ZeePedia

THE USE AND ABUSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING:PERSONALITY

<< INTELLIGENCE TESTS:PURPOSE, COMMON PROCEDURES, PURPOSE
THE PROJECTIVE PERSONALITY TESTS:THE RORSCHACH >>
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
LESSON 19
THE USE AND ABUSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING
Ours has long been a test-oriented society. Whether the question concerns personnel selection,
intellectual assessment, or measuring the "real me," many people turn to tests. Some consult popular
magazines (and now the Internet!) for these tests, others consult skilled clinicians but the abiding
curiosity and the inflated set of expectations about tests seem constant. And quite often, such high
expectations lead to abuse.
Testing is big business. Psychological, educational, and personnel corporations sell many thousands of
tests each year. So many of our lives are touched in so many ways by assessment procedures that we
have become accustomed to them and hardly notice them. Admission to college, employment, and
discharge from military service, imprisonment, adoption, therapeutic planning, computer dating, and
special classes all may depend on test performance. Any enterprise that becomes so large and affects
such large numbers of people invites careful scrutiny.
Protection: The APA's (1992) ethical standards require that psychologists use only techniques or
procedures that lie within their competence. These ethical standards, the growth of state certification and
licensing boards, and the certification of professional competence offered by the American Board of
Professional Psychology all combine to increase the probability that the public's interests will be
protected.
In addition, the purchase of testing materials is generally restricted by the publisher to individuals or
institutions that can demonstrate their competence in administering, scoring, and interpreting tests. In
effect, then, the sale of tests is not open but is dependent upon the user's qualifications. However,
neither professional guidelines nor publishers' restrictions are totally successful. Tests still sometimes
find their way into the hands of unscrupulous individuals. Ethical standards ate hot always sufficient
either.
The marketers for each test bear some responsibility as well. Normative data and instructions for
administration and scoring should be included in every test manual. All in all, enough data should be
included to enable the user to evaluate the reliability and validity of the test.
The Question Of Privacy: Most people assume that they have the right to reveal as little or as much as
they like about their attitudes, feelings, fears, or aspirations. Of course, with subtle or indirect
assessment procedures, an examinee cannot always judge with complete certainty whether a given
response is desirable. But what ever the nature of a test, the individual has the right to a full explanation
of its purposes and of the use to which the results will be put.
The examinee must be given only tests relevant to the purposes of the evaluation. If an MMP1-2 or a
Rorschach is included in a personnel-selection battery, it is the psychologist's responsibility to explain
the relevance of the test to the individual. Informed consent to the entire assessment process should be
obtained, and individuals should be fully informed of their options. This applies even to those who have
initiated the contact (as by voluntarily seeking clinical services).
The Question Of Confidientiality: Issues of trust and confidentiality loom large in our society. The
proliferation of computer processing facilities and huge data banks makes it very easy for one
government agency to gain access to personal records that are in the tiles of another agency or a
company. Credit card agencies, the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, and other organizations create a climate in
which no one's records or past seem to be confidential or inviolable. Although information revealed to
psychiatrists and clinical psychologists is typically regarded as privileged, there are continuing assaults
on the right to withhold such information. For example, the Tarasoff decision of the California Supreme
149
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
Court makes it clear that information provided by a patient in the course of therapy cannot remain
privileged if that information indicates that the patient may be dangerous. If the "sanctity" of the therapy
room is less than unassailable, it is certain that personnel records, school records, and other test
repositories are even more vulnerable. Clinical psychologists employed in industrial settings are also
unable to ensure absolutely the privacy of test results. Clinicians can become caught in the middle of
tugs of war between union and management over grievance claims. It sometimes happens also that when
people are treated under insurance or medical assistance programs, their diagnoses are entered into
computer records to which many companies may obtain access.
When an individual is tested, every effort should be made to explain the purposes of the testing, the use
to which the results will be put, and the people or institutions that will have access to the results. If the
individual gives informed consent, the testing can proceed. However, if it subsequently becomes
desirable to release the results to someone else, the individual's consent must be obtained. It is clear that
not all clients wish to have their mental health records released, and even when they sign consent forms,
they often seem to do so either out of a fear that they will be denied services or out of sheer obedience to
authority'.
The Question of Discrimination: Since the rise of the civil rights movement, most people have become
increasingly aware of the ways in which society has both knowingly and unknowingly discriminated
against minorities. Within psychology, attacks have recently centered on the ways in which tests
discriminate against minorities. For example, the original standardization of the Standford-Binet
contained no African American samples. Since then, many tests have been published whose attempts to
include racially unbiased samples have been questioned. It is often charged that most psychological tests
are really designed for white middle-class populations and that other groups are handicapped by being
tested with devices that are inappropriate for them.
Sometimes the minority group member's lack of exposure to tests and test situations may be a major
source of the problem. Such inexperience, inadequate motivation, and discomfort in the presence of an
examiner from another race all may affect test performance. Often, too, test materials are prepared or
embedded in a racially unfair context. For example, the TAT cards may all depict white characters, or
the items on an intelligence test may not be especially familiar to an African American child. The
problem here is the test items themselves, the manner in which they are presented, or the circumstances
surrounding a test may work to the disadvantage of the minority individual.
Test Bias: It is important to remember that significant differences between mean scores on a test for
different groups do not in and of themselves indicate test bias or discrimination. Rather, test bias or
discrimination is a validity issue. That is, if it can be demonstrated that the validity of a test (in
predicting criterion characteristics or performance, for example) varies significantly across groups, then
a case can be made that the test is "biased" for that purpose. In other words, a test is biased to the extent
that it predicts more accurately for one group than for another group.
An example can illustrate these considerations. Let us assume that one of the authors developed a
personality inventory measuring the trait "hostility." As part of the standardization project for this test,
the author discovered that men scored significantly higher than women on this test. Doe this indicate
that the test is biased? Not necessarily. The author found, in a series of validity studies, that the
relationship (correlation) between hostility inventory scores and the number of verbal fights over the
succeeding two months was quite similar for both men and women. In other words, the predictive
validity coefficients for the two groups were comparable; similar hostility scores "meant" the same thing
(predicted a comparable number of verbal fights) for men and women. On the other hand, it is quite
possible that the strength of the correlation between hostility scores and physical fights over the next
two months is significantly greater for men than for women. In this case, the use of the test to predict
physical aggression in women would be biased if these predictions were based on the known association
between hostility scores and physical fights found in men.
150
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
Several general points should be clear. First, differences in mean scores do not necessarily indicate test
bias. In the previous example, there may be good reasons why men score higher on average than women
on a measure of hostility (for example, hormonal differences or other biological factors may lead to
higher levels of hostility for men). In fact, to find no difference in men scores might call into question
the validity of the test in this case. Second, the pronouncement of a test as "valid," although frequently
seen in the clinical psychology literature, is in-correct. Tests may be valid (and not biased) for some
purposes but not for others. Finally, one can "overcome" test bias by using different (and more
appropriate) prediction equations for the different groups. In other words, bias comes into play when the
clinical psychologist makes predictions based on empirical associations that are characteristic of another
group (such as men) but not of the group of interest (such as I women). The goal is to investigate the
possibility differential validity and, if found, to use the appropriate prediction equation for that group.
Computer Based Assessment: Computers have been used for years to score tests and to generate
psychological profiles. Now they are also used to administer and interpret responses to clinical in-
terviews, IQ Tests, self-report inventories, and even projective tests. The reasons given for using
computers include cutting costs, enhancing clients' attention and motivation, and standardizing
procedures across clinicians. Clearly computers have great potential, but they also contain the seeds of
definite problems. To begin with, there needs to be greater acceptance of computers by professionals.
Beyond that, more attention must be devoted to the feelings and reactions of clients upon whom these
procedures are imposed. Important issues of reliability and validity as well as proper feedback to clients,
have yet to be settled. Finally, the field needs better overall professional standards for such testing. It is
important to remember that computer systems can easily be misused, either by those who are poorly
trained or by those who endow computers with a sagacity that transcends the quality and utility of the
information programmed into them.
