Balancing Psychological Assessments: Including

Strengths and Hope in Client Reports

䊲

C. R. Snyder, Lorie A. Ritschel, Kevin L. Rand,

and Carla J. Berg
The University of Kansas, Lawrence

Borrowing from B. A. Wright’s (1991) suggestions, a balanced approach

is advocated for gathering information and writing the subsequent report.
Specifically, it is suggested that the clinician attend to four aspects of an
interviewee: (a) the strengths in the client’s psychological makeup, (b) the
weaknesses in the client’s psychological makeup, (c) the strengths in the
client’s environment, and (d) the weaknesses in the client’s environment.
Additionally, using hope theory (C. R. Snyder, 1994) as a framework, the
importance of including information about client goals, along with the
routes to those goals (pathways thinking) and the motivation to use those
pathways (agency thinking), is described. Furthermore, the implications of
using this framework in conducting a diagnostic interview and writing the
ensuing report are provided. Finally, the advantages of including human
strengths to achieve a balanced interview and report are discussed. © 2005
Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 62: 33–46, 2006.

Keywords: psychological assessments; client reports; report writing;

balanced assessment approach; hope theory; positive psychology

Although opinions vary regarding the specific contents of a thorough report, it generally
is agreed that psychological assessment and the resulting report should accurately sum-
marize the client’s personality functions (i.e., thoughts, emotions, motivations) and behav-
ioral repertoire (see Wolber & Carne, 1993). The ultimate goal of this description is to
facilitate an optimal intervention, which is generally aimed at: (a) ameliorating problems,
(b) increasing functioning and satisfaction with life, and (c) developing and strengthen-
ing coping resources for fending off future problems. Information crucial for the achieve-
ment of these goals generally is sought in the form of referral questions.
Beutler, Groth-Marnat, and Rosner (2003) identified six types of requests for
information common to most referrals for assessment: (1) What is the current pattern of
the client’s behavior?; (2) What are the causes of these behaviors?; (3) What are the

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: C. R. Snyder, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., 340 Fraser
Hall, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045–7556; e-mail: crsnyder@ku.edu

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 62(1), 33–46 (2006) © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20198
34 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January 2006

anticipated changes over time?; (4) What are some methods for changing these behav-
iors?; (5) What are the client’s liabilities or shortcomings?; and (6) What are the client’s
strengths and resources? The degree to which the psychological report answers these
questions will shape the ensuing treatment of the client. In this way, interviews and
psychological reports play powerful roles in people’s lives.
Often, however, referral questions center on client weaknesses (i.e., question #5) and
rarely do they seek information about client strengths (i.e., question #6). Also, as can be
seen in Beutler et al.’s (2003) taxonomy, referral questions tend not to inquire about the
client’s environmental settings. Instead, referral questions focus on the client’s negative
traits. Despite the nature of these referral questions, mental health professionals are charged
with the responsibility of maintaining an unbiased perspective when assessing the indi-
vidual. Unfortunately, the failure to maintain a balanced perspective is potentially harm-
ful because it may bias how a client is conceptualized and treated (see Snyder & Ingram,
2000 for a discussion of this issue). That is to say, the contents of a negatively biased
report may initiate a two-pronged self-fulfilling prophecy in which the client thinks and
acts in accord with assigned labels, and mental-health professionals behave in a manner
to confirm the diagnostic results. For these reasons, it is paramount that the interview and
report be as balanced, comprehensive, and accurate as possible in situations where such
assessments are made. In this regard, it may not be appropriate to incorporate additional,
strengths-based questions in certain types of assessments, such as within forensic or
medical contexts. In general assessments, however, it is possible and even desirable to
assess a client’s strengths as well as weaknesses.
The various aspects of the total person and his or her environment need to be explored
in order to produce a comprehensive and balanced assessment. With a history of empha-
sizing the pathologies and weaknesses of an individual, however, clinical psychology
traditionally has accentuated the negative in forming impressions of people (Snyder &
McCullough, 2000). Furthermore, the view that clinical psychology involves the science
and applications related to “mental health” is misleading in that our field has looked
overwhelmingly at “mental illness,” that is, what is wrong with people (Snyder, Lopez,
et al., 2003).
Our present thesis, and one that is being embraced by a growing number of people
who work in “positive psychology” (see Snyder & Lopez, 2002) is that it is important—
even crucial—to examine the “good” along with the “bad” in people. More specifically,
we have written elsewhere that a full and balanced diagnostic view of our clients dictates
that we try to understand their strengths as well as their weaknesses (Lopez & Snyder,
2003a, 2003b; Lopez, Snyder, & Rasmussen, 2003; Snyder, Lopez, et al., 2003). In addi-
tion, others (Wright & Lopez, 2002) have argued that to fully understand a person and his
or her behaviors, the environment in which they exist must be explored. This point of
view has been advocated for many years by psychologists from both the humanistic and
behavioral traditions, but we believe that our field largely has ignored this call to action.
Accordingly, our purpose in this article is to articulate the general reasons that under-
standing of clients’ assets and their environments are as important as examining their
problems, as well as to share our preferred approach to conducting diagnostic interviews
for gathering information and writing the subsequent report.

