Inwald personality inventory technical manual

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 1/133

CHAPTER 1 Applications and Consequences of Psychological Testing

TOPIC 1A The Nature and Uses of Psychological Testing

1.1 The Consequences of Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec1#ch01lev1sec1)

Case Exhibit 1.1 True-Life Vignettes of Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec1#ch01exh1)

1.2 De�inition of a Test (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec2#ch01lev1sec2)

1.3 Further Distinctions in Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec3#ch01lev1sec3)

1.4 Types of Tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01lev1sec4)

1.5 Uses of Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec5#ch01lev1sec5)

1.6 Factors In�luencing the Soundness of Testing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec6#ch01lev1sec6)

1.7 Standardized Procedures in Test Administration (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec7#ch01lev1sec7)

1.8 Desirable Procedures of Test Administration (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec8#ch01lev1sec8)

1.9 In�luence of the Examiner (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec9#ch01lev1sec9)

1.10 Background and Motivation of the Examinee (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec10#ch01lev1sec10)

If you ask average citizens “What do you know about psychological tests?” they might mention something about intelligence tests, inkblots, and true-false inventories such as the widely familiar MMPI. Most likely, their understanding of tests will focus on quantifying intelligence and detecting personality problems, as this is the common view of how tests are used in our society. Certainly, there is more than a grain of truth to this common view: Measures of personality and intelligence are still the essential

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec1#ch01lev1sec1
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec1#ch01exh1
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec2#ch01lev1sec2
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec3#ch01lev1sec3
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01lev1sec4
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec5#ch01lev1sec5
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec6#ch01lev1sec6
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec7#ch01lev1sec7
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec8#ch01lev1sec8
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec9#ch01lev1sec9
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec10#ch01lev1sec10
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 2/133

mainstays of psychological testing. However, modern test developers have produced many other kinds of tests for diverse and imaginative purposes that even the early pioneers of testing could not have anticipated. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the varied applications of psychological testing and also to review the ethical and social consequences of this enterprise.

The chapter begins with a panoramic survey of psychological tests and their often surprising applications. In Topic 1A (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01#ch01box1) , The Nature and Uses of Psychological Testing, we summarize the different types and varied applications of modern tests. We also introduce the reader to a host of factors that can in�luence the soundness of testing such as adherence to standardized procedures, establishment of rapport, and the motivation of the examinee to deceive. In Topic 1B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec10#ch01box2) , Ethical and Social Implications of Testing, we further develop the theme that testing is a consequential endeavor. In this topic, we survey professional guidelines that impact testing and review the in�luence of cultural background on test results.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01#ch01box1
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec10#ch01box2
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 3/133

1.1 THE CONSEQUENCES OF TESTING From birth to old age, we encounter tests at almost every turning point in life. The baby’s �irst test conducted immediately after birth is the Apgar test, a quick, multivariate assessment of heart rate, respiration, muscle tone, re�lex irritability, and color. The total Apgar score (0 to 10) helps determine the need for any immediate medical attention. Later, a toddler who previously received a low Apgar score might be a candidate for developmental disability assessment. The preschool child may take school- readiness tests. Once a school career begins, each student endures hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academic tests before graduation—not to mention possible tests for learning disability, giftedness, vocational interest, and college admission. After graduation, adults may face tests for job entry, driver’s license, security clearance, personality function, marital compatibility, developmental disability, brain dysfunction—the list is nearly endless. Some persons even encounter one �inal indignity in the frailness of their later years: a test to determine their competency to manage �inancial affairs.

Tests are used in almost every nation on earth for counseling, selection, and placement. Testing occurs in settings as diverse as schools, civil service, industry, medical clinics, and counseling centers. Most persons have taken dozens of tests and thought nothing of it. Yet, by the time the typical individual reaches retirement age, it is likely that psychological test results will have helped to shape his or her destiny. The de�lection of the life course by psychological test results might be subtle, such as when a prospective mathematician quali�ies for an accelerated calculus course based on tenth-grade achievement scores. More commonly, psychological test results alter individual destiny in profound ways. Whether a person is admitted to one college and not another, offered one job but refused a second, diagnosed as depressed or not—all such determinations rest, at least in part, on the meaning of test results as interpreted by persons in authority. Put simply, psychological test results change lives. For this reason it is prudent—indeed, almost mandatory—that students of psychology learn about the contemporary uses and occasional abuses of testing. In Case Exhibit 1.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec1#ch01exh1) , the life-altering aftermath of psychological testing is illustrated by means of several true case history examples.

CASE EXHIBIT 1.1 True-Life Vignettes of Testing The in�luence of psychological testing is best illustrated by example. Consider these brief vignettes:

A shy, withdrawn 7-year-old girl is administered an IQ test by a school psychologist. Her score is phenomenally higher than the teacher expected. The student is admitted to a gifted and talented program where she blossoms into a self-con�ident and gregarious scholar. Three children in a family living near a lead smelter are exposed to the toxic effects of lead dust and suffer neurological damage. Based in part on psychological test results that demonstrate impaired intelligence and shortened attention span in the children, the family receives an $8 million settlement from the company that owns the smelter. A candidate for a position as police of�icer is administered a personality inventory as part of the selection process. The test indicates that the candidate tends to act before thinking and resists supervision from authority �igures. Even though he has excellent training and impresses the interviewers, the candidate does not receive a job offer. A student, unsure of what career to pursue, takes a vocational interest inventory. The test indicates that she would like the work of a pharmacist. She signs up for a prepharmacy curriculum but �inds the classes to be both dif�icult and boring. After three years, she abandons

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec1#ch01exh1
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 4/133

pharmacy for a major in dance, frustrated that she still faces three more years of college to earn a degree.

These cases demonstrate that test results impact individual lives and the collective social fabric in powerful and far-reaching ways. In the �irst story about the hidden talent of a 7-year-old girl, cognitive test results changed her life trajectory for the better. In the second case involving the tragic saga of children exposed to lead poisoning, the test data helped redress a social injustice. In the third situation— the impulsive candidate for police of�icer—personality test results likely served the public interest by tipping the balance against a questionable applicant. But test results do not always provide a positive conclusion. In the last case mentioned above, a young student wasted time and money following the seemingly �lawed guidance of a well-known vocational inventory.

The idea of a test is thus a pervasive element of our culture, a feature we take for granted. However, the layperson’s notion of a test does not necessarily coincide with the more restrictive view held by psychometricians. A psychometrician (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss256) is a specialist in psychology or education who develops and evaluates psychological tests. Because of widespread misunderstandings about the nature of tests, it is �itting that we begin this topic with a fundamental question, one that de�ines the scope of the entire book: What is a test?

