tests adapted for electronic presentation,

psychologists are encouraged to review

with care available information and valida-

tion evidence documenting the process

through which these instruments have been

adapted, including issues of equivalence in

regard to internal consistency, predictive

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation23

validity, and/or interpretation across

modalities (Butcher et al., 2009).

It should also be noted that use of

assessment instruments incorporating

elements of interactive real-time video is also

likely to fall within the purview of telepsychol-

ogy and, in this regard, psychologists are

strongly encouraged to be familiar with the

Guidelines for the Practice of Telepsychology

(APA, 2013), as many of the issues described

in those guidelines are likely to be directly

relevant to use of these instruments.

Insofar as some concern has been

expressed regarding the use of adapted

legacy tests (i.e., those developed and

standardized prior to electronic enhance-

ments in administration, scoring, and inter-

pretation), it is important to ascertain the

degree to which assumptions are based on

the results of electronically presented tests.

Psychologists strive to evaluate carefully the

publisher’s technical manual data in regard

to equivalence or norms, effects of electronic

presentation, and/or scoring, as well as

validation of interpretative predictions

made on the basis of electronically admin-

istered and scored version of the test in

question (Butcher et al., 2009). Individuals

differ substantially in their technology

experience and proficiency. These differ-

ences have important implications for the

administration and interpretation of technol-

ogy-based measures. For example, older

adults have less technology experience and

proficiency compared with younger adults

(Czaja et al., 2019). The reliability, validity,

and acceptability of technology-based

measures must be examined in diverse

populations, including in older adults.

Psychologists endeavor to recognize

that it is also important that instruments

primarily designed to take advantage of

opportunities and advances in computer

technology have been carefully researched

regarding fundamental scientific utility for

measurement and interpretation of results.

Similarly, when evaluating new instruments

and assessment procedures designed exclu-

sively for electronic presentation, psycholo-

gists strive to review carefully the test

manual and/or detailed documentation of

the underlying technical information

describing the rationale, construction,

response characteristics, internal consis-

tency, and validation evidence supporting

use of the instrument and fairness (AERA et

al., 2014; Butcher et al., 2009; Wahlstrom,

2017). Psychologists are also encouraged to

consider potential pitfalls of comput-

er-based assessment and computer-gener-

ated results (e.g., potential disruption of the

diagnostic alliance; see Rosen et al., 2016).

GUIDELINE 16

Psychologists who conduct services

using technology for online or

in-person testing, assessment, and

evaluation make every effort to

ensure their own competency.

Rationale

The past 20 years have seen explosive

growth and development in various areas of

information technology (IT). Developments

in areas of new hardware, software, network-

ing, and data storage have become ubiqui-

tous in everyday life and, as such, have

directly impacted the practice of psychology

in general and psychological assessment in

particular (Montag et al., 2016). Concurrent

with these developments, the prevalence

and sophistication of security threats and

breaches of data integrity have also greatly

accelerated. Similarly, as the number of psy-

chologists and frequency of technological

utilization within psychological testing and

assessment escalates, the need to achieve

and maintain technological competence is

critical to maintaining professional compe-

tence in general as well as standards of ethi-

cal practice (Lustgarten, 2015; Rigg, 2018).

Considering the preceding, psychologists are

strongly encouraged to develop and/or

enhance their competence in technology by

seeking out available technical and training

resources and/or CE opportunities in com-

puter science and technology.

Application

The APA and APA Services, Inc. provide

information about building and maintaining

a technology infrastructure for psychology

practices and a list of available resources for

psychologists with regard to software

reviews, privacy and security, automation,

and basic technology. Psychologists who

provide services using technology are

strongly encouraged to review/access this

resource periodically to maintain requisite

knowledge and competence in critical tech-

nology-related areas.

In addition, certain organizations are

dedicated to the development and presen-

tation of training programs in computer

technology focusing on education and

psychology. For example, the Association for

the Advancement of Computing in Educa-

tion maintains a searchable database of

more than 100,000 articles and abstracts in

computer technology.

Last, psychologists whose assessment

practices are deeply rooted in technology

and/or are in positions of primary responsi-

bility for developing and maintaining

technology-based assessment programs

and products within their organizations may

wish to consider advanced training leading

to formal certification in various informa-

tion-technology-related functions.

