วีดีโอ

Honestly, I'm not sure... back when I was making these videos, I was more-or-less teaching myself how to do recordings with PowerPoint and TH-cam.

?

You're welcome. I am happy that people are still getting some benefit from my old lectures!

@@Ali-lm7uw I’m flattered by the question, but unfortunately the answer is “no”. I’m no longer a professor of psychology. These days, I am in full-time clinical practice.

That's unfortunate professor, usually Psychology professors do not have a good grasp on research and statistics. But I see you are quite passionate and proficient in Research. I will watch all your lectures and prepare for starting my PhD in Psychology. Thank you sir .

You’re welcome. My lectures are getting a bit out of date (I am no longer a professor), but I think that there is still some useful information in them. That said, please be sure to follow-up by reading more recent research.

You’re welcome!

Thank you for your kind words. I am happy that people are still enjoying my old videos. One of these days, I would like to get back to making more.

You're welcome! I am happy that people are still watching my old psychology lectures!

@keithdonohue4631 Theory never gets old and you explain it very well. Very useful for someone like me doing a distance degree. I literally listen to your lectures all the time on my commute, at home while I'm doing chores etc. And then I listen again 😄It's such a great addition to the self study that I already do. Thank you again

In the United States, you typically have to earn a PHD in clinical psychology, and then follow-up with a specialized clinical post doc in neuropsychological testing, in order to be licensed and credentialed as a neuropsychologist. That’s a lot of fairly challenging course work and clinical work.

@@keithdonohue4631 how many years will it take? and Do I need to do Bachelors again for this? Since I did my Bachelors and MBA in Finance...

@@keithdonohue4631 and where have you been bro. Just discovered your channel and it says, you have been inactive for couple of years now...

I think that the numbering of my lectures is a little bit inconsistent, because it is based on a course that I used to teach live. I made a practice of re-recording some of the lectures, if students wanted them, or if I felt they might need a resource for review. Sorry for the confusion.

You're right. I think I meant to say that oxycodone was derived from opium (specifically thebaine). Oh well, mistakes were made...

You’re welcome! I wish I had the time to update or expand on them, but I am busy with my career as a full-time clinical psychologist. Good luck with your exams and your career!!

@@keithdonohue4631 that's totally fine! Making this free for everyone who wants a refresher with Psychological Testing/Assessment for their review means a lot to me already. 🥺💕

i had serious physiological side effects when consuming it in not very much amount. i dont know why. can we shed some light of your experience? have any contact?

K correction is done as an automatic calculation in the computer scored version of the MMPI-2. I don’t remember exactly how the calculation is done. It isn’t done on the MMPI-2-RF or -3.

www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mmpi-2/mmpi-2-faqs

The k correction was developed by McKinley, Hathaway, & Meehan in 1948 and involved adding some fraction of a test-taker’s k score to some of the other scores. The idea was that test takers with elevated k scores were answering the test in a defensive way , and thus their scores on some of the other scales should really be higher ( if you could account or correct for the defensiveness). Over the years, research and clinical usage suggested that this was a interesting idea that didn’t actually improve test performance. So it wasn’t included in modern versions of the test.

You're very welcome. I'm afraid that I don't have any more videos planned, as I've switched from being a full-time professor to being a full-time therapist, and that doesn't leave me with much time for making new TH-cam content. That said, I would like to do something... maybe a new video on the MMPI-3 or the MCMI-IV, in the coming months.

It's been a while since I made this lecture, but if I remember correctly, I was trying to set-up anxiety as a potential suppressor for the relationship between depression and anhedonia. To be honest, if the variables are all measured at the same time (e.g., you gave out questionnaires for anxiety, depression, and anhedonia at the same time), then which one is the predictor, which one is the outcome, and which one is the suppressor is just a matter of how you chose to set up your analyses.

@@keithdonohue4631 Ok, yes, this makes sense, I just wanted to double check! Thanks for the great video!

Hmm... It's been a while since I taught my assessment class or even used a WAIS, but let's see if I can answer your very good question. We can think of the WAIS (and many tests of cognitive abilities) like a set of bigger scores, made up of smaller scores. The FSIQ and GAI scores are made up of composite index scores (like VCI, PRI, etc.). And the composite index scores are made up of subtest scores. All these scores are trying to tell you something about the test-takers abilities. The FSIQ score is trying to tell you their overall cognitive abilities, the VCI score is trying to tell you their verbal comprehension ability, the vocabulary subtest score is trying to tell you their ability to use vocabulary... If all the components that make up a particular score are very consistent, then we can usually feel confident that the score is giving us good information about that test-taker's actual or "real" abilities. If all the composite index scores that make up the FSIQ are really high, then we might feel pretty confident in thinking that the test-takers overall cognitive ability is also really high. If some of the composite index scores are high, but others are low, the overall FSIQ score might still be fairly high, but we might now feel less confident that it is giving us good information about the test-takers overall cognitive ability (what the FSIQ score is supposed to be telling us) -- maybe that person really has varied cognitive abilities, such that they are stronger in some areas and weaker in others....?

In a sense, this is all just classical test theory. Any observed test score (FSIQ, VCI, vocabulary subtest) is made of of the test-takers "true" score (a perfectly accurate measure of their ability in that area) and error (all the things that cloud or distort our understanding of that true score). Error is operationalized as variability in measurement. If the test-takers scores on a given composite area are highly variable, that is a lot of error in our measurement of whatever the index for that composite area is supposed to be measuring. We should feel less confident that we know what the test-taker's score should "really" be.

There certainly is an overlap between some areas of psychological testing, particularly intellectual ability testing, and eugenics movements in America (and elsewhere), but I’m not sure I see the overlap between neuropsychological testing (at least as I have presented it) and eugenics. Is there a specific concern that you have?

I think you're right. I must have made a mistake in the video. Thanks for catching it.

I think that there isn't a lecture 8a. It's been quite a few years since I last taught this course (I'm in full-time practice, now), but I remember that the numbering got a little bit off, because I was mixing online work with in-class work. I'm pretty sure that this lecture is just supposed to follow the one on introduction to ability testing (even though the numbering doesn't make complete sense!).

@@keithdonohue4631 Thank you for helping out. I had a quiz tomorrow and i needed an integrative report. I thought that the 8a lecture might have anything on that. You saved a lot of my time today. Thank you again.

Wow. It's always fun for me when someone finds one of my old lectures on testing, drugs, statistics, etc. Thanks for watching and commenting. You are right that testing can be used to evaluate the effect of a treatment. Ideally, you can do pre-treatment testing and post-treatment testing for two groups of subjects, one of which gets the treatment and the other of which does not (the control group). Then, you could use graphical or statistical analyses to compare the changes (in test scores) across the two groups, to help you decide how effective the treatment was.

You are also right that you can repeat a test, with just one subject, to try to evaluate the validity of the first test. For instance, you might administer multiple versions of the same test (e.g., alternative versions of the R-BANS), across different testing days, to measure a subjects neurocognitive functioning. If you can assume that whatever construct you are measuring (e.g., working memory) is fairly stable over the time-frame that you are testing in (e.g., if working memory *shouldn't* change a lot), and if you can assume that there are no independent effects of repeated testing (e.g., if doing memory testings again and again *shouldn't* result in improving scores because of practice or changes in effort), then the results of these repeated tests help you to estimate the persons *true* score for that test. For instance, you might take an average, across multiple tests, and use it as the estimate of what the person's working memory score *really* is. The mean of the test scores that you have is a statistic that is estimating a parameter (i.e., the mean of all the test scores you could have, if you repeated the test with the same person and infinite number of times) that *should* reflect the reality of the construct (i.e., what the person's working memory *really* is). Of course, you can't ever do this (you can never know any parameters, you can only ever estimate them with statistics like means, medians, etc.). The point here is that repeatedly testing isn't so much about verifying the first test results, as it is about estimating what those results -- or any results -- should *really* be. And if it's not obvious, I have used a bunch of "*"s to emphasize that all of this rests on assumptions about the construct that you are trying to measure (e.g., does it even exist as a unitary thing, does the test even measure it at all, is it stable over time, can you really test repeatedly without biasing your estimate...?). The more you think about it, the more confusing it can get!

I try to talk about estimating *true* scores in my video on Classical Test Theory and in my video on the WAIS (th-cam.com/video/hUGFR8odet4/w-d-xo.html)

@@keithdonohue4631 Thanks much for your response, Sir. Psychological testing was a difficult topic until I saw your videos - these are extremely insightful and have made concepts super easy. Best regards. :)

You’re welcome. It’s been quite a few years since I last made any videos. I have been working full-time as a practicing psychologist, after leaving my previous position as a college professor. I’m glad that people are still finding some interest in my old lectures.

@@keithdonohue4631 Educational content on social media is always like that; it doesn't get wide attention at first but its benefit is everlasting. Thanks again Dr.Keith.

Hmmm… it’s been a while since I recorded that lecture, so I don’t remember the part you are referring to. Could you tell me the time in the video when it occurs? Thanks.

@@keithdonohue4631 Around 41 minutes; talking about executive function and 'oh yuck! A white guy'. It's just so woke. Most executives in the US are White guys... so, it is representative. As a fellow educator, I say let's get these comments based on skin color out of our lectures unless they are really pertinent to the discussion.

@@tootsietoyrestoration I found the part that you are referring to, and I don't think that I agree with your characterization of what I said. Obviously, I didn't say 'oh yuck! A white guy.', so your quote (?) doesn't really make sense. Rather, I made a comment about the process that I went through, when making my PowerPoint slide for this introduction to that unit. I was disappointed that most of the free image searches that I made for the keyword "executive" returned images of older, White males, because I didn't think that this gave fair representation to the range of people who serve as executive in businesses. Maybe things are different now, but back when I made this lecture, that's how they seemed to me, and that's how I felt. I'm not an educator any more, when I was, I tried to be mindful about not reinforcing cultural representations (e.g., executives are only or overwhelmingly white males) that tend to disadvantage females and minorities. Even if it's the case that most executives are white males, I think it's still important to offer (or at least acknowledge the possibility of) other possibilities. And it's easy to come up with other scenarios where this desire for representation might work the other way. If I was writing a lecture on empathy, and I searched for free images to depict this concept, then it might very well be the case that most would be of women. I would probably try to find an image or two that showed a male behaving in a compassionate way, so as to not reinforce a cultural representation (i.e., that empathic people are only or overwhelmingly female) that tends to disadvantage males. If all this counts as 'just so woke', then I'll accept that label. You and I probably disagree about some priorities in education, and I suppose that's okay. In any case, thanks for watching my video.

@@keithdonohue4631 Well, the white oppressor theme is alive and well in your answer. White executives do not 'disadvantage' women and blacks - that is simply unsupported wokeness. Here is the ONLY male (other than your photo) in the whole video and you feel a need to apologize and explain, but the four or five girls and women in the video needed no explanation or apology. You made a good video, but stepped on my toes with that one remark... I then felt an uncharacteristic strong urge to label it racist and you took the bait. Your answer was considered and kind - much appreciated. Keep up the good work.