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss256
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 5/133

1.2 DEFINITION OF A TEST A test (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss326) is a standardized procedure for sampling behavior and describing it with categories or scores. In addition, most tests have norms or standards by which the results can be used to predict other, more important behaviors. We elaborate these characteristics in the sections that follow, but �irst it is instructive to portray the scope of the de�inition. Included in this view are traditional tests such as personality questionnaires and intelligence tests, but the de�inition also subsumes diverse procedures that the reader might not recognize as tests. For example, all of the following could be tests according to the de�inition used in this book: a checklist for rating the social skills of a youth with mental retardation; a nontimed measure of mastery in adding pairs of three-digit numbers; microcomputer appraisals of reaction time; and even situational tests such as observing an individual working on a group task with two “helpers” who are obstructive and uncooperative.

In sum, tests are enormously varied in their formats and applications. Nonetheless, most tests possess these de�ining features:

Standardized procedure Behavior sample Scores or categories Norms or standards Prediction of nontest behavior

In the sections that follow, we examine each of these characteristics in more detail. The portrait that we draw pertains especially to norm-referenced tests—tests that use a well-de�ined population of persons for their interpretive framework. However, the de�ining characteristics of a test differ slightly for the special case of criterion-referenced tests—tests that measure what a person can do rather than comparing results to the performance levels of others. For this reason, we provide a separate discussion of criterion- referenced tests.

Standardized procedure (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss311) is an essential feature of any psychological test. A test is considered to be standardized if the procedures for administering it are uniform from one examiner and setting to another. Of course, standardization depends to some extent on the competence of the examiner. Even the best test can be rendered useless by a careless, poorly trained, or ill-informed tester, as the reader will discover later in this topic. However, most examiners are competent. Standardization, therefore, rests largely on the directions for administration found in the instructional manual that typically accompanies a test.

The formulation of directions is an essential step in the standardization of a test. In order to guarantee uniform administration procedures, the test developer must provide comparable stimulus materials to all testers, specify with considerable precision the oral instructions for each item or subtest, and advise the examiner how to handle a wide range of queries from the examinee.

To illustrate these points, consider the number of different ways a test developer might approach the assessment of digit span—the maximum number of orally presented digits a subject can recall from memory. An unstandardized test of digit span might merely suggest that the examiner orally present increasingly long series of numbers until the subject fails. The number of digits in the longest series recalled would then be the subject’s digit span. Most readers can discern that such a loosely de�ined test

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss326
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss311
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 6/133

will lack uniformity from one examiner to another. If the tester is free to improvise any series of digits, what is to prevent him or her from presenting, with the familiar in�lection of a television announcer, “1- 800-325-3535”? Such a series would be far easier to recall than a more random set, such as, “7-2-8-1-9-4- 6-3-7-4-2.” The speed of presentation would also crucially affect the uniformity of a digit span test. For purposes of standardization, it is essential that every examiner present each series at a constant rate, for example, one digit per second. Finally, the examiner needs to know how to react to unexpected responses such as a subject asking, “Could you repeat that again?” For obvious reasons, the usual advice is “No.”

A psychological test is also a limited sample of behavior. Neither the subject nor the examiner has suf�icient time for truly comprehensive testing, even when the test is targeted to a well-de�ined and �inite behavior domain. Thus, practical constraints dictate that a test is only a sample of behavior. Yet, the sample of behavior is of interest only insofar as it permits the examiner to make inferences about the total domain of relevant behaviors. For example, the purpose of a vocabulary test is to determine the examinee’s entire word stock by requesting de�initions of a very small but carefully selected sample of words. Whether the subject can de�ine the particular 35 words from a vocabulary subtest (e.g., on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV, or the WAIS-IV) is of little direct consequence. But the indirect meaning of such results is of great import because it signals the examinee’s general knowledge of vocabulary.

An interesting point—and one little understood by the lay public—is that the test items need not resemble the behaviors that the test is attempting to predict. The essential characteristic of a good test is that it permits the examiner to predict other behaviors—not that it mirrors the to-be-predicted behaviors. If answering “true” to the question “I drink a lot of water” happens to help predict depression, then this seemingly unrelated question is a useful index of depression. Thus, the reader will note that successful prediction is an empirical question answered by appropriate research. While most tests do sample directly from the domain of behaviors they hope to predict, this is not a psychometric requirement.

A psychological test must also permit the derivation of scores or categories. Thorndike (1918 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1636) ) expressed the essential axiom of testing in his famous assertion, “Whatever exists at all exists in some amount.” McCall (1939 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1081) ) went a step further, declaring, “Anything that exists in amount can be measured.” Testing strives to be a form of measurement akin to procedures in the physical sciences whereby numbers represent abstract dimensions such as weight or temperature. Every test furnishes one or more scores or provides evidence that a person belongs to one category and not another. In short, psychological testing sums up performance in numbers or classi�ications.

The implicit assumption of the psychometric viewpoint is that tests measure individual differences in traits or characteristics that exist in some vague sense of the word. In most cases, all people are assumed to possess the trait or characteristic being measured, albeit in different amounts. The purpose of the testing is to estimate the amount of the trait or quality possessed by an individual.

In this context, two cautions are worth mentioning. First, every test score will always re�lect some degree of measurement error. The imprecision of testing is simply unavoidable: Tests must rely on an external sample of behavior to estimate an unobservable and, therefore, inferred characteristic. Psychometricians often express this fundamental point with an equation:

X = T + e

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1636
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1081
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 7/133

where X is the observed score, T is the true score, and e is a positive or negative error component. The best that a test developer can do is make e very small. It can never be completely eliminated, nor can its exact impact be known in the individual case. We discuss the concept of measurement error in Topic 3B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch03lev1sec5#ch03box2) , Concepts of Reliability.

The second caution is that test consumers must be wary of reifying the characteristic being measured. Test results do not represent a thing with physical reality. Typically, they portray an abstraction that has been shown to be useful in predicting nontest behaviors. For example, in discussing a person’s IQ, psychologists are referring to an abstraction that has no direct, material existence but that is, nonetheless, useful in predicting school achievement and other outcomes.

A psychological test must also possess norms or standards. An examinee’s test score is usually interpreted by comparing it with the scores obtained by others on the same test. For this purpose, test developers typically provide norms (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss223) —a summary of test results for a large and representative group of subjects (Petersen, Kolen, & Hoover, 1989 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1286) ). The norm group is referred to as the standardization sample.

The selection and testing of the standardization sample (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss310) is crucial to the usefulness of a test. This group must be representative of the population for whom the test is intended or else it is not possible to determine an examinee’s relative standing. In the extreme case when norms are not provided, the examiner can make no use of the test results at all. An exception to this point occurs in the case of criterion-referenced tests, discussed later.

