Assess the extent to which the case study dataset meets the Daubert standard (psychometrics). In other words, what is the known or potential error rate? Has the data been derived using reliable methods? Is the data valid and reliable with regard to the scientific method?

Running head: CASE SCENARIO SIX 1

CASE SCENARIO SIX 7

a) Assess the extent to which the case study dataset meets the Daubert standard (psychometrics). In other words, what is the known or potential error rate? Has the data been derived using reliable methods? Is the data valid and reliable with regard to the scientific method?

Daubert standards as referred to the United States federal law are a rule of evidence that regards the admissibility of a testimony by an expert witness. It may regard a party that raises the Daubert motion before or during a trial so as to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. In this particular case scenario six where Mr. Doug X has been referred for a CPS evaluation, it is deemed that this case study has met the Dauber standards. In the determination whether it is admissible in law and if it coincides with the expert opinions, Mr. X having taken part in a CPS evaluation has passed through the review of record, clinical interview, Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-3), Inventory Of Offender Risk, Needs, And Strengths (IORNS) as well as spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA). Therefore, it can be presumed that this forensic psychological assessment meets the Daubert standards since all these assessment tools have been successful in evaluation (Yanez &Williams, 2004).

SARA really meets these standards due to the fact that it is much intended to weight the potential to inflict abuse of spouses. This particular evaluation has manifested good features of psychometrics since they have been mostly used in clinical evaluations worldwide. The classification of spousal abuse executors with high percentages conform to the current statistical data. Therefore, when SARA is administered effectively, it shows that the whole evaluation meets the Dauber Standards and can be independently evaluated for measuring the extent to which spousal abuse is inflicted and controlled. The information that has been gathered in the assessment using these tools, therefore, seems very much reliable in the court of law and up to standards (Yañez & Fremouw, 2004).

b) Evaluate the interview information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process. Substantiate your claims with specific research

After getting to be well conversant with the information of Mr. X, we realized that he formally fits in the Gamma Risk Typology. The reasons are that Doug X was referred for a mental health evaluation for a parole hearing by the state courts. He has been convicted of aggravated assault of his wife Susanne in which the previous police reports back in the year 2011 and 2012 had the same complaints. He has also been determined to have sold and used uncontrolled substances to earn income and has even forced his wife to take drugs for sexual intercourse. It has also been noted that Susanne’s alleged affairs led to the mental health deterioration of Mr. X as well as subsequent last violent criminal offense (Sattler, 1998).

However, there were no signs of psychosis but there were emotional problems when his MMPI-2 profile was assessed as well as a mood disorder. In as much as he denied any homicidal ideations or plans during the offense, his psychopathic deviate score indicated that he had no psychiatric history since the marks were an average of 65, that is (Pd, T score=65). This is the main reason why we had recommendations that he falls into the category of Gamma Risk Typology (Gerber, Kocsis, Milrod, Roose, Barber, Thase & Leon, 2011).

c) Evaluate the collateral information contained in the scenario for its implications in the risk assessment and recommendations process. Substantiate your claims with specific research

From this collateral information on Mr. Doug X, we find that;

· He had no psychiatric or mental history.

· He was convicted of aggravated assault of his wife Susanne.

· Had previous police reports of family violence and assault involving his wife Susanne.

· Sold and used controlled substances to earn income.

· Forced wife to take drugs for sexual intercourse

· Had underlying emotional problems that were consistent with a mood disorder.

· Denied homicidal ideations or plans during the offense

· Presented himself to be much normal while taking the assessments.

From all the information that we were able to gather, we realize that Mr. Doug X has a very long psychiatric history that must be treated and counseled immediately. In the collateral information presented, it is recorded that he has no psychiatric history. However, during the clinical interview, we realize that his affect and mood were within normal limits with no suicidal plans. This presents a case whereby thorough counseling and therapy can be done to return to normal since there is no psychiatric history. Since his cognitive functioning is also within normal limits, there are no major symptoms (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002).

He also only acknowledges having committed minor violations of state prison rules while incarcerated in the past seven years. He has also done normal chores by working weekly making clothing and also being very much able to attend school. However, he had limited interactions with the inmates and any situations that would cause or create difficulties. He also completed an associated degree while in incarceration and is even currently taking some additional college courses in business for his bachelor’s degree. Being very remorseful for his past criminal offenses, he stands to be granted freedom in my opinion since his intentions are not to re-offend and complete his parole successfully. When we look at his scores in the SA-45, we realize that his symptoms are marked symptomology due to his above-average scores of around 65% (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002).

d) Create a recommendations report for risk management based on the above elements. Justify your position with specific scholarly research.

· It is recommended that Mr. X attends various counseling and therapy sessions so as to be able to fully overcome the attempt to use drugs, violence against his family as well as be able to positively change his life through education while on parole.

· Using the SA-45 data that was recorded for the self-reported psychological functioning, the psychological professionals should help him fully recover a normal life by following his progress.

· He should also be guided on how to develop good progress on educational matters as well as good family relationships so as to have a positive life and a successful family.

· Mr. X should also be guided on how to keep himself busy during his class work while in incarceration so as to be able to balance a positive family life as well as his own life in general (Fiske, Gilbert & Lindzey, 2010).

While trying to put in the recommendations, we have to realize that they have to help Mr. X to develop a good family relationship as well as quit the abuse of drugs. It will also help promote a peaceful relationship with the inmates as well as the afterlife. His assessments indicate that there has to be an improvement in supervision as well as develop a better relationship with his family. The attendance of a cognitive behavioral therapy is very much important since it will help him to overcome this particular psychiatric condition and help him gain a normal life.

Attending counseling session even if he attends to his degree is very much important while in incarcerations as well as domestic prevention classes to improve his relationship with his wife and family in general. These types of rehabilitation programs are very important to help him gain progress (Gerber, Kocsis, Milrod, Roose, Barber, Thase & Leon, 2011).

e) Test Results

Mr. X psychological functioning results revealed that his DEP, T score=60, ANX, T score=51, PHO T score=54, PSY, T score=80, INT, T score=55, SOM T score=58 and HOS, T score=53. This gives a result of above average 58-59 hence an average symptomatology. While looking at his SARA scores that have a self-screener, six factors such as lie, distress, rigidity, problems with child and self as well as abuse were scanned to determine the invasive involvements that are needed. We found out that the scores of Mr. X were as follows; Lie, T score=75, IC T score=70, Distress, T score=56, Rigidity, T score=55, Problems with child and self, T score=40, Problems with others=61, and Abuse, T score=50 (Gerber, Kocsis, Milrod, Roose, Barber, Thase & Leon, 2011).

The MMPPI-2 were also compared with the variables and we realized that Mr. X had various problems with his family in which he even gave his wife drugs for intercourse. He also used controlled substances and sold them to people and this must be stopped. Therefore, the T score reveals his real characters that must be assessed to change (Fiske, Gilbert & Lindzey, 2010).

f) Be sure your recommendations report aligns with the ethical guidelines of a professional psychology association. Note: You do not need to belong to an organization, but rather may view the ethical guidelines on the website of the organization of your choice.

According to the ethics of professionalism, we find that forensic psychologists are obliged to follow the ethical guidelines that are outlined to them. They should therefore not provide any services that they are not trained for since it might be a breach of the profession. It is also needed that they should not conduct any additional research outside their duties of forensic psychology. Informed consent is also very much in order where a doctor is not manipulated to sign any document without his or her consent. This is very much illegal in practice and they are answerable to any outlined charges in this particular field (Douglas, Ogloff & Hart, 2003).

References

Douglas, K. S., Ogloff, J. R., & Hart, S. D. (2003). Evaluation of a model of violence risk assessment among forensic psychiatric patients. Psychiatric Services, 54(10), 1372-1379.

Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). (2010).Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.

Gerber, A. J., Kocsis, J. H., Milrod, B. L., Roose, S. P., Barber, J. P., Thase, M. E., … & Leon, A. C. (2011). A quality-based review of randomized controlled trials of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(1), 19-28.

Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past.American Psychologist, 57(1), 5.

Sattler, J. M. (1998). Clinical and forensic interviewing of children and families: Guidelines for the mental health, education, pediatric, and child maltreatment fields. Jerome M Sattler Publisher.

Yanez, T. Y. Williams (2004). The application of the Daubert standard to parental capacity measures. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22, 5-28.

Yañez, Y. T., & Fremouw, W. (2004). The application of the Daubert standard to parental capacity measures. American Journal of Forensic Psychology.