Profile:

This is the last profile for the course. (And there was much rejoicing!)

All assessments are to be conducted with a single volunteer.

The volunteer is to be someone you barely know or do not know at all. Ex. A spouse’s co-worker, a friend of your child, a neighbor you don’t spend much time with, etc. It may be the same individual you had already assessed from last week.

You are to administer three assessments in order to offer a professional recommendation that fulfills the requirement of the reason for referral.

One test will be a Projective Test of your choice. The remaining two tests MUST come from the third section of Janda, In Search of Self-Growth (tests 17-24).

My recommendation is not to pick the three tests ahead of time. Analyze the results of one test. Upon reviewing the results, ask yourself, “What do I want to know more about that will help me offer a professional recommendation that fulfills the requirement of the reason for referral?” Then your choice of the next test to administer should come from your answer.

Write-up Format:

Identifying Information:

First Name of Subject (only), gender, age, handedness, examiner’s name, date of assessment, assessment tool(s).

Ps. The name of the test is not the name of the chapter. The test is not called How Depressed Are You? The name of the test is called The Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire.

Reason for Referral: Some version of the following in your own words, “Your boss has observed that one of the students has scars or marks on her wrists. Your boss wants you to evaluate the student’s risk of committing suicide.”

This is important! You need to address this explicitly in the Recommendations section. This is the reason you are doing the testing.

Observations: Include assessment environment (which is a general description of any distractors while the person is being assessed.)

Assessment environment may be optimal or full of distractions. “Assessment environment was optimal and therefore results are likely authentic.”

“Assessment environment had several distractions (could share specifics) which may have compromised the results. The interpretation should be read with caution.”

Results: Include all scores, not just the highest. Here is an example.

Then offer a brief description of what the scores mean. Here is an example:

“The subject scored highest in the Behavioral domain, indicating that she is most likely to express anxiety through her actions, which could include avoiding stressful situations.”

Lastly include Suggested Personality Type. Please do not use one of the Modern Psychological Types, i.e., Jung, Fromm or Freud. I will take points off if you use the Greek Elemental Typology.

Profile: This section must be a minimum of one typed page in order to receive full credit. Your opening statement should be your assessment of the subject’s personality type. “The results of the three assessments administered to the subject converge to show that she fits the description of Jung’s Sensing personality type.” The typology can be of your choice from Jungian, Frommian, or Freudian. The Greek Elemental typology is for academic purposes only and would not be professional to include in a profile. I will take points off if you continue to use the elemental typology for this final write-up. When a typology is determined, stick with it for the remainder of the write-up. Don’t mix up terminology.

Now that you’ve stated the personality type, next give a summary in your own words of the characteristics and traits associated with that personality type.

Next, give your subjective interpretation of the following domains: Situations this person thrives in. How this person copes with stress and possible stressors. What are their relative strengths and weaknesses. If you find you need more to complete a page, additional possibilities include relationship styles, preferred leisure activities, predicted home life, philosophy of life, careers the person will excel in, etc.

It should be stated in the format Objective Data leads to Subjective Inference. For example, “Being a Thinking personality type, we would expect the subject to withdraw into their ideas when under stress.”

Another example, “The results finding the subject scored low in the Behavioral domain of the FSAQ suggests the person would most likely withdraw into their ideas when under stress and not rely on immediate action for coping.”

Remember to not devalue a test by dismissing the results as being untrue or ‘don’t fit’ the person. Your attitude should be that each test looks at a person from its own unique angle, giving you a well-rounded perspective of the individual.

Remember the story of the three blind men and the elephant. One man holds his trunk and says he has a hose. Another blind man holds an ear and says he has a rug. The last blind man holds his tail and says he has a rope. They each have a different part, all joined together equaling a single elephant. Likewise, one test gives you the results of (the trunk), another gives you the results of (the tail), and another gives you the results of (an ear). Put all the results together and you have a whole person. So it is ok if the results “look different”. Your job is to put it all together and create a complete picture of a whole individual with varying aspects of their total personality.

(Reminder: Avoid using words ‘positive/negative’)

Recommendations: This section should be a summary of the profile section that are relevant to your recommendations as well as your suggested follow up course of action. Since the person already has been observed with marks on their wrists, you will not say “This student has no risk of suicide.” Use low/medium/high risk of possible suicidal actions.

If the person is assessed as low risk, your recommendation could be “It appears the marks are superficial and there is nothing in her personality profile that suggests they would take further serious action. The subject is assessed as having a low risk of possible suicidal actions. Therefore it is recommended that this student resume their regular school schedule with minimal supervision.”

Risk of suicide is a BIG DEAL! Please be explicit! Do not omit stating that they are a low/medium/high risk of possible suicidal actions.