Psychological Assessment in Court Counseling - Literature review Example

Psychological Assessment in Court Counseling Introduction For many years, personality tests such as the Rorschach Inkblot test and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI 1 / MMPI 2) have been widely used in clinical, forensic, and legal practices throughout the United States. On the contrary, a study reveals that only 20 out of 87 court cases that has tried using some kind of tests, adapted the personality test in workplaces between the years 1944 to 1998. (Finlinson et al., 2001) Just like the other personality test methods, the validity of test result of Rorschach and MMPI is still considered unstable due to the strength and limitations of each testing method. (McCann, 1998; Weiner, 1996) In line with this matter, there are some people who believe that the Rorschach Inkblot Method can provide valid test results whereas others remain to have qualms about the validity of the test results. (Society for Personality Assessment, 2006) To give the readers a better understanding of the subject matter, the differences between Rorschach and MMPI 1 / MMPI 2 will first be discussed. Aiming to fulfill the instructor’s requirement, the article of the Society for Personality Assessment (2005) entitled ‘The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment’ will be examined and used in determining the role of psychological assessment in court counseling as well as the strengths and weaknesses of formal psychological testing will be elaborated. After discussing the differences between objective and subjective assessment techniques, the reasons behind choosing MMPI / MMPI-2 over Rorschach or both will be thoroughly explained prior to conclusion. Differences between Rorschach and MMPI 1 / MMPI 2 Rorschach and MMPI 1 / MMPI 2 are commonly used as a tool in conducting psychological assessment which is focused on enabling psychologists to understand: (1) the personality which is normally divided into several components known as: emotional, cognitive, intellectual, and physiological among others; (2) psychological functioning; and (3) behavior of an individual. (Shapse, 2008) Rorschach is a subjective assessment tool that make use of inkblot method and utilizes “an open-structured, performance-based cognitive perceptual problem-solving task” (Shapse, 2008) whereas MMPI-1 or MMPI-2 make used of written psychological assessment in order to diagnose the existence of mental or personality disorder (Graham, 1999). Between the two, MMPI is a commonly used personality assessment tool because of its simple scoring technique. (Friedman et al., 2001) Since the standard clinical scales used in MMPI-1 as well as the original ways of labeling diagnostic can be misleading, six validity scale and ten standard clinical scales of MMPI-2 was developed with the use of scales from 0 to 9. (Graham, 1999) Basically, MMPI-2 is simply referring to as a revised version of MMPI-1. (Butcher et al., 1989) Between Rorschach and MMPI, MMPI-2 is considered to be the most widely used psychological assessment tool since its uses an objective testing approach. Role of Psychological Assessment in Court Counseling The use of psychological assessment in court counseling has been gaining importance especially on the part of forensic practices as a valid method of supporting our stand in the court. In line with the significant role of psychological assessment in proving either guilt or innocence of a person in court, the validity of using of Rorschach inkblot method has been questioned by other researchers as to whether or not psychologists and forensic scientists should continue using inkblot method in assessing the mental, psychological, and cognitive functioning of a person. (Wood, Nezworski, & Stejskal, 1996; Exner, 1995) Society for Personality Assessment (2006) exerted an effort to determine the validity of using Rorschach by gathering psychologists and other professionals in analyzing the credibility of using the Rorschach inkblot method. In the process, the group provided a meta-analytic data which compares the validity of Rorschach with intelligence scales including other psychological assessment tools like MMPI-1 or MMPI-2. (Butcher et al., 1989) The research study result that was conducted by Society for Personality Assessment (2006) as well as the remarks given by Meyer & Archer (2001) concludes that Rorschach should not be discredited as a psychological asessment tool since inkblot method have reasonable validity as compared to other similar assessment tools. In fact, the use of Rorschach can be considered as a useful psychological assessment tool in court counseling since it provides psychologists and forensic scientists with important information that other tools cannot provide. Strengths and Weaknesses of Rorschach Inkblot Test and MMPI-1 or MMPI-2 The strength of using Rorschach inkblot method is that the tool can provide psychologists and forensic scientists with important information that other psychological assessment tools cannot provide. However, this method has a lot of weaknesses as compared with the use of MMPI-1 or MMPI-2. First, Rorschach results should be compared with other psychological tests results in order to give psychologists and forensic scientists an unbiased judgment. Aside from the fact that standardization of administration and scoring cannot be applied to Rorschach test; clinicians are required to determine factors that may significantly affect or distort the Rorschach test results. For example: psychologists or forensic scientists should be able to tell whether or not the client is sincerely participating or trying to manipulate the Rorschach test results during the diagnostic interview. Similar to Rorschach, the use of either MMPI-1 or MMPI-2 should be carefully administered in order to