Please no plagiarism and make sure you are able to access all resources on your own before you bid. Main references come from Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015) and/or Encyclopedia of Counseling (2017). You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation regarding treatment. I have also attached my and example by the professor on how to respond to get full points. Please respond to all 3 of my classmates separately. You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation like peer-reviewed, professional scholarly journals. I need this completed by 01/10/20 at 3pm.
Expectation:
Responses to peers. Respond to at least three of your colleagues’ posts indicating that if you had the ability to select a different and more appropriate assessment, what assessment from the MMY might you use instead and how is it better in terms of reliability, validity, norm group?
THREE PEER RESPONSE POSTS should contain at least 150 words. No references are required for Peer Response posts. Please note that responding to your peers is required by the classroom, which means a substantive post (150 words min.) and one that contains detail and thoroughness. Also, please note that just merely answering the Main Discussion post with 2 references is not an automatic 100.
1. Classmate (J. Boo)
Mikayla is an 8-year-old second-grader that is having behavioral issues in class. Both of Mikayla’s parents are in the home and she has a younger brother. Mikayla was sent to the school counselors office after an incident with her breaking the classroom fish tank during a silent reading activity. The teacher stated Mikayla her behavior has caused her test scores to lower and grades are poor. Mikayla is having a hard time following directions, staying on task, and remain seated. Mikayla does well in small groups and when she gets one -on-one attention. She is very active and is distracted easily (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2015).
Assessments
The first assessment chosen for Mikayla is Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Test 2nd Edition (ADHDT-2). The ADHDT-2 is a 33-item scale that takes 3-5 minutes to complete and is administered individually to the classroom teacher, parent, or other caregiver who can speak to the individual’s behavior over the previous 2 weeks. Each of the items are rated on a scale of 0-3; 0 means never observed the behavior, 2 means observed often, and 3 means very often observed (Gilliam, 2015). It is designed to identify individuals who present severe behavioral problems that may by indicative of ADHD for ages 5 through 17. The ratings would be completed with the teacher, parent, or other caregiver that has regular contact with the student for at least two weeks. The ADHDT-2 has two subscales which are inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity and are aligned with the criteria in the DSM-5 (Gilliam, 2015). One of the pros of this assessment was the normative sample represented the make-up of the United States so it can be used with many diverse groups. A con for the assessment is the validity evidence of the ADHDT-2 is adequate and there has been some difficulty in distinguishing between an individual with ADHD and autism (Gilliam, 2015).
The second assessment is the Behavioral Summary. The purpose of this assessment is to screen for behavioral adjustment problems for grades K-12. There is a Parent Report, Student Report, and Teacher Report which are in statement format. The parent and student items are similar, and the responses are either true or false. The teacher report responses are rated with 1 thru 4. The con of utilizing this assessment is it should not be used by itself and be a part of other assessments and instruments (Lacher, Gruber, Wingenfield, & Kline, 2009).
Conclusion
The ADHDT-2 would be the assessment utilized to work with Mikayla. This assessment can be utilized to by itself and not having to pair with other instruments to help with diagnosis. The test reliability, validity, and diverse sample size shows the worthiness of the assessment. This assessment will be able to identify Mikayla’s behavioral problems.
Resources
Gilliam, J. (2015). Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Test-Second Editon.
Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print, vol. 20
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015). The essentials of testing and assessment: A practical
guide to counselors, social workers, and psychologists (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Lachar, D. Gruber, C., Wingenfeld, S., & Kline, R. (2009). Behavioral Summary. Mental
Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print, vol. 19
2. Classmate (A. Gon)
The client I chose is eight-year-old Mikayla. Mikayla lives with her brother and her parents. Mikayla has been having trouble in school remaining in her seat, staying on the assigned task, and following directions. Some other concerns Mikayla’s teacher have are shouting in class, being easily distracted, and constantly in motion. When Mikayla works in small groups and one and one, she does well. However, Mikayla’s behavior caused her to get low grades and low test scores, which also contributed to her repeating the second grade. Mikayla is also popular among her peers.
The first assessment I chose for Mikayla is the Pediatric Attention Disorders Diagnostic Screener (PADDS). PADDS can be used in assisting the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in individuals six through twelve (Pedigo, Pedigo, Scott, Swanson, Nolan & Pelham, 2008). PADDS typically takes between twenty-five and thirty minutes to complete (Pedigo et al., 2008). Test results are available in less than an hour. A pro of using the PADDS assessment has been a useful tool in diagnosing ADHD (Pedigo et al., 2008). However, because of the newness of the assessment, more research is needed regarding establishing the validity of the assessment (Pedigo et al., 2008).
The Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale – Children and Adolescents (BDEFS-CA) are used for children between the ages of sic and seventeen (Barkley, 2012). The assessment can be found in either short or long-form; the long-form has 70 items; the short form has 20 items (Barkley, 2012). In addition to the assessment, there is also a twenty item interview form. The BDEFS-CA is given in a clinical setting; however, it has been known to be a useful tool in diagnosing deficits in children.
References
Barkley, R. A. (2012). Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale–Children and Adolescents. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3367&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Pedigo, T. K., Pedigo, K. L., Scott, V. B., Jr., Swanson, J. M., Nolan, W., & Pelham, W. E. (2008). Pediatric Attention Disorders Diagnostic Screener. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3160&site=ehost-live&scope=site
3. Classmate (A. Mal)
For this discussion post, I chose to focus on Alan. Alan is a 37-year-old man who is divorced and has a career in banking. In the past five years, he has been irritable, sleeping excessively, and has gained weight. He also has lost interest in things he uses to enjoy and talks about mild depression. Alan smokes marijuana and drinks alcohol daily. He has been arrested for possession of marijuana and driving under the influence, for which he was placed on probation. He wants to discontinue the use of drugs and alcohol (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2015. p. 55). Alan has been ordered to counseling as part of his probation.
I picked two assessments for Alan. The first assessment I chose is the Triage Assessment of Addictive Disorders (TAAD). This assessment is designed to identify current drug and alcohol problems. TAAD helps to establish substance abuse and dependence diagnostics in a short period and consists of 32 items. It usually takes about 10 to 15 minutes to administer. TAAD consists of yes and no questions about events that have occurred over the past twelve months related to alcohol and drugs and is administered through an interview type of test. The TAAD assessment will give the counselor insight into how Alan relates to drugs and alcohol.
The second assessment I picked for Alan is the Correa-Barrick Depression Scale (CBDS). The CBDS measures the severity of depression, as well as assesses changes in depression over time to evaluate treatment response. Also, it evaluates suicidal ideation. Alan reports mild depression, but it seems that smoking marijuana and drinking could be suppressing his emotions and feelings of everyday life. The CBDS is not intended to be used as a diagnostic instrument, it focuses on a measure to screen for the severity of depression.
There are pros and cons to both assessments. The pros of using The Triage Assessment for Addictive Disorders (TAAD) is that it offers a quick assessment of current substance use disorder criteria. The test also provides support for substance use disorder diagnoses in minutes. The cons of the TAAD assessment is that it is not as clear as other assessments on how to move forward with treatment.
The pros of using the Correa-Barrick Depression Scale (CBDS) is that this scale can be used in clinical practice to detect early signs of depression for prompt intervention. The cons of the CBDS are that it is a visual test involving colors. If there was a client that was color blind than this test would not work.
Hoffmann, N. G. (2013). Triage Assessment for Addictive Disorders–5. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.8072&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015). The essentials of testing and assessment: A practical guide to counselors, social workers, and psychologists (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015). Exercise 3.3: “Practice making a diagnosis.” In The essentials of Testing and Assessment: A practical guide for counselors, social workers, and psychologists (pp. 55). Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
Required Resources
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015). Exercise 3.3: “Practice making a diagnosis.” In The essentials of Testing and Assessment: A practical guide for counselors, social workers, and psychologists (pp. 55). Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
Carlson, J. F., Geisinger, K. F., & Jonson, J. L. (Eds.). (2017). The twentieth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Burros Center for Testing.
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015). Chapter 6: “Statistical Concepts: Making Meaning out of Raw Scores.” In The essentials of Testing and Assessment: A practical guide to counselors, social workers, and psychologists (pp. 110-126). Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015). Chapter 7: “Statistical concepts: Creating new scores to interpret test data.” In The essentials of Testing and Assessment: A practical guide to counselors, social workers, and psychologists (pp. 127-149). Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Thoughts
Review of the Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Thoughts by WILLIAM E. MARTIN, JR., Professor of Educational Psychology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ:
The Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Thoughts (FAST) is designed to measure the “Continuum of Negative Thought Patterns” as they relate to a client’s level of self-destructive potential or suicidality. The authors recommend the FAST to be used for screening, diagnosis, treatment progress, treatment outcome, research, and therapy. The FAST is theoretically grounded in what the authors refer to as the “concept of the voice,” which refers to negative thoughts and attitudes that are said to be at the core of maladaptive behavior.
The FAST consists of 84 items that provide self-report information from a respondent on how frequently he or she is experiencing various negative thoughts directed toward himself or herself. Four “composites” and 11 linked “continuum levels” comprise the FAST. One composite is named Self-Defeating and has five continuum levels (Self-Depreciation, Self-Denial, Cynical Attitudes, Isolation, and Self-Contempt). Addictions is another composite with addictions listed as its continuum level. A third composite is Self-Annihilating with four continuum levels (Hopelessness, Giving Up, Self-Harm, Suicide Plans, and Suicide Injunctions). The last composite is Suicide Intent and no continuum levels are identified.
ADMINISTRATION, SCORING, AND INTERPRETATION. The FAST instrument is a seven-page perforated, self-carbon form used for responding to items, scoring responses, and graphing the results. T scores are derived for the 11 continuum levels, four composites, and for the total score. Percentiles and 90% confidence interval bands also are available for use. The T scores are plotted on the T-Score profile graph, which has shaded partitions that indicate if the T scores fall within a nonclinical range, equivocal range, or clinical ranges that include elevated and extremely elevated.
The normative sample for the FAST was a clinical sample of outpatient clients undergoing psychotherapy. A T score of 50 on any scale represents the average performance of an individual who was in outpatient treatment with no suicide ideation from the normative sample. The nonclinical range is a T score between 20 and 41 whereas the equivocal range is 42-48. The two clinical ranges are elevated (42-59) and extremely elevated (60+). Any score that falls above the equivocal range is treated with concern and anyone scoring in the extremely elevated range on levels 7-11, the Self-Annihilating Composite, the Suicide Intent Composite, or the Total score should be immediately assessed for suicide potential.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALES. The items for the FAST were derived from actual statements of 21 clinical outpatients who were receiving “voice therapy” in groups. Nine of the outpatients had a previous history of serious suicide attempts and the others exhibited less severe self-defeating behaviors including self-denial, isolation, substance abuse, and eating disorders. The list of items was further refined from a study conducted to select those factors that significantly discriminated between suicide attempters and nonattempters. Then items were retained or deleted based upon their psychometric relationship to hypothesized constructs, resulting in the current 84-item version of the FAST.
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients ranging from .76 to .91 (Mdn = .84) are reported for the 11 level scores. Standard errors of measurement and 90% confidence intervals also are provided. However, sample sizes and descriptions are not provided for these measures. Test-retest reliability coefficients (1-266 days) ranged from .63-.94 (M = .82) using a sample (N = 131) of nonclinical, psychotherapy outpatients, and psychiatric inpatients.
Content validity of the FAST was investigated using a Guttman Scalogram Analysis resulting in a coefficient of reproducibility of .91 and a coefficient of scalability of .66. FAST Total Scores were correlated with the Suicide Ideation subscale of the Suicide Probability Scale (r = .72) as indicators of convergent validity. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using 579 outpatients resulting in a 3-factor solution (Self-Annihilating, Self-Defeating, and Addictions), which provided support for construct validity. Evidence for criterion-related validity was demonstrated from studies showing how FAST scores were able to discriminate inpatient and outpatient ideators from nonideators and to identify individuals who made prior suicide attempts.
SUMMARY. The authors have put forth empirical evidence that supports the psychometric properties of the FAST. However, continuing studies are needed, especially related to the effectiveness of the FAST in diagnosing and predicting chemical addictive behavior. Furthermore, the construct validity of scores from the FAST needs further consideration. First, the items for the FAST were generated from a small (N = 21) somewhat restricted focus group of persons receiving “voice therapy.” Second, the FAST is closely anchored to a theoretical orientation known as “concept of the voice” in which additional studies are needed to validate.
Overall, the FAST is a measure worth considering for professionals working with individuals who have exhibited self-destructive potential or suicidality. However, I encourage professionals to study the theoretical orientation underlying the FAST and determine if it is congruent with their own expectations for clinical outcomes prior to extensive use of the instrument.
Review of the Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Thoughts by ROBERT C. REINEHR, Professor of Psychology, Southwestern University, Georgetown, TX:
The Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Thoughts (FAST) is a self-report questionnaire intended to provide clinicians with a tool for the assessment of a patient’s suicide potential. Respondents are asked to endorse how frequently they are experiencing various negative thoughts directed toward themselves. The items were derived from the actual statements of clinical outpatients who were members of therapy groups in which the techniques of Voice Therapy were used.
Voice Therapy is a technique developed by the senior test author as a means of giving language to the negative thought processes that influence self-limiting, self-destructive behaviors and lifestyles. The FAST includes items intended to assess each of 11 levels of a Continuum of Negative Thought Patterns. Items were assigned to levels based on the judgments of advanced graduate students and psychologists with training in Voice Therapy.
In the standardization process, the FAST was administered to a sample of 478 clients who were currently receiving outpatient psychotherapy and who did not have any current (within the last month) suicide ideation, suicide threats, or suicide attempts. Standard scores were calculated for the Total Score, for four composite scores derived by factor analysis and other statistical procedures, and for each of the 11 levels of negative thought patterns.
Estimates of internal consistency are based on a single sample, the size of which is not reported in the manual. They range from .76 to .97, with the majority falling between .81 and .88. Test-retest reliability estimates are reported for three samples with intervals from 28-266 days in one study and 1-31 days in another: psychiatric inpatients (n = 28), psychotherapy outpatients (n = 68), and nonclinical college students (n = 35). Reliabilities for the various levels of the negative-thought continuum range from .63 to .94, with the higher coefficients generally being found among the nonclinical respondents. Test-retest reliability estimates for the various composite scores and for the total score are somewhat higher, ranging from .79 to .94.
As an indication of construct validity, FAST scores were compared to scores on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Beck Suicide Inventory (BSI), and the Suicide Probability Scale (SPS). The FAST Total score had its highest correlations with the BDI (.73), the BSI (.72), and the Suicide Ideations subscale of the SPS (.76). The composite scores and the various level scores had lower correlations with the subscales of the Beck instruments or the SPS.
The FAST was administered to groups of inpatients and outpatients with various diagnoses including Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Personality Disorder, Schizophrenia, and Substance Abuse, and to a nonclinical sample of 172 college students. Each of the clinical groups was further subdivided into suicide Ideators and Nonideators. Ideators had higher average FAST Total scores than did Nonideators and clinical groups had higher average FAST Total scores than did the nonclinical group. Information is provided in the manual with respect to the relationships between the various FAST subscales and the diagnostic groups and subgroups.
SUMMARY. In general, it would appear that the FAST is similar in many ways to other depression and suicide inventories. Total Scores tend to be higher for respondents in diagnostic groups than for nonclinical respondents, and within diagnostic groups, Suicide Ideators score more highly than do Nonideators.
Within the limits of these findings, the FAST may be useful to clinicians as an indication of how a given respondent’s answers compare to those of various diagnostic groups. It might also be possible to use the scale as a clinical tool for the evaluation of change during therapy, although use as a psychometric instrument is not justified on the basis of the evidence presented in the manual.