Norms not only establish an average performance but also serve to indicate the frequency with which different high and low scores are obtained. Thus, norms allow the tester to determine the degree to which a score deviates from expectations. Such information can be very important in predicting the nontest behavior of the examinee. Norms are of such overriding importance in test interpretation that we consider them at length in a separate section later in this text.

Finally, tests are not ends in themselves. In general, the ultimate purpose of a test is to predict additional behaviors, other than those directly sampled by the test. Thus, the tester may have more interest in the nontest behaviors predicted by the test than in the test responses per se. Perhaps a concrete example will clarify this point. Suppose an examiner administers an inkblot test to a patient in a psychiatric hospital. Assume that the patient responds to one inkblot by describing it as “eyes peering out.” Based on established norms, the examiner might then predict that the subject will be highly suspicious and a poor risk for individual psychotherapy. The purpose of the testing is to arrive at this and similar predictions— not to determine whether the subject perceives eyes staring out from the blots.

The ability of a test to predict nontest behavior is determined by an extensive body of validational research, most of which is conducted after the test is released. But there are no guarantees in the world of psychometric research. It is not unusual for a test developer to publish a promising test, only to read years later that other researchers �ind it de�icient. There is a lesson here for test consumers: The fact that a test exists and purports to measure a certain characteristic is no guarantee of truth in advertising. A test may have a fancy title, precise instructions, elaborate norms, attractive packaging, and preliminary �indings— but if in the dispassionate study of independent researchers the test fails to predict appropriate nontest behaviors, then it is useless.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch03lev1sec5#ch03box2
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss223
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1286
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss310
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 8/133

1.3 FURTHER DISTINCTIONS IN TESTING The chief features of a test previously outlined apply especially to norm-referenced tests, which constitute the vast majority of tests in use. In a norm-referenced test (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss219) , the performance of each examinee is interpreted in reference to a relevant standardization sample (Petersen, Kolen, & Hoover, 1989 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1286) ). However, these features are less relevant in the special case of criterion-referenced tests, since these instruments suspend the need for comparing the individual examinee with a reference group. In a criterion-referenced test (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss80) , the objective is to determine where the examinee stands with respect to very tightly de�ined educational objectives (Berk, 1984 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib148) ). For example, one part of an arithmetic test for 10-year-olds might measure the accuracy level in adding pairs of two- digit numbers. In an untimed test of 20 such problems, accuracy should be nearly perfect. For this kind of test, it really does not matter how the individual examinee compares to others of the same age. What matters is whether the examinee meets an appropriate, speci�ied criterion—for example, 95 percent accuracy. Because there is no comparison to the normative performance of others, this kind of measurement tool is aptly designated a criterion-referenced test. The important distinction here is that, unlike norm-referenced tests, criterion-referenced tests can be meaningfully interpreted without reference to norms. We discuss criterion-referenced tests in more detail in Topic 3A (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch03#ch03box1) , Norms and Test Standardization.

Another important distinction is between testing and assessment, which are often considered equivalent. However, they do not mean exactly the same thing. Assessment is a more comprehensive term, referring to the entire process of compiling information about a person and using it to make inferences about characteristics and to predict behavior. Assessment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss17) can be de�ined as appraising or estimating the magnitude of one or more attributes in a person. The assessment of human characteristics involves observations, interviews, checklists, inventories, projectives, and other psychological tests. In sum, tests represent only one source of information used in the assessment process. In assessment, the examiner must compare and combine data from different sources. This is an inherently subjective process that requires the examiner to sort out con�licting information and make predictions based on a complex gestalt of data.

The term assessment was invented during World War II (WWII) to describe a program to select men for secret service assignment in the Of�ice of Strategic Services (OSS Assessment Staff, 1948 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1259) ). The OSS staff of psychologists and psychiatrists amassed a colossal amount of information on candidates during four grueling days of written tests, interviews, and personality tests. In addition, the assessment process included a variety of real-life situational tests based on the realization that there was a difference between know-how and can-do:

We made the candidates actually attempt the tasks with their muscles or spoken words, rather than merely indicate on paper how the tasks could be done. We were prompted to introduce realistic tests of ability by such �indings as this: that men who earn a high score in Mechanical Comprehension, a paper-and-pencil test, may be below average when it comes to solving mechanical problems with

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss219
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1286
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss80
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib148
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch03#ch03box1
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss17
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1259
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01lev… 9/133

their hands. (OSS Assessment Staff, 1948 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1259) , pp. 41–42)

The situational tests included group tasks of transporting equipment across a raging brook and scaling a 10-foot-high wall, as well as individual scrutiny of the ability to survive a realistic interrogation and to command two uncooperative subordinates in a construction task.

On the basis of the behavioral observations and test results, the OSS staff rated the candidates on dozens of speci�ic traits in such broad categories as leadership, social relations, emotional stability, effective intelligence, and physical ability. These ratings served as the basis for selecting OSS personnel.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1259
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 10/133

1.4 TYPES OF TESTS Tests can be broadly grouped into two camps: group tests versus individual tests. Group tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss140) are largely pencil- and-paper measures suitable to the testing of large groups of persons at the same time. Individual tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss155) are instruments that by their design and purpose must be administered one on one. An important advantage of individual tests is that the examiner can gauge the level of motivation of the subject and assess the relevance of other factors (e.g., impulsiveness or anxiety) on the test results.

For convenience, we will sort tests into the eight categories depicted in Table 1.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01tab1) . Each of the categories contains norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, individual, and group tests. The reader will note that any typology of tests is a purely arbitrary determination. For example, we could argue for yet another dichotomy: tests that seek to measure maximum performance (e.g., an intelligence test) versus tests that seek to gauge a typical response (e.g., a personality inventory).

In a narrow sense, there are hundreds—perhaps thousands—of different kinds of tests, each measuring a slightly different aspect of the individual. For example, even two tests of intelligence might be arguably different types of measures. One test might reveal the assumption that intelligence is a biological construct best measured through brain waves, whereas another might be rooted in the traditional view that intelligence is exhibited in the capacity to learn acculturated skills such as vocabulary. Lumping both measures under the category of intelligence tests is certainly an oversimpli�ication, but nonetheless a useful starting point.

TABLE 1.1 The Main Types of Psychological Tests

Intelligence Tests: Measure an individual’s ability in relatively global areas such as verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, or reasoning and thereby help determine potential for scholastic work or certain occupations. Aptitude Tests: Measure the capability for a relatively speci�ic task or type of skill; aptitude tests are, in effect, a narrow form of ability testing. Achievement Tests: Measure a person’s degree of learning, success, or accomplishment in a subject or task. Creativity Tests: Assess novel, original thinking and the capacity to �ind unusual or unexpected solutions, especially for vaguely de�ined problems. Personality Tests: Measure the traits, qualities, or behaviors that determine a person’s individuality; such tests include checklists, inventories, and projective techniques. Interest Inventories: Measure an individual’s preference for certain activities or topics and thereby help determine occupational choice. Behavioral Procedures: Objectively describe and count the frequency of a behavior, identifying the antecedents and consequences of the behavior. Neuropsychological Tests: Measure cognitive, sensory, perceptual, and motor performance to determine the extent, locus, and behavioral consequences of brain damage.

Intelligence tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss162) were originally designed to sample a broad assortment of skills in order to estimate the individual’s

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss140
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss155
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01tab1
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss162
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 11/133

general intellectual level. The Binet-Simon scales were successful, in part, because they incorporated heterogeneous tasks, including word de�initions, memory for designs, comprehension questions, and spatial visualization tasks. The group intelligence tests that blossomed with such profusion during and after WWII also tested diverse abilities—witness the Army Alpha with its eight different sections measuring practical judgment, information, arithmetic, and reasoning, among other skills.

Modern intelligence tests also emulate this historically established pattern by sampling a wide variety of pro�iciencies deemed important in our culture. In general, the term intelligence test refers to a test that yields an overall summary score based on results from a heterogeneous sample of items. Of course, such a test might also provide a pro�ile of subtest scores as well, but it is the overall score that generally attracts the most attention.

Aptitude tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss15) measure one or more clearly de�ined and relatively homogeneous segments of ability. Such tests come in two varieties: single aptitude tests and multiple aptitude test batteries. A single aptitude test appraises, obviously, only one ability, whereas a multiple aptitude test battery provides a pro�ile of scores for a number of aptitudes.

Aptitude tests are often used to predict success in an occupation, training course, or educational endeavor. For example, the Seashore Measures of Musical Talents (Seashore, 1938 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1478) ), a series of tests covering pitch, loudness, rhythm, time, timbre, and tonal memory, can be used to identify children with potential talent in music. Specialized aptitude tests also exist for the assessment of clerical skills, mechanical abilities, manual dexterity, and artistic ability.

The most common use of aptitude tests is to determine college admissions. Most every college student is familiar with the SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test, previously called the Scholastic Aptitude Test) of the College Entrance Examination Board. This test contains a Verbal section stressing word knowledge and reading comprehension; a Mathematics section stressing algebra, geometry, and insightful reasoning; and a Writing section. In effect, colleges that require certain minimum scores on the SAT for admission are using the test to predict academic success.

Achievement tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss02) measure a person’s degree of learning, success, or accomplishment in a subject matter. The implicit assumption of most achievement tests is that the schools have taught the subject matter directly. The purpose of the test is then to determine how much of the material the subject has absorbed or mastered. Achievement tests commonly have several subtests, such as reading, mathematics, language, science, and social studies.

The distinction between aptitude and achievement tests is more a matter of use than content (Gregory, 1994a (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib646) ). In fact, any test can be an aptitude test to the extent that it helps predict future performance. Likewise, any test can be an achievement test insofar as it re�lects how much the subject has learned. In practice, then, the distinction between these two kinds of instruments is determined by their respective uses. On occasion, one instrument may serve both purposes, acting as an aptitude test to forecast future performance and an achievement test to monitor past learning.

Creativity tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss76) assess a subject’s ability to produce new ideas, insights, or artistic creations that are accepted as being of social, aesthetic, or scienti�ic value. Thus, measures of creativity

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss15
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1478
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss02
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib646
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss76
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss76
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 12/133

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss76) emphasize novelty and originality in the solution of fuzzy problems or the production of artistic works. A creative response to one problem is illustrated in Figure 1.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01�ig1) .

Tests of creativity have a checkered history. In the 1960s, they were touted as a useful alternative to intelligence tests and used widely in U.S. school systems. Educators were especially impressed that creativity tests required divergent thinking—putting forth a variety of answers to a complex or fuzzy problem—as opposed to convergent thinking—�inding the single correct solution to a well-de�ined problem. For example, a creativity test might ask the examinee to imagine all the things that would happen if clouds had strings trailing from them down to the ground. Students who could come up with a large number of consequences were assumed to be more creative than their less-imaginative colleagues. However, some psychometricians are skeptical, concluding that creativity is just another label for applied intelligence.

FIGURE 1.1 Solutions to the Nine-Dot Problem as Examples of Creativity Note: Without lifting the pencil, draw through all the dots with as few straight lines as possible. The usual solution is shown in a. Creative solutions are depicted in b and c.

Personality tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss241) measure the traits, qualities, or behaviors that determine a person’s individuality; this information helps predict future behavior. These tests come in several different varieties, including checklists, inventories, and projective techniques such as sentence completions and inkblots (Table 1.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01tab2) ).

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss76
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01fig1
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss241
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec4#ch01tab2
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 13/133

Interest inventories (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss163) measure an individual’s preference for certain activities or topics and thereby help determine occupational choice. These tests are based on the explicit assumption that interest patterns determine and, therefore, also predict job satisfaction. For example, if the examinee has the same interests as successful and satis�ied accountants, it is thought likely that he or she would enjoy the work of an accountant. The assumption that interest patterns predict job satisfaction is largely borne out by empirical studies, as we will review in a later chapter.

TABLE 1.2 Examples of Personality Test Items

(a) An Adjective Checklist Check those words which describe you:

( ) relaxed ( ) assertive ( ) thoughtful ( ) curious ( ) cheerful ( ) even-tempered ( ) impatient ( ) skeptical ( ) morose ( ) impulsive ( ) optimistic ( ) anxious

(b) A True-False Inventory Circle true or false as each statement applies to you:

T   F   I like sports magazines. T   F   Most people would lie to get a job. T   F   I like big parties where there is lots of noisy fun. T   F   Strange thoughts possess me for hours at a time. T   F   I often regret the missed opportunities in my life. T   F   Sometimes I feel anxious for no reason at all. T   F   I like everyone I have met. T   F   Falling asleep is seldom a problem for me.

(c) A Sentence Completion Projective Test Complete each sentence with the �irst thought that comes to you:

I feel bored when What I need most is I like people who My mother was

Many kinds of behavioral procedures (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss31) are available for assessing the antecedents and consequences of behavior, including checklists, rating scales, interviews, and structured observations. These methods share a common assumption that behavior is best understood in terms of clearly de�ined characteristics such as frequency, duration, antecedents, and consequences. Behavioral procedures tend to be highly pragmatic in that they are usually interwoven with treatment approaches.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss163
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss31
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 14/133

Neuropsychological tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss214) are used in the assessment of persons with known or suspected brain dysfunction. Neuropsychology is the study of brain– behavior relationships. Over the years, neuropsychologists have discovered that certain tests and procedures are highly sensitive to the effects of brain damage. Neuropsychologists use these specialized tests and procedures to make inferences about the locus, extent, and consequences of brain damage. A full neuropsychological assessment typically requires three to eight hours of one-on-one testing with an extensive battery of measures. Examiners must undergo comprehensive advanced training in order to make sense out of the resulting mass of test data.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss214
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 15/133

1.5 USES OF TESTING By far the most common use of psychological tests is to make decisions about persons. For example, educational institutions frequently use tests to determine placement levels for students, and universities ascertain who should be admitted, in part, on the basis of test scores. State, federal, and local civil service systems also rely heavily on tests for purposes of personnel selection.

