Psychological testing is a estimation course used to relate or predict behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or symptomatic characteristics of the man taking the tests, or the man to which the tests refer (some tests are given to people who know the man of interest, but most are taken by the man of interest).
To stay within the area of clinical psychology (mental health psychology), there are some kinds of tests often used. According to my uncomplicated classification scheme industrialized for educating the public, there are personality, cognitive, behavioral, diagnostic, and achievement tests. Sub-specialty tests, like forensic psychology or neuropsychology tests would undoubtedly fall under one or more of these broad categories but with a more specialized focus. Also, some tests incorporate elements of more than one classification.
Please note that my scheme is simply convenient; there are research-based classifications of tests based upon what they do and how they do it. My argument of other test aspects is also based upon investigate but does not always use the 'official' terms or terms typical in my field, as I wanted to write a simpler overview. Note also that in counseling psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, and other fields there are other kinds of tests, such as 'interest' tests designed to detect interests in distinct professions, or even in-vivo (live) behavioral tests such as sessions designed to replicate a 'rough day at the office' for important, stressful, and high-priced executive positions.
I am not going to give away any test secrets, but what I will present is a brief summary of each class of test, some examples by title only, and some basic data on how tests are commonly interpreted. You will not learn from this post any useful secrets of the tests themselves. This is intended only to advise the collective of the value of psychological testing.
'Types' of Tests
Personality tests can sometimes overlap with diagnostic or symptom-related tests. Broadly, a personality test is designed to relate or predict usual attitudes, behaviors, or traits connected to the examinee's interpersonal perception (how they see others) and intra-personal perception (how they see themselves). Famous examples include the Mmpi-2 (which is structured and taken with paper and pencil) and the Rorschach (which is less structured and involves interviewing the examinee about their perceptions of inkblots).
Cognitive tests are used to relate or predict a person's mental abilities. For instance, two persons may each have reasonable potential to creatively solve problems, but which one can do so more speedily or more flexibly? How strong is a person's attentiveness and memory? Is the man better at solving problems verbally, structurally, nonverbally, holistically? The list of cognitive ('thinking') abilities that can be tested is very long and detailed. Cognitive tests include Iq tests, neuropsychological tests, and specialized instruments used in research, to name only three types. Famous examples include the Wais-Iv, Wms-Iv, Stanford-Binet V, Bender-Gestalt-Ii, and many, many individual neuropsychological tests and test batteries.
Behavioral inventories are based upon the description of people who know the man in question, or upon direct analyst notice of the man in question. One good example of when these measures are used is in cases of Adhd prognosis or estimation of a given person's potential to function in their day (for example, used together with an Iq test to decree the possibility of mental retardation or developmental disability). Examples include behavior checklists or the Vineland-Ii Adaptive Behavior Scales. Behavioral estimation is also tasteless among practitioners of applied behavioral analysis, which is used for treating very serious behavior problems in the developmentally disabled or with the highly severely mentally ill.
Diagnostic tests oftentimes use an interview format, though some of them are given with paper and pencil like a personality test. Some interviews are highly structured (and are thus more reliable), but they tend to be less flexible, may alienate or bore the examinee, and may not be as adaptable to a given case. Some interviews are not very structured (and are thus less reliable), but are more flexible and interactive. Commonly a good estimation will somehow administrate to include parts of both types of interview style. An example would be the Structured Clinical Interview for Dsm-Iv (Scid, a allembracing structured interview) or the Beck Depression catalogue (paper and pencil, but focused only on depression).
Achievement tests portion how well the examinee does on scholastic measures of reading, writing, and mathematics (to name three broad categories). Other measures that test generally knowledge could probably be categorized as achievement tests as well. It is leading to understand that the results of these tests will be partly connected with the person's cognitive abilities, for example because knowledge tests Commonly involve some mental potential and some notice of speed, exactitude, or both. Examples include the Wide Range Achievement Test - 4 or the high school Sat.
Interpretation of Tests
Tests are often interpreted According to either they use or do not use some 'standard' or 'reference point,' and According to what that reference point (if any) is.
Rater-based reference point--in this interpretation, the test being used Commonly only refers to categories--diagnosis, for example. Structured interviews often fall in this category, and the only purpose of the test is to tell either the man has a prognosis or not. Comparison along a continuous line of percentiles or scores is not a part of this referencing. Here, the main concern is the reliability of the business agreement between two or more examiners and the validity of the categories between which they choose.
No reference point (other than the examinee)--this can tell us a lot about the qualities of an examinee, but there is no way to portion those qualities against the same qualities of other persons. However, some tests that can portion against other people also include elements of this 'qualitative' description. This type of interpretation simply interprets 'type' of article and 'amount of X relative to Y for this examinee,' but not 'amount of X or Y relative to others.'
For example, one could note that the examinee did better on measures of attentiveness than on measures of reasoning, but could not collate these statements to the carrying out of other persons. Of course, here we are assuming that the whole of questions or items for mental and for attentiveness are equal and that each mental item is of the same difficulty ('hardness') as each corresponding attentiveness item. Being able to value difficulty is difficult without some outside reference point, and this brings us to norms...
Norm-based reference point--in this interpretation used by many psychological tests, the score of the examinee is compared to the scores of other test-takers (usually hundreds to thousands of other examinees). This allows the scores to be interpreted in terms of their length from the mean (usually the 'mean') and in terms of percentiles. For example, a man whose score on a portion of extraversion (outgoingness) is 'one acceptable deviation above the mean' is at almost the 84th percentile relative to his or her peers in regard to that one characteristic.
Criterion-based reference--in this interpretation, also used in many tests and often used in conjunction with norm-referencing, clear score levels on the test are known to be highly connected with clear behaviors or outcomes (criteria) with some degree of probability. Commonly this knowledge is acquired straight through investigate done in developing or confirming the results of the test. For example, a test could help one decree which man to hire for a job; a single score on a test designed to portion organizational potential (the potential to prioritize and sort) might be highly correlated with success in a single executive position. Other test results might be highly predictive of suicide or another more clinical concern.
Often norm-referencing is used to give some idea of how an examinee compares to peers, while at the same time criterion-referencing investigate is used to tell the analyst of the test what the score means in terms of imporant connected outcomes. For example, a high Iq score is not just 'higher cognitive potential than most of her peers,' it is also Commonly predictive of high scholastic achievement and high-level professional employment. Of course, these predictions are not perfect, and neither are norm-based interpretations (or any interpretation for that matter).
For this reason, all good tests have data about their 'reliability.' Reliability gives knowledge about:
The usual error rates of a test
The whole of foreseen, error in any score
The degree to which portions of the test agree with or are sensibly connected to other portions
The degree to which separate raters agree, and/or
The degree to which one examinee's scores on a test at one time agree with their scores at another time).
Good tests also should have data available about their 'validity':
The extent to which the test undoubtedly measures what it is supposed to
The degree to which the test adequately measures a specific type of content
The degree to which the test is sensibly connected or non-associated with other similar and distinct tests and/or
The degree to which the test undoubtedly has a dependable connection with leading outcomes
Hopefully this summary will be helpful for anyone thoughprovoking about psychological tests!
0 comments:
Post a Comment