This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Psychometric Properties of Psychological Assessment Measures by Dr. Celeste Fabrie
1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Introduction Definition of key concepts Different types of norms Criterion referenced tests Psychological measures Reliability and validity of psychological measures 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 arious types of norms ! " " " " # # # # $ $ $ $ 1' 1' 1' 11 11 11 12 4 5 5 5 5 5 !
Mental age scales and grade equivalents Percentiles Stanines and Sten scales Deviation IQ 4 Criterion referenced tests
4.1 5 5.1 5.2 5.3
E pectancy tables Constructing a psychological measure !he planning phase "ormat of the items Item analysis phase# $ Item difficulty value $ Item discrimination value $ Item$total correlation ! %elia&ility of a psychological measure
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
Correlation coefficient Statistical significance Reliability coefficient %bserved score !rue and error scores !rue variance and error variance in a test score
"( '() '(* # 8.1 8.2 )ta&ility of a test * the ad+antages and limitations !est$retest reliability +lternate$form reliability Internal consistency of a test * ad+antages and limitations Split$half reliability ,uder$Richardson *- and Cronbach.s +lpha $ /() 9.2 /(0 /(1 alidity of a psychological measure 14 15 15 15 15 12 12 12 13 13 13 14
Content validity Criterion$related validity Predictive validity Concurrent validity 1'
Ma,or methods of esta&lishing construct +alidity 1! 1! 1! 1" 1" 1# 1# 1$ 2'
)-() )-(* )-(0 )-(1 )-(3 )-(4 11 12
Developmental changes Correlations 2ith other tests "actor analysis Internal consistency Convergent and discriminant validation E perimental interventions )ummary Conclusion %eferences
Introduction To understand what is meant by psychometric properties of psychological assessment measures5 it is necessary to se arate the two descri ti!e classes on their own. "n other words# what do we mean when we s ea$ about sychometric ro erties# and what is im lied by the conce t sycholo%ical measures& 'sychometrics is basically the study o( di((erent mental traits and beha!ioural characteristics in amounts or scores. For e)am le# these tests can ta$e the (orm o( intelli%ence scales# or a ratin% o( di((erent attitudes a%ainst a s eci(ic o ulation standard or norm. The (act is# sychometrics in!ol!es the assessment o( human data accordin% to $nown# s eci(ic standards im lied by the e) erienced researcher or scientist. *ithout sychometric theory# there would be roblems to de!elo a reliable and !alid sycholo%ical measure. "t would be im ossible to study human intelli%ence without com arin% a erson# or %rou to a normati!e sam le. 'sycholo%ical assessment measures on the other hand# in!ol!e (i!e di((erent rocesses+ diagnosis5 classification5 planning of treatment5 self$6no2ledge5 research and program evaluation ,-re%ory# 2...# .41/ The aim o( this essay is to demonstrate the rinci les o( sychometric theory# and how these rinci les are inte%rated to e) lain how a sycholo%ical measure is de!elo ed. The (ollowin% ma0or conce ts# includin% their related !alues and tests will be discussed# namely# the di((erent ty es o( norms# criterion re(erenced tests# sycholo%ical measures and the reliability and !alidity o( these measures# as well as the ad!anta%es and limitations o( each test.
Definition of key concepts 1ur discussion be%ins with an o!er!iew o( the (ollowin% conce ts2 Different types of norms 3orms can be de(ined as a raw score or table o( !alues o( an indi!idual measurement a%ainst the er(ormance o( others in a articular %rou . Furthermore# norms hel us to ma$e im ortant standard com arisons# whereby we can 0ud%e how much a erson4s score de!iates (rom the a!era%e o ulation or re resentati!e %rou in a sam le ,5osnow 6 5osenthal# 1999. . 222/.
