|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Psychological testing.
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Psychological Assessment - Psychological Testing
These two topics require seperate articles with cross-references between them. A test is a component of an assessment. they are not the same thing. Fremte 04:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It is simply false to say that projective tests "are less amenable to the development of norms." That statement reflects a fundamental lack of knowledge of research over the past 30 years on what have traditionally been called "projective" tests. The Rorschach is quite amenable to norms. And just because other projectives may not have adequate norms doesn't mean that they cannot have them just as easily as an "objective" test. Current researchers are working on better norms for the TAT. It is also misleading to make a blanket statement that "responses are most often qualitatively rather than quantitatively evaluated". The old concept of differences between "objective" and "projective" tests in terms of subjective (i.e., arbitrary) interpretation of responses by the examiner is quite outdated. The fundamental difference between the two types of tests is in the response process, not necessarily in the interpretive process. Tests like the MMPI-2 have a finite number of responses (i.e., "true" or "false"), whereas the Rorschach and the TAT have an open-ended response process. That difference does not necessarily mean that the examiner's interpretive process is arbitrary.
I will accept the statement that projectives are more time-consuming, although that is not always the case either.
I have no problem if an informed editor wishes to discuss the historical differences between "objective" and "projective" tests, but it must be done in an historical context, not as blanket statements which imply that the situation 30 years ago still exists today. Ward3001 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Link to Test Validity
I'm working on cleaning up references to psychological and educational testing. It is appropriate that this article only addresses validity cursorily, but I disagree with the current text:
"A useful psychological measure must be both valid (i.e., actually measures what it claims to measure) and reliable (i.e., internally consistent or give consistent results over time)."
According to the latest AERA, APA, NCME Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999), validity is not the degree to which a test measures what it claims, but the degree to which evidence support the interpretations users make of test results. Also, the link in that sentence goes to the article on statistical validity, but it seems the new article on test validity would be more appropriate.
Also, the parenthetical on reliability should address more than internal consistency and time. It should at least also include "raters, etc."
- I agree regarding validity, so feel free to revise the text and supply the "Standards" as a source. I also generally agree with a brief mention of other types of reliability (if sourced), but an encyclopedia article doesn't need much detail about each. Ward3001 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Some who knows more than me should take a look at this section and do whatever to it. It's probably important for the article but don't know if it is completely accurate or enough is there. Thanks, Fremte (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Personality Measures, etc
The examples in this section include both what are traditionally considered personality measures (e.g. MMPI, MCMI) and also measures that more directly measure emotional or behavioral problems and are not considered to represent "personality" (e.g. CBCL, BDI). I think the latter should be moved to their own section rather than lumped together. If someone needs help clarifying the difference, especially since there is some overlap in content (e.g. depressive symptoms measured by the MMPI or PAI), consider them to measure chronic vs (relatively) transient pathology, respectively. I realize there's more to it than that, but I'm hardly the best person to explain it, and I think that at least gives a good starting point.
And while I'm complaining about it, how did "sexological" measures get their own section and emotional and behavioral measures didn't? psychojosh13 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we add a Controversy section
Hi! I have recently been asked to fill in one of these forms during an interview process for a job. I completed the forms but found myself objecting to both the validity of the test and its use in the employment process. This experience got me interested in the use of psychology testing and I started to look for examples of where psychometric testing or rather the undue weight given to the results of these testing procedures have contributed to an injustice being perpetrated. It would be helpful to add a section to this article that highlights this (although controversy might be the wrong term since these test are just procedures and the argument stems presumably from the use of these procedures) We could cite legal cases where psychometric testing has contributed to injustice. This might be part of a wider area if controversy which results from one party claiming that they can scientifically model or test something e.g climate changes and another party claims that the system is too complicated and that the errors are unquantifiable - if so we could simply direct the reader to that controversy page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to make an informative addition to this page detailing the Principles of Psychological testing. The edit i would like to make is in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joselv83/sandbox Thank you Joselv83 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
(UTC) 13 noember 2013