首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Forensic Mental Health >Reaching for the Brass Ring of Psychometric Test Standards: Commenting on Slaney, Storey, and Barnes
【24h】

Reaching for the Brass Ring of Psychometric Test Standards: Commenting on Slaney, Storey, and Barnes

机译:达到心理测验标准的黄铜环:评论斯莱尼,楼层和巴恩斯

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Slaney, Storey, and Barnes (201138. Slaney , K. L. , Storey , J. E. and Barnes , J. 2011 . Is my test valid? Guidelines for the practicing psychologist for evaluating the psychometric properties of measures . International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, , 10 261-283 View all references), in delineating guidelines for data-driven psychometric test evaluation, advocate modern test theory for extending a prescriptive framework proposed in Slaney and Maraun (200837. Slaney , K. L. and Maraun , M. D. 2008 . A proposed framework for conducting data-based test analysis . Psychological Methods, , 13 : 376 - 390 . [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]View all references). Here, with an emphasis on noncognitive tests, we begin with a historical review of psychological testing and the developments of testing theory up to current standards and practices. We argue that although the efforts of Slaney et al. are commendable and may be superior in a field in which classical test theory still dominates, they may fall upon deaf ears for two reasons. First, present psychology training is negligent in keeping up with recent developments in statistics and measurement. Second, the practical advantages of modern test theory over classical approaches have not yet been sufficiently demonstrated to test users. This is not to say modern theory cannot produce better tests, rather, when we consider that the ultimate criterion has been and will be predictive validity, old, unsophisticated, classically developed tests still seem to perform satisfactorily. The prescriptive guidelines put forth in Slaney et al. are therefore better understood as aspirational targets, as recommendations, as challenges for tomorrow's generations of test users and developers, and less like psychometric law.View full textDownload full textKeywordspsychometrics, modern test theory, test development and evaluation, statistical training, graduate trainingRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2011.627087
机译:Slaney,Storey和Barnes(201138. Slaney,KL,Storey,JE和Barnes,J. 2011。我的测试是否有效?执业心理学家评估措施的心理计量学特性的准则。国际法医心理健康杂志,10 261-283查看所有参考文献),在描述数据驱动的心理测验评估指南时,提倡现代测验理论以扩展Slaney和Maraun(200837. Slaney,KL和Maraun,MD 2008.提出的规范框架)。基于数据的测试分析。Psychological Methods,,13:376-390。[CrossRef],[PubMed],[Web of Science®]查看所有参考文献)。在这里,以非认知测试为重点,我们从对心理测试的历史回顾以及直到当前标准和实践的测试理论的发展入手。我们认为,尽管斯莱尼等人的努力。在经典测试理论仍然占主导地位的领域中,它们是值得称赞的并且可能是优越的,它们可能因两个原因而置若de闻。首先,当前的心理学培训在跟上统计和测量的最新发展方面是疏忽大意的。其次,与传统方法相比,现代测试理论的实际优势尚未得到充分证明以测试用户。这并不是说现代理论不能产生更好的检验,而是当我们认为最终的标准已经并且将是可预测的有效性时,旧的,不复杂的,经典发展的检验似乎仍然令人满意。 Slaney等人提出的说明性指南。因此,更好地将其理解为理想目标,建议,对未来几代测试用户和开发人员的挑战,而不是像心理测验法。 = {ui_cobrand:“ Taylor&Francis Online”,servicescompact:“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2011.627087

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号