* * * * *

One of the obstacles that clients pose to nearly every interviewer is the issue of client truthfulness. Interviewers attempt to rationalize these concerns by maintaining that they know when the client is lying. Yet, clients continue to deny problems, admit to only part of the truth, or shade their answers to make themselves look good.

The "interview" has been the mainstay in evaluations for many years, despite its paradoxical lack of reliability, validity and accuracy. The interview has not been a good predictive procedure and is notoriously time consuming. Many psychometricians and mental health professionals believe that the interview, by itself, is not a defensible technique for making diagnostic or treatment decisions. Reasons for this lack of success and error prone performance are many and include interviewer training, different personalities and equivocal motivation. Interviewers must repeat, paraphrase and probe for answers, which introduces intolerable subjectivity and limitless error.

All interviewers are subject to the danger of clients not telling the truth. Yet, in courts, evaluation settings and treatment programs, these interviewers are asked to give their opinion based upon "reasonable certainty." If an interviewer unwittingly provides an opinion without knowing if the client was truthful, those opinions can cause problems. The difficulty, of course, is that many interviewers believe they can tell when the client is truthful or lying. Such naïveté is harmful.

In contrast, contemporary tests incorporate truthfulness scales to determine how truthful the client was while completing the test. Truthfulness scale methodology has continued to evolve since the MMPI introduced its L, F and K-Scales. Contemporary truthfulness scales have empirically demonstrated reliability, validity and accuracy. These scales identify self-protective, guarded and defensive clients that attempt to minimize their problems. Objective tests are in marked contrast to interviews. And, calling an interview semi-structured doesn’t increase its reliability, validity or accuracy – it’s still an interview.

Truthfulness scales are strikingly important in court-related settings, evaluation and treatment programs, as well as probation and correctional departments, because test results affect people’s lives. It’s comforting to know when an evaluator’s opinion is solidly based on reliable, valid and accurate information.

All Risk & Needs Assessment, Inc.’s (Risk & Needs') tests incorporate a Truthfulness Scale. And, the research upon which these Truthfulness Scales are based is presented on that test’s webpage. And, as always, additional information can be provided upon request. You can write Risk & Needs Assessment, Inc. P.O. Box 44828, Phoenix, Arizona 85064-4828. Risk & Needs' telephone number is (602) 234-3506, our fax number is (602) 266-8227 and our e-mail address is hhl@riskandneeds.com.

* * * * *