Numerous efforts have been made to computerize the scoring and interpretation of the MMPI in
particular .The approaches are mainly descriptive and most often useful for screening. But programs
exist to generate highly interpretive statements as well). However, not everyone believes that
computerized and conventional usages of the MMPI yield comparable results.
PERSONALITY
When we assume that people will display continuity in their behavior and emotional style over time, we
are making assumptions about the continuity of their personality. When the psychologists use the word
personality they are referring to the observation that people display a certain degree of consistency and
structure in the ways that they experience and interact with the world. There are two aspects of this
consistency: stability across different situations and consistency over time within similar circumstances
or situations. Personality theories are concerned with stable enduring characteristics of people, or what
they refer to as traits consistent ways of perceiving the self, the world, and other people; consistent
ways of experiencing and managing one's emotions; and consistent ways of behaving. These basic
consistencies in behavior, thoughts, and feelings may be due to genetic factors, or they may be learned,
ingrained patterns of behavior or they may be both.
ASSESSMENT OF PERSONALITY
According to Ozer and Reise (1994),
`personality assessment ,as a scientific endeavor, seeks to determine those characteristics that
constitute important individual differences in personality, to develop accurate measures of such
attributes and to explore fully the consequential meanings of these identified and measured
characteristics.'
Personality tests can be grouped according to the methods that they use to obtain data. The broadest
distinction is between what are termed objective personality tests and projective personality tests.
151
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
Objective Personality Tests: - The objective approach to personality assessment is characterized by the
reliance on structured, standardized measurement Devices, which are typically of a self-report nature.
"Structured" reflects the tendency to use straight-forward test stimuli, such as direct questions regarding
the person's opinion of themselves, and unambiguous instructions regarding the completion of the test.
Many objective tests use a [true/false or yes/no response format; others pro-; vide a dimensional scale
(for example, 0 = strong \ disagree; 1 = disagree; 2 = neutral; 3 = agree; 4 = [strongly agree). Objective
tests have both advantages and disadvantages, discussed below.
Some Advantages
1. First of all, they are economical. After only brief instructions, large groups can be tested
simultaneously, or a single patient can complete an inventory alone. Even computer. Scoring
and interpretation of these tests are possible.
2. Second, scoring and administration are relatively simple and objective. This, in turn, tends to
make interpretation easier and seems to require less interpretive skill on the part of the clinician.
3. Often a simple score along a single dimension (such as adjustment-maladjustment) or on a
single trait (such as dependency or psychopathy) is possible.
4. A final attraction of self-report inventories, particularly for clinicians who are disenchanted with
the problems inherent in projective tests, is their apparent objectivity and reliability.
Some Disadvantages
1. The items of many inventories are often behavioral in nature. That is, the questions or
statements concern behaviors that may (or may not) characterize the respondent. For example,
although two individuals may endorse the same behavioral item ("I have trouble getting to
sleep"), they may do so "for entirely different reasons.
2. Some inventories contain a mixture of items dealing with behaviors, cognitions, and needs. Yet
inventories often provide single, overall score--which may reflect various combinations of
these behaviors, cognitions, and needs
3. Other difficulties involve the transparent meaning of some inventories' questions, which can
obviously facilitate faking on the part of some patients.
4. In addition, the forced-choice approach prevents individuals from qualifying or elaborating their
responses so that some additional information may be lost or distorted.
5. In other instances, the limited understanding or even the limited reading ability ' of some
individuals may lead them to misinterpret questions
Methods of the Test Construction for Objective Tests: Over the years, a variety of strategies for
constructing self-report inventories have been proposed.
Content Validation: The most straightforward approach to measurement is for clinicians to decide
what it is they wish to assess and then to simply ask the patient for that information.
Ensuring content validity, however, involves much more than simply deciding what you want to assess
and then making up some items that appear to do the job. Rather, more sophisticated content validation
methods involve 11) carefully defining ail relevant aspects of the variable you are attempting to
measure; (2) consulting experts before generating items; (3) using judges to assess each potential item's
152
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
relevance to the variable of interest: and (4) using psychometric analyses to evaluate each item before
you include it in your measure
However several potential problems are inherent in the content validity approach to test construction.
