In clinical applications, models or modeling approaches from mainstream cognitive science are imported and adapted. Properties of performance include response accuracy (e., correctness in identifying specified items as members of visual arrays or previously memorized item sets), response speed (e., latency from trial commencement to response registration), and response type (e., item classification as new vs. previously encountered, or more vs. less desirable; rating of similarity between items; and so on). One or some combination of these response properties become the empirical anchors of prediction and explanation.The most productive models arguably are those whose formats comprise formal deductive systems (see, e., Braithwaite, Press). Reasoning in such systems is conveyed by specified rules, as exemplified in computer languages, symbolic logic, and mathematical derivations. The latter tack represents the chief formal modus operandi brought to bear on clinical cognitive assessment. Quantitative formal logical- deductive systems are deemed to lodge explanatory constructs that can be recruited to the service of the desired explanation, measurement and prediction. By the very nature of the aims of the clinical- assessment enterprise, performance models of most immediate relevance justifiably are quantitative. If individual client assessment is a desideratum of clinical cognitive science, quantitative models are indicated all the more.A major component of almost any formal performance model is its architecture, or structure. This property comprises the arrangement of theoretical cognitive processing operations. To illustrate, the encoding of physical item features into a format facilitating collateral cognitive activities (e., memorial manipulations of item associations) may proceed in serial (successive feature encoding), parallel (“simultaneous” feature encoding), or possibly as a serial-parallel hybrid, comprising some combination of the parallel-serial constructions. Relations among constituents of any number of “processing composites,” such as the visual, memory, and response functions ostensibly mediating item classification, may be fashioned in like manner.Another prominent feature of many formal models involves their parameters. 1 A parameter is “an arbitrary constant whose value affects the specific nature but not the formal
Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 57–87.
Borowski, E. J., & Borwein, J. M. (1999). Collins dictionary of mathematics. London: HarperCollins.
Braithwaite, R. B. (1968). Scientific explanation. London: Cambridge University Press.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Stout, J. C. (2002). A contribution of cognitive decision models to clinical assessment: Decomposing performance on the Bechara gambling task. Psychological Assessment, 14, 253–272.
Chechile, R. A. (1987). Trace susceptibility theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 116, 203–222.
Chechile, R. A. (1998). A new method for estimating model parameters for multinomial data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 432–471.
Flanagan, O. (1991). Science of the mind (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maher, B. A. (2002). An afterword: The utility of cognitive models for the field of psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 14, 304–310.
McFall, R. M., & Townsend, J. T. (1998). Foundations of psychological assessment: Implications for cognitive assessment in clinical science. Psychological Assessment, 10, 316–330.
Neufeld, R. W. J., Vollick, D., Carter, J. R., Boksman, K., & Jetté, J. (2002). Application of stochastic modeling to the assessment of group and individual differences in cognitive functioning. Psychological Assessment, 14, 279–298.
Siegle, G. J., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2002). Using connectionist models to guide assessment of psychological disorder. Psychological Assessment, 14, 263–278.
Treat, T. A., McFall, R. M., Viken, R. J., Nosofsky, R. M., MacKay, D. B., & Kruschke, J. K. (2002). Assessing clinically relevant perceptual organization with multidimensional scaling techniques. Psychological Assessment, 14, 239–252.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples