final project

Running head: RESEARCH AND CLINICAL 1

RESEARCH AND CLINICAL 3

Research and Clinical

NAME

PSY-550-Measurement & Assessment

Dr. Frye

March 19, 2023

Research and Clinical

1. WAIS-IV Cut scores

One hundred assumed to be the average cut score on the WAIS-IV. The outcome is deemed normal within a range of +/- 10 points. It is deemed clinically significant with a score of 69 or lower and at risk for those in the 89-70 range.

2. Considering concerns of culture on WAIS-IV administration efficiency.

The fact that the WAIS-IV assesses mental ability across cultures raises cultural concerns about its use (Jung et al., 2019). What counts as intelligence in one culture may be irrelevant in another, which could impact the final score. In this regard, it is worth noting that African Americans typically fare worse than their Caucasian counterparts. A lower score could also be the result of test-specific language being unfamiliar or difficult to understand for some cultural groups

3. The ethical concerns for administering WAIS-IV

If the directions provided are followed, there should be no ethical concerns with administering the WAIS-IV.

4. Assessment of Appropriateness through Results Interpretation and Communication.

A scale from 1-7 corresponds with a percentile rank of 1-16 and indicates a weakness or a below-average performance. An 8-12 on the scale corresponds to a 25-75th percentile ranking considered average (So et al., 2019). Strength or above-average performance is indicated by a scaled score of 13-19, which corresponds to a percentile rank of 84-99.

Second test (MCMI-III)

1. The cut scores for MCMI-III

Raw scores on the MCMI-III can go as high as 115. The standard score on this test is 60, with zero being the lowest possible result (Andrews et al., 2020). A score of 60 would be considered normal, 75 would indicate an increased risk, and 85 or more would indicate the presence of a personality disorder.

2. Considering concerns of culture on MCMI-III administration efficiency

The extent to which the MCMI-III measures individual versus culture variations, is a cultural issue. Mental health is not universally defined, and neither are cultural standards. For instance, clinical Major Depressive Disorder could be downplayed and underreported in particular cultural contexts. This underscores the significance of keeping in mind that cultural variations are contextual and not always indicative of disease when drawing conclusions from research.

3. The ethical concerns for administering MCMI-III

The MCMI-III should be used exclusively in clinical settings. Ethical questions would be raised if used outside clinical settings (For example, psychiatric).

4. Assessment of Appropriateness through Results Interpretation and Communication.

The Z-score is able to pick up on an individual's inclination to overstate the severity of their mental health issues and the number of problems they're experiencing (Wong, 2019). Using a z-score, a BR > 74 indicates that the respondent may be exaggerating their symptoms to get attention or experiencing severe emotional distress.

The scale T’s item content relates to a propensity for and history of substance misuse, relational difficulties, and impulsivity issues. Those with a BR> 70 are more likely to have previously struggled with substance use.

The relative frequency of each trait measured by the MCMI-III is considered when calculating the percentile ranks.

CLINICAL FORMULATION

a). Analyzing WAIS-IV results using tools of industry standard.

Ms. G's results were quite variable, spanning the range from” Average” to “High Average.” Ms. G scored a ninety-four on the WAIS-Full-Scale IV's IQ (FSIQ) test. According to these results, her level of intelligence was about “average.” On the Processing Speed Index (PSI), which evaluates the speed with which a person can identify objects in a visual field, make decisions, and put those decisions into action; Ms. G scored in the “low-average” range (Moore et al., 2019). Ms. G.'s access to and use of vocabulary was measured by the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), where she performed at an “Average” level. She had a “below average” score on the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), which assesses one's capacity to correctly process, sort correctly, and reason with visual data. She had “above-average” scores on tests measuring visual and auditory information processing abilities (the Visual Spatial Index; VSI) and working memory (the Working Memory Index; WMI). Among Ms. G's indices, there were a few notable deviations that couldn't be explained by chance alone. She was discovered to have much more developed abilities in perceptual reasoning and processing than in verbal comprehension and working memory. On the whole, her current test results indicate some mild cognitive impairment (Terry, 2020).

ii) Analyzing MCMI-III results using tools of industry standard

Ms. G's results were highly variable, spanning from "low average" to "high-average." Significant clinical differences were found between the “Desirability”, 75, ”Schizoid” 81, “Depressive” 75, “Dependent” 81’ “Anxiety” 85, “Major Depressive” 79, and “Masochistic” 80 indices. It is worth noting that there are some notable outliers in Ms. G's indices. In particular, she was found to have much higher than average scores for “Schizoid”, “Major Depressive”, and “Masochistic” traits. Concerns about a major Personality Disorder emerge from her current assessment results.

b). Evidence-based diagnosis

The diagnosis is of “Schizophrenia,” “Generalized Anxiety Disorder”, and “Major Depressive Disorder.”

c) Purpose for referring the patient

From the diagnosis seen, there was indeed a reason for referral. The patient needs to see a psychiatrist for additional evaluation and potential treatment of schizophrenia and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.

References

Andrews, J., & Bender, S. (2020). Millon clinical multiaxial inventory (MCMI).  The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, 287–292.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547167.ch120

Jung, E.-J., & Baek, J.-M. (2019). Validity of the K-WAIS-IV short forms: Focused on clinical utility. CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY IN KOREA: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 5(2), 213–231.  https://doi.org/10.15842/cprp.2019.5.2.213  

Moore, R. A., Lippa, S. M., Brickell, T. A., French, L. M., & Lange, R. T. (2019). Clinical utility of WAIS-IV ‘excessive decline from premorbid functioning’ scores to detect invalid test performance following Traumatic Brain Injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34(3), 512–528.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1668059  

So, L. N., & Choi, J. O. (2019). The validity of K-WAIS-IV Short Form: Clinical Sample. CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY IN KOREA: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 5(3), 255–272.  https://doi.org/10.15842/cprp.2019.5.3.255  

Terry, C., & Lecci, L. (2022). Examining cognitive performance and psychopathology in individuals undergoing parental competency evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 53(2), 160–170.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000436

Wong, P. L., Bertram, R., & Hubbeling, D. (2019). Core study: Different interpretation of the results.  British Journal of Psychiatry,  215(2), 503–503.  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.144