+1(209) 348-9544
order@myessayservices.com
+1(209) 348-9544
order@myessayservices.com
Are you in High School, College, Masters, Bachelors or Ph.D and need someone to help write your essay or research? We offer premium quality essay writing help. All our papers are original, 0% plagiarized & uniquely written by our dedicated Masters specialists. My Essay Services is an experienced service with over 9 years experience in research writing of over 97,000 essays over the years. You will receive a plagiarism check certificate that confirms originality for any essay you order with My Essay Services. Fill the calculator on your right to begin placing your order now!
The Daubert standard is a standard that is often used by a trial judge that is used to make a preliminary assessment of whether an expert's scientific testimony can be said to be based on reasoning or even methodology that can be said to be scientifically valid and can often be properly applied to the facts at issue. It is of importance to understand that under this standard, the factors that may be considered in the determination of whether the methodologies are valid consist of whether the theory or even the technique in question can be tested, whether the methodology has been subjected to publication and peer review, whether there is a known potential error rate that exists on the methodology, the existence as well as maintenance of the different standards controlling the operation and whether the standards has been able to attract widespread acceptance when it comes to the relevant scientific community (Hersen, 2006). The Daubert test is currently being used in many federal courts as well as some several state courts.
Forensic assessment often creates an adversarial relationship between the psychologist and the client. Forensic assessment often involves the hiring of a psychologist to answer several specific questions such as the competency of the accused to stand trial, and even cases of insanity.
Depending on the question at hand, the psychologist often conducts several clinical interviews, collateral interviews, records and administers several psychological tests and it is from there that he or she forms an opinion that is intended to answer the intended legal question. In order to answer the legal question, in many cases, there is the use of theories and several schools of thoughts (Grimes, N., & Collier, 2006). It is these school of thoughts and theories that often have to undergo the Daubert test in order to verify their credibility and reliability to be used in a court of law.
For example, in regard to the psychologist getting the proper information regarding the insanity of the defendant in the time of commission of the crime, there are several theories that are often used by the psychologists (Grimes, N., & Collier, 2006). All these theories that are used in determining the mental condition of the defendant should be peer reviewed and in fact they should all be acceptable to be used in a court of law.
In case, there is the emergence of a new theory, there is a need for the theory to be peer reviewed and fulfill all the Daubert's standards in order for it to be used in a court of law by the expert witness (forensic psychologist). This is the same case for all the other theories and schools of thoughts that are used in answering some common legal questions by the forensic psychologist (Hersen & Segal, 2004).
The Daubert standard is extremely important in forensic assessment as it is the one that states whether indeed a particular theory can be used in a court of law. The value of the expert witness that is the forensic psychologist is important in the determination of the case and so is the theory that is used to conduct the forensic assessment (Grimes, N., & Collier, 2006). For this reason, there is a need to have the Daubert standard in order to ensure that indeed all the theories that are used and schools of thoughts are all peer-reviewed and are accepted by the scientific community. This will go a long way in ensuring a free and fair trial for the accused and overall justice.
References
Grimes, N., & Collier, B. (2006). Welcome, Precious. New York: Orchard Books.
Hersen, M. (2006). Clinician's handbook of adult behavioral assessment. Boston: Elsevier Academic Press.
Hersen, M., Hilsenroth, M. J., & Segal, D. L. (2004). Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessement: Personality assessment. Hoboken, N.J: J. Wiley & Sons.
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory/MCMI-III refers to an assessment tool used in psychology. The assessment tool is used to give information concerning specific orders that are described in the DSM-IV and psychopathology. The assessment targets adults who at least have an eighth-grade reading capacity, who are in need of mental services. The MCMI is unique compared to all other personality tests in that its organization is in a multiaxial format, and its basis is on theory (Millon & Grossman, 2007, 29). The development and standardization of the MCMI is specific on clinical populations. Despite the authors being specific on the assessment tool use on adolescents and general population, there is evidence that proves that the MCMI is still valid on non-clinical populations. The MCMI over the years had developed into the MCMI –II and finally the MCMI-III, which is now in use. This essay deals with the general description of the assessment, its validity and reliability and any information concerning the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory/MCMI-III.
