Maggie K Only Psychology Homework Assignment

Maggie K Only Psychology Homework Assignment
EBSCO Publishing   Citation Format: APA (American Psychological Assoc.): NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost〈=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines. References Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1961). Beck Depression Inventory–II. Beck Depression Inventory–II Review of the Beck Depression Inventory-II by PAUL A. ARBISI, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Assistant Professor Department of Psychiatry and Assistant Clinical Professor Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN: After over 35 years of nearly universal use, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) has undergone a major revision. The revised version of the Beck, the BDI-II, represents a significant improvement over the original instrument across all aspects of the instrument including content, psychometric validity, and external validity. The BDI was an effective measure of depressed mood that repeatedly demonstrated utility as evidenced by its widespread use in the clinic as well as by the frequent use of the BDI as a dependent measure in outcome studies of psychotherapy and antidepressant treatment (Piotrowski & Keller, 1989; Piotrowski & Lubin, 1990). The BDI-II should supplant the BDI and readily gain acceptance by surpassing its predecessor in use. Despite the demonstrated utility of the Beck, times had changed and the diagnostic context within which the instrument was developed had altered considerably over the years (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961). Further, psychometrically, the BDI had some problems with certain items failing to discriminate adequately across the range of depression and other items showing gender bias (Santor, Ramsay, & Zuroff, 1994). Hence the time had come for a conceptual reassessment and psychometrically informed revision of the instrument. Indeed, a mid-course correction had occurred in 1987 as evidenced by the BDI-IA, a version that included rewording of 15 out of the 21 items (Beck & Steer, 1987). This version did not address the limited scope of depressive symptoms of the BDI nor the failure of the BDI to adhere to contemporary diagnostic criteria for depression as codified in the DSM-III. Further, consumers appeared to vote with their feet because, since the publication of the BDI-IA, the original Beck had been cited far more frequently in the literature than the BDI-IA. Therefore, the time had arrived for a major overhaul of the classic BDI and a retooling of the content to reflect diagnostic sensibilities of the 1990s. In the main, the BDI-II accomplishes these goals and represents a highly successful revamping of a reliable standard. The BDI-II retains the 21-item format with four options under each item, ranging from not present (0) to severe (3). Relative to the BDI-IA, all but three items were altered in some way on the BDI-II. Items dropped from the BDI include body image change, work difficulty, weight loss, and somatic preoccupation. To replace the four lost items, the BDI-II includes the following new items: agitation, worthlessness, loss of energy, and concentration difficulty. The current item content includes: (a) sadness, (b) pessimism, (c) past failure, (d) loss of pleasure, (e) guilty feelings, (f) punishment feelings, (g) self-dislike, (h) self-criticalness, (i) suicidal thoughts or wishes, (j) crying, (k) agitation, (l) loss of interest, (m) indecisiveness, (n) worthlessness, (o) loss of energy, (p) changes in sleeping pattern, (q) irritability, (r) changes in appetite, (s) concentration difficulty, (t) tiredness or fatigue, and (u) loss of interest in sex. To further reflect DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for depression, both increases and decreases in appetite are assessed in the same item and both hypersomnia and hyposomnia are assessed in another item. And rather than the 1-week time period rated on the BDI, the BDI-II, consistent with DSM-IV, asks for ratings over the past 2 weeks. The BDI-II retains the advantage of the BDI in its ease of administration (5-10 minutes) and the rather straightforward interpretive guidelines presented in the manual. At the same time, the advantage of a self-report instrument such as the BDI-II may also be a disadvantage. That is, there are no validity indicators contained on the BDI or the BDI-II and the ease of administration of a self-report lends itself to the deliberate tailoring of self-report and distortion of the results. Those of us engaged in clinical practice are often faced with clients who alter their presentation to forward a personal agenda that may not be shared with the clinician. The manual obliquely mentions this problem in an ambivalent and somewhat avoidant fashion. Under the heading, “Memory and Response Sets,” the manual blithely discounts the potential problem of a distorted response set by attributing extreme elevation on the BDI-II to “extreme negative thinking” which “may be a central cognitive symptom of severe depression rather than a response set per se because patients with milder depression should show variation in their response ratings” (manual, p. 9). On the other hand, later in the manual, we are told that, “In evaluating BDI-II scores, practitioners should keep in mind that all self-report inventories are subject to response bias” (p. 12). The latter is sound advice and should be highlighted under the heading of response bias. The manual is well written and provides the reader with significant information regarding norms, factor structure, and notably, nonparametric item-option characteristic curves for each item. Indeed the latter inclusion incorporates the latest in item response theory, which appears to have guided the retention and deletion of items from the BDI (Santor et al., 1994). Generally the psychometric properties of the BDI-II are quite sound. Coefficient alpha estimates of reliability for the BDI-II with outpatients was .92 and was .93 for the nonclinical sample. Corrected item-total correlation for the outpatient sample ranged from .39 (loss of interest in sex) to .70 (loss of pleasure), for the nonclinical college sample the lowest item-total correlation was .27 (loss of interest in sex) and the highest (.74 (self-dislike). The test-retest reliability coefficient across the period of a week was quite high at .93. The inclusion in the manual of item-option characteristic curves for each BDI-II item is of noted significance. Examination of these curves reveals that, for the most part, the ordinal position of the item options is appropriately assigned for 17 of the 21 items. However, the items addressing punishment feelings, suicidal thought or wishes, agitation, and loss of interest in sex did not display the anticipated rank order indicating ordinal increase in severity of depression across item options. Additionally, although improved over the BDI, Item 10 (crying) Option 3 does not clearly express a more severe level of depression than Option 2 (see Santor et al., 1994). Over all, however, the option choices within each item appear to function as intended across the severity dimension of depression. The suggested guidelines and cut scores for the interpretation of the BDI-II and placement of individual scores into a range of depression severity are purported to have good sensitivity and moderate specificity, but test parameters such as positive and negative predictive power are not reported (i.e., given score X on the BDI-II, what is the probability that the individual meets criteria for a Major Depressive Disorder, of moderate severity?). According to the manual, the BDI-II was developed as a screening instrument for major depression and, accordingly, cut scores were derived through the use of receiver operating characteristic curves to maximize sensitivity. Of the 127 outpatients used to derive the cut scores, 57 met criteria for either single-episode or recurrent major depression. The relatively high base rate (45%) for major depression is a bit unrealistic for nonpsychiatric settings and will likely serve to inflate the test parameters. Cross validation of the cut scores on different samples with lower base rates of major depression is warranted due to the fact that a different base rate of major depression may result in a significant change in the proportion of correct decisions based on the suggested cut score (Meehl & Rosen, 1955). Consequently, until the suggested cut scores are cross validated in those populations, caution should be exercised when using the BDI-II as a screen in nonpsychiatric populations where the base rate for major depression may be substantially lower. Concurrent validity evidence appears solid with the BDI-II demonstrating a moderately high correlation with the Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression-Revised (r = .71) in psychiatric outpatients. Of importance to the discriminative validity of the instrument was the relatively moderate correlation between the BDI-II and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety-Revised (r = .47). The manual reports mean BDI-II scores for various groups of psychiatric outpatients by diagnosis. As expected, outpatients had higher scores than college students. Further, individuals with mood disorders had higher scores than those individuals diagnosed with anxiety and adjustment disorders. The BDI-II is a stronger instrument than the BDI with respect to its factor structure. A two-factor (Somatic-Affective and Cognitive) solution accounted for the majority of the common variance in both an outpatient psychiatric sample and a much smaller nonclinical college sample. Factor Analysis of the BDI-II in a larger nonclinical sample of college students resulted in Cognitive-Affective and Somatic-Vegetative main factors essentially replicating the findings presented in the manual and providing strong evidence for the overall stability of the factor structure across samples (Dozois, Dobson, & Ahnberg, 1998). Unfortunately several of the items such as sadness and crying shifted factor loadings depending upon the type of sample (clinical vs. nonclinical). SUMMARY. The BDI-II represents a highly successful revision of an acknowledged standard in the measurement of depressed mood. The revision has improved upon the original by updating the items to reflect contemporary diagnostic criteria for depression and utilizing state-of-the-art psychometric techniques to improve the discriminative properties of the instrument. This degree of improvement is no small feat and the BDI-II deserves to replace the BDI as the single most widely used clinically administered instrument for the assessment of depression. REVIEWER’S REFERENCES Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194-216. Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J. W. (1989). Psychological testing in outpatient mental health facilities: A national study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20, 423-425. Piotrowski, C., & Lubin, B. (1990). Assessment practices of health psychologists; Survey of APA Division 38 clinicians. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 99-106. Santor, D. A., Ramsay, J. O., & Zuroff, D. C. (1994). Nonparametric item analyses of the Beck Depression Inventory: Evaluating gender item bias and response option weights. Psychological Assessment, 6, 255-270. Dozois, D. J. A., Dobson, K. S., & Ahnberg, J. L. (1998). A psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Psychological Assessment, 10, 83-89. Review of the Beck Depression Inventory-II by RICHARD F. FARMER, Associate Professor of Psychology, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID: The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) is the most recent version of a widely used self-report measure of depression severity. Designed for persons 13 years of age and older, the BDI-II represents a significant revision of the original instrument published almost 40 years ago (BDI-I; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) as well as the subsequent amended version copyrighted in 1978 (BDI-IA; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979; Beck & Steer, 1987, 1993). Previous editions of the BDI have considerable support for their effectiveness as measures of depression (for reviews, see Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974; Beck, Steer & Garbin, 1988; and Steer, Beck, & Garrison, 1986). Items found in these earlier versions, many of which were retained in modified form for the BDI-II, were clinically derived and neutral with respect to a particular theory of depression. Like previous versions, the BDI-II contains 21 items, each of which assesses a different symptom or attitude by asking the examinee to consider a group of graded statements that are weighted from 0 to 3 based on intuitively derived levels of severity. If the examinee feels that more than one statement within a group applies, he or she is instructed to circle the highest weighting among the applicable statements. A total score is derived by summing weights corresponding to the statements endorsed over the 21 items. The test authors provide empirically informed cut scores (derived from receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve methodology) for indexing the severity of depression based on responses from outpatients with a diagnosed episode of major depression (cutoff scores to index the severity of dysphoria for college samples are suggested by Dozois, Dobson, & Ahnberg, 1998). The BDI-II can usually be completed within 5 to 10 minutes. In addition to providing guidelines for the oral administration of the test, the manual cautions the user against using the BDI-II as a diagnostic instrument and appropriately recommends that interpretations of test scores should only be undertaken by qualified professionals. Although the manual does not report the reading level associated with the test items, previous research on the BDI-IA suggested that items were written at about the sixth-grade level (Berndt, Schwartz, & Kaiser, 1983). A number of changes appear in the BDI-II, perhaps the most significant of which is the modification of test directions and item content to be more consistent with the major depressive episode concept as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Whereas the BDI-I and BDI-IA assessed symptoms experienced at the present time and during the past week, respectively, the BDI-II instructs the examinee to respond in terms of how he or she has “been feeling during the past two weeks, including today” (manual, p. 8, emphasis in original) so as to be consistent with the DSM-IV time period for the assessment of major depression. Similarly, new items included in the BDI-II address psychomotor agitation, concentration difficulties, sense of worthlessness, and loss of energy so as to make the BDI-II item set more consistent with DSM-IV criteria. Items that appeared in the BDI-I and BDI-IA that were dropped in the second edition were those that assessed weight loss, body image change, somatic preoccupation, and work difficulty. All but three of the items from the BDI-IA retained for inclusion in the BDI-II were reworded in some way. Items that assess changes in sleep patterns and appetite now address both increases and decreases in these areas. Two samples were retained to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the BDI-II: (a) a clinical sample (n = 500; 63% female; 91% White) who sought outpatient therapy at one of four outpatient clinics on the U.S. east coast (two of which were located in urban areas, two in suburban areas), and (b) a convenience sample of Canadian college students (n = 120; 56% women; described as “predominantly White”). The average ages of the clinical and student samples were, respectively, 37.2 (SD = 15.91; range = 13-86) and 19.58 (SD = 1.84). Reliability of the BDI was evaluated with multiple methods. Internal consistency was assessed using corrected item-total correlations (ranges: .39 to .70 for outpatients; .27 to .74 for students) and coefficient alpha (.92 for outpatients; .93 for students). Test-retest reliability was assessed over a 1-week interval among a small subsample of 26 outpatients from one clinic site (r = .93). There was no significant change in scores noted among this outpatient sample between the two testing occasions, a finding that is different from those often obtained with college students who, when tested repeatedly with earlier versions of the BDI, were often observed to have lower scores on subsequent testing occasions (e.g., Hatzenbuehler, Parpal, & Matthews, 1983). Following the method of Santor, Ramsay, and Zuroff (1994), the test authors also examined the item-option characteristic curves for each of the 21 BDI-II items as endorsed by the 500 outpatients. As noted in a previous review of the BDI (1993 Revised) by Waller (1998), the use of this method to evaluate item performance represents a new standard in test revision. Consistent with findings for depressed outpatients obtained by Santor et al. (1994) on the BDI-IA, most of the BDI-II items performed well as evidenced by the individual item-option curves. All items were reported to display monotonic relationships with the underlying dimension of depression severity. A minority of items were somewhat problematic, however, when the degree of correspondence between estimated and a priori weights associated with item response options was evaluated. For example, on Item 11 (agitation), the response option weighted a value of 1 was more likely to be endorsed than the option weighted 3 across all levels of depression, including depression in the moderate and severe ranges. In general, though, response option weights of the BDI-II items did a good job of discriminating across estimated levels of depression severity. Unfortunately, the manual does not provide detailed discussion of item-option characteristic curves and their interpretation. The validity of the BDI-II was evaluated with outpatient subsamples of various sizes. When administered on the same occasion, the correlation between the BDI-II and BDI-IA was quite high (n = 101, r = .93), suggesting that these measures yield similar patterns of scores, even though the BDI-II, on average, produced equated scores that were about 3 points higher. In support of its convergent validity, the BDI-II displayed moderately high correlations with the Beck Hopelessness Scale (n = 158, r = .68) and the Revised Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-R; n = 87, r = .71). The correlation between the BDI-II and the Revised Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (n = 87, r = .47) was significantly less than that for the BDI-II and HRSD-R, which was cited as evidence of the BDI-II’s discriminant validity. The BDI-II, however, did share a