Investigating The Use Of Psychological Assessment: Fill & Download for Free

Abnormal Psychology: This explorespsychopathology and abnormal behavior.Examples of disorders covered in this field includedepression, OCD, sexual deviation and dissociativedisorder.Biopsychology: This looks at the role the brainand neurotransmitters play in influencing ourthoughts, feelings and behaviours. It combinesneuroscience and the study of basic psychology.Clinical Psychology: The focus here is theassessment and appropriate treatment of mentalillness and abnormal behaviours.Cognitive Psychology: This branch of psychologyfocuses attention on perception and mentalprocesses. For example, it looks at how peoplethink about and process experiences and events –their automatic thoughts and core beliefs. Also,how they learn, remember and retrieveinformation.Comparative Psychology: This field of psychologystudies animal behavior. Comparativepsychologists work closely with biologists,ecologists, anthropologists, and geneticists.Counseling Psychology: Here, the focus is onproviding therapeutic interventions for clients whoare struggling with some mental, social, emotionalor behavioural issue. It also looks at living well,so people reach their maximum potential in life.Developmental Psychology: This looks at lifespanhuman development, from the cradle to the grave.It looks at what changes, and what stays thesame, or even deteriorates over time. Also,whether growth and change is continuous, or isassociated with certain ages and stages. Anotherarea of interest is the interaction of genes and theenvironment.Educational Psychology: This focuses attentionon learning, remembering, performing andachieving. It includes the effects of individualdifferences, gifted learners and learningdisabilities.Experimental Psychology: Although all ofpsychology emphasises the central importance ofthe scientific method, designing and applyingexperimental techniques, then analysing andinterpreting the results is the main job ofexperimental psychologists. They work in a widerange of settings, including schools, colleges,universities, research centers, governmentorganisation and private businesses andenterprises.Forensic Psychology: Psychology and the lawintersect in this field. It is where psychologists(clinical psychologists, neurologists, counsellingpsychologists etc) share their professionalexpertise in legal or criminal cases.Health Psychology: This branch of psychologypromotes physical, mental and emotional health –including preventative and restorative strategies.It looks at how people deal with stress, and copewith and recover from, illnesses.Human Factors Psychology: This is an umbrellacategory that looks at such areas as ergonomics,workplace safety, human error, product design,and the interaction of humans and machines.Industrial-Organizational Psychology: Thisapplies findings from theoretical psychology tothe workplace. Its goal is increasing employeesatisfaction, performance, productivity – andmatching positions to employees’ strengths. Otherareas of interest are group dynamics, and thedevelopment of leadership skills.Social Psychology: This is what many peoplethink of when they hear the word “psychology”. Itincludes the study of group behaviour, socialnorms, conformity, prejudice, nonverbal behaviour/body language, and aggression.Sports Psychology: This area investigates how toincrease and maintain motivation, the factors thatcontribute to peak performance, and how beingactive can enhance our lives.

