Class 5 Flashcards
Assessment: The Big Picture (Interview)
Interview
- Presenting problem
- Questions to be answered
- History
- Observation
- Collateral sources of information
Assessment: The Big Picture (Testing)
Testing - a battery
- “Personality” Assessment e.g.
– Self-report (MMPI, PAI, NEO)
– Performance-based test
—Rorschach
—Wartegg Drawing Completion
—Adult Attachment Projective
—Thurston Cradock Test of Shame
–Early Memories
– Other measures to explore/confirm
Looking for patterns of scores that inform answers
Assessment: The Big Picture (Cont.)
Considering elevated test scores
Considering the patterns of elevation and low scores within the test
Comparing multiple tests to discern bigger patterns
Integrating history, collateral information, interactions
Using our psychological knowledge
- Development
- Psychopathology
- Various models of understaning
- Etc.
Coding Clarifications
Using shading features to create contours in the blot - not scored shading
– Card IX - the green part looks like a ghost’s head – using the shading to create a mouth shape
– Card IV - using the shading to create round spots on the young deer/fawn
- If undecided on a score, can score it each way separately to see if it makes a difference
- Coding dilemmas can be informative
Cognitive Codes
“Designed to capture disruptive of illogical thought processes that are indicative of a thought disturbance”
Language and reasoning based (oddities in describing or justifying a response):
- DV1, DV2
- DR1, DR2
- PEC
Perceptually-based (oddities in combining visual images and response features):
- INC1, INC2
- FAB1, FAB2
- CON
Two Levels for DV, DR, INC, FAB
Levels 1 and 2
1 = Mild to modest cognitive slippage or deviation; benign, often playful, parenthetical, or misinformed
2 = Moderate to severe/bizarre cognitive slippage or deviation (stands out because manifestly inappropriate or bizarre)
> the two levels reflect the varying degree of bizarreness in the response (extent to which reality is disregarded)
DV (Deviant Verbalization)
Mistaken or inappropriate word or phrase
DV1: Verbalization is relatively clear and not bizarre (see ppt for examples)
DV2: Incomprehensible or very difficult to understand word misuse that interferes with communication (see ppt’s)
Corrected DVs
- If recognized and taken back, lessen the severity appropriately
- If immediately recognized and corrected, don’t score a DV
- May change a DV2 to a DV1
If in doubt, go with Level 1 (Level 2 should be obvious)
Do not consider age, education, etc. (these are considered in norms and interpretation)
Trivial redundencies that are nearly convetnional do NOT get a DV1 (e.g., two twins, big giant, little tiny)
Colloquial suffixes like “ish” or “y” NOT DV1 (e.g., “greenish” “lemony”)
Colloquial comical terms Not DV1 (e.g., “fancy-shamancy” “blew the bejesus out of it”)
Bilingual Clients
Switching languages in itself is not reason to code DV
Obviously, DVs related to bilingualism should not be interpreted as related to thought disorder
DR (Deviant Response)
Loose associations, task distortions, rambling circumstantial responses that drift off task
Illogical or irrelevant to the question: What might this be?
Don’t over code for benign or humorous asides, or understandable but unusual wording
See ppt for examples
Excessive emotional reaction as if the response is real or poses a threat
Whether Level 1 or 2 depends on the extent to which the client believes the response is real
Not DR
No DR for
A. Brief asides (I must be hungry)
B. Brief parenthetical, humorous, flippant, self-descriptive, or insecure comments
C. Simple descriptions of personal attitudes or preferences
….BUT only if the client returns to the task
See ppt. for example
DR Threshold for Circumstantial Response (bottom p. 117)
Two step Guideline
1. At least 2 statements/ideas offered
- Second statement not closely related to the response or the Rorschach tasks
(AND no communication problem or problem solving failures that lead to a DR coding for other reasons)
PEC (Peculiar Logic)
Peculiar, strained, confused, or overly concrete reasoning
Two elements:
1. Must be used to justify or to elaborate a response
- Must be offered spontaneously (cannot be prompted by examiner clarification)
See ppt for example
- Odd or confused reasoning
- Illogically restrictive or certitude (imperative)
- Distinction
- Often over-scored (be careful not to provoke the PEC by over clarifying)
- Assessors tend to over-code PEC to include all the imperatives (“has to be” “must be” even “because” responses) as PEC
BUT there has to be an illogical or non-sensical component as well
INC (Incongruous Combinations)
Merging blot details into an implausible single object (e.g., woman with the head of a chicken)
NOT scored if object is in a cartoon, or a fictional creature (like a minotaur)
An INC is a general bending or breaking of reality in a percept. So a red bear gets an INC, as does anthropomorphized animals, like a bear talking (bc bears don’t talk).
DRs are distortions of the task, not the actual percept itself. Strange asides, acting like the percept is real, etc.
See ppt. for examples
Thresholds
A person with a penis and breasts. This person could get themselves pregnant (INC1)
A person with a penis and breasts, a hermaphrodite (no INC)
FAB (Fabulized Combinations)
Implausible or impossible relationship between 2 separate objects
Interaction not characteristic of species (FAB1: TWO ants dancing together) - would also be INC1 but score the higher weighted FAB
Implausible transparencies is level 2 (FAB2: a man in chair you can see his heart pumping)
Don’t code an unexplained relationship, just illogical ones
Permissive contexts (Cartoon or dream)
BUT bizarre and uncensored content may be inappropriate in any context
See ppt. for examples