moderately high correlation with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (n = 297; r = .60), a finding consistent with past research on the strong association between self-reported anxiety and depression (e.g., Kendall & Watson, 1989). Additional research published since the manual’s release (Steer, Ball, Ranieri, & Beck, 1997) also indicates that the BDI-II shares higher correlations with the SCL-90-R Depression subscale (r = .89) than with the SCL-90-R Anxiety subscale (r = .71), although the latter correlation is still substantial. Other data presented in the test manual indicated that of the 500 outpatients, those diagnosed with mood disorders (n = 264) had higher BDI-II scores than those diagnosed with anxiety (n = 88), adjustment (n = 80), or other (n = 68) disorders. The test authors also cite evidence of validity by separate factor analyses performed on the BDI-II item set for outpatients and students. However, findings from these analyses, which were different in some significant respects, are questionable evidence of the measure’s validity as the test was apparently not developed to assess specific dimensions of depression. Factor analytic studies of the BDI have historically produced inconsistent findings (Beck et al., 1988), and preliminary research on the BDI-II suggests some variations in factor structure within both clinical and student samples (Dozois et al., 1998; Steer & Clark, 1997; Steer, Kumar, Ranieri, & Beck, 1998). Furthermore, one of the authors of the BDI-II (Steer & Clark, 1997) has recently advised that the measure not be scored as separate subscales. SUMMARY. The BDI-II is presented as a user-friendly self-report measure of depression severity. Strengths of the BDI-II include the very strong empirical foundation on which it was built, namely almost 40 years of research that demonstrates the effectiveness of earlier versions. In the development of the BDI-II, innovative methods were employed to determine optimum cut scores (ROC curves) and evaluate item performance and weighting (item-option curves). The present edition demonstrates very good reliability and impressive test item characteristics. Preliminary evidence of the BDI-II’s validity in clinical samples is also encouraging. Despite the many impressive features of this measure, one may wonder why the test developers were not even more thorough in their presentation of the development of the BDI-II and more rigorous in the evaluation of its effectiveness. The test manual is too concise, and often omits important details involving the test development process. The clinical sample used to generate cut scores and evaluate the psychometric properties of the measure seems unrepresentative in many respects (e.g., racial make-up, patient setting, geographic distribution), and other aspects of this sample (e.g., education level, family income) go unmentioned. The student sample is relatively small and, unfortunately, drawn from a single university. Opportunities to address important questions regarding the measure were also missed, such as whether the BDI-II effectively assesses or screens the DSM-IV concept of major depression, and the extent to which it may accomplish this better than earlier versions. This seems to be a particularly important question given that the BDI was originally developed as a measure of the depressive syndrome, not as a screening measure for a nosologic category (Kendall, Hollon, Beck, Hammen, & Ingram, 1987), a distinction that appears to have become somewhat blurred in this most recent edition. Also, not reported in the manual are analyses to examine possible sex biases among the BDI-II item set. Santor et al. (1994) reported that the BDI-IA items were relatively free of sex bias, and given the omission of the most sex-biased item in the BDI-IA (body image change) from the BDI-II, it is possible that this most recent edition may contain even less bias. Similarly absent in the manual is any report on the item-option characteristic curves for nonclinical samples. Santor et al. (1994) reported that for most of the BDI-IA items, response option weights were less discriminating across the range of depression severity among their college sample relative to their clinical sample, an anticipated finding given that students would be less likely to endorse response options hypothesized to be consistent with more severe forms of depression. Also, given that previous editions of the BDI have shown inconsistent associations with social undesirability (e.g., Tanaka-Matsumi & Kameoka, 1986), an opportunity was missed to evaluate the extent to which the BDI-II measures something different than this response set. Despite these relative weaknesses in the development and presentation of the BDI-II, existent evidence suggests that the BDI-II is just as sound if not more so than its earlier versions. REVIEWER’S REFERENCES Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571. Beck, A. T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: The Depression Inventory. In P. Pichot & R. Oliver-Martin (Eds.), Psychological measurements in psychopharmacology: Modern problems in pharmacopsychiatry (vol. 7, pp. 151-169). Basel: Karger. Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford. Berndt, D. J., Schwartz, S., & Kaiser, C. F. (1983). Readability of self-report depression inventories. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 627-628. Hatzenbuehler, L. C., Parpal, M., & Matthews, L. (1983). Classifying college students as depressed or nondepressed using the Beck Depression Inventory: An empirical analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 360-366. Steer, R. A., Beck, A. T., & Garrison, B. (1986). Applications of the Beck Depression Inventory. In N. Sartorius & T. A. Ban (Eds.), Assessment of depression (pp. 123-142). New York: Springer-Verlag. Tanaka-Matsumi, J., & Kameoka, V. A. (1986). Reliabilities and concurrent validities of popular self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 328-333. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Kendall, P. C., Hollon, S. D., Beck, A. T., Hammen, C. L., & Ingram, R. E. (1987). Issues and recommendations regarding the use of the Beck Depression Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 289-299. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77-100. Kendall, P. C., & Watson, D. (Eds.). (1989). Anxiety and depression: Distinctive and overlapping features. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1993). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Santor, D. A., Ramsay, J. O., & Zuroff, D. C. (1994). Nonparametric item analyses of the Beck Depression Inventory: Evaluating gender item bias and response option weights. Psychological Assessment, 6, 255-270. Steer, R. A., Ball, R., Ranieri, W. F., & Beck, A. T. (1997). Further evidence for the construct validity of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with psychiatric outpatients. Psychological Reports, 80, 443-446. Steer, R. A., & Clark, D. A. (1997). Psychometric characteristics of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with college students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 128-136. Dozois, D. J. A., Dobson, K. S., & Ahnberg, J. L. (1998). A psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Psychological Assessment, 10, 83-89. Steer, R. A., Kumar, G., Ranieri, W. F., & Beck, A. T. (1998). Use of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with adolescent psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 20, 127-137. Waller, N. G. (1998). [Review of the Beck Depression Inventory-1993 Revised]. In J. C. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 120-121). Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Maggie K Only Psychology Homework Assignment
Running head: EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL QUALITY BDI-II 0 Evaluation of Technical Quality BDI-II Mark Einsel Capella University Evaluation of Technical Quality BDI-II Introduction The standardized test selected in Unit 2 was the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II). BDI-II is one of the most widely used psychometric tests for evaluating the severity of depression. It consists of a 21-question multiple-choice self-report inventory. The development of BDI marked a shift in the field of mental health where depression had previously been viewed from a psychodynamic perspective. BDI presented depression as an outcome of individual patient’s thoughts. The 21 items in the test relate to the symptoms of depression such as interests, irritability, and hopelessness. Candidates taking the test must be over the age of 13, this allows their responses to be credible, and hence the use of the test. Each item has a score of between 0 and 3. Higher scores indicate severe depressive symptoms. The standardized cutoffs in the test are; 0–13: minimal depression 14–19: mild depression 20–28: moderate depression 29–63: severe depression (Steer, Rissmiller, & Beck, 2000). The test accounts for most symptoms associated with depression. Therefore, although it is possible to score 0 in some elements, the accumulation of other may lead to a depression diagnosis. This test is widely used as it offers a lot of information about the patient even where a diagnosis is not passed. This is because of the questions that patients must respond to. For instance, patient answer questions about suicide thoughts, feeling like a failure, and level of irritability. The BDI-II also retains the advantage in its ease of administration (5-10 minutes) and the rather straightforward interpretive guidelines presented in the manual. For these reasons, it is a very popular test among psychologists. Concurrent validity evidence is solid with the BDI-II demonstrating a moderately high correlation with the Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression-Revised (r = .71) in psychiatric outpatients. The BDI-II is presented as a user-friendly self-report measure of depression severity (Steer, Rissmiller, & Beck, 2000). Article Summaries Prevention of Long-Term Sickness Absence and Major Depression in High-Risk Employees: A Randomized Controlled Trial The objectives of the study were to examine the efficacy of early intervention on the prevention of long-term sickness absence and major depression among employees at high risk of future sickness absence and with mild to severe depressive complaints. A randomized controlled trial conducted among high-risk employees. 