1

Compare the conventional one-to-one assessment to a group assessment approach.

Critically evaluate their use in different settings.

The practice of assessing an individual's emotional well-being and behavioral functioning

using standardized tests, observations, and other techniques is known as psychological

assessment (Jennifer L. Farley, 2020). Many kinds of psychological tests can be performed to

gather information, and some of them are interviews, tests (e.g., IQ tests), surveys, self-report

questionnaires, and behavioral observations. A psychologist can acquire an in-depth

understanding of an individual's abilities and shortcomings by combining testing and

assessment (American Psychological Association, 2013). The two common approaches

among the many assessment options are conventional one-to-one assessment and group

assessment. This essay assesses these two assessment methods critically, considering their

advantages, disadvantages, and usefulness in different settings.

The term “conventional one-to-one psychological assessment” refers to the traditional

approach of evaluating an individual's psychological well-being, cognitive abilities, and

behaviors through a face-to-face interaction between a psychologist and the person assessed.

When evaluating an individual through this process which usually involves direct interaction,

a trained psychologist will use a variety of assessment techniques such as in-person

interviews, standardized testing, and clinical observations. While conventional one-to-one

assessment has both certain benefits as well as drawbacks to consider, exploring both sides of

this issue helps gain a more well-rounded perspective on its pros and cons.

One of the main advantages of conventional one-to-one psychological assessment is it's

personalized and tailored to individuals based on their behaviors and characteristics. This
2

method allows psychologists to adapt the assessment process to the unique needs and

concerns of each individual. Ryan and Sackett (1987) conducted a study that supported the

significance of personalized assessment. According to their findings, personalized

assessments delve deeper into the person's experiences and concerns to provide a more

precise and insightful result. Another advantage is that this assessment approach creates an

environment where psychologists can establish a closer understanding and bond with their

patients. For the evaluation to be accurate and for the assessment process as a whole, this

rapport is essential. According to Rashid et al. (2009), face-to-face interaction and

building connections are crucial since they have a significant impact on patients' treatment

outcomes. Bakke et al. (2018) provide more evidence that the bond between the psychologist

and the patient can foster trust, which in turn encourages more open and meaningful

responses. In addition, we can state that one-on-one evaluations offer richer data for

evaluating the patient's behaviors, feelings, and reactions (Insua-Summerhays et al., 2018).

This evaluation can be crucial for accurate diagnosis and treatment planning. This includes

taking into account factors like environmental stressors and cultural aspects, which can

significantly influence an individual's psychological well-being (Owiti et al., 2015). On the

other hand, one of the disadvantages of one-to-one psychological assessment is the potential

for subjectivity and bias. The psychologist's personal beliefs, experiences, and cultural

background may influence the assessment process and interpretation and this susceptibility to

subjectivity can introduce variability in assessments, impacting their reliability and validity.

A study conducted by Green et al. (2007), examined implicit biases among psychologists and

how these biases influenced their clinical decisions and found that implicit biases related to

race could potentially impact medical decisions, such as whether to administer thrombolysis

to black and white patients. In addition, this approach may only have limited accessibility to

patients, and may not be feasible for large-scale or remote assessments. This drawback has
3

become more apparent in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, as remote assessments

have gained importance (Rao et al., 2020). Lastly, some clients may feel uncomfortable or

intimidated during one-to-one assessments, potentially leading to inaccurate self-disclosure.

This issue is addressed by Lussier and Richard (2007) in their study on the importance of

client comfort in psychological assessments.

Psychological group assessment is an approach used in psychology to evaluate and measure

the psychological attributes, behaviors, and characteristics of a group of individuals, rather

than assessing individuals in isolation. It involves the application of psychological

assessments, tests, or evaluations to a group of people, typically with shared characteristics,

goals, or experiences.

Psychological group assessment advantages include their efficiency. Research by

Gueldenzoph & May (2002) demonstrated the time efficiency of group assessments,

highlighting their capability to evaluate multiple individuals simultaneously. This time-saving

feature makes group assessments suitable in situations where assessing a large number of

individuals is necessary, such as in educational settings or workplace evaluations.

Furthermore, conducting assessments in a group setting can also be a cost and time-effective

approach compared to individual assessments (Berry, 2007). This method minimizes the

resources needed for testing, making it a practical choice, especially for organizations or

researchers operating within limited budgets. Finally, group assessments provide a rich

source of data that can be analyzed to identify characteristics and behaviors in patients

(Maratos & Kennedy, 1974). Assessing multiple individuals in a single setting streamlines

the process of gathering relevant data, making it valid for research and evaluation purposes.

On the other hand, some of the drawbacks of group assessments are that they can be less
4

personalized compared to one-to-one assessments. It may not always capture the unique

needs and concerns of each individual, which could result in less accurate and meaningful

results. Moreover, group dynamics and the influence of peers during group assessments can

impact patient's responses, and can potentially lead to biased or inaccurate results (Jackson et

al., 2020). Another disadvantage to this approach is the difficulty in interpreting data as

analyzing data from group assessments can be complex and time consuming. It may be

challenging to discern individual variations within the group or to identify specific causes of

certain behaviors or responses.

Conventional one-to-one and Group assessments have their pros and cons but consideration

for using an appropriate approach depends on the setting in which the assessment takes place.

Assessments can be applied in various settings including educational settings, workplace

settings, and healthcare settings.

In educational settings, like schools and universities, both one-to-one and group assessments

have their place. One-to-one assessment is commonly used in educational settings to evaluate

students’ academic performance, cognitive abilities, and psychological well-being.

Furthermore, schools and universities that are special needs inclusive create individualized

education plans (IEPs) for special needs students, ensuring individualized support and

interventions. For example, a study by Hunt & Goetz (1997) examined the use of one-to-one

assessments to identify and support students with learning disabilities in inclusive

classrooms. The research highlighted the importance of tailored, individualized assessments

to address students' unique needs. On the other hand, group assessments are used to measure

collective learning outcomes, evaluate group projects, or understand classroom dynamics.

These assessments include group presentations, quizzes, and other evaluative measures
5

employed by teachers to gauge the effectiveness of their teaching methods. Furthermore,

group assessments extend to the evaluation of collaborative efforts and individual

contributions within group projects or assignments, providing a comprehensive view of

student's performance and the dynamics of group-based learning experiences. For example,

Chen et al. (2022) found that peer assessment in group work can enhance learning and skill

demonstration, but there may be challenges such as freeloading.

In the workplace, one-to-one assessments are used for employee evaluations and performance

appraisals, and to assess factors such as job satisfaction and stress levels. Employers use one-

to-one assessments to evaluate employees' job performance, skills, and suitability for job

roles. This includes performance appraisals, personality assessments, and skills testing. One-

to-one assessments are also used in leadership development programs to assess and enhance

leadership skills and behaviors. A study by Rony et al. (2020) investigated the use of one-to-

one assessments in employee performance appraisals and their impact on employee

motivation and satisfaction. The research emphasized the significance of constructive

feedback and personal interaction in the workplace. On the other hand, group assessments are

useful for understanding team dynamics, fostering collaboration, and assessing group training

or workshops. Employers use group assessments to evaluate and enhance the skills and

abilities of employees. This may include group training sessions, workshops, or team-

building exercises. Furthermore, In team-based work environments, assessments may be used

to evaluate the effectiveness and dynamics of workgroups or teams. For example, Tumpa et

al. (2022) focus on the design and administration of group-based assessments to improve the

job readiness of project management graduates. Overall, this study emphasizes the

significance of well-designed and implemented group assessments in evaluating employee

performance and enhancing job readiness.

In healthcare, one-to-one assessments are common for personalized patient evaluations,

mental health assessments, or in-depth medical history interviews.

Psychologists use one-to-one assessments to diagnose mental health conditions, evaluate

treatment progress, and personalized therapy to individual needs. Furthermore, occupational

therapists, physical therapists, and speech therapists conduct one-to-one assessments to

design and implement personalized rehabilitation plans. A study by Black and Jenkinson

(2009), demonstrates how one-to-one assessments play a critical role in understanding and

improving patient experiences and outcomes. The study utilizes one-to-one assessments to

gain insights into patients' unique needs and perspectives, which, in turn, informs the

development of more patient-centered care and treatment strategies. And group assessments

in healthcare, it is used for therapy sessions, support group evaluations, or assessing the

effectiveness of health interventions. In mental health and addiction treatment, group

assessments are used in therapy sessions and support groups to evaluate the well-being and

progress of individuals as part of a larger group. Furthermore, in clinical trials and research

studies, group assessments are utilized to collect data from cohorts of participants, which

helps researchers conclude the effectiveness of treatments or interventions. Carmack Taylor

et al. (2007) analyzed the composition of support groups and suggested that including both

distressed and non-distressed patients may be beneficial, as distressed patients can benefit

from the presence of non-distressed patients who model effective coping.

