I underwent a comprehensive battery of psychological testing at The George Washington University Department of Psychiatry in early May 1994. The evaluator was an intern Yu-Ling Han working under the supervision of William Fabian, Ph.D. The testing disclosed no psychotic thought processes, which I duly reported to the U.S. Social Security Administration. Yu-Ling Han reviewed the results of the testing with me in late May 1994 in her office. GW did not provide a copy of the test report to me until after the Medical Center terminated its relationship with me, effective June 30, 1996 -- approximately two years later, despite the fact that I had requested a copy of the test report continually during those two years. Although the testing disclosed no psychotic thought processes and did not yield any psychiatric diagnosis, Dr. Fabian assigned the diagnosis Delusional (Paranoid) Disorder on the billing statement for the testing: a possible fraud on the Social Security Administration.
June 6, 1994
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Joseph R. Muffolett
Director
Office of Disability and
International Operation
U.S. Social Security Administration
1500 Woodlawn Drive
Baltimore, MD 21241-0001
RE: Disability Claim No. xxx-xx-xxxx
Dear Mr. Muffolett:
This will advise, with respect to the above-referenced matter, that beginning the week of May 2, 1994 I underwent psychological/intelligence testing at the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. The testing was conducted by Ms. Yu-Ling Han and comprised the following:
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
Rorschach Projective Test
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
Thematic Apperception Test
Millon Self-Report Survey
Results of the testing, deemed valid by the evaluator, disclosed no psychotic thought processes and indicated no potential for violent behavior. The test results, therefore, provide no independent confirmation of statements filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights and Minority Business Development by my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, relating to my mental health and purported violent propensities.
I continue to believe that I am under constant surveillance by my former employer, Akin Gump. I believe that Akin Gump continues to have regular and frequent communications with the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry and my sister, Mrs. Estelle Jacobson. On the evening of May 4, 1994 I had a telephone conversation with my sister (tape recording enclosed herewith). Certain of my sister’s comments seemed to allude symbolically to the psychological/intelligence testing that I was undergoing at GW at that very time. I had not mentioned to my sister that I was undergoing such testing. I interpreted certain of my sister’s comments as relating to the issue of personality profiling and other of her comments as relating to the Wechsler intelligence test.
The following is a transcript of the relevant portions of the subject telephone conversation.
Seeming allusions to personality profiling:
[Sister]: I got this astro[logy]. Now do you believe in astrology? Like . . .
[Claimant]: Absolutely not.
[Sister]: Oh, you don’t. Now when year read this stuff . . . Well, I was reading this different stuff. Well, you’re Capricorn, so is Suzanne. Like I was reading mine. Why don’t you believe in it? Like what they say?
[Claimant]: Why would it be true? That’s the question.
[Sister]: Why would it? Yea. I was reading a book why it’s true I don’t know. This is all different things. “Basic characteristics.” Now, do you have these characteristics? Oh, let’s see. You’re practical? Persevering, cautious, and economical.
[Claimant]: Hm-hm.
[Sister]: Mm. Many of you eventually become self-made people doing well in business, but not without some bitter lessons. Oooh. You can have a ruthless quality, never softened by mercy or the kindness of your preceding sign, Sagittarius. Em. Haa.
[Claimant]: So, you’re describing one out of twelve people here.
[Sister]: [laughs] Well, I’m describing Capricorn. Yea. Not to say. No, but I mean, eh. This, eh. “When negative aspects. You can be soured and embittered, discontented with your lot, but not consciously capable of taking any effort to improve it. You could slip in and out of the sloth of depen[dency] despondency, which is one of your, the traps that Saturn lays on you. Depression isn’t unusual all through your life, and you have to make a very determined effort to use the abuses of Saturn so that profitable lessons are learned from it. Sometimes you’re introverted or self-centered, but this is a defense mechanism to protect your own interests.” Ah, I find this stuff pretty interesting myself.
[Claimant]: Hm-mm.
[Sister]: But, eh. I mean, I think there’s something to it. Just seems that there is. I don’t know. Like that stuff you read in the paper, that’s kind . . . I mean they’re so vague, they’re ridiculous. But, you know.
[Claimant]: What?
