School is done for the summer. I have a pseudo-break until they start up again after Labor Day. It's a pseudo-break because I have a few things to get in order to start my practicum. I am expecting that assignments will begin to appear in my inbox. Many of the instructors do a bad thing and send out stuff that is due on the first day of class.
Last year over X-mass an entire book was assigned. Need I say that I skimmed that one?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Gives us all a bad name
If you don’t understand the psychological test you are giving, how can you do a meaningful interpretation of the results? In the WISC-IV if the VCI or PRI is 13 points different from the WMI and/or PSI you need to calculate a GAI, as FIQ is NOT an appropriate measure of the person’s abilities. I can’t tell you how many school reports that use the FIQ despite a huge difference in the index scores. I have to say 13 points is about the greatest difference, so I had to write about this one. Its worse with this case because there is already a diagnosis that influences executive functioning (and YES, they did know about it, it was in the first paragraph). Correcting for executive functioning impairment this client is totally a different picture. I am going to guess they see disruptive behaviors as willful and intentional, rather than deregulated related to organic neurological issues and impairment in executive functioning.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
What a day
To catch up. My son came to me and said that he was never going back to high school. After a few rounds of emotional soothing bits, he told me that he was willing to go to an HSED program. Of course this is after he had a little legal action taken to do with his absences.
I made the required arrangements and did the paperwork and went to all the meetings and got him enrolled (of course I needed the help of my lovely wife who also had to rearrange her schedule ).
In the doing, my wonderful son agreed that because he did not have his own transportation he was willing to wait for his mother and myself. Thus he was going to have to sit around, sometimes for hours. He agreed.
In the less than two weeks that he had been attending, he was able to find someone who was willing to drive him there. GREAT!!!!, but today this person was not going to go. About an hour before his ride would have been there she called and said he was screwed.
I don't know what is worse, his defense of her "call" as a nice gesture or my wonderful sons refusal to go to school.
I made the required arrangements and did the paperwork and went to all the meetings and got him enrolled (of course I needed the help of my lovely wife who also had to rearrange her schedule ).
In the doing, my wonderful son agreed that because he did not have his own transportation he was willing to wait for his mother and myself. Thus he was going to have to sit around, sometimes for hours. He agreed.
In the less than two weeks that he had been attending, he was able to find someone who was willing to drive him there. GREAT!!!!, but today this person was not going to go. About an hour before his ride would have been there she called and said he was screwed.
I don't know what is worse, his defense of her "call" as a nice gesture or my wonderful sons refusal to go to school.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Review and Revision Process
First things First, the review and revision process is invaluable. I get the important feedback that not only improves my report writing, but fosters my education in the professional field. The idea is that I submit a draft report, well before it requires date, so that it can be reviewed and commented on. This then comes back to be so I can make the needed changes and submit it again (before it is due). If my changes are in need of correction we still have time to make such adjustments. Then the report can go out the door and everything flows well.
Here is the problem. I am submitting reports and getting feedback on them, making the corrections, and then getting additional feedback on areas that were previously designated as needing no changes. Then when the second corrections are made, additional changes are requested, again in areas that were previously fine.
I have an issue when I submit a report, get feedback, make the corrections, re-submit the report, and then get more corrections on things that were originally fine. This type of feedback results in a great deal of wasted time and energy. It also results in massive number of iterations of reports that tend to cause damage to self-esteem (e.g., I just made a bunch of corrections to this report, how can it need another round of huge changes?) The problem is compounded by a significant delay in receiving feedback. For example, an change in text may be requested 3-4 weeks after the report is submitted, but in that time frame 3-4 other reports have been submitted using the original (text of error), hence the same correction needs to be made repeatedly. This could be caused by a number of sources, so I will enlighten you as to the areas I have examined.
First, this could be caused by a hasty original review. Thus, some of the difficulties could have been overlooked. I would expect this type of issue to crop up from time to time, but if systemic there is a significant problem. If one assumes that errors are eliminated after one or two corrections, then it should be that the either the frequency of the issue decreases. Additionally, an overly hasty review should flag only a few items per review. Hence three review iterations with huge amounts of corrections would not be characteristic of such a process. Finally, even this process should result in an overall decrease in needed corrections. None of the symptoms have been observed.
Second, this could be caused by very poor report writing. I am willing to acknowledge that being thrown into a new situation as this is, I may have significant deficiencies in my writing. As I have been making acceptable grades and have been able to improve or make adjustments in my writing, it stands to reason that I could do so here. In this setting that would look like many needed corrections at first, but a gradual decrease in needed corrections over time. This has not been observed, as some of my very early reports went through many fewer iterations than some of the current ones.
