$5.00
Vol 25 No 3
The Monthly Newsletter of the San Diego Psychological Association
IN THiS iSSUE
Advice to
Cover
Psychologists who Dare to
Consult
Forensic Evaluation p7
Call for Board p17
with the MMPI-2
Nominations
Continuing Education p18
units (CEUs) for SDPA members
The SDPA Celebrates p18
its 50th AnniversarySDPA
Spring Conference p22
“Professional Will” Committee Update
p23
SDPA Awards p25
SDPA Members p25
IN EVERY iSSUE
From the Editor
p3
President’s Corner
p4
Calendar of Events
p26
Group Therapy Directory
p26
Classifieds
p26
San Diego
Psychological
Association
2010
Fall Conference
Ootober 8-9
see page 24
June/july 2010
ADVICE TO PSYCHOLOGISTS WHO DaRE
TO CONSULT
By Richard A. Schere, Ph.D., DABFM, and Ken Dellefield, Ph.D., R.N.
W
hen a psychologist is asked
to serve as a consultant,
the request may well be
considered an honor. Such
a request implies that you are perceived as
having developed and demonstrated a high
level of expertise and competence in that
area of psychology in which you have been
specializing. And, indeed, it is an honor, but
once you accept the position and begin, you
often find yourself confronted with a barrage
of challenges pertaining to the process of
consultation that are vastly different from
the more comfortable work of applying your
expertise to a problem within your field.
The American Psychological Association has
become concerned about the lack of training received by psychologists who
are involved in tasks of supervision and/or consultation, and it has asked as a
high priority for training institutions to rectify this dilemma.
Since Gerald Caplan’s offering in 1970, there has been much debate as how to
best define the process of consultation. For us, the core of consultation can
be defined simply as the application of a psychologist’s expertise to assist
with problems that are of concern to others, usually not involving providing
therapy to clients, but rather working with other psychologists, schools,
forensic personnel, medical professionals, or agencies or businesses attempting
to establish particular programs.
In some cases, the “expertise” being sought may simply be your clinical training
and experience, but in other situations you may need to investigate those
evidence based practices proven most effective for addressing the particular
problems with which you are now concerned.
What are some of the challenges facing psychologists who dare to consult?
Perhaps one of the most difficult challenges is the time-line vs. readiness
Continued on page 5
The Results Are In . . .
EPPP Candidate #1
EPPP Candidate #2
• Prepares with Study Materials from 2008
• Uses Online Exam Program from 2010
• Doesn’t attend a Live Workshop
• Prepares with Study Materials from 2010
• Uses Online Exam Program from 2010
• Attends a Live Workshop
Spends $1200
Spends $1200
Passes Exam!
Fails Exam.
STARTS
MAKING
MONEY!
SPENDS
MORE
MONEY...
Prepare with Current Materials - Call us Today!
Michael Kerner, Ph.D.
Ellen Stein, Ph.D.
Since 1986, Michael Kerner, Ph.D. has been a psychologist in private
practice in San Jose, California. Currently, he is the Educational
Director and Lead Lecturer at the Association for Advanced Training
in the Behavioral Sciences in Ventura, California.
Ellen Stein, Ph.D. has been an instructor with AATBS since 1997,
teaching both the (former) California Oral Licensing Exam workshop as
well as the national EPPP Exam Review Workshop. Dr. Stein is in private
practice as a clinical and forensic psychologist in San Diego, California.
EPPP Workshops Dates & Locations
CPSE Workshops Dates & Locations
Atlanta ............................................... July 8-11 , 2010
San Diego ......................................... July 22-25, 2010
Boston ............................................. August 5-8, 2010
Las Vegas ...................................... August 26-29, 2010
New York ................................ September 23-26, 2010
San Francisco ............................ August 21 & 22, 2010
Los Angeles .............................. October 23 & 24, 2010
San Francisco ........................ December 11 & 12, 2010
Visit www.aatbs.com for additional dates and locations
Visit www.aatbs.com for additional dates and locations
Don’t know where to begin?
New Lower Prices!
Call us to get your FREE Starter Kit!
800.472.1931 | www.aatbs.com
Association for Advanced Training
in the Behavioral Sciences
Serving Psychologists since 1976
Association for Advanced Training
in the Behavioral Sciences
2
www.sdpsych.org
JUNE/JULY 2010
FROM THE EDITOR
San Diego
Psychologist
Stephen Scherer, Ed.D., Editor
Newsletter may be purchased for $5 per individual copy, or
$25 for a yearly subscription.
All articles, editorial copy, announcements and classifieds
must be submitted by the 1st of the month prior to the
month of publication (e.g., Jan 1 is the deadline to submit
articles for the Feb/Mar issue). All articles must be typed
in a Word document, left-justified, 12-pt font, single-spaced,
with no formatting. Articles are submitted via email to the
editor at [email protected]. Along with your attached
Word doc., please attach a professional photo of yourself to
accompany your article in the Newsletter.
Letters to the Editor are welcome. The editor reserves the
right to determine the suitability of letters for publication
and to edit them for accuracy and length. We regret that not
all letters can be published, nor can they be returned. Letters
should run no more than 200 words in length, refer to the
materials published/related to the Newsletter, and include
the writer’s full name and credentials. Unless clearly
specified as “not a letter,” correspondence with the editor
may be published in the Letters column. Email your Letter
to the Editor at [email protected].
All ads for mental health services must include the license
number of the service provider.
Classified ads should be submitted as a Word document
attachment or submitted in the body of an e-mail directly to
SDPA at [email protected]. One free 40-word announcement
or classified per year is available to Full, Associate, Life and
Retired SDPA members.
•
$46 for 40 words or less
•
$6 for each additional 10 words
Display Ads: Dimensions for display ads are in real inches.
Display ads are to be submitted as a 300 dpi PDF file.
Display ads should be e-mailed to the SDPA office: ads@
sdpsych.org.
1 Month
Inside Cover
(7.5” x 9.5”)
$ 800
Full Page
(7.5” x 9.75”) $ 600
Half Page
(7.5” x 4.75”) $ 375
Quarter Page
(3.75” x 4.75”) $ 250
Business Card
(3.5” x 2”)
$ 150
Add $600 for color ad
3 Months
6 Months
$720
$680
$540
$510
$330
$315
$225
$210
$125
$100
Inserts: A full page flyer may be submitted as an insert to
the Newsletter. Inserts must be submitted as a PDF file by
the 20th of the month preceding the month of publication.
•
$250 for full page insert (B&W)
•
$800 for full color copy
The Newsletter is published 6 times per year in bi-monthly
issues. It is published for and on behalf of the membership
to advance psychology as a science, as a profession, and as
a means of promoting human welfare. The editor, therefore,
reserves the right to unilaterally edit, reject, omit or cancel
submitted material which he deems to be not in the best
interest of these objectives, or which by its tone, content
or appearance, is not in keeping with the nature of the
Newsletter. Any opinions expressed in the Newsletter are
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of the SDPA Board of Directors.
Stephen Scherer, Ed.D. PSY21337
3636 4th Avenue, Suite 302, San Diego, CA 92103
Office: 619-542-1426 / Cell: 858-922-5319
Email: [email protected]
San Diego Psychological Association
4699 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 105, San Diego, CA
92123
858.277.1463 • Fax 858.277.1402
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.sdpsych.org
JUNE/JULY 2010
W
Stephen Scherer, Ed.D.
[email protected]
elcome to the San Diego Psychologist’s June/July issue. This issue
marks several significant changes to the newsletter. The first is a
change in the editorial position, as Dr. Jonathan Gale has passed
his position as editor to myself, Dr. Stephen Scherer. I’m honored by the
position and excited to work with the SDPA community. Together we will
continue to provide a vibrant and professional newsletter.
I’d like to take a few moments to comment on Dr. Gale’s tenure as editor
for the San Diego Psychologist. It has been my pleasure to work with him
directly, however briefly, as have many of you over the years. During
his tenure he established himself as an invaluable asset to the San Diego
community through his professionalism and sincere efforts to address
issues significant to us all. I think that I speak for all of us at the SDPA
when I say that we greatly appreciate all of Dr. Gale’s contributions and
wish him well in his future endeavors.
Another important change has come to the San Diego Psychologist, and that
is the availability of continuing education units (CEUs) for selected articles.
Dr. Richard Levak has kindly contributed the first of these articles, and
after reading it I’m sure that you will agree it is an amazing contribution
to the SDPA community. Understanding its contents should help you to
navigate many complex issues related to psychological testing. Instructions
for obtaining CEUs can be found on page 18.
While many things may change, some things remain the same. In this case,
Dr. Richard Schere and Dr. Ken Dellefield share with us their expertise in
an informative and enjoyable fashion. Their article addresses an important
topic, namely the methods by which psychologists can provide effective
consultation services in their areas of expertise. Drs. Schere and Dellefield
note several important steps to avoiding pitfalls in these endeavors and
steps that can be taken to maximize your probability of success.
Two events of special significance to the SDPA recently took place. The
first of these was the SDPA’s 50th Anniversary Gala, titled “Honoring Our
History, Building Our Future.” Arnie Sheets provided us with photos from
the event, and I have written a brief summary of the events of the evening.
Mary Harb-Sheets has also provided us with a summary of the SDPA
Spring Conference, also highlighted with photos.
Finally, I’d like to take a moment to briefly introduce myself to the
community. I’ve been in private practice since 2007, with an office in
Hillcrest where I specialize in Behavior Therapy for individuals, couples,
and families. The work that I do is influenced by my training in the field of
experimental psychology at West Virginia University. Since the fall of 2007
I’ve been employed as an adjunct instructor at San Diego Mesa College,
where I teach General Psychology, Behavior Modification, and Learning. When
www.sdpsych.org
3
I’m not working as a psychologist I’m involved with sailing, playing go (ranked 20-kyu), tennis (poorly), and
open-source software design for educational applications.
Again, I look forward to working with you in the future, and I want to thank the many members who have
already provided their kind assistance.
PRESIDENT’S CORNER:
Mary Harb Sheets, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Mobile: 619-993-4186
Wow!
Although 2010 started
with lots to worry about
for SDPA, we have reached
mid year with lots to be proud of and thankful for.
Because of the encouraging support of our members,
the committed work of our Board of Directors, and the
diligent efforts of Keny and Zeyad, we are coming out
of the woods financially. Especially meaningful to me
and for the future health of our Association, you have
given me feedback that indicates confidence and trust
in SDPA is returning.
Financially, we have been using profits from activities
such as the Gala and Spring Conference to pay off the
outstanding debts we began with this year. We also
have been negotiating with some vendors to pay a
portion of the balances owed as payment in full, i.e.,
$.50 on the dollar. Frugality continues to be the guiding
principle in how we operate. Generous thanks go to
members who have helped us in this commitment
to careful spending. The donations of “gently used”
items needed in our office have allowed us to use our
funds to improve our financial situation versus buying
new “equipment.”
Providing responsive and courteous service to our
members has been a top priority. We want to exceed
your expectations in our interactions with you.
Paraphrasing John D. Rockefeller, “We want to do the
common things uncommonly well.” If you have called
or visited our office this year, I hope you have found
us to be successful in this goal. We are continually
striving to find new ways to better serve you. Your
comments and suggestions are always encouraged
and very much appreciated.
While “getting our house in order” this year has
involved focusing on our finances and customer
4
service, we have not disregarded the tangible benefits
of being an SDPA member. Most of what is written
on the advantages of membership in professional
organizations emphasizes networking and continuing
education opportunities as primary reasons to join. An
article on this subject by Brett Good states it succinctly:
“The connections you’ll make, the resources made
available to you and the ideas and advice you’ll discover
represent an outstanding return on what amounts to
a modest, manageable investment of time, money and
effort.” Those aspects of SDPA membership have been
helpful to me over my many years of membership
and are part of our “Back to Basics” philosophy for
2010. Here are some SDPA highlights which reflect
this commitment to you:
• We will continue to provide events such as the
Spring Conference where members can meet
with colleagues in fun and educational settings.
• We are introducing Free Continuing Education
Distance Learning with this newsletter.
• The New Member Mentoring Program is
underway again.
• Our Membership Directory will be available
soon.
• We are working on upgrading our website so
that it will become a useful resource for members
offering forms and reference materials on a
variety of topics.
Someone recently pointed out to me that the word
“impossible” is made up of the two words, “I’m
possible.” What better demonstration of what is
possible than how far we have come this year! Wow!
www.sdpsych.org
JUNE/JULY 2010
Continued from cover Advice to Psychologists who Dare to Consult
factors dilemma.
Psychologists are aware that
there must be a readiness for meaningful change to
occur. In the clinical setting, the work of Prochaska
and DiClemente on “stages of change” has guided
therapists to working at building a readiness for
working out problems rather than attempting
“changing strategies” too soon. Consultants must
also be sensitive to the readiness of their employers
to engage in the consideration and implementation
of specific strategies that differ sharply from those
presently in use. A consultant needs time to study
the problems, time to develop a working alliance with
individuals involved and time to apply and modify
strategies that have been determined. However, often
the time needed is threatened by the time-line that
defines the duration of the consultant’s employment
and/or the pressure to offer a “quick fix.”
A second challenge facing psychologists who dare to
consult is the employment vs. collaboration dilemma.
