PSY4406 TP4 Report assessment material

docx

School

Monash University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4406

Subject

Psychology

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BaronIronSpider17

GRADUATE DIPLOMA PSYCHOLOGY ADVANCED (GDPA) PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION TEACHING PERIOD 4 A2 - PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT ASSESSMENT MATERIAL FOR MS. ALECIA MOORE KLJ Services is conducting an organisational restructure and is seeking applicants for a newly created managerial role. Your services have been contracted to conduct psychological assessments with applicants and provide reports for KLJ Services to inform their selection process. The following document contains: 1. Notes taken from semi-structured interview conducted with managerial applicant Ms. Alecia Moore 2. Assessment results and scoring instructions for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue-SF) 3. Assessment results and scoring instructions for the Mini-International Personality Pool (Mini-IPIP) You will also need the template for this assignment, which has some sections already completed and others for you to complete as the basis for this assessment task. Please also refer to the: (a) Instructions provided in Moodle (b) Q&A forum (c) Live Class content on report writing (Week 3), and (d) Report writing resource provided to support you with this task. GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 1

ASSESSMENT TOOL 1 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW – PSYCHOLOGIST NOTES ● Alecia Moore (her = preferred pronoun), 20-minute semi-structured interview. ● Attended punctually, business suit, leather attaché bag, large gold earrings and jangly bracelets, floral perfume. ● Stated up front believes she’s best candidate for new managerial role based on education, experience, and career goals. Excited about opportunity. ● Stated a little nervous about speaking with a psychologist… asked if being psychoanalysed. Stated nothing to hide, inquisitive about assessment and role of psychologist/assessment in selection process. [Psychologist explained process; consent obtained] ● Reported no prior contact with any psychologist, reported good mental health and physical health. Reported some alcohol consumption, non-smoker. ● Degree in marketing, and MBA from Griffith Uni. Grew up in Adelaide suburbs in ‘traditional family’. Parents retired to Sunshine Coast. Older sister a nurse, older brother FIFO in WA mines. ● Work history: 7 years, Coles sales rep role. Then more focused role at a boutique agency. Reported not enjoying smaller agency; identified self as preferring larger workplace, ‘more dynamic’. ● Interests: photography, artful photography described as a creative outlet. Plays netball Tuesday evenings. In a bookclub. Maintains a blog on ‘women loving life and reaching full potential’. ● Married to partner Denise for 8 years, no children, Three godchildren, parents of those children are her long-term friends. Owns 3 dogs, adopted at same time from local animal shelter. ● [Psychologist asked about perceived strengths] Smart, cunning, astute, business savvy, kind, generous. ‘I can kick an ass without hesitation when it’s needed but I equally reward excellence, my people know where they stand either way.’ Identified self as hard-working and multitasker. Likes a team that works hard and efficiently. ‘We’ll reach the finish line, celebrate the win, then start all over again’. ● Described self as a people person, said couldn’t stand idea of working alone at a desk all day. Reported need to be around others. Reported enjoying leadership, supporting people to identify and reach goals. ● [Psychologist asked about perceived weaknesses] Been described in past as demanding but viewed this a potential strength more than liability. Won’t tolerate laziness. ● Reported ‘enjoying a good time’. ‘Work hard/play hard describes me to a T’. Enjoys public transport over own car as likes to see interesting people on public transport. Identified that Julia Roberts would play her in a movie because can ‘smile brightly but can still maintain a business-like persona at the same time’. ● Initiated Pot Luck Friday at previous workplace, everyone bringing lunch to share. Enjoys organising social events; previously organised hot air ballooning as team building activity. Acknowledged after event that one woman didn’t like heights and was sorry she didn’t organise an alternative activity for this woman and any others, such as winery tour. Sent the woman a fruit basket afterwards as a token. GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 2

