reply to each post with 100 words as if you are me and reply hello (person name)
no generic replies. Each reply should have seprate references
post 1
Introduction
As a forensic psychologist evaluating an individual’s competency to stand trial, the selection of appropriate assessment tools is crucial (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). The goal is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the individual’s psychological functioning, which includes personality, psychopathology, and cognitive abilities. Among the tests listed – the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), 16 Personality Factors (16PF), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), Rorschach Inkblot Test, and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)—the MMPI-2 would be the most appropriate choice for this evaluation. Here’s a detailed explanation of my selection and the rationale for excluding the other tests (Chandler, 1990).
Selected Test
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)
Rationale:
Comprehensive Psychopathological Assessment: The MMPI-2 is a well-established and widely used objective measure that assesses a broad range of psychopathological conditions, including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. This is essential for determining the mental state of the defendant and their ability to understand the trial proceedings and assist in their defense (Frick, Barry, & Kamphaus, 2010).
Empirical Validation: The MMPI-2 has strong psychometric properties, including high reliability and validity, making it a dependable tool for forensic evaluations.
Standardization: The MMPI-2 has been normed on diverse populations, including forensic settings, which enhances the interpretability of the results in the context of competency evaluations.
Legal Precedent: The MMPI-2 is frequently used in forensic contexts and has a substantial body of research supporting its use in assessing competency to stand trial, making its findings more likely to be accepted in court.
Excluded Tests
1. California Psychological Inventory (CPI)
Focus on Normal Personality Traits: The CPI primarily assesses personality traits in normal populations rather than psychopathological conditions. While useful for understanding general personality functioning, it is less suited for identifying severe mental health issues that could impact competency.
Lack of Forensic Utility: The CPI is not commonly used in forensic settings, and its relevance to legal standards for competency to stand trial is limited compared to the MMPI-2 (Holtzman, & Swartz, 2003).
2. 16 Personality Factors (16PF)
General Personality Assessment: Like the CPI, the 16PF assesses normal personality traits and is more suited to understanding individual differences in non-clinical populations. It lacks specific scales for assessing severe psychopathology (Friedman, & Schustack, 2012).
Limited Forensic Application: The 16PF is not typically used in forensic evaluations and lacks the extensive research base and legal acceptance of the MMPI-2 in these contexts.
3. Rorschach Inkblot Test
Subjectivity and Interpretation Variability: The Rorschach is a projective test that relies heavily on the clinician’s interpretation, which can introduce subjectivity and variability in results. This subjectivity can be problematic in forensic settings where objective and replicable findings are crucial.
Controversial Validity and Reliability: While some clinicians value the rich qualitative data the Rorschach can provide, its psychometric properties (reliability and validity) are often questioned, making it less suitable for high-stakes forensic evaluations.
4. Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
Projective Nature and Subjectivity: Similar to the Rorschach, the TAT is a projective test that relies on the interpretation of ambiguous stimuli. This can lead to subjective results that may vary significantly between different examiners (Rabin, 1986).
Lack of Standardization: The TAT lacks standardized administration and scoring procedures, which can undermine the reliability and validity of the findings in a forensic context.
Additional Measurements
To supplement the MMPI-2 and provide a more comprehensive evaluation, the following additional assessments might be considered:
1. Competency Assessment Instruments:
MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA): This structured interview assesses the defendant’s understanding of legal proceedings, ability to appreciate their situation, and capacity to assist counsel. It is specifically designed for competency evaluations.
Competency Screening Test (CST): This brief screening tool assesses the defendant’s understanding of court procedures and ability to participate in their defense.
2. Cognitive Assessment:
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS): To assess the defendant’s cognitive functioning, which can be crucial in understanding their ability to comprehend and participate in legal proceedings.
Conclusion
In summary, the MMPI-2 is selected for its comprehensive assessment of psychopathology, strong empirical support, and acceptance in forensic settings. The CPI and 16PF are excluded due to their focus on normal personality traits and limited forensic utility. The Rorschach and TAT are excluded due to their subjective nature and questionable psychometric properties. Additional tools like the MacCAT-CA and WAIS can provide further insights into the defendant’s competency to stand trial, ensuring a thorough and balanced evaluation.
References
Chandler, L. A. (1990). The projective hypothesis and the development of projective techniques for children. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of Psychological and Educational Assessment of Children: Personality, Behavior, & Context (pp. 55-69). Guilford Press.
Cohen, R. J. & Swerdlik, M. E. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurements (9th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Frick, P. J., Barry, C. T., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2010). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior. Springer.
Friedman, H. S., & Schustack, M. W. (2012). Personality: Classic theories and modern research (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Holtzman, W. H., & Swartz, J. D. (2003). Use of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) with children. In C. R. Reynolds& R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of Psychological and Educational Assessment of Children: Personality, Behavior, & Context (2nd Ed. pp. 198-218). Guilford Press.
Rabin, A. I. (1986). Concerning projective techniques. In A. I. Rabin (Ed.), Projective Techniques for Adolescents and Children (pp. 3-13). Springer.
Post 2
Brianna Mendenhall posted Jun 18, 2024 3:36 PM
According to our lessons this week, when assessing personality objective personality measures are preferred, as they are self-reported and have restricted answers allowing for limited knowledge in test administrators, and a test admin is not even necessary. This means that the results should be as objective as possible, whereas projective tests do require test administrator knowledge and may be scored differently based on the admin. When referring to an individual’s competency to stand trial, they must be mentally able to understand what their lawyer is telling them, and have a rational and factual understanding of the charges that s/he is facing (Kirkish & Sreenivasan, 1999). A defendant may be declared incapable of standing trial if they are not mentally able to do these two things, leading to a mental health diagnosis instead of or in addition to their charges. If there is a chance that they may have a mental disorder, then the first step would be to determine if there is a mental disorder and then to determine if that disorder affects either competency to stand trial (Kirkish & Sreenivasan, 1999).
The MMPI was developed in the 1940s and revised to the MMPI-II in the 80s, using a empirical test construction which bases test scales on each testing item that answers differentiate ‘normal’ people from those with anxiety disorders, not allowing for individuals to fake responses or attempt to lead the administrator astray. It was also based on empirical research which makes it more valid than a battery assessment based on assumptions. There are nine validity scales that continue to guard against faking responses and was normed using a large sample of 2600 (Drayton, 2009). The scores of each individual question does not matter for indications of disorders, but the pattern of scores across sub scales does help indicate disorders.
The California personality inventory was published in 1957 and was structured similar to the MMPI (including 158 items which also are on the MMPI-II) but was designed for ‘normal’ populations, and was not meant to be used to diagnosis disorders, rather just to understand day to day behaviors (Donnay & Elliott, year??). This was not the assessment I chose because it was meant for normal populations, and if someone is not fit to stand trial, then they are not normal. This may be a good backup test if the MMPI-II shows no results and I wanted to get a second opinion of sorts, to ensure that they are indeed on the normal ranges, but it would not be my first choice. This would be a good test for an employer to use as it also measures the test-taker’s strengths and can accurately be used to determine if someone will be a good leader or performance in training programs, but not for if someone is fit to stand trial. There is also an overlap in some of the scales of the test, measuring similar things multiple times.
The 16 personality factors assessment was developed in 1949 using previous work on the field of personality testing and taxonomy and consists of 185 items. This, like the CPI was developed to measure normal personalities, and understand the basic elements of personality. This assessment has proven to be very valid for multiple countries and languages, in part due to the fact that in development, researchers from around the world each played a part. The most recent revision has pulled from the previous three, making the item pool simpler and shorter and taking into account gender and cultural differences (Cattell & Mead, 2008). The items in this test are also very straightforward and easy to manipulate. As a result of the easy manipulation and the fact that it was developed to test normal personalities, I would not chose this to understand someone’s fitness to stand trial. If there is a question of whether someone is fit to stand trial, then they likely have some type of mental issue, and as a result could try to sway the results in order to get a lesser sentence, and an assessment geared towards those who are not considered normal would be more reliable here.
The Rorschach Inkblot test is used to determine a psychodiagnosis based on what individuals see when looking at differently shaped inkblots. The idea is that the unconscious is brought out by looking at the inkblots, and that what people see will be what their unconscious sees. There is a lack of both internal and external validity for this test, leading to it being very controversial (Ricardo Vieira Teles, 2020). This test is also hard to fake and is useful for those who have a hard time with speech, or articulating their feelings and memories. The scoring is so subjective though, that I would not use this assessment for something as important as if someone could stand trial or not, as a different analyzer could easily come up with a different response than me.
The Thematic Apperception Test has been in use since the 1930s and is a projective test that was popular in the second world war as it claims to reveal an individual’s unconscious (miller, 2015). It uses a series of photographs that the subject has to turn into a story, which makes it harder to evaluate consistently, and as a result has a lower validity just as the Rorschach Inkblot test does. For this reason, I would not select this assessment because I would want an assessment with a high validity that is also straightforward in evaluation.
References
Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 135–159). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n7
Donnay, D., & Elliott, T. (2003, January). (PDF) California personality inventory. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259187038_California_Personality_Inventory
Drayton, M. (2009, March). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), Occupational Medicine, Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 135-136, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqn182
Kirkish, P., & Sreenivasan, S. (1999). Neuropsychological assessment of competency to stand trial evaluations: A practical conceptual model. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27(1), 101–113.
Miller, J. (2015, March). Dredging and projecting the depths of personality: The Thematic Apperception Test and the narratives of the unconscious. Science in context. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25832568/
Teles, R. V. (2020). Hermann Rorschach: From Klecksography to psychiatry. Dementia & neuropsychologia. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077865/
post 3
Miranda Munoz posted Jun 18, 2024 4:38 PM
Question: Of the tests listed, California Psychological Inventory, 16 Personality Factors (16PF), Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory- II (MMPI-II), Rorschach Inkblot Test, and the Thematic Apperception Test, which would you include? Integrating examples and ideas from your readings and research this week, explain your position. Please provide a rationale as to why you did not select the other three measures; additionally, are there other measurements that might provide additional insight?
Answer: Of the tests listed the one I selected I would like to include, California Psychological Inventory, and the Thematic Apperception Test.
California Psychological Inventory: Are used to gain a clear understanding of an individual’s personal work-related behavior, motivation and thinking patterns (Heroy et al., 2024). This test can break down four different patterns of lifestyles and describe the individual most accurately while being able to predict a unique perspective on how the individual conduct themselves, and how they react to others. This measure claims to have the upmost understanding of the individual that is undergoing a trial. The CPI not only describes a person by breaking down their patterns but also identifies key characteristics of that person while in different settings.
16 Personality Factors (16PF): This measure claims that personality can fall into one of 16 categories. While analyzing an individual, I wouldn’t say that this measure is too limiting, yet compared to the CPI it has more limited data. This is also a measure that has a history of adaptation to its origins and theory. This measure is mainly used for career counseling, marital counseling, and in business for employee testing and selection (Cherry, 2023). This measure consists of forced choice questions, in which an individual must choose 1 of 3 alternative options.
Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory- II (MMPI-II): This measure claims to be the most common method or test to access personality traits as well as psychopathy. While this measure does test for psychopathy, it also creates or captures data that can be linked to other conditions as well. While researching this measure there is a graph comprising of an x and y axis used to plot data with 4 content scales, used for judging validity in the data and 10 clinical scales which are used to detect psychiatric symptoms (Floyd, 2023). The Y axis used for detecting psychiatric symptoms is rated 0-120. A normal individual is ranked anywhere from 30-70. With a score that is higher than 70, is an indicator that the individual has major indicators of psychopathy.
Rorschach Inkblot Test: I believe that this test is the most common or well known of all tests measuring for a person’sunconscious thoughts, motives, or desires (Cherry, 2023). This measure is used in psychotherapy and counseling, yet it is not as used as frequently compared to the past. Practitioners use the test in different ways compared to organizations. Practitioners goal with this test is to gain qualitative information about individual’s which can include, personality, emotional functions, as well as thinking patterns. While organizations will use it to measure characteristics such as creativity, intelligence, temperament and much more (Cherry, 2023).
Thematic Apperception Test: In this measure, participants are held to reveal their attitudes, feelings, conflicts, and personality characteristics in the spoken or written stories they make up about a series of ambiguous black-and-white pictures (A., 2024). It is important to note an important step in this test is to tell the patient that there are no wrong answers, to get the most accurate results, and that the story has to have a start, middle and end. This exam is one of the most used, and researched measures, that can be used in clinical settings for diagnosing disorders, describing personality, as well as measuring the individual’s strengths and weaknesses (A., 2024).
Why I chose these Measures:
I chose this measure, the Thematic Apperception Test due to the fact that this allowed patients to feel more confident in their answers. By already stating a baseline that nothing they choose is wrong, I feel like it helps in promoting honesty. You can use this measure in a variety of settings in which could prove quite helpful for the trial.
I also selected the California Psychological Inventory, due to the fact that this measurement can assess not only a person’s life as others see it, but also within the workplace. I feel as though when people are at work they exhibit differing personalities, such as a, “customer service voice” and his just promotes a false idea of how someone can really be. Especially someone who already has problems by being apart of a trial. It is crucial to be able to pick apart the individual to learn more about them.
Why I did not choose these Measures:
I did not choose the Rorschach Inkblot Test due to it feeling outdated. I feel that this test is well known today, but was heavily popular over 20 years ago. For this reason I believe that an updated test would make a better measure. The reason I did not select the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory- II (MMPI-II) was due to feeling that the other measures had an accurate value and measurements for the data that could be presented in trial. I do think that this has the potential to be an asset, yet I liked the information and results of the other measures. I also did not select the 16 Personality Factors (16PF) measure due to it being incredibly limiting. While only offering 16 options that the individual had to fit, I felt as though there was a better way to be able to gain insight on an individual’s personality.
References:
A., A. P. (2024). Apa Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/thematic-apperception-test
Cherry, K. (2023, April 6). Does the Rorschach inkblot test really work?. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-rorschach-inkblot-test-2795806
Cherry, K. (2023, January 16). Analyzing personality factors for counseling and Career Guidance. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/cattells-16-personality-factors-2795977
Floyd, A. E. (2023, April 24). Minnesota Multiphasic personality inventory. StatPearls [Internet]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557525/
Heroy, C., Assessment, D. of C., McClenning, L., Director, U., Villafane, J., & Development, L. (2024). The Myers-Briggs Company. https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US/Products-and-Services/CPI