GUIDELINE 17

Psychologists who use technology-

based assessment instruments are

encouraged to take reasonable steps

to ensure the security, transmission,

storage, and disposal of data.

Psychologists also strive to ensure

that security measures are in place

to protect data and information

related to their clients/patients/

examinees from unintended access,

misuse, or disclosure.

Rationale

Psychologists using testing and assessment

instruments and processes that are techno-

logically involved for scoring, administra-

tion, or interpretation and/or who gather

and store assessment responses and other

client information are strongly advised to

periodically review their current practices in

regard to data protection, storage, and pro-

tection of client confidentiality.

The 21st century has brought with it

significant increases in technology and

advances in accessibility (Lustgarten, 2015).

Psychological tests, and other assessment

instruments and processes that utilize this

24APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

technology, do so within the context of a

rapidly growing and changing threat

environment as well. As such, in addition to

maintaining general competence in techno-

logical areas impacting practice, it is partic-

ularly important for psychologists in general

and assessment practitioners in particular

to strive to be aware of threats to data integ-

rity and client confidentiality.

In response to this growing threat

environment, in recent years a number of

federal and state rules and regulations have

been enacted that directly impact the

storage of data and protection of confiden-

tiality. Compliance with federal and state

privacy laws and regulations can also be

expected to intersect with areas of ethical

practice as well as with APA (2007)

record-keeping guidelines. As such, psychol-

ogists are encouraged to maintain knowl-

edge and competence in these areas as well.

Manipulation through human interac-

tion and social engineering is a common

source of initiation of data breaches (Tetri &

Vuorinen, 2013). As such, psychologists

strive to ensure ongoing training and regular

review of all practice employees and/or

others with access to confidential informa-

tion as an essential component of any

practice security plan.

Finally, a number of institutional guide-

lines, best practices and standards for

protecting security, data integrity, and confi-

dentiality have been developed by APA and

various technological organizations. Psychol-

ogists using technologically involved tests

and other assessment processes are strongly

advised to integrate these practices and

standards within their routines and practices.

Application

In addition to the APA Ethics Code (APA,

2017a) and the Record Keeping Guidelines

(APA, 2007), and the laws and regulations

on privacy and confidentiality, Lustgarten

(2015) suggested a number of best prac-

tices for protecting both data and client

confidentiality, including the development

of a threat model, encryption, use of HIPAA-

compliant cloud providers, use of two-fac-

tor authentication, use of “air gapped”

(stand-alone, non-networked, or inter-

net-connected) computers, and review of

informed consent procedures.

Ferreira and Teles (2019) studied and

reviewed the way email phishing and other

social engineering exploits are used to

persuade employees and others to bypass

established security protocols. A number of

commercially available education and train-

ing programs are also for use by employees

and others with access to confidential infor-

mation. These programs teach participants

to recognize phishing emails and other

common social engineering exploits, and

they periodically include unannounced

audits and exercises using white flag

(unannounced program generated) exploits.

In addition, certain national and inter-

national technology organizations have

established listings of best practices and

general standards. Psychologists are encour-

aged to be aware of the existence of:

• The International Organization for

Standardization (ISO)

» ISO is an independent nongovern-

mental international organization

with a membership of 164 national

standards bodies.

» ISO/IEC 27001 is the best-known

standard in the ISO family of stan-

dards providing requirements for an

information security management

system.

» ISO 15408 ISO/IEC 15408-1:2009

establishes the general concepts and

principles of IT security evaluation and

specifies the general model of evalua-

tion given by various parts of ISO/IEC

15408, which in its entirety is meant to

be used as the basis for evaluation of

security properties of IT products.

• Standard of Good Practice

» The Standard of Good Practice for

Information Security, published by the

Information Security Forum, is a busi-

ness-focused, practical, and compre-

hensive guide to identifying and

managing information security risks in

organizations and their supply chains.

• National Institute of Standards of

Technology, under the U.S. Department

of Commerce (NIST).

» NIST implements practical cyberse-

curity and privacy through outreach

and effective application of stan-

dards and best practices necessary

for the United States to adopt cyber-

security capabilities.

