PSY 640 Ashford University CH8 Evaluating Objective and Projective Assessments Evaluating Objective and Projective Assessments
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, review Chapters 8 and 9 in your textbook.
In this assignment, you will compare projective and objective methods of personality assessment. Research a minimum of three peer-reviewed articles in the Ashford University Library that were published within the last 15 years on these techniques. In your paper, you will provide an evaluation of these techniques organized according to the outline provided below. Use information from your researched peer-reviewed articles and required sources to support your work in each section.
Section 1: Objective Personality Assesment
Define the term objective in objective methods of personality assessment.
Summarize the features of objective methods of personality assessment, and provide at least three examples of these types of measures.
Explain the assumptions on which objective methods are based, and provide an analysis of empirical research testing the validity of the assumptions you identified.
Appraise the research exploring the technical adequacy (i.e., reliability and validity) of objective tests.
Describe the impact of social and culture variability on the administration and interpretation of objective tests.
Section 2: Projective Personality Assesment
Define the term projective in projective methods of personality assessment.
Summarize the features of projective methods of personality assessment, and provide at least three examples of these types of measures.
Explain the assumptions on which projective methods are based, and provide an analysis of empirical research testing the validity of the assumptions you identified.
Appraise the research exploring the technical adequacy (i.e., reliability and validity) of projective tests.
Describe the impact of social and culture variability on the administration and interpretation of projective tests.
Section 3: Synthesis, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Write a brief one-paragraph scenario for a fictitious client. Include the following information: presenting concerns (reason for referral), age, gender, ethnicity, language(s), and any other significant information (e.g., military status, health issues, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.).
Debate the arguments supporting and opposing the use of projective and objective personality assessments with your identified client.
Select a minimum of one objective and one projective measure to use with your client. Compare the use of the selected projective and objective personality measures with your identified client.
Analyze the advantages and limitations of each assessment measure you selected.
Compose recommendations to improve the validity of personality assessment.
The Evaluation of Objective and Projective Measures of Personality
Must be four to six double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. (Links to an external site.)
Must include a separate title page with the following:
Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
Must use at least three peer-reviewed sources published within the last 15 years in addition to the course text.
Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Carefully review the Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.) for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment. INSTRUCTIONS ON BRIEFING CASES
In analyzing a legal case, you have to present a brief. The instructions below will
guide you in doing your case (legal) brief.
FIRAC: FACTS-ISSUE-RULE OF LAW-ANALYSIS-CONCLUSION:
HOW TO BRIEF A CASE
1. (F): FACTS: State the facts of the case (a brief summary of what the case
is about, i.e., what happened?). This is a synopsis of the essential facts of
the case. These facts lead up to the Issue.
2. (I): ISSUE/ISSUES: State the Issue/Issues in the case (What are the legal
issues in the case? Sometimes there may be only one legal issue). Issues
are statements of the general legal questions answered by or illustrated in
the case. Very Important: The Issue is best put in the form of a question,
capable of a “yes” or “no” answer.
3. (R): RULE OF LAW: This is a statement of the general principle of law
which the case illustrates. You must state the Rule of Law that applies to
the particular case (What law applies to this case? What does the law say
about cases of this nature?).
4. (A) ANALYSIS: HOLDING AND DECISION: Analysis of the legal
argument/arguments in the case (analyze the arguments/
decisions/opinions of the justices). This section of the case should
succinctly explain the rationale of the court in arriving at its decision. In
other words, indicate the outcome of the case.
5. (C) Conclusion (do you agree with the Court’s
arguments/decision/opinion in this case?). If yes, why? And if not, why
not?
Your Legal Brief should be detailed, addressing all the five steps above. If you use
other people ideas to support your opinion, please make sure that you document or
cite the sources of those ideas to avoid plagiarism. Remember to give credit for an
idea or opinion that is NOT originally yours. In citing your sources, please use the
APA Style (See your Course Syllabus about the APA Style of Writing).
SAMPLE LEGAL BRIEF: BURGER KING CORP v. RUDZEWICZ (1985)
NOTE: (P) is for Plaintiff (one who sues) and (D) is for Defendant (one who is sued
and must defend himself/herself). Jurisdiction means authority to hear a case and
Home Forum means the venue or place for the trial.
Here is a sample legal brief of the famous Burger King case: Follow the
FIRAC Steps below.
1. FACTS: Facts of the case (Summary): Rudzewicz (D) contracted for a
Burger King franchise in Michigan with the Burger King Corp. (P), a Florida
corporation. A franchise was granted. The terms of the contract called for
substantial supervision of the franchise’s operations by Burger King (P), and
also for the laws of Florida to apply in the case. Despite the fact that
Rudzewicz (D) was a sophisticated businessman, the business failed, and
Burger King brought suit for unpaid rent. The Florida district court granted
damages and injunctive relief to Burger King (P), but the Eleventh Circuit
reversed the decision, holding that Rudzewicz (D) was not subject to Florida
jurisdiction. In other words, Burger King won its case in the Florida District
Trial Court but then appealed to the federal Circuit Court (Eleventh Circuit
Court) where the District Court decision was reversed. Burger King (P)
appealed to the Supreme Court of the U.S., arguing for a reversal of award of
damages and injunctive relief for breach of contract by Rudzewicz.
2. ISSUE: May direct and continuous contacts by a franchisee with the
franchisor lead to the franchisee being subject to the jurisdiction of the
franchisor’s home forum?
3. RULE OF LAW: Direct and continuous contacts by a franchisee with the
franchisor may lead to the franchisee being subject to the jurisdiction of the
franchisor’s home town.
4. HOLDING/DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT: YES. Justice
Brennan (Brennan, J.), writing for the Majority, held that direct and
continuous contacts by the franchisee with the franchisor may lead to the
franchisee being subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisor’s home forum.
• Analysis: In this case, the main test for personal jurisdiction is whether
a defendant’s actions were such that he should have been notified of
the possibility of becoming subject to the subject’s forum’s
jurisdiction. In his case, Rudzewicz (D) contracted with the Florida
franchisor and entered into a contract providing for a continuous
relationship with that franchisor and constant monitoring by the
franchisor. Further, the contract stated that it was to be construed as a
Florida contract. Thus, considering Rudzewicz’s (D) contacts with
Florida, an adequate basis for jurisdiction existed. Thus, the Supreme
Court of the U.S. REVERSED the decision of the Eleventh Circuit and
ruled in favor of Burger King.
Dissent: (Stevens, J.). Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that the
Burger King was typical and large operation connected to the
franchisor’s home office only in name. Since the business was purely
local, only local jurisdiction should apply.
5. CONCLUSION: Burger King (P) brought an action against Rudzewicz, a
defaulting franchisee, in Burger King’s (P) home forum, that is, in Florida and
not in Rudzewicz home forum. The rationale for the Supreme Court’s opinion
in deciding for Burger King was the clause making the contract a Florida one.
Most contracts involving parties in different states have such clauses. Thus,
the Court determined that there was direct and continuous contacts by the
franchisee, Rudzewicz (D) and the franchisor, Burger King (P). Rudzewicz
(D) was therefore subject to the jurisdiction of Burger King’s (P) home forum
of Florida.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment