This is a graded discussion: 10 points possible

due Nov 23

Week 6 - Interactive Assignment

No unread replies. No replies.

Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses.

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read the required article by Appel and Kim-Appel (2010) and watch the Episode: 118 - Inside Out: An Introduction to Psychology - The Enduring Self video excerpt, which is accessible through the ProQuest database in the Ashford University Library. For this discussion, you will build on your experience in the “Personality Theory at Work in Popular Media” discussion from last week by re-examining the major theoretical approaches studied in the class (psychodynamic, behavioral, learning, trait and type, and humanistic) within the realm of social networks. In addition to these five domains, you will also consider the theoretical approaches related to complex models. Your initial post will be presented in a video format. Please see the instructions for this below.

To begin, choose a social networking site (this may be Facebook (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., LinkedIn (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. or Twitter (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.). Choose someone you know in your personal or professional life who has a profile on one of these three social networking services. It is important in your posts and responses not to disclose identifying information about your subject. You may choose a pseudonym by which to identify your selected subject in this discussion.

Choose one of the five domains (psychodynamic, behavioral, learning, trait and type, and humanistic) and create a personality profile based on your current knowledge of your chosen subject using the framework of your selected domain. Then, review the online profile or feed of your subject in your chosen social networking site and create a personality profile based on the information your subject has published on the site using the framework of your selected domain.

Compare and contrast the two different personality profiles. Provide an analysis of any differences between the two profiles. Select one of the models with the complex models domain. Explain the reasoning for the differences between the real world and online personality of your subject using your selected model within the complex models domains. Research a minimum of two articles on your chosen model and use these to support your statements. Evaluate and describe the usefulness of complex models as they pertain to this exercise in personality theory.

You may create your initial post as a screencast video presentation or a video blog using the software of your choice. Quick-Start Guides are available for Prezi (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., Screencast-O-Matic (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., and YouTube (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. for your convenience. Be sure to include all the required material from the instructions above in your presentation or video blog. Once you have created your video, please include the link in your initial post. In your initial post, please include citations for your references and a brief reflection on the differences between creating a written post and having to present the material via screencast/video.

Guided Response: Review several of your colleagues’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful interactive discourse in this discussion.

After reviewing your classmate’s video:

What similarities in the comparison do you see with your own findings?

Given the two personality profiles presented, which do you think is more representative of the subject being described?

Use your complex models research to support your statements.

Consider the ethical implications of social media interactions as the basis of personality profiling.

Review the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and describe the ethical issues present in your classmate’s social media personality profile.

Continue to monitor the forum until 5:00 p.m. MST on Day 7 of the week and respond to anyone who replies to your initial post.

Discussion Forum Grading Rubric

PSY615.W6D1.10.2014

Description:

Total Possible Score: 10.00

General Content/Subject Knowledge

Total: 3.00

Distinguished - Addresses all aspects of the prompt in accordance with the parameters of the discussion and demonstrates in-depth knowledge of the discussion topic.

Proficient - Addresses all aspects of the prompt in accordance with the parameters of the discussion and demonstrates knowledge of the discussion topic.

Basic - Addresses all aspects of the prompt in accordance with the parameters of the discussion and demonstrates basic knowledge of the discussion topic.

Below Expectations - Addresses all or most aspects of the prompt in accordance with the parameters of the discussion and demonstrates limited knowledge of the discussion topic.

Non-Performance - There is no initial discussion post, or the post does not address the discussion prompt at all.

Critical Thinking

Total: 3.00

Distinguished - Comprehensively explores the ideas, thoughts, and elements of the topic and provides relevant evidence and information that demonstrates all of the following as applicable to the discussion prompt: clarity, relevance, depth, breadth, use of information resources, and logic.

Proficient - Explores the ideas, thoughts, and elements of the topic and provides relevant evidence and information that demonstrates most of the following as applicable to the discussion prompt: clarity, relevance, depth, breadth, use of information resources, and logic.

Basic -Explores the ideas, thoughts, and elements of the topic and provides relevant evidence and information that demonstrates some of the following as applicable to the discussion prompt: clarity, relevance, depth, breadth, and use of information, and logic.

Below Expectations - Attempts to explore the ideas, thoughts, and elements of the topic and provide relevant evidence and information, but demonstrates few of the following as applicable to the discussion prompt: clarity, relevance, depth, breadth, use of information resources, and logic.

Non-Performance - There is no attempt to explore the ideas, thoughts, and elements of the topic and provide relevant evidence and information in either the original post or subsequent response posts within the discussion, or no post is present.

Written Communication

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Displays clear control of syntax and mechanics. The organization of the work shows appropriate transitions and flow between sentences and paragraphs. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.

Proficient - Displays control of syntax and mechanics. The organization of the work shows transitions and/or flow between sentences and paragraphs. Written work contains only a few errors and is mostly easy to understand.

Basic - Displays basic control of syntax and mechanics. The work is not organized with appropriate transitions and flow between sentences and paragraphs. Written work contains several errors, making it difficult to fully understand.

Below Expectations - Displays limited control of syntax or mechanics. The work does not include any transitions and does not flow easily between sentences and paragraphs. Written work contains major errors.

Non-Performance - Fails to display control of syntax or mechanics, within the original post and/or responses. Organization is also not present.

Engagement/ Participation

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Contributes to classroom conversations with at least the minimum number of replies, all of which were thoughtful, relevant, and contributed meaningfully to the conversation. Fully engages in the conversation with appropriate topic-based responses.

Proficient - Contributes to classroom conversations with the minimum number of replies that are somewhat thoughtful, relevant, and contributed meaningfully to the conversation. Attempts to fully engage in the conversation with appropriate topic-based responses.

Basic - Contributes to the classroom conversations with the minimum number of replies. Attempts to fully engage in the conversation, but the responses are not relevant or fully aligned with the discussion topic.

Below Expectations - Attempts to contribute to the classroom conversations with fewer than the minimum number of replies; however, the replies are not thoughtful and relevant, or they do not contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Non-Performance - There is no contribution to the discussion.

Powered by

Week 6 - Final Paper

Psychological Assessment Report

A psychological assessment report is created by psychology professionals to inform groups or individuals of the assessments appropriate for their current needs. This type of report also includes a summary of the services provided to these groups or individuals. This evaluation is used by the various entities to assess basic needs, competencies, preferences, skills, traits, dispositions, and abilities for different individuals in a variety of settings.

Psychological reports vary widely depending on the psychology professional creating it and the needs being assessed. Some of the psychology professionals who create this type of report include counselors, school psychologists, consultants, psychometricians, or psychological examiners. This type of report may be as short as three pages or as long as 20 or more pages depending on the needs of the stakeholders. Many reports include tables of scores that are attached either in an appendix or integrated into the report. Despite the many variations in assessment reports, most include the same essential information and headings.

Students will choose one of the personality assessment scenarios from the discussions in Weeks Two, Three, or Four to use as the basis of this psychological assessment report. Once the scenario has been chosen, students will research a minimum of four peer-reviewed articles that relate to and support the content of the scenario and the report as outlined below. The following headings and content must be included in the report:

The Reason for Referral and Background Information
In this section, students will describe the reasons for the referral and relevant background information for all stakeholders from the chosen personality assessment scenario.

Assessment Procedures
In this section, students will include a bulleted list of the test(s) and other assessment measures recommended for the evaluation of the given scenario. In addition to the assessment(s) initially provided in the personality assessment scenario from the weekly discussion, students must include at least three other measures appropriate for the scenario.

Immediately following the bulleted list, students will include a narrative description of the assessments. In the narrative, students will examine and comment on the major theoretical approaches, research methods, and assessment instruments appropriate for the situation and stakeholder needs. In order to defend the choice of recommended assessments, students will evaluate current research in the field of personality theories and provide examples of how these assessments are valid for use in the chosen scenario. For additional support of these recommended assessment measures, students will evaluate the standardization, reliability and validity, and cultural considerations present in these personality assessments that make them the most appropriate tools for the given scenario. Students will conclude the narrative by assessing types of personality measurements and research designs often used in scenarios like the one chosen and providing a rationale for why some of those assessments were not included.

General Observations and Impressions
In this section, students will describe general observations of the client during the assessment period provided in the chosen personality assessment scenario and explain whether the client's behavior might have had a negative impact on the test results. Students will analyze and comment on how the APA’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct affected the implementation of the personality assessment during the initial process. Based on the observations and analysis, students will assess the validity of the evaluation and make a recommendation for or against the necessity for additional testing.

Test Results and Interpretations
In this section, students will analyze the results of the assessment provided in the chosen personality assessment scenario. Based on the score, students will interpret the personality factors (conscientiousness, openness, emotional stability, introversion, extroversion, work drive, self-directedness, etc.) that are present.

Note: Typically, this section reports test results and is the longest section of a psychological assessment report because the results of all the tests administered are analyzed and reported. Some psychologists report all test results individually, while others may integrate only a portion of the test results. However, in this report, only the assessment presented in the chosen personality assessment scenario will be included.