Effective collaboration implies an equal relationship
characterized by mutual respect and sincere concern
for determining strategies that would seem to have
the highest probability for being effective. However,
the fact that the consultant is in the employ of his
collaborators often creates obstacles to the equality
that effective collaboration requires.
Psychologists who dare to consult are most often
asked to consult in seven specific areas. The first of
these areas is case consultation with other psychologists.
Often this involves (1) testing and evaluating
another psychologist’s client, or (2) assisting other
psychologists with aspects of transference, countertransference and projective identification, or (3)
helping to develop insight and therapeutic strategies
for another psychologist’s “difficult” client.
A second area is that of school consultation. Often this
involves (1) working with a school support team to
consider strategies for meeting the needs of a student
you have tested or for whom you are providing
treatment. At times it involves (2) assisting to reduce
and/or resolve a pervasive school problem such as
bullying or racial discord.
If you are providing forensic consultation, you may be
asked to (1) serve as an expert witness in a court that
is considering a legal issue with which the law firm
that hired you is presently involved. You may have
been asked to test a child injured in an accident and
now must present and defend your findings. Forensic
JUNE/JULY 2010
consultation may also involve (2)
your helping a team of lawyers
understand the psychological
aspects of a case on which they are
working in order to help them devise
the best questions to ask witnesses
or (3) advising the steps expected Richard A. Schere,
Ph.D., DABFM
in the field for determining and
evaluating ethical practice.
A fourth area of psychological consultation pertains
to program development. An agency may wish to
establish a program that will help inpatient clients
move successfully to outpatient status. A hospital
may seek your help in developing a program that
will improve the relationship between patients and
staff. At times, you may be asked to suggest ways to
increase productivity so that a hospital will improve
its quality of care as well as improve the effectiveness
of billable hours that finance operations.
Examples of how you might serve as a consultant
for medical professionals include such things as (1)
working with a psychiatrist to help an adolescent
learn psychological strategies to reduce symptoms for
which he or she is now taking strong medication, or (2)
giving tests to confirm psychologically a psychiatrist’s
diagnosis of mild neurological dysfunction.
Crisis consultation usually involves your working
with a team of other professionals to help individuals
adjust to the effects of a tragedy such as a plane crash
in which loved ones were lost.
Finally, the blossoming field of media consultation may
(1) request that you identify personalities who might
be especially entertaining on “reality” programs, or (2)
be interviewed on radio, television or for a newspaper
article on a subject of importance for which you are
considered knowledgeable.
Psychological consultation is an extremely interesting
and fulfilling field but it presents many difficult
challenges. So, for psychologists who dare to consult,
we would like to offer some advice in the form of
suggestions listed below:
1. Make sure your role is clearly defined (preferably
in writing).
2. Make sure your professional ethics and values
are not in conflict with the consultation you are
being asked to do.
3. Understand that, as a consultant, you are not
www.sdpsych.org
5
in charge and are part of a team. Therefore,
take a suggestive posture and offer a variety of
possibilities.
4. If possible, before you accept a consultation
assignment, present a plan of how you will
operate to see if this is acceptable to your
employers.
5. If your consultation requires space or materials
(such as tests or video equipment), address
whether these will be provided or will be factored
into the fee for service.
6. Have knowledge of the kinds of cognitive
distortions that may enter into the interaction
of participants in this mutual endeavor. And,
especially with regard to forensics, be aware of
the “games” that are often played.
7. Lastly, as is usually the case in our clinical work,
anticipate the likelihood that the “problems”
needing to be addressed and improved, are not
those being presented at the start.
References:
Caplan, G. (1970). The theory and practice of mental
health consultation. New York: Basic Books.
Erchul, W. (1993). Consultation in community, School and
Organizational Practice: Gerald Caplan’s Contributions
to Professional Psychology. Washington: Taylor and
Francis.
Dougherty, M. (2009). A Casebook of psychological
consultation and collaboration in schools and community
settings. United States: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company.
Schere, R.A. (2008). In Defense of the Narrow. San
Diego Psychologist, May edition.
Prochaska, J., Norcross, J.C. and DiClemente, C.C.
(1994). Changing for good: the revolutionary program that
explains the six stages of change and teaches you how to free
yourself from bad habits. New York: W. Monroe.
Wallace, W. and Hall, D. (1996) Psychological
consultation:
perspectives
and
applications.
Pacific
Grove,
California: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Co.
Note: We would like to thank
Dr. Ian S. Schere for his many
helpful suggestions for the
improvement of this article.
Brown, D., Pryzwanshy, W. and Schulte, A. (2006).
Psychological Consultation and Collaboration: Introduction
to Theory and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Deluxe Combo Package:
$200 OFF
Get Quality EPPP Prep For Less!
CMYK
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
CMYK
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
80%
40%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
80%
40%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
80%
40%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
80%
40%
40%
CMYK
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
100%
100%
80%
40%
AcAdemic ReView
Psychology licensing exam Preparation seminars
Academic Review’s Four day seminars offer a step-by-step review of all major
areas tested on the Psychology licensing exam (ePPP). in a supportive lecture/
discussion forum, our instructors present the important concepts and research that
most often appear on the licensing exam. They also familiarize you with exam
idiosyncrasies through the administration of test questions for each exam domain.
AcAdemic Review
2010
2010
2010
Psychology
AcAdemic Review
Fort Lauderdale, FL • Houston, TX • Alexandria, VA • Calgary, Alberta Canada
New York, NY • Las Vegas, NV • Indianapolis, IN • Pittsburgh, PA • Denver, CO
Vancouver, BC Canada • Oakland, CA • Toronto, Ontario Canada
Visit www.areview.com for current dates & additional locations
Virtual Seminars also Available Online!
AcAdemic Review
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved.
reproduCtion or resAle is striCtly prohibited.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved.
Volume 1
Study Guide and Sample Schedule
Diagnostic Assessment
reproduCtion or resAle is striCtly prohibited.
academic review
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved.
136 east 57th st. suite 1101 New York, NY 10022
reproduCtion or resAle
striCtly ~
prohibited.
(800) is
225-3444
www.areview.com
www.areview.com
academic review
136 east 57th st. suite 1101 New York, NY 10022
(800) 225-3444 ~ www.areview.com
www.areview.com
academic review
136 east 57th st. suite 1101 New York, NY 10022
(800) 225-3444 ~ www.areview.com
www.areview.com
4-Day Live Seminar
Six Study Volumes
Learn from the industry experts!
Get a step-by-step review of all
the major content areas covered
on the licensing exam.
Easy-to-understand
comprehensive study volumes
provide a complete review of all
the key concepts on the EPPP.
Exam Center /
Exam Advantage
Full-length online practice exams,
quizzes, detailed explanations and
much more!
Consultation
17 Audio Lecture CDs
Call us with your exam questions!
Academic Review’s Educational
Consultants are standing by to
help you pass your exam.
Maximize your content retention
by reinforcing it through auditory
processing. Audio lectures focus on
all domains covered on the EPPP.
Save $100 on Live EPPP Preparation Seminars. Call for Package Details & Savings!
Upcoming Seminar Dates & Locations
New York. NY - June 10-13, 2010
Fort Lauderdale, FL - June 24-27, 2010
Alexandria, VA - July 8-11, 2010
Calgary, Alberta - July 22-25, 2010
Houston, TX - August 26-29, 2010
Visit www.academicreview.com for Additional Seminar Dates & Locations
6
“Academic Review’s materials and seminar
really focused me on what I needed to
know to pass the exam. I keep telling my
friends about how good the instructor was!”
~ Robin Exum-Calhoun, Ph.D.
Perth Amboy, New Jersey
www.sdpsych.org
Ordering is easy!
Call Today - 800.225.3444
www.academicreview.com
Reference Discount Code: PSDTST
Offer Expires: July 31, 2010
JUNE/JULY 2010
FORENSIC EVALUATION WITH THE MMPI-2
By Richard Levak, Ph.D.
http://drlevak.com/
INTRODUCTION
T
he purpose of this course is to provide clinicians
with the basics of forensic evaluation with the
MMPI-2 along with some updates on validity
research, ethics, and forensic testimony “do’s and
don’ts.” The MMPI-2 has become one of the most
widely used psychological tests in the world. Given
its growing use in forensic settings, an increase in
research on the test and this information becoming
more accessible to opposing attorneys via the Internet,
forensic psychologists must be well prepared for
sophisticated, well-informed cross examinations.
Most forensic psychologists would agree that a cross
examination by a well-prepared attorney, when the
examined psychologist is less well prepared, can be
a traumatic experience. Thorough preparation is the
best defense!
A psychologist entering the field of forensic evaluation
with the MMPI-2 needs a solid grounding in the science
of the MMPI-2, its forensic applications, the ethics of
test administration, the importance of impartiality and
some understanding of what to expect in a deposition
or cross examination. This is an advanced course for
psychologists who already have a basic understanding
of the MMPI-2
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
In this course you will learn about:
1. Potential applications of the MMPI-2 in forensic
settings
2. Why the MMPI-2 is admissible as a basis for
psychological opinion
3. The ethics of forensic assessment
4. The various MMPI-2 validity scales, their
development, cut off scores and uses.
5. The MMPI-2 clinical scale and content scale
development and use in forensic settings.
6. How to prepare for court testimony and avoid
pitfalls.
APPLICATIONS OF THE MMPI-2 IN FORENSIC
SETTINGS
The MMPI-2 is a measure of both personality and
JUNE/JULY 2010
psychopathology. It was developed empirically and
was not based on a theory of personality. It contains
powerful validity scales that are able to detect
positive and negative malingering as well as reading
difficulties and mental confusion. It is applied in legal
settings because it was scientifically developed and
its findings can be scientifically verified or disputed.
A test that depends on subjective criteria for scoring,
such as a House-Tree-Person Test, would not lend itself
to forensic use because of the danger of assessor bias.
The MMPI-2 is used in numerous legal settings. It used
in criminal proceedings where it is used to determine
whether a defendant is competent to stand trial, his level
of criminal responsibility, and possible psychological
mitigating circumstances that might affect sentencing.
It is also used as part of a pre-sentence evaluation to
aid the judge in determining the appropriate sentence.
In civil court, it is routinely used in child custody,
personal injury, workers compensation, employment
discrimination and commitment proceedings. Within
the correctional system, it is used to classify offender
types and to aid in determining suitable parolees and
treatment strategies with prison populations.
THE ADMISSIBILITY
COURT
OF
THE
MMPI-2
IN
Courts have ruled that the MMPI-2 is admissible in
court as long as certain criteria are met. These criteria
have evolved over time. Earlier, the criteria for
admissibility were less stringent than now. In 1923,
in Frye v. United States, the court ruled that testimony
based on scientific evidence was admissible if “……the
thing from which the deduction is made is sufficiently
established as to have gained general acceptance
in the particular field in which it belongs.” In other
words, if a particular discipline accepted a practice,
or set of assumptions, the court also accepted them
as the basis for testimony. This formula was the basis
for expert testimony until it was amended after the
famous 1993 Daubert. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical
case, which refined the original Frye rule. The Daubert
ruling allowed experts in any scientifically based field
to testify in the form of an opinion as long as it was
www.sdpsych.org
7
based on (1) sufficient facts or data. (2 it is the product
of reliable principles and methods that have been
subject to peer review (3) the expert has applied the
principles and methods reliably to the facts of the
case. (4) Rates of error and classification obtained
when using a technique are known and acceptable.
The Daubert opinion applied to all federal courts but
allowed states to decide for themselves which rules of
evidence to apply to a case so that some, like Florida,
rely on the less stringent Frye test and others, like
Texas, rely on the more stringent Daubert test.
In other words, expert testimony based on the MMPI2 is admissible in all states, certainly in states with
the less stringent Frye model but also in Daubert
states, as long as the test has been used according to
reliable, validated, scientific principles and its use in
a particular forensic situation applies reliably to the
facts of the case. Using a well-accepted instrument
such as the MMPI-2 is only part of the equation. The
test has to be used in a manner that applies reliably
to the facts of the case. For example, in a dispute over
whether a disability claimant was neurologically
disabled, an expert used the MMPI-2 as the basis to
suggest the claimant was malingering a neurological
condition. The MMPI-2 is routinely given as part of
a neurological test battery but it is not reliably used
on its own to make a neurological diagnosis. The
insurance company’s attorney had taken the claimants
MMPI-2 results to an MMPI-2 expert who opined that
it was malingered. His testimony was thoroughly
disputed as he had opined about the possibility of a
malingered neurological condition when the MMPI2 is not validated for such use. His testimony was
demolished on cross examination.
In another case, the MMPI-2 was used to suggest
that a defendant was unlikely to have committed
a crime because his personality profile did not “fit”
the typical criminal profile. This was a misuse of the
test as there is no reliable “profile” associated with
a particular crime. Most courts in the country are
reluctant to allow MMPI-2 based testimony regarding
the likelihood or not, that a defendant committed
an alleged act. California courts are an exception. In
People v. Stoll 1989, MMPI-2 testimony was allowed
to determine whether a defendants profile fit that of
a sex offender. Psychologists are on shaky ground
making such claims however. The moral of the story
is, particularly in forensic settings, stick to verifiable
scientifically grounded uses of the MMPI-2. In
hundreds of legal cases, the MMPI-2 has not been
successfully challenged based on the Frye or Daubert
8
decision. This indicates that those using the MMPI-2
in appropriate ways in forensic settings should do so
without apprehension that they will be challenged
by the Frye or Daubert rules.