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation25

REFERENCES

Acevedo-Polakovich, I. D., Reynaga-Abiko, G., Garriott, P. O., Derefinko, K. J., Wimsatt,

M. K., Gudonis, L. C., & Brown, T. L. (2007). Beyond instrument selection:

Cultural considerations in the psychological assessment of U.S. Latinas/os.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(4), 375–384. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.4.375

Achenbach, T. M. (2017). Future directions for clinical research, services, and training:

Evidence-based assessment across informants, cultures, and dimensional

hierarchies. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 46, 159–169.

Alfonso, V. C. (2004, July). How to be an educated consumer of assessment

instruments: Brief

tips for practitioners. The Score, 26, 10–11.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &

National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational

and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

American Psychological Association. (2001). Guidelines for test user qualifications.

American Psychologist, 56(12), 1099–1113. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-

066X.56.12.1099

American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education,

training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American

Psychologist, 58(5), 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377

American Psychological Association. (2007). Record keeping guidelines. American

Psychologist, 62(9), 993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.9.993

American Psychological Association. (2012, July). Benchmarks evaluation system

[Webpage]. https://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/benchmarks-evaluation-system.

aspx

American Psychological Association. (2013). Guidelines for the practice of

telepsychology. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/telepsychology

American Psychological Association. (2015a). Guidelines for clinical supervision in

health service psychology. American Psychologist, 70(1), 33–46. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/a0038112

American Psychological Association. (2015b). Professional practice guidelines:

Guidance for developers and users. American Psychologist, 70(9), 823–831. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039644

American Psychological Association. (2017a). Ethical principles of psychologists and

code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017).

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2017b). Multicultural guidelines: An ecological

approach to context, identity, and intersectionality. http://www.apa.org/about/

policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf

American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation. (2015). Standards

of accreditation for health service psychology. http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/

about/policies/standards-of-accreditation.pdf

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990).

Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. (2014). Report of the

competency assessment task force. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.asppb.net/

resource/resmgr/eppp_2/2017_asppb_competencies_exp.pdf

Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and application for the social sciences.

Guilford Press.

Beiser, M., & Gotowiec, A. (2000). Accounting for native/non-native differences in

IQ scores. Psychology in the Schools, 37(3), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/

(SICI)1520-6807(200005)37:3<237::AID-PITS4>3.0.CO;2-N

Bracken, B. A., & Theodore, L. A. (in press). Clinical observation of preschool

assessment behavior. In V. C. Alfonso, B. A. Braken, & R. J. Nagle (Eds.),

Psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (5th ed.). CRC Press.

Bram, A. D., & Peebles, M. (2014). Psychological testing that matters: Creating a road

map for effective treatment. American Psychological Association.

Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. Springer-Verlag.

Burns, G. L., & Haynes, S. N. (2006). Clinical psychology: Construct validation with

multiple sources of information and multiple settings. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.),

Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 401–418). American

Psychological Association.

Butcher, J. N. (2006). Assessment in clinical psychology: A perspective on the past,

present challenges, and future prospects. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,

13(3), 205–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00025.x

Butcher, J. N., Hass, G. A., & Paulson, J. A. (2016). Clinical assessment in international

settings. In F. T. L. Leong, D. Bartram, F. Cheung, K. F. Geisinger, & D. Iliescu (Eds.),

The ITC international handbook of testing and assessment (pp. 217-230). Oxford

University Press.

Butcher, J. N., Perry J. N., & Dean, B. L. (2009). Computer-based assessment. In J. N.

Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment (pp. 163-182). Oxford

University Press.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).

Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991).

Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and

evaluating performance standards on tests. Sage.

Czaja, S. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., & Rogers, W. A. (2019). Designing for older adults:

Principles and

creative human factors approaches. CRC Press.

Dana, R. H. (2001). Clinical diagnosis of multicultural populations in the United States.

In L. A. Suzuki, J. G. Ponterotto, & P. J. Meller (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural

assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications (2nd ed., pp.

101–131). Jossey-Bass.

Demakis, G. J. (Ed.) (2012). Civil capacities in clinical neuropsychology: Research findings

and practical applications. Oxford University Press.