First, can clinicians assume that every patient interprets a given item in exactly the same way? Second,
can patients accurately report their own behavior or emotions? Third, will patients be honest, or will
they attempt to place themselves in a good light (or even a bad light at times)? Fourth, can clinicians
assume that the "experts" can be counted on to define the essence of the concept they are trying to
measure? Most of these seem to be general problems for the majority of inventories, regardless of
whether they depend on content sampling to establish their validity.
Empirical Criterion Keying: In an attempt to help remedy the foregoing difficulties, the empirical
criterion keying approach was developed. In this approach, no assumptions are made as to whether a
patient is telling the truth or the response really corresponds to behavior or feelings. What is important is
that certain patients describe themselves in certain ways.
The important assumption inherent in this approach is that members of a particular diagnostic group will
tend to respond in the same way. Consequently, it is not necessary to select test items in a rational,
theoretical fashion. All that is required is to show on an empirical basis that the members of a given
diagnostic group respond to a given item in a similar fashion.
Factor Analysis: These days, the majority of test developers use a factor analytic (or internal con-
sistency) approach to test construction Here, the idea is to examine the inter-correlations among the
individual items from many existing personality inventories. Succeeding factor analyses will then
reduce or "purify" scales thought to reflect basic dimensions of personality. The exploratory factor
analytic approach is atheoretical. One begins by capturing a universe of items and then proceeds to
reduce them to basic elements--personality, adjustment, diagnostic affiliation, or whatever--hoping to
arrive at the core traits and dimensions of personality. Confirmatory factor analytic approaches are
more theory-driven, seeking to confirm a hypothesized factor structure (based on theoretical
predictions) for the test items.
The strength of the factor analytic approach to test construction is the emphasis on an empirical
demonstration that items purporting to measure a variable or dimension of personality are highly related
to one another. However, a limitation of this approach is that it does not in and of itself demonstrate that
these items are actually measuring the variable of interest; we only know that the items tend to be
measuring the same "thing."
Construct Validity Approach: This approach combines many aspects of the content validity, empirical
criterion keying, and factor analytic approaches (In this approach, scales are developed to measure
specific concepts from a given theory. In the case of personality assessment, the intent is to develop
measures anchored in a theory of personality. Validation is achieved when it can be said that a given
scale measures the theoretical construct in question. The selection of items is based on the extent to
which they reflect the theoretical construct under study. Item analysis, factor analysis, and other
procedures are used to ensure that a homogeneous scale is developed. Construct validity for the scale is
then determined by demonstrating, through a series of theory-based studies, that those who achieve
certain scores on the scale behave in nontest situations in a fashion that could be predicted from their
scale score. Because of its comprehensiveness, the construct validity approach to test construction is
both the most desirable and the most labor intensive. In fact, establishing the construct validity of a test
is a never-ending process, with empirical feedback used to refine both the theory and the personality
measure.
153
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
THE MMPI AND THE MMPI-2
The MMPI is a self-report inventory that is the most widely used and most thoroughly researched of the
objective personality assessment instruments. It was developed in 1937 by Starke Hathaway, a
psychologist, and J. Charnely McKinley, a psychiatrist. This test was recently updated and is called the
MMPI-2. This test consists of over 500 statements---such as "I sometimes tease animals", "I believe I
am being plotted against"----to which the subject must respond with "true", "false" or "cannot say".
The test may be used in card or booklet forms.
The MMPI gives score on 10 standard scales, each of which was derived empirically. The items for
each scale were selected for their ability to separate medical and psychiatric patients from normal
controls.
Clinical Scales: the clinical scales are often referred by number e.g. 8(sc). The other is:
1.
HYPOCHONDRIA (Hs)
2.
DEPRESSION (D)
3.
HYSTERIA (Hy)
4.
PSYCHOPATHIC DEVIANCE (Pd)
5.
MASCULINITY-FEMININITY (Mf)
6.
PARANOIA (Pa)
7.
PSYCHASTHENIA (Pt)
8.
SCHIZOPHRENIA (Sc)
9.
HYPOMANIA (Ma)
10.
SOCIAL INTROVERSION (Si)
Validity Scales: To help detect malingering ("faking bad"), or other response sets or test-taking
attitudes, and carelessness or misunderstanding, the MMPI-2 has four validity scales
1. ? (CANNOT SAY) Scale: this is the number of items left unanswered.
2. F (INFREQUENCY) Scale: these 60 items were seldom answered in the scored direction by
the standardization group. A high F score may suggest deviant response sets, markedly aberrant
behavior.
3. (LIE) Scale: this includes 15 items whose endorsement places the respondent in a very positive
light. In reality, however, it is unlikely that the items would be truthfully so endorsed. E.g. "I
like everyone I meet".
4. K (DEFENSIVENESS) Scale: these 30 items suggest defensive in admitting certain problems
Interpretation:  An accurate interpretation requires great experience with the test and some
understanding of the social, educational, and socioeconomic background from which the patient comes.
Recent evidence indicates that religion and race are both potential variables in MMPI responses.
Interpretation through Profile Analysis: interpretation has now shifted to an examination of patterns
or "profiles" of scores. For example, individuals who produce elevations on the first three clinical scales
(Hs, D, and Hy) tend to present with somatic complaints and depressive symptoms and often receive
somatoform, anxiety or depressive disorder diagnosis.
Interpretation through Content: For the MMPI-2, a variety of content scales have been developed as
well. E.g. certain items can help identify fears, health concerns, cynicism, and the type-A personality
and so on. Such scales enable the clinician to move beyond simple diagnostic labels to a more dynamic
level of interpretation.
154
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
MILLON CLINICAL MULTI-AXIAL INVENTORY (MCMI)
The MCMI is a 175 item, true-false, paper-pencil personality inventory that was developed by Theodore
Millon and his co-workers in the late 1970's. The original test allowed for scoring and interpretation on
11 scales, which represented personality disorders from the DSM. The test also contained a brief
validity scale and nine scales designed to assess reactive symptoms disorders, which the test authors
claimed were of a less enduring nature than the personality scales.
Examples of some scales are:
·
Avoidant personality
·
Dependent personality
·
Histrionic personality
·
Narcissistic personality
·
Hypo manic personality
·
Compulsive personality
·
Passive-aggressive personality
·
Antisocial personality
The MCMI was revised in 1987, the new version is the MCMI-II, item Content was reevaluated for the
MCMI-II and new validity scales were added. Normative data were enhanced by the addition of clinical
samples and the MCMI-II is compatible with the revised DSM (IV).
THE REVISED NEO-PERSONALITY INVENTORY
Description: The NEO-PI-R is a self-report measure of personality developed by Costa & McCrae in
1992, and is also known the five-factor Model (FFM). As operationalzed by the NEO-PI-R, the five
factors or Domain are neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness. Each domain has six facets or subscales. The NEO-PI-R consists of 240 items (8
items for each of the 30 facet r 48 items for each of the 5 domains). Individuals rate each of the 240
Statements on a five-point scale.
DOMAINS AND FACETS OF PERSONALITY MEASURED BY THE NEO-PI-R
Domain
Facets
Neuroticism
Anxiety, Hostility, Depression, Self- Consciousness,
Impulsiveness, Vulnerability
Extra version
Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement
Seeking, Positive Emotions
Openness to Experience
Fantasy Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, Values
Agreeableness
Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance,
Modesty, Tender-Mindedness
Conscientiousness
Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement Striving,
Self-Discipline, Deliberation
TYPE A- TYPE B BEHAVIOR
Two cardiologists, Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman, developed the Concept that a specific behavior
pattern, type A seta into motion the Pathophysiology necessary for the production of coronary artery
155
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
disease They further hypothesized that the type A behavior pattern is a major Risk factor (along with
cholesterol, hypertension, smoking and a positive Family history) for the disease.
