Controversial Issues

I became extrememly frustrated yesterday as I was reading the Garb (1999) article. Essentially, the Rorschach sucks and any study claiming that it is an effective, valid assessment contains some sort of fatal flaw. The reason that I was so annoyed by these conclusions is because we have to learn how to administer and score the stupid thing next semester. As Garb (1999) points out it takes 2-3 hours to complete so one would hope (even expect) it to be useful. So if the available evidence says its not, then why are we still using it? Why is our department forcing us to learn an assessment that, according to Garb (1999), leads to a DECREASE in validity of judgements? With that said, however, after reading the Dawes et al. (1989) my guard was up everytime I read the words "clinical judgment". Garb (1999) says that "positive results have never been obtained for the Rorschach in studies on clnical judgement and incremental validity" and that "when judgments have been made by using statistical prediction rules, there is some evidence supporting the incremental validity" of certain Rorschach scales (pg. 315). So I wonder if more studies were conducted testing the usefulness of Rorschach scales based on statistics, would we find better results? I really hope so!

The Dawes et al. (1989) got me thinking about my experience last week administering an IQ test to an inpatient at Western State Hospital. Without getting into too many specifics since these blogs are open to the public, I was able to review the client's records before testing him and I must say I am definitely guilty of some of the extrememly dangerous biases related to clinical judgments. The chart indicated that the client had "flat affect", slurred speech, low intellectual functioning, among a host of other problems. We are instructed to record behavioral observations while administering the test that are supposed to be extrememly useful in making diagnoses after testing. Guess what most of my observations related to?--The information that I was previously given from his record. I pertained to information that confirmed by beliefs (such as making a notes in line with a low functioning individual) and didn't really take into account any disconfirming evidence that could question his diagnoses. I didn't even realize that iw as doing this either. I've pretty much questioned behavioral obserations since the beginning of the semester because they seem so subjective to me. I'd be interested to see how similar two observers behavioral ratings are for the same person. If theya re supposed to be so important in making inferences after performing assessments, shouldn't they be highly standardized and reliable just as the tests are? I liked Garb's (1999) comment that the ability of humans to observe does not necessarily mean we have the ability to accurately predict.

Personality Disorders

I've always found the personality disorders to be interesting, but we seem to know the least (or at least disagree the most) about thier etiology and classification. I worked as a research assistant in a Personality lab when I was an undergrad at Penn State--the lab, at the time, was attemping to find empirical support for the vulernable narcissism subtype (as opposed to the grandiose subtype which is currently the only one in the DSM, which I thought was really cool. Anyway, I'd like to comment on an aspect of the Moffitt (1993) article that I found particularly problematic. The author suggests that adolescence-limited delinquency is normative and adaptive, evidenced by its prevalence and flexibility. However, the author seems to be taking sort of a laid back attitude about adolescent delinquency. Just because its the norm doesn't mean its okay and it doesn't mean that its not problematic. Moffitt (1993) even does so far as to say that people who refrain from delinquency in adolescence are the ones that "warrant our scientific scrutiny" (pg. 689). She also outlines reasons for why some people fail to commit antisocial acts, which seems counterintuitive to me. Why should we be concentrating on explaining the processes underlying FAILURE to take part in delinquent behavior? Is there evidence that relates an abscence of delinquency in adolescence with negative outcomes? Moffitt (1993) cites a study by Shedler and Blcok (1990) that attempts to show that abstainers are linked with an "enduring personality configuration", marked by social isolation, poor interpersonal skills, etc. but I don't think the evidence is strong enough to assume that adolescence who do not engage in delinquent acts are worse off. Moffit (1993) makes an argument for why people who show no history of delinquent behavior become delinquent in adolescence namely through social mimicry and being trapped in the maturity gap. One thing I wondered though: Is such a small number of life course persistent teens really able to influence such a large number of people so strongly that people with no prior delinquency will mimic their behavior? The author states that the prevalence rate of persisters is 5% or roughly equivalent to one or two per classroom. This makes me think that there has to be substantially more teens who display prosocial behavior, so why aren't they being mimicked? The author suggests that the desirable resource that these adolescents are attempting to attain by mimicking antisocial youths is mature status. But I think that positive, prosocial behavior could bring about just as much power and prestige as delinquent acts. So why aren't more of them being mimicked? Of course, there are inevitably going to be teens who fall victim to (negative)social mimicry. However, this doesn't seem like to most compelling explanation to explain the substantial increase in delinquency in adolescence...I'd like to say I have an alternative but I don't...just intuitively, I think there are some flaws in Moffitt's reasoning.

ANXIETY!!!

For me, it was so absolutely appropriate that this week's readings were about anxiety because I am feeling the heat of first year this week! This actually got my thinking about "normal" or sort of everyday anxiety. The Mineka & Zinbarg (2206) did a good job highlighting individual differences in the development of pathological anxiety- for instance, why some poeple develop phobias after minor traumatic events whereas some never develop phobias after major trauma. What about people who are anxious about speaking in public, for example? Why do some poeple develop more anxiety about speaking in front of others? It's hard for me to imagine that this type of anxiety develops as a result of traumatic conditioning. I realize that this type of anxiety is not necessarily pathological, but when considering the characterististics of social phobia, namely "excessive fears of situations in which they might be evaluated or judged by others, and they either avoid such situations or endure them with marked distress" (Mineka & Zinbarg, 2006, pg. 14), public-speaking anxiety could very well fit into this conceptualization. This points to yet another short coming of the DSM. Just because certain symptoms aren't considered pathological by DSM standards doesn't mean they are not effecting a person't ability to function daily and its a shame that they can't technically be treated (or at least treatment for these "everyday" types of symptoms is difficult to get reimbursed through insurance). What happens to a person whose job demands that they take part in weekly presentations? As psychologists, are we just supposed to say oh wait, sorry, public-speaking anxiety is not a disorder in the DSM so you can't be treated for it?

It was really interesting to find out that there are implications in the development of anxiety related to whether a person learns to have a sense of control over their enviroment, and it was a common area of discussion in both articles this week. Particularly, Mineka & Zinbarg (2006) state that "infants and children raised in environments in which they gain a sense of control over their environment are less frightened by and better able to cope with novel and frightening events" (pg. 13). This relates almost directly to a major area of research in our lab- specifically, the importance of an adolescent to develop a sense of autonomy from their parents, meaning that they exhibit some independence from their parents. Adolescents who are successfully able to balance autonomy and relatedness with parents (which are two key developmental tasks) show more positive psychosocial outsomes, as well as a greater ability to engage in healthy freindships later on (which may be viewed as novel situations). Essentially, when parents allow the appropriate amount of freedom to their adolescents, the better adjusted the adolescent becomes and the better equipped they are to engage in other relationships in the future. It was exciting to see this idea play a role in anxiety as well.