On Not Painting the Client Into a Box: Busting the Simplicity Myth
Each individual exists and functions in a variety of contexts by using a combination of
strengths and weaknesses. It should be emphasized here that incorporating assets in a
balanced assessment approach requires more work on the part of the assessor than the
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp
 Balanced Assessment 35

traditional approach. We believe, however, that this increase in effort will result in a more
accurate client conceptualization. Likewise, adding the strengths dimension enables men-
tal health professionals to view their clients more completely. With the traditional pathol-
ogy emphasis, clients may be limited to seeing themselves only in terms of their weaknesses,
which will correspond with fewer perceived options in their coping endeavors. On this
point, research has shown that when people are lumped into labeled groups, the perceived
range of possible behaviors decreases (Wilder, 1984). Furthermore, negative information
is more salient (Kanouse & Hanson, 1971), and thus has a greater influence on impres-
sion formation for both the clinician and the client. This makes the inclusion of strengths
in assessment even more important to balance the strong negative impression created by
traditional psychological assessment. Likewise, when the interviewer emphasizes pathol-
ogy, the subsequent report is more likely to be limited in terms of suggestions for possible
modes of treatment. Thus, assessments and psychological reports become more useful if
they indicate a person’s strengths that, in turn, can be tapped to improve the quality of his
or her life (see Saleebey, 1996).
A balanced view of the person without context, however, is not enough to compre-
hend the status of that individual’s well-being. People are not completely autonomous
beings who operate in vacuums. Instead, they and their behaviors (both good and bad)
exist in a variety of contexts. Hence, it is important to understand the situations in a
client’s life, along with the extent to which that client does or does not alter behaviors
across different situations.
Just as people exist in contexts, so too do their problems. Attributing the source of all
of a client’s problems to the person biases clinicians and other professionals, hampering
their abilities to assist clients effectively in achieving their goals. Research has shown
that attributing the cause of behaviors solely to the personality of an individual is directly
related to the perceived degree of the person’s maladjustment (Snyder, 1977). By assess-
ing a client’s environment, professionals are increasing their ability to detect the various
sources of the client’s problems. This is a crucial aspect of assessment because the assumed
source of problems influences the treatment approaches that are used (Wright & Lopez,
2002). For example, one may find that the optimal client treatment simply is to change
the environments in which that client places himself or herself. Thus, if a client com-
plains that she is compelled to smoke each time she is in a bar, then helping that client to
stop visiting bars may be the most parsimonious and effective approach for decreasing
her smoking. Without knowing anything about the context in which the problem presents
itself, the therapist would not be able to infer that it is partly an environmental issue,
rather than simply a matter of changing a client’s maladaptive behavior (i.e., smoking). In
addition, examining the environment helps delineate how pervasive or circumscribed any
particular problem might be. Armed with this information, mental-health professionals
are better able to evaluate the severity of an individual’s problems.
In summary, comprehensive and balanced psychological assessments and reports
need to provide information regarding the individual’s assets and environmental settings.
Clinical psychology’s traditional focus on pathology needs to be balanced to provide a
more complete (and therefore accurate) conceptualization of the person and the surround-
ing environment. In the remainder of this article, we will outline a particular method for
achieving these desired results in assessing a client and in writing the subsequent report.

An Approach to Assessment
One method for increasing the depth of client conceptualization is for the assessor to
work more interactively with the referral source in formulating the referral questions
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp
36 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January 2006

(Brenner, 2003; Crary & Steger, 1972). This provides an opportunity for the assessor to
emphasize to the referral source the importance of understanding the client’s assets and
variety of environmental settings in addition to analyzing the client’s problems. In addi-
tion, in clarifying referral questions, the assessor can get a better grasp on what informa-
tion is being sought, and thus can incorporate pertinent strength and environmental
information not considered previously by the referral source. Similarly, the assessor can
plan to use the best specific tests for providing the information being sought. Unfortu-
nately, few validated measures provide information about both the positive and negative
attributes of an individual. There are, however, a variety of validated measures assessing
such positive attributes as hope, optimism, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and other positive
psychology individual-difference constructs. Major drawbacks of these scales are that
they have not been used widely in clinical settings and they do not provide comprehen-
sive assessments of positive attributes. Moreover, there are few instruments for evaluat-
ing the environment of an individual and the inherent strengths and weaknesses within
the environment. Further research is needed to address these shortcomings in our reper-
toire of psychological assessment measures. Hence, efforts at gleaning this information
must rely on customized approaches to assessment.

