Research and Clinical Formulation-Nursing Paper Examples

II. Test and Assessment Development Analysis: Test One

E. Cut scores

The WAIS-IV scale has a mean score of 100. Normal scores on the scale range between 90 to 110, at-risk scores between 70 and 89, and clinically significant scores below 69 (Research and Clinical Formulation).

F. Cultural concerns

Cultural factors like language barriers may significantly affect the administration of the WAIS-IV test. Language differences among equally intelligent respondents may result in variations in mean scores on each item, producing biased results (Duggan et al., 2019). The respondents may poorly translate the items or be unfamiliar with them, or the original items may be ambiguous, causing biases. Besides, behavioral differences across cultures may also affect the tests. Western cultures believe intelligent people have skilled reasoning, while African cultures (Kenya) believe that appropriately dressed and behaved children are intelligent(Research and Clinical Formulation).

G. Ethical Issues

Ethical concerns include the forceful administration of the tests to unwilling individuals, which may increase the test results’ bias. For example, some schools can administer the tests without the children’s or their parent’s consent. Besides, Goldstein, Allen, and DeLuca (2019) observe that poor translations may result in discrepancies distorting the final intelligence measures, hence the need for extreme caution when using results based on translated items (Research and Clinical Formulation).

H. Methods

Interpretation and communication of the test results should incorporate competency, theory, and clinical skills (Goldstein, Allen & DeLuca, 2019). The interpreters should clearly outline any discrepancies between the profiles of different participants while comparing them with matched controls (Research and Clinical Formulation).

III. Test and Assessment Development Analysis: Test Two

E. Cut Scores

The cut scores for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI – III) scale produced a mean score of 60, with normal scores averaging 60-74. High-risk scores averaged between 75-84, while scores between 85-115 were clinically significant. 

F. Cultural Concerns

Differences in languages and translations in distinguishing personality disorders may affect the reliability and administration of the tests (Goldstein, Allen & DeLuca, 2019). Errors are likely to occur when translating the original items of MCMI-II, causing varying understandings of the identified disorders across cultures. Also, social norms influence interpersonal functioning, which is crucial in diagnosing borderline personality disorders (Kramer, Bernstein & Phares, 2019). Failure to consider the interpersonal traits of the individuals taking the test may produce biased results (Research and Clinical Formulation).

G. Ethical Issues (Research and Clinical Formulation)

Kramer, Bernstein, and Phares (2019) observe that ethical issues may include administering the test to individuals who don’t require them, resulting in harmful labeling of clients, especially when sharing the test results with them. Besides, some test administrators may ignore confidentiality and privacy limits and share the tests with third parties (Kramer, Bernstein & Phares, 2019). Also, there can be concerns related to the incompetency of the administrators, whereby some of them may not use the tests for recommended purposes, like measuring the stable traits of the patient. 

H. Methods

The test administrators should be competent and employ actuarial and clinical judgment when interpreting and communicating the tests (Kramer, Bernstein & Phares, 2019). They must use appropriate standards to ensure that the produced tests are valid and reliable (Research and Clinical Formulation).

IV. Clinical Formulation

Results

Based on the WAIS-IV scale, the patient scored 96 on the Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ). This indicates that the patient can effectively solve problems, manage situations, and employ abstract thinking in making decisions. Below-average scores were observed on the Visual Spatial Index (VSI) and Working Memory Index (WMI), indicating the patients’ inability to develop meaningful patterns and maintain verbal and visual information in their minds (Goldstein, Allen & DeLuca, 2019). Consequently, based on the MCMI-III scale, the patient scored 75 on depressive, 85 on anxiety, 81 on schizoid, and 79 on major depression. Other scores include 81 (dependent), 80 (masochistic), and 75 (desirability). These scores indicate higher levels of personality disorders.

Diagnosis

The data indicates that the patient suffers from major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.

Psychometric Data

The test results indicate that the patient is experiencing severe personality disorders by showing signs of potential major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. This justifies the referral decision to obtain an accurate clinical diagnosis and treatment of the specific personality disorder (Research and Clinical Formulation).

References

Duggan, E. C., Awakon, L. M., Loaiza, C. C., & Garcia-Barrera, M. A. (2019). Contributing towards a cultural neuropsychology assessment decision-making framework: Comparison of WAIS-IV norms from Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Spain, United States, and Canada. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 34(5), 657-681. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acy074

Goldstein, G. Allen, D. N. & DeLuca, J. (2019). Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed.). London: Academic Press. ISBN: 9780128022030

Kramer, G. P., Bernstein, D. A. & Phares, V. (2019). Introduction to Clinical Psychology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9781108705141