Mr. W (Attempting to Obtain Legal Guardianship Over an Elderly Parent): Attorney Mr. X referred Mr. W for an evaluation of his decision-making capacity. Mr. Ws children do not agree with th

PSY640 Week Six Clinical Neuropsychological Report for Mr. W

CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY REPORT Patient's Name: Mr. W Date of Evaluation: 10/10/2014 Date of Birth: 10/02/24 Age: 90 Handedness: Right Education: 6 years Occupation: City worker (retired) Current Medications: Donepezil 5 mg/day, Simvastatin 40 mg/day, Levothyroxin 1.25 mg/day, Losartan 50 mg/day, Warfarin 3 mg/day, Advair Inhaler, Ventolin Inhaler, Alendroate Sodium 35 mg/week, Vitamins B12 and D3 Evaluation Completed by: Dr. K., Ph.D. Evaluation Time: One hour diagnostic interview (90791); One hour test administration, scoring, interpretation and report (96118 x 3) REASON FOR REFERRAL: Attorney Mr. X referred Mr. W for an evaluation of his decision-making capacity. HISTORY OF CURRENT SYMPTOMS: The symptom description and history were obtained from an interview with Mr. W, his sister, and his cousin. Mr. W stated he was seen by a physician in Michigan last year at his son’s urging and was diagnosed with “dementia.” Subsequently, according to the patient, his son reportedly took control of his finances, has withdrawn approximately $28,000 from the patient’s account, and has sold the patient’s coin collection. Mr. W does not feel the diagnosis of dementia is correct and would like to resume control over his financial matters. Reportedly, the incident that initiated the diagnosis of dementia occurred in 2011 when Mr. W was living with his son Anthony. He stated he saw the silhouette of a person walking in another room in the house and believed it was the “Boogie Man.” Several days later, he had what appeared to be a syncopal episode (“I blacked out”) and fell while walking out to the garage. He stated he felt someone “pounding my head and pulling me down the stairs,” and he believed this was also the “Boogie Man”. He was reportedly taken to the ER and released; however, after this incident the patient stated his sons became concerned with his thinking, and this eventually led to an evaluation with a physician and a diagnosis of dementia. Mr. W denied any other instances or auditory or visual hallucinations beyond those described above. He was living in A State (initially with his family and then on his own), but in 20XX, moved to Another State to live with his sister and brother-in-law. According to his sister and his cousin, the patient has not demonstrated any problems with memory or other areas of thinking. He stopped driving two years ago at the insistence of his son, but he remains independent in other activities of daily living, including managing his own medications, self-care, and occasional household chores. He also enjoys playing cards and playing electronic poker, and there has been no reported decline in his ability in these areas. Summary of Previous Investigations and Findings: No previous neuropsychological evaluations. PAST MEDICAL, NEUROLOGICAL, PSYCHIATRIC, SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY: (Inclusive review of symptoms and disorders; only positive features listed) Hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, hypothyroidism, COPD, asthma, myocardial infarction in the past (exact date unknown), and osteoporosis. The patient denied any neurological or psychiatric history beyond that described above. He does not drink alcohol and quit smoking in 1940. He has no history of recreational drug use. BIRTH, DEVELOPMENTAL, OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY: (Review of perinatal factors, early childhood development and milestones, academic history and achievement, employment) No reported delays in reaching developmental milestones. The patient stated he completed 6 years of formal education and worked for the city in the sewer division for many years. FAMILY HISTORY: (First degree relatives; only pertinent features reported) The patient’s mother reportedly died of a stroke at age 57, and the patient’s father died in an accident when the patient was 14. The patient has one full brother, age 81, who is reportedly in good health, and one half-brother with whom