139 employees were identified both at high risk of future sickness absence and with mild to severe depressive complaints through screening. They were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=69) or the control group (n=70) (Lexis, 2011). Sickness absence was assessed at 12 and 18 months of follow-up. Depressive complaints were analyzed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. Intention-to-treat analyses showed a significant difference in total sickness absence duration between the interventions over 12 months of follow-up, a reduction of 46%. The intervention group showed a non-significantly lower proportion of long-term sickness absence spells compared with the control group. Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in depressive complaints were found after both 6 months and 12 months of follow-up, in favor of the intervention group (Lexis, 2011). Psychometric Meta-Analysis of the English Version of the Beck Anxiety Inventory This meta-analysis reviewed 192 scholarly works from 1993 to 2013 using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer). Aggregated internal consistency (coefficient alpha) was .91 (k = 117), and test-retest reliability was .65 (k = 18) (Bardhoshi, 2016). Convergent comparisons were robust across 33 different anxiety instruments and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown). Structural validity primarily supported the original 2-factor solution proposed by Beck and Steer, and diagnostic accuracy varied according to the sample size and criterion cutoff score (Bardhoshi, 2016). Activities of Daily Living, Depression, and Social Support among Elderly Turkish People The study examined the impact of activities of daily living and perceived social support on the level of depression among elderly Turkish people. Participants were 102 adults older than the age of 60 years. The study assumed that (a) lower levels of activities of daily living would predict a higher level of depression, (b) a higher level of perceived social support would predict a lower level of depression, and (c) perceived social support would moderate the relation between activities of daily living and depression (Bozo, 2009). Although hierarchical multiple regression analysis did not yield a significant effect for an activities of daily living-perceived social support interaction, activities of daily living and perceived social support significantly predicted depression among elderly people. Thus, perceived social support did not moderate the relation between activities of daily living and depression among elderly people; however, higher activities of daily living functioning and higher perceived social support predicted lower depression. The non-significant effect of an ADL-perceived social support interaction on the level of depression among elderly people was incongruent with the stress-buffering model (Bozo, 2009). The authors discuss the strengths, limitations, and possible implications of the findings. Combining Evidence-based Practices for Improved Behavioral Outcomes: A Demonstration Project Thomas Blakely (2013) describes a demonstration project conducted by a team at a mental health agency caring for adults with a serious psychiatric condition. The project consisted of combining the evidence-based practices of cognitive therapy, Motivational Interviewing and Stages of Change with Social Role Theory and the Chronic Care Model that were the organizing concepts of the agency’s assessment and treatment program. Measures of the results of clients’ improved mental health and social functioning indicated the successful use of this combination (Blakely, 2013). Facilitated physical activity as a treatment for depressed adults: randomized controlled trial The research question was ‘Does facilitated physical activity provide an effective treatment for adults with depression presenting in primary care?’ the study established that although trial participants receiving the physical activity intervention in addition to usual care reported increased physical activity compared with those receiving usual care alone, there was no evidence to suggest that the intervention brought about any improvement in depressive symptoms or reduction in antidepressant use (Chalder, 2012). In the study, new information was added on to already known findings. Many studies have shown the positive effects of physical activity, but most of the current evidence originates from small non-clinical samples using interventions that are not usable in clinical setting. Our results indicate that offering patients a facilitated physical activity intervention is not an effective strategy for reducing symptoms of depression, although it enhanced self-reported physical activity and sustained this effect over a period of one year (Chalder, 2012). Diagnostic Efficiency of BDI in a Clinical Setting: Comparison among Depression, Anxiety, Psychosis and Control group The Beck Depression Inventory total mean score and the mean scores of the three factors (Negative Attitude, Somatic Element, and Performance Difficulty) are considerably different among the Depression, Psychosis, Anxiety, and control group. Especially, the Beck Depression Inventory total mean score on the Depression group is significantly higher than other two clinical groups and the control group (Kim, 2010). Within the Beck Depression Inventory three factors, Negative Attitude is the most important predictor in distinguishing the Depression group from both the Anxiety and Psychosis group and Negative Attitude and Somatic Element are the most important predictors in distinguishing the Depression group from the control group. Self-esteem and self-disgust both mediate the relationship between dysfunctional cognitions and depressive symptoms Many researches have indicated that self-disgust mediates the relationship between dysfunctional cognitions and depression. However, as self-disgust is only a partial factor, other variables are also likely to influence this relationship. Self-esteem is one such variable. It has consistently been linked to depression in the literature. This study aims to examine how self-disgust and self-esteem mediate the association between dysfunctional cognitions and depression (Simpson, 2010). Measures of self-disgust, self-esteem, dysfunctional cognitions and depression were completed by a non-clinical sample of 120 participants. In the study, self-disgust and self-esteem were found to be distinct constructs and both constructs were found to be partial mediators of the relationship between dysfunctional cognitions and depression: a finding which generalized across two measures of depression. Conclusion From the literature, it was found that higher activities of daily living functioning and higher perceived social support predicted lower levels of depression. Although not viable in clinical settings offering patients a facilitated physical activity enhanced self-reported physical activity and sustained this effect over a period of one year. References Bardhoshi, G. (2016). Psychometric Meta-Analysis of the English Version of the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Counseling and Development, 94(3), 356-373. Blakely, T. J. (2013). Combining Evidence-based Practices for Improved Behavioral Outcomes: A Demonstration Project. Community Mental Health Journal, 49(4), 396-400. Bozo, Ö. (2009). Activities of Daily Living, Depression, and Social Support among Elderly Turkish People. The Journal of Psychology, 143(2), 193-205. Chalder, M. (2012). Facilitated physical activity as a treatment for depressed adults: randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 344(7860), 14. Kim, H. (2010). Diagnostic Efficiency of BDI in a Clinical Setting: Comparison among Depression, Anxiety, Psychosis and Control group. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1(5), 502. Lexis, M. A. (2011). Prevention of long-term sickness absence and major depression in high-risk employees: a randomized controlled trial. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 68(6), 400-407. Simpson, J. (2010). Self-esteem and self-disgust both mediate the relationship between dysfunctional cognitions and depressive symptoms. Motivation and Emotion, 34(4), 399-406. Steer, R. A., Rissmiller, D. J.& Beck, A.T., (2000). Use of the Beck Depression Inventory with depressed geriatric patients. Behavior Research and Therapy, 38(3), 311-318.
Maggie K Only Psychology Homework Assignment
Running head: EVALUATION OF TESTING MATERIALS AND BEST PRACTICES 0 Evaluation of Testing Materials and Best Practices Mark Einsel Capella University Evaluation of Testing Materials and Best Practices Introduction The standard test selected is based on the psychological disorder among patients and members of the society particularly veterans who have served in combat scenarios. The type of standardized testing involved may range from the Beck Hopelessness, Children Depression Inventory and the Beck Depression Inventory, dependent upon the subject’s criteria and time of event when the experience originated. These test items exist in various modes where computer generated results can generate the level of physical disorder permitting the therapist to understand the needs of the patient. The analysis generated by computer testing is effective enough that the level of psychological disorder is addressed effectively. These tests provide leading indicators that can be utilized to analyze the levels of depressive disorders. For instance, the Beck Hopelessness scale is used to assess the psychometrically sound is utilized to evaluate isolated variables which corresponds to hopelessness. The use of sound helps to obtain a rather accurate data that can obtain a better understanding of the state of mind the individual is subjected under this test, for example those contemplating suicide and other thoughts. The Beck Hopelessness scale is utilized primarily by the United States military in assessment of the stages of depression (Frumkin, 2003), this is because of its ability to provide accurate data or leading indicators on the stages of depression. Essentially, the score will have a range from zero to sixty and thus the higher the score gives an indication of higher stages of depression, which indicates the level of severity the individual is experiencing. The positive aspect of these test items is the test stands to be an important feature that has been able to improve the status of non-inferiority. This has ensured the test cannot be replaced by treatment. The purpose of the test is to improve the ability of the patient to actively control the depressive disorder. This is a preferred option, which is desired under most circumstances, and although this treatment may not effectively offer diagnosis, this affords the measurement of hopelessness. The negative aspect behind the Beck Depression Inventory is it does not provide the ability to collect data from patients that are below the age of 13, it therefore focuses on delivering data of teenagers. Therefore, the depression disorder among kids may not be able to be recorded and thus they cannot be able to control the depression level (Fulmer, 2009). This suggests the scale may not be able to help in controlling and managing disorders among children. There appears to be an adverse effect and taking into consideration the child may grow into adulthood with depression, which may not be controllable or manageable upon adulthood when the test item could begin to represent data that can be evaluated. The appropriateness of the test items indicates the BDI as highly reliable, this is due to its characterization as indicated by alpha qualities of 86 for psychiatric and 81 of non-psychiatric patients. Therefore, making the item appropriate in assessing any depressive disorder ranging from suicidal thoughts and dysfunctional attitude. BDI could assist the clients’ and assess their idiosyncratic accounts, this is where they can manage and assess their own symptoms. As such, it validates the test item appropriate for use for non-depressed psychiatric patients (Gilbert Leckie, 2015). The Beck Hopelessness scale on the other hand is a very reliable test item because it is able to give the feedback on hopelessness instantly. What this evaluation indicates specifically, is an appropriate measure that is incorporated to reduce the rate of hopelessness, this was effective in a study that was conducted in Nigeria where so many nurses of Nigeria appeared in a state of hopelessness. Consequently, they were screened of depressive symptoms and psychological distress. The screening was found to be important in trying to reduce the level of depression among the Nigerian students and the result indicated the test to be an appropriate item. Evaluate representative samples of test questions or practice tests, directions, answer sheets, manuals, and score reports before selecting a test; In an attempt to assess the level of depression based on test questions that are asked to the clients being observed under the Beck Hopelessness scale, such questions must have the ability to indicate the level in which the person is able to portray about the future. If the client’s response displays an undesirable attitude about the future, it becomes apparent at this juncture the test signifies a notable change in a client suffering from hopelessness. When BDI is utilized the level of sadness, prior failures, pessimism, lacking pleasure, feeling of guilt, punishment feelings, suicidal view or desires, insomnia, lack/increase of appetite, lack of sex drive, lack of interest and weariness or exhaustion is evident. These sample questions are able to provide the true status of hopelessness regarding the client and becomes an effective measurement in which samples can be collected (Rhoads, 2013). It is imperative to select sample questions prior to selecting a test. This is to ensure the test item selected by the person carrying out the test has expectations that will be met by the answers. What this suggests is the questions should have the ability to invoke emotions, since emotions trigger the body to react and thus the answers that will be provided will be truthful. This would become a key feature a psychologist must evaluate when attempting to assess the level of depressive disorder or hopelessness of the client. Evaluate procedures and materials used by the test developers, as well as the resulting test, to ensure that potentially offensive content or language is avoided; When test developers are coming up with materials they should first advise the test users on the level of test accuracy, which will include the precision of the test scores. When developing the materials to be utilized they must represent concerns that would initially indicate or represent the emotional status of the test user. This is done by ensuring the materials are detailed, appropriate and capable of coming up with necessary information identifying the results as they are intended. As an example, when utilizing the Beck Hopelessness test, the developer must establish a test that can indicate or assess their attitude towards the future. This will guarantee the material utilized is being investigated accurately. It is imperative to measure and evaluate the verbiage of language so it does not become offensive, create the ability to affect the test or cause bias and if offensive verbiage is evident the test must be modified so it is suitable for the client. If offensive language is present, the context needs to be understood in advance by the test user. As an example, when coming up with material that is going to be ensued by a military officer, there are certain words that might appear to be offensive, therefore, the test developer needs to understand the specifics of the client taking the test. This is because it will assist him or her in developing the appropriate test that can be utilized without having offensive language. Understanding the person taking the test is important when carrying out a BDI, as with the case of conducting a test on a child, as such, a therapist cannot start asking about sexual satisfaction so as to evaluate the depressive disorder. The important factor here is understanding the test user while preparing the test, as with this situation, the test-user will be able to assist in the avoidance of offensive language (Ruggero, 2014). Fair and Appropriate materials To ensure the language used is not offensive, the test must be perused using its Mental Measurement Yearbook audit. The use of the audit is ensued to make judgements about the nature of the test. The purpose of the short lesson is to help one to see and understand the use of MMY audit so as to make judgments. This therefore ensures the test may not be able to affect the test user in any offensive manner, especially in terms of discrimination regarding their race, gender and cultural beliefs. The premise of the data analyst helps with the necessary data report that will be able to ensure the test is of good quality and it does not contain any biased elements or any administration that can be able to affect the mindset of the client. This will be in terms of questions indicating undesirable activity and fairness. The use of technology Technology has come in handy in trying to solve the issue of disability. There are various software programs that have been developed to ensure clients with disabilities are still capable and