Advertisement

Intimacy pp 443-460 | Cite as

Intimacy in Assessment

  • Constance T. Fischer

Abstract

The personal and interpersonal character of most therapies has long been acknowledged. It is understood that in one manner or another the therapist participates in the ways clients change their lives. Intimacy, albeit of a specialized sort, is assumed, and its positive and problematic aspects are addressed in professional training and literature. In contrast, psychological assessment has been more closely grounded in the tradition of laboratory science, the goal being to obtain objective knowledge about a subject’s characteristics. Standardization—of materials, instructions, scoring, and interpretation—is meant to control potential variance in findings that would be due either to assessor characteristics or to transactions between assessor and subject. Professional training in assessment therefore emphasizes standardized procedures. For example, rapport is addressed not as an interpersonal relationship, but as a condition that results in optimal test output. Although test findings may be regarded as presenting a penetrating, and in this sense intimate, portrait, intimacy as a relationship is not often associated with assessment.

Keywords

Psychological Assessment Individualize Assessment Assessment Event Laboratory Tradition Assessment Context 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bachelard, G. The poetics of space. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. (Originally published, 1958.)Google Scholar
  2. Dana, R. H. A human science model for personality assessment with projective techniques. Springfield, 111.: Charles C Thomas, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. Fischer, C. T. Rapport as mutual respect. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969, 48, 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fischer, C. T. The testee as co-evaluator. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischer, C. T. Toward the structure of privacy: Implications for psychological assessment. In A. Giorgi, W. F. Fischer, & R. vonEckartsberg (Eds.), Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology (Vol. 1). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press/Humanities Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, C. T. Contextual approach to assessment. Community Mental Health Journal, 1973, 9, 38–45. (a)Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, C. T. Intelligence contra IQ: A human-science critique and alternative to the natural science approach to man. Human Development, 1973, 16, 8–20. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, C. T. Exit IQ: Enter the child. In G. Williams & S. Gordon (Eds.), Clinical child psychology: Current practices and future perspectives. New York: Behavioral Publications, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer, C. T. Privacy as a profile of authentic consciousness. Humanitas, 1975, 11, 27–43.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, C. T. Undercutting the scientist-professional dichotomy: The reflective psychologist. The Clinical Psychologist, 1976, 29, 5–7.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, C. T. Personality and assessment. In R. Valle & M. King (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. (a)Google Scholar
  12. Fischer, C. T. Collaborative psychological assessment. In C. T. Fischer & S. L. Brodsky (Eds.), Client participation in human services: The Prometheus principle. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1978. (b)Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, C. T. Individualized assessment and phenomenological psychology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1979, 43, 115–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, C. T. Phenomenology and psychological assessment: Re-presentational description. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 1980, 11, 79–105. (a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer, C. T. Privacy and psychological development. In W. C. Bier (Ed.), Privacy: A vanishing value. New York: Fordham University Press, 1980. (b)Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, C. T. Individualized assessment. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, in press.Google Scholar
  17. Fischer, C. T., & Wertz, F. J. Empirical phenomenological analyses of being criminally victimized. In A. Giorgi, R. Knowles, & D. Smith (Eds.), Duquesne studies in phenomonological psychology (Vol. 3). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press/Humanities Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  18. Fischer, W. F. On the phenomenological mode of researching “Being anxious.” Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 1974, 4, 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giorgi, A. Convergence and divergence of qualitative and quantitative methods in psychology. In A. Giorgi, C. T. Fischer, & E. L. Murray (Eds.), Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology (Vol. 2). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press/Humanities Press, 1975. (a)Google Scholar
  20. Giorgi, A. An application of phenomenological method in psychology. In A. Giorgi, C. T. Fischer, & E. L. Murray (Eds.). Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology (Vol. 2). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press/Humanities Press, 1975. (b)Google Scholar
  21. Keegan, J. G. Privacy and spiritual growth. In W. C. Bier (Ed.) Privacy: A vanishing value? New York: Fordham University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  22. Neville, R. C. Various meanings of privacy: A philosophical analysis. In W. C. Bier (Ed.), Privacy: A vanishing value? New York: Fordham University Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constance T. Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyDuquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations