Affordable papers
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) (Buros, 1938) Purpose: It tries to deal with the substance abusers tendency to obscure or deny their substance abuse. Use: It is used to identify people containing high probability of substance dependence or abuse, especially patients in denial. Particularly in a forensic setting: SASSI is employed to identify individuals who are addictive to substances abuse, and those who could have committed an offence as a result of influence of drugs(accounting homework help) Test development and history: SASSI was developed in 1988 by SASSI institute. It was then revised 1998 and in 1994. It’s a one-page, paper and pencil questionnaire, containing 52 True-False questions on one side that appear to be unassociated to chemical abuse. While as on the other side it contains Risk Prediction Scales that permits clients to do a self-report on the 14 drug-associated items and 12 alcohol-associated items. The test can as well be administered orally. Normative information and test statistics: the intended settings include outpatient and inpatient, vocational and educational settings, psychiatric clinics, prisons, jails and courts. It is available online, in print form and computerized self-report. contains subtle Attributes (SAT) or Obvious Attributes (OAT) T-score is over 70 and Subtle Attributes and Obvious Attributes are both above 60 it requires 10-15 minutes for both tests and objective score is obtained after 1 minutes Applicable Population: Adolescence and adults Validity: The author demonstrates that the RPS and SASSI measures each did well in recognizing low defensive late stage abusers who were already implicated in a residential detoxification program as compared to early stage more defensive abusers. The RPS and SASSI combination was the most efficient with all populations. The SASSI independent contribution was cited as the most essential with early stage defensive abuser. The each subscale was demonstrated to independently contribute to the decision rules. Reliability: The internal consistency for a number of SASSI subscales is quite low. Due to Discriminant construction analysis techniques, every subscale except the PAL5, RPSD, and RPSA contains heterogeneous elements instead of items associated to a unitary construct. Malingering or deception: May contain lower prognostic value for African American that Hispanics and Caucasians. Name of the Test: Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, 2nd ed. (KBIT-2) (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1990). Purpose: It is intended as a brief nonverbal and verbal intelligence measures. Use: It is used to evaluate the verbal intelligence of a person Particularly in a forensic setting: In forensic setting it is employed to evaluate the accused intelligent ability to handle the current situation Test development and history: This test was developed in 1990 and has never been renewed. Its development goals include retaining strong features of K-BIT’s, to correct any issues, and to acquire up-to-date norms. It is designed for traditional brief evaluation purposes that include assessing cognitive functioning, carrying out periodic cognitive reevaluations, and screening when it is in a secondary consideration. Normative information and test statistics: KBIT-2 used a standardization sample of 2,120 persons was stratified on educational, geographic region, race-ethnicity level by use of present population survey. A close match was attained except for regions whereby the Northeast was under-sampled, South was overrepresented. The equal representation of gender was employed instead of approximating the rising population of late adulthood female. The 23 normative age groups varied in size with the highest ranging between the age of 5 and 10. Applicable Population: People aged between 4 years and 90 years old. Validity: There are several kinds of construct evidence available for this test. These entail demonstrating no meaningful variations across gender and demonstrating rise in raw scores across age groups. Special group researches revealed mean groups scores that involve aptitude as a key section of their definition had predictable results Reliability: The KBIT-2’s IQ Composite interior consistency of 0.93 across ages (.89 to 96) is good enough and its reliabilities augment with age. The nonverbal and verbal coefficients are relatively lower but in the acceptable range. However, the nonverbal scale coefficient for children aged between 4 and 5 is 0.78. Malingering or deception: can easily deceive especially if the person to be evaluated is nervous Test Name: Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), (Edward et al., 2001) Test purpose: It is administered as group or part of a battery of tests anticipated to assess personality and to reveal person’s drives, conflicts, and emotions. . Uses: Used to elicit information concerning individual’s perception of the world and her or his attitudes toward others and own self. Particularly in a forensic setting: TAT is used to do a comprehensive personality study and in interpretation of psychoses, neuroses, psychosomatic illness, and behavior disorders so as to evaluate the accused competence to stand trials. Test development and history: It was developed in 1935 by Christiana Morgan, Henry Murray, and their colleagues at the Psychological Clinic in Harvard. It has been reviewed twice by the same writers. Normative information and test statistics: It is normally administered to persons in a quiet room that is free from distractions and interruptions. It administered in form of series of cards with series of stories, the story content normally reveals the subject’s outside world view, inner conflicts, wishes, fantasies, and attitudes. The structure characteristically reflects on the subject’s underlying pessimism or optimism attitude, assumptions regarding the world, and feelings. Applicable populations: Individuals between 5 and 79 years old Validity: the accessible data on reliability do not raise huge expectation about its validity. It has been established that no important association between TAT stories content and overt aggression. The Hostile Sentence Completion test scored high with both extreme non-aggressor and extreme aggressors and low with moderates. Reliability: Reliability is considered a thorny issue. Some contain sought to evaluate reliability in interscorer agreement terms. The test reliability might be negatively connected with validity, and the reliability level will differ based on the involved system. These are crowd and no coefficient can be regarded except in association to the specific system concerned. Malingering or deception: Retest reliability is highly contaminated by a propensity to repeat and remember same stories. Test Name: Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III), in personality category Test purpose: Designed to offer treatment and diagnostic information to clinics in the clinical syndromes and personality disorders areas. Uses: This test was designed to weigh personality traits and personality make-up. The test offers a comprehensive and clear personality dimensions evaluation. Particularly in a forensic setting: It is normally used to measure personality make-up of a person to ensure the right and accurate personality trait of an individual is correctly interpreted for judgment purposes. Test development and history: It was developed in 1977 and has received two reviews in 1982 and in 1994. The instrument has turned to be a commonly employed clinical tool and its test has been included in textbooks repeatedly especially those dealing with psychological assessment. Over 500 published researches have employed the MCMI in the latest past. The test is being employed in other nations and has been translated into many other languages. Normative information and test statistics: It is designed to work with DSM-IV personality’s disorders and clinical symptoms. Its revision includes reports on optional corrections employed with correctional inmates. Is administered through paper-and pen, self-report personality inventory, and on-line administration are available. The scoring include computer (Q-local), hand scoring and mail-in scoring. It is available in interpretive and profile report formats and in facet scales. Applicable populations: Individuals with 18 years and above Validity and reliability: MUDI-III is a good test that is regarded as valid and reliable psychological test. It was normed with psychiatric patients and employs a novel Base Rate Score and weighted score that regards the prevalence of the particular disorder in the population of psychiatric. The transformation scores and normative data are entirely founded on clinical samples and they are only applicable to persons with evidence problematic interpersonal and problematic emotional symptoms. The scales validity was confirmed by correlations and factor analysis done with third-party tests. Malingering or deception: may sometimes be unable to uncover personality make ups especially with individuals who are highly talented in applying pretence Test Name: Competency to Stand Trial MacArthur (Zapf et al., 2005). Test purpose: Evaluate the capacity of a defendant to proceed to adjudication Uses: It employs a vignette objectively and format score questions to regulate the three measurements of application, reasoning, and understanding. Particularly in a forensic setting: In forensic environment Competency to Stand Trial MacArthur test is employed to evaluate the accused mental and emotional ability, to stand and to attentively follow proceedings in the court of law. Test development and history: Developed for years in response to the requirement for an objectively evaluation tool integrating Dusky criteria between 1996 and 1998. It is a jurisprudential concept with English common roots that permits for the criminal proceeding postponement for those persons who due to mental are not able to take part in their own defense due to mental impairment. It contains 22 elements that are organized in three parts that include measurements of application, reasoning, and understanding. Currently, the test contains three features that include the competency evaluation to stand trial, Inventory legal knowledge that contains 61 true-false elements concerning legal process, and the test malingered incompetence that was designed to evaluate cognitive malingering in evaluations of AC. Competence to stand trials is normally evaluated through a pretrial assessment of the defendant general mental status and mental state at the examination time. This assessment aims to offer enough information to permit judge to rule on the defendant competency (Pinals et al., 2006). Normative information and test statistics: Norms are founded on 729 defendant’s score, scores ranges from three impairment levels which are offered to measure the ability of each item that include appreciation, reasoning and understanding. Applicable populations: Individuals aged between 18 and 80 years Validity and reliability: Proofed valid by three criminal defendants groups with different levels of competency and histories of mental illness treatment. Malingering or deception: it cannot easily fail to accomplish its purpose Test Name: Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) Test purpose: Designed for the evaluation of psychopathy in forensic, clinical and research settings. Uses: it is used particularly in a forensic setting: It is an asset to any clinician doing psychological evaluations in a forensic environment. Test development and history: Hare’s psychopathy conceptualization was influenced by the Mask of Sanity work by Cleckley in 1976 where he idealized the psychopath prototypical to possess 16 unique traits. PCL-R has no alterations or revisions to scoring procedures, administration, interview questions, or checklist items in the latest version. The facet level scoring accessibility appears to be a chief development improvement on the PCL-R. Normative information and test statistics: The PCL-R psychometric properties are beyond repute. Two forms of intraclass correlations and total item correlations of all 20 elements are offered for female offenders, male forensic psychiatric patients, and male offenders. Moreover only about 7 of the 60 element-total correlations may be regarded inadequate. Similar Cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients are presented for element facet scores, factor scores and total scores by use of the same samples. Coefficients of alpha for element total scores and the two factors scores are equivalent to 0.73 or higher. Applicable populations: Individuals aged between 18 and above. Validity and reliability: It is an effective and reliable instrument for psychopathy measurement and is regarded as the gold standard for psychopathy measurement. Currently, the test ever-growing and impressive research base of experiential support is challenged by PCL-R psychopathy tool. Thus, it should be strongly regarded in any antisocial or psychopathic assessment characteristics despite of its limitation with facet validity evidence and minority inclusion. Malingering or deception: It fails with children Rogersm Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS) Test Purpose: To quantify important situational and psychological variables at the crime time and to employ criterion-founded decision criminal responsibility models. Uses: used to provide a systematic technique for criminal responsibility evaluations Particularly in a forensic setting: Used to evaluate the accused sanity during the crime time Test development and history: was invented in 1984 and has experienced one revision since. The scale is sectioned into two parts. The first part contains 30 questions structured to establish the impairment level on psychological variables important to the insanity determinant. The second part contains a decision model for criminal responsibility determination based on American Law Institute (ALI) sanity standard. It also consists of M’Naghten standards and Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) decision model. Conversely, the last two decision models are not empirically validated and thus their use is restrained to research only. Normative information and test statistics: The R-CRAS average alpha coefficient summary scale is 0.6. The mean coefficient of reliability for unique variables is 0.58, with every variables attaining significance. Overall decision variables agreement percentage is 91% with 0.81 mean kappa coefficient. Applicable populations: used for adults aged between 28 and 79 years old. Validity and reliability: Construct validity was selected as the most suitable form of test validity due to the lack of meaningful criteria to determine criterion-associated validity. Construct validity was sectioned into three elements that include external, structural, and substantive. Substantive validity is sustained in the light if fact that the unique items on the R-CRAS were resulting from ALI Insanity Standard. The R-CRAS structural validity was evaluated for two approaches. First, evidence is presented from 3 varying researches showing the distinct score evaluations patterns to identify the sane from insane., while the second one is founded on the results of analysis of two-stage discriminant whereby the R-CRAS utilization summary scale accurately classified exceptionally high to high percentage of clinically assessed insane and sane subjects. The last R-CRAS component construct validity is its external validity that was determined by comparing the 93 legal cases‘legal deposition with R-CRAS data. Malingering or deception: Experience limitation in evaluating the organic impairment area since the organic data range is restricted. Test name: Mental Status Examination (Speech): Oral Speech Mechanism Screening Examination (Buros, 1938). Test purpose: To offer the language or speech pathologist with a technique for evaluating the adequacy of oral techniques for speech and associated functions. Uses: it is used to evaluate speech intelligence and consistency Particularly in a forensic setting: In forensic environment this test is used to evaluate the situation in which the accused or a witness is lying or is sincere based on the speech pattern, duration for answering among others. Test development and history: it was developed in 1981 and has only been reviewed once in 1987. It was designed to offer a screening evaluation that is quick to administer, relatively easy, reliable and suitable for both adults and children in various clinical environments. The test is also useful for professionals that contain knowledge and interest on oral functions and structures. Normative information and test statistics: OSMSE normative data were gathered from 7 examiners evaluating 187 normal subjects in 12 different age groups varying in age from 5 to 77 years. Standard deviations variability across and within age groups was very small making the author conclude that scores are steadily uniform, high, and moderately invariant among usual subjects over the age 5 and above. This test provide nine scores that include diadochokinesis, breathing, pharynx, soft palate, hard palate, teeth, jaws, tongue and lips. The test Applicable populations: Individuals aged between 5 and above Validity and reliability: Test reliability founded on interjudge agreement was evaluated by use of 8 examiners and 45 subjects which ranged between 89.4 percent and 100 percent. Interjudge agreement was evaluated by use of 9 varying evaluations and 30 subjects which ranged between 81.7 percent and 98.3 percent. Since the OSMSE-3 content and its evaluation procedure were not modified from the past test versions, the reliability and normative data remain unmodified. The validity if the test was not officially assessed though, the evaluator’s manual does present data of investigation relative to criterion-associated and construct validity that proposed that the OSMSE-3 has satisfied some criteria moderate to measuring what is anticipated. Malingering or deception: Can easily give false answers especially when an individual is nervous. References Buros, O. K. (1938). The 1938 Mental Measurements Yearbook. Hardbound, Edward, A., Weiss, K. A., and Reznikoff, M. (2001). A practical guide to the thematic apperception test: the tat in clinical practice. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1990). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2nd edition. Retrieved from < file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/marketing%20plan/kbit%20(1).pdf> Pinals, D. A., Tillbrook, C. E., & Mumley, D. L. (2006). Practical application of the MacArthur competence assessment criminal Adjustment (MacCAT-CA) in a public sector forensic setting. Journal of American Academic Psychiatry Law, 34, 179-188. Zapf, P. A., Skeem, J. L., & Golding, S. L. (2005). Factor structure and validity of the MacArthur competence assessment tool-criminal adjudication. Psychological Assessment, 17(4), 433-445.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives |