case scenario being used for this discussion post: ABS 300 Week One Assessment Scenario Donna, age 14, had consistently been a B+/A- student throughout elementary school and the beginning of middle school. However, in the 8th grade, she started demonstrating difficulty understanding some of her work. Increased difficulties were noted when she was required to work with abstract concepts rather than rely on rote memorization. Donna had always been fascinated with flowers, and she could remember the details of hundreds of different species of wild and domestic flower she encountered. Donna’s classmates and cousins thought she was odd, and her mother said that Donna was frequently picked on—at times without even realizing she was being made fun of. Donna was described as a confused and socially awkward girl who tended to keep to herself. The incident that led to her first psychological evaluation occurred after one of her classmates teased her repeatedly over several days to the point of making Donna upset. Donna decided to write a threatening note to the student as a warning for him to stop. The note included details of which species of flowers would be found growing on top of the place he would be buried. The boy’s parents brought the note to the principal and Donna was suspended from school and charged with terroristic threatening. The school ordered a psychological evaluation and risk assessment before they allowed her to return to school. Donna was observed to have awkward mannerisms, and she smiled at what appeared to be inappropriate times, for example, when she was talking about the teasing at school. She made very poor eye contact in ways that were atypical for her culture, and she had a difficult time staying on topic, frequently shifting the topic of conversation onto her interest in flower. Donna’s intelligence was found to be in the upper limits of the average range on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V). The Gilliam Asperger's Disorder Scale as rated by Donna and her mother together was in the clinically significant range, with her largest deficits being reflected in her social interactions scale. There were also deficits noted in pragmatic skills, restricted patterns of behavior, and cognitive patterns. Problems were also noted with reciprocal social interaction skills, communication skills, and stereotyped behaviors, interests, and activities. Donna's QEEG results showed multiple abnormalities. Her right parietal-temporal lobe showed excessively slow activity. This is an area important for facial recognition and empathy. She also had excessive mid-line frontal hi-beta, something that is often seen in those with mental rigidity and obsessive thinking. Multiple problems in coherence were noted, reflecting cognitive inefficiency in her mental processing. Excessive connectivity was noted in the frontal lobes areas and there were excessive disconnections between her frontal lobes and the central and bac.

1. case scenario being used for this discussion post:
ABS 300 Week One Assessment Scenario Donna, age 14, had
consistently been a B+/A- student throughout elementary school
and the beginning of middle school. However, in the 8th grade,
she started demonstrating difficulty understanding some of her
work. Increased difficulties were noted when she was required
to work with abstract concepts rather than rely on rote
memorization. Donna had always been fascinated with flowers,
and she could remember the details of hundreds of different
species of wild and domestic flower she encountered. Donna’s
classmates and cousins thought she was odd, and her mother
said that Donna was frequently picked on—at times without
even realizing she was being made fun of. Donna was described
as a confused and socially awkward girl who tended to keep to
herself. The incident that led to her first psychological
evaluation occurred after one of her classmates teased her
repeatedly over several days to the point of making Donna
upset. Donna decided to write a threatening note to the student
as a warning for him to stop. The note included details of which
species of flowers would be found growing on top of the place
he would be buried. The boy’s parents brought the note to the
principal and Donna was suspended from school and charged
with terroristic threatening. The school ordered a psychological
evaluation and risk assessment before they allowed her to return
to school. Donna was observed to have awkward mannerisms,
and she smiled at what appeared to be inappropriate times, for
example, when she was talking about the teasing at school. She
made very poor eye contact in ways that were atypical for her
culture, and she had a difficult time staying on topic, frequently
shifting the topic of conversation onto her interest in flower.
Donna’s intelligence was found to be in the upper limits of the
average range on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,
Fifth Edition (WISC-V). The Gilliam Asperger's Disorder Scale
as rated by Donna and her mother together was in the clinically
significant range, with her largest deficits being reflected in her

2. social interactions scale. There were also deficits noted in
pragmatic skills, restricted patterns of behavior, and cognitive
patterns. Problems were also noted with reciprocal social
interaction skills, communication skills, and stereotyped
behaviors, interests, and activities. Donna's QEEG results
showed multiple abnormalities. Her right parietal-temporal lobe
showed excessively slow activity. This is an area important for
facial recognition and empathy. She also had excessive mid-line
frontal hi-beta, something that is often seen in those with
mental rigidity and obsessive thinking. Multiple problems in
coherence were noted, reflecting cognitive inefficiency in her
mental processing. Excessive connectivity was noted in the
frontal lobes areas and there were excessive disconnections
between her frontal lobes and the central and back parts of her
brain. Donna was diagnosed with Asperger's Disorder in
accordance with the DSM-IV criteria and referred for academic
and social skill instruction. Approximately, two years later,
Donna, age 16, and her parents met with the school’s child
study team to review a revised Individualized Education
Program (IEP). Although Donna’s academic achievement was
approximately one grade level behind her current 11th grade
placement, she had made significant academic and social gains
over the past two years. Ms. Kraut, Donna’s mother, noted a
change in her daughter’s diagnosis from Asperger's Disorder to
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level 1—Requiring support,
Without accompanying intellectual impairment, Without
accompanying language impairment. The school psychologist
explained that the change in diagnoses was due to changes in
the manual used to assign psychiatric diagnoses (the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,
DSM-5). Ms. Kraut insisted that her daughter was not autistic
and demanded a re-evaluation. The psychologist stated that
there was no data supporting a re-evaluation at this time. Ms.
Kraut left the meeting, declaring that she would pay for a
second opinion herself. When Mr. Kraut met with the private
psychologist she stated that her daughter needed “a more

3. appropriate diagnosis.” The private psychologist reviewed the
previous records and explained the change to the DSM-5 and the
professional directive that individuals with a well-established
DSM-IV diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder should be given the
diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Ms. Kraut responded, “I
do not care! My daughter is not autistic. She can be ADHD or
LD, but she cannot be autistic. Do you understand me?!”
DISCUSSION POST INSTRUCTIONS:
Ethical and Professional Issues in Psychological Assessment
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read the required
textbook chapters and articles for this week and view the
American Psychological Association behavioral assessment
video. For this discussion, you will take on the role of the
private psychologist being asked to re-evaluate a client.
Carefully review the
ABS 300 Week One Assessment Scenario
. In your initial post, write a rationale for either agreeing or
disagreeing with the request to re-evaluate the client based on
the information available. Explain which theoretical
assumptions about psychological testing and assessment support
your decision. Discuss the ethical responsibilities a
psychologist must consider if choosing to use psychological
assessment tools to re-evaluate the client. Provide a pro/con
analysis of both potential decisions regarding whether or not to
re-evaluate the client. In your pro/con analysis, present the
potential ethical issues which might arise from each decision--
the decision to re-evaluate and the decision to not re-evaluate--
the client in the given scenario. Assume you have the
opportunity to conduct a behavioral assessment interview before
making your decision about whether or not to conduct a full re-
evaluation. Give examples of the types of information from the
behavioral assessment would aid you in making an ethical
decision about whether or not to conduct a full re-evaluation.
Guided Response
: Review several of your colleagues’ posts and respond to at

4. least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week.
You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the
week to promote more meaningful interactive discourse in this
discussion. Constructively critique your classmate’s decision of
whether or not to re-evaluate the client and the rationale
provided. Which assumptions about psychological testing and
assessment support your viewpoint? What ethical
consideration(s), in addition to those mentioned by your
classmate, might you recommend be included? Provide a
scholarly rationale for the inclusion of these considerations.
Use information from the required resources as well as any
other appropriate peer-reviewed articles to support your
statements. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until 5:00
p.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST) on Day 7 of the week and
respond to anyone who replies to your initial post. References
must be cited according to APA guidelines as outlined in the
Ashford Writing Center
.
Carefully review the
Discussion Forum Grading Rubric
for the criteria that will be used to evaluate this Discussion
Thread.