Even the individual practitioner exploits tests, in the main, for decision making. Examples include the consulting psychologist who uses a personality test to determine that a police department hire one candidate and not another, and the neuropsycholo-gist who employs tests to conclude that a client has suffered brain damage.

But simple decision making is not the only function of psychological testing. It is convenient to distinguish �ive uses of tests:

Classi�ication Diagnosis and treatment planning Self-knowledge Program evaluation Research

These applications frequently overlap and, on occasion, are dif�icult to distinguish one from another. For example, a test that helps determine a psychiatric diagnosis might also provide a form of self-knowledge. Let us examine these applications in more detail.

The term classi�ication (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss47) encompasses a variety of procedures that share a common purpose: assigning a person to one category rather than another. Of course, the assignment to categories is not an end in itself but the basis for differential treatment of some kind. Thus, classi�ication can have important effects such as granting or restricting access to a speci�ic college or determining whether a person is hired for a particular job. There are many variant forms of classi�ication, each emphasizing a particular purpose in assigning persons to categories. We will distinguish placement, screening, certi�ication, and selection.

Placement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss246) is the sorting of persons into different programs appropriate to their needs or skills. For example, universities often use a mathematics placement exam to determine whether students should enroll in calculus, algebra, or remedial courses.

Screening (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss287) refers to quick and simple tests or procedures to identify persons who might have special characteristics or needs. Ordinarily, psychometricians acknowledge that screening tests will result in many misclassi�ications. Examiners are, therefore, advised to do follow-up testing with additional instruments before making important decisions on the basis of screening tests. For example, to identify children with highly exceptional talent in spatial thinking, a psychologist might administer a 10-minute paper-and- pencil test to every child in a school system. Students who scored in the top 10 percent might then be singled out for more comprehensive testing.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss47
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss246
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss287
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 16/133

Certi�ication (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss45) and selection both have a pass/fail quality. Passing a certi�ication exam confers privileges. Examples include the right to practice psychology or to drive a car. Thus, certi�ication typically implies that a person has at least a minimum pro�iciency in some discipline or activity. Selection is similar to certi�ication in that it confers privileges such as the opportunity to attend a university or to gain employment.

Another use of psychological tests is for diagnosis and treatment planning. Diagnosis (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss91) consists of two intertwined tasks: determining the nature and source of a person’s abnormal behavior, and classifying the behavior pattern within an accepted diagnostic system. Diagnosis is usually a precursor to remediation or treatment of personal distress or impaired performance.

Psychological tests often play an important role in diagnosis and treatment planning. For example, intelligence tests are absolutely essential in the diagnosis of mental retardation. Personality tests are helpful in diagnosing the nature and extent of emotional disturbance. In fact, some tests such as the MMPI were devised for the explicit purpose of increasing the ef�iciency of psychiatric diagnosis.

Diagnosis should be more than mere classi�ication, more than the assignment of a label. A proper diagnosis conveys information—about strengths, weaknesses, etiology, and best choices for remediation/treatment. Knowing that a child has received a diagnosis of learning disability (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss183) is largely useless. But knowing in addition that the same child is well below average in reading comprehension, is highly distractible, and needs help with basic phonics can provide an indispensable basis for treatment planning.

Psychological tests also can supply a potent source of self-knowledge. In some cases, the feedback a person receives from psychological tests can change a career path or otherwise alter a person’s life course. Of course, not every instance of psychological testing provides self-knowledge. Perhaps in the majority of cases the client already knows what the test results divulge. A high-functioning college student is seldom surprised to �ind that his IQ is in the superior range. An architect is not perplexed to hear that she has excellent spatial reasoning skills. A student with meager reading capacity is usually not startled to receive a diagnosis of “learning disability.”

Another use for psychological tests is the systematic evaluation of educational and social programs. We have more to say about the evaluation of educational programs when we discuss achievement tests in a later chapter. We focus here on the use of tests in the evaluation of social programs. Social programs are designed to provide services that improve social conditions and community life. For example, Project Head Start is a federally funded program that supports nationwide pre-school teaching projects for underprivileged children (McKey and others, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1104) ). Launched in 1965 as a precedent-setting attempt to provide child development programs to low-income families, Head Start has provided educational enrichment and health services to millions of at-risk preschool children.

But exactly what impact does the multi-billion-dollar Head Start program have on early childhood development? Congress wanted to know if the program improved scholastic performance and reduced school failure among the enrollees. But the centers vary by sponsoring agencies, staff characteristics, coverage, content, and objectives, so the effects of Head Start are not easy to ascertain. Psychological tests provide an objective basis for answering these questions that is far superior to anecdotal or impressionistic reporting. In general, Head Start children show immediate gains in IQ, school readiness, and academic achievement, but these gains dissipate in the ensuing years (Figure 1.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec5#ch01�ig2) ).

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss45
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss91
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss183
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1104
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec5#ch01fig2
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 17/133

So far we have discussed the practical application of psychological tests to everyday problems such as job selection, diagnosis, or program evaluation. In each of these instances, testing serves an immediate, pragmatic purpose: helping the tester make decisions about persons or programs. But tests also play a major role in both the applied and theoretical branches of behavioral research. As an example of testing in applied research, consider the problem faced by neuropsychologists who wish to investigate the hypothesis that low-level lead absorption causes behavioral de�icits in children. The only feasible way to explore this supposition is by testing normal and lead-burdened children with a battery of psychological tests. Needleman and associates (1979 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1220) ) used an array of traditional and innovative tests to conclude that low-level lead absorption causes decrements in IQ, impairments in reaction time, and escalations of undesirable classroom behaviors. Their conclusions inspired a tumultuous and bitter exchange of opinions that we will not review here (Needleman et al., 1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1221) ). However, the passions inspired by this study epitomize an instructive point: Academicians and public policymakers respect psychological tests. Why else would they engage in lengthy, acrimonious debates about the validity of testing-based research �indings?