CONFIDENTIAL

he does not have regular contact. The patient has five children (three sons and two daughters), but he and his wife did not live together consistently at the time the children were born, so he stated he is not sure he is the biological father of his three oldest children. He reported he currently has no ongoing contact with any of his children. PSYCHOSOCIAL HISTORY AND CURRENT ADAPTATION: (Current living situation, social relationships, activities of daily living) The patient lived in A State most of his life, but moved to Another State to be closer to his children about a year ago. He was living with his son and then Another Son until 20XX when he moved into an independent apartment. He lived alone for one year before he moved to Another State to live with his sister and brother-in-law due to his ongoing conflicts with his son regarding financial issues. CURRENT EXAMINATION: Review of records; Clinical Interview; Cognitive Assessment: Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR); Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV) (partial); Attention Tests: WAIS-IV Digit Span, Trail Making Tests, RBANS Coding, RBANS Semantic Fluency; Language Tests: RBANS Naming Test; Visuospatial Tests: RBANS Figure Copy and Line Orientation, Target cancellation; Learning/Memory Tests: RBANS Word List, Story and Figure recall; Reasoning/Abstraction: WAIS-IV Similarities BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS: The patient arrived on time for his appointment and was accompanied by his sister and his cousin. He was casually dressed and neatly groomed, and his social interpersonal skills were preserved. He was very pleasant and put forth good effort throughout the evaluation. Thought processes were logical and goal directed, and there was no indication of hallucinations, delusions, or other psychoses. No overt behavioral indications of a mood disturbance were observed, and a full range of affect was demonstrated. The results of this evaluation are considered reliable and valid for interpretation. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Based on his educational history (6th grade) and performance on the WTAR (est. FSIQ = 68) the patient’s estimated level of premorbid functioning would be within the low-average to borderline range overall. The remainder of the examination was interpreted with the expectation of performance at this level. The patient was fully oriented with the exception of the city, which he did not know. He was able to give detailed information (e.g., specific dates) of his autobiographical history, and his performance on formal memory testing did not indicate any type of retentive memory disturbance. Although he had slight difficulty encoding new information, there was no loss of information over time. The patient’s speech was fluent with normal articulation, and rate and comprehension of auditory information was intact. No significant impairments were noted in naming, reading, or writing. Visuospatial abilities were an area of relative weakness, but there was no indication of hemispatial neglect or inattention, and object recognition was preserved. It is likely his poor performance on the RBANS Figure Copy and Line Orientation was due to difficulties in higher level visuospatial processing and executive functions. Abstract verbal reasoning was within normal parameters. Immediate attention span was intact, and he performed within normal limits on most tests of sustained attention. His score on the RBANS coding subtest, which also has a visuospatial and motor component, was the only area that was below expectation. TESTING SUMMARY:

09/10/2011

Normative data

Current Level*

PREMORBID FUNCTIONING WTAR 10/50 SS = 68 Borderline/Low

DEMENTIA SCREENING MMSE 25/30 — Within Normal Limits

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTENTION

WAIS-IV Digit Span 5 F, 5 B ss = 9 Average RBANS Coding 20/89 ss = 4 Borderline/Low Trail Making Test Part A 49” T = 53 Average Trail Making Test Part B 115” T = 62 High Average

LANGUAGE RBANS Naming 10/10 >75th% High Average RBANS Semantic Fluency 16 words/min ss = 9 Average

VISUOSPATIAL RBANS Figure Copy 10/20 ss = 2 Extremely Low RBANS Line Orientation 4/20 <2nd% Extremely Low

MEMORY RBANS Word List

Learning Trials 17/40 ss = 6 Low Average Delayed Recall 0/10 3-9th% Borderline Recognition 19/20 26-50th Average

RBANS Story Learning Trials 8/24 ss = 4 Borderline/Low Delayed Recall 6/12 ss = 8 Average

RBANS Figure Recall 6/20 ss = 6 Low Average EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

WAIS-IV Similarities — ss = 5 Borderline REPEATABLE BATTERY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL STATUS*:

Index Scores Mean = 100; std = 15 Current Level Immediate Memory SS = 78 Borderline Visuospatial/Constructions SS = 53 Extremely Low Language SS = 99 Average Attention SS = 68 Borderline/Low Delayed Memory SS = 90 Average

*80-89 year-old norms used because 90 year-old-norms are not available SUMMARY AND IMPRESSION: 1. Neurocognitive Profile: The profile on testing is one of mild weaknesses in some aspects of complex attention/working memory and executive functions within the context of an overall low average to borderline level of general intellectual functioning. Although his primary visuospatial abilities are intact, he demonstrated a weakness on more complex visuospatial processing, most likely due to the executive aspects of these tasks. He had some difficulty initially encoding lengthy (e.g., story) information, but delayed recall and recognition were generally intact, and there is no indication of a primary retentive memory disturbance. The patient did not endorse any symptoms consistent with a mood disturbance and there was no indication of hallucinations, delusions, or other psychoses observed during the interview and examination. 2. Diagnostic Formulation: The profile on testing is consistent with a mild dysfunction in frontal networks. In this case, the differential diagnosis is extensive and includes potential cerebrovascular disease (given his risk factors and history of at least one syncopal episode) and toxic/metabolic abnormalities (e.g., thyroid abnormalities). The etiology of his syncopal episode and confusion is impossible to determine in the absence of medical records from that time, but his hallucinations during that time are consistent with his religious and spiritual beliefs. In addition, there have been no further instances or evidence of hallucinations or other psychoses to suggest this is an ongoing/active problem. Although the possibility can never be fully excluded in this age group, the absence of retentive memory impairment argues