Awesome as in inspiring awe, like "oh, holy shit how is that possible" awe?I present...The Rosenhan Pseudopatient ExperimentThe following text is from Wikipedia...Rosenhan himself and seven mentally healthy associates, called "pseudopatients", attempted to gain admission to psychiatric hospitals by calling for an appointment and feigning auditory hallucinations. The hospital staffs were not informed of the experiment. The pseudopatients included a psychology graduate student in his twenties, three psychologists, a pediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter and a housewife. None had a history of mental illness. Pseudopatients used pseudonyms, and those who worked in the mental health field were given false jobs in a different sector to avoid invoking any special treatment or scrutiny. Apart from giving false names and employment details, further biographical details were truthfully reported.During their initial psychiatric assessment, they claimed to be hearing voices of the same sex as the patient which were often unclear, but which seemed to pronounce the words "empty", "hollow", "thud" and nothing else. These words were chosen as they vaguely suggest some sort of existential crisis and for the lack of any published literature referencing them as psychotic symptoms. No other psychiatric symptoms were claimed. If admitted, the pseudopatients were instructed to "act normally", reporting that they felt fine and no longer heard voices. Hospital records obtained after the experiment indicate that all pseudopatients were characterized as friendly and cooperative by staff.All were admitted, to 12 different psychiatric hospitals across the United States, including rundown and underfunded public hospitals in rural areas, urban university-run hospitals with excellent reputations, and one expensive private hospital. Though presented with identical symptoms, 7 were diagnosed with schizophrenia at public hospitals, and one with manic-depressive psychosis, a more optimistic diagnosis with better clinical outcomes, at the private hospital. Their stays ranged from 7 to 52 days, and the average was 19 days. All were discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia "in remission", which Rosenhan takes as evidence that mental illness is perceived as an irreversible condition creating a lifelong stigma rather than a curable illness.Despite constantly and openly taking extensive notes on the behavior of the staff and other patients, none of the pseudopatients were identified as impostors by the hospital staff, although many of the other psychiatric patients seemed to be able to correctly identify them as impostors. In the first three hospitalizations, 35 of the total of 118 patients expressed a suspicion that the pseudopatients were sane, with some suggesting that the patients were researchers or journalists investigating the hospital.Hospital notes indicated that staff interpreted much of the pseudopatients' behavior in terms of mental illness. For example, one nurse labeled the note-taking of one pseudopatient as "writing behavior" and considered it pathological. The patients' normal biographies were recast in hospital records along the lines of what was expected of schizophrenics by the then-dominant theories of its etiology.The experiment required the pseudopatients to get out of the hospital on their own by getting the hospital to release them, though a lawyer was retained to be on call for emergencies when it became clear that the pseudopatients would not ever be voluntarily released on short notice. Once admitted and diagnosed, the pseudopatients were not able to obtain their release until they agreed with the psychiatrists that they were mentally ill and began taking antipsychotic medications, which they flushed down the toilet. No staff member noticed that the pseudopatients were flushing their medication down the toilets and did not report patients doing this.Rosenhan and the other pseudopatients reported an overwhelming sense of dehumanization, severe invasion of privacy, and boredom while hospitalized. Their possessions were searched randomly, and they were sometimes observed while using the toilet. They reported that though the staff seemed to be well-meaning, they generally objectified and dehumanized the patients, often discussing patients at length in their presence as though they were not there, and avoiding direct interaction with patients except as strictly necessary to perform official duties. Some attendants were prone to verbal and physical abuse of patients when other staff were not present. A group of bored patients waiting outside the cafeteria for lunch early were said by a doctor to his students to be experiencing "oral-acquisitive" psychiatric symptoms. Contact with doctors averaged 6.8 minutes per day.

All organizations aim to have the best people with them so that they can achieve their aims with ease.So let us first start with THE HISTORY OF SSB SELECTION PROCEDURE for the benefit of all.The selection methods in the Armed forces have graduated from cursory and arbitrary to deliberate and intricate. The arbitrary system all over was gradually replaced with a more scientific and acceptable selection system as the education levels improved.In the Armed forces selection methods strengthened by the criteria of ‘suitability to the job’ occupied the place of selection by ‘Blue Blood Theory” and soon became widely accepted. The erstwhile practice of giving preference to the officer cadre in the armed forces resulted in evident setbacks in the First World War.The army had multiplied in numbers and strength and job diversification and vacancies had mushroomed in similar proportions. This had led to the downfall in efficiency, mainly because right people for the right jobs were not available.The science of psychology gradually was treating the problems of First World War. But it was unable to devise and implement, on a wide scale a system for choosing the right man for the right job.The US Army saw the first systematic implementation of psychological methods for selection in 1917. All conscripts were administered a group of intelligence tests, namely Army Alpha Tests and Army Beta Tests and some other verbal and non-verbal tests. The test results