FIGURE 1.2 Longitudinal Test Results from the Head Start Project Source: From McKey, R. H., and others. (1985). The impact of Head Start on children, families and communities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of�ice. In the public domain.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1220
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1221
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 18/133

1.6 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SOUNDNESS OF TESTING Psychological testing is a dynamic process in�luenced by many factors. Although examiners strive to ensure that test results accurately re�lect the traits or capacities being assessed, many extraneous factors can sway the outcome of psychological testing. In this section, we review the potentially crucial impact of several sources of in�luence: the manner of administration, the characteristics of the tester, the context of the testing, the motivation and experience of the examinee, and the method of scoring.

The sensitivity of the testing process to extraneous in�luences is obvious in cases where the examiner is cold, hurried, or incompetent. However, invalid test results do not originate only from obvious sources such as blatantly nonstandard administration, hostile tester, noisy testing room, or fearful examinee. In addition, there are numerous, subtle ways in which method, examiner, context, or motivation can alter test results. We provide a comprehensive survey of these extraneous in�luences in the remainder of this topic.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 19/133

1.7 STANDARDIZED PROCEDURES IN TEST ADMINISTRATION The interpretation of a psychological test is most reliable when the measurements are obtained under the standardized conditions outlined in the publisher’s test manual. Nonstandard testing procedures can alter the meaning of the test results, rendering them invalid and, therefore, misleading. Standardized procedures are so important that they are listed as an essential criterion for valid testing in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30) ), a reference manual published jointly by the American Psychological Association and other groups:

In typical applications, test administrators should follow carefully the standardized procedures for administration and scoring speci�ied by the test publisher. Speci�ications regarding instructions to test takers, time limits, the form of item presentation or response, and test materials or equipment should be strictly observed. Exceptions should be made only on the basis of carefully considered professional judgment, primarily in clinical applications. (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30) )

Suppose the instructions to the vocabulary section of a children’s intelligence test specify that the examiner should ask, “What does sofa mean, what is a sofa?” If a subject were to reply, “I’ve never heard that word,” an inexperienced tester might be tempted to respond, “You know, a couch—what is a couch?” This may strike the reader as a harmless form of fair play, a simple rephrasing of the original question. Yet, by straying from standardized procedures, the examiner has really given a different test. The point in asking for a de�inition of sofa (and not couch) is precisely that sofa is harder to de�ine and, therefore, a better index of high-level vocabulary skills.

Even though standardized testing procedures are normally essential, there are instances in which �lexibility in procedures is desirable or even necessary. As suggested in the APA Standards, such deviations should be reasoned and deliberate. An analogy to the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law is relevant here. An overly zealous examiner might capture the letter of the law, so to speak, by adhering literally and strictly to testing procedures outlined in the publisher’s manual. But is this really what most test publishers intend? Is it even how the test was actually administered to the normative sample? Most likely publishers would prefer that examiners capture the spirit of the law even if, on occasion, it is necessary to adjust testing procedures slightly.

The need to adjust standardized procedures for testing is especially apparent when examining persons with certain kinds of disabilities. A subject with a speech impediment might be allowed to write down the answers to orally presented questions or to use gesture and pantomime in response to some items. For example, a test question might ask, “What shape is a ball?” The question is designed to probe the subject’s knowledge of common shapes, not to examine whether the examinee can verbalize “round.” The written response round and the gestured response (a circular motion of the index �inger) are equally correct, too.

Minor adjustments in procedures that heed the spirit in which a test was developed occur on a regular basis and are no cause for alarm. These minor adjustments do not invalidate the established norms—on the contrary, the appropriate adaptation of procedures is necessary so that the norms remain valid. After all, the testers who collected data from the standardization sample did not act like heartless robots when posing questions to subjects. Examiners who wish to obtain valid results must likewise exercise a reasoned �lexibility in testing procedures.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib30
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 20/133

However, considerable clinical experience is needed to determine whether an adjustment in procedure is minor or so substantial that existing norms no longer apply. This is why psychological examiners normally receive extensive supervised experience before they are allowed to administer and interpret individual tests of ability or personality.

In certain cases an examiner will knowingly depart from standard procedures to a substantial degree; this practice precludes the use of available test norms. In these instances, the test is used to help formulate clinical judgments rather than to determine a quantitative index. For example, when examining aphasic patients, it may be desirable to ignore time limits entirely and accept roundabout answers. The examiner might not even calculate a score. In these rare cases, the test becomes, in effect, an adjunct to the clinical interview. Of course, when the examiner does not adhere to standardized procedures, this should be stated explicitly in the written report.

7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 21/133

1.8 DESIRABLE PROCEDURES OF TEST ADMINISTRATION A small treatise could be written on desirable procedures of test administration, but we will have to settle for a brief listing of the most essential points. For more details, the interested reader can consult Sattler (2001 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1438) ) on the individual testing of children and Clemans (1971 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib314) ) on group testing. We discuss individual testing �irst, then brie�ly list some important points about desirable procedures in group testing.

An essential component of individual testing is that examiners must be intimately familiar with the materials and directions before administration begins. Largely this involves extensive rehearsal and anticipation of unusual circumstances and the appropriate response. A well-prepared examiner has memorized key elements of verbal instructions and is ready to handle the unexpected.

The uninitiated student of assessment often assumes that examination procedures are so simple and straightforward that a quick once-through reading of the manual will suf�ice as preparation for testing. Although some individual tests are exceedingly rudimentary and uncomplicated, many of them have complexities of administration that, unheeded, can cause the examinee to fail items unnecessarily. For example, Choi and Proctor (1994 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib304) ) found that 25 of 27 graduate students made serious errors in the administration of the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition, even though the sessions were videotaped and the students knew their testing skills were being evaluated. Ramos, Alfonso, and Schermerhorn (2009 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1331) ) reviewed 108 protocols from the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities administered by 36 �irst-year graduate students in a school psychology doctoral program. The researchers found an average of almost 5 errors per test, including the use of incorrect ceilings, failure to record errors, and failure to encircle the correct row for the total number correct. Loe, Kadlubek, and Williams (2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1001) ) reviewed 51 WISC-IV protocols administered by graduate students and found an average of almost 26 errors per protocol. The two most common errors were the failure to query incomplete or ambiguous verbal responses, and granting too many points for substandard answers. In many cases, these errors materially affected the Full Scale IQ, shifting it upward or downward from the likely true score. What these studies con�irm is that appropriate attention to the details of administration and scoring is essential for valid results.

The necessity for intimate familiarity with testing procedures is well illustrated by the Block Design subtest of the WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1737) ). The materials for the subtest include nine blocks (cubes) colored red on two sides, white on two sides, and red/white on two sides. The examinee’s task is to use the blocks to construct patterns depicted on cards. For the initial designs, four blocks are needed, while for more dif�icult designs, all nine blocks are provided (Figure 1.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec8#ch01�ig3) ).

