Explain the assumptions on which projective methods are based, and provide an analysis of empirical research testing the validity of the assumptions you identified.

/in /by

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, review Chapters 8 and 9 in your textbook.

In this assignment, you will compare projective and objective methods of personality assessment. Research a minimum of three peer-reviewed articles in the Ashford University Library that were published within the last 15 years on these techniques. In your paper, you will provide an evaluation of these techniques organized according to the outline provided below. Use information from your researched peer-reviewed articles and required sources to support your work in each section.

Section 1: Objective Personality Assessment

  • 1.) Define the term objective in objective methods of personality assessment.
  • 2.) Summarize the features of objective methods of personality assessment, and provide at least three examples of these types of measures.
  • 3.) Explain the assumptions on which objective methods are based, and provide an analysis of empirical research testing the validity of the assumptions you identified.
  • 4.) Appraise the research exploring the technical adequacy (i.e., reliability and validity) of objective tests.
  • 5.) Describe the impact of social and culture variability on the administration and interpretation of objective tests.

Section 2: Projective Personality Assesment

  • 1.) Define the term projective in projective methods of personality assessment.
  • 2.) Summarize the features of projective methods of personality assessment, and provide at least three examples of these types of measures.
  • 3.) Explain the assumptions on which projective methods are based, and provide an analysis of empirical research testing the validity of the assumptions you identified.
  • 4.) Appraise the research exploring the technical adequacy (i.e., reliability and validity) of projective tests.
  • 5.) Describe the impact of social and culture variability on the administration and interpretation of projective tests.

Section 3: Synthesis, Conclusions, and Recommendations

  • 1.) Write a brief one-paragraph scenario for a fictitious client. Include the following information: presenting concerns (reason for referral), age, gender, ethnicity, language(s), and any other significant information (e.g., military status, health issues, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.).
  • 2.) Debate the arguments supporting and opposing the use of projective and objective personality assessments with your identified client.
  • 3.) Select a minimum of one objective and one projective measure to use with your client. Compare the use of the selected projective and objective personality measures with your identified client.
  • 4.) Analyze the advantages and limitations of each assessment measure you selected.
  • 5.) Compose recommendations to improve the validity of personality assessment.

Provide personal or professional examples that further illustrate relevant social psychological concepts identified in your classmate’s post.

/in /by

An attitude is an evaluative reaction (i.e., feelings), often based on belief and demonstrated through behavior. In this discussion, we will consider intergroup attitudes by examining stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.

To inform your thinking on this topic, begin by reading “Toward a Relevant Psychology of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination: Linking Science and Practice to Develop Interventions that Work in Community Settings” (Acevedo-Polakovich, Beck, Hawks, & Ogdie, 2016), “Intergroup Contact Theory” (Pettigrew, 1998), and “Summary and Conclusions” (Sherif, Harvey, Hood, Sherif, & White, 1988).

Then, select a group.  Possible dimensions from which you may select your group include, but are not limited to:  race, gender, social class, nationality, sexual identity, (dis)ability, rural versus urban status, religious belief, incarceration/criminal history, occupational status, victim, military status, and so on.  Provide a brief summary of the group and concrete examples to illustrate.  Summarize social psychological theory and research relevant to the experiences of members of this target group (e.g., What are the origins of prejudice toward this group? What are the influences on members of this group? etc.), and explain practical, original, and specific strategies for enhancing intergroup relations.

Your initial post should be 500-1000 words in length and must contain a minimum of three scholarly, peer-reviewed references, in addition to required course resources as applicable.  Additional credible references are encouraged.

Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your classmates by Day 5 to stimulate more meaningful and interactive discourse in the discussion forum. In addition, respond to classmates (and/or the instructor, if applicable) who replied to your initial post by Day 7.  Your responses must demonstrate a sophisticated understanding or application of the concepts covered in Week 2.

At least two of your responses should be a minimum of 150 words each.

The following general suggestions may be useful as you craft your replies:

  • Ask clarifying or thought provoking questions.
  • Provide personal or professional examples that further illustrate relevant social psychological concepts identified in your classmate’s post.
  • Supply additional information that might influence your classmate’s interpretation. For example, recommend resources that further support their position or identify possible alternative explanations.
  • Relate the content in your classmate’s post to that of your own or another classmate’s initial contribution to this discussion.

What is your assessment of the ecological resources (from the larger systems beyond the nuclear family) and limitations for this family?

/in /by

Instructions: I have attached the case study needed to do this paper.

1. Use double line spacing and font size 12 in your answers.

2.  5-6 pages.

3. Apply the concepts you have learned directly in analyzing the case by simply stating them. Do not give explanations of these theoretical concepts from the readings.

4. Give evidences from the case material in support of your assessment of the family dynamics and structures. However, do not repeat some of background information provided in the case summary.

5. The intervention strategies should be specific, and family systems oriented instead of individual oriented.

Apply the family systems concepts you have learned from the readings, lectures, videos, etc. to analyze the case as summarized below by addressing the following questions:

1) State clearly and succinctly the presenting problem(s) of this family, that is, what caused them to come in for help or being referred for help by others. Do you see other issues as well?

2) What is your assessment of the relational structures and dynamics of the family (including boundaries, subsystems, power and hierarchy, triangulations, function of symptoms, communication patterns, family rules, etc., where applicable)?

3) What are some of the ways in which the family is handling their problems or relating to each other that have reinforced or exacerbated the problems (related to the concept of circular causality or mutual reinforcement)?

4) What do you see are the strengths of this family?

5) What is your assessment of the ecological resources (from the larger systems beyond the nuclear family) and limitations for this family?

6) How would you define the specific treatment goals for this family which address both the presenting and your assessed problems?

7) Suggest two intervention strategies and directions in working with this family to attain those goals which could be at the level of the subsystems, family systems or the larger ecological context.

Rashid Vaji, Ph.D., a member of the school psychology faculty at a midsize university, serves as a faculty supervisor for students assigned to externships in schools.

/in /by

Case 7. Handling Disparate

Information for Evaluating Trainees

Rashid Vaji, Ph.D., a member of the school psychology faculty at a midsize university,

serves as a faculty supervisor for students assigned to externships in schools. The

department has formalized a supervision and evaluation system for the extern program.

Students have weekly individual meetings with the faculty supervisor and

biweekly meetings with the on-site supervisor. The on-site supervisor writes a midyear

(December) and end of academic year (May) evaluation of each student. The

site evaluations are sent to Dr. Vaji, and he provides feedback based on the site and

his own supervisory evaluation to each student. The final grade (fail, low pass, pass,

high pass) is the responsibility of Dr. Vaji.

Dr. Vaji also teaches the Spring Semester graduate class on “Health Disparities in

Mental Health.” One of the course requirements is for students to write weekly

thought papers, in which they are required to take the perspective of therapy clients

from different ethnic groups in reaction to specific session topics. Leo Watson, a

second-year graduate student is one of Dr. Vaji’s externship supervisees. He is also

enrolled in the Health Disparities course. Leo’s thought papers often present

ethnic-minority adolescents as prone to violence and unable to “grasp” the insights

offered by school psychologists. In a classroom role-playing exercise, Leo “plays” an

ethnic-minority student client as slumping in the chair not understanding the psychologist

and giving angry retorts. In written comments on these thought papers

and class feedback, Dr. Vaji encourages Leo to incorporate more of the readings on

racial/ethnic discrimination and multicultural competence into his papers and to

provide more complex perspectives on clients.

One day during his office hours, three students from the class come to Dr. Vaji’s

office to complain about Leo’s behavior outside the classroom. They describe incidents

in which Leo uses derogatory ethnic labels to describe his externship clients

and brags about “putting one over” on his site supervisors by describing these clients

in “glowing” terms just to satisfy his supervisors’ “stupid liberal do-good”

attitudes. They also report an incident at a local bar at which Leo was seen harassing

an African American waitress using racial slurs.

After the students have left his office, Dr. Vaji reviews his midyear evaluation and

supervision notes on Leo and the midyear on-site supervisor’s report. In his own

evaluation report Dr. Vaji had written, “Leo often articulates a strong sense of duty

to help his ethnic minority students overcome past discrimination but needs additional

growth and supervision in applying a multicultural perspective into his

clinical work.” The on-site supervisor’s evaluation states that

Leo has a wonderful attitude towards his student clients . . . Unfortunately

evaluation of his treatment skills is limited because Leo has had less cases to

discuss than some of his peers since a larger than usual number of students

have stopped coming to their sessions with him.

It is the middle of the Spring Semester, and Dr. Vaji still has approximately 6

weeks of supervision left with Leo. The students’ complaints about Leo, while more

extreme, are consistent with what Dr. Vaji has observed in Leo’s class papers and

role-playing exercises. However, these complaints are very different from his presentation

during on-site supervision. If Leo has been intentionally deceiving both

supervisors, then he may be more ineffective or harmful as a therapist to his current

clients than either supervisor realized. In addition, purposeful attempts to deceive

the supervisors might indicate a personality disorder or lack of integrity that if left

unaddressed might be harmful to adolescent clients in the future.

Ethical Dilemma

Dr. Vaji would like to meet with Leo at minimum to discuss ways to retain adolescent

clients and to improve his multicultural treatment skills. He does not know

to what extent his conversation with Leo and final supervisory report should be

influenced by the information provided by the graduate students.