Third, this could be the result of increasing expectations. In this case the writing bar may be raised (either continually or in from time to time). This would result in a greater level of scrutiny of the reports after a period of time, this could appear as more corrections needed on later reports after the bar has been raised. This does explain some of the feedback results, but not the multiple iterations problem. Additionally, this may result in poor overall performance as something may be integrated as acceptable then suddenly becomes unacceptable, thus resulting in confusion, frustrations, and potential misunderstandings.
Yet another possibility is that the reviewer wishes to make the most of the learning opportunities and thus make a number of comments whenever possible. This would result in the greatest degree of information being communicated back to me, but also runs the risk of being information overload or confusing. This would be especially problematic when the feedback is inconsistent and contradictory. This would have the appearance of multiple revisions and of significant quantities as we see, but when the changes are inconsistent or contradictory the advantage of maximum feedback is lost. This is being observed.
A fifth options, is that the review is somewhat fickle in their reviews. This is to say that the criteria or standards are being constantly changed. This would likely manifest as a section being acceptable one day and unacceptable another day. Hence multiple iterations would result in multiple corrections in diverse sections. When examining semantic problems in this option, text revisions will likely appear from draft to draft or between reports that make one version acceptable and the next unacceptable.
If one utilizes Occam’s razor then the fifth option is the most likely, as it most simply explains the results. As a social scientist I know that people are rarely single in purpose or design. Thus I am forced to conclude that all of the above postulates are significant. Additionally, there are likely a number of other factors also at work. This is what makes this problem so powerful. I have a percentage of the issue upon my shoulders, and I wish to limit or reduce the errors made. Thus I need to see fewer corrections upon my work, or in-lue-of that greater feedback on the process of becoming a better writer.
So here I am. I feel pretty bad about my situation. I keep reminding myself that I am getting lots of assessment experience AND report writing experience. Additionally, I have a prestigious name for my resume. I am a big boy and can deal with problematic feedback. I was just hoping for more!
Here is the problem. I am submitting reports and getting feedback on them, making the corrections, and then getting additional feedback on areas that were previously designated as needing no changes. Then when the second corrections are made, additional changes are requested, again in areas that were previously fine.
I have an issue when I submit a report, get feedback, make the corrections, re-submit the report, and then get more corrections on things that were originally fine. This type of feedback results in a great deal of wasted time and energy. It also results in massive number of iterations of reports that tend to cause damage to self-esteem (e.g., I just made a bunch of corrections to this report, how can it need another round of huge changes?) The problem is compounded by a significant delay in receiving feedback. For example, an change in text may be requested 3-4 weeks after the report is submitted, but in that time frame 3-4 other reports have been submitted using the original (text of error), hence the same correction needs to be made repeatedly. This could be caused by a number of sources, so I will enlighten you as to the areas I have examined.
First, this could be caused by a hasty original review. Thus, some of the difficulties could have been overlooked. I would expect this type of issue to crop up from time to time, but if systemic there is a significant problem. If one assumes that errors are eliminated after one or two corrections, then it should be that the either the frequency of the issue decreases. Additionally, an overly hasty review should flag only a few items per review. Hence three review iterations with huge amounts of corrections would not be characteristic of such a process. Finally, even this process should result in an overall decrease in needed corrections. None of the symptoms have been observed.
Second, this could be caused by very poor report writing. I am willing to acknowledge that being thrown into a new situation as this is, I may have significant deficiencies in my writing. As I have been making acceptable grades and have been able to improve or make adjustments in my writing, it stands to reason that I could do so here. In this setting that would look like many needed corrections at first, but a gradual decrease in needed corrections over time. This has not been observed, as some of my very early reports went through many fewer iterations than some of the current ones.
Third, this could be the result of increasing expectations. In this case the writing bar may be raised (either continually or in from time to time). This would result in a greater level of scrutiny of the reports after a period of time, this could appear as more corrections needed on later reports after the bar has been raised. This does explain some of the feedback results, but not the multiple iterations problem. Additionally, this may result in poor overall performance as something may be integrated as acceptable then suddenly becomes unacceptable, thus resulting in confusion, frustrations, and potential misunderstandings.
Yet another possibility is that the reviewer wishes to make the most of the learning opportunities and thus make a number of comments whenever possible. This would result in the greatest degree of information being communicated back to me, but also runs the risk of being information overload or confusing. This would be especially problematic when the feedback is inconsistent and contradictory. This would have the appearance of multiple revisions and of significant quantities as we see, but when the changes are inconsistent or contradictory the advantage of maximum feedback is lost. This is being observed.
A fifth options, is that the review is somewhat fickle in their reviews. This is to say that the criteria or standards are being constantly changed. This would likely manifest as a section being acceptable one day and unacceptable another day. Hence multiple iterations would result in multiple corrections in diverse sections. When examining semantic problems in this option, text revisions will likely appear from draft to draft or between reports that make one version acceptable and the next unacceptable.