Theodore Millon is the brains behind the creation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. A leading personality theorist, he is the author of the Millon Inventories and his contribution to the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory is outstanding. Theodore Millon, however, passed away on January 29, this year at his home in Port Jervis, New York. At the time of his death, Theodore Millon was of eighty-five years old.
The contribution of Millon is not only attributed to the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory but also in other personality instruments in the field of psychology. Those who had the privilege of meeting Millon will always treasure him as one who emphasized that the mind of a human is a mysterious and great thing. To his name, Millon can be attributed with the development of seven personality mechanisms, founding quite a number of scientific journals and being the author of more than thirty books.
The American Psychological Foundation and American Psychological Association both awarded Millon lifetime achievement awards based on his contributions to the field of psychology. Until his sudden death, Millon worked as a Scientific Director and Dean for the Institute for Advanced Studies in Personology and Psychopathology. The original MCMI publishing was in 1977, and it contains nine clinical syndromes and 11 personality scales (Millon, 1994, 70). Mainly students accredited the publishing of the MCMI claiming the ideas presented as being of great influence in helping them write their dissertations. In 1987, the MCMI-II publishing was undertaken as a revision of the former MCMI. The MCMI-II comprised of nine clinical syndromes and thirteen personality scales. The MCMI-III is the current version in use, and its publishing underwent in 1994. In this version, the self-defeating and aggressive personality scales were eliminated.
The MCMI-III also had the addition of the PTSD and depressive scales to the version. This totals the number of scales to ten clinical syndromes, fourteen personality scales and five correction scales. There was also a modification of the former 3-point item-weighting scale to a 2-point scale. Unlike the previous versions, the MCMI-III also includes content like bulimia, child abuse and anorexia. There is also the inclusion of the Grossman Facet Scales to the MCMI-III which were absent in previous versions (Framingham, 2011).
The Grossman Facet Scales is a series of therapy-guiding facet subscales of the basic personality scales of the assessment. In each of the fourteen personality scales, there are three facet scales belonging to the Grossman Facet Scales. The facet scales are meant to enhance the interpretation of the personality pathology scales and clinical personality patterns. The MCMI-III comprises of 175 true-false questions, and it takes an individual approximately twenty-five to thirty minutes to complete the test.
The basis of the MCMI-III is an evolutionary theory that comprised of four main spheres or domains: adaptation, abstraction, existence and reproduction. In 2008, the MCMI-III underwent an upgrading, which included a new norming sample. In a sample of seven hundred and fifty-two individuals, who have a wide variety of clinical disorders, seventy-six percent Caucasian and 52.8% female. The development of the scale comprised of six hundred of the individuals, 84% Caucasian and 48.8% male.
The cross-validation stage, on the other hand, comprised of the 398 individuals remaining, with 81.7% Caucasian and 49.5% male. The test construction had to undergo three stages of validation, and they are internal-structural validity, theoretical-substantive validity and external-criterion validity. The three validation stages can also be referred to as the tripartite model of test construction.
The raw scores of the patient are converted into Base Rate scores, and this makes it possible for there to be a comparison between the personality indices. In the Base Rate Scores, there is a median score of sixty and all the scores fit within the scale of 1-115. The conversion from the patient scores to the Base Rate scores is a complex procedure. Therefore, there are corrections that are done to a patient’s scores depending on each patient’s response. The invalidity index, however, is not converted to a Base Rate Score (Millon & Grossman, 2007, 250). The use of a complex system makes it possible for Modifying indices to be scored. The score the patient achieves is then compared to the raw and then the Base Rate Scores. There are a few response patterns on modifying indices, which may make the test results be considered as invalid.
A disclosure score in the MCMI-III is the only one where raw scores undergo an interpretation without conversion. In case the score is a particularly low one, it is clinically relevant. A score of below thirty-four or above 178 is not termed as an accurate reading of an individual’s personality style. This either is because the result is under or over-disclosed, questioning the results. Debasement or Desirability base rate score of seventy-five or more is an indication of caution to the examiner as he, or she proceeds. Clinical syndrome and personality base rate score of between seventy-five and eighty-four indicate the presence of a clinical syndrome or personality trait (Craig, 2005, 34). In a case, the score is eighty-five or above, there is the presence of a persistent clinical syndrome or personal trait.