available to take the test. The best test that is open to modification is the BDI, this is due to the many factors that can be used to assess the depressive disorder of the individual who is considered to be disabled. When looking at the Becks Hopelessness scale it focuses on the attitude of the person towards the future, at times this is possible to predict the outcome of persons with disabilities since he or she may have some negative attitude towards the future. Although the BDI appears to be broad it still provides situations where the test can be adjusted to accommodate such clients with disabilities to take the test, this will, therefore, ensure that the materials are effective. Technology has been utilized to capture and safeguard that fairness will be achieved. Additionally, the client is capable of understanding the questions that he or she will be asked generally. The premise of the test is to guarantee that fairness is maintained, it is, therefore, a requirement that the users of the test are updated on the mode of questions and types of questions that will be used so that the client can continue with the selected test. The growth in technology has been used mostly by non-psychiatrics, this is because the tests are now available online and the patients can be able to carry out the assessment by themselves. This has been able to improve the status of depression disorder. Synthesis of findings The major strength of the BDI is it contains alpha of 86 to psychiatrist and 81 to non-psychiatrist. Statistically speaking, this indicates that the scale is accurate in giving its data, this means the data provided is accurate. When the scale reads at 86 and 81 correspondingly it indicates that the level of depression is high. This provides clients suffering with depressive disorders the ability to come up with ways to acknowledge the situation and find methods to help control the mental disorder. One of the major weaknesses pertaining to this test is it does not support test users who are below the age of 13, this has been a challenge since the level of control cannot be exercised among children, because the item does not support them. The level of accuracy of this test item is effective, it proves to be effective if utilized by non-psychiatrist, potentially a therapist assisting a child below the age of 13. Select tests with appropriately modified forms or administration procedures for test takes with disabilities who need special accommodations. Individuals who take BDI or Becks Hopelessness test are doing so to indicate a level of their depressive disorder, but to some extent they have been hindered with disabilities. Therefore, the test developers have been left with options to come up with modifications that can enable the disabled client to take the test. When it comes to the administration procedure it is important to note technology has been able to solve some of the problems that would have resulted to the test user not being able to take the test due to disability. As an example, there are computerized forms, card form test which requires users who have sufficient reading ability to understand and answer the question. This ensures that the client with a disability has the ability to administer the test themselves and have access to the computerized generated answers that offer the client the level of depressive disorder or hopelessness they are experiencing. Conclusion and Recommendations In conducting a depression disorder test, it is important to select a test item that will be able to give or rather provide accurate data to the client. This improves the ability of the patient to control the disorder rather than treating it since it has been found that some of the items utilized to test the depressive disorder are more effective than treatment. The ability of the test user to control the depressive disorder is essential, this affords the client the ability to understand what to do when they are experiencing depression, this is unlikely to happen when they are under medication since they seem not to be in control. The following are the recommendations that would be made: There needs to be improvement of the items for testing, this is to increase accuracy and efficiency. People with disabilities should have their own form of test item that specifically focuses on their disorder(s), this will serve to help and improve their depressive situation since the item will be created to focus on their living conditions and their disability. The BDI test item should be enhanced so it can provide or rather be used on test users below 13 years. This will help to improve the control level of children that are experiencing depression disorder. Reference Frumkin, L. (2003). Code of Fair testing practices In Education. Joint Committe On Testing Practices, 5-8. Fulmer, G. W. (2009). Estimating Critical Values for Strength of Alignment Among Curriculum, Assessments, and Instruction. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics , 36 (3), 381-402. Gilbert Leckie, R. P. (2015). Multilevel Modeling of Social Segregation. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics , 37 (1), 3-30. Rhoads, C. (2013). The Implications of “Contamination” for Experimental Design in Education. Journal of Educational Behavior Statistics, 36 (1), 76-104. Ruggero, D. W. (2014). Development of a Measure of experientail avoidance. Psychological assesment, 23(3), 692.
Maggie K Only Psychology Homework Assignment
Running head: REVIEW AND SELECTION OF A STANDARDIZED TEST 0 Review and Selection of a Standardized Test Mark Einsel Capella University Review and Selection of a Standardized Test Introduction The field of psychology has many paths for one to choose. Thankfully, not every individual is the same, therefore, this affords us to pick and choose a specialization that fits our personality, where we believe we can offer the most guidance and support to those who seek balance, or it could be that you are drawn to a concentration based on an experience. The concentration I have chosen will focus on trauma, PTSD, depression, anxiety, neglect, abuse, and bullying. I have served in the United States Navy, I’m a war veteran, I have depression, anxiety, and have been through verbal and physical abuse as a child, as well as being bullied in school. I believe I can help people find the path they are looking for to bring balance and healing into their lives. Therefore, it is that which I have experienced, able to comprehend, and someone they can speak with, knowing that I to have experienced such anguish. Test Category Based on Academic and Professional Goals The selected test category of choice, which will be relevant to my academic and professional career goal, will be on depressive disorders. I hope to be working with the public, military, military families, and individuals from diverse backgrounds, and cultures. Three Scales of Test Measurement The three tests that I have chosen for this project reflect on depressive disorders.  The three rating scales are, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II), and Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2).  Compare and Contrast Three Tests According to the First Four Elements Based on the three rating scales of test measurement, it is important to understand that there are commonalities within the three. The most common attributes regarding each test is that they each focus on depressive disorders. However, what is primarily dissimilar are the age groups, as well as the focus on the individual based on the test. Element 1 Pursuing this further, we examine Element 1 within each of the rating scales, defining the purpose for the testing. Starting with the Beck Hopelessness Scale. The premise of utilizing the Beck Hopelessness Scale, is to measures the level of undesirable attitudes about the future distrust as alleged by adults and adolescents (Beck & Steer, 1978). Of course, compared to the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II), which was established for the evaluation of indicators that correspond to measures for diagnosing depressive disorders as they are listed according to the DSM IV (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1961). Finally, comparing both Beck rating scales to the Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2), its concentration focuses more on the side of evaluating the incidence and severity of depressive symptoms within our youth (Kovacs, 2003). Each of these rating scales has its own content and skills it will require for testing. As an example, the Beck Hopelessness Scale requires the utilization of psychometrically sound measures for the evaluation of isolated variables corresponding to hopelessness, potential suicidal intent, cognitions, noticeable acts, and obtainable resources, as observed amongst individuals who express such behaviors towards suicidal thoughts (Mendonca, Holden, Mazmanian, & Dolan, 1983). The Beck Hopelessness Scale is also utilized for the United States military, the test consists of 21 items