If one utilizes Occam’s razor then the fifth option is the most likely, as it most simply explains the results. As a social scientist I know that people are rarely single in purpose or design. Thus I am forced to conclude that all of the above postulates are significant. Additionally, there are likely a number of other factors also at work. This is what makes this problem so powerful. I have a percentage of the issue upon my shoulders, and I wish to limit or reduce the errors made. Thus I need to see fewer corrections upon my work, or in-lue-of that greater feedback on the process of becoming a better writer.
So here I am. I feel pretty bad about my situation. I keep reminding myself that I am getting lots of assessment experience AND report writing experience. Additionally, I have a prestigious name for my resume. I am a big boy and can deal with problematic feedback. I was just hoping for more!
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Policy: Do not take clinical materials out of the office. They may be needed by others and transport off site increases the risk of lost or unavailable materials.
Problem: Materials that were kept in the office are now missing.
Cause: “someone” went through the files and collected the notes for review, but then failed to return them. They subsequently were lost in a mountain of paper.
Result: I am being left on the hook for missing notes. I have to justify a diagnosis (atypical for this setting) without my notes. Granted I do have what I wrote up, but apparently this is not good enough.
Problem: Materials that were kept in the office are now missing.
Cause: “someone” went through the files and collected the notes for review, but then failed to return them. They subsequently were lost in a mountain of paper.
Result: I am being left on the hook for missing notes. I have to justify a diagnosis (atypical for this setting) without my notes. Granted I do have what I wrote up, but apparently this is not good enough.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
How do I...
The world needs more really smart PsyDs and many fewer really dumb PhD. I am tired of defending my education as equal to or greater than a PhD program. I am tired of not being taken at my word, based on my program. I am sick of PhD program people spouting the U of M crap, but being unable to justify it, being unwilling to consider alternatives, and lost in the sea of that’s the way Dr. So-and-so said it should be done.
Case in point: I was just talking about a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. I was challenged on every point and with every criterion, with the rationale that some U of M Doctor of Psychology teaches that this is a bogus diagnosis and the condition does not really exist. Well then – who the f-ing hell are we locking in all of our prisons? Additionally, none of these bone-heads could remember the lecture on why ASPD is a bogus diagnosis, thus none could offer serious criticism. Thus, it became a “you can’t give that diagnosis because I was in a lecture once where the professor said he didn’t believe in ASPD.”
Smoke and mirrors people - you have been deceived!
And my education is a problem?
How do I get to lecture in front of these buffoons, for I really wish to tell them that I am rich beyond the dreams of avarice and should I ever drive anything but the finest of the world’s automobiles an insidious black hole will open in Illinois and destroy every last kernel of wheat for 1000 miles, resulting in a beer shortage!
Can you imagine the panic of all the faithful Psychology Grad students running to stock pile malted beverages?
Case in point: I was just talking about a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. I was challenged on every point and with every criterion, with the rationale that some U of M Doctor of Psychology teaches that this is a bogus diagnosis and the condition does not really exist. Well then – who the f-ing hell are we locking in all of our prisons? Additionally, none of these bone-heads could remember the lecture on why ASPD is a bogus diagnosis, thus none could offer serious criticism. Thus, it became a “you can’t give that diagnosis because I was in a lecture once where the professor said he didn’t believe in ASPD.”
Smoke and mirrors people - you have been deceived!
And my education is a problem?
How do I get to lecture in front of these buffoons, for I really wish to tell them that I am rich beyond the dreams of avarice and should I ever drive anything but the finest of the world’s automobiles an insidious black hole will open in Illinois and destroy every last kernel of wheat for 1000 miles, resulting in a beer shortage!
Can you imagine the panic of all the faithful Psychology Grad students running to stock pile malted beverages?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Finals are DONE!
I'm done, I'm DONE, I'm DONE!!!!!
Finals are done.
I can't really say how the Statistics and Research final went. It was quite a bit different than the mid-term and was all essay. I found it difficult, knowing that the grading was based on the use of specific words or phrases that are integrated into concepts. The problem I have with this, is that my language use is somewhat non-traditional, and perhaps (JUST PERHAPS) over complicated (and definitely complex). This has been a problem in the past.
Of course I still can't spell!
Finals are done.
I can't really say how the Statistics and Research final went. It was quite a bit different than the mid-term and was all essay. I found it difficult, knowing that the grading was based on the use of specific words or phrases that are integrated into concepts. The problem I have with this, is that my language use is somewhat non-traditional, and perhaps (JUST PERHAPS) over complicated (and definitely complex). This has been a problem in the past.
Of course I still can't spell!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)