Clinical Psychology

I

n the traditional view, personality is a system of

constructs that greatly influences behavior.

Whether the construct is neuroticism, introversion,

paranoia, or resilience, this view is concerned with

relatively stable personal characteristics that contrib-

ute to behavior. It follows, then, that to understand

or predict behavior one must assess underlying vari-

ables. This is, of course, an oversimplification that

masks a good deal of disagreement because the

underlying constructs that are important to a psy-

choanalytic clinician are likely to be quite different

from those that are important to a cognitive-

behavioral theorist.

Behavior therapists and assessors, however, do

not look at personality in the traditional fashion.

They see personality more in terms of behavioral

tendencies in specific situations (Yoman, 2008).

The focus shifts from a search for underlying per-

sonality characteristics to one that looks for the

interaction between behaviors and situations. This

kind of conceptualization leads some to view per-

sonality much like a set of abilities (Wallace, 1966).

For such people, personality becomes a set of abili-

ties or skills rather than a constellation of predispo-

sitions (e.g., needs or traits) that convey the essence

of the person. Aggression and dependence are skills,

much as riding a bicycle is a skill. The focus turns to

adjectival properties rather than to nouns. For

example, behavior therapists are interested in

aggressive behavior, not aggression.

Behavioral assessment is especially relevant for

work with children and adolescents. Most personal-

ity theorists agree that youth have not yet developed

a set of stable personality traits. However, they may

exhibit important constellations of observable beha-

viors that are important to measure when diagnosing

and treating psychological symptoms. Thus, person-

ality assessment is rarely conducted with youth, but

behavioral assessment is quite common.

The Behavioral Tradition

Before we examine specific methods ofbehavioral

assessment, let us consider three broad ways in

which it differs from traditional assessment.

Sample Versus Sign

In traditional assessment, a description of the situa-

tion is much less important than the identification

of the more enduring personality characteristics. In

behavioral assessment, the paramount issue is how

well the assessment device samples the behaviors

and situations in which the clinician is interested.

How well the test is disguised or how deeply

into the recesses of personality it reaches become

irrelevant questions. Years ago, Goldfried (1976)

described the difference between asignand asample

orientation to testing:

When test responses are viewed as a

sample, one assumes that they parallel the

wayinwhichapersonislikelytobehave

in a nontest situation. Thus, if a person

responds aggressively on a test, one

assumes that this aggression also occurs in

other situations as well. When test

responses are viewed as signs, an inference

is made that the performance is an indirect

or symbolic manifestation of some other

characteristic. An example is a predomi-

nance of Vista responses on the Ror-

schach, in which the individual reports

that his percepts are viewed as if they

were seen from a distance. In interpreting

such a response, one does not typically

conclude that the individual is in great

need of optometric care, but rather that

such responses presumably indicate the

person’s ability for self-evaluation and

insight. For the most part, traditional

assessment has employed a sign as opposed

to sample approach to test interpretation.

In the case of behavioral assessment

only the sample approach makes sense.

(pp. 283–284)

256 CHAPTER 9