Five common test behaviors that characterize Barbra’s situation
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the observations and the test behaviors, am confident in my results. The projective personality tests are reliable since they will provide accurate results for the five common test behaviors that characterize Barbra’s situation. The projective personality test will give reliable results that will enable the practitioner to select an effective intervention treatment for the patient. On the other hand, the five common test behaviors included in Barbra’s assessment will be independent with each other. These test behaviors comprise of her openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, as well as her conscientiousness while performing her responsibilities at the workplace. Accordingly, I am confident in the result since they provide a more accurate picture of Barbra’s natural behaviors and preferences. Thus, the test behaviors will give the patient a better understanding of the reasons and factors that lead to her behavior while at work.
The common themes that emerged from the data included Barbra’s difficulty sitting still, being unable to recall things that had happened a while ago, a high-level difficulty thinking clearly, and a high-level inability to make informed decisions while working. On the other hand, the some of the contradictions in the data entailed her changing levels of failure to perform complex tasks and how sometimes she developed physical and mental energy to concentrate, thus avoiding careless mistakes. The information that is relevant to the referral question centres on Barbra’s decision to make a self-referral assessment since she is concerned about her change of behavior involving feeling tired and her dislike in socializing. The fact that Barbra is willing to change her behavior, as well as her quest for the help of psychology, will be crucial in helping the practitioner choose an effective intervention method.
Despite the reliability and effectiveness of the projective personality tests, the tests have several limitations and weaknesses including the idea that the respondent’s answers may be heavily influenced by the assessor’s attitude or the testing set. Secondly, the score of a projective test is usually highly subjective, leading to variations in how respondents interpret the questions and hence, the answers can dramatically vary among examiners (Knoff, 2013). Moreover, projective tests that lack standard grading scores are usually invalid and unreliable. Therefore, for the practitioner to eliminate these limitations, it would be necessary to employ additional criteria such as DiSCand MBTI, which are type-focused personality tests. Knoff (2013) states that, while both tests measure personality across the four factors wherein an individual is defined as one type or another, the methods provide a deeper understanding in how the individual feels and thinks, hence eliminating the weaknesses of the projective personality tests.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusion, I recommend the practitioner to employ the Berke Personality Test, which evaluates two traits related to an individual’s ability to socialize. The two traits include responsiveness and sociability(Bornstein, 2018). Whereas sociability is linked to a degree of social confidence in meeting new individuals and participating in social interactions, responsiveness refers to a person’s tendency to react spontaneously and to express their feelings, emotions and thoughts outwardly and openly (Bornstein, 2018). Consequently, this personality test will be effective in providing the psychologist with a deeper understanding of Barbra’s behaviors in addition to helping her cope with her change in behavior.
Reflection
From Barbra’s scenario, the psychologist observed that Barbra arrived for her appointment on time and was open to discuss her history and present concerns. She admitted that she had overslept and rushed to keep the appointment, and as a result, she did not eat that morning. However, despite her being hungry and tired, Barbra completed the assessments in a thoughtful manner and occasionally asked clarification questions. On the other hand, it was observed that she experienced difficulty in responding to the projective tests since she was worried that she would give incorrect answers. Significantly, the projective tests were adequate in helping the practitioner develop more in-depth insights into the client’s behavior while performing tasks assigned to her at the workplace (Bornstein, 2018). However, although the client was aware that observation would be conducted, she was not informed about the particular days the observer would visit her at the place of work.
The report enhanced my understanding of the scope of projective personality tests and the extent to which they are effective in helping psychologists assess their client behavior. I also learned the limitations of the methods and additional personality tests such as Berke Personality Test which could enhance the assessment results. Additionally, the report enhanced my understanding of how I will address scenarios such as Barbra’s. For instance, to improve the results, I believe that the psychologist should have added questions relating to the respondent’s past responsiveness and level of sociability.
References
Bornstein, R. F. (2018). Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests: A meta-analytic assessment of behavioral prediction. Psychological Assessment, 11(1), 48.
Knoff, H. M. (2013). Justifying projective/personality assessment in school psychology: A response to Batsche and Peterson. School Psychology Review, 12(4), 446-451.