with four reply categories during each given item, which the quantity of the scores are calculated with conceivable ranges varying from zero to sixty-three, the higher the score may be an indicator of increased stages of depressive warning sign severity (Luxton et al., 2016). It is important to understand, the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) was also utilized for the military. As such, it aided as the principal consequence for the non-inferiority, the non-inferiority trials are proposed to indicate, that indeed the effect of a new treatment will not prove to be inferior than the active control, therefore, making the measurement of hopelessness a feasible gauge of safety (Luxton et al., 2016). The content of the and skills and testing to place are accomplished within 5-10 minutes and focus on these specific areas, sadness, pessimism, prior failures, lacking pleasure, feelings of guilt, punishment feelings, dislike of self, criticalness of self, suicidal views or desires, weeping, anxiety, lack of interest, indecisiveness, insignificance or expendable, reduction of energy, insomnia, irritability, lack/increase of appetite, lack of focus, weariness or exhaustion, and lack of sex drive (Beck et al., 1961). The intent of testing for both Beck rating scales are for depression, suicide, or a feeling of hopelessness. When it comes to Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2), the content can be utilized in an educational and clinical setting to evaluate depressive symptoms in children and adolescents, it offers an all-inclusive multi-rater evaluation of depressive symptoms in youth, which assistants in primary identification of depressive symptoms, diagnosis of depressive disorders and other linked disorders, and provides monitoring of treatment effectiveness for the youth (Kovacs, 2003). There are different ways the test can be given, some of the options are available like, Paper-and-Pencil Administration and Scoring, Online Administration and Scoring, and Software Scoring, forms offered depending on the severity and how robust of a report you may require as a psychologist. There is the CDI 2: Self-Report (CDI 2:SR), which CDI 2:SR is 28-item evaluation method that produces a total score, two scale scores (Emotional Problems and Functional Problems), and four subscale scores., CDI 2: Self-Report (Short) version (CDI 2:SR[S]) offers a is an excellent screening method that comprises 12 items and takes about half the time of the full-length version to administer (5–10 minutes), and has outstanding psychometric properties and produces a total score that is commonly very comparable to the one formed by the full-length version (Multi-Health Systems, Inc. [MHS], 2017). Lastly, there is a CDI: Teacher (CDI:T) and CDI: Parent (CDI:P), this is a self-report version, the item selection for the parent and teacher methods are steered to take full advantage of validity, and thus focus on evident displays of depression (Multi-Health Systems, Inc. [MHS], 2017). Each of the rating scales is specifically targeted at a group of individuals based on age. The Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2) test will focus on a group that ranges from the ages of 7-17 years old (Kovacs, 2003). Compared to the Beck Hopelessness Scale, there is more of a focus on the Adolescents and adults ages 17 and over (Beck & Steer, 1978). Unlike the Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2) test, Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) does not have anyone below the age of 13, therefore, the focus is 13 years old and above (Beck et al., 1961). Element 1 covers the purpose, content and skills, as well as the intended test takers within these three rating scales. Element 2 The intent of meeting Element 2 within each of these scales ratings is to ensure suitable trials for test takers with disabilities who need distinct accommodations or those with diverse linguistic backgrounds, which may have laws or regulations that govern how these accommodations will be carried out (Joint Committee on Testing Practices [JCTP], 2004). In addition, the selected tests are to be based on the suitability of assessment content, skills tested, and material covered for the proposed purpose of testing (JCTP, 2004). Diving into the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II), which has been changed and advanced from the original BDI, it was widely utilized by adults as a self-reporting tool, questions were raised as to the level of appropriateness for the use with adolescents, after verification of the test indicated that it could successfully differentiate patients with depression, adults versus adolescents, it was suggested that the BDI and BDI-II were appropriate for use (Cohen, Swerdlik, & Sturman, 2013). However, the BDI-II test is typically finished in 5 to 10 minutes, but as far as providing strategies for the verbal administration of the exam, the manual warns the user against using the BDI-II as a diagnostic device and suitably acclaims that explanations of exam scores should only be commenced by skilled professionals (Beck et al., 1961). As for the Children’s Depression Inventory – 2 (CDI-2) test, there were 21 items from the first BDI that were removed with some semantic alterations for age-appropriate language and content (Kovacs, 2003). Furthermore, 17-item CDI-Parent and the 12-item CDI-Teacher forms were advanced from the traditional format CDI, with appropriate modifications to language to simplify third party reporting and capitalize on validity (Kovacs, 2003). The author involved in the tests presented suitable warnings to potential users, regarding the use of the CDI in clinical settings (Kovacs, 2003). Lastly, the representativeness of the trial on which norms were established is problematic to evaluate, as such the demographic statistics are inadequate, therefore, it is impossible to determine the level to which the norming process was appropriate (Kovacs, 2003). Pursuing forward and looking closely at the Beck Hopelessness Scale, compared to the previous rating scale tests, the Beck Hopelessness Scale has some interesting feedback regarding the appropriateness. As such, The Beck Hopelessness Scale writers have presented this as a quantity of the number of negative attitudes about the forthcoming future events that apparently indicate a risk of suicide completion, which only holds within themselves as one holds a notion of the future; the younger the person, the less probable a situation would occur. However, the Beck Hopelessness Scale is less appropriate for our youth than it is for grown adults (Beck & Steer, 1978). This covers a range of appropriateness of the three rating scales and how they vary from one another. Again, age appropriateness and language appear to be some of the key factors stemming this justification. Element 3 Element three is focused on reviewing resources provided by test developers and selecting tests that are clear, accurate, and comprehensive information is provided (JCTP, 2004). Element three affords the user to seek the materials provided by the test developers, ensure the tests offer vivid, precise, and complete data. Assuredly, the Children’s Depression Inventory 2 (CDI 2) (2nd ed.), provides adequate and accurate data to be utilized on children ranging from 7-17-years old. In fact, the scales focus on the emotional and functional concerns with these age groups, and the CDI 2 SR emotional concerns are subdivided into negative mood, physical symptoms, and negative self-esteem, as opposed to the functional concerns are subdivided into ineffectiveness and interpersonal concerns (Yunhee, 2012). The materials provided for this test include and are based on a three scoring options, hand scoring, scoring software, or MHS online, the resulting scores from these tests on the answered items are standardized into T-scores, with a mean of fifty and standard deviations of ten for total of subscales (Yunhee, 2012). Unquestionably, based on the data provided on this test, the test has been effective with its methods, which appear to indicate substantial results for those who use the test. The developers have developed a product that works well for the considered age group; however, based on the clinical psychology practice that will be establish in my concentration, this would work well with children of military veteran families, not the focused concentration of adults. Comparing the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) and Beck Hopelessness Scale, which focus more on adults and can be utilized for military veterans with depression, and who suffer from thoughts of suicide. The materials utilized in the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) consist of a twenty-one entry, self-report assessment record that measures characteristic behaviors and symptoms of depression, it also includes computerized forms, a card form test, and it requires the user/client to have at a minimum a fifth to sixth grade reading ability to sufficiently