Summary and Recommendations
In this section, students will summarize the test results. They will provide a complete explanation for the evaluation, the procedures and measures used, and the results and include any recommendations translating the evaluation into strategies and suggestions to support the client. Finally, students will provide any conclusions and diagnostic impressions drawn from the previous sections of the report.

Pathbrite Portfolio
The Masters of Arts in Psychology program is utilizing the Pathbrite portfolio tool as a repository for student scholarly work in the form of signature assignments completed within the program. After receiving feedback for this Psychological Assessment Report, please implement any changes recommended by the instructor, go to Pathbrite (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and upload the revised Psychological Assessment Report to the portfolio. Use the Pathbrite Quick-Start Guide (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. to create an account if you do not already have one. The upload of signature assignments will take place after completing each course. Be certain to upload revised signature assignments throughout the program as the portfolio and its contents will be used in other courses and may be used by individual students as a professional resource tool. See the Pathbrite (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. website for information and further instructions on using this portfolio tool.

Writing the Psychological Assessment Report

The report:

Must be six to ten double-spaced pages in length and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Must include a title page with the following:

oTitle of paper

oStudent’s name

oCourse name and number

oInstructor’s name

oDate submitted

Must include the required headings and content as listed above.

Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought.

Must utilize assessment manuals as necessary to support the inclusion and results of the assessments.

Must use a minimum of four peer-reviewed sources, at least two of which must be from the Ashford University Library.

Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Must include a separate reference page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center

Grading Rubric

PSY615.W6A1.10.2014

Description:

Total Possible Score: 25.00

Describes the Reasons for the Referral and Relevant Background Information for All Stakeholders

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Comprehensively describes the background details for the referral, including pertinent information about the assessments recommended for the scenario.

Proficient - Describes the background details for the referral, including pertinent information about the assessments recommended for the scenario. Minor details are missing or inappropriate/inaccurate for the scenario.

Basic - Minimally describes the background details for the referral, including pertinent information about the assessments recommended for the scenario. Relevant details are missing and/or inappropriate/inaccurate for the scenario.

Below Expectations - Attempts to describe the background details for the referral, including pertinent information about the assessments recommended for the scenario; however, significant details are missing and inappropriate/inaccurate for the scenario.

Non-Performance - The description of the reasons for the referral and background information are either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Includes a Bulleted List of the Test(s) and Other Assessment Measure(s) Recommended for the Evaluation of the Given Scenario

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Includes a complete bulleted list of the test(s) and other assessment measure(s) recommended for the evaluation of the given scenario.

Proficient - Includes a bulleted list of the test(s) and other assessment measure(s) recommended for the evaluation of the given scenario. Some minor details are missing.

Basic - Includes a limited bulleted list of the test(s) and other assessment measure(s) recommended for the evaluation of the given scenario. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to includes a bulleted list of the test(s) and other assessment measure(s) recommended for the evaluation of the given scenario; however, significant details are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance - A bulleted list of the test(s) and other assessment measure(s) recommended for the evaluation of the given scenario is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Includes a Narrative Description of the Assessments

Total: 1.00

Distinguished -Includes a thorough narrative description of the assessments.

Proficient - Includes a narrative description of the assessments. Some minor details are missing.

Basic -Includes a limited narrative description of the assessments. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to includes a narrative description of the assessments; however, significant elements are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance - A narrative description of the assessments is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Examines and Comments on the Major Theoretical Approaches, Research Methods, and Assessment Instruments Appropriate for the Situation and Stakeholder Needs

Total: 1.50

Distinguished - Provides and exceptionally detailed explanation of the assessment instruments selected for this scenario which is appropriate for the situation and stakeholder needs based on the literature in the field.

Proficient - Provides a mostly detailed explanation of the assessment instruments selected for this scenario which is appropriate for the situation and stakeholder needs based on the literature in the field. The examination of the literature is slightly underdeveloped.

Basic - Provides a limited explanation of the assessment instruments selected for this scenario, and which may not be appropriate for the situation and stakeholder needs based on the literature in the field. The examination is underdeveloped.

Below Expectations - Attempts to provide an explanation of the assessment instruments selected for this scenario based on the literature in the field; however, the selected assessments are not appropriate for the situation and stakeholder needs, and the examination is significantly underdeveloped.

Non-Performance - The examination of the theoretical approaches for this scenario is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Evaluates Current Research in the Field of Personality Theories and Provides Examples of How these Assessments are Valid for Use in the Chosen Scenario

Total: 1.50

Distinguished - Comprehensively evaluates current research in the field of personality theories and provides relevant examples of how these assessments are valid for use in the chosen scenario.

Proficient - Evaluates current research in the field of personality theories and provides mostly relevant examples of how these assessments are valid for use in the chosen scenario. Minor details are missing.

Basic - Minimally valuates current research in the field of personality theories and provides somewhat relevant examples of how these assessments are valid for use in the chosen scenario. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations -Attempts to evaluate current research in the field of personality theories and provides examples of how these assessments are valid for use in the chosen scenario; however, the examples are not relevant and significant details are missing or inaccurate.

Non-Performance - An evaluation of current research in the field of personality theories and provides examples of how these assessments are valid for use in the chosen scenario is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Provides a Critical Analysis of the Standardization, Reliability and Validity, and Cultural Considerations Present in these Personality Assessments that Make Them the Most Appropriate Tools for the Given Scenario

Total: 1.50

Distinguished - Provides and exceptionally clear and detailed critical analysis of the standardization, reliability and validity, and cultural considerations present in these personality assessments that make them the most appropriate tools for the given scenario.

Proficient - Provides a critical analysis of the standardization, reliability and validity, and cultural considerations present in these personality assessments that make them the most appropriate tools for the given scenario. The critical analysis is slightly underdeveloped.

Basic - Provides a limited critical analysis of the standardization, reliability and validity, and cultural considerations present in these personality assessments that make them the most appropriate tools for the given scenario. The critical analysis is underdeveloped.

Below Expectations - Attempts to provide a critical analysis of the standardization, reliability and validity, and cultural considerations present in these personality assessments that make them the most appropriate tools for the given scenario; however, the critical analysis is significantly underdeveloped.

Non-Performance - The critical analysis of the standardization, reliability and validity, and cultural considerations present in the personality assessments is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Assesses Types of Personality Measurements and research designs often used in scenarios like the one chosen and provides a rationale for why some of those assessments were not included.

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Comprehensively assesses types of personality measurements and research designs often used in scenarios like the one chosen and provides a rationale for why some of those assessments were not included.

Proficient - Assesses types of personality measurements and research designs often used in scenarios like the one chosen and provides a rationale for why some of those assessments were not included. Some minor details are missing or inaccurate.

Basic - Partially assesses types of personality measurements and research designs often used in scenarios like the one chosen and provides a rationale for why some of those assessments were not included. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to assesses types of personality measurements and research designs often used in scenarios like the one chosen; however does not provide a rationale for why some of those assessments were not included and significant details are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance - The assessment of types of personality measurements and research designs often used in scenarios like the one chosen, and a rationale for why some of those assessments were not included are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

Describes General Observations of the Client During the Assessment Period and Explains Whether the Client's Behavior Might Have Had a Negative Impact on the Test Results

Total: 0.50

Distinguished - Thoroughly describes general observations of the client during the assessment period and fully explains whether the client's behavior might have had a negative impact on the test results.

Proficient - Describes general observations of the client during the assessment period and explains whether the client's behavior might have had a negative impact on the test results. Some minor details are missing or inaccurate.

Basic - Partially describes general observations of the client during the assessment period and minimally explains whether the client's behavior might have had a negative impact on the test results. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to describe general observations of the client during the assessment period and explain whether the client's behavior might have had a negative impact on the test results; however, significant details are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance - A description of general observations of the client during the assessment period and explains whether the client's behavior might have had a negative impact on the test results is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Analyzes and Comments on How the APA’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct Affected the Implementation of the Personality Assessment During the Process

Total: 1.50

Distinguished - Thoroughly analyzes and comments on how the APA’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct affected the implementation of the personality assessment during the process.

Proficient - Analyzes and comments on how the APA’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct affected the implementation of the personality assessment during the process. Minor details are missing or inaccurate.

Basic - Minimally analyzes and comments on how the APA’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct affected the implementation of the personality assessment during the process. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to analyze and comment on how the APA’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct affected the implementation of the personality assessment during the process; however, significant details are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance - The analysis of how the APA’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct affected the implementation of the personality assessment during the process is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Assesses the Validity of the Evaluation and Makes a Recommendation for or Against the Necessity for Additional Testing

Total: 1.50

Distinguished - Thoroughly assesses the validity of the evaluation and makes a recommendation for or against the necessity for additional testing.

Proficient - Assesses the validity of the evaluation and makes a recommendation for or against the necessity for additional testing. Minor details are missing.

Basic - Partially assesses the validity of the evaluation and makes a recommendation for or against the necessity for additional testing. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to assess the validity of the evaluation and makes a recommendation for or against the necessity for additional testing; however, significant details are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance -The assessment of the validity of the evaluation and makes a recommendation for or against the necessity for additional testing is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Analyzes the Results of the Assessment Provided in the Original Scenario

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Comprehensively analyzes the results of the assessment provided in the original scenario.

Proficient - Analyzes the results of the assessment provided in the original scenario. Minor details are missing.

Basic - Partially analyzes the results of the assessment provided in the original scenario. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations -Attempts to analyze the results of the assessment provided in the original scenario; however, significant elements are missing or inaccurate.

Non-Performance - The analysis of the results of the assessment provided in the original scenario is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Interprets the Personality Factors Present Based on the Assessment Score

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Thoroughly and accurately interprets the personality factors present based on the assessment score.

Proficient - Interprets the personality factors present based on the assessment score. Minor details are missing or inaccurate.

Basic - Vaguely interprets the personality factors present based on the assessment score. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to interpret the personality factors present based on the assessment score; however, significant details are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance -The interpretation of the personality factors present based on the assessment score is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Summarizes the Test Results

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Comprehensively and accurately summarizes the test results.

Proficient - Summarizes the test results. Minor details are missing.

Basic - Partially summarizes the test results. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to summarize the test results; however, significant details are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance - The summary of the test results is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Provides a Complete Explanation for the Evaluation, the Procedures and Measures Used, and the Results

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Provides a complete and accurate explanation for the evaluation, the procedures and measures used, and the results.

Proficient - Provides an explanation for the evaluation, the procedures and measures used, and the results. Minor details are missing or inaccurate.

Basic - Provides a limited explanation for the evaluation, the procedures and measures used, and the results. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to provide an explanation for the evaluation, the procedures and measures used, and the results; however, significant elements are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance - The explanation for the evaluation, the procedures and measures used, and the results is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Includes Recommendations Translating the Evaluation into Strategies and Suggestions to Support the Client

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Thoroughly includes relevant recommendations translating the evaluation into strategies and suggestions to support the client.

Proficient - Includes relevant recommendations translating the evaluation into strategies and suggestions to support the client. Minor details are missing.

Basic - Partially includes somewhat relevant recommendations translating the evaluation into strategies and suggestions to support the client. Relevant details are missing.

Below Expectations - Attempts to include recommendations translating the evaluation into strategies and suggestions to support the client; however, the recommendations are not relevant and significant elements are missing.

Non-Performance - Recommendations translating the evaluation into strategies and suggestions to support the client is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Provides Conclusions and Diagnostic Impressions Drawn From the Previous Sections of the Report

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Provides comprehensive and accurate conclusions and diagnostic impressions drawn from the previous sections of the report.

Proficient - Provides conclusions and diagnostic impressions drawn from the previous sections of the report. Minor details are missing or inaccurate.

Basic - Provides limited conclusions and diagnostic impressions drawn from the previous sections of the report. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.

Below Expectations - Attempts to provide conclusions and diagnostic impressions drawn from the previous sections of the report; however, significant elements are missing and inaccurate.

Non-Performance - The conclusions and diagnostic impressions drawn from the previous sections of the report is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.

Proficient - Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.

Basic - Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.

Below Expectations - Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Page Requirement

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.

Proficient - The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.

Basic - The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.

Below Expectations - The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: APA Formatting

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.

Proficient - Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.

Basic - Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.

Below Expectations - Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Resource Requirement

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

Proficient - Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

Basic - Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.

Below Expectations - Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Powered by

PSY615: Week Two Counseling-Based Personality Assessment Scenario (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..

PSY615: Week Two Counseling-Based Personality Assessment Scenario

PSYCHOLOGICALEVALUATION (Williamsburg Mental Health Center)

Jane Smith

Date of Evaluation: 10/12/2013 Case No.: 12783A Admission Date: 10/8/2013 PURPOSE FOR EVALUATION:

This is the second admission of a 32-year-old female to the Center.The client has 14 years of formal education and is employed as an administrative assistant at a local community college.She was admitted due to signs of major depression with possible psychotic features.

The purpose of this clinical evaluation is to assess the client’s current mental well-being and the extent of her need for clinical intervention.

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES:The clinical psychiatrist on duty recommended the following assessments:

PSY615: Week Two Counseling-Based Personality Assessment Scenario

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:The client is a 32-year-old, single white female who was previously admitted one year ago for possible suicidal ideation and major depression.She has an associate’s degree and is currently working for a local community college as the administrative assistant for the dean of the business school.She does not have a record of suicide attempts or long-term hospitalization in a mental health facility.She is a single female with no family history of mental illness.