CONFIDENTIAL

strongly against the likelihood that Alzheimer’s disease is the primary, or a significant cause of, his current cognitive symptoms.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Mr. W’s cognitive weaknesses are not sufficient to render him incapable of making his own decisions regarding his finances and/or health care, and therefore, guardianship is not appropriate.

2. Mr. W should continue to refrain from operating a motor vehicle or engaging in any potentially

dangerous activities (such as the use of heat generating appliances or power tools) due to his visuospatial and attentional weaknesses.

3. Mr. W was encouraged to follow-up with his primary care physician to a) ensure that all treatable

causes of cognitive impairment are well-controlled (e.g., thyroid, blood pressure, diabetes, etc.), and b) review and update his medications. He may also want to discuss with his doctor whether a neurological work-up (including some form of brain imaging) would be helpful to further clarify the etiology of his current cognitive symptoms

4. A follow-up evaluation can be conducted in the future if there is evidence of symptom change or

progression.

__________________________, Ph.D., ABPP-CN Board Certified Neuropsychologist Licensed Clinical Psychologist cc: Mr. X, Attorney at Law

Dr. Diaz Mr. W

CONFIDENTIAL

SAMPLE REPORT

Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-2-RF reports, but are provided here as background information. The following report was generated from Q-global™, Pearson’s web-based scoring and reporting application, using Mr. M.’s responses to the MMPI-2-RF. Additional MMPI-2-RF sample reports, product offerings, training opportunities, and resources can be found at PearsonClinical.com/mmpi2rf.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved. Q-global, Always Learning, Pearson, design for Psi, and PsychCorp are atrademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form and MMPI-2-RF are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 8795-A 01/14

Case Description: Mr. M — Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal Score Report

Mr. M, a 21-year-old, single male, was evaluated pursuant to a court order in connection with a not-guilty- by-reason-of-insanity plea. A patrol officer had observed Mr. M driving erratically, weaving in and out of traffic on a county highway. The officer followed the defendant in a marked police cruiser and eventually activated the vehicle’s lights and siren. Rather than pull over, Mr. M accelerated his driving speed and a several-mile chase ensued. Other cruisers were called in, and Mr. M, who had pulled off the highway and was driving on back roads, was surrounded. He then drove straight at the patrol officer’s vehicle and rammed it several times, managing to escape, and continued driving until his vehicle ran out of fuel. At that point he was apprehended, arrested, and charged with aggravated assault of a police officer. He was taken to a hospital to clean up minor wounds and from there Mr. M was transported to the county jail.

In his report, the arresting officer wrote that Mr. M appeared to be terrified, repeatedly shouting “Don’t shoot me, don’t kill me” even after he was handcuffed and sitting in the back of a cruiser. Records forwarded by the hospital where Mr. M was treated for his wounds described him as initially agitated, paranoid, and incoherent. Hospital staff suspected that Mr. M may have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. However, the results of a toxicology screen were negative. Mr. M was given a sedative and eventually calmed down and was transported to the jail where he was assessed by a mental health worker. The worker’s notes indicated that Mr. M claimed that he had been chased by a gang that was hired to kill him. He was placed in the jail’s mental health unit and evaluated later that day by a psychiatrist who diagnosed Mr. M with “Atypical Psychosis” and recommended that he be observed for a few days to help determine an appropriate diagnosis and course of treatment.

At his arraignment, a court-appointed attorney entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity on behalf of Mr. M, who was referred by the Court for an evaluation of his mental condition at the time of the alleged offense. Interviews were conducted with Mr. M’s parents who reported that the he had graduated from high school two years prior to his arrest and had continued to reside with them. He was employed at a local grocery store and had been functioning normally until approximately four months prior

SAMPLE REPORT

Case Description (continued): Mr. M — Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal Score Report

to his arrest. His parents reported that Mr. M, an amature musician, became “obsessed” with the idea that a nationally known musical group had stolen his material. He wrote to members of the group, posted about the “theft” on-line, and called local radio stations to “out the thieves.” He began to isolate socially, broke up with his girlfriend, refusing to tell her or his family why he did so, and spent most of the time he was not at work playing guitar in the basement of his parents’ home. His parents described him as being increasingly preoccupied, frequently looking out at the street and telling them that the musical group had hired a local gang to “take him out.”