Criterion referenced tests These tests are basically the o osite to norm7re(erenced tests. Criterion7
re(erenced tests are mainly concerned with the ersonal achie!ements o( the tested erson# than on ma$in% com arisons with the er(ormance or abilities o( e)ternal %rou s. For e)am le# these tests are ideal (or the testin% o( indi!idual educational needs. *(0 Psychological measures To reca ture2 sycholo%ical measures or assessment measures in!ol!e 8uanti(ication techni8ues. "n other words# sycholo%ical measures is a dynamic rocess# (ore!er chan%in%# but retainin% its ori%inal structure. That is# a sycholo%ical measurement can be a so histicated rocess with the (ollowin% characteristics# as mentioned by -re%ory ,2...# .3./2
7 7 7 7 7 scores or categories behaviour samples norms or standards standardi7ed procedures prediction of nontest behaviour
Reliability and validity of psychological measures Test reliability can be de(ined accordin% to how it consistently measures what it is su osed to measure. 9n(ortunately# such roblems as :random error; can %reatly in(luence the reliability o( an instrument ,but more about that later in our discussion under oint 6/. 6
<alidity# (or e)am le o(ten ertains to the contents o( a test or measurin% instrument. For instance# i( a articular ersonality trait is been measured by a certain test# then it is e) ected that this test actually measures what it is su 3 osed to measure# otherwise it is in!alid.
arious types of norms The word :normed score; on its own means !ery little to test ta$ers i( they do not $now what $ind o( norms they are been tested a%ainst. "t is u to the tester to e) lain a test or indi!idual4s raw score a%ainst a bac$%round o( a re resentati!e o ulation %rou . The (ollowin% norms will be discussed brie(ly to demonstrate the im ortance o( understandin% a erson4s test score on a norm re(erenced test.
Mental age scales and 8rade Equivalents These two ty es o( norms actually are re(erred to as :de!elo mental norms; but with a sli%ht di((erence. =ental a%e scales encoura%e similar7a%e test com arisons. "n other words# the er(ormance le!el o( a child who is 1. years o( a%e will be com ared to the er(ormance le!el o( other children o( the same a%e %rou . These a%e norms are a con!enient way o( testin% children4s de!elo mental characteristics that are dynamically chan%in% in com arison to the more stable traits o( adults. -rade e8ui!alents are 8uite similar to a%e %rades. >owe!er# instead o( 0ust chec$in% the a titude or ability o( a similar a%e %rou # %rade norms measure the standard o( test er(ormance (or e!ery indi!idual %rade de icted in the normati!e sam le. This means that school er(ormance is measured a%ainst a normati!e sam le (rom the same class or %rade in the school. This is a more con!enient method to test a child or scholar4s academic er(ormance a%ainst a similar %rade e8ui!alent ,-re%ory# 2...# .?1/.
Percentiles 'ercentiles is a relati!e measure which can (luctuate between . and 1... @ ercentile describes the distribution o( scores either (allin% below or abo!e a articular ercenta%e o( sam lin% scores. For e)am le# we tal$ about a 5.th ercentile ,which is also re(erred to as the :median;/ when a ty ical score (alls below the 5.A le!el and abo!e the 5.A le!el ,5osnow 6 5osenthal# 1999# . 233/
Stanines and Sten Scales 9standard scores& Btanines trans(orm test ta$ers raw scores on a 1 7 9 oint scale and the 1. unit sten scale which Can(ield ,1951/ recommended is basically a sli%ht !ariation on the stanine scale. Coth measures were use(ul de!ices be(ore the re7com uter a%e to test norms. "n (act# stanines always ha!e a mean o( 5 and an e)act standard de!iation o( 2. This means that scores are ran$ed (rom the lowest to the hi%hest# with the bottom 4A o( scores ha!in% a stanine o( 1 and so (orth ,-re%ory# 2...# .68/.
Deviation IQ This norm is o(ten used to measure the scores de icted on intelli%ence tests. >owe!er# this $ind o( scale is o(ten misinter reted by ine) erienced ersons wantin% to (ind an easy :labellin%; system to describe a ersons intelli%ence abo!e or below a articular mar$er o( 1... "t would be (oolish to use one sin%le "D test as a (inal result o( ones intelli%ence or character. For e)am le# usin% obsolete tests can either in(late or de(late a artici ants "D scores.
Criterion referenced tests @ criterion re(erenced test is the o osite to a norm7re(erenced test. *here the latter measures an indi!idual4s er(ormance a%ainst a re resentati!e %rou # the (ormer will measure erson4s mastery or nonmastery s$ills on a articular content domain# such as a tas$ on de)terity or memory er(ormance ,-re%ory# 2...# .?4/. @n e) ectance table is a %ood e)am le o( such tests.
E pectancy tables This $ind o( table normally re(lects a ractical eye7!iew o( candidates redictor results and a s eci(ic criterion. For e)am le# e) ectancy tables test the relationshi s between an indi!idual4s test scores and what he or she is able to accom lish later on in li(e# whether it be a certain career ath or achie!in% %ood %rades in an u comin% colle%e entrance e)am. >owe!er# such tables also ha!e limitations# mainly because they re(lect the results o( lar%e re resentati!e %rou scores# which re(lect their resent social or school standards o( the time. "n (act# such tests# which also include most other norm tests re8uire constant u dates or chec$s in order to accom lish what it is su ?2/. osed to+ which is reliability and !alidity o( results ,-re%ory# 2...# .
Constructing a psychological measure !he planning phase This is robably one o( the most im ortant ste s be(ore be%innin% a sycholo%ical measure. The lannin% hase in!ol!es !ery care(ul decision ma$in%. For e)am le# an en%ineer will lan e!ery mo!e and ste alon% the way be(ore he deli!ers his ro osal (or a new e((ecti!e railway brid%e. There(ore# when lannin% a sycholo%ical measure# the tester will ha!e to consider (or instance+ choice# (ormat# len%th o( items he or she will include in a test measure.
"ormat of the items Test construction is not 0ust a sim le matter o( throwin% any $ind o( item into a main batch. "t is crucial to decide what ty e o( item (ormat is re8uired. "t is o( no !alue to try and test a 8uestionnaire on a ersonality trait a%ainst items that test (or hysical s eed# such as runnin% 5.. metres in a certain time. For e)am le# it would also ma$e no sense to test a reschoolers er(ormance on an arithmetic test meant (or an 8 year old school child. The len%th o( the measure should be suitable (or that articular %rou . "t would be a waste o( time to test someone with a ma0or de ressi!e disorder ,and on stron% medication/ on a test which re8uires 3 hours o( hea!y concentration. 9
"n other words# test items can come in di((erent (ormats and styles such as multi le7choice 8uestionnaires# true7(alse items# (orced7choice# closedEo en7res onse and so (orth. "t must be remembered howe!er# that item selection is ne!er a er(ect system. "t always in!ol!es an item measurement error in assessment tests. That is why care(ul consideration is a lied to the lannin% and im lementation o( item selection (rom the be%innin% to the end sta%es to a!oid as little as ossible too much measurement error. 3(0 Item analysis phase The item analysis hase in!ol!es 3 di((erent ty es o( item statistics2 7 7 7 item di((iculty !alue discrimination !alue item7total correlation
These abo!e item statistics hel the researcher to choose the most suitable items (or the end measure. "t is always wise to try and ada t tests on a homo%eneous basis# which means ta$in% into account many di((erent demo%ra hic (eatures o( the test erson# such as a%e# se)# socialEeconomic bac$%round# educational status# and most im ortant cultural di((erences. !he item difficulty value tests a lar%e amount o( students correct answers a%ainst a sin%le test 8uestion. "( a minimum ercenta%e %et it wron%# then it is ob!ious that the test item is too easy and should be ad0usted. The re!erse is also true. !he discrimination value shows how well an item discriminates between those who %et hi%h and low ratin%s on the com lete test. !he item$total correlation is a oint7biserial correlation ,also similar to The 'earson r/# which stresses the relationshi between 2 !ariables. The hi%her the relationshi between a sin%le item and the total score# then the item is considered %ood with re%ards to internal consistency. "n other words# a %ood measurement should ha!e items that are homo%eneous with a hi%h le!el o( internal consistency. 1.
