ap slide 3f

Chapter Three

Assessment and Classification of Abnormal

BehaviorSue/Sue/Sue Understanding Abnormal Behavior, 10th edition © 2013 Cengage Learning

Assessment of Abnormal Behavior

• Assessment: • Process of gathering information and

drawing conclusions about an individual’s traits, skills, abilities, emotional functioning, and psychological problems

• Principal means of assessment:• Observations• Interviews• Psychological tests and inventories• Neurological tests

Sue/Sue/Sue Understanding Abnormal Behavior, 10th edition © 2013 Cengage Learning


(cont’d.)• Observations:

• Controlled (analogue) observations: • Made in laboratory, clinic, or other

contrived setting

• Naturalistic observations: • Made in natural setting (schoolroom,

office, hospital ward, home)

• Usually in conjunction with an interview• Observe appearance and behavior



(cont’d.)• Interviews:

• Observe client and collect data about the person’s life history, current situation, and personality

• Analyze:• Verbal behavior• Nonverbal behavior• Content• Process of communication



(cont’d.)• Interviews: standardization and structure

• Common rules and procedures• Vary in degree of structure and freedom

of response, and manner of conduct • Formal standardized interview: highly

structured• Mental status examination: evaluate

individual’s cognitive, psychological, and behavioral functioning

• Fallible and subjective



(cont’d.)• Psychological tests and inventories:

• Standardized instruments used to assess:• Personality • Maladaptive behavior • Social skills • Intellectual abilities • Vocational interests • Cognitive impairment



(cont’d.)• Projective personality tests:

• Test taker is presented with ambiguous stimuli and is asked to respond to them in some way• Rorschach Technique• Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)• Sentence-completion test• Draw-a-person test



(cont’d.)• Problems with projective personality

tests:• Analysis and interpretation of responses

are subject to wide variation• Reliability• Validity• Subjectivity• Norms • Cultural relevance



(cont’d.)• Self-report inventories:

• Test taker answers specific written questions or selects specific responses from a list of alternatives.

• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI and MMPI-2)

• Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)



(cont’d.)• Intelligence tests:

• Primary functions:• Obtain intelligence quotient (IQ), or

estimate of current level of cognitive functioning

• Secondary function:• Provide clinical data

• Wechsler scales• Stanford-Binet scales



(cont’d.)• Criticisms of intelligence tests:

• Popularized as measuring innate intelligence, but actually reflect cultural and social factors

• Predictive validity • Disagreement over criterion variables• Misses multidimensional attributes of

intelligence



(cont’d.)• Tests for cognitive impairment:

• Detect cognitive impairment• Bender-Gestalt Visual-Motor Test• Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test

Battery

• Have been found to be effective and valid in evaluating impairment due to brain damage



(cont’d.)• Neurological tests:

• Increase diagnostic accuracy when coupled with psychological tests• Electroencephalograph (EEG)• X-ray studies• Computerized axial tomography (CT)

scan• Positron emission tomography (PET) scan• Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)


Classification of Abnormal Behavior

• Classification system: • Provides distinct categories, indicators,

and nomenclature for different patterns of behavior, thought processes, and emotional disturbances



(cont’d)• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (DSM)• Early studies of DSM:

• Low reliability and validity• Did not help with etiology, process,

treatment, or prognosis of mental disorders • DSM-I (1952): Identified 106 disorders• DSM-II (1968): Identified 182 disorder• Revisions (DSM-II, DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-

IV, DSM-IV-TR) increase reliability and validity



(cont’d.)• DSM-V:

• Dimensional system: disorders lie on a continuum with “normality” at one end

• “Risk syndromes”: milder forms of disorders• Ratings: “none,” “slight,” “mild,”

“moderate,” “severe”• Clear diagnostic and categorizing guidelines• Comorbidity: the concurrence of different

disorders suffered by a patient at one time


Case Study: Mark

• 50 year old machine operator

• Referred to treatment by supervisor due to deteriorating work performance over the past four months

• Absenteeism; alcohol use at work

• Mark is heavy drinker

• Daily user; binge drinker on weekends


• heavy drinker for 30 years

• Drinking has increased since wife left him six months ago

• Mark showed signs of jealousy and suspiciousness

• Coworkers find him cold, distrusting of others, unemotional


• Mark has no close friends, no support

• Medical exam: cirrhosis of the liver

• Mark drinking for many years, though blames others for this

• Mark’s father was an alcoholic who had fits of rage

• Mark was physically and emotionally abused as a child


Mark’s diagnosis, using DSM-V Dimensional

System• Alcohol Use Disorder (previously axis I)

• Personality Disorder with paranoid traits (previously Axis II)

• Physical Disorder: Cirrhosis of the Liver (Previously Axis III)

• Causal Specifiers (previously Axis IV): biological/genetic; environmental; developmental; social; cultural; behavioral



(cont’d.)• Evaluation of the DSM classification

system• Positive aspects of DSM-V:

• Moves away from a categorical system and towards a dimensional system

• Hopes of improving reliability and validity• More clarity regarding differential

diagnoses • Increase clinical utility• Emphasis on cross-cultural assessment



(cont’d.)• Evaluation of the DSM classification

system• Criticisms of DSM-V:

• Viewing disorder on continuum• Diagnostic categories influenced by

outside pressure (pharmaceuticals)• Medicalizing behavioral problems• Controversial diagnoses• Cross-cultural applicability • Emphasis on deficits



(cont’d.)• Objections to classification and

labeling:• Can lead to overgeneralization,

stigmas, and stereotypes• Can lead to treating someone

differently• Individuals who are labeled tend to

believe they have those characteristics• Labels may not provide precise,

functional informationSue/Sue/Sue Understanding Abnormal Behavior, 10th edition © 2013 Cengage Learning

ap slide 3f

Documents

cengage learningsuesuesue

projective personality

individuals cognitive

test taker

standardized instruments

individuals traits

selfreport inventories

interpretation of responses