When interviewed at the jail, Mr. M. told a similar story, explaining that he was driving home from work when he noticed that he was being followed. He believed that the vehicle following him was driven by gang members who had been hired to kill him and tried to “outrun them”. When he saw the lights and heard the siren he concluded that the gang had stolen a police cruiser and he continued to try to escape. He explained that he was trying to drive home, which was indeed the direction he was heading when he ran out of fuel. When surrounded by several cruisers he rammed the one that had been following him Interviews with Mr. M’s manager at work and documents forwarded by his attorney corroborated information provided by Mr. M and his parents.

Score Report

MMPI-2-RF® Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form® Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD, & Auke Tellegen, PhD

ID Number: Mr. M Age: 21 Gender: Male Marital Status: Not reported Years of Education: Not reported Date Assessed: 1/13/14

Copyright © 2008, 2011, 2012 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusively under license from the University of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc. Portions reproduced from the MMPI-2-RF test booklet. Copyright © 2008 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Copyright © 2008, 2011 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press.

MMPI-2-RF, the MMPI-2-RF logo, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota. Pearson, the PSI logo, and PsychCorp are trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).

TRADE SECRET INFORMATION Not for release under HIPAA or other data disclosure laws that exempt trade secrets from disclosure.

[ 2.2 / 1 / QG ]

SA MP

LE

MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales

20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

K-rL-rFBS-rFsFp-rF-rTRIN-rVRIN-r

Raw Score:

Response %:

VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r

Variable Response Inconsistency True Response Inconsistency Infrequent Responses Infrequent Psychopathology Responses

7 68

100

Fs FBS-r RBS

Infrequent Somatic Responses Symptom Validity Response Bias Scale

3 66

100

3 68

100

7 74

100

12 57

100

18 83

100

10 86

100

14 88

100

120

110

Cannot Say (Raw): 1

T Score: T

41Percent True (of items answered): %

645975

T T

54 52 60 5563

10 20152810 16 1219

T

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551

—

— —

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Standard Dev Mean Score

1 SD+( ): ( ):

_

93 70826174 9989Percent scoring at or below test taker:

L-r K-r

Uncommon Virtues Adjustment Validity

RBS

8 52

100

46

11 7392

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "—"; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 2

SA MP

LE

MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC3RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

EID THD BXD

Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction Thought Dysfunction Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction

20

64

100

RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4

Demoralization Somatic Complaints Low Positive Emotions Cynicism Antisocial Behavior

RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9

Ideas of Persecution Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Aberrant Experiences Hypomanic Activation

6

59

100

12

64

100

3

43

100

6

67

100

8

65

100

5

52

100

4

46

100

4

70

100

6

66

100

11

60

100

6

40

100

120

110

Higher-Order Restructured Clinical

59 60606162 58 6456 66 6056 52

15 15141218 14 1312 18 1614 11

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_

Percent scoring at or below test taker:

61 5661971 75 2125 70 7269 14

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "—"; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 3

SA MP

LE

MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and Internalizing Scales

20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

NFC ANPAXYSTW MSFBRFNUCGIC HPC HLPCOG SFD

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

MLS GIC HPC NUC COG

Malaise Gastrointestinal Complaints Head Pain Complaints Neurological Complaints Cognitive Complaints

5

69

100

AXY ANP BRF MSF

Anxiety Anger Proneness Behavior-Restricting Fears Multiple Specific Fears

SUI HLP SFD NFC STW

Suicidal/Death Ideation Helplessness/Hopelessness Self-Doubt Inefficacy Stress/Worry

7

80

100

1

53

100

2

59

100

2

72

100

1

100

3

65

100

3

69

100

2

48

100

3

80

100

5

65

1

47

100

2

46

100

1

56

100

Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing 120

110

59 60615657 63 5755 55 6056 54 4853

14 16161316 24 1314 12 1712 13 912

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

— —

— —

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

MLS

86

66

SUI

78 88427084 72 7686 37 8984 40 4774

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_

Percent scoring at or below test taker:

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "—"; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 4