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION:Observational conclusions of the patient's attitude were as follows:

Open and cooperative, and her mood was euthymic. Her affect was appropriate to verbal content and showed broad range. Her memory functions seemed grossly intact and she was able to recall events and factual information. Her thought process was intact, goal oriented, and well organized. The client indicated no evidence of delusions, paranoia, or suicidal/homicidal ideation. Her level of personal insight appeared to be good, as evidenced by ability to state her current diagnosis and by ability to identify specific stressors that precipitated the current exacerbation. Social judgment appeared good, as evidenced by appropriate interactions with staff and other patients in the center and by cooperative efforts to achieve treatment goals required for discharge.

PSY615: Week Three School Psychologist-Based Personality and Behavior Assessment Scenario (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..

PSY615: Week Three School Psychologist-Based Personality and Behavior Assessment Scenario

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION (Johnson Middle School)

Jane Smith

Date of Evaluation: 10/12/2013

Grade: 8 Age: 14 PURPOSE FOR EVALUATION:

Jane was recommended for evaluation by the school psychologist due to recent behavior problems and declining academic performance.

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES:

The clinical psychiatrist on duty recommended the following assessments: • Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A)• Mental Status Examination• Review of School Records• Review of Prior Medical Records• Interview and ObservationASSESSMENT RESULTS:Note: Typically, this section reports test results of all the recommended assessments. Here you are provided with the abbreviated results from the MMPI-A, the mental health examination, records review, and interview/observation.

Interpretive results from the MMPI-A are presented below.

Validity Considerations Jane’s approach to completing the MMPI-A was open and cooperative.The resulting MMPI-A results appear valid and is probably a good indication of her present level of personality functioning.Her compliance is a good indicator of positive involvement with this evaluation.

Symptomatic Behavior This student’s MMPI-A clinical profile indicates multiple serious behavior problems including explosive behavior, school maladjustment, and adolescent conduct problems.She can be moody, resentful, and impulsive.Jane also shows signs of adolescent alienation (social isolation), low

PSY615: Week Three School Psychologist-Based Personality and Behavior Assessment Scenario

self-esteem, and depression.She may run away or isolate herself to avoid punishment.Her lack of good judgment may lead her to inappropriate behavior and get her into trouble.

Her two highest clinical scales, Depression (D) and Psychopathic Deviate Subscales (Pd), are clearly above the other scales in the measure, and occur at this high a level in less than 1% of the normative sample (by Pearson Assessments).

An examination of her underlying personality factors on the PSY-5 scales could help explain any behavior problems she is currently exhibiting.Jane seems to be self-isolating and appears to have increasing social alienation.She tends to see the world in a negative light, worries to excess, and may develop more belligerent behavior expressions.

Interpersonal Relations Jane is an intelligent and likeable person.She seems to make a good initial impression on others, but seems unable to build deep and lasting relationships.She is empathetic and gets along with other children younger than her, but seems to have trouble with building positive connections in her peer group.

The MMPI-A Content Scales profile offers some additional information about her interpersonal relationships.She reported some interpersonal suspiciousness, which indicates a distrust of others.She also shows high levels of antisocial attitudes and negative peer-group influences, which might help to explain her emotional outbursts and belligerent behaviors.

Diagnostic Considerations More information will have to be collected about Jane’s emotional and behavioral problems before a complete diagnosis can be made.Her elevated scores on the Psychopathic Deviate Subscales (Pd) suggest that behavior problems should be considered.

She has exhibited at-risk behaviors such as smoking.She acknowledges she had been criticized by her parents for her behavior and should be monitored for potential use of drugs and alcohol.

PSY615: Week Three School Psychologist-Based Personality and Behavior Assessment Scenario

Treatment Considerations Jane’s behavior and emotional issues should be central in any treatment planning.Her clinical scales profile suggests she is a good candidate for a behavioral treatment strategy.Consistency will be important to reinforce appropriate behaviors.

She has the potential for drug and alcohol abuse.She has acknowledged such inclinations and intervention strategies should be included in the treatment plan.She should be monitored and evaluated for potential suicidal thoughts and ideation, and possible suicidal behaviors.Appropriate cautions should be taken if such behaviors become evident.

Jane has shown academic potential and positive interest in some activities.Her skill and abilities, as well as those positive aspects, should be reinforced.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:Jane was referred to the school psychologist for evaluation due to recent emotional outbursts in the classroom and lack of academic progress in the most recent 6-week period.She reports having recent troubles with bullying from peers, and often appears sad.Information regarding Jane’s developmental progress, family history, school history, and behavior at home was provided by her parents.Jane’s developmental milestones were reported to be within normal time ranges.Her parents indicated that she can be trusted, seems to get along well with other children and her younger brother, but often seems restless and is easily frustrated.

School records indicate that Jane had five excused absences due to illness so far this year, and no unexcused tardies.She has been referred for in-school suspension three times for behavioral outbursts in the classroom.Jane’s grades consist of mostly C’s and she is failing two of her classes.Her writing and readings skills are well above the average for her age, and she seems to work better when working directly with teachers rather than peers.

Records indicate Jane is up to date on required shots, has completed vision and hearing testing, and her physical well-being appears to be in the normal range for her age group.

Her parents have indicated that Jane has been showing increasing signs of frustration and argumentative behavior.They also indicate that she has intentionally missed curfew several times.They also stated that

PSY615: Week Three School Psychologist-Based Personality and Behavior Assessment Scenario

they have found her experimenting with smoking cigarettes.Jane’s parents seem concerned that her behavior will move beyond their control.

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION:Observational conclusions of the patient's attitude were as follows:

Jane seems to be intelligent and aware of her surroundings and situation.She appears remorseful about her emotional outbursts, but she does not consider her actions to be severe.She was compliant with all parts of the evaluation and stated that she is willing to work with the student intervention team.

Jane stated that her increasing frustration with peers was due to being bullied by some of her peers, and she indicated that she often feels sad and depressed.She stated that she had been experimenting with smoking.Jane stated that she has had thoughts of suicide recently, but she indicated no intention to act.Observation and further assessment is recommended.

PSY615: Week four career counselor-based scenario (Links to an external site.)

PSY615: Week Four Career Counselor-Based Scenario

Career Counseling Assessment Prepared for John Lee April 28, 2014

Reason for Referral John was referred to the Career Counseling Center to assist him with choosing a major area of study and potential career paths based on his knowledge, skills, abilities, and preferences.John is a first-year university student currently enrolled in general education courses. Assessments Used A career preferences profile will be constructed for John based on his stated interests, educational background and focus, and abilities.Potential career paths will be recommended based on the complete profile.The following individual assessments were used in the overall assessment. • NEO-R Personality Assessment • Career Goals Questionnaire • School and work history • Interview

Below is the breakdown of aspects of John’s personal style based on the Big Five Assessment taken as part of the career profile.The select questions indicate his personal style on each of five global trait dimensions: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism/Emotional Stability.There is no “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad” side to these dimensions; rather, they help identify John’s stylistic disposition and potential strengths.Below each global trait is an example of personal style and three related questions with some examples of traits on each of the poles.

PSY615: Week Four Career Counselor-Based Scenario

Openness Openness is the level of a person’s receptiveness to novel ideas, change, innovation, and new learning.On the continuum, this can be seen as preference for change on one end of the spectrum and preference for stability on the other.

Preference for Change

You value new learning, change, and innovation and find motivation in novelty, variety, and possibilities for improvement. New tasks and new learning are stimulating and attractive to you.

Answer each of the questions listed below by marking the selection that best describes your present agreement or disagreement with each statement.

Preference for Stability

You value familiarity, predictability, and precedent, and find comfort in stability, routine, and tradition. New tasks and new learning may be uninteresting or demanding for you.

1. The idea of lifelong learning appeals to me.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. I find it fun to learn and develop new hobbies

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral AgreeStrongly Agree

3. I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.

Strengths • You enjoy new learning and are open to new experiences. • You are creative and prefer to be in an environment that fosters ideas and innovation. Weaknesses • You can become bored easily in situations that are too rigid and routine. • Your preferences do not lend themselves toward repetition and traditional ways of doing things.

PSY615: Week Four Career Counselor-Based Scenario

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness is the factor related to one’s reliability, dependability, trustworthiness, and the inclination to follow norms and rules.

Structured

Orderly, organized, and predictable, you strive to work according to plan and obey the rules, and you expect others to do the same. Comfortable with established procedures and policies, you appreciate reliability and conscientiousness in those around you.

Answer each of the questions listed below by marking the selection that best describes your present agreement or disagreement with each statement.

Flexible

Spontaneous, flexible, and adaptable, you strive to get results, by unconventional means if necessary, and feel restricted by rules and regulations. Comfortable with ambiguity, you appreciate originality and nonconformity in those around you.

1. I am very dependable and reliable in everything I do

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. I like to keep everything I own in its proper place.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral AgreeStrongly Agree

3. It is hard for me to keep my bedroom neat and clean.

Strengths • You are very dependable and prefer to know exactly what is expected of you. • You are punctual and careful in how you go about your work. • You are flexible to a degree, but prefer to have input in how changes are made in your work environment. Weaknesses • You do not always agree with and follow rules and regulations, particularly if you do not think them fair. • You are comfortable with only some changes and do not like organizational chaos.

PSY615: Week Four Career Counselor-Based Scenario

Extroversion Extroversion is a tendency to be outgoing, social, expressive, and talkative.

Introverted

Inward-oriented and reserved, you prefer one-toone or small group meetings to larger groups. You like to concentrate on one task at a time in a quiet setting with few distractions. Interacting with others takes energy; you re-energize by spending time alone.

Answer each of the questions listed below by marking the selection that best describes your present agreement or disagreement with each statement.

Extroverted

Outgoing, gregarious, and talkative, you enjoy meetings and gatherings of all kinds and conversations with many people. You like to work interactively on multiple tasks and don’t mind interruptions. Being alone takes energy; you reenergize by spending time with people.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral AgreeStrongly Agree

1. I am very outgoing and talkative.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral AgreeStrongly Agree

2. I have a lot of energy when I am around other people.

3. I am a fairly quiet person in most group settings.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Strengths • You are outgoing and easily liked by others. • You work well in teams and are comfortable with being on several projects at once. Weaknesses • You may not always complete every project you start. • You tend to perform less well when you are given independent tasks.

PSY615: Week Four Career Counselor-Based Scenario

Agreeableness Agreeableness is a propensity for working well with a team and functioning cooperatively on group tasks.

Empathetic

When appraising problems and drawing conclusions, you focus on the feelings and concerns of the people involved. Empathetic and considerate, you prefer to take account of emotions and personal sensitivities in your decisions.

Answer each of the questions listed below by marking the selection that best describes your present agreement or disagreement with each statement.

Tough-Minded

When appraising problems and drawing conclusions, you focus on the facts involved and an objective analysis of results and costs. Dispassionate and logical, you prefer to make decisions based on data and demonstrable impact on the bottom line.

1. I try to get along with other people, even if I don't like them.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. I try to be nice and polite in every situation.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral AgreeStrongly Agree

3. I don’t let personal feelings get in the way when I have to make decisions involving money.

Strengths • When making decisions, you tend to pay close attention to what others think and feel. • You react to conflict by taking into account the opinions and perspectives of everyone involved. Weaknesses • It may be difficult for you to make difficult decisions such as terminating an employee. • You do not always take into account facts and objectives when making decisions.

PSY615: Week Four Career Counselor-Based Scenario

Neuroticism (Emotional Stability) Emotional Stability has to do with a person’s overall level of adjustment and the tendency to remain emotionally stable when faced with stress and pressures.

Emotionally Resilient

Resilient to work pressure, you can handle high levels of job stress without becoming upset. Calm when faced with stressors and conflict, you don’t internalize tensions, and you recover quickly from disappointments and setbacks.

Answer each of the questions listed below by marking the selection that best describes your present agreement or disagreement with each statement.

Emotionally Reactive

Reactive to work pressure, you are drained by stress and conflict in your work environment. You respond strongly to stressors, readily internalize tensions, develop symptoms of strain, and recover slowly from setbacks.

1. I smile a lot when I am around other people.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. I feel good about myself most of the time.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral AgreeStrongly Agree

3. My mood goes up and down more than most people.

Strengths • You are able to handle a high degree of stress and maintain a positive outlook. • You do not hold grudges long and are able to work well in times of conflict. Weaknesses • You may internalize work pressures when they become too intense in a short period of time. • You may not be receptive to others’ emotional reactions to pressure in the workplace.

PSY615: Week Four Career Counselor-Based Scenario

Summary and RecommendationsYou are very outgoing and open to new experiences.You are emotionally stable and seem to enjoy interacting with others most of the time.You seem to prefer a large degree of interaction with others and your ideal working situation is one in which you work with a team and/or directly with clients.You tend to prefer to work in an organization that values flexibility, creativity, and independence, while providing stability and support.You probably would not like to work in an environment with a high degree of turnover and organizational change.With your priorities for group interaction and customer satisfaction, it may not be ideal for you to work in organizations where you have little contact with customers and coworkers.Below are some suggestions for career paths that might best fit your preferences, as well as some that might not be ideal for you. Best-fit Work Situations • Customer service • Sales • Management • Health care professions working directly with clients

Worst-fit Work Situations • Accounting • Truck driver • Computer programmer • Engineer