Text Size A A A

Strength-Based Assessment: Notes on Article by Rashid and Ostermann

(August 4, 2009)

By Ryan M. Niemiec, Psy.D.
Education Director, VIA Institute on Character
Follow Ryan on Twitter

The study: Rashid, T., & Ostermann, R. F. (2009). Strength-based assessment in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5), 488-498

A need for strength-based assessment: The authors review the pros and cons of deficit-based assessment over the years. Pros include the success of psychotherapy in assessing and alleviating various conditions and the ease with which clients can relate to negatives (since bad is stronger than good). Cons include the common assumption that symptoms are the central ingredient of therapy and that positives are peripheral byproducts (altruism and humor are viewed as defense mechanisms); the high potential for a negativity bias,  wherein if a clinician only tries to elicits negatives it is likely to alter the clinician's perception toward the negative; the deficit-based assessment compartmentalizes clients into diagnostic categories leading to omission of strengths; and it places emphasis on a power differential between client and therapist (which some view as a pro).

Assessment needs to be a complete picture of the client, one that examines all of the vicissitudes of life. Rashid and Ostermann drive this point home with examples of several character strengths that might be focused on, in addition to the areas of struggle psychotherapists automatically explore:
  • Compassion, not just transgressions
  • Genuine actions of sharing, not just selfishness
  • Gratitude moments, not just grudges
  • Forgiveness experiences, not just episodes of vengeance+
  • Compromises, not just conflicts
  • Humility, not just hubris
  • Self-restraint, not just examples of haste
  • Love and loving relationships, not solely relationships of negativity or hate
  • Growth from trauma, not solely the pain of trauma
Other research: Strength-based assessment is viewed as exploring what is strong to complement what is wrong (Duckworth, Steen, & Seligman, 2005). One positive assessment model emphasizes a focus on four areas:

1.) Deficiencies of the client that contribute to her/his problems

2.) Strengths and assets of the person

3.) Deficits and destructive factors in the environment

4.) Resources and opportunities in the environment (Wright & Lopez, 2002)

Practical use: Rashid and Ostermann offer several practical strategies for integrating a strengths-based perspective in assessment:
  • Use a validated strengths assessment instrument to assess a specific construct (e.g., Hope Scale) or a variety of character strengths (e.g., VIA-IS).
  • Use guiding questions during the initial interview (e.g., What gives you a sense of meaning? What are your thoughts and feelings when you see someone commit an act of kindness?)
  • Use icons from popular films (e.g., Forrest Gump) or narratives of inspiring people (e.g., Mother Teresa) to serve as strength models.
  • Assess (through observation and questions) flourishing – assessing both psychological well-being (e.g., positive affect, self-acceptance, autonomy) and social well-being (e.g., social contribution, social integration)
  • Use Positive Introduction, a strategy in which the client introduces his/herself through a story about functioning at his or her best or at a peak moment
  • After assessing strengths, question strengths engagement and discuss the translation of strengths into concrete behaviors.
Niemiec’s comments for practitioners: The majority of psychologists’ initial visits with clients is focused on the client’s presenting problem, their illnesses, past conflicts, areas of struggle, and history and dynamics relating to potential diagnostic conditions; any standard psychological assessment measures given are likely to also focus predominately on assessing and diagnosing psychopathology (e.g., MMPI-2, MCMI-3, Rorschach, TAT). This article begs the question: how about a 50-50 split? Spend half the initial assessment or testing experience focusing on getting an accurate diagnosis and sense for what is wrong and spend the other half focusing on understanding the client’s character strengths, positive emotional experiences, and the mechanisms by which the client has overcome challenges in their life. The data will be that much richer and the clinician will have essentially delivered a positive, impacting intervention (e.g., strengths naming) right at the onset of treatment.

Also useful in this article is the case formulation that Rashid & Ostermann discuss to help the clinician apply strength-based assessment in his or her work. They discuss the case of a clinically depressed woman who identified her character strengths with the VIA-IS. Through the psychotherapy process, the clinician and client focused on building, nurturing, and maintaining strengths initially discovered from this assessment measure and her depression lessened.