%elia&ility of a psychological measure 5eliability accordin% to -re%ory ,2.../ :e) resses the relati!e in(luence o( true and error scores on obtained test scores.; To understand what reliability =eans# is to try and ima%ine a scale wei%hin% a $ilo o( %ra es. The %reen%rocer# wei%hs the %ra es twice in a row and each time he %ets a sli%htly di((erent readin%# but ne!er the same as the (irst wei%hin%. "n other words# reliability is not always an absolute measure. There will always be a sli%ht inconsistency between the (irst test and the second test. Cut a%ain# sli%ht (luctuations between tests is a matter o( de%rees. 5e eatin% results hel s the tester to con(irm some (orm o( accuracy in scores# but this a%ain will not mean much without !alidity which will be discussed later on in this essay.
Correlation coefficient @ correlation coe((icient r ossesses !alues ran%in% (rom F1... to G1.... @ G1... is a er(ect linear relationshi between 2 test results. @ Hero correlation occurs when 2 !ariables# such as hei%ht and reaction time ha!e no relationshi to one another. To test reliability o( sycholo%ical test scores# the same test should be ta$en twice# namely with a test7retest method. *e can then test the de%ree o( !ariance in the obtained scores with the !ariance in true scores.
Statistical significance This ty e o( method %oes beyond that o( 0ust testin% a correlation coe((icient between 2 !ariables. The sychometrician# (or e)am le is not 0ust interested in a small sam le o( test7 ersons# but would li$e to com areE%eneraliHe the results to a lar%er o ulation. The (act is the lar%er the sam le siHe# the better the statistical si%ni(icance. For instance# it is better to try (or less errors by increasin% the siHe and homo%eneity o( our sam le. "( a correlation is si%ni(icant at a ..1 le!el# we $now then that the robability o( error will be 1 out o( a 1.. which is a rather %ood estimate. 11
Reliability coefficient The reliability coe((icient is the ro ortion o( true score !ariance ,(actors which are consistent/ to the com lete total !ariance o( test results. "n lain terms# we add the true score !ariance ,the stable attribute which we are testin%/ with the error score !ariance or errors o( measurement.
%bserved score The obser!ed score or obtained score can be drastically altered by random e!ents or measurement errors. To a!oid this roblem# it is u to the researcher to reduce as many o( the nuisances as ossible in order to ha!e a reliable measure. "n (act Classical !heory ,-re%ory# 2.... ??7?9/ sti ulates that a ne%ati!e measurement error can contribute to an obtained score been much lower than the true score. @ ositi!e measurement error on the other hand# could contribute to a hi%her obtained score than the actual true score. Iither way# one o( the students doin% a s eci(ic $nowled%e test will come out better due to some unbalanced item selection or other measurement error.
!rue and error scores True and error scores are uncorrelated accordin% to the classical measurement theory. True scores are hy othetical. They are ne!er really $nown. >owe!er# it is error scores which %i!e test de!elo ers headaches. For e)am le# the researcher decides to test a trait (or ner!ousness and $ee s on %ettin% a measurement (or con(idence. "t is ob!ious that there is somethin% inconsistent with this test measure. "t could be that the researcher has chosen incorrect test items based on obsolete tests# or that the ersonEs bein% tested are not suitable test candidates. The (act is# that errors o( measurement will %i!e (alse obser!ed scores. "( the same test would be re eated a%ain# the end results will be inconsistent. There(ore test construction should be care(ully lanned in the be%innin% in order to a!oid such measurement errors cree in% into the results.
!rue variance and error variance in a test score Crie(ly# the true !ariance shows a more homo%eneous# internal item consistency than the error !ariance. Irror !ariance results (rom bad content sam lin%# such as in alternate7(orm and s lit7hal( reliability# as well as hetero%eneity o( the traits under obser!ation. 1n the other hand# a hi%h interitem consistency shows a more homo%eneous !ariance with little inconsistency. For e)am le# i( 2 hal(7tests show 2 di((erent results we s ea$ about an error !ariance. This means that both hal(7tests are inconsistent with one another.
)ta&ility of a test * the ad+antages and limitations !est$retest reliability "n this $ind o( measurement# the same test is re eated twice to the same test %rou . This sam le %rou is o( a hetero%eneous nature which is re resentati!e o( the %eneral o ulation. The idea behind this $ind o( test is to com are or correlate the two scores (or a reliable measure. The ad!anta%e o( such a test is to redict the second score (rom the results o( the (irst test# ho in% that there will be a correlation between both scores. There are limitations howe!er to such tests. Irror !ariances# such as e) erience# maturations# len%thy time s ans between tests# illness and so (orth could a((ect retest reliability. ,'BJ49878 . 6/.
+lternate$form reliability @lternate (orms o( the same test are issued to test ersons. This test measures the correlation between both scores ,which is 8uite similar to the test7retest reliability/. >owe!er# there is a di((erence between the two. The alternate7(orm reliability method inserts item$sampling differences ,error !ariance/ which can limit the sco e o( reliability. For e)am le# some students may co e !ery well with the items on test 1 but do 8uite badly on the second test due to the unidentical items with the (irst test. @nother limitation is the hi%h cost o( roducin% alternate (eatures o( a test# and the di((iculties in!ol!ed tryin% to re roduce arallel (orms ,-re%ory# 2... . 83/. 13
Internal consistency of a test * ad+antages and limitations @ art (rom alternate (orms reliability and test7retest reliability# there are other methods to test items (or consistency. For e)am le# the s lit7hal( reliability# the Kuder75ichardson 2. and Cronbach4s @l ha.
Split$half reliability @s the name im lies# this $ind o( test correlates the 2 scores (rom a sin%le test. This is achie!ed by :s littin%; the test into identical hal!es. Bounds com licated# althou%h it is actually 8uite an e((ecti!e measure. For e)am le# i( the test scores on both hal!es indicate a stron% correlation# then the scores on two com lete tests (rom 2 di((erent measures should in rinci le also show the same correlations ,-re%ory# 2.... . 84/ "nternal consistency is there(ore achie!ed throu%h only a sin%le administration. 1( course there are ad!anta%es to this method such as len%thenin% the test to roduce more reliability or studyin% a lar%e beha!iour domain. Cut# there are also limitations as to how one can :s lit; items on a sin%le test. 1ne can try di!idin% e!en and odd numbers or se aratin% easy and di((icult items. >owe!er# this becomes a roblem when the test de!elo er has to s lit drawin%s or com rehension te)ts.
,uder$Richardson **e use the Kuder75ichardson or K52. ,193?/ (ormula i( one wants to (ind internal consistency o( a sin%le administration o( one test# such as discussed in the s lit7hal( rocedure. *hat this (ormula actually does is to test indi!idual test items as a . (or wron% and a 1 (or ri%ht. >owe!er# when tests %o beyond the K52. (ormula# such as in the testin% o( hetero%eneous items# we then use the Coe((icient @l ha ,Cronbach ,1951/. This (ormula is suitable (or e)am le# in attitude scales where test ersons must rate their answers as+ stron%ly a%ree# disa%ree# and so (orth ,-re%ory# 2...# .86/.
alidity of a psychological measure <alidity can be described as the de%ree to which a measure does what it is su osed to do. "n other words# the sycholo%ical measure should %i!e a %ood indication o( well7%rounded truthE(act between both the trait been tested# and the o erational de(inition o( the construct. Furthermore# this measurin% instrument must test# and only test what it was desi%ned to do. For e)am le# it is no use desi%nin% an instrument (or intelli%ence scales and then usin% the same measure to test (or :runnin% s eed; ,,Clanche 6 Durrheim# 2..2# . 83/. The (ollowin% !alidity rocedures will be discussed2 7 7 7 7 content !alidity criterion7related !alidity redicti!e !alidity concurrent !alidity
Content validity Content !alidity is a suitable measure when testin% (or traits such as $nowled%e# as in an e)amination a er ,Clanche et al# 2..2# 85/. "n other words# this ty e o( measure is actually the testin% o( item sam les on a test which are ta$en (rom a %reater sam le or o ulation# which could be se!eral te)t boo$s co!erin% one (ield or domain to ic. "t would be im ossible to test an e)aminee on the entire contents o( a articular sub0ect such as en%ineerin%L ,Time is normally limited with such tests/. Content !alidation sometimes runs into di((iculties when abstract traits# such as ersonality and a titudes ha!e to be tested. "t is di((icult to %i!e an accurate test descri tion o( somethin% li$e racism or morals# as these traits do not (it smu%ly between the a%es o( a sub0ect boo$ ,Clanche et al# 2..2# 85/. "ace validity is another matter to consider. For instance# how does the test a ear to others& Does it loo$ too com licated# or does it ha!e an un ro(essional a earance& Face !alidity needs to be ta$en serious i( the measure is %oin% to be acce ted by other ersons in authority# namely (rom a le%al and educational oint o( !iew ,'BJ4987E81.2/. 15
Criterion$related validity Criterion7related !alidity normally correlates with other similar tests or research. "n other words# a researcher who disco!ers a new (orm o( :0ob mobbin%; in cor orate and industry will com are re!ious studies in this (ield with hisEher new (indin%s. There are 2 ty es o( !alidity measures to test (or criterion !alidity# namely# redicti!e !alidity and concurrent !alidity.