comprehend the questions being asked (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). It is important to understand, use of the BDI validates high core reliability, with alpha quantities of .86 and .81 for psychiatric and non-psychiatric individuals (APA, 2017). Unquestionably, Aaron Beck was a pioneer of his time, therefore the materials he developed are accurate and complete. In addition, Beck had established other tests like Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation, Beck Self-Concept Test, Dysfunctional Attitude Scale, Sociotropy Autonomy Scale. The development of the Beck Depression Inventory was influenced to replicate depressed clients own idiosyncratic accounts of their own symptoms, of course, this is opposed to those who are non-depressed psychiatric patients (The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. [MHHE], 2001). The Beck Depression Inventory underwent many changes, the discipline behind creating this rating scale involved the precise resolve of each word and item the team employed to gather a specific rating scale, which would allow an instantaneous awareness into the fundamental nature of the psychological hypothesis (MHHE, 2001). When it comes to tests, Beck could establish, one must believe that for his time, it was a complex project that consumed many years to develop and perfect to the best of his ability; however, as psychologist, can we accept this to be the last form, or do we always try to improve upon the testing to increase a method of treating conditions that continue to develop and change over time. Next, we evaluate the materials of the test developers for the Beck Hopelessness Scale. The Beck Hopelessness Scale has been a proven and reliable test that was conducted on nurses and nurse students in Nigeria. The test conclusions in this study support that there may be need to establish interventions that will reduce the severity of hopelessness among Nigerian student nurses through the screening for depressive symptoms and psychological distress. It is clearly noted that the Beck Hopelessness Scale is an effective and dependable measure of hopelessness among Nigerian student nurses; however, users have indicated that such interventions have reduced the severity of hopelessness amongst these Nigerian students through the screening for depressive symptoms and psychological distress (ClinMed International Library, 2016). In closing, each of these rating scales have sufficient material provided by the test developers that are adequate for use by the users, and each appears to have comprehensive data that indicates the scales work effectively for the specified age groups. Element 4 When study rating scales and finding the best test for the user, as well as the best therapeutic techniques, it is import to focus closely on Element 4, someone with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and training who can meet that client’s needs (JCTP, 2004). Undoubtedly, Aaron Beck had pioneered some of the greatest cognitive therapy techniques that have been proven to effectively decrease depression and provide rating scale tests that indicate the level of depression the client is suffering (Wade & Tavris, 2011). In fact, Cognitive therapy was a direct result of Aaron Beck as early as 1960, because of the research Beck had uncovered regarding depression (Wedding & Corsini, 2014). Aaron Beck was trained in psychoanalysis, which led to his discovery and theory on emotional disorders and the cognitive model of depression (Wedding & Corsini, 2014). In closing of Element 4, it is not only about having the appropriate knowledge, skills, and training of the developer, who created the rating scale test, but also finding someone who is educated in the processes of using the rating scale effectively. A bridge must be made between psychologist and client, having complete assurance that the psychologist has had the required education, training, and skills of utilizing the rating scale effectively. This is a matter of building the trust of the client and having them believe and feel as though you understand what you are doing, how to correctly assess the rating scale, and explain the results effectively to the client. The rating scale in the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) works as follows, if the client has an over-all BDI score of 0 to 13, this designates negligible depression, a score of 14 to 19 designates slight depression, 20 to 28 specifies reasonable depression and scores of 29 to 63 specify severe symptoms of depression (Beck et al., 1961). Compare and Contrast Tests Tests selected for users who suffer from a depressive disorder would benefit from either three of these rating scales; however, although these tests are used for depressive disorders, it would not be feasible to utilize the Children’s Depression Inventory 2 (CDI 2) scale for someone that is of adult age or someone who is seeing me for a military trauma related experience who suffers with depression a depressive disorder. In fact, the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) would be the preferred method. However, there is nothing to say that a military veteran or family who has a child that is experiencing a depressive disorder that can be directly or indirectly a cause for depression would be able to use the Children’s Depression Inventory 2 (CDI 2). In this case, it would make sense for the child. Based on my findings, it appears that the best test I would be able to provide a client who is suffering from depression would be the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II) and it should be noted that this will be the preferred method for the remainder of my studies. There is nothing to say that the Beck Hopelessness Scale would not work, it just appears based on the evidence presented that the Beck Hopelessness Scale would benefit someone who is suffering from depression, with a suicidal ideation. Of course, this could easily become so, if the military veteran were to become depressed to the point where suicidal thoughts are present. When focusing strictly on depression, it appears that the logical choice for the rating scale by the user to be provided would have to be the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II). Therefore, based on my evaluation and rating scale all future assignments, the test of choice will be the Beck Depression Inventory – II (BDI-II). References American Psychological Association. (2017). Beck depression inventory (BDI)Construct: depressive symptoms. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/about/publications/caregivers/practice-settings/assessment/tools/beck-depression.aspx Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1978). Beck Hopelessness Scale [Revised]. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1961). Beck Depression Inventory–II. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu ClinMed International Library. (2016). The Beck Hopelessness Scale: Factor Structure, Validity and Reliability in a Sample of Student Nurses in South-Western Nigeria. International Archives of Nursing and Health Care, 2(3), 1-6. Retrieved from https://www.clinmedjournals.org/articles/ianhc/international-archives-of-nursing-and-health-care-ianhc-2-056.pdf Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN: 9780078035302. Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of fair testing practices in education. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/fair-testing.pdf Kovacs, M. (2003). Children’s Depression Inventory [2003 Update]. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu Luxton, D. D., Pruitt, L. D., Wagner, A., Smolenski, D. J., Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., & Gahm, G. (2016). Home-based telebehavioral health for U.S. military personnel and veterans with depression: A randomized controlled trial. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 84(11), 923-934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000135 Mendonca, J. D., Holden, R. R., Mazmanian, D. S., & Dolan, J. (1983). The influence of response style on the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 15(3), 237-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0080734 Multi-Health Systems, Inc. (2017). CDI 2 Children’s Depression Inventory 2. Retrieved from http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=edu&id=overview∏=cdi2 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (2001). Aaron T. Beck, M.D. Retrieved from http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/psychtesting/profiles/beck.htm Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (2011). Psychology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wedding, D., & Corsini, R. J. (2014). Current psychotherapies (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Yunhee, B. (2012, June). Test review: Children’s depression inventory 2 (CDI 2). Journal Of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(3), 304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282911426407