The Four-Level Matrix for Gathering Diagnostic Information

To make certain that the assets and weaknesses of the interviewee and his or her envi-
ronment are assessed, we have developed a four-level matrix (see Figure 1). A first aspect
of this matrix is valence, with two subsets—the interviewee’s assets and weaknesses. A
second aspect of this matrix is source, with two subsets—factors inside the client as
compared to in the client’s environment. Thus, the 2 (Valence: Assets vs. Weaknesses) by
2 (Source: Inside Client vs. Inside Environment) matrix has four quadrants: #1 (Assets,
Inside Client), #2 (Assets, Inside Environment), #3 (Weaknesses, Inside Client), and #4
(Weaknesses, Inside Environment).
Although we have written previously about this approach (Lopez & Snyder, 2003a,
2003b; Lopez et al., 2003; Snyder & Elliott, 2005; Snyder, Lopez, et al., 2003), we hasten
to note that the idea is borrowed from our former colleague Beatrice Wright, who was the

Figure 1. The four-level matrix for gathering diagnostic information.

Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp

 Balanced Assessment 37

first to suggest that these four quadrants should be systematically assessed in diagnostic
work (Wright, 1991; Wright & Fletcher, 1982; Wright & Lopez, 2002). Our contribution
has been to implement this approach by bringing the printed matrix into the interview
with the client. As the interview unfolds, the interviewer uses this matrix to collect and
organize information about the client. We have found that the presence of the matrix
forces the diagnostician to look beyond the individual’s shortcomings (i.e., quadrant #3:
Weaknesses, Inside Client) that characteristically are examined by the traditional approach.
By necessity, therefore, the interviewer explores the other aspects of the client. On this
point, we have found that we virtually always fill each quadrant with useful information.
Thus, we regularly glean pertinent information about a person’s strengths and environ-
mental characteristics in addition to his or her problems simply because we are looking
for such information.
It is important that the information recorded on the matrix includes more than simply
the client’s self-report. We recommend that the assessor also pay attention to the behav-
iors exhibited by the client during the assessment process. Again, client strengths can be
noted, such as having good interpersonal skills (e.g., maintaining appropriate eye con-
tact), showing evidence of intact reality testing, or displaying psychological insight. The
assessor can explain to the client how these observations normally would be interpreted
in the report in easily understood terms. Such open collaboration will prevent the client
from being surprised by any of the information in the report, and simply relating obser-
vations to the client actually may begin an ameliorative process (see Finn & Tonsager,
1997 for a discussion of the therapeutic potential of the assessment process itself ).
In conceptualizing an individual using the four-level matrix, clearly distinguishing
between aspects of the person and aspects of the environment may be challenging. That
is, one’s personal characteristics largely affect the environment, and vice versa. For exam-
ple, a client who reports having little social support and high conflict with co-workers
(i.e., weaknesses within the environment) may be experiencing this due to a lack of social
skills (i.e., weaknesses within the client). Part of the clinician’s task is to recognize these
types of interactions and how they impact the client’s life.
Furthermore, extrapolating the extent to which certain attributes are strengths or
weaknesses may be difficult. One reason for this is that a characteristic may be adaptive
in one setting and detrimental in other settings. For example, spontaneity may serve a
client well in recreational activities, whereas it may interfere with a job that requires a
more serious, calculating approach. In addition, strengths may become weaknesses when
they are overused or used inappropriately. Therefore, although a client may have a great
sense of humor, that humor may be inappropriate at times. Appropriate categorization of
the interactions between an individual and his or her environment can be difficult, but it
is likely to be useful for accurate case conceptualization and treatment planning.

Humans as Goal-Directed Beings: Integrating Hope Components

in the Four-Level Matrix
In addition to making the concerted effort to examine a client’s strengths and environ-
ment, we have begun incorporating hope theory (see Snyder, 1989, 1994, 1995; Snyder
et al., 1991; Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2002) in our assessment strategy. Snyder’s (1994)
theory of hope posits that hope is a cognitive variable that consists of three components:
goals, agency, and pathways. Specifically, hope is defined as goal-directed thinking. One
assumption of hope theory is that people are predominantly goal-oriented beings. In other
words, most of human behavior centers on the pursuit of particular goals. As a component
of the hopeful thought process, goals are posited to be the mental targets of an individual’s
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp
38 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January 2006

