The Key Reason Behind Therapists And Clinicians Performing Psychology

Intelligence as defined by the Cambridge dictionary is the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason.1 There is much debate and controversy on this subject and psychologists do not all agree upon a standard definition. Yet, one of the very first definitions of intelligence was developed by the psychologists responsible for the development of the first intelligence test, Binet and Simon (1905) who argued that the essence of intelligence is: ‘to judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well’.2 Another sample definition was provided later by Heim, in 1970, who argued that ‘intelligent activity consists in grasping the essentials in a situation and responding appropriately to them’.3 There are also arguments surrounding how many different types of intelligence there are, as well as the intelligence theories of psychology. However elusive, we can ascertain that all psychologists have universally agreed upon general intelligence (g), an expression devised by the English psychologist Charles Spearman and defined as ‘a mental attribute called on for virtually any task’.4 This essay will inform the reader of the different methods proposed and used by psychologists to assess ability and discuss their evaluations.

The MBTI differs from the more traditional testing and measuring traits, such as intelligence quotient (IQ) testing, in that the MBTI assesses individuals, and then classifies them into specific “types”. Although originally published by the Educational Testing Service, the MBTI protocol is currently controlled and published by the Consulting Psychology Press (CPP). To keep up with changing social standards and norms, CPP continually seeks to improve the MBTI, and as such the assessment is constantly in flux. In years past, there was only one set of official assessment questions. That has changed over time, and at present there are four unique versions of the assessment.

Human intelligence is one of the most complex and abstract things in the world, but because of one test created by Lewis Terman, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, we are able to see it as a small, simple number (Epstein, 1973). An Intelligence Quotient (IQ) Test scores human intelligence on a numerical scale. Within this scale there are several categories which people are placed in as shown in Table 1. These scores, categories, labels, are tidy, easy to remember, and can greatly influence one’s life. They can act almost like a name tag, and become an identifying factor wherever you go.

Since our personalities aren’t influenced by one factor The MMPI with some revisions influenced the development of tests and measurements by providing the ability to conduct objective testing across 10 clinical scales which assess 10 major categories of abnormal human behavior, and four validity scales, which assess the person’s general test-taking attitude

The lack of physical symptoms of intellectual disability makes the identification of individuals living with intellectual disabilities an extremely challenging task. Since the advent of the human intelligence measuring scale (Parmenter, 2011), mental health professionals have been using individualized, standardized intelligence testing: Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test (Koriakin et al., 2013; Parmenter, 2011). Despite remarkable contributions to psychology and education fields in particular (Ellis, 2013; Floyd, Reynolds, Farmer, Kranzler, & Volpe, 2013; Neubauer & Opriessnig, 2014), the use of IQ tests has been sharply criticized for their lack of objectivity (Garcia, 2015; Gottfredson & Saklofske, 2009). Seemingly in response to critics, proponents of IQ testings recommend adaptive behavior be assessed along cognitive limitations to enhance the objectivity and credibility of the evaluation outcomes (Parmenter,

Wechsler Intelligence Scales. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) (Wechsler, 2003) was used to evaluate intellectual functioning in the majority (90%) of the children ages 6 to 16. However, some of the children (10%), ages 13 to 18, were evaluated by the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence - Second Edition (WASI-II) (Wechsler, 2011) in addition with the WISC-IV subtests comprising of the working memory (WMI) and processing speed (PSI) indexes.

This paper will cover the historical significance of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale. This scale was originally called the Binet-Simon scale. Albert Binet and Theodore Simon together created this scale. This scale was originally created for children. Intelligence testing became significant in the 21st century as it enabled mainly schools to seek out children who need academic help. However, this test was taken a step further in the 21st century by major corporations who use the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale as a major tool during the hiring process and to determine a person’s

This paper discusses the pros and cons of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III). First, important definitional, theoretical issues, including the nature of intelligence, a brief history, and pros and cons are discussed. Next, the development, reliability, validity, and assets and limitations of the WAIS-III are examined. This is followed by discussion of the meaning of IQ scores, use of successive level interpretation and cautions and guidelines for administration. Last, subtests, assessing special population groups, short forms, profile forms, and what a