Invalidity is a measure of response to random questions, capability to understand content of the item, attention to the content of item and measure of the patient’s response. The major concern of invalidity is the ability of an individual to respond to random questions. The scores achieved from the invalidity scale is a test whether the protocol is invalid or valid. Computer programs prove to be of great significance when it comes to scores computation and interpretation of the information achieved. The use of computer programs for computing scores makes it easy and convenient avoiding any mistakes. Computer programs are also useful in the preparation of interpretive reports, which provide two levels of detail: profile report and narrative report. The profile report is a presentation of the patient’s scores and profile. The profile report also plays a great role in determining patients who need professional or intensive evaluation.
The narrative report, on the other hand, provides integration of the patient’s symptomatic and personological features. The features are arranged in a similar manner as those written by clinical psychologists. The basis of the results is actuarial research, reliable DSM diagnoses with a multiaxial framework and the MCMI assessment tool. The MCMI-III has quite a number of benefits. First, the assessment tool compared to previous versions is shorter, has a multiaxial format, validation schema, theoretical anchoring, uses base rate scores, tripartite construction and provision of in-depth interpretation (Hersen, 2004, 59). The MCMI-III compared to previous versions makes it shorter to identify clinical syndromes and personality syndromes with increased accuracy. Psychologists and mental health professions rely greatly on MCM-III for therapy to a patient with both short-term and returning mental problems.
The MCMI-III test also provides support in counseling, forensic, medical and clinical settings where individuals are assessed for interpersonal, behavioral and emotional problems. The three facet scales added to the assessment tool make it easier for therapy planning to be more precise. Seth Grossman was the man behind the creation of the three facet scales with the guidelines of Theodore Millon’s theories. Unlike other personality tests, the MCMI-III makes it easy to provide interpretive reports on the performance of the patient. The MCMI-III test takes between twenty-five to thirty minutes, and it designed in a way that it achieves maximum information with very little effort of the patient (Framingham, 2011). The MCMI-III has been proven to provide efficient and accurate information on the patients tested.
The normative sample for the MCMI-III assessment tool consists of 998 individuals, both male and female. The individuals should comprise a variety of diagnoses to test the effectiveness of the MCMI-III. The group consists of patients who are seen in mental health centers, clinics, forensic settings, hospitals and residential facilities. The interpretive report consists of demographic information on the patients and a graphical presentation of the base rate scores for all scales. This even includes the new Grossman Facet Scales base rate scores. There is also a profile report, which provides a graphical representation of the base rate scores for all the scales. A corrections report is provided to cater for corrections settings. The provision of the corrections report is to reverse any mistakes made when the conversion of undergoing to base rate scores from the scores achieved in the test.
The MCMI-III has undergone many new inventions and upgrading to get to where it is today. The MCMI-III is the latest version of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. The assessment tool is specifically for patient’s experiencing Axial I and Axial II disorders. What makes the MCMI-III so effective is that it comprises of an update of MCMI-II and changes in DSM-IV. The MCMI-III also includes the addition of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depressive scales (Craig, 2005, 89). The PTSD scale tries to measure the level to which the patient is experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder. The depressive scale, on the other hand, is a measure of the level of depression. The MCMI-III is the most successful assessment tool compared to the rest of the versions. Theodore Millon together with other scholars, will for a long time be credited with the creation of the most successful assessment tools when it comes to clinical syndromes and personality problems.
References
Craig, R. J. (2005). New Directions in Interpreting the MillonTM Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-IIITM). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Hersen, M. (2004). Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons.
Framingham, J. (2011). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III). Psych Central.
Millon, T., & Grossman, S. (2007). Resolving difficult clinical syndromes: A personalized psychotherapy approach. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.
Millon, T. (1994). Millon clinical multiaxial inventory III: MCMI-III. Minneapolis, Minn: National Computer Systems.
Browse More Essay Topics 24/7/365 Support 11+ Yrs in Essay Writing Pay for Quality not Quantity Score that A+ Grade