proved to be an apt guide for distribution of recruits to various departments.In Germany, when the reconstitution of German Forces was enabled from 1927 onwards, a series of psychological tests were introduced. A separate psychological section assisted each Army Corps and later, a special corps, the Corps of Military Psychologists was established. The Nazi selection system included a series of tests with candidate’s life history questionnaires and interviews. The final results were compared with the psychologist’s assessment. It is believed that the success of the Luftwaffe in the Second World War is greatly attributed to the efficient procedure of selection and training post WW-I.In India, selection of officers was done by way of written and interview boards till WW-II. Later, written examination was dropped and candidates were selected based on a short interview by Provisional Selection Boards followed by an interview by the Central Interview board (CIB). Although this method cut down the time taken for selection greatly, the quality of output was not satisfactory. This method of selection also resulted in a considerable wastage during the training period. The vital reinforcement plan of Army officers was seriously affected. Therefore, the Armed Forces felt a pressing need of a selection system to choose officers who would maintain a satisfactory standard of efficiency with relatively short period of training.The psychological system of selection based on the experience gained in United Kingdom was adopted by the end of 1942. Subsequently, an experimental board was setup at Dehradun in Feb 1943 on the pattern of the UK’s WOSB alongside the CIB. Candidates appearing before the CIB were also tested by the Experimental Board.The Experimental Board in addition to the interviews, administered extensive battery of intelligence, aptitude and personality tests and practical group situational tests. The results achievedby the two boards were examined and it was found that not only could the Experimental board cope with a much large number but the selection was also more objective and reliable.The CIB was therefore, replaced by Services Selection Boards (SSB). The wastage rates at the training academies also registered a sharp fall. Gradually tests were developed to suit the Indian Conditions. More SSBs were set up in the country. The SSBs, in addition to the normal testing programme also tested officers adversely reported by their Commanding officers and made recommendations for change of employment. Subsequently, these boards assisted in selection of candidates for National Defence Academy and Military wing, later Indian Military Academy, for the grant of regular commission.In 1948 the Government of India appointed an Expert Committee, the Ghose Committee to investigate the Selection System. The committee recommended that the system was sound but it needed improvements and modifications by a research organization. As a result, in August 1962, the Psychological research Wing (PRW) was set up. It later became Directorate of Psychological Research and finally, Defence Institute of Psychological Research (DIPR) under the DRDO. This provides technical guidance to all the selection boards and conducts training of personnel employed in selection duties.In its present form, three assessing techniques namely, interviewing, Group Testing and Tests of Psychology are currently utilized to assess the candidates in the SSBs. Three assessors test the candidates independently using their respective techniques, and on the final day they exchange their findings to confirm the suitability on the candidate’s personality profile for the organization. The three techniques have been accorded equal weight age, and therefore, the marks allotted for each is the same.A brief on the three techniques has been explained by Dr Sohan Lall (Lall, cited in Jagannathan 2012), as given below:-Projective TechniquesThese stem from the idea that what one perceives in the world around him is influenced by his own personality, his needs his attitudes and so on. The tests are based on efforts to elicit from the candidates free responses to stimulus-situations.Drawback: candidates most often tend to hide their true selves and project what they believe to be the desirable reaction.Interview TechniqueIt consists of establishing an effective two way communication process between the interviewer and the candidate for transfer of information. The interviewer tries to estimate the candidate’s abilities and his potential for growth by careful probing into the past history of the candidate.Drawback: It is believed that interviews inherit possibilities for all sorts of bias, inconsistency, and inaccuracies and hence many researchers are critical of the interviews. For example, deliberate lying, because the candidate does not want to give a socially undesirable answer. This makes the job of interviewer tough and the process time consuming. Presence of a multiple officers during a test/interview may over stimulate a candidate, sometimes even to the extent that he may add imaginary information just to make it interesting. He may tell things about which he may not himself be very sure.Surely the method is time consuming and with the growing technology needs to be updated to suit today's world. Candidates are much better prepared because of presence of multiple platforms for training and thus chances are always there that someone or the other would out smart the selectors. Thus selectors must upgrade themselves with time and add more skills in their armory to prevent such candidates from entering into the forces.For candidates, specially for repeaters,You don’t know that you are doing the same mistake.There is no feedback system. Most aspirants make same or similar mistakes again and again without even realizing it because their is no way of knowing what actually went wrong last time or the time before that.2. One candidate getting rejected at one center might get recommended at another center the same month. This sometimes creates confusion and disbelief in the minds of serious candidates.(For more info you may reach out to the source of this article’s info: https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/24811/11/11_chapter_2.pdf)