SA MP

LE

MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales

20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

SAV MECAESACTAGGSUBJCP FML DSFIPP SHY

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

FML IPP SAV SHY DSF

Family Problems Interpersonal Passivity Social Avoidance Shyness Disaffiliativeness

2

57

100

JCP SUB AGG ACT

Juvenile Conduct Problems Substance Abuse Aggression Activation

AES MEC

Aesthetic-Literary Interests Mechanical-Physical Interests

2

49

100

4

53

100

0

37

100

0

41

100

7

62

100

4

52

100

5

55

100

0

44

100

3

52

100

2

45

100

InterpersonalExternalizing Interest 120

110

62 54525562 49 5154 55 5745

14 14131315 11 1112 14 1010

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

46 50671617 90 6965 52 3868

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_

Percent scoring at or below test taker:

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "—"; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 5

SA MP

LE

MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 Scales

20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

INTR-rNEGE-rDISC-rPSYC-rAGGR-r

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

Aggressiveness-Revised Psychoticism-Revised Disconstraint-Revised Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised

4

39

100

11

64

100

9

56

100

4

44

100

5

63

100

120

110

53 55586061

11 12131118

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):

_

Percent scoring at or below test taker:

9 7755865

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "—"; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 6

SA MP

LE

MMPI-2-RF T SCORES (BY DOMAIN)

PROTOCOL VALIDITY

SUBSTANTIVE SCALES

*The test taker provided scorable responses to less than 90% of the items scored on this scale. See the relevant profile page for the specific percentage.

Note. This information is provided to facilitate interpretation following the recommended structure for MMPI-2-RF interpretation in Chapter 5 of the MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1.

Content Non-Responsiveness 1 68 57 T CNS VRIN-r TRIN-r

Over-Reporting 74 68 66 83 88 F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS

Under-Reporting 86 52 L-r K-r

Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 59 69 72 59 53 80 RC1 MLS GIC HPC NUC COG

Emotional Dysfunction 64 64 66 69 65 48 EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC

65 64 RC2 INTR-r

60 65* 80 47 56 46 56 RC7 STW AXY ANP BRF MSF NEGE-r

Thought Dysfunction 67 70 THD RC6

66 RC8

63 PSYC-r

Behavioral Dysfunction 43 52 57 41 BXD RC4 JCP SUB

40 37 53 39 44 RC9 AGG ACT AGGR-r DISC-r

Interpersonal Functioning 49 46 62 55 52 44 FML RC3 IPP SAV SHY DSF

Interests 45 52 AES MEC

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 7

SA MP

LE

ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION

Unscorable Responses

Following is a list of items to which the test taker did not provide scorable responses. Unanswered or double answered (both True and False) items are unscorable. The scales on which the items appear are in parentheses following the item content.

224. Item Content Omitted. (STW)

Critical Responses

Seven MMPI-2-RF scales–Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety (AXY), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Aberrant Experiences (RC8), Substance Abuse (SUB), and Aggression (AGG)–have been designated by the test authors as having critical item content that may require immediate attention and follow-up. Items answered by the individual in the keyed direction (True or False) on a critical scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is 65 or higher. The percentage of the MMPI-2-RF normative sample (NS) and of the Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men) comparison group (CG) that answered each item in the keyed direction are provided in parentheses following the item content.

Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI, T Score = 66)

334. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 13.5%, CG 26.1%)

Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP, T Score = 69)

169. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 4.3%, CG 26.0%) 214. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 10.4%, CG 24.3%) 336. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 38.0%, CG 27.4%)

Anxiety (AXY, T Score = 80)

228. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 17.3%, CG 31.8%) 275. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 5.0%, CG 28.1%) 289. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.7%, CG 26.1%)

Ideas of Persecution (RC6, T Score = 70)

110. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 9.9%, CG 36.3%) 168. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 2.8%, CG 7.6%) 287. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 3.1%, CG 16.7%) 310. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 3.0%, CG 18.3%)

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report 1/13/14, Page 8

Special Note: The content of the test items is included in the actual reports. To protect the integrity of the test, the item content does not appear in this sample report.

ITEMS NOT

SHOWN

SA MP

LE

Aberrant Experiences (RC8, T Score = 66)

32. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 21.1%, CG 57.4%) 159. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 6.0%, CG 33.8%) 179. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.6%, CG 26.9%) 199. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.1%, CG 23.8%) 257. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.4%, CG 32.1%) 311. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 32.4%, CG 32.3%)

End of Report

This a

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.