purposeful efforts. The other two components of hope theory (i.e., agency and pathways)
are types of thought that enable a person to achieve his or her goals. Pathways thought is
the perceived capacity to produce routes to desired goals. Agency is the motivation to use
those routes under both normal and impeded circumstances. According to hope theory, by
generating strategies to achieve goals in combination with motivating oneself to imple-
ment those strategies, a person is able to achieve optimal mental and physical well-being.
In the context of the four-level matrix, there are two reasons why we suggest using
hope as an additional variable in the interviewing and report-writing processes. First, we
believe that hope theory offers a useful model for understanding people. By asking about
goals, pathways, and agency in the context of each of the four aspects of our clients’ lives,
we are assessing data related to how clients will cope subsequent to therapy. By analogy,
in using self-report indices of hope in adults (e.g., the Hope Scale; Snyder et al., 1991,
1996) and children (Snyder et al., 1997), we have shown that level of hope is a robust
predictor of psychological adjustment, academic performances, athletic performances,
health outcomes, prevention, and coping more generally (for reviews see Snyder 2000,
2002; Snyder, Feldman, Taylor, Schroeder, & Adams, 2000; and Snyder, McDermott,
Cook, & Rapoff, 2003). By asking clients about hope in the context of each of the quad-
rants, a comprehensive yet concise overview of the crucial variables in a client’s life can
be noted. Thus, hope theory offers a framework for more balanced data gathering and
case formulation.
Perhaps, a case example may help to elucidate the advantage of using hope theory
along with the four quadrants. The senior author (CRS) began an interview with a 76-year-
old woman who we’ll call “Alice” by asking about any talents that had helped in reaching
her goals (i.e., quadrant #1; Assets, Inside Client). Surprised at this question, Alice
responded, “Well, now that is a tough one because I do not normally think about my
talents.” With some prodding, however, Alice noted that she was a very kind person and
had a friendly personality. Next, the interviewer asked questions about quadrant #2 (Assets,
Inside Environment). Again, she commented that she had not been thinking about these
“assets” lately. Alice was able to recount, however, how supportive her children had been
of her. Quadrant #3 (Weaknesses, Inside Client) queries yielded a flurry of detailed descrip-
tions of how depressed she was feeling, along with her goal of wanting to “get over” this
worry and sadness. Finally, quadrant #4 (Weaknesses, Inside Environment) produced her
major lament of having lost her beloved husband of 52 years, along with wanting to know
what she could do to stop thinking about him all of the time. By answering these ques-
tions, therefore, Alice provided a good overview of what was transpiring in her life and
the goals that she had for herself. By sampling all four quadrants and their related goals,
the assessor was able to secure a more rounded and thorough understanding of how Alice
saw her life, as well as what she wanted to accomplish. It also is worth noting that the act
of asking a client about assets can initiate a benefit-reminding process, which is pur-
ported to improve mental health (Tennen & Affleck, 2002).
A second reason for using hope theory in interviewing and report writing is that it
gives the diagnostician insight into assessing the exact variables—pathways and agency
thoughts pertaining to the client’s goals—that subsequently will play important roles in
the treatment process. Jerome Frank (1968, 1973) made the case that hope provided a
common factor that underlies the workings of all psychological treatments. Expanding
upon Frank’s pioneering thinking, we have written about how the goals, pathways, and
agency components of hope offer an even more concise means of analyzing the workings
of psychological treatments (for reviews see Snyder et al., 2000a; Snyder, Ilardi, Michael,
& Cheavens, 2000b; Snyder, Michael, & Cheavens, 1999; Snyder, Parenteau, Shorey,
Kahle, & Berg, 2002; Snyder & Taylor, 2000).
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp
 Balanced Assessment 39

The basic logic of how agency and pathways for goals contribute to a common factor
analysis can be deduced from an examination of psychotherapy outcome research. In this
regard, the findings of a psychotherapy meta-analysis by Barker, Funk, and Houston
(1988) provide an excellent example of how to extrapolate hope theory to psychotherapy
outcome research. This meta-analysis is uniquely informative because it is the only one
in which the authors included those studies in which the positive expectations of partici-
pants in the placebo groups equaled those of people in active treatment groups. In this
context, an agency-like therapeutic impact reflects the placebo effect size when the
no-contact control group’s effect size is subtracted. Additionally, a pathways-like thera-
peutic impact reflects the full treatment effect size with the effective placebo effect size
subtracted.
Using these definitions in the Barker et al. (1988) meta-analysis, along with change
magnitudes (in standard deviation units) of one group relative to another group mean, the
effect sizes for agency and pathways were SD ⫽ .47 and SD ⫽ .55, respectively (see
Figure 2). Thus, instilling agency alone significantly improves therapeutic outcomes over
no treatment. In addition, the implementation of specific pathways (i.e., particular treat-
ment approaches) significantly enhances the positive therapeutic outcomes. When the
agency and the pathways effects were added, the overall hope effect size was SD ⫽ 1.06
(the nature of the meta-analysis statistics is such that the sum of the components does not
exactly reflect the full effect, although it closely approximates it).
In summary, the concepts of goals, pathways, and agency of hope theory enable the
assessor to gather specific details about a client in the context of the four-level matrix.
The resulting psychological report, by necessity, will contain information on the very
elements that will guide the client’s success, regardless of the treatment that he or she
undergoes. Client conceptualization and diagnosis should assist and guide subsequent
interventions, and the use of goals, pathways, and agency of hope theory within the
four-level matrix approach facilitates this possibility.

Figure 2. The agency and pathways components of hope in the context of meta-analyses of psychotherapy
outcome effects.

Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp

40 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January 2006

From the Assessment to the Report

Once the clinician gathers information about a client using the aforementioned process, it
can be organized and presented in a way that is maximally helpful and that clearly relays
a thorough and balanced conceptualization of the client. Writing a useful and accessible
report has become an increasingly complex task. In contrast to the limited number of
consumers of psychological assessment information that was typical in the past, the poten-
tial audience of current reports consists not only of other professionals (e.g., therapists,
physicians, social workers, school counselors, teachers, etc.), but clients and family mem-
bers as well. As such, the report must be tailored for a broad audience. Although there has
been substantial discussion regarding the desired format of psychological reports, the
consumer-oriented approach recently has emerged as a preferred method (Brenner, 2003).
This approach considers the needs of all potential consumers of the information con-
tained in a psychological report (e.g., referral sources, clients, family members, etc.).
Based on his own model for consumer-oriented reports, Brenner (2003) outlined several
specific suggestions for improving psychological reports. In general, we agree with his
assertions and offer our own recommendations regarding the organization, writing style,
and orientation of the report.

Organization of the Report

There are many suggested models for formatting the information in a report (Hollis &
Dunn, 1979; Klopher, 1960; Wolber, 1980). We agree with the assertion that the organi-
zation of a psychological report should be a function of several factors, including the
specific purpose of the report, the client type, the referral questions, and the setting in
which it will be used (Ownby, 1991; Tallent, 1980, 1993; Wolber & Carne, 1993). Typ-
ically, a report is organized into sections such as Pre-results (i.e., demographic informa-
tion, referral questions, assessment instruments, client history, and behavioral observations),
Results (i.e., testing results and interpretations of client’s intellectual, cognitive, and per-
sonality functioning), and finally, Summary and Recommendations (i.e., broad review of
findings, treatment suggestions, client prognosis, immediate needs, and medical con-
cerns; Wolber & Carne, 1993). Within this framework, a separate section on “Client
Strengths” would be one way of including positive attributes to create a balanced report.
This approach may be preferred because creating a separate section on client strengths
would call attention to them and help to offset the strong impact negative comments tend
to have.
An alternative would be to structure the report around the aforementioned four-level
matrix approach. The report would contain sections on the internal strengths of the client
(quadrant #1: Assets, Inside Client), the resources in the client’s environment (quadrant
#2: Assets, Inside Environment), the client’s weaknesses (quadrant #3: Weaknesses, Inside
Client), and the limitations of the client’s environment (quadrant #4: Weaknesses, Inside
Environment). An advantage of this approach is that the organization of the information
is congruent with the modes of intervention that might be used. In other words, attempt-
ing to change aspects of the client and attempting to change the environment are two
distinct tasks that usually call for different problem-solving approaches. For example, if
a therapist suspects that a client needs to work on some of his personal weaknesses, she
or he can easily look through the information on the client’s strengths (quadrant #1:
Assets, Inside Client) to determine what treatment approach would work most effectively
with the client. Organizing the report based on the four-level matrix approach allows
therapists to access the pertinent information more efficiently.
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp
 Balanced Assessment 41

Language and Writing Style

Beyond the aforementioned broadening of potential consumers of psychological reports,

it is important to note that legal changes pertaining to people’s privacy and rights to
personal health information mean that clients are increasingly likely to read their own
reports. In addition to being mindful about the sometimes pejorative nature of the lan-
guage used in psychological reports, this development requires that reports be written in
a manner that is accessible to individuals with a range of education levels (see Harvey,
this issue, 2006, pp. 5–18). Harvey specifically recommends using shorter sentences and
omitting technical jargon to make reports more readable. In addition, we recommend
incorporating clients’ own words in attempting to describe themselves, which promotes
collaboration in writing the report and increases the likelihood that clients will under-
stand the contents of the report. If, as we suggest, the collaborative approach is used in
assessing a client (i.e., the client is an active and informed participant in the data-
collection process), then the client will be familiar with most of the topics and concepts
discussed in the report. As such, she or he will be better prepared to understand the
meanings and implications of a report discussing what may otherwise be perceived as
abstract psychological phenomena.
In addition to using a clear and understandable writing style, we advise that the
overall tone of the report be positive. This is not to suggest that the assessor “sugar-coat”
any negative findings or the implications of these findings. Instead, we suggest that the
report be framed as a constructive effort aimed at helping the client improve, rather than
a critical analysis of everything that is wrong. Here again, it is important to balance the
negative with the positive. This task is not difficult to accomplish when the assessor
works from a balanced and comprehensive perspective using hope theory within the
four-level matrix framework. By recognizing weaknesses and accentuating assets, a report
not only will avoid coming across as a criticism of the client, but also will give direction
as to how to best proceed in helping the client (Brenner, 2003).

