Multidimensional Scaling Used to Evaluate Students Residing in a Rehabilitation Unit

1971 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 879-886 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leroy A. Stone ◽  
Gary J. Coles ◽  
E. Robert Sinnett ◽  
Gail L. Sherman

The Stone-Coles revision of Ekman's “content” model of multidimensional similarity analysis was applied to judgments of person similarity made by four mental health professionals. The person-stimuli evaluated were college student clients (disturbed Ss) and volunteers (normal Ss). Two students in the latter category also served as judges. All judges appeared to share a common frame of reference, as only one factor emerged from a factor analysis of interjudge correlations. The factor analysis of a matrix of correlational similarities calculated from a matrix of mean similarities yielded four factors. These factors were first interpreted using clinical judgment and subsequently these interpretations were checked by correlations with MMPI variables. The first three factors were labeled: I. Action-oriented vs Overcontrolled, II. Sex, and III. Severity of Disturbance. A small fourth factor was uninterpretable.

1993 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy Borum ◽  
Randy Otto ◽  
Stephen Golding

Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are frequently involved as expert witnesses in legal proceedings. However, clinical judgment and decision making, which play a role in almost all clinical evaluations, have problems and limitations. Mental health professionals who conduct forensic examinations should be aware of these problems and take steps to address them. This article details the limitations of clinical judgment and decision making, and suggests ways to minimize associated problems, thereby improving the validity and utility of forensic evaluations.


Author(s):  
Howard N. Garb

How do clinicians arrive at diagnostic decisions? In most cases the decision is not made following formal criteria, but by intuition. In addition, routine interviews are often narrow and the feedback gleaned from patients is inadequate. Yet it is not clear if screening helps or hinders clinical judgment. It might be that only clinicians who have low confidence and interviewing and diagnostic skills are open to the use of and actually helped by diagnostic tools. To provide a theoretical framework for understanding why it is difficult for physicians to detect depression in primary care settings, a broad array of research in the mental health fields can be described. For example, more than 1,000 studies have been conducted on clinical judgment in the area of mental health practice, and the results from these studies can be used to illuminate the challenges physicians face in judging whether a patient is clinically depressed and can benefit from treatment. In this chapter, results on clinical judgment will be described. A second topic will also be briefly discussed. Results from research on clinical judgment would seem to indicate that screening should be of value. Yet, as noted in Chapter 7, stand-alone screening programs have added little or nothing to outcomes. Reasons for this unexpected result will be explored. Three topics will be discussed: (1) narrowness of interviews, (2) nature of patient feedback, and (3) the cognitive processes of clinicians. Depression goes undetected because in many cases physicians do not ask patients if they have symptoms of a depressive mood disorder.3 To place this in context, it can be noted that mental health professionals also often do not ask patients about important symptoms and behaviors. Failure to inquire about depression in primary care settings can be viewed in the broader context of failure to inquire about important symptoms and events in mental health settings. Research on clinical judgment has demonstrated that lack of comprehensiveness is often a problem for interviews made in clinical practice. For example, in one study,4 mental health professionals saw patients in routine clinical practice, and afterwards research investigators conducted semi-structured interviews with the patients. Remarkably, the mental health professionals had evaluated only about 50% of the symptoms that were recorded using the semi-structured interviews.


1969 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 915-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne R. Bartz

20 volunteers from each of the 3 major mental health professions made clinical judgments of the presence or absence of “rigidity” in 16 case histories. The histories contained all possible combinations of 4 literature-identified aspects of rigidity. The results indicate that rigidity is considered present when an individual shows 2 or more of the following: failure to adapt to changing situations, involuntary repetition of responses, emotional-intellectual suppression. If he experiences stress, anxiety, or insecurity, rigidity is contra-indicated. Considering the differences between such clinical views of rigidity and those incorporated in most laboratory research, it is suggested that attempts be made to demonstrate predictive validity of the clinical concept.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document