Diaz-Santos, M., & Hough, S. (2016). Cultural competence guidelines for

neuropsychology trainees and professionals: Working with ethnically

diverse individuals. In F. R. Ferraro (Ed.), Minority and cross-cultural aspects of

neuropsychological assessment: Enduring and emerging trends (2nd ed., pp. 11–33).

Taylor & Francis.

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Erlbaum.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1978). Code of federal regulations: Part

1607-uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. https://www.govinfo.gov/

content/pkg/CFR-2017-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-2017-title29-vol4-part1607.xml

Falender, C. A., Erickson Cornish, J. A., Goodyear, R., Hatcher, R., Kaslow, N. J.,

Leventhal, G., Shafranske, E., & Sigmon, S. T. (2004). Defining competencies in

psychology supervision: A consensus statement. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

60(7), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20013

Ferreira, A., & Teles, S. (2019). Persuasion: How phishing emails can influence users

and bypass security measures. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,

125, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.12.004

Finn, S. E. (2009). Incorporating base-rate information in daily clinical decision

making. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment (pp.

140–149). Oxford University Press.

First, M. B., Williams, J. B. W., Karg, R. S., & Spitzer, R. L. (2016). Structured Clinical

Interview for

DSM-5 Disorders, Clinician Version (SCID-5-CV). American Psychiatric Association.

Graham, J. R., Naglieri, J. A., & Weiner, I. B. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of psychology:

Assessment psychology(pp. 82–113). Wiley & Sons.

Haertel, E. H. (2006). Reliability. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th

ed., pp. 65–110). Praeger.

Hessen, E., Hokkanen, L., Ponsford, J., van Zandvoort, M., Watts, A., Evans, J., &

Haaland, K. Y. (2018). Core competencies in clinical neuropsychology training

across the world. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32, 642–656.

Hook, J. N., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2015). Cultural humility: The cornerstone of positive

contact with culturally different individuals and groups? American Psychologist,

70(7), 661–662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038965

Hopwood, C. J., & Bornstein, R. F. (Eds.). (2014). Multimethod clinical assessment.

Guilford.

International Test Commission. (2001). ITC guidelines on test use. International

Journal of Testing, 1(2), 93–114.

International Test Commission. (2017). ITC guidelines for translating and adapting

tests (2nd ed.). http://www.InTestCom.org

Janssen, R. (2011). Using a differential item functioning approach to investigate

measurement invariance. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural

analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 415–432). Routledge.

Kane, M. (1992). An argument-based approach to validation. Psychological Bulletin,

112(3), 527-535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527

Kane, M. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of

Education Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000

26APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2017). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, &

issues. Cengage Learning.

Kaslow, N. J., Grus, C. L., Campbell, L. F., Fouad, N. A., Hatcher, R. L., & Rodolfa, E. R.

(2009). Competency assessment toolkit for professional psychology. Training

and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(4, Suppl.), S27–S45. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/a0015833

Keller, D. K. (2006). The tao of statistics: A path to understanding (with no math). Sage.

Kim, G., Chiriboga, D. A., & Jang, Y. (2009). Cultural equivalence in depressive

symptoms in older white, black, and Mexican-American adults. Journal of the

American Geriatrics Society, 57(5), 790–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-

5415.2009.02188.x

Kim, G., DeCoster, J., Huang, C.-H., & Chiriboga, D. A. (2011). Race/ethnicity and

the factor structure of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: A

meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(4), 381–396.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025434

Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Lustgarten, S. D. (2015). Emerging ethical threats to client privacy in cloud

communication and data storage. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,

46(3), 154–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000018

Miller, I. N., Himali, J. J., Beiser, A. S., Murabito, J. M., Seshadri, S., Wolf, P. A., & Au, R.

(2015). Normative

data for the cognitively intact oldest-old: The Framingham Heart Study. Experimental

Aging Research, 41(4), 386–409.

Montag, C., Duke, E., & Markowetz, A. (2016). Toward psychoinformatics: Computer

science meets psychology. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine,

2016, Article 2983685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2983685

Neimeyer, G. J., Taylor, J. M. & Cox, D. R. (2012). On hope and possibility: Does

continuing professional development contribute to ongoing competence?