Orientation

The orientation of the report is of paramount importance. We suggest writing in a manner

that is as direct and proactive as possible. A good starting point is to answer the referral
questions directly, which ensures that consumers get the information they need without
having to wade through a sea of inferences (Brenner, 2003). Referral questions that are
consistent with the balanced assessment perspective that we recommend will provide a
framework for highlighting relevant positive and negative characteristics about the client
and his or her environment.
When appropriate, the psychological report should proactively suggest potential
changes to be made or make pertinent inferences based on the collected data. Suppose a
clinician is considering using a cognitive–behavioral approach to treat the client, but the
assessment process uncovers the fact that the client dislikes formulaic activities (e.g.,
manual-based treatments). The report would be most useful if it not only contraindicates
certain techniques (e.g., cognitive–behavioral therapies used in a highly structured man-
ner), but also contains detailed and concrete suggestions for what types of treatment
activities might be optimal for the client with regard to his or her strengths and weaknesses.
The ability to make useful inferences and suggestions in a report is dependent upon
the assessor’s ability to capture accurately the uniqueness of the client. Some have sug-
gested that this implies that the use of standard assessment batteries should be minimized
(e.g., Brenner, 2003). Tests should be chosen that specifically address the areas of concern,
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp
42 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January 2006

including assessing the client’s strengths (i.e., the referral questions). However, choosing
appropriate tests implies that one has sufficient knowledge of the many alternatives in the
realm of psychological assessment. Given that some practicing clinicians have familiar-
ity with no more than a few psychological tests, consultation with professionals who
specialize in assessment may be necessary to produce an accurate description of the
client.
Using the most appropriate tests, however, is only part of the solution. Brenner
(2003) also recommends avoiding the use of overgeneralized characterizations or psy-
chological clichés when writing the subsequent report, as such phrases offer little useful
information about a particular client. One manner of conveying the client’s uniqueness is
to give concrete and specific examples of the client’s actual behaviors to illustrate certain
points. Recount any meaningful behaviors that were noticed during the assessment pro-
cess. Use personal examples provided by the client in response to assessment questions.
This will help the client to understand what the report is attempting to communicate as
well as to clarify why certain questions were asked of the client in the first place.
Finally, we agree with Brenner’s (2003) recommendation that the assessor meet with
the referral source and the client (i.e., the consumers) for a feedback session about the
report. The consumers can use such a meeting to ask for clarification of the findings
contained in the report. In addition, the assessor can take the opportunity to ask the client
about his or her perception regarding the accuracy of the report and ask if they can
recommend any changes. Doing so will minimize potential misunderstandings and helps
to emphasize collaboration with the consumer.

Advantages of This Approach

We recognize that the system we propose is a departure from many clinicians’ standard
approach to assessment. We feel, however, that this format offers a multitude of advan-
tages to clients and clinicians alike. The approach that we have detailed so far, including
the matrix, is done in collaboration with our clients throughout the assessment process.
As we begin the interview, we show them the blank four-level matrix. This frames the
intent of the assessment process and helps the interviewee to understand what we will be
doing. Likewise, once we have completed the interview, we review the notes with the
client to make sure that we have understood the information accurately. As such, we
eschew secrecy and embrace a collaborative working relationship with the interviewee.

From Clients’ Perspectives

This balanced approach offers several potential advantages from the point of view of a
client, especially with regard to decreasing the client’s apprehension about the assess-
ment process. First, the interviewee is likely to realize that the interviewer is trying to
understand the whole person, rather than focusing on the client’s presenting problems.
Second, the client may be able to see that he or she is not being equated with “the
problem.” Third, the interviewee may sense that he or she is not being reinforced simply
for “having a problem,” but also is being rewarded for looking at assets. This latter point
may relate to the interviewee finding positive aspects to his or her ongoing life issues
(i.e., benefit finding; Tennen & Affleck, 2002), as well as recalling some previous coping
successes (i.e., benefit reminding; Tennen & Affleck, 2002) and reclaiming some of the
personal worth that may have been depleted. Fourth, this approach is likely to facilitate
an alliance of trust and mutuality with the mental health professional. Hence, including
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp
 Balanced Assessment 43

strengths may increase a client’s hope, which has been shown to have a robust relation-
ship with having a stronger therapeutic alliance (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989; Magyar-
Moe, Edwards, & Lopez, 2001; Snyder et al., 1991).

From Interviewers’ Perspectives

This suggested approach to assessment also has advantages for the interviewer. First, it
provides a more accurate picture regarding the extent of the individual’s problems and
her or his overall level of functioning across situations. Hence, the information gathered
provides a better measure of functioning and makes it easier for mental health profes-
sionals to construct accurate reports. Second, as we have mentioned previously, assessing
a person’s strengths gives the therapist clues as to client assets that can be tapped to aid in
the intervention process. This is important because personal assets and environmental
resources will be depended upon to help any problem-solving effort to succeed (Wright
& Fletcher, 1982). For example, if it is discovered that a client is part of a large extended
family that lives in the local area, the client may be able to rely on these family members
to help in the implementation of certain treatment efforts. This could include involving
family members directly in the process of helping the client to stick to his or her treat-
ment plan (e.g., working out with him or her at the gym, driving him or her to Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings, reminding him or her to take prescribed medication, etc.). A bal-
anced approach to assessment is likely to uncover such client strengths and should be
woven into the body of a report for the therapist and client to derive maximal benefit
from the assessment process.
Finally, the bond of mutuality and trust that is fostered between the client and the
interviewer is likely to make the therapist’s job much easier. Treatment outcome studies
have suggested that therapist–client relationships are instrumental in determining the
success of any particular intervention (Martin, Garske, & Davis, 2000). As such, it is in
the interviewer’s own best interest to use techniques that will nurture this relationship.

