Wayne J. Camara

Do psychological assessments require more time than third parties and managed care are willing to reimburse? A survey of clinical psychologists and neuropsychologists was conducted to evaluate the current uses of psychological assessment instruments. Respondents reported their use of tests for 8 different areas of assessment, the average time spent in performing various assessment services and other assessment practices. Results suggested that a majority of neuropsychologists devote a substantial portion of their time to assessment, but only 12% of clinical psychologists reported spending more than 10 hr in assessment-related practice each week. The authors describe the typical time required to administer, score, and interpret various tests and assessments; factors that affect the time required to conduct assessments; and provide a current ranking of the most frequently used assessments in clinical and neuropsychology. How long does it take to conduct comprehensive psychological assessments? Does the time required for assessment activities depend on the nature of the assessment and the presenting problems? What assessments are most commonly used and do they differ by the nature and function of the assessment? What are the implications of these issues for psychologists conducting assessment services in today's managed care environment? What strategies may psychologists invoke to overcome the multiple obstacles imposed by managed care and demonstrate the efficacy and extensiveness of comprehensive assessment practices? We examined these and other related questions through a survey of a sample of clinical and neuropsychologists who conducted assessment

This article introduces the special section on the American Psychological Association/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (APA/NIOSH) collaboration. The section includes an overview statement of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health research by Linda Rosenstock and 5 competitively peer-reviewed articles submitted to the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology following their presentation in an earlier form at the 3rd APA/NIOSH conference in September 1995. This article provides a brief history of the APA/NIOSH collaboration forged at the turn of this decade.

This article reviews the intended uses of these college‐ and career‐readiness assessments with the goal of articulating an appropriate validity argument to support such uses. These assessments differ fundamentally from today's state assessments employed for state accountability. Current assessments are used to determine if students have mastered the knowledge and skills articulated in state standards; content standards, performance levels, and student impact often differ across states. College‐ and career‐readiness assessments will be used to determine if students are prepared to succeed in postsecondary education. Do students have a high probability of academic success in college or career‐training programs? As with admissions, placement, and selection tests, the primary interpretations that will be made from test scores concern future performance. Statistical evidence between test scores and performance in postsecondary education will become an important form of evidence. A validation argument should first define the construct (college and career readiness) and then define appropriate criterion measures. This article reviews alternative definitions and measures of college and career readiness and contrasts traditional standard‐setting methods with empirically based approaches to support a validation argument.