Difference between revisions of "Peyrot1995a"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Mark Peyrot; |Title=Psychological testing and forensic decision-making: The properties-in-use of the MMPI |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnography; Fo...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Mark Peyrot; | + | |Author(s)=Mark Peyrot; |
| − | |Title=Psychological testing and forensic decision-making: | + | |Title=Psychological testing and forensic decision-making: the properties-in-use of the MMPI |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnography; Forensics; Psychological Testing | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnography; Forensics; Psychological Testing | ||
|Key=Peyrot1995a | |Key=Peyrot1995a | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=42 | |Volume=42 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=574–586 |
|URL=https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/42/4/574/1684859 | |URL=https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/42/4/574/1684859 | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.2307/3097047 |
|Abstract=This paper reports an ethnographic study of the use of psychological testing in decision making by a forensic psychiatry organization that makes recommendations to the courts regarding criminal justice, child custody, and workmen's compensation cases. Psychological testing using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) supports the decision-making process. Through a variety of interpretive practices, the staff deals with contradictions between the MMPI and other clinical information, while maintaining the sense that the MMPI is a valuable tool that can provide valid assessments. Test results are generally accepted when they indicate a client problem but are likely to be rejected when they indicate no problem and other clinical information suggests that a problem does exist. The logic associated with these interpretive practices is examined. | |Abstract=This paper reports an ethnographic study of the use of psychological testing in decision making by a forensic psychiatry organization that makes recommendations to the courts regarding criminal justice, child custody, and workmen's compensation cases. Psychological testing using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) supports the decision-making process. Through a variety of interpretive practices, the staff deals with contradictions between the MMPI and other clinical information, while maintaining the sense that the MMPI is a valuable tool that can provide valid assessments. Test results are generally accepted when they indicate a client problem but are likely to be rejected when they indicate no problem and other clinical information suggests that a problem does exist. The logic associated with these interpretive practices is examined. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 07:29, 24 October 2019
| Peyrot1995a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Peyrot1995a |
| Author(s) | Mark Peyrot |
| Title | Psychological testing and forensic decision-making: the properties-in-use of the MMPI |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnography, Forensics, Psychological Testing |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1995 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Problems |
| Volume | 42 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 574–586 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.2307/3097047 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper reports an ethnographic study of the use of psychological testing in decision making by a forensic psychiatry organization that makes recommendations to the courts regarding criminal justice, child custody, and workmen's compensation cases. Psychological testing using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) supports the decision-making process. Through a variety of interpretive practices, the staff deals with contradictions between the MMPI and other clinical information, while maintaining the sense that the MMPI is a valuable tool that can provide valid assessments. Test results are generally accepted when they indicate a client problem but are likely to be rejected when they indicate no problem and other clinical information suggests that a problem does exist. The logic associated with these interpretive practices is examined.
Notes
