The final will be an in-class, closed-book exam worth up to 100 points.

The final will consist of two sections.  Part A will consist of five terms which you must define in one or
two sentences.  For example, if the term is "Variable Response Inconsistency scale", you may define it
as "a measure of inconsistent responding comprising several pairs of items with similar or opposite
content."  Each definition is worth up to five points.

Part B will consist of three short essay questions (1-2 written pages).  These questions will require you
to write a well-constructed answer consisting of at least a few paragraphs.  In addition to the accuracy,
clarity, organization, thoughtfulness, and thoroughness of your answer, spelling and grammar will be
graded.  Each essay question will be worth up to 25 points.

PART A GUIDE: 5 of the following definitions will appear on the final, each worth up to 5 points. 

PART B GUIDE: 3 of the following essay questions will appear on the final, each worth up to 25 points.

1. You have just received the NEO-PI results for a new client.  You have determined that there is no evidence of acquiescence, nay saying, or random responding, and have deemed the profile to be valid.  The profile is as follows: Very High - Anxiety, Fantasy, Feelings, Achievement Striving; High - Angry Hostility, Assertiveness, Activity, Aesthetics, Ideas, Altruism, Competence, Self-discipline, Deliberation; Low - Excitement-seeking, Trust, Compliance, Tender-mindedness; Very Low - Vulnerability,
Gregariousness.  Briefly, describe what each of these facets measures.  Based on these scores, summarize this client's "personality".  Explain your intepretive process along the way, as if you were teaching someone how to interpret the NEO-PI.

2. Beutler  et al. described seven client characteristics relevant to treatment planning: functional impairment, social support, problem complexity/chronicity, coping style, resistance, subjective distress, and problem-solving phase.  Describe how the NEO-PI can be used to assess each of these dimensions.  Be sure to mention the extent to which the NEO-PI does this well or poorly.

3. Mr. Morrison was a 23-year-old male who was involved in an automobile accident that caused frontal lobe injury and resulted in a 3-week coma.  After waking from the coma, Mr. Morrison exhibited neurocognitive impairments in executive function and expressive language.  The personality changes identified by family members were dramatic; he was described as “a different person.”  Prior to the accident, Mr. Morrison had dressed well, watched many sports programs on TV, and enjoyed exercising.  After his release from the hospital, Mr. Morrison was disheveled in his attire and had lost interest in exercise.  In addition, he became hypersensitive to criticism and socially isolated, and developed new preferences in food.  Mr. Morrison was referred for evaluation 6 months after this traumatic brain injury to determine his neuropsychological impairments and personality changes, with the goal of recommending the most appropriate treatment and prognosis.  Mr. stated that he felt “stupid” and did not understand why things were so much harder for him than they were before.  Furthermore, he reported that his relationship with his wife was very difficult because she did not “seem to understand” him.  He also stated that he wanted to return to work, but did not know what he could do, and he reported frustration at the slow pace of rehabilitation.  Mr. Morrison had been known to be quite bright and verbally competent, and he had graduated from college just 1 year prior to the accident.  His standard score of 71 on the Shipley-2 Vocabulary indicated functioning at two standard deviations below the mean.  He standard score of 85 on the Shipley-2 Block Patterns was about one standard deviation below the mean, also representing significant impairment.  Differential impairment was not evident, as his BQ was 95 and within normal limits.  What additional information might you like to be more certain of your interpretation of impairment and how would you obtain it?  What are your recommendations based on the Shipley-2 findings?

4. Neuropsychological testing has become an important area of psychological assessment.  List and describe three important domains of cognitive functioning that neuropsychological instruments can assess.  For each domain, briefly describe one instrument which would be appropriate to use for that assessment.

5. The relationship between scales Hs, D, and Hy on the MMPI-2 can provide important diagnostic information about a client.  Choose two patterns of scores you may find on these three scales and interpret their possible meaning.

6. One strength of the MMPI-2 is its ability to detect patterns of invalid responding.  Describe what types of Validity Scale configurations you might expect for (a) someone who is faking good, (b) someone who is faking bad, and (c) someone who is responding in an acquiescent manner.  In each case, describe what the next step might be if you remained interested in obtaining a valid assessment of the client.

7. The concept of introversion - extraversion is treated differently by the NEO-PI and MMPI-2.  Describe how each test conceptualizes and measures this construct.  Discuss similarities and differences between these two conceptualizations and forms of measurement.  Also, which test, the NEO-PI or MMPI-2, gives more specific data about introversion - extraversion?

8. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the behavioral approach in the assessment of "personality" and "psychopathology".  List three strengths and three weaknesses of behavioral assessment relative to objective paper-and-pencil assessment.  Also, discuss the advantage, if any, of using diverse approaches to the assessment of "personality" and "psychopathology".

9. A critical function of psychological assessment is to ascertain a client's level of distress.  Based on what you have learned this semester, how would you recommend obtaining a valid assessment of a clients level of distress?  Describe not only what test(s) / approach(es) you would use, but how you would interpret the resultant data to determine distress (e.g., data which would be most informative).