Debating Ability Testing – Savvy Essay Writers | savvyessaywriters.net
Debating Ability Testing – Savvy Essay Writers | savvyessaywriters.net
8/4/2019 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch06,ch06lev1sec1,ch06lev1sec2,ch06lev1sec3,ch06lev1sec4,ch06lev1sec5,ch06lev1… 1/79
CHAPTER 6 Group Tests and Controversies in Ability Testing
TOPIC 6A Group Tests of Ability and Related Concepts
6.1 Nature, Promise, and Pitfalls of Group Tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec1#ch06lev1sec1)
6.2 Group Tests of Ability (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec2#ch06lev1sec2)
6.3 Multiple Aptitude Test Batteries (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec3#ch06lev1sec3)
6.4 Predicting College Performance (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec4#ch06lev1sec4)
6.5 Postgraduate Selection Tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec5#ch06lev1sec5)
6.6 Educational Achievement Tests (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec6#ch06lev1sec6)
The practical success of early intelligence scales such as the 1905 Binet-Simon test motivated psychologists and educators to develop instruments that could be administered simultaneously to large numbers of examinees. Test developers were quick to realize that group tests allowed for the efficient evaluation of dozens or hundreds of examinees at the same time. As reviewed in an earlier chapter, one of the first uses of group tests was for screening and assignment of military personnel during World War I. The need to quickly test thousands of Army recruits inspired psychologists in the United States, led by Robert M. Yerkes, to make rapid advances in psychometrics and test development (Yerkes, 1921 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1796) ). Many new applications followed immediately—in education, industry, and other fields. In Topic 6A (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06#ch06box1) , Group Tests of Ability and Related Concepts, we introduce the reader to the varied applications of group tests and also review a sampling of typical instruments. In addition, we explore a key question raised by the consequential nature of these tests—can examinees boost their scores significantly by taking targeted test preparation courses? This is but one of many unexpected issues raised by the widespread use of group tests. In Topic 6B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec6#ch06lev2sec21) , Test Bias and Other Controversies, we continue a reflective theme by looking into test bias and other contentious issues in testing.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec1#ch06lev1sec1
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec2#ch06lev1sec2
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec3#ch06lev1sec3
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec4#ch06lev1sec4
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec5#ch06lev1sec5
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec6#ch06lev1sec6
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1796
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06#ch06box1
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch06lev1sec6#ch06lev2sec21
8/4/2019 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch06,ch06lev1sec1,ch06lev1sec2,ch06lev1sec3,ch06lev1sec4,ch06lev1sec5,ch06lev1… 2/79
6.1 NATURE, PROMISE, AND PITFALLS OF GROUP TESTS Group tests serve many purposes, but the vast majority can be assigned to one of three types: ability, aptitude, or achievement tests. In the real world, the distinction among these kinds of tests often is quite fuzzy (Gregory, 1994a (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib646) ). These instruments differ mainly in their functions and applications, less so in actual test content. In brief, ability tests typically sample a broad assortment of proficiencies in order to estimate current intellectual level. This information might be used for screening or placement purposes, for example, to determine the need for individual testing or to establish eligibility for a gifted and talented program. In contrast, aptitude tests usually measure a few homogeneous segments of ability and are designed to predict future performance. Predictive validity is foundational to aptitude tests, and often they are used for institutional selection purposes. Finally, achievement tests assess current skill attainment in relation to the goals of school and training programs. They are designed to mirror educational objectives in reading, writing, math, and other subject areas. Although often used to identify educational attainment of students, they also function to evaluate the adequacy of school educational programs.
Whatever their application, group tests differ from individual tests in five ways:
Multiple-choice versus open-ended format Objective machine scoring versus examiner scoring Group versus individualized administration Applications in screening versus remedial planning Huge versus merely large standardization samples
These differences allow for great speed and cost efficiency in group testing, but a price is paid for these advantages.
Although the early psychometric pioneers embraced group testing wholeheartedly, they recognized fully the nature of their Faustian bargain: Psychologists had traded the soul of the individual examinee in return for the benefits of mass testing. Whipple (1910 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1752) ) summed up the advantages of group testing but also pointed to the potential perils:
Most mental tests may be administered either to individuals or to groups. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. The group method has, of course, the particular merit of economy of time; a class of 50 or 100 children may take a test in less than a fiftieth or a hundredth of the time needed to administer the same test individually. Again, in certain comparative studies, e.g., of the effects of a week’s vacation upon the mental efficiency of school children, it becomes imperative that all S’s should take the tests at the same time. On the other hand, there are almost sure to be some S’s in every group that, for one reason or another, fail to follow instructions or to execute the test to the best of their ability. The individual method allows E to detect these cases, and in general, by the exercise of personal supervision, to gain, as noted above, valuable information concerning S’s attitude toward the test.
In sum, group testing poses two interrelated risks: (1) some examinees will score far below their true ability, owing to motivational problems or difficulty following directions and (2) invalid scores will not be recognized as such, with undesirable consequences for these atypical examinees. There is really no simple way to entirely avoid these risks, which are part of the trade-off for the efficiency of group testing.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib646
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1752
8/4/2019 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch06,ch06lev1sec1,ch06lev1sec2,ch06lev1sec3,ch06lev1sec4,ch06lev1sec5,ch06lev1… 3/79
However, it is possible to minimize the potentially negative consequences if examiners scrutinize very low scores with skepticism and recommend individual testing for these cases.
We turn now to an analysis of group tests in a variety of settings, including cognitive tests for schools and clinics, placement tests for career and military evaluation, and aptitude tests for college and postgraduate selection.
8/4/2019 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch06,ch06lev1sec1,ch06lev1sec2,ch06lev1sec3,ch06lev1sec4,ch06lev1sec5,ch06lev1… 4/79
6.2 GROUP TESTS OF ABILITY
Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-II (MAB-II) The Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-II (MAB-II; Jackson, 1998 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib820) ) is a recent group intelligence test designed to be a paper-and-pencil equivalent of the WAIS-R. As the reader will recall, the WAIS-R is a highly respected instrument (now replaced by the WAIS-III), in its time the most widely used of the available adult intelligence tests. Kaufman (1983 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib861) ) noted that the WAIS-R was “the criterion of adult intelligence, and no other instrument even comes close.” However, a highly trained professional needs about 1½ hours just to administer the Wechsler adult test to a single person. Because professional time is at a premium, a complete Wechsler intelligence assessment— including administration, scoring, and report writing—easily can cost hundreds of dollars. Many examiners have long suspected that an appropriate group test, with the attendant advantages of objective scoring and computerized narrative report, could provide an equally valid and much less expensive alternative to individual testing for most persons.
The MAB-II was designed to produce subtests and factors parallel to the WAIS-R but employing a multiple- choice format capable of being computer scored. The apparent goal in designing this test was to produce an instrument that could be administered to dozens or hundreds of persons by one examiner (and perhaps a few proctors) with minimal training. In addition, the MAB-II was designed to yield IQ scores with psychometric properties similar to those found on the WAIS-R. Appropriate for examinees from ages 16 to 74, the MAB-II yields 10 subtest scores, as well as…
