Research and Clinical Formulation

docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

550

Subject

Psychology

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by KidBee3930

Report
Research and Clinical Formulation 1 Research and Clinical Formulation Department of Psychology, Southern New Hampshire University PSYC: 550 Measurement & Assessment Bill Anderson, Ph.D. 11/05/2023
Research and Clinical Formulation 2 Test and Assessment Development Analysis: Test One The composite rankings of the subtest sum for every of the 4 scales, verbal comprehension (VCI), perceptual reasoning(PRI), working memory (WMI), and processing speed (PSI), create the index scores for each scale (Wechsler, 2008). The mean of the four subset scores is the overall full-scale IQ (FSIQ). The general ability index (GAI) is an average of only the VCI and PRI. Typically, the FSIQ would be used as a measure of overall intelligence, however, if the difference among the best subtest and lowest subtest rankings are more than 23 the GAI have to be used but only if the difference between the VCI and PRI scores are no greater than 23 (Wechsler, In the case that the sub-score differences for either the FSIQ or GAI are greater than 23, neither single score is a meaningful measure. The index scores for each of the four scales—verbal comprehension (VCI), perceptual reasoning (PRI), working memory (WMI), and processing speed (PSI)—are derived from the composite scores of the subtest sums (Wechsler, 2008). The overall full-scale IQ (FSIQ) is the mean of the four subset scores. Just the VCI and PRI are averaged to create the general ability index (GAI). FSIQ is used to gauge overall intelligence. However, the GAI should only be used if the difference between the VCI and PRI scores is not more than 23. This is because the highest and lowest subtest scores differ more than 23 (Wechsler, 2008). Test and Assessment Development Analysis: Test One Three categories comprise the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III) cut scores. Depending on the client's response style, the test's raw scores are translated into a base rate score (Millon et al., 2006). Normal ranges are 0 to 74, with 60 serving as the median and 115 as the highest possible score. A persistent, significant personality disorder or clinical issue is
Research and Clinical Formulation 3 indicated by a score of 85 or higher, while a score of 75 to 84 indicates a significant personality trait or mental health issue. When it comes to personality evaluation, there are numerous significant cultural concerns. Language barriers may arise if the test has been translated or if the client speaks more than one language. Certain words and phrases do not translate well, and meanings can be lost during the translation process (Cohen et al., 2021). Additionally, there can be issues with appropriateness if the test is administered to individuals from a culture other than the one for which it was normed. Both the assessor and the testing tool need to be sensitive to cultural differences in values, worldviews, identities, and acculturation. The test user's qualification, accurate data reporting, and refraining from abusing the test or its results are ethical concerns about test administration. The test-taker also has the right to confidentiality and privacy, as well as the right to informed consent and notification of test results (Cohen et al., 2021). Clinical Formulation The following are Ms. G's WAIS-IV intelligence scores in comparison to her peers: PSI 81 (CI 76-88) low average, WMI 108 (CI 101-114) average, PRI 82 (CI 77-89) low average, and VCI 107 (CI 101-112) average. The use of FSIQ is not recommended due to the 27-point discrepancy between WMI and PSI. GAI should also not be used because there is a 25-point difference between VCI and PRI. Each subtest needs to be examined separately to accurately represent Ms. G's intelligence; a single score is insufficient (Wechsler, 2008). According to Weiss et al. (2010), Ms. G can understand spoken stimuli and express her ideas verbally. By focusing, paying attention to stimuli, and momentarily retaining information in her mind, she can effectively use her working memory. Her information-processing abilities which include perceptual organization, fluid reasoning, and the use of visual stimuli and graphomotor skills are
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
Research and Clinical Formulation 4 on par with or slightly below those of her peers. On the MCMI-III assessment, which measures response tendencies linked to specific personality patterns under axis I conditions, Ms. G obtained a significant score of 75 for desirability. She had significant scores on the schizoid (81), depressive (75), dependent (81), masochistic/self-defeating (80), and moderate personality disorder scales (axis II). She obtained a major depressive score of 79 on the severe syndrome scale (axis I). Her exceptionally high anxiety score of 85 on the moderate clinical syndrome scale (axis I) indicates that this is a persistent and fundamental problem. These results point to the possibility that Ms. G has 301.8.3 borderline personality disorder, 296.21 mild or 296.22 moderate major depressive disorder, and 300.02 generalized anxiety disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Research and Clinical Formulation 5 References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Cohen, R. J., Schneider, W. J., and Tobin, R. (2021).  Psychological testing and assessment  (10 th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Custom. ISBN: 978-1-265-84864-4 Millon, T., Millon, C., Davis, R., & Grossman, S. (2006). MCMI-III Manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Education, Inc. Suzuki, L. A., Naqvi, S., & Hill, J. S. (2014). Assessing intelligence in a cultural context. In F. T. L. Leong, L. Comas-Díaz, G. C. Nagayama Hall, V. C. McLoyd, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural psychology, Vol. 1: Theory and research . (pp. 247–266). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wechsler, D. (2008). WAIS-IV Administration and Scoring Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation Weiss, L. G., Coalson, D., Raiford, S. E., & Saklofske, D. H. (2010). WAIS-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives. [electronic resource]. Academic Press.