Critical Elements of Research and Clinical Formulation milestone 2 Ess

Critical Elements of Research and Clinical Formulation milestone 2 Ess Critical Elements of Research and Clinical Formulation February 10,2019 Critical Elements of Research and Clinical Formulation In order to understand Ms. Z's results of the MMPI-2 and WAIS-IV we need to obtain a theoretically-based description of the information acquired from these clinical assessments. To achieve this examining research to gain an understanding of and determining why these two particular tests were chosen is necessary. The information gathered and looking at the critical elements of the results will lead to understanding Ms. Z's issues with mental health along with the proper steps that need to be taken for a positive outcome. Test and Assessment Development Analysis: Test One Analyzing and Interpreting Scores With the MMPI-2 an individual answers true, false, or cannot say to a series of 567 questions. The answers are scored on four validity scales which assess the client's general test-taking manner and if they answered truthful and accurately and ten clinical scales that measure ten major types of abnormal human behavior segmented into three general categories: Basic Scales, Supplemental Scales and Content Scales (MacCluskie, Toman, Welfel, 2002). The MMPI-2 is scored by translating raw scores into uniform T scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Characteristically, when a T score of 60 or greater on clinical scales do cause concern to the clinician, however T scores of 65 or greater are believed to be high and signify psychological distress or dysfunction (MacCluskie et al., 2002). Cultural Concerns Originally the MMPI was introduced in the 1940s and was used to diagnosis mental disorders but soon became a tool for evaluating personality because of its simplicity and wellestablished validity in measuring clinical symptoms and disorders it was used quite often (Kumar, 2015). Conversely, this test was void of the addition of culture, the standardization sample left out ethnic minorities, and was considered racially biased (Kumar, 2015). In the 1980's, revisions were made and the MMPI-2 was developed concentrating on a more culturally fitting version (e.g., translations in several languages, standardizing population norms, and revisiting items containing racial bias). However, it continued to have a shortage of diversity and assessment research. Consequently, literature is extremely limited by concentrating on culturally adjusted norms and language translation as a means of generating culturally proficient multicultural personality evaluations (Kumar, 2015). Ethical Issues Ethical issues with the MMPI-2 is vulnerable to a variety of biases related to self-judgement and self-consciousness of the questions if front of an assessor cited (Kumar, 2015). However, many psychometric methods have been developed to exclude such biases, researchers acknowledge the statement "personality is so personal' that biases are never easy to statistically control" (Kumar, 2015, p. 241). Methods of Interpreting and Communicating Results A computerized method yields the best results for scoring and interpreting data for the MMPI-2. If an individual attempt to hand score the MMPI-2 it is easier for clinicians to accidently miss one of the several categories and the results will be off (Cohen Swerdlik, 2017). Furthermore, it is labor intensive, while scoring with a computer, a clinician can decide how they would believe the results should read. "Computer output may range from a simple numerical and graphic presentation of scores to a highly detailed narrative report complete with analysis of scores on selected supplementary scales" (Cohen Swerdlik, 2017, p. 388). Test and Assessment Development Analysis: Test Two Analyzing and Interpreting Scores The results of the WAIS-IV there is an option of paper and pencil or have it scored through software computer program. An age-based conversion charts are provided for converting subtest raw scores to scaled scores, there is a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3 (Climie Rostad, 2011). A composite standard score is calculated by use of the scaled scores and is based on all 10 core subtests (FSIQ) in addition to the individual four indexes (VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI) which contain the respective core subtests with a composite score mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (Climie Rostad, 2011). The Composite Score is the individuals IQ score, composite scores are interpreted as follows: Scores 130 and above are very superior scores 120-129 are considered superior and very superior scores 90-109 is reflected as average scores 80-89 are low average scores 70-79 are borderline scores 69 and lower are considered particularly