In conclusion, the choice between conventional one-to-one and group assessments depends

on a lot of factors and the objectives of the assessment. One-to-one assessments offer a

personalized and tailored approach, fostering a deeper understanding of individual

experiences and concerns. They are highly used in healthcare, educational, and workplace
7

settings where individual well-being and performance are paramount. On the other hand,

group assessments are efficient for evaluating a larger population and understanding group

dynamics, making them suitable for educational and research purposes. However, group

assessments are less personalized than one-to-one assessments. Overall, both assessment

methods have their pros and cons, and their selection should align with the goals and

requirements of the assessment setting. By recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each

approach, we can make informed decisions about the most appropriate method for a given

situation, ultimately leading to more effective and meaningful assessments.

Word Count: 1729 words

References

American Psychological Association. (2013). Understanding psychological testing and

assessment. Apa.org.

https://www.apa.org/topics/testing-assessment-measurement/understanding

Bakke, A. (2018). Trust-Building in a Patient Forum: The Interplay of Professional and

Personal Expertise. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 156–

182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281618776222

Berry, E. (2007). Group work and assessment—benefit or burden? The Law Teacher, 41(1),

19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2007.9959723

Black, N., & Jenkinson, C. (2009). Measuring patients’ experiences and outcomes. BMJ,

339(jul02 1), b2495–b2495. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2495

Carmack Taylor, C. L., Kulik, J., Badr, H., Smith, M., Basen-Engquist, K., Penedo, F., &

Gritz, E. R. (2007). A social comparison theory analysis of group composition and

efficacy of cancer support group programs. Social Science & Medicine, 65(2), 262–

273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.024

Chen, Z., Lee, S., Shaikh, S.P., & Sanzana, M.R. (2022). The Study of Peer Assessment

Impact on Group Learning Activities. ArXiv, abs/2201.02344.

Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Raymond, K. L., Iezzoni, L. I., &

Banaji, M. R. (2007). Implicit Bias among Physicians and Its Prediction of

Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients. Journal of General Internal

Medicine, 22(9), 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0258-5

Gueldenzoph, L. E., & May, G. L. (2002). Collaborative Peer Evaluation: Best Practices for

Group Member Assessments. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(1), 9–20.

https://doi.org/10.1177/108056990206500102
9

Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on Inclusive Educational Programs, Practices, and

Outcomes for Students with Severe Disabilities. The Journal of Special Education,

31(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699703100102

Insua-Summerhays, B., Hart, A., Plummer, E., Priebe, S., & Barnicot, K. (2018). Staff and

patient perspectives on therapeutic engagement during one-to-one observation.

Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 25(9-10), 546–557.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12497

Jackson, M. O., Lin, Z., & Yu, N. N. (2020). Adjusting for Peer-Influence in Propensity

Scoring When Estimating Treatment Effects. SSRN Electronic Journal.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3522256

Jennifer L. Farley. (2020, June 15). Psychological Assessment: What is it and why is it

important? Lindner Center of HOPE.

https://lindnercenterofhope.org/blog/psychological-assessment-what-is-it-and-how-

can-it-help/#:~:text=Psychological%20assessment%20is%20the%20process

Lussier, M., & Richard, C. (2007). Self-disclosure during medical encounters. Canadian

Family Physician, 53, 421-422.

Maratos, J., & Kennedy, M. J. (1974). Evaluation of Ward Group Meetings in a Psychiatric

Unit of a General Hospital. British Journal of Psychiatry, 125(588), 479–482.

https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.125.5.479

Owiti, J. A., Palinski, A., Ajaz, A., Ascoli, M., De Jongh, B., & Bhui, K. S. (2015).

Explanations of illness experiences among community mental health patients: An

argument for the use of an ethnographic interview method in routine clinical care.

International Review of Psychiatry, 27(1), 23–38.

https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2014.995602
10

Rao, A., Chakravarthy, K., & John, T. (2020). Remote consultations in the era of COVID-19

pandemic: Preliminary experience in a regional Australian public acute mental health

care setting. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 102074.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102074

Rashid, M. (2009). Hospital Design and Face to Face Interaction among Clinicians: A

Theoretical Model. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 2(4),

62–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758670900200404

Rony, Z.T., Yasin, M., Lubis, F.M., & Syarief, F. (2020). The Role of Active Constructive

Feedback in Building Employee Performance (Case study at a private construction

company in Indonesia 2018-2019).

RYAN, A. M., & SACKETT, P. R. (1987). A SURVEY OF INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT

PRACTICES BY I/O PSYCHOLOGISTS. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 455–488.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00610.x

Tumpa, R. J., Skaik, S., Ham, M., & Chaudhry, G. (2022). Authentic Design and

Administration of Group-Based Assessments to Improve the Job-Readiness of Project

Management Graduates. Sustainability, 14(15), 9679.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159679