Intellectual assessment and intelligence testing refer to the evolution of an individual’s general intellectual functioning and cognitive abilities (Samuel 2004) and also these assessments are de developed using standard procedures where the scores are recorded for the purpose of measuring achievement and compare the results with others in the society (Bordanora, 2001). Some authors stated that the inaccuracy of standard assessment results are caused by cultural bias (Klenowski 2009, Laros & Tellegen 2004, Bernhard 2000 and Schellenberg 2004). Also others taken into considering developmental factors of this issue (McCauley 2004). Comparison of the study, issues and research are most likely to convince cultural bias of the outcomes. Rest of

Personality is a complex combination of factors that has been developed over a person’s entire childhood and young adulthood. There are genetic, environmental and social components to personality. A person’s personalities are not shaped by a single influence. Therefore tests that measure personality take into account this complexity and rich texture. The two primary types of personality tests are objective and projective. Objective tests include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), the 16PF, and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III). Projective tests include the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and the Draw-a-Person test (Framingharm,

The objective of intelligence tests is to assess an individual’s intellectual potential as it pertains to academia. The tests focus on a collection of subtests designed to generate a score, which is then compared to a standard intelligence score (significance of score varies among different tests). There are a variety of intelligence tests that were made to measure different abilities. Although these differing tests often explore aspects that are related to one another, the scores of one respective test is not meant to resemble the scores of another. IQ tests are also used as the first step of diagnosing intellectual deficiencies. If a child scores low, their doctor may also order adaptive skills screening (everyday skills needed to function and meet the demands of one's environment), blood tests, a brain ultrasound, and/or full mental health screening.

"Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristics behavior and though" (Allport, 1961, p. 28). Alongside every hypothesis of identity advancement comes an alternate hypothesis on the best way to gauge it. There are a few objectives towards measuring these, for example, to clear up finding, decide the seriousness of an issue, screen for dangers for future issues, make forecasts of future practices, and help in treatment suggestions. Therefore it is important to look upon the major types of personality tests such as; objects test and projective tests along with the strengths and weaknesses of these tests.

There is an exorbitant amount of focus on standardized cognitive tests in K-12 education today - particularly measures of intelligence and achievement. The usefulness of these tests notwithstanding, they are limited in that they provide an incomplete picture of a student’s abilities and needs. Having worked 14 years as an English teacher at Bergen County Technical School of Paramus (Bergen Tech), a vocational-technical high school with a predominantly special needs population, I find it unfortunate that the educational psychologists with whom I work have in recent years been directed to focus on cognitive tests such as the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, to the exclusion of non-cognitive measures that could provide insight into student emotional health and personality. For school staff endeavoring to help students negotiate the path to adulthood and guide them toward brighter more fulfilling futures, personality assessment could be used to help clarify needs, determine the severity of problems, make predictions about future behaviors, and aid in educational recommendations.

Scientists have been searching for an accurate way to measure intelligence for many years. This search has led to multiple tests that claim to test intelligence. However, due to the many theories of intelligence, these tests vary from simply assessing a person’s knowledge, to testing reasoning skills. However, these tests tend to fail in the most key part in testing intelligence: Intelligence is widely considered a constant characteristic throughout a person’s life, and these scores on the tests can be easily affected by factors such as sickness and practice.

Kaufman and Lichtenberger (1999) posit that the development of the Wechsler tests was not based on theory, except for, general intelligence theory. Instead, Wechsler applied his clinical skills and experience, as well as his extensive statistical training in development of the scales for his intelligence tests (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 1999; Wechsler, 1997). However, extensive theoretical perspectives have been applied to the Wechsler scales, the nature of the tests, and the meaning of their scores. The subtests Wechsler selected for his tests comprises of many different mental abilities such as abstract reasoning, verbal skills, and processing speed. Wechsler recognized that his intelligence scales sampled an individual’s