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1438
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib314
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib304
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1331
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1001
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1737
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch01lev1sec8#ch01fig3
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 22/133

FIGURE 1.3 Materials Similar to WAIS-IV Block Design Subtest

Bright examinees have no dif�iculty comprehending this task and the exact instructions do not in�luence their performance appreciably. However, persons whose intelligence is average or below average need the elaborate demonstrations and corrections that are speci�ied in the WAIS-IV manual (Wechsler, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1737) ). In particular, the examiner demonstrates the �irst two designs and responds to the examinee’s success or failure on these according to a complex �low of reaction and counterreaction, as outlined in three pages of instructions. Woe to the tester who has not rehearsed this subtest and anticipated the proper response to examinees who falter on the �irst two designs.

Sensitivity to Disabilities Another important ingredient of valid test administration is sensitivity to disabilities in the examinee. Impairments in hearing, vision, speech, or motor control may seriously distort test results. If the examiner does not recognize the physical disability responsible for the poor test performance, a subject may be branded as intellectually or emotionally impaired when, in fact, the essential problem is a sensory or motor disability.

Vernon and Brown (1964 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1694) ) reported the tragic case of a young girl who was relegated to a hospital for the mentally retarded as a consequence of the tester’s insensitivity to physical disability. The examiner failed to notice that the child was deaf and concluded that her Stanford-Binet IQ of 29 was valid. She remained in the hospital for �ive years, but was released after she scored an IQ of 113 on a performance-based intelligence test! After dismissal from the hospital, she entered a school for the deaf and made good progress.

Persons with disabilities may require specialized tests for valid assessment. The reader will encounter a lengthy discussion of available tests for exceptional examinees in Chapter 7 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07#ch07) , Testing Special Populations. In this section, we concentrate on the vexing issues raised when standardized tests for normal populations are used with mildly or moderately disabled subjects. We include separate discussions of the testing

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1737
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1694
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07#ch07
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 23/133

process for examinees with a hearing, vision, speech, or motor control problem. However, the reader needs to know that many exceptional examinees have multiple disabilities.

Valid testing of a subject with a hearing impairment requires �irst of all that the examiner detect the existence of the disability! This is often more dif�icult than it seems. Many persons with mild hearing loss learn to compensate for this disability by pretending to understand what others say and waiting for further conversational cues to help clarify faintly perceived words or phrases. As a result, other persons— including psychologists—may not perceive that an individual with mild hearing loss has any disability at all.

Failure to notice a hearing loss is particularly a problem with young examinees, who are usually poor informants about their disabilities. Young children are also prone to �luctuating hearing losses due to the periodic accumulation of �luid in the middle ear during intervals of mild illness (Vernon & Alles, 1986 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1693) ). A child with a �luctuating hearing loss may have normal hearing in the morning, but perceive conversational speech as a whisper just a few hours later.

Indications of possible hearing dif�iculty include lack of normal response to sound, inattentiveness, dif�iculty in following oral instructions, intent observation of the speaker’s lips, and poor articulation (Sattler, 1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1437) ). In all cases in which hearing impairment is suspected, referral for an audiological examination is crucial. If a serious hearing problem is con�irmed, then the examiner should consider using one of the specialized tests discussed in Chapter 7 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07#ch07) , Testing Special Populations. In persons with a mild hearing loss, it is essential for the examiner to face the subject squarely, speak loudly, and repeat instructions slowly. It is also important to �ind a quiet room for testing. Ideally, a testing room will have curtains and textured wall surfaces to minimize the distracting effects of background noises.

In contrast to those with hearing loss, subjects with visual disabilities generally attend well to verbally presented test materials. The examinee with visual impairment introduces a different kind of challenge to the examiner: detecting that a visual impairment exists, and then ensuring that the subject can see the test materials well.

Detecting visual impairment is a straightforward matter with adult subjects—in most cases, a mature examinee will freely volunteer information about visual impairment, especially if asked. However, children are poor informants about their visual capacities, so testers need to know the signs and symptoms of possible visual impairment in a young examinee. Common sense is a good starting point: Children who squint, blink excessively, or lose their place when reading may have a vision problem. Holding books or testing materials up close is another suspicious sign. Blurred or double vision may signify visual problems, as may headaches or nausea after reading. In general, it is so common for children to require corrective lenses that examiners should be on the lookout for a vision problem in any young subject who does not wear glasses and has not had a recent vision exam.

Depending on the degree of visual impairment, examiners need to make corresponding adjustments in testing. If the child’s vision is of no practical use, special instruments with appropriate norms must be used. For example, the Perkins-Binet is available for testing children who are blind. These tests are discussed in Topic 7B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07lev1sec5#ch07box2) , Testing Persons with Disabilities. For obvious reasons, only the verbal portions of tests should be administered to sighted children with an uncorrected visual problem.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1693
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1437
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07#ch07
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07lev1sec5#ch07box2
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 24/133

Speech impairments present another problem for diagnosticians. The verbal responses of subjects with speech impairment are dif�icult to decipher. Owing to the failed comprehension of the examiner, subjects may receive less credit than is due. Sattler (1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1437) ) relates the lamentable case of Daniel Hoffman, a youngster with speech impairment who spent his entire youth in classes for those with mental retardation because his Stanford-Binet IQ was 74. In actuality, his intelligence was within the normal range, as revealed by other performance-based tests. In another tragic miscarriage of assessment, a patient in England was mistakenly con�ined to a ward for those with severe retardation because cerebral palsy rendered his speech incomprehensible. The patient was wheelchair- bound and had almost no motor control, so his performance on nonverbal tests was also grossly impaired. The staff assumed he was severely retarded, so the patient remained on the back ward for decades. However, he befriended a fellow resident who could comprehend the patient’s gutteral rendition of the alphabet. The friend was severely retarded but could nonetheless recognize keys on a typewriter. With laborious letter-by-letter effort, the patient with incapacitating cerebral palsy wrote and published an autobiography, using his friend with mental disability as a conduit to the real world.

Even if their disability is mild, persons with cerebral palsy or other motor impairments may be penalized by timed performance tests. When testing a person with a mild motor disability, examiners may wish to omit timed performance subtests or to discount these results if they are consistently lower than scores from untimed subtests. If a subject has an obvious motor disability—such as a dif�iculty in manipulating the pieces of a puzzle—then standard instruments administered in the normal manner are largely inappropriate. A number of alternative instruments have been developed expressly for examinees with cerebral palsy and other motor impairments, and standard tests have been cleverly adapted and renormed (Topic 7B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07lev1sec5#ch07box2) , Testing Persons with Disabilities).

Desirable Procedures of Group Testing Psychologists and educators commonly assume that almost any adult can accurately administer group tests, so long as he or she has the requisite manual. Administering a group test would appear to be a simple and straightforward procedure of passing out forms and pencils, reading instructions, keeping time, and collecting the materials.

