University of Amsterdam.
University of California, Davis.
Psychol Assess. 2021 Feb;33(2):122-132. doi: 10.1037/pas0000966. Epub 2020 Oct 29.
The Treatment Utility of Clinical Assessment (TUCA) has long been a controversial topic, with arguably more (strong) opinions than relevant, well-designed empirical research. We argue that this question has been tackled too broadly and that a more contextualized approach would likely be more informative. Instead of asking "what is the treatment utility of assessment," we suggest specifying and examining more closely the conditions by which assessment can-or cannot-contribute to treatment process and ultimately patient benefit. To this end, we present a heuristic model for conceptualizing the conditions under which clinical assessment may have treatment utility and illustrate its use by distinguishing four specific classes of assessment-driven interventions. We distinguish direct benefits from assessment from indirect TUCA as two principal pathways, emphasize the importance of having some a priori theory regarding working mechanisms, and stress the requirements of ensuring adequate variability of the presumed mediating variables. These considerations in turn argue for a broader view of pertinent outcome measures, the use of more powerful designs in TUCA research, and the implementation of some form of stepped assessment in clinical practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
临床评估的治疗实用性（TUCA）一直是一个备受争议的话题，相关的、精心设计的实证研究相对较少，但却有更多的观点。我们认为，这个问题被过于广泛地讨论了，采用更具针对性的方法可能会更有意义。我们建议，与其问“评估的治疗实用性是什么”，不如更具体地研究和检验评估能够或不能为治疗过程以及最终的患者获益做出贡献的条件。为此，我们提出了一个启发式模型，用于概念化临床评估可能具有治疗实用性的条件，并通过区分四类具体的评估驱动干预来举例说明其用途。我们将评估带来的直接益处与间接 TUCA 区分开来，强调了针对工作机制预先建立理论的重要性，并强调了确保假定中介变量具有足够可变性的要求。这些考虑因素反过来又要求采用更广泛的相关结果测量方法、在 TUCA 研究中使用更强大的设计以及在临床实践中实施某种形式的分步评估。（美国心理协会，2021）。