Definition of an expert witness
Courts have been quite respectful of psychologists
and liberal in qualifying MMPI-2 experts. This is
good for novice experts beginning to enter the field of
expert testimony but it is also a hazard as the novice
opens himself to bruising cross examination unless he
is well prepared. According to psychologists’ ethical
principles, it is important for the beginning expert
to seek mentoring and supervision from a more
qualified colleague. While the courts have qualified
experts liberally, there have also been challenges to the
qualifications of expert witnesses. In Harley v. Harley
(2003 Ohio 232) the Court of Appeals of Ohio was
asked by Ms. Harley to overrule a judge’s decision
granting Mr. Harley custody of their daughter. Ms.
Harley’s expert had testified that her elevated scores
on the MMPI-2 were the result of domestic violence
perpetrated on her by Mr. Harley. The lower court had
ruled that Ms Harley’s witness did not qualify as an
expert because he had not published, nor researched,
the correlation of domestic violence with MMPI-2
scores. Her expert’s testimony disallowed, Ms. Harley
lost custody of her daughter. The Appeals Court
disagreed, finding it sufficient that the expert had
observed the correlation over years of experience with
many clients. Though the appeal was not ultimately
successful because Ms. Harley was not able to establish
that she had been abused, the important point for the
admissibility of the MMPI-2 in court is that expert
testimony is readily accepted with fairly broad
definitions of expertise. Even psychological assistants
have been qualified to opine based on the MMPI-2
data as long as they operated under the supervision of
a licensed psychologist (State v. Ayers 1998.)
Are MMPI-2 Data and interpretations scientifically
valid?
The Federal Rules of Evidence 702 that came after the
Daubert decision stated that the trial judge had the
duty to make sure that experts’ testimony rested on a
reliable basis and that it was relevant to the facts of the
case. The judge had to distinguish junk science from
empirically grounded testimony. The Daubert criteria
were once again:
1. Has the technique been tested?
2. Has the science underlying the technique been
peer reviewed?
www.sdpsych.org
JUNE/JULY 2010
3. What is the techniques error rate?
4. Are there accepted standards for the technique’s
operation?
5. Does the technique have acceptance in the field?
The above five criteria had to apply and they all had
to be relevant to the issue addressed in the trial. How
does the MMPI-2 stand up to these rigid criteria?
The forensic psychologist using the MMPI-2 in
court is on solid ground. The MMPI-2 is empirically
developed and its scales were developed using
scientific methods. Its administration is controlled by
specific rules of administration stated in the MMPI2 manual and conclusions based on the results from
the test are verifiable. The MMPI-2 is well accepted
in the profession of psychology and is psychology’s
most well researched test. Currently there are over
8,500 MMPI/MMPI-2 studies published in peer
review journals meeting the peer review stipulation
of the Daubert decision. The MMPI-2 manual also
publishes the error rates and reliability coefficients for
the major clinical scales meeting the stipulation that
error rates are available for data based evidence. The
test- retest coefficients for each of the clinical scales
vary from a high of .93 for the Si scale to a low of .67
for the Pa scale for men and .92 and .56 for women
respectively. The standard error of measurement of
each of the scales varies slightly, but averages roughly
4 T score points. (See the MMPI-2 Manual for precise
statistics.) While the MMPI-2 is well-accepted, some
of the numerous scales that have been developed are
not well researched and validated. The forensic user
should not reach conclusions based on new or still
untested scales. The MMPI-2 manual or standard
text books should be consulted when opining about
the meaning of any scale, but experimental scales or
scales with a poor research basis should not used as a
basis for a legal opinion. Apart from these caveats the
MMPI-2 meets the Daubert criteria with flying colors.
While the scientific validity of the MMPI-2 as an
instrument is clear, the conclusions that some experts
reach, based on the MMPI-2, are not always so.
Forensic psychologists should not take a scientifically
sound instrument such as the MMPI-2 and then draw
unsound conclusions based on the data generated.
In U.S. v. Huberty (53 M.J.369; 2000 CAAF) Lt. Col.
Huberty was charged with exhibitionism after fondling
his genitals in public. His expert, a Dr. C., claimed that
the defendant’s MMPI-2 was inconsistent with that
of an exhibitionist. The trial court had held that such
evidence was inadmissible as there were no published
studies showing how a person can be excluded from
JUNE/JULY 2010
a diagnosis of exhibitionism based on MMPI-2 data.
The Appeals Court rightfully upheld the lower court’s
ruling. Psychologists should not opine about the
likelihood of a person committing a crime based on
their MMPI-2 profile, as there is no scientific basis
for such a claim.
Most MMPI-2 forensic experts rely on standard
textbooks for their interpretative guides. Others rely
on computer generated reports for a narrative that
they then include in some form in their final report. It
is important for experts to be able to know the basis for
the narrative statements in text books and computer
reports. It is also important that experts find relevant
research articles to support their conclusions about
the meaning of a particular MMPI-2 profile. Well
prepared cross examining attorneys will ask the basis
of a psychologist’s statements, so merely copying them
from a computer report will not meet the stringent
rules of evidence required by the courts.
Relevance of MMPI-2 data in forensic evaluations.
Courts are aware that mental health issues in forensic
settings require sound assessment. Consequently, the
failure to assess a defendant correctly, when doing so
could have been beneficial, can lead to the overturning
of a court decision. In Slaughter v. Parker (187 F.
Supp.2d 755; 2001) the court vacated a lower court’s
death penalty decision because of ineffective counsel.
This was partly due to the fact that the defense expert
had not effectively administered an MMPI-2 to the
defendant, so MMPI-2 data was not available for the
defense. In other cases the courts disallowed testimony
based on the MMPI-2 when the experts claimed
conclusions based on MMPI-2 results that are not
supported by the data. In State v. Buckingham (2003
Ohio 44) a defendant lost a “Not Guilty by Reason of
Insanity “appeal after an appeals court found that even
though his MMPI-2 was consistent with a diagnosis
of PTSD, the MMPI-2 could not determine if he was,
in fact, experiencing PTSD symptoms at the time of
the crime. In other words, while the MMPI-2 could be
useful in determining the diagnosis of Post Traumatic
Stress, it could not yield data about the likelihood that
the symptoms of PTSD were operating at the time of
the crime. In summary, the MMPI-2 is an empirically
developed instrument with reported reliability
and error rate statistics. Conclusions drawn from
it are testable and can be proved or disproved. It is
psychology’s most researched, peer reviewed and
accepted instrument. However it is vulnerable, as
are all tests, to experts drawing untested conclusions
from its scientifically based data.
www.sdpsych.org
9
ETHICS IN FORENSIC ASSESSMENT
Psychologists providing forensic assessment have to
distance themselves from their natural tendency to
have empathy for their client and be their advocate.
The role of the forensic examiner is to provide an
objective and scientifically based evaluation that can
conform to the Daubert or Frye criteria. However this
does not mean that the psychologist abdicates caring
and respect for the test taking subject. No matter how
personally abhorrent a particular case, the defendant
deserves a fair trial and a fair psychological assessment.
Moreover, the psychologist should avoid skewing the
data to fit the needs of their client such as a defense
attorney or an insurance company. The MMPI-2
consists of numerous scales, some of which may appear
to reflect contradictory psychological dynamics. A
competent expert integrates these disparate sources
of data. The sheer number of scales means that a
psychologist could “cherry pick” scale inferences to
develop an opinion, crafted for the attorney, not fully
accurate, yet defensible. Books such as “Whores of the
Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the
Rape of American Justice” by Margaret Hagen reflect
the belief among many that expert testimony is corrupt
and needs reforming. Psychologists ought to practice
in a manner that protects the integrity of the science of
psychology and the respect of the public. Maintaining
objectivity and not skewing data for the purpose of
pleasing the client is paramount if psychology is to
continue to enjoy the respect of the legal system and
the general public.
Preparing the subject.
In criminal cases it is important to explain to the
person assessed who hired you and how the test
results are going to be used. Clear, not cold, but not
falsely friendly, the assessing psychologist needs
to make sure the testing environment is quiet, the
subject feels comfortable and that the individual has
enough rest stops and bathroom visits. Do not tell
them as part of the MMPI-2 test instructions that
“no one question is that relevant, it is the pattern of
answers that is important” because that is not true.
The attorneys on either side can take a particular
question and highlight the respondents answer
in court sometimes with devastating results. The
instructions should be clear and simple. “I would
like you to take a personality test. It is a part of your
overall assessment. This test is scientifically developed
and is the world’s most researched and used test of
personality and psychological functioning. Answer
all the questions. Some questions may not apply to
10
you, but don’t worry. Answer how you feel right now.
The results of this test will help me be as objective as
possible in my evaluation, so answer as honestly as
you can. Should you not understand a question on
the MMPI-2, ask me about it. However I can only give
you a dictionary definition of any words you do not
understand. It is important that you feel comfortable,
so ask when you need a break for any reason or if the
setting is uncomfortable.” There have been challenges
to the validity of MMPI-2 results based on the subject
claiming that the setting was too noisy, the examiner
was too intimidating or suspiciously friendly, and that
the subject was exhausted by a day of testing.
Summary: Though clinical psychologists tend to be
trained as advocates for their client, this role changes
in a forensic setting. Forensic psychologists maintain
a respectful, but objective stance towards their
client, making sure the client is fully aware of who
is paying for the evaluation and how the evaluation
will be used. Forensic psychologists make sure the
testing environment is comfortable and quiet and
the subject has control over needed breaks. Forensic
psychologists do not pick and choose various scales
of the tests administered to build a case to satisfy
their client. Rather, they create a comprehensive
report, integrating disparate sources of data and
maintaining scientific impartiality congruent with
the Daubert rules of evidence.
The ethical guidelines for custody evaluations
are specific for that specialty. The APA guidelines
state that the child’s interests are primary, so the
purpose of custody evaluations is to protect the
child’s psychological interests. The purpose of the
custody evaluation should be to determine the best
“fit” between the needs of the child and the parent’s
capacity to fill it. To that end, the psychologist has
to be impartial, acting as a professional, using their
specialized skills to determine how to conduct the
evaluation, with what instruments and to what depth.
Psychologists need to gain specialized competence
through supervision or course material and the
guidelines require that psychologists be aware of any
personal or social biases which may hamper them in
making objective decisions in the best interest of the
child. Though multiple relationships are to be avoided
in any psychological professional relationship, this is
a most serious transgression in custody evaluations.
In some rural settings, a psychologist may see as
a client somebody she has a personal relationship
with. While this should be avoided, sometimes it
cannot be avoided. If you are the only psychologist
www.sdpsych.org
JUNE/JULY 2010
in the area and the school principal comes to see you,
it may be hard to turn her away, in spite of the fact
that your child attends the local school. This kind
of dual relationship can never happen in custody
evaluations however. Consequently, a psychologist
treating a family before a divorce occurs should
never be the custody evaluator after the divorce
proceedings have begun. A custody evaluator may
ask for the records of a previous treating clinician as
part of a comprehensive evaluation of a divorcing
couple. Treating psychologists should always share
their records with custody evaluators if both parties
who had been involved in treatment sign a release.
If only one member of a previously treated couple
signs a release, the previously treating psychologist
has to redact any information obtained from the nonconsenting partner. Sometimes a psychologist will
treat a couple and they later decide to divorce. One of
the couple may want continue to see the psychologist
who would change roles from marital therapist to
individual therapist. This role change is hazardous,
as the other spouse may feel either rejected by the
therapist or vulnerable to having previously privileged
information revealed to a possibly hostile ex spouse.
Consequently this role change should be avoided. In
the event that it is necessary for some reason obtaining
written permission from the non-participating spouse
would limit the psychologist’s vulnerability to legal or
ethical charges of bias or breaches of confidentiality.
However it is unethical for the psychologist to then
advocate for their now single client using information
obtained during marital therapy against the spouse no
longer in therapy.
to coach their clients in how to take the MMPI-2 or
other tests as a way of manipulating the system. In
spite of this danger, the new ethical guidelines state
that psychologists must release all test data to the
client or their attorney even if it includes raw scores,
questions, scaled scores and T score transformations.
The new rule still admonishes the psychologist to
protect test materials when possible but once a client
has been tested by a particular test than all the test
data that involves the client’s answers belongs to the
client. This is confusing so perhaps an I.Q. test will
serve as a clarifying example. Most I.Q. tests have a
booklet that includes test questions adjoining a space
for the answer. A blank I.Q. booklet that has not been
used is called “test material” and is protected so it
cannot be released to a non-psychologist. However
once the test is administered it becomes “test data”
if the questions and the client’s answers are written
in the space provided on the IQ answer sheet. They
then have to be released even to a non- psychologist,
if requested by the client. The logic may seem flawed
but the ethics committee was attempting to find a
balance between aiding in client self-determination
and protecting test security. However the ethical
guidelines and HIPPA regulations are sympathetic
to the protection of trade secrets associated with test
development. Psychologists have an ethical duty to
protect test security as the leakage of items into the
public domain dilutes the power, and validity of tests.
