Reseach_Paper_for_Counseling

Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis (T-JTA) The Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis (T-JTA) “is an instrument for assessing the influence of an individual’s personal characteristics in relationships. The test is used in counseling for couples or individuals, premarital sessions, and marriage enrichment” (Johnson, R., Taylor, R., Morrison, L., Morrison, W., & Romoser, R., 2002). T-JTA assists therapists in uncovering areas of opportunity where a client may improve. Furthermore, clients are encouraged to self-analyze to strengthen interpersonal relationships. This paper will describe the test and purpose. The validity and reliability, and population will be covered. A personal evaluation and current researched will be discussed. Finally, included is an interview with Robyn Bryan-Horrigan MFT, a therapist for over 30 years who describes her personal experience with the T-JTA. Description of the T-JTA The original version was the Johnson Temperament Analysis (T-JTA) was created by Roswell H. Johnson in 1941 and published in 1966. The T-JTA is the most common used personality assessments and takes about an hour to complete. The assessment is administered using paper and pencil and contains 360 items. “Designed to 'measure a number of personality variables or attitudes and behavioral tendencies which influence personal, social, marital, parental, family, scholastic, and vocational adjustment”( Johnson, R., Taylor, R., Morrison, L., Morrison, W., & Romoser, R., 2002). The test can be administered to an individual or group with a population of ages 11 and older. The 2005 price data is $259 for each complete kit, for hand scoring and computer software scoring, $249 per complete kit for scoring using computer software, $129 for computer scoring package to be used to mail in scoring. Additionally, each test manual fee is $129, and $47.50 per handbook. According to Psychological Publications, Inc. (2010), “The T-JTA® has been used for more than 40 years by thousands of counseling professionals in a wide array of settings in the U.S. and around the world to help people understand themselves and significant others in their lives”(Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis® (T-JTA®), para. 1). The scores are “Nervous vs. Composed, Depressive vs. Light-Hearted, Active-Social vs. Quiet, Expressive-Responsive vs. Inhibited, Sympathetic vs. Indifferent, Subjective vs. Objective, Dominant vs. Submissive, Hostile vs. Tolerant, Self-Disciplined vs. Impulsive, Attitude, Total”, ( Johnson, R., Taylor, R., Morrison, L., Morrison, W., & Romoser, R., 2002). The current version has been enhanced to provide an easier ability to interpret and communicate the result reports. The T-JTA is advised to use with ordinary counseling situations as oppose to clients who indicate having more psychopathology issues. Reliability and Validity According to the Mental Measurements Yearbook (Johnson, R., Taylor, R., Morrison, L., Morrison, W., & Romoser, R., 2002), the reliability and validity of the T-JTA: Reliability studies include test-retest correlation coefficients, split-half correlations, and Hoyt's analysis of variance approach. Correlations for 1- to 3-week intervals on the nine scales ranged from .62 to .90. Split-half reliability studies and reliability estimates by the analysis of variance procedure also proved to be adequate for the T-JTA. Efforts to establish test validity include empirical validity studies comparing professional clinical ratings to the T-JTA scores. In addition, 'self-rated' test results were compared with 'other-rated' (Criss-Cross) test results. Validity studies, referenced in the manual, report the relationships of T-JTA scales to the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) and the Minnesota 11,1ultiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). The relationships among the measures support the construct validity of the T-JTA. Standardization data are provided in the TJTA manual. The General Population N was 3,942 (2,316 males and 1,626 females). The College Student N was 3,926 (1,644 males and 2,282 females). The Secondary Population (ages 13-18) N was 10,071 (5,045 males and 5,026 females). The 1984 norms for use in scoring the Criss-Cross test for each population group are also included in the T-JTA manual. The 1984 Secondary norms are a combination of the 1973 High School norms with the 1977 Secondary norms. Case Studies After researching the T-JTA, and interviewing a therapist who is familiar with administering the assessment, I have formed my opinion. I believe the T-JTA is an efficient tool for therapists to strengthen their ability to assist clients in self-awareness. The T-JTA is used in a variety of settings, however usually administered to couples. School counselors do administer the T-JTA, and have found to prove successful in assisting adolescents with conflict management. Additionally, many organizations use the T-JTA for career placement and adjustment. According to “Understanding Conflict Response Styles: The use of Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis® with Adolescents” (Gold, J., 1999), there were two case studies conducted, the first was with two adolescent boys who continued to have conflicts in the classroom. The use of T-JTA allowed the school counselor to identify the conflict response approach of each of the adolescents. Steven one of the boys, approached conflict physically, pushing and using anger and insults. Craig the other boy responded to conflict by mocking, verbally expressing aggression, and putting down the performance of other students in the class. Steven would confront and Craig would deny making comments, which resulted in Steven aggressively attacking Craig. The same behavior continued in other classes and the school counselor was able to identify a pattern in Steven and Craig’s continuous response to conflict. The school counselor encouraged the boys to take the T-JTA assessment and explained to them, the results will identify the different fighting styles. The results of the assessment identified that “Steven scored at the 85th percentile on the dominant/submissive scale, at the 68th percentile on the hostile/tolerant scale, and at the 30th percentile on the sympathetic/indifferent scale, a profile characteristic of the "hostile-dominant" category (Gold, J., 1999)”. After the counselor explained the results and through a few more sessions, Steven admitted, his family raised him to stand up for himself. Even though Steven mentioned that his behavior protected him from the other kids, he was unhappy to know that he intimidated his classmates. Moreover, Steven was able to make the correlation between his behavior and the challenges that arose with his parents and other adults. Craig’s assessment scored “at the 25th percentile on the active-social/quiet scale, at the 40th percentile on the expressive-responsive/inhibited scale, at the 30th percentile on the dominant/submissive scale, and at the 80th percentile on the subjective/objective scale; his scores contributing to a "withdrawal" profile (Gold, J., 1999)”. Craig acknowledged that he felt he was more intelligent than the other kids were in his class; however, he seemed to lack the ability to socialize well. Craig was teased often because he participated and received good grades; he felt that he could use his intelligence to retaliate. Although his retaliation resulted in the classmates still not liking him, at least he was getting attention, whether negative or positive. The information provided from the T-JTA assessment allowed the counselor to identify a more efficient approach to conflict resolution with Steven and Craig. The school counselor asked Steven and Craig if they would prefer to continue counseling together or separate. Interestingly the boys chose to continue together and even inquired to learn more about the reason they reacted to conflict in specific ways. “Two specific themes predominated: Where did you learn to be like that' And What would happen to you if you did not respond like you do' (Gold, J., 1999)”. The boys decided to create a contract with the counselor and with each other to work together and to prevent either Steven or Craig from getting into trouble. The counselor provided the idea to create a signal to indentify when one of them was acting inappropriate, with each other, other classmates, or the teacher. Both Steven and Craig continued for a few more sessions and agreed to finding out more about their family histories, to understand more about their present behavior. Through exploring the past, understanding the individual approaches to conflict, and making the correlation on the differences between conflict expressed at home versus in school, both Steven and Craig were able to embrace the new tools and learn to change their reactions to conflict. Finally, Steve and Craig’s case study was a representation of the Hostile-Dominant Versus Withdrawal Profiles in the T-JTA. The second case study was between an algebra teacher Mr . Simpson, and her student Amanda. Ms. Simpson required student participate in her class and chose students in random to present the answer to the problem. The issue began when Ms. Simpson continued to call on Amanda and she responded saying she did not have the answer. Ms. Simpson continued to call on her to the point where one day Amanda ran out of class crying. Amanda began to feel as though Ms. Simpson was singling her out of the class. The counselor became involved and had a session with Ms. Simpson and then another session with Amanda. The school counselor offered the T-JTA to Ms. Simpson and she refused and felt strongly that she is only doing her job and she can require student participation. The counselor acknowledged her feelings and explained to Ms. Simpson, the assessment is to identify her approach as a teacher. The assessment is not meant as an accusation any wrongdoing in her class. Ms. Simpson agreed to take the assessment and scored in the mid 80 percentile on “the active-social/quiet scale, at the 75th percentile on the expressive-responsive/inhibited scale, at the 80th percentile on the sympathetic/indifferent scale, and at the 20th percentile on the hostile/tolerant scale. In summary, her profile corresponded to the category of "socially effective, (Gold, J., 1999)”. The school counselor then offered the assessment to Amanda and she refused as well. Amanda felt strongly that Ms. Simpson did not care for her. The counselor acknowledged Amanda’s feelings. Furthermore, Amanda was able to make the correlation between her inability to do well in the class and her feelings towards Mr. Simpson. The school counselor described the assessment in such a way that allowed Amanda to realize the T-JTA was not a threat and only a tool to indentify her feelings she may have regarding other situations. Amanda agreed to complete the assessment and her score was “75th and 80th percentiles on the nervous/composed, depressive/light-hearted, and the subjective/objective scales. Amanda's score profile fit the category of "anxiety." Subsequent exploration by the counselor sought to determine whether this anxiety was pervasive or circumstantial, (Gold, J., 1999)”. After the school counselor presented the assessment results to Amanda, they were able to discover that she did not have the same problems in other classes because the teachers left her alone. Amanda’s problems were only in Ms. Simpson’s class because she felt so strongly that she was singling her out. The conflict was created because of the difference in how Ms. Simpson and Amanda interacted. Ms. Simpson and Amanda were able to continue sessions with the school counselor together. Amanda was able to change her mind on how she felt about Ms. Simpson and the two of them created signals for each of them to recognize. The signals allowed Amanda to notify Ms. Simpson when she was confused about a problem. The assessment results taught Ms. Simpson and Amanda to learn how to communicate effectively, while allowing the method of teaching to continue. Finally, Ms. Simpson and Amanda’s case study was a representation of the Socially-Effective Versus Anxiety Profiles in the T-JTA. Interview with Robyn Bryan-Horrigan MFT Robyn Bryan-Horrigan MFT (personal communication, October 15, 2010), Robyn has been a marriage family therapist for over 30 years and expressed she was pleased with the T-JTA. Robyn found the assessment user friendly and easy to interpret the results and explain them to her clients; moreover, she stated the assessment is not full of “psycho-babble”. Robyn also felt the assessment was very helpful for couples to learn how to approach communicating differently. Moreover, Robyn felt the T-JTA helped to de-villianize couples. In Robyn’s practice, she used the assessment for both premarital and marital counseling. “Couples were able to see things in black and white, this is the temperament you were born with, there is no right or wrong”. Robyn found she had more success with therapy for couples who took the assessment, versus couples who did not. The T-JTA allowed her to “mediate and provide a way to reach a point of compromise”. Conclusion The research gathered from the two case studies and personal interview with Robyn-Bryan, proved the Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis (T-JTA) to be an effective tool for therapists. The T-JTA assists clients with self-awareness, effective communication, and conflict resolution. This paper described the test, purpose, measures, and the uses. The validity and reliability, and population were covered. Finally, a personal evaluation, current research case studies, and an interview with Robyn Bryan-Horrigan MFT, who described her personal experience with the T-JTA was included.