ASSESSMENT TOOL 2 TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONNAIRE – SHORT FORM (TEIQue-SF) The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire – Short Form (TEIQue-SF) is a measurement instrument based on trait emotional intelligence theory, that provides a comprehensive assessment of the emotional world of the respondent (Petrides, 2009). The TEIQue- SF is a 30-item scale which assesses global trait emotional intelligence as well as four specific factors of emotional intelligence: wellbeing, self-control, emotionality, and sociability (Petrides, 2009). For the purposes of this assignment, you have been supplied with a completed questionnaire as if Ms. Moore completed it with you as the Psychologist conducting the assessment (see completed TEIQue-SF in this document). To score the TEIQue-SF, first reverse some items. There are 15 items that are negatively worded, and each of these needs to be reverse scored before you can progress (e.g., If the person answered 1 the score is reversed to become 7; an answer of 2 becomes 6; an answer of 3 becomes a 5 etc). Items to reverse are: 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, and 28. Once you have reverse scored these items, firstly calculate an average trait emotional intelligence score by summing all items in the scale and dividing by 30. This is the overall trait emotional intelligence score. Then calculate average factor scores: Factor Items Total Score Average Score Wellbeing 5, 9, 12, 20, 24, 27 (total / 6) = Self-control 4, 7, 15, 19, 22, 30 (total / 6) = Emotionality 1, 2, 8, 13, 16, 17, 23, 28 (total / 8) = Sociability 6, 10, 11, 21, 25, 26 (total / 6) = There are many ways of interpreting scores such as classification groups (e.g., high, medium, low), norm groups, percentiles, z- scores, quintiles, item-level analysis, and more. These techniques vary greatly in complexity and utility. For the purpose of this assessment task, you will use a normative comparison. McNulty et al. (2016) published the following TEIQue-SF norms for Australian healthcare GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 3

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

students (males and females). You need to score the TEIQue-SF and use the mean for a comparison. For the purposes of this assignment, you can make ‘eyeball’ comparisons between the score and the mean. You do not need to perform further calculations with means and standard deviations, nor do you need to find any other means. It is sufficient to say in your assignment where the individual sits relative to these published means using terminology of “above average”, “average”, and “below average”. When comparing the assessed scores, be sure to use the mean for the correct gender. So for example, a male with an average score of 5.3 on the emotionality items would be considered “above average” in emotionality comparative to the normative group. Females Mean (SD) Males Mean (SD) Global EI 4.87 (0.86) 5.04 (0.74) Wellbeing 5.11 (1.31) 5.44 (0.97) Self-control 4.84 (1.27) 4.70 (0.92) Emotionality 4.93 (0.77) 5.14 (0.82) Sociability 4.43 (1.14) 4.78 (0.86) GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 4

TEIQue-SF MEASURE COMPLETED BY MS. ALECIA MOORE (grey block indicates answer provided; refer to the top of the column for the score) Completely disagree Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Expressing my emotions with words is not a problem for me. 2. I often find it difficult to see things from another person’s viewpoint. 3. On the whole, I’m a highly motivated person. 4. I usually find it difficult to regulate my emotions. 5. I generally don’t find life enjoyable. 6. I can deal effectively with people. 7. I tend to change my mind frequently. 8. Many times, I can’t figure out what emotion I'm feeling. 9. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 10. I often find it difficult to stand up for my rights. 11. I’m usually able to influence the way other people feel. 12. On the whole, I have a gloomy perspective on most things. 13. Those close to me often complain that I don’t treat them right. 14. I often find it difficult to adjust my life according to the circumstances. 15. On the whole, I’m able to deal with stress. 16. I often find it difficult to show my affection to those close to me. 17. I’m normally able to “get into someone’s shoes” and experience their emotions. 18. I normally find it difficult to keep myself motivated. 19. I’m usually able to find ways to control my emotions when I want to. 20. On the whole, I’m pleased with my life. 21. I would describe myself as a good negotiator. 22. I tend to get involved in things I later wish I could get out of. 23. I often pause and think about my feelings. 24. I believe I’m full of personal strengths. 25. I tend to “back down” even if I know I’m right. 26. I don’t seem to have any power at all over other people’s feelings. 27. I generally believe that things will work out fine in my life. 28. I find it difficult to bond well even with those close to me. 29. Generally, I’m able to adapt to new environments. 30. Others admire me for being relaxed. ASSESSMENT TOOL 3 GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 5

MINI-INTERNATIONAL PERSONALITY ITEM POOL (Mini-IPIP) The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) is a bank of personality questionnaires available freely in the public domain. Included in this is the Mini-IPIP. The Mini-IPIP is a 20-item scale which assesses the five factors of the ‘Big Five’ model: openness (alternately called ‘intellect/imagination’), conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Donnellan et al., 2006). For the purposes of this assignment, you have been supplied with a completed questionnaire as if Ms. Moore completed it with you as the Psychologist conducting the assessment (see completed Mini-IPIP in this document). To score the Mini-IPIP, first reverse some items. There are 11 items that are negatively worded, and each of these needs to be reverse scored before you can progress (e.g., If the person answered 1 the score is reversed to become 5; an answer of 2 becomes 4; etc.). Items to reverse are 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. Once you have reverse scored these items, you can sum the totals for each of the five factors. Items that assess each of the factors are as follows: Fact or Ite ms Individual’s scores Total Extraversion 1, 6, 11, 16 Agreeableness 2, 7, 12, 17 Conscientiousness 3, 8, 13, 18 Neuroticism 4, 9, 14, 19 Intellect / imagination 5, 10, 15, 20 There are many ways of interpreting scores such as classification groups (e.g., high, medium, low), norm groups, percentiles, z-scores, quintiles, item-level analysis, and more. These techniques vary greatly in complexity and utility. For the purposes of this assessment task, you will use a normative comparison. Jones (2014) published the following Mini-IPIP normative classification groups which are based on a sample of adult students attending an urban, southwestern university in the United States. You need to consider what category the person falls into based on total extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness scores. Be sure to use the highlighted classification groups for the Mini-IPIP, not the 50-item IPIP. You do not need to consider the mean or the standard deviation – only the normative range as highlighted. You do not need to perform any calculations or look at other sources for different normative classifications. GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 6

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

So for example, if an individual scores a total of 10 on the agreeableness items you would consider them to be in the “low range” of agreeableness compared to adults in the normative group but if they scored a total 19 on the agreeableness items you would consider them to be in the “high range” of agreeableness comparative to adults in the normative group. GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 7

Mini-IPIP – MEASURE COMPLETED BY MS. ALECIA MOORE (grey block indicates answer provided; refer to the top of the column for the score) Very inaccurate Moderately inaccurate Neither inaccurate or accurate Moderately accurate Very accurate 1 2 3 4 5 1. I am the life of the party 2. Sympathise with others’ feelings 3. Get chores done right away 4. Have frequent mood swings 5. Have a vivid imagination 6. Don’t talk a lot 7. Am not interested in other people’s problems 8. Often forget to put things back in their proper place 9. Am relaxed most of the time 10. Am not interested in abstract ideas 11. Talk to a lot of different people at parties 12. Feel others’ emotions 13. Like order 14. Get upset easily 15. Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas 16. Keep in the background GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 8

17. Am not really interested in others 18. Make a mess of things 19. Seldom feel blue 20. Do not have a good imagination GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 9

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

References Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18 (2), 192-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192 Jones, W. P. (2014). Enhancing a short measure of big five personality traits with Bayesian scaling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74 (6), 1049- 1066. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414525040 McNulty, J. P., Mackay, S. J., Lewis, S. J., Lane, S., & White, P. (2016). An international study of emotional intelligence in first year radiography students: The relationship to age, gender and culture. Radiography, 22 (2), 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2015.10.008 Petrides K. V. (2009) Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). In J. Parker, D. Saklofske, & C. Stough (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: The Springer series on human exceptionality (pp. 85-101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_5 GDPA PSY4406 PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT 10

PSY4406 TP4 Report assessment material

Related Documents