Predictive validity @s the name im lies# redicti!e !alidity hel s redict (uture e!ents (rom e)istin% scores# bud%ets# educational er(ormance and so (orth. For e)am le# (uture in(lation rates can be redicted (rom resent statistics on the countries economic er(ormance in relation to the rest o( the world. Concurrent !alidation# on the other hand re laces redicti!e !alidity measures when it comes to ma$in% a resent dia%nosis on a u ils immediate er(ormance# and not on (uture e!ents ,'BJ49878E1.2/.
Concurrent validity This ty e o( method would be more suitable when testin% abstract traits# such as someone su((erin% (rom an immediate roblem o( de ression. The clinician can 0ud%e the atients obser!able beha!iour and co%niti!e er(ormance# and ma$e a suitable dia%nosis. "t would be di((icult howe!er to use a method o( redicti!e !alidity in such a case. 1ne cannot : redict; i( someone who is su((erin% (rom a dar$ mood one day is %oin% to su((er (rom de ression in the (uture. @ ositi!e (eature o( concurrent !alidity is that costs are $e t at a minimum and results are normally immediate# com ared to redicti!e !alidity.
Ma,or methods of esta&lishing construct +alidity I)am le construct or traits are+ technical and mechanical $nowled%e# runnin% s eed# (rustration# readin% and s ellin% abilities and so (orth. >ow do we measure such constructs& Firstly# the researcher (or instance %athers as much data as ossible on a articular trait# throu%h obser!ations# interrelationshi s with other beha!iour or co%niti!e measures and so (orth.
*e are loo$in% at both a theoretical and em irical method o( establishin% construct !alidity. Be!eral methods will be discussed under the (ollowin%. )-() Developmental changes "t is common $nowled%e that de!elo mental chan%es ta$e lace between childhood and adulthood# which also means that both beha!iour and co%niti!e abilities also chan%e erha s more ra idly in childhood than in later years where they tend to :stabiliHe;. @%e7di((erentiation is also dictated by a s eci(ic culture. Di((erent cultures ha!e di((erent child7rearin% atterns or belie(s. The 'ia%etian ordinal scales# (or e)am le# the sequential patterning o( de!elo ment or schemas indicate the %radual rocess o( conce tual s$ills o( early childhood to early adulthood. This is an e)am le o( construct !alidation o( ordinal scales o!er se!eral de!elo mental le!els ,'BJ49878E1.2/. )-(* Correlations 2ith other tests "t is a necessary condition that when ma$in% a correlation between a new test with other tests that the (ormer does not correlate too hi%h to ma$e it in!alid. @ %ood mi) would be between low and a :moderate; hi%h# but no more. "n other words# it would be ridiculous to com are a new test on a (actor o( intelli%ence with a similar test# and then (ind out later that the new test is actually measurin% a ersonality disorderL )-(* "actor analysis This is a articular (amily o( statistics which many researchers ado t to e) lain certain relationshi s between !ariables or constructs that correlate hi%hly with one another. This method is used to obtain a strict (ru%al set o( data. "n other words# (actor analysis allows (or the testin% o( a multitude o( ma0or mental abilities such as# com rehension# memory# number reco%nition and so (orth com ared to more conser!ati!e tests# such as the Btan(ord7Cinet tests ,-re%ory# 2...# 23/. Factor analysis has one rimary %oal# and that is to ma$e a neat# com rehensible set o( statistics by cuttin%
bac$ too many :untidy; test !ariables to a more e((icient economical set o( common traits. )-(0 Internal consistency Crie(ly# internal consistency aims (or si%ni(icant item7test correlations with the test ointin% in a 6ey direction. @nother way o( testin% (or internal consistency is to correlate subtest scores with the total score. Ta$e (or instance certain intelli%ence test (actors# readin% ability# arithmetic# s ellin% and so (orth. @ll the sub scores are added to%ether to %i!e a total test score. 1( course# it is necessary that items are homo%eneous in order to achie!e a %ood internal test consistency. )-(1 Convergent and Discriminant validation Con!er%ent !alidation o( a test means that a test correlates hi%hly with other tests# or traits that share a common (actor. "n other words# such tests are normally done on a hetero%eneous sam le to test (or con!er%ence. This also means that such a test should also not correlate with o arithmetic reasonin%. Discriminant !alidation is im ortant to ersonality tests. "n (act discriminant !alidation occurs when there is a clash# or non7correlation with two o ne%ati!e correlation# i( any correlation at all. The multitrait7multimethod matri) ,Cam bell and Fis$e ,1959/ combines the assessment o( two or more !ariables with two or more methods ,-re%ory# 2...# . 11.7111/. This matri) demonstrates a %ood source o( data on discriminant and con!er%ent !alidity# as well as reliability. osite !ariables such as o ularity and intelli%ence. This would ob!iously be a osite !ariables. For e)am le# a test (or !ocabulary ability should not correlate with a test (or
E perimental interventions @ny (orm o( e) erimental inter!ention a researcher does will in!ol!e :control; o( the test situation. This is done in order to :isolate; common treatment (actors# and remo!e any unwanted inter(erences that could in!alidate results. There are numerous research desi%ns to choose (rom# such as a standard one$group pretest$posttest design (or testin% construct !alidation in a scholastic test.
Then there are other tests such as the Equivalent !ime Series that s read out o!er len%thy time eriods ,3eumann#199?# 183719?/. *hat e!er test is chosen# there will always be a certain amount o( e) erimental inter(erence. The researcher see$s solutions to roblems# or tries to (ind a better e) erimental method to test di((erent hy othesis (or resent and (uture %enerations.
)ummary The %oal o( this essay was to e) lain what was meant by psychometric properties of psychological assessment measures( The rinci les necessary to sychometric theory were discussed# namely# the di((erent ty es o( norms# criterion re(erenced tests# sycholo%ical measures and the reliability and !alidity o( these measures# as well as the ad!anta%es and limitations o( each test.
Conclusion 'sychometric testin% o( sycholo%ical measurements is an e)tensi!e rocedure. There are a number o( rocesses in!ol!ed in assessin% human data which cannot be done in a !acuum. 'eo le are human constructs which do not remain stable o!er time# that is why researchers are always testin% and retestin% their roducts a%ainst the dynamics o( man. "t is there(ore sa(e to conclude that no test is a com lete test. @s this essay has demonstrated# there are always ad!anta%es and limitations to assessment measures. *hat wor$s (or one test# may not necessarily wor$ (or another. Bometimes it is not a matter o( de%rees whether a test is su measure what it is su the real world o( eo le. osed to osed to measure# but how the test sam le relates to
Durrheim# K. ,2..2/. 5esearch in 'ractice. "n =.T.Clanche ,Id/# Quantitative Measurement , . ?2795/. Ca e Town2 9CT 'ress.
-re%ory# 5.M. ,2.../. Psychological !esting. 3rd Idition. "llinois2 @llyn and Cacon# "nc. 3eumann# *.N. ,199?/. Social Research Methods. 3rd edition. 3eedham >ei%hts2 @llyn 6 Cacon. 5osnow# 5.N. 6 5osenthal# 5. ,1999/. ;eginning ;ehavioral Research. 3rd. Idition. 3ew Mersey2 'rentice >all Tutorial Netter 1.2 (or 'BJ49878. ,2..3/. Psychological +ssessment. 'retoria2 9nisa 'ress. ,sections (rom . 3724/.