Access the Barnhill (2014) DSM-5 Clinical Cases e-book in the DSM-5 library, and select one of the case studies. The case study you select must be one in which the client could be assessed using one or more of the assessment instruments discussed in this week’s reading.For this discussion, you will take on the role of a psychology intern at a mental health facility working under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. In this role, you will conduct a psychological evaluation of a client referred to you for a second opinion using valid psychological tests and assessment procedures. The case study you select from the textbook will serve as the information provided to you from the professional who previously evaluated the client (e.g., the psychologist or psychiatrist).In your initial post, begin with a paragraph briefly summarizing the main information about the case you selected. Evaluate and describe the ethical and professional interpretation of any assessment information presented in the case study. Devise an assessment battery for a psychological evaluation that minimally includes a clinical interview, mental status exam, intellectual assessment, observations of the client, and at least two assessment instruments specific to the diagnostic impressions (e.g., attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, autism spectrum disorder, etc.). The assessment battery must include at least one approach to assessing your client which is different from the assessments previously administered. The assessment plan must be presented as a list of recommended psychological tests and assessment procedures with a brief sentence explaining the purpose of each test or procedure. Following the list of tests and assessment procedures you recommend for your client, compare the assessment instruments that fall within the same categories (e.g., intellectual or achievement), and debate the pros of cons of the instruments and procedures you selected versus the instruments and procedures reported by the referring professional.
