How would it be established that a space explorer is insane?

Question

Outer space is weird, often in ways that are bad. Some of the explorers who return are broken inside*:

We want to explore space, and it's obviously most efficient if veterans can be re-deployed, but it's not productive to send explorers who are mentally unhinged. Exploring weird space can break explorers who would otherwise be treated as veterans.

So, folks who return from any kind of exploration assignment are going to receive some kind of psychological screening -- I mean brain test -- before being considered fit for duty.

Given today's best psychology, what would that screening look like?

I am looking for concrete specifics. An answer is worthless if its substance is merely "we'd make sure you can tell reality from fantasy."

It is okay if the answer is in the form of, "we'd run the explorer past these specific psychological batteries: [list of names of specific psych tests]".

In other words: what would the leader of the APA recommend as a formal de-briefing requirement?

Alternatively: assume an actually insane explorer returns to Earth; what reasonable testing would reveal their unfitness?

^{* I know humans are not celery. We are obviously carrots.}

Answer 1

Any test given would be compared with the results of previous tests before the mission or during training - this would give a picture of changes through time.

A good many tests would be physical, and their performance and attitudes during the physical tests would be telling of much. Notably the Chinese space agency's tests are particularly gruelling physically and in terms of mental endurance, but I'm having trouble digging up the details.

You've not defined what changes have happened, so I'll just give you a few tests to be going on with:

16 factor personality test (Raymond Cattell). (By interview).

1. Schizothymia (introversion, reduced affect, withdrawal from social contact)/affectothymia (easygoingness) axis.

2. General mental capacity, abstract thinking, concrete thinking, scholastic performance.

3. Emotional stability (with stimulus), calmness.

4. Dominance/submissiveness axis.

5. Livliness: Spontaneous, expressive, cheerful, happy-go-lucky/serious, introspective, silent, prudent.

6. Non-conforming/rule bound (super-ego strength).

7. Threctia/parmia (threat-sensitivity, high/low).

8. Harria: Utilitarian, objective, unsentimental, tough minded, self-reliant, no-nonsense, rough./Premsia: Sensitive, aesthetic, sentimental, tender minded, intuitive, refined.

9. Alaxia (trusting, unsuspecting)/premsia (suspicious, sceptical).

10. Praxernia (grounded, steady, practical)/autia (abstract, absent-minded, idea-absorbed).

11. Artlessness/shrewdness axis.

12. Untroubled/proneness to guilt.

13. Conservatism/radicalism.

14. Group-adherence/self-sufficiency.

15. Self-concept integration: Low (careless of social rules/norms of behaviour, impulsive, not well controlled)/high (conforming to group ways, controlled).

16. Ergic tension: Low (placid, relaxed, chilled-out)/ high (impatient, frustrated, tense, overwrought).

Likert scale: (survey of attitudes/preferences). Used regards to social/political attitudes, food preference, attitudes to other crew etc.. (Interview or written questionnaire).

Beck: depression inventory/anxiety inventory.

TAT, inkblot test: (measures feedback from external influences to determine unresolved emotional conflicts).

The good old Glasgow Coma Scale: measures response to stimuli - verbal, eye movement etc..

Direct observation: in a variety of settings.

Things to look for: delusions (false and fixed beliefs), obsessions, hallucinations (various sensory modalities), depression, alertness, concentration, abstract reasoning changes, signs of intoxication (disinhibition, impulse-control issues)..

Answer 2

Insane ≠ incompetent!

Get er done is get er done. If a returning veteran is broken but can still get the job done, OK! No sense in wasting those skills.

The veteran will be deployed on some simulated missions, or low risk missions. Maybe with other similar veterans. It may be that the veteran approaches the mission objective in unorthodox ways. It may be that the veteran is no longer the best company because of the constant murmuring that does not always seem to be coming from the veteran. Maybe the returning veteran has an extra eye she does not always take pains to conceal. Maybe the next mission would be better undertaken solo.

All good! Waste not want not. If the vet can get it done, vet is good to go. Just because you are insane does not mean you are incompetent!

Plus for a fiction the simulated mission will be a lot more fun to write than having the returning vet take some test in a quiet room.

-- I am picturing the returning vet. She has been equipped with a robot buddy that sits on her shoulder. It looks like a parrot. They discuss things. "Parrot," she says. "Is that brown thing real?" "I see that brown thing too, Val," replies the parrot. "I think it is a big brown cat."