The best way to do that is to avoid writing anything
down relating to client therapist interactions on
the actual test materials thus avoiding putting “test
materials” into the category of “test data.”
Custody evaluators need to obtain informed consent
from all adults involved and when appropriate
inform child participants. Obviously the limits of
confidentiality need to be disclosed to all parties and
that includes children. Psychologists should also refrain
from suggesting possible diagnosis of individuals they
have not assessed. Keeping records is a requirement for
all clinicians but in forensic evaluations it is an ethical
requirement to keep written records of all contacts
with all parties. When records are subpoenaed, the
psychologist should request, but cannot demand,
a psychologist expert to be the recipient of any raw
test data. Recently the rules about releasing raw test
data have changed. In the past, the ethical obligation
was to guard test security and not release raw scores,
test questions and scaled scores to non- psychologists.
Raw data was protected for obvious reasons. One
obvious reason was that it could be used by attorneys
Summary. The psychologist should protect test
security whenever possible. Test material that has not
yet been administered should be protected. Test data
that contains the client’s actual responses is no longer
protected and has to be released when requested by
the client unless its release could endanger the life
of the client. Psychologists should avoid writing any
client responses on testing materials thus leaving
them in the protected category.
JUNE/JULY 2010
All forensic evaluations typically involve an in-depth
clinical interview, a review of all pertinent records and
a battery of psychological tests that are relevant to the
forensic issue. No one test is comprehensive enough to
assess all domains of psychological functioning. This
is especially important in forensic situations, where
the motivation of the testee is uncertain and where the
cost of making an invalid diagnosis is high. While a
battery of tests is often most useful, it is important to
www.sdpsych.org
11
be sensitive to costs and not “overkill” with too many
tests measuring the same domain. It probably goes
without saying but custody evaluators should avoid
appearing to side with one party against the other in
an attempt to make either party feel safe during the
custody evaluation. Should a client ask a pointed
question such as “doctor can you see how my wife is
alienating my kids against me?,’ the right response is
“I can see how frustrated you are and I assure you I
will be mindful of everything you tell me, but I have to
avoid making any decisions about either of you until I
have all the data. I will be careful to remain as objective
as I can so I don’t lose the trust of either of you.”
A psychological test such as the MMPI-2 is particularly
useful in forensic situations primarily because of the
sophisticated validity scales that measure the tendency
for an individual to present himself inaccurately.
Consequently, if only one psychological test can be
administered (though this should be avoided) most
forensic clinicians would choose the MMPI-2 because
of the test’s scientifically developed validity scale
and its universal acceptance as a valid and reliable
instrument.
MMPI-2 OVERVIEW
Development
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
(MMPI-2) (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen &
Kaemmer, 1989) is the revised form of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) (Hathaway
and McKinley, 1940). This personality test originally
was developed in the 1930s and 1940s to help physicians
distinguish psychiatric patients from medical patients
(Dahlstrom, Welsh and Dahlstrom, 1972). The MMPI
and its revision, the MMPI-2, is the most widely used
and researched objective personality test in the world,
with well over 10,000 books and articles on the subject
.The construction of the MMPI was a breakthrough
in the psychometric paradigm of the thirties because
most personality tests of that time were developed on
a purely rational, that is, non-scientific basis (Greene,
1986) with little regard to whether the subjects were
answering honestly and accurately. In contrast to this
approach, the developers of the MMPI used a criterion
keying method of test construction to develop eight
scales measuring personality and psychopathology
as well as three validity scales to assess for veridical
responding. Using this empirical approach, eight
diagnostically pure criterion groups and a comparison
group of normals were administered a series of
questions to which they had to respond “true,”
12
“false” or “cannot say.” Questions that distinguished
the groups became test items on the scale bearing the
name of the criterion group. Later two new scales were
added the Masculine-Feminine (Mf) and the Social
Introversion scales (Si)
The MMPI was re-normed and revised in 1989 to
counter criticisms about the outdated, sexist language
of some of the test items and the dated norms. After
40 years of use and research, the MMPI was solidly
empirically grounded, so the test revisers were careful
to keep the test essentially unchanged. Twelve items
with objectionable content were eliminated and
minor rewording changes were made to clarify and
modernize the other items (Ben-Porath and Butcher,
1989). Non-working and redundant items were
dropped and new items were added to create new
content scales but the essential part of the MMPI, the
clinical scales, remained basically the same.
Administration and Scoring
The MMPI-2 consists of 567 dichotomously scored
questions, one more than the MMPI. Subjects 18 years
and older, with at least an 6th grade education can take
the test and the instructions are to answer all questions
if possible. Subjects are to be given a quiet place to
self-administer the questionnaire and questions about
confidentiality and result usage should be addressed.
Test-taking time is usually 60 - 90 minutes. The test
taking time should be noted as should the number of
questions left unanswered. The psychologist should
attempt to have the subject answer all the questions.
From the moment the psychologist engages the subject
of the forensic assessment the psychologist should be
thinking of how he or she will be cross examined.
Once a MMPI-2 has been completed the answers are
then either hand or computer scored, using materials
obtained from NCS (P. O. Box 1416, Minneapolis, MN
55440, (800) 627-7271) or from Caldwell Reports (Los
Angeles). Computer scoring is preferable as it yields a
profile that is less likely to have been mis-scored. Raw
scores are converted to T scores with a mean of 50 and
a standard deviation of 10 and an individual’s scores
are compared to a group of modern normals chosen to
reflect the current U.S. social and ethnic mix.
Interpretation
Scores yield clinical scales, measuring personality
and psychopathology, and validity scales, assessing
consistency and accuracy of reporting.
MMPI-2 VALIDITY SCALES
The MMPI-2 Validity Scales provide a frame of
reference for interpreting the clinical scales. They give
www.sdpsych.org
JUNE/JULY 2010
some indication of a) whether the subject read and
understood the items, b) the extent to which the person
indicated unusual experiences, behaviors, or ideas, c)
the extent to which the subject might be trying to give
a particularly favorable or unfavorable self-portrayal
and d) the extent to which the subject was consistent
in their dissimulation or positive malingering. Clearly
these factors are essential in interpreting the overall
profile.
Infrequency Scale (Fp) Items endorsed by fewer than 20% of all normals
and psychiatric patients, i.e. rarely endorsed by
anyone. Useful in detecting exaggeration. If F
and Fb are elevated but Fp is below a T score of
80, the individual is distressed and probably not
exaggerating. If VRIN/TRIN is < t=70 and Fp >
t=100, the individual is exaggerating.
Superlative (S) scale.
T scores > 65 suggest
some denial possible
underreporting.
Developed on airline pilot applicants. High
scores suggest positive self presentation, denial
of emotional upset, happiness and contentment
with life and a belief in human goodness. When S
is elevated and K and L are elevated may suggest
a positively malingered response set.
The MMPI-2 added 3 new validity scales to the
original 3 validity scales of the MMPI. These are the
VRIN, TRIN, and Fb scales. Two validity scales were
added later, the Frequency Psychiatric (Fp) (Arbisi
and Ben-Porath, 1995) and the Superlative (S) (Butcher
and Han, 1993). The Fp scale has been found useful
in detecting exaggeration of symptoms and the S scale
has been found useful in identifying individuals who
are presenting themselves with superlative, that is,
unrealistically positive adjustment. Old validity scales
developed on the original MMPI have been shown to
have utility in malingering detection. The following
scales have translated well to the MMPI-2. Berry (1995)
has suggested that the Positive Malingering scale
(Mp) (Cofer, Chance, & Judson, 1949) and the Social
Desirability scale (Sd) (Wiggins, 1959) can be useful in
forensic settings to detect “faking good response sets”
Similarly, the Dissimulation Scale (Ds) (Gough, 1954)
has been shown to be effective in detecting conscious
negative malingering, that is, “faking bad.” For more
information on the use of these scales consult Essentials
Of MMPI-2 Assessment (Nichols, David S. (2001).)
Correction (K)
T scores > 65 suggest
defensiveness and lack
of insight. Mean score
for custody litigants
approx. T score=60*
Developed to correct for test misses due to
sophisticated defensiveness and lack of self
awareness. A percentage of this correction scale
is added to some of the clinical scales to correct
for defensiveness. K scale correlates with socioeconomic status. Low elevations measures a
person’s tendency to “wear their feelings on their
sleeve” high elevations to approach life with a
“stiff upper lip.” Custody litigants have higher K
scale elevations.
Table 2 - MMPI-2 Validity Scales
Variable Response
Inconsistency (VRIN)
VRIN > T score 80
invalid
Consists of 47 pairs of items that measure the
consistency of item endorsement e.g. #31. I find it
hard to keep my mind on a task or job. (T) #299. I
cannot keep my mind on one thing (F)If VRIN is
invalid do not interpret the MMPI-2
True Response
Inconsistency (TRIN)
T score >80 in “True”
or “False” direction.
Measures the tendency of an individual to answer
“True” or “False” inconsistently, that is, with a
“yea or nay saying” response bias. 20 item pairs
in which a True or False response to both is
inconsistent. If TRIN is invalid, do not interpret
the MMPI-2.
Lie (L)
Mean score of custody
litigants; T=63*
T scores above 65 may
be invalid. Interpret
high scores cautiously
Measures a person’s tendency to give socially
desirable responses by claiming unlikely virtues.
Some elevation is expected in a forensic setting, but
elevations over a T score of 65 suggest denial and
defensiveness as well as a lack of psychological
sophistication. If Lie score is invalid, do not
interpret the MMPI-2
Frequency (F) &
Frequency-Back (Fb).
F and Fb above T=90
may be exaggerated
psychotic or invalid
Measure the tendency to exaggerate symptoms.
Consists of items rarely endorsed by normals. F
and Fb should be more or less equally elevated.
If Fb is above F, it may be due to psychotic
breakdown, random responding or confusion on
the second part of the test. When F and/or Fb are
elevated check VRIN /TRIN to determine if the
high F/Fb is due to confusion or malingering. If F
suggests invalidity, do not interpret the MMPI-2
JUNE/JULY 2010
* Bagby, R.M., Nicholson, R.A., Buis, T. Radovanovic,
H., & Fidler, B.J. (1999) Defensive responding on the
MMPI-2 in family custody and access evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11, 24-28
MMPI-2 CLINICAL SCALES
The clinical scales of the MMPI-2 are the work horse of
the test once validity has been established. The forensic
expert needs to consult the standard text books for a
deeper discussion of the scales origin and meaning.
A brief summary of the clinical scales that may aid
the forensic expert in explaining the meanings of the
scales to a jury is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 MMPI-2 Clinical Scales
1 Hypochondriasis (Hy) This scale measures an individual’s
preoccupation with health and body damage.
It reflects a tendency to develop physical
symptoms under stress. High scorers
lack insight and because of their anxieties
about illness are seen as demanding and
complaining.
2 Depression
(D) This scale measures an individual’s level of
currently experienced depression, low selfesteem, anxiety, and guilt. This scale also
measures the individual’s general level of
efficiency and the physical manifestations of
depression.
3 Hysteria
(Hy) This scale measures an individual’s tendency to
deny, repress and somatize under stress. High
scorers are both cheerful and complaining,
lack insight, and are conflict avoidant, but
passive aggressive.
4 Psychopathic
Deviancy
(Pd) This scale measures an individual’s tendency
to externalize and to act out without adequate
empathy and concern for others. In the
extreme, it can reflect the propensity for antisocial behavior.
5 Masculine/
Feminine
(Mf) This scale measures an individual’s gender
identification, though not necessarily their
sexual preference.
6 Paranoia
(Pa) This scale measures an individual’s level of
paranoid sensitivity, self- righteousness and
hyper sensitive argumentativeness.
www.sdpsych.org
13
7 Psychasthenia
(Pt) This scale measures an individual’s level of
worry, guilt, feelings of inadequacy, obsessive
compulsive ruminations, and low selfesteem.
8 Schizophrenia
(Sc) This scale measures an individual’s tendency
to cognitively disorganize under stress. When
elevated it also measures damaged self esteem.
Elevations can be associated with a psychotic
disorder though not in all cases.
9 Hypomania
0 Social
Introversion
(Ma) This scale measures an individual’s energy
level, optimism, grandiosity and selfcenteredness.
(Si) This scale measures an individual’s level of
shyness and need for social contact.
The MMPI-2 is scored as follows. An individual
obtains a score on each of the clinical scales and this
produces a configuration of elevated scores, which is
reported using the numbers of the scales rather than
the scale names. For example, an individual who
scores highest on the Scale 1 (Hs) and scores second
highest on Scale 2 (D), with all other clinical scales
scoring below the two highest clinical scales would be
described as a “12” code type or type of individual.
Empirical research (Marks, Seeman and Haller, 1974)
has described a number of such code types. For
example, the 12 code type is described as somatizing,
depressed, dependent, lacking in insight and possibly
alcoholic. In another example, an individual scoring
an elevation at a t Score of 80 on Scale 2 and at a T
Score of 76 on Scale 7 and 74 on scale 3 would obtain
a 273 Code type. Scales should be within 5 T scores of
each other to qualify as a code type. (Code types can
be interpreted by consulting one of the books listed
in the bibliography). In the above 273 example if the
t scores had been distributed as follows: Scale 2 had
remained at a t score of 80 and scales 7 and 3 were
at a t score of 70 the clinician may have interpreted a
“2 spike” profile adding scale 3 and scale 7 inferences
to modify the scale 2 interpretation. In other words
the primary inferences would center around scale 2
descriptors.
Over the years, the numerous combinations of scale
elevations have been empirically described, yielding a
large body of personality and psychopathology data.
Scores higher than one and a half standard deviations
above the mean (T>65) are considered to be significant
and indicative of psychopathology. The more
elevated a profile, the more serious and pervasive the
psychopathology. For example, an elevation on Scale
2 (Depression) at one and a half standard deviations
above the mean (T=65) in an otherwise flat profile
would indicate a mild to moderate depressive disorder.
An elevation on Scale 2 at a T score of 80 (3 standard
deviations above the mean) would be considered a
14
moderate to severe depression. Elevations above a T
score of 80 would suggest a very severe depression.
The percentile rank for a given T score elevation is
equal across all clinical scales on the MMPI-2.
Scores between the mean of 50 and a T score of 65 may
reflect personality traits rather than psychopathology.
Using scale 2 (Depression) as an example, an individual
scoring a flat profile except for an elevation on scale 2
of T =60 might be described as essentially normal but
a serious, circumspect, prone to worry individual who
may take setbacks and losses badly. A diagnosis of
depression would not be certain.
Scales 2 (D), 3 (Hy), 4 (Pd), 6 (Pa), 8 (Sc) and 9 (Ma)
have also been rationally analyzed into subscales
by Harris and Lingoes (1955). As stated earlier, an
individual who scores highly on scale 2 (D) would
be predicted to be depressed, anxious and selfnegating. By also examining the individual’s scores
on the Harris and Lingoes subscales on depression, it
could be determined, for example, if the depression
was an agitated, brooding depression or a low energy,
somatizing depression. The depression scale, for
example, is divided into five subscales. If an individual
were elevated highly on “D4”, the “Mental Dullness”
Harris and Lingoes subscale, then this would predict
that the individual’s depression is affecting their ability
to think clearly, make good decisions, remember
things, and experience mental alertness. The other
Harris and Lingoes (1955) subscales act in a similar
fashion, as aids in interpreting the “parent” clinical
scale.
MMPI-2 CONTENT SCALES
The MMPI-2 revision, using a rational, empirical
approach, also developed 15 homogenous, face valid
Content scales (Butcher, Graham, Williams, BenPorath, 1990). These scales measure different attributes
than the original 10 clinical scales.
These content
scales, which are used to enrich interpretation, are
described in Table 3:
Table 3 MMPI-2 Content Scales
1 Anxiety (ANX)
This scale measures an individual’s reporting
of generalized anxiety with difficulties making
decisions and concentrating.
2 Fears (FRS)
This scale measures an individual’s level of
specific fears such as fears of mice, spiders,
handling money, blood, etc.
3 Obsessiveness
(OBS)
This scale measures an individual’s difficulty
in making decisions with a tendency to obsess
and worry.
4 Depression (DEP)
This scale measures an individual’s level
of depression. The quality of depression is
different than the depression measured on
scale 2 in that it is more of an angry, negativistic
kind of depression.
www.sdpsych.org
JUNE/JULY 2010
5 Health Concerns
(HEA)
This
scale
measures
an
individual’s
preoccupation with body symptoms.
6 Bizarre Mentation
(BIZ)
This scale is useful in detecting psychotic and
paranoid thought processes.
7 Anger (ANG)
This scale measures an individual’s tendency to
be irritable, grouchy and hot-headed.
8 Cynicism (CYN)
This scale measures an individual’s expectancy
that others cheat, lie, steal and cannot be
trusted.
9 Anti-Social
Practices (ASP)
This scale measures an individual’s reporting
of past problem behaviors and anti-social
practices.
10 Type A
(TPA)
This scale measures an individual’s tendency to
be hard driving, impatient and irritable.
11 Low Self-Esteem
(LSE)
This scale measures an individual’s low selfesteem and lack of self confidence.
12 Social Discomfort
(SOD)
This scale measures an individual’s level of
social discomfort and a tendency to be shy and
uneasy around others.
13 Family Problems
(FAM)
This scale measures an individual’s level
of family discord and feelings of being
unsupported by family members.
14 Work Interference
(WRK)
This scale measures an individual’s difficulty
being efficient, making decisions and thinking
clearly at work.
15 Negative Treatment
Indicators (TRT)
This scale measures an individual’s tendency
to see doctors generally and mental health
professionals specifically as not helpful.
Restructured Clinical Scales (RC) and the MMPI-2Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF)
The Restructured Clinical Scales (RC Scales: Tellegen
et al., 2003) and the MMPI-2- Restructured Form
(MMPI-2-RF) are the single biggest addition to the
test in the past 20 years. The RC Scales comprise
of eight independent ‘Restructured’ clinical scales
and one scale measuring Demoralization. These RC
scales are essentially revised clinical scales. They are
described as restructured because they measure the
core component of each of the original clinical scales
without the confounding effects of demoralization
which the authors believe is associated with each
clinical scale. They suggest that most psychopathology
involves some feelings of despair and demoralization.
Consequently elevations on each of the clinical scales
contain aspects of demoralization that spuriously
elevate other scales without necessarily measuring the
core component of the psychopathology measured
by the scale. The authors suggest that the removal of
demoralization from each of the clinical scales avoids
the problem of clinical scales showing patterns of
multiple elevations without clear profile definition
(Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 20008). As demoralization is
associated with all psychopathology its presence can
spuriously raise all the clinical scale elevations.
Tellegen et al. (2003) recommended that the RC Scales
be used to aid in the interpretation of the clinical scales
code-types and that they not be combined with each
JUNE/JULY 2010
other into RC code-types. There is some debate in the
MMPI community about how to use the new scales
and when will sufficient empirical research allow them
to be used like traditional Clinical Scales. Interested
readers should review a series of articles in a Special
Issue of the Journal of Personality Assessment (October
2006, Vol. 87(2)) for a balanced debate on the topic.
The RC Scales now anchor an entirely new instrument
called the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2RF: Ben-Porath & Tellegan, 2008). This new test
is comprised of the RC Scales and 41 other new or
revised scales. The test is comprised of 338 items from
the original MMPI-2 item pool and takes less time
to complete than the MMPI-2. As this is an entirely
new test, code-type material from the MMPI-2 is not
transferable. It might be a misnomer to call the new
test “MMPI” as its relationship to the original is only
through shared items. The MMPI-2-RF may prove
an important contribution to personality assessment.
Until there is more empirical evidence of the forensic
validity of the MMPI-2 RF users should use it cautiously
and be prepared to defend its applicability
Use
Although the MMPI was originally developed to
identify psychopathology, its use has expanded
greatly. It is used in research, for diagnosis and
treatment planning for individuals in psychotherapy
as well as for hiring nuclear power plant personnel,
pilots and police officers. It is widely used in forensic
settings and also is being used in marital and family
psychotherapy (Lewak, Marks and Nelson, 1990). It is
an effective tool for short-term treatment planning and
research (Finn and Tonsager, 1992) has shown that one
feedback session using MMPI-2 data can have positive
therapeutic effects.
Thousands of empirical studies have shown the
MMPI-2 to have high predictive validity and high
test-retest reliability. Over a two-week period, testretest reliability averages above .8 for all of the clinical
scales. The MMPI/MMPI-2 is currently the most
commonly used psychopathology instrument in legal
settings. The following are some reasons why the test
is so extensively used in legal settings:
1 It is the most frequently used clinical test used
when defendants’ or litigants’ psychological
adjustment is a factor in the resolution of a case.
2. The MMPI-2 is easy to administer, especially in
carefully monitored conditions.
3. The test is easy to score and computerized scoring
programs ease the scoring process and reduce
www.sdpsych.org
15
errors. The objective scoring assures reliability
in the processing of the test protocol, which is a
critical determination in forensic cases.
4. The MMPI-2 possesses a number of response
attitude measures (validity scales) that measure
the taking attitude of the test taker. Any selfreport instrument is susceptible to manipulation,
either unconscious or conscious, so it is important
to have a way of assessing the individual’s test
taking attitude.
5. The MMPI-2 is an objectively interpreted
instrument with empirically validated scales.
A high score on a particular scale is statistically
associated with behavioral and experiential
characteristics.
6. The MMPI-2 scales possess high reliability,
that is they are quite stable over time and this
well established scale reliability is important in
forensic applications.
7. The MMPI-2 provides a clear, valid description of
people’s problems, symptoms and characteristics
in broadly accepted clinical languages.
8. The MMPI-2 scores enable a practitioner to
predict an array of possible future behaviors and
responses, and responses to different treatment
or rehabilitation paradigms.
AVOIDING COMMON PITFALLS IN FORENSIC
TESTIMONY
1. Be prepared when called as an expert witness
by having an up to date CV and a copy of any
publications
2. Keep a record of all your prior depositions and
evaluations should you be asked for them.
3. Tape record your evaluations or keep exact
record what you did and how you did it
4. Remember that your file may be subpoenaed,
with all doodles and comments made in the
margins
5. Avoid leading the subject and do not provide
“clues” to the answer
6. Make sure that you follow the testing procedures
outlined in the manual and make sure the subject
understands the purpose of the evaluation
7. Follow the ethical rules to the letter
8. When it comes to the MMPI-2, be prepared to
answer the following questions:
a. Did you actually buy the test
b. Are you trained in administration and interpretation of the test
c. Who monitored the test-taking
d. Did you document the length of time it 16
took to take the test
e. Did you score it correctly
f. Did you consider cultural bias
g. Did the subject answer all the questions and if not did you attempt to make sure he/she did
h. Did you confirm the subject had at least a sixth grade reading level.
i. Don’t opine on scales that are controversial, or worse, revealed to not be valid. (e.g., the obvious/subtle scales or the Faking Bad (FBS) Scales
j. Be careful not to label low scores on the MMPI-2 as “elevated”.
9. Avoid giving too many or too few tests and
don’t give the wrong test for the psychological
conditions claimed.
10. Be aware of possible retest effects if the subject
has taken the test before.
11. Be consistent with any statements you made in
past depositions or in any of your lectures.
12. If you make a mistake, admit it.
13. Be respectful of the cross examining attorney,
but don’t permit abuse by them. If you are ill
prepared, or embarrassed by your answers, that
does not constitute abuse. Loud or demeaning
behavior does. However, be aware that the
atmosphere during the cross examination may
not be captured in the written deposition notes,
which may leave the psychologist who calls a
halt to the process looking as if he acted out.
References
Archer, R.P., MMPI-A: Assessing Adolescent Psychology, 2d
ed. (1997), Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ben-Porath, Y.S., and Butcher, J.N. (1989), Psychometric
stability of rewritten MMPI items. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 53, 645-653.
Ben-Porath, Y.S. (January 2004) Forensic Applications of the
MMPI-2, Forensic Applications of the MMPI-2 Workshop
Symposium. Los Angeles, CA.
Berry, D.T.R. (1995), Detecting Distortion in Forensic
Evaluations with the MMPI-2. In Ben-Porath, Graham et.
al. (eds.) Forensic Applications Of The MMPI-2 (pp. 82-102).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A.M.,
and Kaemmer, B. (1989), MMPI-2: Manual for administration
and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Williams, C.L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R.P.,
Tellegen, A.M., Ben-Porath, Y.S. and Kaemmer, B. (1992),
MMPI-A (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryAdolescent): Manual for administration and scoring, and
interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Graham J. R., & Williams, C.L. (1992), Essentials
www.sdpsych.org
JUNE/JULY 2010
of MMPI-2 and MMPI-A Interpretation. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Williams, C.L., & Ben-Porath,
Y.S. (1990), Development and use of the MMPI-2 Content Scales.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., & Han, K. (1993), Development of an MMPI2 scale to assess the presentation of self in a superlative
manner: the S scale. Advances in Personality Assessment 10,
25-50.
Dahlstrom, W. G., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L.E., (1972),
An MMPI Handbook: Vol. I. Clinical Interpretation (rev. ed.).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Duckworth, J. & Anderson, W. (1986), MMPI Interpretation
Manual for Counselors and Clinicians (3d ed.). Muncie:
Accelerated Development.
Finn, S.E., & Tonsager, M.E., (1992), Therapeutic effects
of providing MMPI-2 test feedback to college students
awaiting therapy. Psychological Assessment 4. 278-287.
Graham, J.R., (January, 2004), Use of the MMPI-2 in Child
Custody Evaluations Forensic Applications of the MMPI-2.
Workshops and Symposia. Los Angeles.
Greene, R.L., (1991), The MMPI-2/MMPI: An Interpretive
Manual. Boston: Alyn & Bacon.
Harris, R.E., & Lingoes, J.C., (1955), Subscales for the MMPI:
An aid to profile interpretation. Unpublished manuscript,
University of California.
Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C., (1940), A multiphasic
personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the
schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249-254.
Lewak, R.W., Marks, P.A., & Nelson, G.E., (1990), Therapist
Guide to the MMPI & MMPI-2.
Muncie: Accelerated Development.
Lewak, R. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
(MMPI-2) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A). In C. R. Reynolds & E.
Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education:
A reference for the education of the handicapped and other
exceptional children and adults (2nd ed.). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Marks, P.A., Seeman, W., & Haller, D. L. (1974). The actuarial
use of the MMPI with adolescents and adults. Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins
Nichols, David S. (2001), Essentials of MMPI-2 Assessment.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Pope, K.S., Butcher, J. N. & Seelen, J., (1993). The MMPI,
MMPI-2 and MMPI-A in Court. Washington: APA.
Welsh, G.S. (1956). Factor dimensions A and R. In G.S.
Welsh & W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the
MMPI in psychology and medicine (pp.264-281). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press
Dr. Richard Levak, a nationally recognized personality
expert, has been in private practice for over thirty years,
working primarily with individuals and couples who are
looking to improve their relationships, work through life
transitions, or just find happiness and a greater sense of
well-being.
CaLL fOR BOaRD
NOMINaTIONS!
Applied Interventions & Methodologies, Inc.
Director: Dr. Sandy Shaw (PSY 18351)
Specializing in
Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome and related
Developmental Disabilities
Psychological, Behavioral & Educational Services
 Diagnostic & Psychological Assessments
 Behavioral Home & School-Based Programs
 Social Skills Groups (2 years to adults)
 Sibling Therapy Groups
 Recreational Programs
 Parent Training – Individualized & Groups
 Psychotherapy – Individual & Family
6540 Lusk Boulevard, C256, San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (858) 657-9117 Fax: (858) 657-0251
www.aimautismservices.com
JUNE/JULY 2010
Nominations are now being sought for the
following 2011 SDPA Board of Directors
positions:
President-Elect
Secretary
Treasurer-Elect
Member-at-Large
CPA Representative
Alternate CPA Representative
Student Representative
Feel free to nominate yourself or an SDPA
colleague. Please send nominations to sdpa@
sdpsych.org. Deadline for nominations to be
received is September 1st.
www.sdpsych.org
17
CONTINUING EDUCaTION UNITS (CEUS) fOR
SDPA MEMbERS
New feature: Completing “Forensic Evaluation with the MMPI-2 is worth two continuing education units (CEUs)
for SDPA members! After reading the article, do the following:
1. Go to www.sdpsych.org
2. On the right column, scroll down to Member Log On. Log in.
3. Click on “Continuing Education” on the right navigation bar.
4. Scroll down to the “Online Distance Learning” section.
5. Locate the test you want to take and click the corresponding “Take Test” button.
6. Take the online test. Click “Submit Answers” when ready.
7. If you are informed, after submitting your answers, that one or more of them are wrong, re-consider your
responses and then click “Submit Answers” again when you are ready
8. To ensure proper credit is received, verify that your information is correct on the page that appears, then
click SUBMIT FORM. This will submit your test results to the SDPA Office.
9. You will receive a Certificate of Completion via email within 2 to 3 business days.
HONORING OUR HISTORY, BUILDING OUR
FUTURE: THE SDPA CELEbRaTES ITS 50TH
ANNIVERSaRY
By Stephen Scherer, Ed.D.
[email protected]
O
n the evening of March 13, the San Diego
Psychological Association (SDPA) held their
50th Anniversary Gala at the Bristol Hotel
in downtown San Diego. The theme of the Gala,
“Honoring our History, Building our Future,” was
reflected in the night’s events and presentations,
which included posters and exhibits, a silent auction,
a live auction and dinner, as well as dancing and
conversation.
Many interesting posters and exhibits greeted
members in the foyer, and the attention to detail in
each of the entries was inspiring. Attendees took
particular interest in the visual timeline of the SDPA, as
it highlighted the many transitions of the organization
since its inception (and beyond). Of special note were
the contributions of Dr. James Chipps, a “founding
father” of the SDPA (and its first president) whose
18
obituary appeared in the February/March issue of this
newsletter (Dr. Chipps passed away on December 8,
2009). Members appreciated that the Gala was indeed
“honoring our history.” [Readers interested in the
history of the SDPA may find an excellent summary
online at http://sdpsych.org/.]
Past the foyer could be found the silent auction. The
sheer extent of items for bid in the silent auction (as well
as in the live auction) hinted at the SDPA’s extensive
community connections. The business community in
San Diego as well as many SDPA members supported
the SDPA Gala through their significant donations
for our auctions, including theatre tickets, weekend
getaways, pet therapy products, and too many others
to list. Perhaps the more sentimental items were those
with a personal touch from our local sports celebrities,
including a signed football by San Diego Charger
www.sdpsych.org
JUNE/JULY 2010
Nick Hardwick, a hat signed by the San Diego Padres’
Adrian Gonzalez, and a signed baseball from local
baseball legend Tony Gwynn.
Dinner was served and the awards section commenced.
Two new SDPA Fellow awards were presented. Dr.
Richard Levak, one of the new Fellows, gave a lively
presentation with some insights into his family affairs.
Dr. Celia Falicov also received a Fellow award and
attendees were impressed with the remarkable personal
history she shared. Other notable contributions from
members were recognized, including Dr. Jonathan
Gale’s contributions as editor of “The San Diego
Psychologist.” Speakers were then followed by a live
auction, which was by all accounts also an extremely
entertaining affair, perhaps highlighted (deleted words
here) by a bid of $575 from the combined student
section for personal chef services of Dr. Neil Ribner
and his wife Linda who will apply their culinary
JUNE/JULY 2010
expertise for the benefit of the aforesaid party. Other
items of significance included a handmade quilt from
Mary Harb-Sheets, week and weekend getaways,
framed photographs from overseas taken by Sharon
Weld, one of SDPA’s past presidents, and again, too
many other significant contributions to list. Dancing
and socializing followed dinner and the live auction.
The event was a tremendous success, and several
participants commented about the unusually lively
atmosphere. We have many individuals to thank for
the night’s events, but special thanks might be reserved
for those who made the Gala possible, particularly Dr.
Felise Levine, the Gala Chairperson. Among others,
the event’s organizers, speakers, auctioneers, business
owners, and enthusiastic participants all contributed
to this amazingly successful and entertaining evening.
It was a wonderful night to honor our history and
build our future.
www.sdpsych.org
19
20
WWW.SDpSYCH.ORG
JUNE/JULY 2010
Write to Us
We welcome letters. The editor reserves the right to determine
the suitability of letters for publication and to edit them
for accuracy and length. We regret that not all letters can
be published, nor can they be returned. Letters should
run no more than 200 words in length, refer to material
published/related to the newsletter, and include the
writer’s full name and credentials. Email your letter to the
editor at [email protected]
JUNE/JULY 2010
WWW.SDpSYCH.ORG
21
SaN DIEGO PSYCHOLOGICaL ASSOCIaTION
SpRING CONfERENCE
R
By Mary Harb Sheets, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Mobile: 619-993-4186
obin Williams described Spring in this way:
“Spring is nature’s way of saying, “Let’s party!”
SDPA’s Spring Conference wasn’t exactly a
traditional party but, for many of us who attended
the conference, it felt like an educational party. While
enjoying a continental breakfast together, we were
able to greet colleagues and spend time reconnecting
with friends. The morning and afternoon workshops
offered were lively and interactive adding to the
vibrant atmosphere. In fact, the presentations were
so well received that participants have requested the
speakers be asked to return for our Fall Conference
22
in October. Lunch was arranged so we could again
chat with colleagues in small groups without feeling
rushed. The afternoon workshops were followed by
an opportunity to continue our “party” at a wine and
cheese social hour at the SDPA office. At that event,
we were also privileged to learn of some current
research done by CSPP/Alliant students through
very informative and intriguing poster presentations.
Once again, our Continuing Education Committee has
brought us a high quality educational event that was
also wonderfully enjoyable!
WWW.SDpSYCH.ORG
JUNE/JULY 2010
“PROfESSIONaL WILL” COMMITTEE UpDaTE
SpRING 2010
A
by Antonia Meltzoff, Ph.D., Patricia Rose, Ph.D. and Thomas McGee, Ph.D.
traumatic event within the San Diego
Psychological Community catalyzed new
solutions. Ten years ago, five San Diego
psychologists died within a short time of one another.
One of them, Bonita Hammell, Ph.D., a past president
of the organization, committed suicide.
SDPA
provided a group processing of this tragic event.
Almost immediately it became apparent that there
were no provisions left for the care of her patients
and professional effects. This was also true for most
of the other psychologists who had died. The lack of
provisions and directions created a profound upheaval
among the patients and some former patients of
the psychologists who had died, and many of them
contacted SDPA seeking help.
Colleagues of the deceased psychologists who
attempted to provide some sort of crisis intervention
for these patients, experienced enormous feelings of
frustration and bewilderment, given the sense of loss,
abandonment, and chaos that had occurred with these
patients and the lack of directions from the deceased
psychologists. SDPA’s attorney at that time, James
Rogers, said that he was “shocked” that there was no
“professional will” to take care of the patients, files,
and effects from these individuals’ practices. Patricia
Rose, who was then President of the Association,
said to herself, “My God, I don’t have a professional
will, nor does anybody else to my knowledge.” She
appointed a Task Force headed by Tom McGee with
Kay DiFrancesca and Ain Roost among its members,
to develop plans for such a document. And so the
Psychologists’ Retirement, Incapacitation and Death
(PRID) Committee was born. Within a few days of its
inception, Tom and Ain independently consulted with
Jim Rogers, and both came up with personal versions
of their own professional wills. These two versions
were soon merged into one, which became the present
format for a Professional Will.
In preparing his personal professional will, Ain also
thought to prepare “Guidelines for Preparing Your
Professional Will” which became an indispensable part
of the professional will process. Kay brought a wealth
JUNE/JULY 2010
of life experience to the Task Force, as her husband Sal,
also a psychologist, had died several years previously,
and she was left to cope with the aftermath of his
death both personally and professionally. The Task
Force came up with relevant forms for preparing a
Professional Will. They also realized through various
workshops in presenting the Professional Will, that
psychologists who became executors might desire
some guidelines in taking over the responsibility for
a deceased psychologist’s practice. Antonia Meltzoff
and Ain Roost developed these guidelines with
suggestions for working with patients, peers, and the
family of deceased psychologists.
Soon, the Task Force began to offer Professional Will
workshops at least once a year to the members of SDPA.
Trish Rose had the foresight to make attendance at
such workshops free as a benefit of membership. The
Professional Will documents are living ones and have
been updated by Task Force members, participants in
the workshops and also to be in accord with the APA
Record Keeping Guidelines (2007).
In recent years, Dr. McGee has been invited to present
Professional Will workshops in British Columbia,
Canada, where psychologists are now required to name
a Professional Executor in order to be re-licensed. In
the U.S., the APA and other local organizations are also
beginning to be troubled by the lack of a systematic
way of dealing with this major issue.
With the graying of our core population, it behooves us
to take this responsibility seriously. Indeed Kay, Tom
and Ain presented on this topic at APA in 2001, and Tom
presented to APA again in 2002, and to CPA in 2004.
Tom has also made Professional Will presentations to
psychological organization in Monterey and Fresno,
CA.
In June of 2008, Tori DeAngeles of the APA Monitor
wrote a feature article about preparing a professional
will. Both Tom McGee and Ain Roost were prominently
quoted and most of the suggestions that are included
in the association’s final version of the will were
described and discussed at length in the article.
WWW.SDpSYCH.ORG
23
Dr. McGee’s experience in Canada is illustrative of the
need for a Professional Will. He has given over thirty
Professional Will workshops there in recent years.
When he was first invited in 2005, he found some
resistance to the idea of a Professional Will, and while
using materials developed by SDPA’s Committee,
found participants insisting that the document was
not “legal.” And indeed it is not. Some of these are
guidelines such as the ones we use when we take a
vacation. While it is not a legal document, it is a guide
in helping us to develop these difficult plans. Above
all, such documents are in the best interests not only
of our clients, but our families and colleagues.
Yet, we all have a resistance to planning for our own
demise. Eventually, Tom’s message got through, and
he was invited to return to British Columbia again in
2007 and in 2008. He has now presented professional
will workshops in seven British Columbia cities. In this
process, he has worked with psychologists who alone
treat many individuals on Inuit reservations. With
each return visit, he has been received more warmly
and with greater acceptance as British Columbia
psychologists have gradually come to terms with
the ethical and legal requirements of a professional
will. It is also important to note the SDPA documents
have been adapted to fit Canadian ethics and British
Columbia law relevant to psychologists. Moreover,
some Canadian psychologists attending professional
will workshops have made important contributions to
the Professional Will documents that we use.
In our own country, though there are others who
have written parallel documents, SDPA seems to be
emerging as the standard of care for a Professional Will.
As an organization, we should be proud of the role we
have played in developing this extraordinarily helpful
document for a life issue that is difficult to confront
under the best of circumstances. We should also be
proud of having assisted many, many psychologists
in preparing their Professional Wills.
Thus, it is with humility and pride that the PRID
Committee presents the revised version of the
Professional Will and its accompanying documents.
The “Professional Will” which can be downloaded
at the SDPA web site:
http://www.sdpsych.org/
associations/7135/files/Professional%20Will%20
Packet%2011-09.pdf
November 5, 2010, the PRID committee will offer a
workshop on the “Professional Will.” This workshop
is free to SDPA members. The goal of the workshop
is to provide assistance with the completion of this
important document. We hope you will attend if you
have not yet written your “Professional Will.”
*PRID Committee Members, 2010:
Antonia Meltzoff, Ph.D., Chair
Linda Altes, Ph.D.
Joel Lazar, Ph.D.
Thomas McGee, Ph.D.
Ain Roost, Ph.D.
Patricia Rose, Ph.D.
With thanks to past PRID members: Marjorie Coburn,
Ph.D., Kay DiFrancesca, Ph.D.
Beatriz Netter, Ph.D., and Christine Taylor, Ph.D.
2010 FALL CONFERENCE
The San Diego Psychological Association’s 2010 Fall Conference will be held on
October 8th and 9th. Our conference theme is “Practice Opportunities: Tools You
Can Use,” with a focus on tools to manage upcoming changes in our field due to
healthcare reform. Please consider making a contribution to our profession by
sharing your expertise with us in any way. We invite you to submit a proposal for
one of our breakout sessions or a poster presentation.
Proposals should be submitted online at
http://www.sdpsych.org/displayemailforms.cfm?emailformnbr=140748
no later than June 30th.
24
WWW.SDpSYCH.ORG
JUNE/JULY 2010
SDPA AWARDS
SDPA AWARDS will be presented at our annual Fall Conference luncheon in October. Giving awards is one of
the most important ways a volunteer organization can recognize and encourage excellence in the field. Awards
given by SDPA to psychologists are given to recognize their sustained or special contributions to the field of
psychology or to the Association. Awards presented to non-psychologists are given as a way of recognizing and
thanking those who have made an important contribution to the advancement of psychology through legislation,
public education or to the community. While any qualified person is eligible for a SDPA award, consideration is
given to individuals who reside in California.
Please consider nominations for the following awards:
• Legislative Award: Will be given by the Government Affairs Committee in recognition of their
support in advocacy efforts on behalf of mental health and psychology. Nominations for this award
should be sent to Dr. Bruce Sachs at [email protected].
• Local Hero Award: Will be given by the Men’s Committee in recognition of a non-psychologist
who has been involved in solving local problems within the community with selfless enthusiasm.
Nominations for the Local Hero award should be sent to Dr. Danny Singley at dsingley@
dynamicbehavioralsolutions.com.
• Media Award: Will be given by the Public Education and Media Committee to a member of the San
Diego media who has made a significant contribution to the community in the past year in his or
her coverage of psychologists or psychological/mental health issues. Please send nominations for
the Media Award to Dr. Katherine Moore at [email protected].
• Distinguished Contribution to Psychology Award: Will be given by our general membership to
an individual who has made a profound contribution to the field of psychology, has sustained
exemplary service or leadership in the field of psychology, and who has dedicated a significant
portion of time and energy to helping others. You can email your nominations for this award to:
[email protected] or call the Chair of the Nominations, Elections and Awards Committee: Lori
Futterman R.N.,Ph.D. @ 619-297-3311 or email: [email protected]
WELCOME NEW SDPA MEMbERS!
New Full Member
New Student Members
Jack Farmer, Ph.D.
Marci Allen, MA
Benjamin Alpert, EdM
Leslie Bennett, MA
Karla Brasch, BS
Blair Buckman
Rebecca Cate, MA
Brittany Cook, MA
Julie Egan, MA
Jenny Evans, BA
David Fadale, MA
Kirstin Filizetti, MA
Mark Foreman, B.S., B.M.
Leslie Gretter
Kristin Haas, BA
Cassandra Kauffman
Whitney Keilman, BA
Stephanie Knatz, MA
Judy Lamb, MA
New Early Career Professionals
(3 - 4 Years Post Awarding of PhD or PsyD)
Jennifer Rhodes, Psy.D.
New Early Career Professionals
(1 - 2 Years Post Awarding of PhD or PsyD)
Robin Hodges, Ph.D.
Alexandria Murallo, Ph.D.
Christine Rufener, Ph.D.
Sabrina Sehgal, Ph.D.
Heidi Stark, Ph.D.
William Zahn, Psy.D.
JUNE/JULY 2010
WWW.SDpSYCH.ORG
Charles Massey, BA
Grace McKissick, MA
Hannah Miller
Karen Milton, BA
Naheed Mirza, M.A.
Anthony Odozi, MA
Brittany Parson, BA
Erica Phillips
R. Cruz-Pryor
Teresa Rivas, MA
Billicent San Juan, BS
Sarah Silverman, MA
MaryBeth Skoch, BA
Megan Thompson, M.A.
New Affiliate Members
(Individual)
Victor Nelson, MSW,MBA
25
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
CONTINUING EDUCATION POLICY: CE Credit and Certificates
will not be issued to those who arrive later than 10 minutes or
leave early from any course scheduled time. This policy is highly
enforced to ensure compliance with APA Guidelines.
Friday June 11, 2010
Meet & Greet with Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher
Presented by: SDPA’s Government Affairs Committee
Time: 5:30 pm—7:00 pm
Place: The home of Dr. Hugh Pates
Food and beverages will be provided and there is no cost
to attend. Building relationships with our state and federal
legislators is one of the chief goals of the GAC and a good
showing by psychologists at this event lets Assemblymember
Fletcher know that we are an active and concerned constituency.
It should be a fun, informative evening and I hope you can
attend. Please RSVP TO Dr. Sachs by Monday, June 7th by email,
[email protected] or phone, 619-749-8062.
Friday, June 11, 2010
A Night of Poetry
Presented by: SDPA’s Arts Committee
Time: 7:00 pm
Place: The home of Arlene Young
You bring the poetry and we will provide the food. For
directions and more information, contact Arts Committee
Chair Toni Ann Cafaro at (760) 622-7813 or email her at drtoni@
roadrunner.com
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Contemporary Families, Contemporary Challenges:
Strategies for Helping Families Thrive
Presented by: Kim Vanderdussen, Psy.D., RPT-S, Tami
Kermer-Sadick, Ph.D. and Wendy Klein
Time: 8:00 am — 12:30 pm
Place: SDPA Office Conference Room
Cost: Members $55 Non-members $79
Student members $20 Student Non-members $25
CE: 4 Hours; # 10-600-000
Register: Mail check payable to SDPA with lower portion of flyer
Fax to 858.277.1402 On Line register on- line at www.sdpsych.
org/calendar.cfm
Wednesday, August 11, 2010 SAVE THE DATE!
Psychotherapy Relationships That Work: Tailoring the
Relationship to the Individual Patient
Presented by: John C. Norcross, Ph.D., ABPP
Time: 9:00 am — 1:00 pm
Place: SDPA Office Conference Room
Details to follow
Wednesday, August 11, 2010 SAVE THE DATE!
Leaving It at the Office
Presented by: John C. Norcross, Ph.D., ABPP
Time: 2:00 pm — 4:00 pm
Place: SDPA Office Conference Room
Details to follow
GROUP THERAPY DIRECTORY
MIXED GROUPS
ADHD ADULT SUPPORT GROUP: Informational/
educational meetings for adults with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD/ADD). Mondays 6:30
to 8:00 p.m. Call 619.276.6912 or check website www.
learningdevelopmentservices.com for upcoming topics
and to reserve a spot. Mark Katz, Ph.D. (PSY4866),
Learning Development Services, 3754 Clairemont Drive,
San Diego, CA 92117.
ADULT DEPRESSION & ANXIETY GROUP will focus
on skills building to change maladaptive behaviors
and thoughts, and improve emotional regulation,
communication and interpersonal skills.
Increased
awareness can prevent relapse of depression and anxiety.
Insurance accepted. Contact Dr. Polina Bryson 858-6952237 x 2
ADULT
GROUP
PSYCHOTHERAPY:
Ongoing,
mixed weekly process group. Cognitive behavioral/
psychodynamic. UTC/La Jolla area. Thomas Wegman,
Ph.D. (PSY 4228). 858.455.5252. 9255 Towne Centre Dr.,
Suite 875, SD 92121.
CHRONIC PAIN SUPPORT GROUP:
Understand how to work with your physical pain with
the support of others who understand you. Consistent
weekly attendance required. $45/session. Dawn Dilley,
Ph.D. PSY21452 PH: 619.255.7001 or [email protected]
COGNITIVE THERAPY GROUPS: 12-weeks treatment
groups for Panic, Depression, Social Anxiety & OCD.
Education, skills- building, and positive group support.
$40-50/per 90 min group session. La Jolla/UTC James
Shenk, Ph.D. (PSY11550)
MEN’S GROUPS
26
“YOUNG-ISH” MEN’S GROUP: This group is open
to generally high-functioning adult men from 20-40
ish years old who are interested in an ongoing therapy
group. An ideal adjunct to individual therapy, group
topics address interpersonal concerns with a focus on
men’s issues (work-life balance, stress management,
relationships, fatherhood, divorce, anger, depression, etc).
The group meets every other Wednesday for 90 minutes,
and perspective members are encouraged to commit to
attending for at least six consecutive months. For more
information, contact Danny Singley, Ph.D. (PSY 20995) at
858.344.4698 or [email protected]
MEN’S GROUP: Men’s support and psychotherapy group
for adult males who have had childhood or adolescent
experiences of abuse, currently in individual therapy, nonoffending as adults and motivated for a group experience.
Group meets bi-weekly and requires several screening
interviews. For more information Call Paul Sussman,
Ph.D. at 619.542.1335 or visit paulsussmanphd.com.
WOMEN’S GROUPS
OTHER
APPLIED DBT CLINICIANS: Applied DBT Clinicians
Dialectical Behavioral Skills Training Groups are now
forming! Applied DBT Clinicians is a Team of three
therapists, who have completed the Intensive DBT
Training that was conducted by Dr. Marsha Linehan.
We adhere to Dr. Marsha Linehan’s protocol. Our Team
provides individual, group, and 24 hour phone coaching,
for people with multiple emotional and behavioral
problems, including self-injurious behaviors and eating
disorders, in the San Diego County area. (PSY 22788) For
information about new groups, including Family and
Friends Groups, call: 619.569.0777
BEREAVEMENT THERAPY FOR CHILDREN: Rochelle
Perper, Ph.D PSY 23090 is pleased to offer bereavement
therapy for children, adolescents, and adults at the
Center for Cognitive Therapy. Dr. Perper has experience
working with complicated grief and violent loss. For
more information, visit www.therapychanges.com or call
619.275.2286.
WOMEN’S SUPPORT GROUP: addresses: Balance
between self and others • Managing stress, family and
career • Parenting • Relationships • Body image •
Healthy living • Personal growth. Contact Dr. Aleksandra
Drecun, Licensed Psychologist (PSY 21778) at dr.drecun@
a4ct.com or www.a4ct.com
PSYCHOLOGY CENTER OF LA JOLLA: offers group
therapy for children, adolescents, young adults, and
parents. Issues addressed include ADHD, anxiety,
depression, bipolar disorder, grief, ODD, and support for
siblings. To learn more, please call (858) 336-7036 or visit
www.psychologycenter.com.
CHOOSING SINGLE MOTHERHOOD GROUP: For
women who have chosen, are in the process, or who are
considering becoming single mothers on their own. Group
meets every other Tuesday evening in Del Mar. Contact
Karen Hall, Ph.D. at 760-443-5425 www.karenhallphd@
aol.com or [email protected].
(PSY16803)
PSYCHOTHERAPY FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS:
Reasonable rates for students who need to meet their
program’s psychotherapy requirements. Extensive
experience as therapist and supervisor with graduate
students. Editor of Humanistic Psychotherapies. Offices in
Carlsbad & San Marcos. Call David J. Cain, Ph.D., A.B.P.P
(PSY6654). Free phone consultation at: 760.510.9520.
WWW.SDpSYCH.ORG
JUNE/JULY 2010
NON-THERAPY SERVICES
CAREER CONSULTATION AND COACHING: Let me
help your clients, friends, or family navigate career-related
issues such as career identification, career transition,
job search, difficult job situations. Comprehensive
approach, including assessments as indicated. Contact
Jacqueline Butler Ph.D. (CA PSY 19513) [email protected]
619.644.5750.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Dialectical Behavior Therapy Center of San Diego
DBTCSD is the only clinic in San Diego providing full
DBT for adults, couples, and adolescents with multiple
extreme emotional and behavioral problems, including
self-injury and BPD. Individual DBT, skills groups, and
24 hr phone coaching, are delivered by a team of experts
who received years of training from Linehan, the creator
of DBT. We also provide other CBT for other emotion
dysregulation and impulse-control disorders, including
complex PTSD. www.dbtsandiego.com, 619-602-0726
Catherine E. Lewis, Psy.D., Clinical Psychologist PSY
22954: is pleased to announce the opening of her practice
in Point Loma. Dr. Lewis provides individual and
couples therapy, specializing in the treatment of anxiety,
depression, relationship issues, and life transitions. Please
visit her website at www.drcathylewis.com.
Attend a free lecture on sex related topics on the 3rd
Wednesday of every month at Sex Medicine, Education &
Therapy (STEM) meeting at Alvarado Hospital at 7:30pm.
Go to www.sdsm.info and look under Education save
the date for details. Mary M Clark, Ph.D. (MFC17748)
CSPP Clinical Supervision CE Courses in San Diego
taught by Dr. Paul Sussman: Basics 09/17/10, 9am-4pm,
6hrs CE credit $135; Ethics 09/17/10, 4:30-6:30pm, 2hrs CE
credit $60; Advanced 09/18/10 9am-5pm, 7hrs CE credit
$155 – Register online www.ce-psychology.com or call
800-457-1273. (PSY13876)
OPPORTUNITIES
BILINGUAL THERAPIST: Harmonium, Inc. is
immediately hiring a part-time Spanish speaking bilingual
therapist.
Duties include providing psychological
assessments, therapy, and community presentations in
Spanish, organizing and implementing youth support
groups and classes, working with diverse community
groups to provide clinical assessments for Hispanic
based programs, reviewing records, maintaining
written and statistical documentation of clinical activity
and participating in weekly individual and group
supervisions, and staff meeting. Must have MA in clinical
psychology and have taken all assessment courses. This
position is up to 20 hours per week, based on fee split for
reimbursement. Supervision provided for pre/post-doc
hours. Send resume to [email protected]
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS: The Dialectical Behavior
Therapy Center of San Diego is seeking to hire clinical
psychologists who have received prior training in
DBT or ACT. At a minimum, solid training in CBT and
behavioral interventions is required. Additional staff
therapists are needed to provide DBT for adults and
adolescents. License-eligible applicants will be given
serious consideration. For more information or to submit
an application, go to: www.dbtsandiego.com
LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST/LCSW: for outpatient
community clinic in central San Diego. Flexible part-time
to full-time with excellent salary, benefits, and retirement
match. Immediate availability. High quality mental
health team. Bilingual (Spanish) preferred. Experience
with children is necessary. Please fax vita to Kendra
Weissbein, Ph.D. at 858.279.0377.
JUNE/JULY 2010
PROFESSOR: CSPP-San Diego is currently in need of
someone qualified to teach our graduate level course in
Cognitive and Affective Bases of Behavior. Please send CV
to: Adele Rabin, Ph.D., Director, Clinical Psychology PhD
Program, [email protected]. Or, for more information,
contact Dr. Rabin at 858.635.4801.
LA JOLLA: Want to be in La Jolla on Fridays and/
or Mondays but can’t afford the prices? Come share a
beautiful, cozy, inside office across from UCSD and the
VA - in a suite with two others for only $150. per month,
per day. Call or email Wendi Maurer at 619.491.3459
[email protected]. Referrals available often.
PSYCHOLOGISTS: HELP (Home-based Effective Living
Professionals) is recruiting licensed psychologists and
social workers as independent contractors interested in
providing clinical services to persons in their homes or
care facilities throughout San Diego County. Medicare
and bilingual providers are a plus. Full or part time,
flexible hours, 80% reimbursement paid. Contact HELP
at 858.481.8827 or at www.helprofessionals.com for
application information. Annette Conway, Psy.D. (PSY
19997).
LA JOLLA: Office space available in La Jolla Village: I
am interested in sharing my office, either a 50% share or
sublet one or two days a week. The office is attractive
and well established, easy to access, and works well for
therapy and consultation. Jean Campbell 858.456.2206
SPANISH SPEAKING THERAPIST: Harmonium
needs Spanish speaking therapist immediately. Provide
bilingual clinical assessments, therapy, and presentations.
Must have completed assessment courses and Masters in
Clinical Psychology. 10-20 hours/week with fee split for
reimbursement. Supervision provided for pre/post-doc.
Send resume to Dr. Wutzke, [email protected]
LOOKING FOR:
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSISTANTSHIP: 4th-year clinical
Psy.D. student; master’s degree; completed personal
development hours. I am in the ABD stage of my program,
dissertation topic being private practice.
Therapy
qualifications include: a) psychodynamic advanced
training (brief and long-term); b) crisis intervention and
brief CBT; c) adolescents, transition to adulthood, and
adults; d) inpatient, outpatient, academic setting, and inhome; e) therapy groups, psycho-education groups, and
focus groups. Testing qualifications include: psychological
and psycho-educational evaluation (administration,
report writing, objective, and projective). For more
detailed information, please contact me at: 858.610.6451;
[email protected].
OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE
CARLSBAD: Beautiful office with windows overlooking
a park like serene setting. Great location with ample
parking. Call lights in waiting room, staff kitchen, &
exit door for clients & staff adds to confidentiality and
privacy. Available 1 to 4 days per week. Warm & caring
collegial atmosphere. Please call Dr. Vesna Radojevic at
760.438.6890 .
DEL MAR: Part-Time office space available in Del Mar
Medical Clinic, near Ocean/I-5. Fully furnished, private
entrance, waiting room, phone, excellent sound proofing,
air conditioning, near bus. Includes utilities, janitorial
services, parking. Contact Tom Hollander, Ph.D. at
858.755.5826.
ESCONDIDO: Beautifully furnished and spacious office,
in a suite with other psychotherapists, available parttime. Close to I15. Parking. Large waiting room. Kitchen
and workroom facilities, including copier/fax. Janitorial
included. Contact Dr. Jeannie Buchanan, 760.310.1632.
ESCONDIDO: 3 Offices Subleasing to FFS provider. 10’
x 12’, kitchen, restrooms, lobby with receptionist to greet
only. Handicap accessible, furnished. 8:30am – 5:00pm.
1 year lease $500/month/office, utilities 75/25. 200 E.
Washington Ave. #100, Escondido, CA 92025. Monica
Morel: 760-737-8642 x250, [email protected]
HILLCREST/NORTH PARK: An attractive office in a park
like setting. A fulltime furnished private office (including
antique s-roll top desk). $480/mo. Rent includes: Light
janitorial services (1 mo.), utilities, off street parking and
access to a group area. 3699 Park Blvd. Stan Lederman,
Ph.D. (PSY5756) 619.296.0087
LA MESA: Quality professional offices available on
hourly, part-day, full-day basis. Comfortable waiting
room with signal lights. Fully-furnished workroom/
kitchen. Building is handicap-accessible and adjacent
trolley/bus. We can help you build your practice. Contact
Jacqueline Butler Ph.D. 619.644.5750. drjacqbutler@
gmail.com.
LA MESA/LAKE MURRAY: Suite of offices available for
part-time and/or full/time psychologist, MFT, or LCSW.
Office space includes a reception room, kitchen, and office
room with copier, fax, wireless capability. Call Dr. Sharon
Colgan (619) 466-0656 for further information.
MISSION VALLEY: 14’x17’ furnished windowed office
space available all day Monday, Wednesday, Saturday and
Sunday. Rent 1, 2, 3 or all 4 days. Utilities and janitorial
services included. Centralized location. Month-to-month.
3511 Camino del Rio South #302. Call Patti 858.792.6060.
MISSION VALLEY: Centrally located offices with a
view for rent on Thursday afternoons and Fridays. Class
A building includes free parking, copier and fax. Close
to bus transportation. Contact Rosalie Easton at 619-2949177.
MISSION VALLEY: Office, per diem or part time, very
reasonable rates, negotiable, centrally located, newly
carpeted & painted, nicely appointed.
Call Murray Rudenberg, Ph.D. 619-995-3854.
POWAY: Small office for full time sublease in nice space
with other therapist’s in Poway. $350/month. All utilities
included. Please call Michelle Lalouche-Kadden, Ph.D.
858.485.8185.
POWAY/ RANCHO BERNARDO: Large furnished
office with window in medical office building with other
therapist and shared office amenities. Available Mondays
($175 per month) or Monday and Tuesday and another
partial day ($300/month). Available immediately. Call
John Lee Evans, Ph.D. at 858-673-9600.
RANCHO BERNARDO: Sublet opportunity at landmark
Rancho Bernardo Courtyard (16935 West Bernardo Drive,
San Diego, 92127 right off Rancho Bernardo Road).
Mondays and/or Fridays are available. Please visit www.
RBCourtyard for site photos. Office boasts double entry,
French doors to the courtyard on the first floor as well
as grand West lobby access. Call Dr. Steven Goldstein
760.715.0815.
SOLANA BEACH: Office available full time April 1.
Wonderful collegial atmosphere. Easy access from/to
Hwy. 5. Very quiet building. Lots of parking available.
Just a few miles from the ocean. Rent $767.Contact: Rich
Hycner, PhD: 1-858-481-8744; [email protected]
VISTA: Beautiful, large windowed office 1-3 days/week.
Professionally appointed, furnished. Class A building,
elevator. Off the 78 Freeway. South Melrose Drive.
Many office amenities. Referral rich. 1 psychologist, 1
psychiatrist already. Reasonably priced. Contact Robin
Bronstein, Ph.D., 760.643.4043, email [email protected]
KEARNY MESA: Beautiful office, full or part time,
conveniently located north/central county. Private office
of mental health professionals, within the Children’s
Hospital Medical Office Building in Kearny Mesa. Many
on campus amenities. Furnished or unfurnished. Please
call Steven Sparta, Ph.D., 858) 966-6750.
LA JOLLA/GOLDEN TRIANGLE: Lovely, furnished
office with full wall of windows in La Jolla/Golden
Triangle Area. Centrally located between 805 and 5
freeways. Full or part time. Close to Starbucks and other
eateries. Positive and friendly environment. Call Sallie
Hildebrandt (Psy 10119), 858.453.1800.
WWW.SDpSYCH.ORG
27
Location of SDPA’s office:
4699 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 105
Clairemont Mesa Blvd.
Balboa Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
Murphy Canyon Road
4699
N
PRSRT STD
U.S. POSTAGE
858.277.1463 Phone
PAID
SAN DIEGO, CA
PERMIT No. 981
858.277.1402 Fax
I-15
*no access from Balboa Avenue
Aero Drive
Administrative Staff
Clerical Assistant SDPA STaff
Keny Leepier
Zeyad Al Obaidi
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President
President-Elect
Past President
Secretary
Treasurer
Members at Large
CPA Representatives
CPA Alternate Representatives
Student Representative
Mary Harb-Sheets, Ph.D.
Joel Lazar, Ph.D.
Lori Futterman, RN, Ph.D.
Lindsey Alper, Ph.D.
Victor Frazao, Ph.D.
Mei-I Chang, Psy.D.
Felise Levine, Ph.D.
Bapsi Slali, Ph.D.
Anabel Bejarano, Ph.D.
Annette Conway, Psy.D.
Steve Tess, Ph.D.
Kelsey Schraufnagel, M.A.
ASSOCIATION SERVICES
Colleague Assistance
Legal Counsel
Newsletter
Psychologist Referral and Information Service (PIRS)
Psychology 2000
TBD
David Leatherberry, J.D.
Jonathan Gale, Ph.D.
Vanja Gale, Psy.D.,
Adriana Molina, Ph.D.
Ain Roost, Ph.D.
SDPA REPRESENTATIVES
Board of Psychology
Adult System of Care
Children’s System of Care
Mental Health Board
Mental Health Board
Mental Heath Coalition
Older Adult Systems of Care
TERM Advisory Board
U.B.H. Credentialing Committee
U.B.H. Peer Review Committee
Hugh Pates, Ph.D.
Lori Futterman, RN., Ph.D.
Karen Zappone, Ph.D.
Katherine DiFrancesca, Ph.D.
Gloria G. Harris, Ph.D.
Mary Ann Brummer, Ph.D.
Ken Dellefield, Ph.D.
TBD
Hugh Pates, Ph.D.
Steve Tess, Ph.D.
STaNDING COMMITTEES
Community Mental Health
Mary McGuinn Clark, Ph.D.
Steve Tess, Ph.D.
Continuing Education Victor Frazao, Ph.D
Ethics and Standards
Temple Zander, Ph.D.
Government Affairs
Bruce Sachs, Ph.D.
Membership (Recruit & Retention) Bapsi Slali, Ph.D.
(Mentoring Program) Mei-I Chang, Psy.D.
FORMaL COMMITTEES
Cultural Diversity
Disaster Response
Early Career Professional Forensic
Men’s Issues
Neuropsychology
Psychologist Retirement, Incapacitation or Death (PRID)
Public Education & Media
Science Fair
Student Affairs
Supervision
Women’s
Ernest Llynn Lotecka, Ph.D.
Roberta Flynn, Psy.D.
Aleksandra Marinovic, Psy.D.
Vanessa Weinbach, Ph.D.
Shaul Saddick, Ph.D
Preston Sims, Ph.D.
Danny Singley, Ph.D.
Michael Kabat, Ph.D.
Antonia Meltzoff, Ph.D.
Katherine Moore, Ph.D.
Richard Schere, Ph.D.
Dane Ripelino, Ph.D.
Jessie Macaulay, M.A.
Angela Hanchett, B.A.
Patty Petterson, Ph.D.
Margaret Lee Higgins, Ph.D.
SpECIaL INTEREST COMMITTEES
Aging
Arts
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender
Past Presidents Sports Psychology
Hugh Pates, Ph.D.
Toni Ann Cafaro, Psy.D.
Diane Pendragon, Ph.D.
Paul Sussman, Ph.D.
Chris Osterloh, Ph.D.
Sharon Colgan, Ph.D.
TaSK FORCE GROUpS
Children & Youth Mindfulness
Barbara Cureton, Ph.D.
Angela Kilman, Ph.D.
Steve Hickman, Ph.D.
Jessica Evers-Killebrew, M.A.