Psychometric assessment Essay

Certain people tend to be more obedient than others. Individuals who have the tendency to adopt a submissive, uncritical attitude toward authority figures – authoritarian submission (Adorno, 1950) tends to perform tasks when demanded. Also, people with an external locus of control (a sense that fate rules their life rather than their own actions) tend to be more obedient. However, despite the popular myth that women are more submissive, women and men are relatively equal in the degree to which they will obey demands (Eagly & Carli, 1981). Dehumanisation or deindividuation is the loss of the sense of individual identity and control over our behaviour. Sensory overload, arousal, anonymity, and reduced self awareness are key factors which loosen inhibitions and thus uncharacteristic behaviour is not inline with usual internal standards. According to deindividuation theory, the psychological state of deindividuation is aroused when individuals join crowds or large groups. The state is characterized by diminished awareness of self and individuality. This in turn reduces an individual’s self-restraint and normative regulation of behaviour. In social psychology, deindividuation is a major theory of group behaviour: it provides an explanation of collective behaviour of violent crowds, mindless hooligans, and the lynch mob. In addition, deindividuation has been associated with other social phenomena such as genocide, stereotyping, and disinhibition in other settings such as computer-mediated communication. Several influential studies were conducted to illustrate the force of deindividuation. For example, Zimbardo (1969) carried out a study that inspired much subsequent deindividuation research. In this study, participants were rendered anonymous by clothing them in oversized lab coats and hoods, compared with normal clothes and name tags in the control condition. The participants’ task was to shock a confederate in a situation similar to the classic Milgram studies on obedience. In a first experiment using groups of female students, Zimbardo demonstrated that anonymous participants shocked longer (and therefore more painfully) than identifiable participants, in confirmation of his theory. Another area of controversy in psychology is the area of psychometric testing, which aim to make important decisions affecting individuals and society. Tests are used in a variety of settings to aid selection in education and work and for diagnosis for those with learning and psychological problems. Ability tests were amongst the first psychometric tests to be developed, and controversy has surrounded their use since. Binet and Simon (1905) were commissioned by the French government to find a method to differentiate between children who were intellectually normal and those who were inferior. The purpose was to put the latter into special schools where they would receive more individual attention. In this way the disruption they caused in the education of intellectually normal children could be avoided. This led to the development of the Binet-Simon Scale, and constituted a revolutionary approach to the assessment of individual mental ability. Revisions to the Binet-Simon Scale resulted in the concept of ‘mental age’, an easily understandable concept which significantly increased the popularity of ability testing. Further developments of the tests produced the concept of intelligence quotient (IQ) and resulted in one of the currently most widely used tests, the Stanford Binet Scale. Most intelligence tests measure the general reasoning ability that is involved in many different types of problem solving behaviour. Older types of tests referred to this intelligence factor as general ability, whereas more recent tests have tended to divide the general ability into fluid intelligence (innate and not particularly influenced by one’s environment) and crystallised intelligence (underlying fluid intelligence that is a product of environmental experiences. In recent years, the introduction of the ‘eleven plus’ exam, which is largely compiled of IQ tests, was used to distinguish those who would proceed to grammar school and those who would be relegated to academically inferior secondary schools. Research into the psychometric assessment of intelligence has been the focus of many eminent psychologists including Spearmen, Burt, Eysenck, and Cattell. The latter two also went on further to develop (separate) personality tests, Cattell’s 16PF in 1970, and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) in 1975. These involve analysing a series of short â€Å"yes/no† questions in an attempt to decipher the nature and character of the person answering them. Today, personality assessments are mainly used in clinical settings, with their use in occupational settings increasing. They may also be used in educational settings in assessing individuals with learning problems and are still widely used and developed within academic and research settings. Personality tests are also widely used today within the work environment, perhaps for deciding whether to employ someone or not, or even to decide who gets made redundant. On the whole, psychometric tests have acceptable validity and therefore make them less prone to error than other types of assessment. The interpretation of psychometric data requires the use of ‘norms’, against which the scores of a particular individual can be compared. Psychometric assessments tend to be the only measures for which norms are available. Psychometric tests are fairly short and therefore time and cost efficient. Many are group tests, and so can be given to a number of people at the same time. In fact the development of computer programmes concerned with psychometric testing means that tests can be administered and scored by a computer, enabling results to be made available quickly and can form the basis of a discussion. Personality tests are particularly cost efficient as they prevent money being wasted on training unsuitable personnel. However, there can be an undue reliance on the results of psychometric tests. Simply discovering that a person has an aptitude for a particular occupation does not guarantee that they will be successful at that job. The mystique of psychometric test results means that they are frequently not discussed with those who complete them. In this sense there is a failure to use psychological testing humanely. Test scores can also be misused. The results of tests should not be used to withhold educational or occupational opportunities from those who may perform less well on tests of ability due to factors that have little to do with intelligence. In any instance, the results can be faked by the participant to influence the results in their favour, and so can be unknowingly misinterpreted anyway. Because of the cheapness and predictive success of many psychometric tests, there may be a failure to use other important information. Psychometric test results should ideally be used alongside other reliable information about a person, otherwise they may wrongly stereotype an individual. Furthermore, there are many cultural and sub-cultural issues that can arise when measuring IQ, which causes much controversy. At the extreme, IQ tests were used to keep out certain immigrant groups from the United States during the 1920’s. Jenson (1969) suggested that genetic differences were the cause of consistently lower IQ scores observed in non white racial groups. Recent controversies relate to the systematic differences attained by different groups in society. Critics say these are the results of bias in test items. Typical examples relate to previously learned information and items using verbal information, typically English, which require reading and writing. Even when tests are translated to the native language of the participants, questions are still raised over the cultural equivalence of certain items (Zindi, 1994). Even tests which explicitly attempt to be culture fair have been questioned. The Raven’s Progressive Matrices test showed that the performance of Asian immigrants has been found to improve over a five year period by an average of 15-20 points, which demonstrates that minorities will be disadvantaged in taking them until they learn different ways of approaching them (Roth, 1990). In 1972, Williams produced the Black Intelligent Test of Cultural Homogeneity (BITCH) in an attempt to highlight cultural biases in test items, which was heavily loaded towards black minorities. Using this test, it is black people who tend to score higher than whites. Particularly in IQ tests that use visual cues, participants may misinterpret an action, and their own cultural biases produce expectations which can alter what they ‘see’. They may use methods derived from an alien culture (emics/etics) and may have a hostile reception which will bias their observations. Observations are made of a sample and may not be typical of the whole culture being studies. It is also wrong to imagine a culture as being a homogenous group of people; differences within a culture may be as large as those between cultures.