[Sister]: You know, like when they have the horoscope in the paper?
[Claimant]: Yes.
[Sister]: Ya know.
[Claimant]: Yea.
_____________________________
Seeming allusion to the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale:
[Sister]: I have to get some pictures. My next, that’s my next thing. Like some botanicals. You know, those different pictures. I think that’s what I want in the kitchen.
[Claimant]: Uh-huh.
[Sister]: And, yea. I’m going’ up, eh. Well, we had this Bat Mitzvah to go to--the Veksler’s daughter. Our friends from down the shore? Condo? So, that's the 15th. And Suz has been looking for a dress, without any success. I’m gonna take her this weekend.
[Note sister’s remote associational linkage: “those different pictures”--”and, yea”--”Veksler’s.” The association of "pictures” and “Veksler’s” is remote with respect to the manifest content only; when interpreted as symbolic references to the Wechsler test, sister’s seemingly remote associations fit neatly within the psychological testing context since portions of the Wechsler test employ pictures.]
__________________
Note the possible structural linkage between the two allusions. First, with respect to the personality profiling, sister mentions her daughter, Suzanne: "Well, you’re Capricorn, so is Suzanne.” Second, with respect to the Veksler [Wechsler] allusion, sister mentions daughter, Suzanne, once again: “And Suz has been looking for a dress, without any success.” In later part of conversation sister mentions that her daughter will be taking aptitude testing.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Paranoid ideas about Yu Ling Han:
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-i-have-paranoid-ideas-about-yu-ling.html
GW's test report states that the Exner System was used to evaluate the Rorschach responses. Yet the test report itself does not disclose any results of the Exner evaluation!
Exner scoring system
The Exner scoring system, also known as the Rorschach Comprehensive System (RCS), is the standard method for interpreting the Rorschach test. It was developed in the 1960s by Dr. John E. Exner, as a more rigorous system of analysis. It has been extensively validated and shows high inter-rater reliability. In 1969, Exner published The Rorschach Systems, a concise description of what would be later called "the Exner system". He later published a study in multiple volumes called The Rorschach: A Comprehensive system, the most accepted full description of his system.
Creation of the new system was prompted by the realization that at least five related, but ultimately different methods were in common use at the time, with a sizeable minority of examiners not employing any recognized method at all, basing instead their judgment on subjective assessment, or arbitrarily mixing characteristics of the various standardized systems.
The key components of the Exner system are the clusterization of Rorschach variables and a sequential search strategy to determine the order in which to analyze them, framed in the context of standardized administration, objective, reliable coding and a representative normative database. The system places a lot of emphasis on a cognitive triad of information processing, related to how the subject processes input data, cognitive mediation, referring to the way information is transformed and identified, and ideation.
In the system, responses are scored with reference to their level of vagueness or synthesis of multiple images in the blot, the location of the response, which of a variety of determinants is used to produce the response (i.e., what makes the inkblot look like what it is said to resemble), the form quality of the response (to what extent a response is faithful to how the actual inkblot looks), the contents of the response (what the respondent actually sees in the blot), the degree of mental organizing activity that is involved in producing the response, and any illogical, incongruous, or incoherent aspects of responses. It has been reported that popular responses on the first card include bat, badge and coat of arms.
Using the scores for these categories, the examiner then performs a series of calculations producing a structural summary of the test data. The results of the structural summary are interpreted using existing research data on personality characteristics that have been demonstrated to be associated with different kinds of responses.
With the Rorschach plates (the ten inkblots), the area of each blot which is distinguished by the client is noted and coded – typically as "commonly selected" or "uncommonly selected". There were many different methods for coding the areas of the blots. Exner settled upon the area coding system promoted by S. J. Beck (1944 and 1961). This system was in turn based upon Klopfer's (1942) work.
As pertains to response form, a concept of "form quality" was present from the earliest of Rorschach's works, as a subjective judgment of how well the form of the subject's response matched the inkblots (Rorschach would give a higher form score to more "original" yet good form responses), and this concept was followed by other methods, especially in Europe; in contrast, the Exner system solely defines "good form" as a matter of word occurrence frequency, reducing it to a measure of the subject's distance to the population average.
Post a Comment