Some of the most common in counseling are the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) and the Jung Typology assessment. The MMSE consists of 32 questions that assess a person’s cognitive development. It includes orientation, memory, reading, and calculation skills (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2015a). The exam helps to assess the client’s level of mental development comprehensively. At the same time, Jung’s Typology assessment uses a system of questions to assess a person’s personality. It helps identify general trends in behavior, thinking, and perception (Gordon & Jackson, 2019).
Taking the assessment and feeling like I was in the clients’ shoes was interesting. However, I understand that MMSE results are very demonstrative when working with clients and reveal obvious problems in cognitive functions (Polanski & Hinkle, 2000). Jung’s Typology assessment made me think about my behavior and its main trends. Since I knew which instruments and results were used in the test, some questions, such as extraversion and introversion, were evident.
I tried to concentrate on the questions during both assessments and evaluate myself objectively. Sometimes, it wasn’t easy, especially during the Jung Typology assessment. While some of the questions were easy, others made me think about what kind of behavior is more common for me. After reviewing the final test results, I tried to assess how true they were.
Since the MMSE is based on specific problems that need to be solved, it was easier to evaluate its results. I earned 27 points out of 32 possible, including spelling skills. This result demonstrates an average level of cognitive development, and these results reflect reality. On the other hand, Jung’s Typology assessment is based on self-report, which makes it more difficult to maintain objectivity and obtain reliable results. Sometimes, responses may be influenced by the person’s current state, causing the assessment to be inaccurate (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2015b). The test showed I have an ISFJ personality, and the results seem authentic.
While taking the assessments, I realized that both tests allow us to understand the client better. However, the process of conducting them must be managed by a specialist to ensure the correctness of the results (Polanski & Hinkle, 2000). Clients may respond differently to such assessments depending on their level of involvement. For example, some may find it an effective tool for self-discovery, while others may be skeptical. Moreover, they may be afraid of being unable to cope with MMSE questions, which imposes additional tension.
References
Barbaranelli, C., Fida, R., Paciello, M., DiGiunta, L., & Capara, G. V. (2008). Assessing personality in early adolescence through self-report and other-ratings a multitrait-multimethod analysis of the BFQ-C. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), pp. 876-886. Web.
Gordon, A. M., & Jackson, D. (2019). A balanced approach to ADHD and personality assessment: A Jungian model. North American Journal of Psychology, 21(3). Web.
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015a). Chapter 9: “Intellectual and Cognitive Functioning: Intelligence Testing and Neuropsychological Assessment.” In The Essentials of Testing and Assessment: A Practical Guide for counselors, Social Workers, and Psychologists (pp. 190-220). Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
Neukrug, E. S., & Fawcett, R. C. (2015b). Chapter 11: “Clinical assessment: Objective and projective personality tests.” In The Essentials of Testing and Assessment: A Practical Guide for counselors, Social Workers, and Psychologists(pp. 247-280). Stamford, CN: Cengage Learning.
Polanski, P. J., & Hinkle, J. S. (2000). The mental status examination: Its use by professional counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(3), 357–364. Web.