1/ Low-tech process approach pro tip: clinicians and trainees have criticized the process approach for introducing too many variables and increasing risk of artificially low scores. I respond that the flaw in their reasoning is that process variables cannot function in a vacuum.
2/ The whole point is to explain the underlying reasons behind some error or faulty performance or skill. That means the achievement score needs to come first, and the process score is interpreted secondarily.
3/ We would not look at, say, a cvlt score profile and see everything intact except a couple of low process scores and interpret those.
4/ We would first look at the primary scores, & where there are weaknesses, we would then examine the process scores to see how to best explain the primary weaknesses. There is no psychometric concern for interpreting all these dependent measures at once. It’s sequential.
5/ Exception: when a process score is the answer to the clinical question being posed, like if semantic clustering is the primary outcome for some clinical reasons. But that’s an a priori decision, wherein the process score itself becomes an achievement score.
6/ All of that is maybe the greatest strength of the approach in a clinical context. It relies upon tiered interpretation. Otherwise it’s psychometric chaos.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
