CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY TEST QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, 6TH
EDITION BY ANDREW M. POMERANTZ| 100% PASS!!
1.What is the definition of clinical psychology? - ANSWER - explains and treating mental health
disorders and seeing to what extent behaviour has to be considered abnormal to require a
specific diagnosis
2.What is the procedure of the classic study? - ANSWER - eight pseudopatients including
rosenham himself were recruited for the investigation, three women and five men (one was a
psych graduate student, three others were psychologists and the others were a housewife, a
painter, a psychiatrist and paediatrician)
- none of the pseudo patients had any history of mental health problems
- they had to phone the admissions office if one of the the hospitals representing a range of
good and bad, old and new insitusitions across 5 states in the USA and make an appointment
cause they were hearing voices
- they said were hearing words such as thud, empty and hollow, each pseudopatietns gave a
false name in order to protect themselves in the future for those whose profession was
psychology related they had a fake job but everything was true
- all were admitted with schizophrenia expect one which had manic depression with psychosis
- once admitted they stopped feigning/showing symptoms and behaved normally answering all
questions from staff and patients. they then observed life on the ward, were friendly and
cooperative and recorded their experiences by taking notes, they had to try to convince the staff
of their sanity in order to get out but the only way to get out was accepting they were insane
and proving they are getting better
3.What were the results of the classic study? - ANSWER - all the pseudopatients were diagnosed
as having serious mental health disorder on minimal symptoms
- their sanity was never detected by the staff and they were discharged with a diagnosis of
schizophrenia in remission
- average day in hospital was 19 dats with the shortest being 7 days and the longest being 52
days
,- patients who were in the hospitals suspected that the pseudo patients were sane and one
asked whether the researcher was a journalist, in 3 hospitals where records were taken about
1/3 of patients challenged the pseudopatients
- the staff treated the researchers in a way that was consistent with their diagnosis and
frequently pathologised normal behaviour such as note taking was referred to as writing
behaviour, pacing the corridors due to boredom was interpreted as nervousness and waiting
outside the lunch hall early was labelled by one clinician as oral-inquisitive syndrome
- the central finding was about the depersonalisation of the patients by the staff , when contact
was initiated towards the nurses by the pseudopatients in 71% of the times they were ignored,
eye contact was made only 23% of the time with verbal responses in only 2% of the cases
- even worse with senior staff as when contact was directed to them of 185 reasonable
questions none were answered
4.What is the conclusion and follow up of the classic study? - ANSWER - some institutions
reacted with a challenge as they did not belie that their systems would be so easily fooled
- rosenhan agreed with one leading hospital to do a similar study and set up a test; which was
that every staff member who dealt with admissions had to rate all patients in terms of the
probability that they could be pseudo patients
- over a 3 month period 193 patients were admitted, and of those 41 were thought to be fake by
at least one staff member and 19 of those were classed as fake by two members
- but rosenhan actually sent in no pseudopatints to the hospital, confirms his initial results that
there is unreliability in the diagnostic process
- when diagnosed the way the person was subsequently treated by the staff in the institutions,
he stated that the diagnostic label changed the perception of the person so that all their
behaviour was interpreted within the context of the label and their behaviour in response to
this is interpreted as being consistent with the label
- compared reactions of the staff in the hospitals when asked questions by the pseduopatients
and compared it to when an academic teacher was asked a question from a student at uni, the
academic teacher responded with respect and courtesy which is in complete contrast to the
hospiWatal stage
5.What is the evaluation of the classic study? - ANSWER - ethical issues associated with it as the
attention may have been diverted from the patients who were actually mentally ill, however the
testimonies of the pseudopatients suggest it was not true and there was very limited contact
,with the staff anyways, this was measured as an average of 6.8 minutes per day per
pseudopatients to include admission, discharge and all medication suggesting that this was not
the case arguably the breach of ethical guidelines is justifiable for public interest
- sample of hospitals used is generalisable in that there was a variety of type of insitution from
research and teaching hospitals to private ones and shabbier hospitals these were spread over a
wide geographical area so the findings were not limited to one type of hospital or one area.
however it was only tested in one culture and can only tell us about the diagnostic and
treatment provided in the USA in the early 1970s
- the pseudo patients were able to provide an account of the quality of care in a psychiatric
institution which included a general lack of respect and occasional mistreatment of patients,
caretaking such as giving medication was done but there was no checking that was having an
effect, also many patients including the pseudopatients did not actually take their medicine
which may be due to reasons like lack of trust
6.What is the further evaluation of the classic study? - ANSWER - also an attempt at replication
by Lauren Slater for her book opening skinners box supported rosenhans findings as she found
that when she presented herself at nine emergency rooms reporting hearing a voice thud she
was diagnosed with depression with psychosis and prescribed antipsychotic and antidepressant
medication. this was challenged by Spitzer et al (2005) who sent a detailed vignette based on
slaters account for her methodology to 431 psychiatrists who were asked to make diagnosis 73
responded and 86% of these categorically ruled out the diagnosis Slater claims she was given,
1/3 would prescribe antipsychotic medication but none would prescribe antidepressants
therefore suggesting rosehans research is causing great harm by creating doubt about
treatment of mental health
-
7.What is more evaluation of the classic study? - ANSWER - qualitative data which displayed
realistic interactions between the staff and the pp however in the observations no positive
interactions were accounted for leading to a unrepresentative account for the interactions as
bias was involved so not valid of all interactions taken place in the hospital
- however the follow up experiment done validated the findings done prior as they both found
the same results as both highlighted flaws in the diagnosis system therefore making the study
more credible
- application- anti psychiatry movement which was avoiding missing diagnostic labels and being
more around medical so more reliable and valid diagnosis occurred and improved care and
treatment, DSM II to DSM III, improved admissions
, 8.What was the aim of the classic study (1973)? - ANSWER - to investigate to wheteher the sane
can be distinguished from the insane, david rosenhan wanted to challenge the diagnostic
system for mental health which puts the emphasis on the individual as the source of symptoms
used to classify disorders
- rosenhan thought that diagnosis was invalid and affected by observer bias causing the clinician
to see behaviour as symptomatic of an underlying disorder rather than something that arises in
a certain context
- see if sane people could be admitted to a psychiatric institution and if once admitted they
would be detected, also what life was like and see how they were treated once inside the
hospital and raising awareness
9.How to diagnosis mental health disorders? - ANSWER - one of the biggest issues for clinical
psychologists is the point at which a behaviour that is displayed by an individual becomes
abnormal that it requires clinical diagnosis and possibly treatment
- the four D's are hard to decide whether behaviour is abnormal and therefore whether of
further investigation and diagnosis
- this done via the four D's which is dysfunction, distress, deviance and danger
10.What is deviance? - ANSWER - the clinicians look at the extent to which behaviour is rare
within society
- if behaviour is considered rare enough this may suggest a clinical disorder is present
- social norm is an expected pattern of behaviour so does their behaviour violate social norms,
is it also statistically deviant
- rare, unusual and bizarre behaviour
- is dependent on the case history of the patient things like age, education and culture
What is dysfunction? - ANSWER - does it distract, confuse and interfere with their life
-is their behaviour significantly interfering with the persons life then a mental illness may be
present
- the clinician should discuss all the aspects of the patients everyday life and assess to the extent
which problematic behaviour is causing this
EDITION BY ANDREW M. POMERANTZ| 100% PASS!!
1.What is the definition of clinical psychology? - ANSWER - explains and treating mental health
disorders and seeing to what extent behaviour has to be considered abnormal to require a
specific diagnosis
2.What is the procedure of the classic study? - ANSWER - eight pseudopatients including
rosenham himself were recruited for the investigation, three women and five men (one was a
psych graduate student, three others were psychologists and the others were a housewife, a
painter, a psychiatrist and paediatrician)
- none of the pseudo patients had any history of mental health problems
- they had to phone the admissions office if one of the the hospitals representing a range of
good and bad, old and new insitusitions across 5 states in the USA and make an appointment
cause they were hearing voices
- they said were hearing words such as thud, empty and hollow, each pseudopatietns gave a
false name in order to protect themselves in the future for those whose profession was
psychology related they had a fake job but everything was true
- all were admitted with schizophrenia expect one which had manic depression with psychosis
- once admitted they stopped feigning/showing symptoms and behaved normally answering all
questions from staff and patients. they then observed life on the ward, were friendly and
cooperative and recorded their experiences by taking notes, they had to try to convince the staff
of their sanity in order to get out but the only way to get out was accepting they were insane
and proving they are getting better
3.What were the results of the classic study? - ANSWER - all the pseudopatients were diagnosed
as having serious mental health disorder on minimal symptoms
- their sanity was never detected by the staff and they were discharged with a diagnosis of
schizophrenia in remission
- average day in hospital was 19 dats with the shortest being 7 days and the longest being 52
days
,- patients who were in the hospitals suspected that the pseudo patients were sane and one
asked whether the researcher was a journalist, in 3 hospitals where records were taken about
1/3 of patients challenged the pseudopatients
- the staff treated the researchers in a way that was consistent with their diagnosis and
frequently pathologised normal behaviour such as note taking was referred to as writing
behaviour, pacing the corridors due to boredom was interpreted as nervousness and waiting
outside the lunch hall early was labelled by one clinician as oral-inquisitive syndrome