In reality, conducting a group test requires as much �inesse as administering an individual test, a point recognized years ago by Traxler (1951 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1662) ). There are numerous ways in which careless administration and scoring can impair group test results, causing bias for the entire group or affecting only certain individuals. We outline only the more important inadequacies and errors in the following paragraphs, referring the reader to Traxler (1951 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1662) ) and Clemans (1971 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib314) ) for a more complete discussion.

Undoubtedly the greatest single source of error in group test administration is incorrect timing of tests that require a time limit. Examiners must allot suf�icient time for the entire testing process: setup, reading instructions out loud, and the actual test taking by examinees. Allotting suf�icient time requires foresightful scheduling. For example, in many school settings, children must proceed to the next class at a designated time, regardless of ongoing activities. Inexperienced examiners might be tempted to cut short

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1437
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch07lev1sec5#ch07box2
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1662
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1662
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib314
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 25/133

the designated time limit for a test so that the school schedule can be maintained. Of course, reduced time on a test renders the norms completely invalid and likely lowers the score for most subjects in the group.

Allowing too much time for a test can be an equally egregious error. For example, consider the impact of receiving extra time on the Miller Analogies Test (MAT), a high-level reasoning test once required by many universities for graduate school application. Since the MAT is a speeded test that requires quick analogical thinking, extra time would allow most examinees to solve several extra problems. This kind of testing error would likely lower the validity of the MAT results as a predictor of graduate school performance.

A second source of error in group test administration is lack of clarity in the directions to the examinees. Examiners must read the instructions slowly in a clear, loud voice that commands the attention of the subjects. Instructions must not be paraphrased. Where allowed by the manual, examiners must stop and clarify points with individual examinees who are confused.

Noise is another factor that must be controlled in group testing. It has been known for some time that noise causes a decrease in performance, especially for tasks of high complexity (e.g., Boggs & Simon, 1968 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib174) ). Surprisingly, there is little research on the effects of noise on psychological tests. However, it seems almost certain that loud noise, especially if intermittent and unpredictable, will cause test scores to decline substantially. Elementary schoolchildren should not be expected to perform well while a construction worker jackhammers a cement wall in the next room. In fairness to the examinees, there are times when the test administrator should reschedule the test.

Another source of error in the administration of a group test is failure to explain when and if examinees should guess. Perhaps more frequently than any other question, examiners are asked, “Is there a penalty if I guess wrong?” In most instances, test developers anticipate this issue and provide explicit guidance to subjects as to the advantages and/or pitfalls of guessing. Examiners should not give supplementary advice on guessing—this would constitute a serious deviation from standardized procedure.

Most test developers incorporate a correction for guessing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss72) based on established principles of probability. Consider a multiple-choice test that has four alternatives per item. On those items that the subject makes a wild, uneducated guess, the odds on being correct are 1 out of 4, while the odds on being wrong are 3 out of 4. Thus, for every three wrong guesses, there will be one correct guess that re�lects luck rather than knowledge. Suppose a young girl answers correctly on 35 questions from a 50-item test but answers erroneously on 9 questions. In all, she has answered 44 questions, leaving 6 blank. The fact that she selected the wrong alternative on 9 questions suggests that she also gained 3 correct answers due to luck rather than knowledge. Remember, on wild guesses we expect there to be, on average, 3 wrong answers for every correct answer, so for 9 wrong guesses we would expect 3 correct guesses on other questions. The subject’s corrected score—the one actually reported and compared to existing norms—would then be 32; that is, 35 minus 3. In other words, she probably knew 32 answers but by guessing on 12 others she boosted her score another 3 points.

The scoring correction outlined in the preceding paragraph pertains only to wild, uneducated guesses. The effect of such a correction is to eliminate the advantage otherwise bestowed on unabashed risk takers. However, not all guesses are wild and uneducated. In some instances, an examinee can eliminate one or two of the alternatives, thereby increasing the odds of a correct guess among the remaining choices. In this situation, it may be wise for the examinee to guess.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib174
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss72
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 26/133

Whether an educated guess is really to the advantage of the examinee depends partly on the diabolical skill of the item writer. Traxler (1951 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1662) ) notes:

In effect, the item writer attempts to make each wrong response so plausible that every examinee who does not possess the desired skill or ability will select a wrong response. In other words, the item writer’s aim is to make all or nearly all considered guesses wrong guesses.

A skilled item writer can fashion questions so that the correct alternative is completely counterintuitive and the wrong alternatives are persuasively appealing. For these items, an educated guess is almost always wrong.

Nonetheless, many test developers now advise subjects to make educated guesses but warn against wild guesses. For example, a recent edition of the test preparation manual Taking the SAT advises:

Because of the way the test is scored, haphazard or random guessing for questions you know nothing about is unlikely to change your score. When you know that one or more choices can be eliminated, guessing from among the remaining choices should be to your advantage.

Whether or not a group test uses a scoring correction, the important point to emphasize in this context is that the administrator should follow standardized procedure and never offer supplementary advice about guessing. In group testing, deviations from the instructions manual are simply unacceptable.

https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1662
7/30/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch01,ch01lev1sec1,ch01lev1sec2,ch01lev1sec3,ch01lev1sec4,ch01lev1sec5,ch01le… 27/133

1.9 INFLUENCE OF THE EXAMINER

The Importance of Rapport Test publishers urge examiners to establish rapport (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss266) —a comfortable, warm atmosphere that serves to motivate examinees and elicit cooperation. Initiating a cordial testing milieu is a crucial aspect of valid testing. A tester who fails to establish rapport may cause a subject to react with anxiety, passive-aggressive noncooperation, or open hostility. Failure to establish rapport distorts test �indings: Ability is underestimated and personality is misjudged.

Rapport is especially important in individual testing and particularly so when evaluating children. Wechsler (1974 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1731) ) has noted that establishing rapport places great demands on the clinical skills of the tester:

To put the child at ease in his surroundings, the examiner might engage him in some informal conversation before getting down to the more serious business of giving the test. Talking to him about his hobbies or interests is often a good way of breaking the ice, although it may be better to encourage a shy child to talk about something concrete in the environment—a picture on the wall, an animal in his classroom, or a book or toy (not a test material) in the examining room. In general, this introductory period need not take more than 5 to 10 minutes, although the testing should not start until the child seems relaxed enough to give his maximum effort.

Testers may differ in their abilities to establish rapport. Cold testers will likely obtain less cooperation from their subjects, resulting in reduced performance on ability tests or distorted, defensive results on personality tests. Overly solicitous testers may err in the opposite direction, giving subtle (and occasionally blatant) cues to correct answers. Both extremes should be avoided.