According to Friedman, the most important aspects of the Type A behavior patterns are excesses of time
urgency and competitive Hostility(psychomotor manifestations like rapid eye blinking, lip clicking
During speaking, tense posture, speech hurrying, sucking in of air during Speech etc). Person designated
as type B display obverse qualities of Behavior. They are relaxed, less aggressive, unhurried, and less
apt to strive vigorously to achieve a goal than are type A persons. Although one Might expect type A
person to be successful than type B. In fact, some Data indicate that type A are less successful than type
B persons, despite The ardent desire of type A persons to achieve.
156
Table of Contents:
  1. MENTAL HEALTH TODAY: A QUICK LOOK OF THE PICTURE:PARA-PROFESSIONALS
  2. THE SKILLS & ACTIVITIES OF A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST:THE INTERNSHIP
  3. HOW A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST THINKS:Brian’s Case; an example, PREDICTION
  4. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:THE GREEK PERIOD
  5. HISTORY OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:Research, Assessment, CONCLUSION
  6. HOW CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS BECAME INVOLVED IN TREATMENT
  7. MODELS OF TRAINING IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS
  8. CURRENT ISSUES IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:CERTIFICATION, LICENSING
  9. ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS:PREAMBLE
  10. THE ROLE OF RESEARCH IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:LIMITATION
  11. THE RESEARCH PROCESS:GENERATING HYPOTHESES, RESEARCH METHODS
  12. THE CONCEPT OF ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR & MENTAL ILLNESS
  13. CAUSES OF MENTAL ILLNESOVERVIEW OF ETIOLOGY:PANDAS
  14. THE PROCESS OF DIAGNOSIS:ADVANTAGES OF DIAGNOSIS, DESCRIPTION
  15. THE CONCEPT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
  16. THE CLINICAL INTERVIEW:The intake / admission interview, Structured interview
  17. THE ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE:RELIABILTY AND VALIDITY, CATTELL’S THEORY
  18. INTELLIGENCE TESTS:PURPOSE, COMMON PROCEDURES, PURPOSE
  19. THE USE AND ABUSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING:PERSONALITY
  20. THE PROJECTIVE PERSONALITY TESTS:THE RORSCHACH
  21. THE OBSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND ITS TYPES:Home Observation
  22. THE BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT THROUGH INTERVIEWS, INVENTORIES AND CHECK LISTS
  23. THE PROCESS AND ACCURACY OF CLINICAL JUDGEMENT:Comparison Studies
  24. METHODS OF IMPROVING INTERPRETATION AND JUDGMENT
  25. PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS AND THEIR GOALS:THE EXPERT ROLE
  26. IMPORTANCE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY:ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
  27. COURSE OF NEW CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS:IMPLEMENTING TREATMENT
  28. NATURE OF SPECIFIC THERAPEUTIC VARIABLES:CLIENT’S MOTIVATION
  29. THE BEGINNING OF PSYCHOANALYSIS:THE CASE OF ANNA, THE INSTINCTS
  30. PSYCHOANALYTIC ALTERNATIVES:EGO ANALYSIS, CURATIVE FACTORS
  31. CLIENT CENTERED THERAPY:PURPOSE, BACKGROUND, PROCESS
  32. GESTALT THERAPY METHODS AND PROCEDURES:SELF-DIALOGUE
  33. ORIGINS AND TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES OF BEHAVIOR THERAPY
  34. COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY:MODELING, RATIONAL RESTRUCTURING
  35. GROUP THERAPY: METHODS AND PROCEDURES:CURATIVE FACTORS
  36. FAMILY AND COUPLES THERAPY:POSSIBLE RISKS
  37. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY:THE ENVIRONMENT
  38. METHODS OF INTERVENTION AND CHANGE IN COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY
  39. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
  40. APPLICATIONS OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY:OBESITY, HEALTH CARE TRENDS
  41. NEUROPSYCHOLOGY PERSPECTIVES AND HISTORY:STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
  42. METHODS OF NEUROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT:Level Of Performance, Pattern Analysis
  43. FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY:Qualification, Testifying, Cross Examination, Criminal Cases
  44. PEDIATRIC AND CHILD PSYCHOLOGY: HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVE
  45. INTERVENTIONS & TRAINING IN PEDIATRIC AND CLINICAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY