Free LCSW Practice Questions with Expert Explanations

Anhedonia is the markedly diminished interest or pleasure in activities. The client's statement concerns a specific cognitive belief about his lifespan, not a global inability to experience pleasure as defined in the **DSM-5-TR** criteria for Major Depressive Disorder.

Learned helplessness describes a state of passivity resulting from a belief that one's actions have no effect on outcomes. The client is expressing a specific belief about a shortened lifespan, not the generalized lack of control over events central to **Seligman's theory of learned helplessness**.

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort from holding two or more contradictory beliefs. The client is expressing a single, internally consistent (though pessimistic) belief, not the state of internal conflict between opposing ideas described in **Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance**.

This option describes the Intimacy vs. Isolation crisis, which occurs in young adulthood (ages 19-40), not the adolescent period the client is reflecting on. According to **Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development**, the central task of adolescence is identity formation.

This option defines the Initiative vs. Guilt crisis, which according to **Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development**, is the primary conflict of the preschool years (ages 3-5) and centers on asserting control and power over the environment.

This option describes the Industry vs. Inferiority crisis, which is the central conflict of the school-age years (ages 6-11) and focuses on developing competence in academic and social skills. **Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development** places the client's struggle with self-concept in the subsequent adolescent stage.

The social worker's primary client is the mother, who presented for services at the EAP. Shifting the focus to the child before addressing the mother's presenting concerns is inconsistent with the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.01**, which prioritizes the well-being of the immediate client.

This directive ignores the mother's expressed fear and fails to explore her ambivalence, which is a key tenet of **Motivational Interviewing**. Issuing a directive without building rapport or exploring the function of the behavior can increase resistance and is an ineffective initial step.

Making an immediate referral without first conducting an assessment, establishing rapport, and providing initial support is premature. According to the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.01**, the social worker's primary responsibility is to the client, which includes engaging in a therapeutic process before referring out.

This option implements a specific intervention before conducting a thorough assessment, which is premature and clinically unsound. The **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.04**, requires social workers to be competent, which includes applying appropriate assessment before implementing interventions to ensure the root cause of the behavior is addressed.

This action assumes the primary etiology of the problem is family dynamics without first assessing for individual deficits. The client's long history of academic failure since elementary school strongly suggests a potential neurodevelopmental disorder, which, according to the **DSM-5-TR**, must be considered and assessed before attributing the behaviors solely to environmental factors like family conflict.

This option is too narrow in scope, focusing only on a single behavioral diagnosis while ignoring significant evidence of academic and functional deficits. The **DSM-5-TR**'s section on neurodevelopmental disorders emphasizes that persistent academic failure and functional impairments since childhood warrant assessment for conditions like Specific Learning Disorder or Intellectual Disability, which a referral limited to Conduct Disorder would miss.

This diagnosis is contraindicated because the client's psychotic symptoms persisted for a month in the absence of a depressive episode. According to the **DSM-5-TR**, a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features requires that psychotic symptoms occur exclusively during a major mood episode.

This is incorrect because the client's prominent and year-long history of depression makes schizophrenia an unlikely diagnosis. The **DSM-5-TR** criteria for Schizophrenia state that if mood episodes occur, they must be present for only a minority of the total duration of the illness.

While a substance use screen is an important part of a full assessment, it is not the primary action given the specific diagnostic clues pointing toward a primary psychotic disorder. A referral for a full psychiatric evaluation is the most critical first step and aligns with the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.04** on competence, as this complex differential diagnosis requires psychiatric expertise.

While family support is important, the immediate clinical priority is the client's medication non-adherence and its impact on her bipolar disorder; this choice fails to first address the most pressing medical and safety issue. The **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.07(c)**, obligates social workers to collaborate with interdisciplinary colleagues, like the psychiatrist, when it serves the client's well-being.

Initiating psychotherapy without first addressing the client's discontinuation of her mood stabilizer is clinically inappropriate for Bipolar II Disorder. The **DSM-5-TR** diagnostic framework for bipolar disorders necessitates a primary focus on mood stabilization, as treating the depressive episode in isolation without medical consultation can be ineffective and potentially risky.

This action contradicts the fundamental diagnostic rules of the **DSM-5-TR**, which state that a history of even one hypomanic episode permanently precludes a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. The client's documented history of Bipolar II Disorder remains the correct diagnosis, even during a depressive episode.

Delaying an assessment of a statement indicating potential suicidal ideation fails to address the immediate safety risk, which is the primary and initial step of crisis intervention according to **Roberts' Seven-Stage Crisis Intervention Model**.

Using a potential suicidality disclosure as a group topic violates the individual's confidentiality and prioritizes group process over the immediate need for a private lethality assessment, contradicting the ethical standards of privacy in the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.07**.

Redirecting the client dismisses a statement of hopelessness that requires an immediate safety assessment, which is the foundational first step of crisis intervention as outlined in **Roberts' Seven-Stage Crisis Intervention Model**.

Calling a pause is a primary de-escalation technique to manage the heightened emotional intensity of a crisis situation. This aligns with the immediate, here-and-now focus of **Albert Roberts' Seven-Stage Crisis Intervention Model** by addressing overwhelming feelings before attempting to problem-solve.

Redirecting the focus to safety directly addresses the primary goal of crisis intervention, which is to ensure immediate physical and psychological safety for all involved. This action is consistent with the initial assessment stage outlined in **Albert Roberts' Seven-Stage Crisis Intervention Model**.

Validating feelings is a core therapeutic skill used in crisis work to de-escalate clients and re-establish a working alliance. This intervention fulfills two key stages of **Albert Roberts' Seven-Stage Crisis Intervention Model**: establishing rapport and dealing with feelings.

Asking 'why' can be perceived as defensive and risks damaging rapport by invalidating the client's already-stated reason for asking. This approach fails to prioritize the client's well-being as mandated by the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.01 Commitment to Clients**.

A rigid refusal to answer can be experienced as rejection, harming the therapeutic alliance, especially for a client struggling with isolation. According to the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.06 Conflicts of Interest**, boundary-setting must be flexible and serve the client's clinical needs, not adhere to inflexible rules that may cause harm.

Sharing a detailed personal anecdote shifts the focus onto the social worker's experience, which is therapeutically inappropriate. This crosses a professional boundary by using the session for the social worker's needs rather than the client's, which is counter to the principles outlined in the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.06 Conflicts of Interest**.

This action neglects the immediate duty to mitigate the ongoing confidentiality breach, leaving the client's sensitive information exposed. The ethical mandate to protect client confidentiality requires containing the breach before proceeding with the safety assessment, as per the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.07**.

This passive response fails to address either the specific client's privacy breach or the potential safety risk mentioned in the post. This inaction violates the social worker's primary responsibility to promote the well-being of the client under the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.01 Commitment to Clients**.

This option inappropriately shifts the responsibility of correcting the error to a distressed client who is not technologically savvy, delaying the resolution of the privacy breach. The social worker has a direct responsibility to protect client information according to the **NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.07(c)**, which includes electronic communications.