First and foremost, I would like to express my opinion as a mother of four children. I read the
assessment scenario several times, and as a parent I feel if an individual felt that an evaluation or
lack of a full re-evaluation of a child or their child was inadequate, it is their choice to obtain a
second opinion. However, as a mother, I feel if you establish the need for a re-evaluation on pure
emotions or lack of education concerning the diagnosis you should, as a concerned advocate for
the child or your child conduct your research in order to be well informed with the conclusions
from the professional. As a behavioral student and the evaluator of this scenario, the straight
forward information provided within the scenario I would disagree with the reasons Donna was
re-evaluated.
The initial evaluation of Donna at 14 years old, was conducted not only through face to face
interviews, testing based on the regulated scales of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,
Fifth Edition and based on the current DSM-IV criteria at the time, but an assessment of Donna’s
brain functions was also conducted to insure diagnosis was comprehensive. The assumption
within the scenario I received is that Ms. Kraut’s received full disclosure on Donna’s diagnosis
and she understood with no hesitation, how the professionals obtained the first diagnosis.
According to the American Psychological Association (2010) Standard 9: Assessment. (a)
“Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports and diagnostic or
evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to
substantiate their findings.” Within this scenario, the psychologist did just that, and provided
Donna’s mother with full disclosure of the initial diagnosis, as well as the reformed diagnosis
upon Donna’s re-evaluation. The team explained the reason for the previous diagnosis verses the
new analysis.
This leads us into the ethical responsibilities each psychologist had within this scenario. The
first evaluation was conducted, as stated earlier in accordance with the American Psychologic
Association (APA), as was the updated school evaluation. When Donna’s mother denied the
change in diagnosis, the private psychologist conducted a review according to the American
Psychological Association (2010) Standard 9: Assessment. (c) “When psychologists conduct a
record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not
warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information
on which they based their conclusions and recommendations.” Each participant within this
assessment scenario conducted themselves with in the ethical responsibility.
The pro for a complete re-evaluation of Donna at age 16, would be to illuminate any
preconceived doubt of diagnosis for Ms. Kraut. The completed re-evaluation would explain
again that Donna falls within the current DSM-IV standards versus the previous one. This re-
evaluation will not only put Ms. Krauts at easy, but will increase her confidence and
understanding of the new diagnosis. Also, with the updated diagnosis there could possibly be
new assessment tools for the team to utilize which may help Ms. Kraut recognize the difference
within Donna’s diagnosis.
The pro for no re-evaluation of Donna at age 16, I feel is the same as the con for a complete re-
evaluation, which is it would cause undue stressors that could skew the re-evaluation assessment.
For assignment help email
assessment scenario several times, and as a parent I feel if an individual felt that an evaluation or
lack of a full re-evaluation of a child or their child was inadequate, it is their choice to obtain a
second opinion. However, as a mother, I feel if you establish the need for a re-evaluation on pure
emotions or lack of education concerning the diagnosis you should, as a concerned advocate for
the child or your child conduct your research in order to be well informed with the conclusions
from the professional. As a behavioral student and the evaluator of this scenario, the straight
forward information provided within the scenario I would disagree with the reasons Donna was
re-evaluated.
The initial evaluation of Donna at 14 years old, was conducted not only through face to face
interviews, testing based on the regulated scales of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,
Fifth Edition and based on the current DSM-IV criteria at the time, but an assessment of Donna’s
brain functions was also conducted to insure diagnosis was comprehensive. The assumption
within the scenario I received is that Ms. Kraut’s received full disclosure on Donna’s diagnosis
and she understood with no hesitation, how the professionals obtained the first diagnosis.
According to the American Psychological Association (2010) Standard 9: Assessment. (a)
“Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports and diagnostic or
evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to
substantiate their findings.” Within this scenario, the psychologist did just that, and provided
Donna’s mother with full disclosure of the initial diagnosis, as well as the reformed diagnosis
upon Donna’s re-evaluation. The team explained the reason for the previous diagnosis verses the
new analysis.
This leads us into the ethical responsibilities each psychologist had within this scenario. The
first evaluation was conducted, as stated earlier in accordance with the American Psychologic
Association (APA), as was the updated school evaluation. When Donna’s mother denied the
change in diagnosis, the private psychologist conducted a review according to the American
Psychological Association (2010) Standard 9: Assessment. (c) “When psychologists conduct a
record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not
warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information
on which they based their conclusions and recommendations.” Each participant within this
assessment scenario conducted themselves with in the ethical responsibility.
The pro for a complete re-evaluation of Donna at age 16, would be to illuminate any
preconceived doubt of diagnosis for Ms. Kraut. The completed re-evaluation would explain
again that Donna falls within the current DSM-IV standards versus the previous one. This re-
evaluation will not only put Ms. Krauts at easy, but will increase her confidence and
understanding of the new diagnosis. Also, with the updated diagnosis there could possibly be
new assessment tools for the team to utilize which may help Ms. Kraut recognize the difference
within Donna’s diagnosis.
The pro for no re-evaluation of Donna at age 16, I feel is the same as the con for a complete re-
evaluation, which is it would cause undue stressors that could skew the re-evaluation assessment.
For assignment help email
