Why talk about signing agreements when discussing testing? Because most widely respected and used tests are copyrighted and proprietary in nature. This signed agreement will grant permission or authorization to use a test. Agreements restrict and prevent unauthorized use of proprietary and copyrighted intellectual property which typically incorporate the test, test items and the scoring methodology. Agreements set forth the terms and conditions under which a test may be used. Risk & Needs Assessment, Inc. (Risk & Needs) has an agreement for its test users to sign either directly or via their department, jurisdiction or agency.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Assessment/screening proposals request interested assessors/screeners or evaluators  to submit their assessment plan in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth by the proposer. Most proposals request pragmatic solutions to the proposer's assessment needs. These requests for proposals (RFP's) solicit practical and workable assessment solutions in contrast to theoretical and often unrealistic ideas. A common problem is that the proposer often does not separate the optimum test that can be used from the assessment/screener or evaluator. This is problematic because different standards are used to judge a test and to evaluate the evaluator(s). When the distinction between a test and its delivery system (assessors) becomes blurred, mistakes regarding test selection occur.

PROPOSALS

Many proposals are written with the mistaken belief that proposal respondents (test users) can or will use the best test available for the proposer's needs. Unfortunately, many people involved in testing (screening or assessment) are not knowledgeable about test criteria or may yield to economics and recommend a non-copyrighted test like the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST) because it is free. Such factors all too often result in the selection and utilization of inferior tests. For example, assessment and screening tests should, at the very least, have demonstrated reliability and validity on the populations to be evaluated, an accurate truthfulness scale and a built-in database.

Another proposal anomaly confuses tests with interviews. In brief, objective assessment instruments or tests have clearly established reliability, validity and accuracy criteria they must meet. In contrast, interviews are subjective. Interviewers must repeat, paraphrase and probe for acceptable answers. And, all interviews – including "semi-structured" interviews – have inter-interviewer reliability problems. "Screening" refers to the initial assessment process intended to identify (screen out) untenable attitudes, substance (alcohol and other drugs) abuse, problematic issues and aberrant behavior. Objective tests screen in a uniform and timely manner.

Different test selection results would occur if a proposal for "test selection" was submitted or released first. This "recommend a test for our specific needs" proposal would set forth the test's purpose, areas of inquiry, clients to be tested, time parameters, etc. It would also request information on the test's standardization (clients involved) and normative research (reliability, validity and accuracy). Then, each recommended test could be evaluated in terms of meaningful psychometric or test criteria. These test-related proposals (seeking authentic state-of-the-art-tests) could be sent to assessors / screeners / evaluators / mental health agencies and test developers, such as Risk & Needs.

After test selection, a second proposal could be submitted or released to assessors / screeners / evaluators and community mental health providers for direct test administration (testing services) and provision of reports. Test administrators would use the previously selected test or tests.

Companies like Risk & Needs are often unaware of "testing proposals" because they are not on the proposer’s list of community assessors and mental health professionals. However, even when aware of these "testing proposals," they usually can’t respond (even when they believe they can provide the best test) because they don’t want to become involved in direct testing services. This unrecognized testing proposal dichotomy frequently results in inferior assessment (screening/testing) programs.

If interested in obtaining more "Agreement and Proposals" information, you might contact Risk & Needs Assessment, Inc. at P.O. Box 44828, Phoenix, Arizona 85064-4828. Otherwise, additional information can be provided upon request by calling (602) 234-3506, faxing (602) 266-8227 or e-mailing Risk & Needs at hhl@riskandneeds.com. These consulting services are free.

A copy of the standard Risk & Needs agreement is available for review at the end of this webpage. It’s easy to read, straightforward and concise. Nobody has refused to implement it. However, some states, departments or agencies have more comprehensive agreements of their own. In these cases, Risk & Needs would like to review said agreements. Then, upon mutual approval by both parties (department or agency and Risk & Needs), said agreements can be implemented.

* * * * *