avoid getting a misleading result as clinical psychologists or forensic scientists try to interpret the test result. Given that MMPI is very much dependent on one aspect of psychological assessment, it is very much advisable to use MMPI together with other psychological assessment tools when diagnosing a person. (Graham, 1999) For example: Clinical psychologists and forensic scientists should consider the cultural background and language used by a person prior to conducting the MMPI test since inability of a person to comprehend with the questions asked could greatly distort the MMPI test results. Differences between Objective and Subjective Assessment Techniques The sole use of subjective assessment technique such as in the case of Rorschach could bring a lot of questioning with regards to the validity of the test results. (Aspel, Willis, & Faust, 1998) Observers in general may find it difficult to accept the accuracy of a clinical psychologist or a forensic scientist’s judgement on Rorschach test with regards to a person’s psychological diagnosis. For this reason, people in the court may find it difficult to make a case conclusion purely on the Rorschach test results. For example: Clinical psychologist may represent one colour of inkblot to be the client’s enemy and another colour that represents the client’s unresolved conflict with his enemy. Even though client may be able to project some images or feelings in each colour, it is very difficult to convince the jury with the test result given the fact that the client is the only one who really knows what he projects whereas the clinical psychologist is only interpreting the client’s projection in each inkblot colour. Therefore, it becomes very easy on the part of the client to manipulate the test result without the knowledge of the clinical psychologist. It is possible for several clinical psychologists to develop their own interpretation of the test results. On the other hand, the use of subjective assessment tools such as the MMPI-1 or MMPI-2 may provide a better test result since clinical psychologists or forensic scientists will be able to present more concrete evidences in the court. Reasons for Selecting MMPI / MMPI-2 over Rorschach or Both Even though the use of Rorschach can provide the clinical psychologists and forensic scientists with information that other psychological assessment tools cannot provide, it is still advisable to choose MMPI-1 or MMPI-2 over Rorschach when representing a case in the court. First, people in court are looking for physical evidence that can prove either guilt or innocence of a person. Submitting subjective evidences in court will only be a waste of time since there is a higher possibility that the jury will not accept such evidence. Conclusion The article submitted by the Society for Personality Assessment (2006) provided a meta-analytical and personal evidences to regain the validity of subjective psychological assessment tool particularly the Rorschach Inkblot test. Considering that people in court would look for concrete evidences in order to win or lose a case, it is highly recommended that clinical psychologists and forensic scientists to focus on the use of objective assessment tools more than subjective ones. *** End *** Bibliography: SocietyforPersonalityAssessment. (2006). The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment , 85(2):219 - 237. References: Aspel, A. D., Willis, G. W., & Faust, D. (1998). School Psychologists’ Diagnostic Decision-Making Processes Objective-Subjective Discrepancies. Journal of School Psychology , 36(2):137 - 149. Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2: Manual for administration and scoring. In Society for Personality Assessment (ed) The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment , 85(2):219 - 237. Butcher, J., Dahlstrom, W., Graham, J., Tellegen, A., & Karmmer, B. (1989). MMPI–2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2: Manual for administration and scoring. In Society for Personality Assessment (ed) The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment , 85(2):219 - 237. Exner, J. (1995). Narcissism in the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach. In Society for Personality Assessment (ed) The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment , 85(2):219 - 237. Finlinson, S., Chen, P., Tischner, E., Lyle, J., & Popovich, P. (2001). Legal implications of personnel assessment: An analysis of court cases. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference. San Diego, CA. Friedman, A. F., Lewak, R., Nichols, D. S., Webb, J. T., & Erlbaum, L. (2001). Psychological Assessment with the MMPI-2. Erlbaum Associates. Graham, J. R. (1999). MMPI-2: Assessing Personality and Psychopathology. New York: Oxford University Press. McCann, J. T. (1998). Defending the Rorschach in Court: An Analysis of Admissibility Using Legal and Professional Standards. Journal of Personality Assessment , 70(1):125 - 144. Meyer, G., & Archer, R. (2001). The hard science of Rorschach research: What do we know and where do we go? In Society for Personality Assessment (ed) The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment , 85(2):219 - 237. Shapse, S. N. (2008). HG.org. Retrieved June 21, 2008, from Forensic Psychological Assessment: http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5100 Weiner, I. (1996). Some observations on the validity of the Rorschach Inkblot Method. In Society for Personality Assessment (ed) The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment , 85(2):219 - 237. Wood, J., Nezworski, M., & Stejskal, W. (1996). Thinking critically about the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A reply to Exner. In Society for Personality Assessment (ed) The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment , 85(2):219 - 237. Read More