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 476–486. https://doi.

org/10.1037/a0029613

Neimeyer, G. J., Taylor, J. M., & Rozensky, R. H. (2012). The diminishing durability

of knowledge in professional psychology: A Delphi Poll of specialties and

proficiencies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(4), 364–371.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028698

Neimeyer, G. J., Taylor, J. M., Rozensky, R. H., & Cox, D. R. (2014). The diminishing

durability of knowledge in professional psychology: A second look at

specializations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(2), 92–98.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036176

Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004).

Developing a biodata

measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student

performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 187–207. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.187

Reynolds, C. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2013). Bias in psychological assessment: An empirical

review and recommendations. In J. R. Graham, J. A. Naglieri, & I. B. Weiner

(Eds.),Handbook of psychology: Assessment psychology(pp. 82–113). Wiley & Sons.

Rigg, T. (2018). The ethical considerations of storing client information online.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(5-6), 332–335. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/pro0000217

Roberts, M. C., Borden, K. A., Christiansen, M. D., & Lopez, S. J. (2005). Fostering

a culture shift: Assessment of competence in the education and careers of

professional psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(4),

355–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.4.355

Roper, B. L., Block, C. K., Osborn, K., & Ready, R. E. (2018). Education and training

for clinical neuropsychologists in integrated care settings. Archives of Clinical

Neuropsychology, 33(3), 263–268.

Rosen, D. C., Nakash, O., & Alegria, M. (2016). The impact of computer use on

therapeutic alliance and continuance in care during the mental health intake.

Psychotherapy, 53, 117–123. http://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000022

Sandoval, J. H., Frisby, C. L., Geisinger, K. F., Ramos-Grenier, J., & Scheuneman, J.

D. (Eds.). (1998). Test interpretation and diversity: Achieving equity in assessment.

American Psychological Association.

Sattler, J. M. (2014). Foundations of behavioral, social, and clinical assessment of children

(5th ed.). Author.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998).The validity and utility of selection methods

in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years

of research findings.Psychological Bulletin,124(2), 262–274.https://doi.

org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

Schneider, A. L., Sharrett, A. R., Gottesman, R. F., Coresh, J., Coker, L., Wruck, L., Selnes,

O. A., Deal, J., Knopman, D., & Mosley, T. H. (2015). Normative data for eight

neuropsychological tests in older blacks and whites from the atherosclerosis risk

in communities (ARIC) study. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 29(1),

32–44.

Smith, G. (Clinical Neuropsychology Synarchy). (2019). Education and training in

clinical neuropsychology: Recent developments and documents from the clinical

neuropsychology synarchy. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 34, 418–431.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the

validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Author.

Stage, S. A., Jackson, H. G., Moscovitz, K., Erickson, M. J., Thurman, S. O., Jessee, W.,

& Olson, E. M. (2006). Using multimethod-multisource functional behavioral

assessment for students with behavior disabilities. School Psychology Review, 35,

451–471.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory & practice (6th

ed.). Wiley & Sons.

Tetri, P., & Vuorinen, J. (2013). Dissecting social engineering. Behaviour & Information

Technology, 32(10), 1014–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.763860

Thakker, J., Ward, T., & Strongman, K. T. (1999). Mental disorder and cross-cultural

psychology: A constructivist perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(7),

843–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00077-4

Wahlstrom, D. (2017). Technology and computerized assessments: Current state

and future directions. In S. S. Bush, G. J. Demakis, & M. L. Rohling (Eds.), APA

handbook of forensic neuropsychology (pp. 463–476). American Psychological

Association.

Way, W., & Robin, F. (2016). The history of computer-based testing. In C. S. Wells &

M. Faulkner-Bond (Eds)., Educational measurement: From foundations to future (pp.

185–208). Guilford Press.

Weiner, I. B., & Otto, R. K. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of forensic psychology (4th ed).

Wiley.

Wright, P. W. D., & Wright, P. D. (2015). Special education law (2nd ed.). House Harbor

Law Press.

Yalof, J. (2019). When the assessor’s limits are tested: Enactments and the

assessment frame in psychological testing. Journal of Personality Assessment.

Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1613241

APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation27

28APA|Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation