Writing Stories with Four Hands in Psychological Assessment

Therapy without assessment is often likened to a ship without a rudder, while assessment without therapy is compared to a ship without a harbor. These metaphors contain some truth, but they don’t always fit every situation. Therapy can certainly progress in many cases without extensive psychological testing, and the assessment process itself can sometimes be therapeutic, even eliminating the need for further therapy. However, this analogy points to a deeper difference in how therapists and assessment psychologists often approach their work—particularly in how they understand and define truth.

At the heart of this distinction is the difference between positivist and post-positivist approaches to understanding human experience. Many traditional forms of psychological assessment operate from a positivist epistemology, which assumes that there is an objective reality that can be measured and understood through scientific inquiry. In this framework, tests are designed to reveal these objective truths about a person’s inner life—whether about personality, cognition, or emotional functioning.

In contrast, many therapists, particularly those with humanistic, narrative, or psychodynamic orientations, may operate from more post-positivist or constructivist traditions, which emphasize that all knowledge is filtered through subjective experience. In this view, truth is not a fixed reality to be measured, but something co-constructed and shaped by personal narratives, cultural contexts, and interpersonal relationships.

The Traditional View of Psychological Assessment

Traditional psychological assessment tends to adopt a positivist approach, where the goal is to gather information and measure internal psychological states as objectively as possible. This model assumes that by using standardized tests, psychologists can access and quantify the “truth” of a person’s inner life. While there is great value in this objective data, it can be incomplete if removed from the client’s lived experiences and personal context.

As Wright (2024) observed, psychological assessment has historically centered its validity inquiry on the tests themselves, often leading to decontextualized interpretations of data. This epistemological focus on objective, measurable truth can strip away the client’s subjectivity, making the process feel almost dehumanizing. By prioritizing test scores over personal narratives, assessment may come across as cold or impersonal, contributing to a perception that it is disconnected from the lived realities of clients.

The assumption that objective truth can be cleanly separated from subjective experience reflects a pure positivism that some now see as limited. While objective data is certainly useful, post-positivist perspectives remind us that test data can only be meaningfully understood as one part of a larger picture. When assessment is done without consideration for clients’ personal experiences, it risks being perceived as impersonal or even paternalistic. Put differently, test data provide a map of the territory; clinicians shouldn’t confuse it for the territory itself.

Writing Stories with Four Hands

Collaborative Therapeutic Assessment (CTA) provides a framework that blends both positivist and post-positivist perspectives, acknowledging the importance of objective data while centering the client’s subjective reality. CTA begins with the premise that while psychologists are experts in tests and data, clients are the experts on their own lives. By working together, they can co-create a richer, more accurate understanding of the client’s story—one that integrates both lived experience and psychometric evidence.

Filippo Aschieri (2012) described this process as “writing stories with four hands.” In this model, clients bring their personal narratives, which are often clouded by self-criticism, shame, or incomplete understanding, while psychologists contribute insights derived from objective testing. Through collaboration, the assessor and client co-edit these stories, creating a new narrative that reflects both the subjective world of the client and the objective insights from psychological testing.

This process aligns with the post-positivist emphasis on epistemological pluralism, which recognizes that truth is best understood by integrating multiple perspectives. In CTA, this is referred to as epistemological triangulation—the blending of narratives from both the client, who ‘writes with personal meaning,’ and the psychologist, who ‘writes with numbers,’ to collaboratively ‘write stories with four hands.’

Relevant to this process is the concept of ‘life validity,’ a term coined by Fischer and Finn (2014) to emphasize the importance of contextualizing test results within the client’s personal life story and current circumstances. This stands in contrast to decontextualized score interpretations, which may ignore the broader emotional, relational, and cultural dimensions of the client's life. By focusing on life validity, CTA moves beyond a strictly positivist approach, ensuring that the data resonates meaningfully within the client's lived reality.

The Benefits of Collaborative Therapeutic Assessment

By integrating both positivist and post-positivist perspectives, CTA offers clients a more holistic understanding of themselves. It not only provides them with objective data but also helps them use that data to reshape personal narratives in ways that are compassionate and empowering.

This process can be particularly powerful for clients who have struggled with negative or self-limiting beliefs. Through CTA, they can begin to reframe their understanding of themselves, incorporating the insights from psychological testing into a broader, more compassionate story of who they are.

Research shows that CTA is effective in improving clients' self-understanding and emotional well-being. It also aligns with the therapeutic goals of many practitioners who believe that assessment can—and should—be more than just information-gathering; it can also serve as a transformative experience that promotes healing.

Conclusion

Psychological assessment, when done collaboratively and contextually, doesn’t have to be cold or detached. By blending the objective rigor of tests with the rich subjective narratives of clients’ lives, Collaborative Therapeutic Assessment offers a way to “write stories with four hands.” This approach honors both positivist and post-positivist epistemologies, recognizing that truth is not one-dimensional but emerges from the intersection of data and experience.

Whether you're a therapist in Carmel, Indianapolis, or the broader Central Indiana area considering referring a client for assessment, or a prospective client yourself, know that our goal is not just to collect data, but to help co-create a meaningful, accurate, and supportive understanding of your life. Together, we’ll write your story—using both numbers and narratives—to guide you toward greater understanding and self-compassion.

References

Aschieri, F. (2012). Epistemological and ethical challenges in standardized testing and collaborative assessment. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 52(3), 350-368.

Fischer, C. T., & Finn, S. E. (2014). Developing the life meanings of psychological test data: Collaborative and therapeutic approaches. In R. P. Archer & S. R. Smith (Eds.), Personality Assessment, 2nd Edition (pp. 401-431). Routledge.

Wright, A. J. (2024). Queering psychological assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000594.

Suggestion for Further Reading

Fantini, F., Aschieri, F., David, R. M., Martin, H., & Finn, S. E. (2022). Therapeutic Assessment with Adults: Using Psychological Testing to Help Clients Change. Routledge.