Week 8 discussion response to classmates
Please no plagiarism and make sure you are able to access all resources on your own before you bid. Main references come from Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015) and/or Encyclopedia of Counseling (2017). You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation regarding treatment. Please respond to all 3 of my classmates separately. You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation like peer-reviewed, professional scholarly journals. I need this completed by 01/17/20 at 5pm.
Responses to peers. Respond to at least three of your colleagues’ posts by finding one colleague who had a similar experience and one who had a different experience. Compare the insights you gained.
THREE PEER RESPONSE POSTS should contain at least 150 words. No references are required for Peer Response posts. Please note that responding to your peers is required by the classroom, means a substantive post (150 words min.) and one that contains detail and thoroughness. Also, please note that just merely answering the Main Discussion post with 2 references is not an automatic 100.
1. Classmate (C. Ree)
To be asked questions by someone I have just met was intimidating and made me feel unsure about taking an assessment. To be asked questions was fine until it got to the math portion. I thought, I can subtract so why am I not getting these answers incorrect. Then I felt that I was not smart enough since the title of the assessment is “Mental State Exam.” Anxiety producing. I kept thinking, what if I do not do well, will she think less of me when these questions are very simple. After entering the data to produce the scores, I was not happy with the results and I disagreed with them. I got confused on certain numbers. When she told me what number I should be on I was not on that number so I do not think this was an accurate reflection of my responses.
Taking thee Jung assessment online was interesting but extensive. I was not expecting it to involve so many questions. I do feel, however that the assessment described me somewhat. I can agree with the findings because I assumed as much of myself. The assessment listed my current job as suitable employment while naming counseling as another job I’d enjoy. Those two elements I can agree on totally. I did disagree with the finding that I like to socialize in large crowds, totally inaccurate description of something I would engage in. Insights gained from being assessed was it can be interesting until the results come back. Being involved in an assessment can be (for me scary) since a lot of people look at assessments as a true measure of who you are. I think client would react in a similar way because to be assessed can be nerve wrecking for some, while others jump at the chance to reveal their results.
2. Classmate (C. Yob)
The Mini Mental State Exam was interesting. I found myself questioning the assessment; part of me wondered if each question had an ulterior meaning behind it. I scored a 30. Through the exam I had thoughts ranging from, “Didn’t she just ask me that?” to “Oh god, I hate math.” I also think there were a couple questions that may have been misnumbered. Overall, taking the Mini Mental State Exam was fine, and I think that if I were in front of a student who was somehow mentally impaired or borderline then asking them these simple questions would throw them off enough to get insight into their state. However, I’m not sure I would feel comfortable using this exam for much more than gaining some insight into the client’s current state. “Test givers should remember the impact that their decisions will have on clients and monitor the quality of the tests they use, their level of competence to administer tests, and their ability to make accurate interpretations of client material” (Neukrug, E.S., & Fawcett, R.C., 2015). I do not have the level of competence necessary at this point to appropriately analyze this test for a student.
The Jung assessment is one I’ve taken multiple times and I usually receive the same answer – INFP. There are sometimes it may be ENFP, depending on how I’m feeling about people that day. The Feeling, Intuitive, Forward-looking personality does tend to align with my opinion of myself. This test in general is more fun to take and I think students might find it more enjoyable to take rather than the Mini Mental State Exam. Projective and objective personality tests are valuable tools because they can guide us towards the most effective methods of working with a specific student, including how to interact with the student’s opinion of themselves. People love to take personality quizzes, so I think with a projective test which has more stimuli versus the objective test (pen and paper), students will be happier to participate and learn (Neukrug, E.S., & Fawcett, R.C., 2015)..
Neukrug, E.S., & Fawcett, R.C. (2015). Chapter 11: “Clinical assessment: Objective and projective personality tests.” The Essentials of Testing and Assessment: A Practical Guide for Counselors, Social Workers, and Psychologists (pp.247-280). Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
3. Classmate (A. Mul)
I was interested (and nervous) to see what was shown by the results of the Mini-Mental State Exam. The Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) is a popular cognitive functioning test used by mental health counselors (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2015). I was anxious as she began to ask questions but I was quickly confused when the first few questions seemed so obvious. I found myself overthinking the question regarding what level of the building was I on. I was in the basement but wondered if that would be considered the first floor or basement. I wondered if there was a wrong answer. Overall I found the test fairly simple other than the math questions. Those took me a bit longer as math is a weak area for me. The results of this assessment seemed accurate for me and my current ability but I see how this would be a good indicator if someone presented with concern such as a jeopardized mental state or intoxication.
I found the Jung Assessment to be very long and repetitive. I felt that the same questions were asked repeatedly attempting to get a different response. I also felt some of the questions to be difficult to answer concretely. The answers of NO and no vs. YES and yes I found confusing. I used NO/YES = absolutely no/absolutely yes, and no/yes = sometimes no/sometimes yes. When I was answering these questions I wondered if others, possibly coping with mental illness may become frustrated at a long, redundant YES, yes, NO, no assessment.
The results of my Jung assessment were ESFJ or Extraverted, Sensing, Feeling and Judging. I was shocked to see the meaning and how accurately the description fit my personality. Descriptors such as generous, entertainer, emotional, control, protector all describe me very well. I felt this would be helpful in developing treatment plans with individuals or families to get a better understanding of oneself and how one interacts with others. Clients may find such an assessment as enlightening and empowering.
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015). The essentials of Testing and Assessment: A practical guide for counselors, social workers, and psychologists. Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015). Chapter 9: “Intellectual and Cognitive Functioning: Intelligence Testing and Neuropsychological Assessment.” In The essentials of Testing and Assessment: A practical guide for counselors, social workers, and psychologists (pp. 190-220). Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015). Chapter 11: “Clinical assessment: Objective and projective personality tests.” In The essentials of Testing and Assessment: A practical guide for counselors, social workers, and psychologists (pp. 247-280). Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
Laureate Education (2018). Mini Mental State exam [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Producer.
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 9 minutes.
Accessible player –Downloads– Download Video w/CC Download Audio Download Transcript
Barbaranelli, C., Fida, R., Paciello, M., DiGiunta, L., & Capara, G. V. (2008). Assessing personality in early adolescence through self-report and other-ratings a multitrait-multimethod analysis of the BFQ-C. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), pp. 876-886. Doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.014