Closing Thoughts
Psychologists need to look at both the strengths and weaknesses in the person and his or
her environment. Indeed, the four-level matrix approach that we have described offers a
template for examining each part of our client. The use of hope theory fits within this
balanced perspective in that the examination of client goals in each of the four quadrants
leads to an interview and derived report that provide ideas about how to intervene with
the person as a whole to improve functioning and life satisfaction. Therefore, we advo-
cate incorporating a strengths-based assessment into a traditional problem-focused assess-
ment strategy. It is our belief that the evaluation of a client’s weaknesses and assets is a
highly beneficial method for creating a thorough picture of the client.
The suggestions that we offer here can and should be applied to clients regardless of
the severity of their presenting issues. In our experiences as clinicians, every client has
strengths that should be explored. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine a situation in
which assessing a client’s assets would be detrimental to the evaluation and treatment
processes. We recognize that it will be more difficult to find and explore the strengths of
certain clients based on the severity of their illnesses. These clients, however, may stand
to benefit the most from having their assets assessed. Given that no harm is likely to be
done by conducting a strengths-based assessment, and that the resulting report will be
more comprehensive if it includes clients’ assets, we advocate the widespread application
of this approach.
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp
44 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January 2006

Last, to conduct the interview and write the subsequent report under the guidelines
that we have offered means that we must spend considerable time with each client. Although
it may seem obvious, it is worth mentioning that a diagnosis of the whole client and his
or her environment may entail a somewhat more labor-intensive approach. In our esti-
mation, however, such additional time and effort are worth the investment in terms of the
yield in producing a balanced, comprehensive, and accurate client conceptualization that,
in turn, will result in more efficient and salubrious therapy efforts.

References
Barker, S.L., Funk, S.C., & Houston, B.K. (1988). Psychological treatment versus nonspecific
factors: A meta-analysis of conditions that engender comparable expectations of improve-
ment. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 579–594.
Beutler, L.E., Groth-Marnat, G., & Rosner, R. (2003). Introduction to the integrative assessment of
adult personality. In L.E. Beutler & G. Groth-Marnat (Eds.), Integrative assessment of adult
personality (pp. 1–36). New York: Guilford.
Brenner, E. (2003). Consumer-focused psychological assessment. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 34, 240–247.
Crary, W.G., & Steger, H.G. (1972). Prescriptive and consultative approaches to psychological
evaluation. Professional Psychology, 3, 105–109.
Finn, S.E., & Tonsager, M.E. (1997). Information-gathering and therapeutic models of assessment:
Complementary paradigms. Psychological Assessment, 9, 374–385.
Frank, J.D. (1968). The role of hope in psychotherapy. International Journal of Psychiatry, 5, 383–395.
Frank, J.D. (1973). Persuasion and healing (rev. ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, V.S. (2006). Variables affecting the clarity of psychological reports. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 62(1), 5–18.
Hollis, J.W., & Dunn, P.A. (1979). Psychological report writing: Theory and practice. Muncie, IN:
Accelerated Development.
Horvath, A.O., & Greenberg, L.S. (1989). Development and validation of the Working Alliance
Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 223–233.
Kanouse, D.E., & Hanson, L.R., Jr. (1971). Negativity in evaluations. In E.E. Jones et al. (Eds.),
Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 47– 62). Morristown, NJ: General Learn-
ing Press.
Klopher, W.G. (1960). The psychological report: Use and communication of psychological find-
ings. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Lopez, S.J., & Snyder, C.R. (Eds.). (2003a). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of
models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lopez, S.J., & Snyder, C.R. (2003b). The future of psychological assessment: Making a difference.
In S.J. Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models
and measures (pp. 461– 468). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lopez, S.J., Snyder, C.R., & Rasmussen, H.N. (2003). Striking a vital balance: Developing a com-
plementary focus on human weakness and strength through positive psychological assess-
ment. In S.J. Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of
models and measures (pp. 3–20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Magyar-Moe, J.L., Edwards, L.M., & Lopez, S.J. (2001, March). A new look at the work alliance.
Is there a connection to hope? Poster presented at the Fourth National Counseling Psychology
Conference, Houston.
Martin, D.J., Garske, J.P., & Davis, M.K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome
and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
68, 438– 450.

Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp

 Balanced Assessment 45

Ownby, R.L. (1991). Psychological reports: A guide to report writing in professional psychology
(2nd ed.). Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Company.
Saleebey, D. (1996). A strengths perspective in social work practice (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Snyder, C.R. (1977). “A patient by any other name” revisited: Maladjustment or attributional locus
of problem? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 101–103.
Snyder, C.R. (1989). Reality negotiation: From excuses to hope and beyond. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 8, 130–157.
Snyder, C.R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. New York: Free Press.
Snyder, C.R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 73, 355–360.
Snyder, C.R. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measurement, and applications. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Snyder, C.R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows of the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275.
Snyder, C.R., & Elliott, T.R. (2005). Clinical psychology education in the 21st century: The four-
level matrix model. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 1033–1054.
Snyder, C.R., Feldman, D.B., Taylor, J.D., Schroeder, L.L., & Adams III, V. (2000). The roles of
hopeful thinking in preventing problems and enhancing strengths. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 15, 262–295.
Snyder, C.R., Harris, C., Anderson, J.R., Holleran, S.A., Irving, L.M., Sigmon, S.T., et al. (1991).
The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of
hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585.
Snyder, C.R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W.E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., et al. (1997). The
development and validation of the Children’s Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22,
399– 421.
Snyder, C.R., Ilardi, S.S., Cheavens, J., Michael, S.T., Yamhure, L., & Sympson, S. (2000a).
The role of hope in cognitive behavior therapies. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24,
747–762.
Snyder, C.R., Ilardi, S., Michael, S., & Cheavens, J. (2000b). Hope theory: Updating a common
process for psychological change. In C.R. Snyder & R.E. Ingram (Eds.), Handbook of psy-
chological change: Psychotherapy processes and practices for the 21st century (pp. 128–153).
New York: Wiley.
Snyder, C.R., & Ingram, R.E. (2000). Psychotherapy: Questions for an evolving field. In C.R.
Snyder & R.E. Ingram (Eds.), Handbook of psychological change: Psychotherapy processes
and practices for the 21st century (pp. 707–726). New York: Wiley.
Snyder, C.R., & Lopez, S.J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J., Edwards, L.M., Pedrotti, J.T., Prosser, E.C., Walton, S.L., et al. (2003).
Measuring and labeling the positive and the negative. In S.J. Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds.),
Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 21– 40). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Snyder, C.R., & McCullough, M. (2000). A positive psychology field of dreams: “If you build it,
they will come . . . .” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 151–160.
Snyder, C.R., McDermott, D., Cook, W., & Rapoff, M. (2003). Hope for the journey: Helping
children through the good times and the bad. Clinton Corners, NY: Percheron.
Snyder, C.R., Michael, S., & Cheavens, J. (1999). Hope as a psychotherapeutic foundation for
nonspecific factors, placebos, and expectancies. In M.A. Huble, B. Duncan, & S. Miller (Eds.),
Heart and soul of change (pp. 179–200). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Snyder, C.R., Parenteau, S., Shorey, H.S., Kahle, K., & Berg, C. (2002). Hope as the underlying
process in gestalt and other psychotherapy approaches. International Gestalt Therapy Journal,
25, 11–29.
Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp
46 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January 2006

Snyder, C.R., Rand, K.L., & Sigmon, D.R. (2002). Hope theory: A member of the positive psy-
chology family. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257–
276). New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, C.R., Sympson, S.C., Ybasco, F.C., & Borders, T.F., Babyak, M.A., & Higgins, R.L. (1996).
Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 70, 321–335.
Snyder, C.R., & Taylor, J.D. (2000). Hope as a common factor across psychotherapy approaches: A
lesson from the “Dodo’s Verdict.” In C.R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures,
and applications (pp. 89–108). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tallent, N. (1980). Report writing in special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tallent, N. (1993). Psychological report writing (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2002). Benefit finding and benefit reminding. In C.R. Snyder & S.J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 573–584). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Wilder, D.A. (1984). Predictions of belief homogeneity and similarity following social categoriza-
tion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 323–333.
Wolber, G.J. (1980). A practical approach to the psychological evaluation of elderly patients. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 499–505.
Wolber, G.J., & Carne, W.F. (1993). Writing psychological reports: A guide for clinicians. Sarasota,
FL: Professional Resource Press.
Wright, B.A. (1991). Labeling: The need for greater person-environment individuation. In C.R.
Snyder & D.R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health per-
spective (pp. 469– 487). New York: Pergamon Press.
Wright, B.A., & Fletcher, B.L. (1982). Uncovering hidden resources: A challenge in assessment.
Professional Psychology, 13, 229–235.
Wright, B.A., & Lopez, S.J. (2002). Widening the diagnostic focus: A case for including human
strengths and environmental resources. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of
positive psychology (pp. 26– 44). New York: Oxford University Press.

Journal of Clinical Psychology DOI 10.1002/jclp