- the central finding was about the depersonalisation of the patients by the staff , when contact
was initiated towards the nurses by the pseudopatients in 71% of the times they were ignored,
eye contact was made only 23% of the time with verbal responses in only 2% of the cases
- even worse with senior staff as when contact was directed to them of 185 reasonable
questions none were answered
4.What is the conclusion and follow up of the classic study? - ANSWER - some institutions
reacted with a challenge as they did not belie that their systems would be so easily fooled
- rosenhan agreed with one leading hospital to do a similar study and set up a test; which was
that every staff member who dealt with admissions had to rate all patients in terms of the
probability that they could be pseudo patients
- over a 3 month period 193 patients were admitted, and of those 41 were thought to be fake by
at least one staff member and 19 of those were classed as fake by two members
- but rosenhan actually sent in no pseudopatints to the hospital, confirms his initial results that
there is unreliability in the diagnostic process
- when diagnosed the way the person was subsequently treated by the staff in the institutions,
he stated that the diagnostic label changed the perception of the person so that all their
behaviour was interpreted within the context of the label and their behaviour in response to
this is interpreted as being consistent with the label
- compared reactions of the staff in the hospitals when asked questions by the pseduopatients
and compared it to when an academic teacher was asked a question from a student at uni, the
academic teacher responded with respect and courtesy which is in complete contrast to the
hospiWatal stage
5.What is the evaluation of the classic study? - ANSWER - ethical issues associated with it as the
attention may have been diverted from the patients who were actually mentally ill, however the
testimonies of the pseudopatients suggest it was not true and there was very limited contact
,with the staff anyways, this was measured as an average of 6.8 minutes per day per
pseudopatients to include admission, discharge and all medication suggesting that this was not
the case arguably the breach of ethical guidelines is justifiable for public interest
- sample of hospitals used is generalisable in that there was a variety of type of insitution from
research and teaching hospitals to private ones and shabbier hospitals these were spread over a
wide geographical area so the findings were not limited to one type of hospital or one area.
however it was only tested in one culture and can only tell us about the diagnostic and
treatment provided in the USA in the early 1970s
- the pseudo patients were able to provide an account of the quality of care in a psychiatric
institution which included a general lack of respect and occasional mistreatment of patients,
caretaking such as giving medication was done but there was no checking that was having an
effect, also many patients including the pseudopatients did not actually take their medicine
which may be due to reasons like lack of trust
6.What is the further evaluation of the classic study? - ANSWER - also an attempt at replication
by Lauren Slater for her book opening skinners box supported rosenhans findings as she found
that when she presented herself at nine emergency rooms reporting hearing a voice thud she
was diagnosed with depression with psychosis and prescribed antipsychotic and antidepressant
medication. this was challenged by Spitzer et al (2005) who sent a detailed vignette based on
slaters account for her methodology to 431 psychiatrists who were asked to make diagnosis 73
responded and 86% of these categorically ruled out the diagnosis Slater claims she was given,
1/3 would prescribe antipsychotic medication but none would prescribe antidepressants
therefore suggesting rosehans research is causing great harm by creating doubt about
treatment of mental health
-
7.What is more evaluation of the classic study? - ANSWER - qualitative data which displayed
realistic interactions between the staff and the pp however in the observations no positive
interactions were accounted for leading to a unrepresentative account for the interactions as
bias was involved so not valid of all interactions taken place in the hospital
- however the follow up experiment done validated the findings done prior as they both found
the same results as both highlighted flaws in the diagnosis system therefore making the study
more credible
- application- anti psychiatry movement which was avoiding missing diagnostic labels and being
more around medical so more reliable and valid diagnosis occurred and improved care and
treatment, DSM II to DSM III, improved admissions
, 8.What was the aim of the classic study (1973)? - ANSWER - to investigate to wheteher the sane
can be distinguished from the insane, david rosenhan wanted to challenge the diagnostic
system for mental health which puts the emphasis on the individual as the source of symptoms
used to classify disorders
- rosenhan thought that diagnosis was invalid and affected by observer bias causing the clinician
to see behaviour as symptomatic of an underlying disorder rather than something that arises in
a certain context
- see if sane people could be admitted to a psychiatric institution and if once admitted they
would be detected, also what life was like and see how they were treated once inside the
hospital and raising awareness
9.How to diagnosis mental health disorders? - ANSWER - one of the biggest issues for clinical
psychologists is the point at which a behaviour that is displayed by an individual becomes
abnormal that it requires clinical diagnosis and possibly treatment
- the four D's are hard to decide whether behaviour is abnormal and therefore whether of
further investigation and diagnosis
- this done via the four D's which is dysfunction, distress, deviance and danger
10.What is deviance? - ANSWER - the clinicians look at the extent to which behaviour is rare
within society
- if behaviour is considered rare enough this may suggest a clinical disorder is present
- social norm is an expected pattern of behaviour so does their behaviour violate social norms,
is it also statistically deviant
- rare, unusual and bizarre behaviour
- is dependent on the case history of the patient things like age, education and culture
What is dysfunction? - ANSWER - does it distract, confuse and interfere with their life
-is their behaviour significantly interfering with the persons life then a mental illness may be
present
- the clinician should discuss all the aspects of the patients everyday life and assess to the extent
which problematic behaviour is causing this
