SOME COMMENTS ON CULTURE FAIR TESTS1

An attempt has been made in this paper to show that culture fair tests have some problems associated with them. These tests should be examined and reviewed closely before being used and should not be regarded as the answer to testing the culturally disadvantaged. The following points were made in this paper: Culture fair tests measure different psychological functions. Culture fair tests today measure such functions as spatial visualization, abstract reasoning, perceptual speed, etc. Culture fair tests vary considerably in format. Some are pencil and paper tests, some are performance tests. Some use verbal instructions, others do not. There are many test parameters along which culture fair tests now vary. Some evidence suggests that culture fair tests possibly increase the differential between the culturally disadvantaged and the more advantaged population. Use of these tests may not be in the best interests of minority groups. It is not yet definite about the kind of items on which culturally disadvantaged people perform poorer. Some evidence suggests that they do better on verbal items and worst on perceptual items, which is in contrast to the assumption of most proponents of culture-fair tests. The validity of culture fair tests has not been shown to be better than more traditional tests. In contrast, some research even indicates that they do not show relationships as high. What is to be done, if anything, about the test differentials between the culturally disadvantaged and the majority population? Some individuals (Lorge, 1964; Coffman, 1964) agree that the elimination of group differences on tests is futile and argue that the real task at hand is a realistic attempt to study the behavioral significance of test differences. In essence, this is an all out attempt to collect validation information. Does a particular score for a black have the same behavioral implications of a higher (or lower) test score for a white? Are there criterion differences that are related to test differences? Do differential validities exist for various subgroups? Are the standard errors of estimates different for different groups? This approach is essentially what has been pursued by individuals investigating the “moderating” effects of subgrouping by race and/or socio-economic factors. The investigation of test differences within and between subgroups is called for. In my opinion, attempting to mask test differentials by using culture fair tests may in actuality have a reverse effect than what was intended. Test differentials may actually increase, making it more difficult for culturally disadvantaged individuals to be selected into schools, jobs, etc. Clearly, the construction of culture fair tests is not the only answer to testing the disadvantaged.     

COMMENTS ON FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL-BASED BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS

Functional analysis procedures were developed in the 1980s in an effort to determine whether clinicians could identify the function of behavior problems like self-injury and aggression. More recently, several groups of researchers have been attempting to extend that procedure to classroom environments. The following commentary reflects my viewpoint of this transition.     

UNPROCTORED INTERNET TESTING IN EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS

As the Internet has become more accessible to individuals and organizations, the use of computerized testing has become more feasible. Computerized testing has brought with it a demand for unproctored testing that allows test takers to take employment tests at times and places convenient to them. However despite the advantages of costs and convenience, unproctored Internet testing (UIT) introduces a number of issues, many of which have not yet been resolved. These problems range from hardware and software issues to concerns about the security of the test content, the identity of candidates, and cheating. This article explores the pros and cons of unproctored, Internet testing. Six panelists share their opinions and experiences regarding issues around UIT and offer suggestions for appropriate use and future research.     

技能訓練的几个問題

自从1958年以来,我們对工业生产中的技工培訓、創造革新和改进操作方法等問題进行了一些調查訪問和研究工作,涉及不同性貭的企业和不同工种,遇到了不少心理学問題。技能問題是其中之一。技工培訓的主要內容当然是技能訓练問題,而操作方法、劳动組織、劳动工具的任何改进,对于技能的掌握、改造和提高也都会发生一定影响,它們間接地联系到技能訓练問題。本文仅就我們所遇到的有关技能訓练的几个主要問題談談我們的做法和看法。     

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY EMPLOYMENT SERVICE COUNSELING SUPERVISORS

Data from 24 counseling supervisors in the New York State Employment Service were obtained as part of an on-going training program. Small groups through spontaneous discussion presented problems that they wanted to solve. The data were classified and tabulated according to common content. The findings show that these supervisors were bothered primarily by organizational and interpersonal difficulties. Although also concerned with “job-task” problems, these represented a smaller proportion of their time involvement. Implications for management and training were discussed.     

关于人的心理的內部矛盾問題

列宁在“談談辯証法問題”中曾經指出:在宇宙的各个不同現象領域中,存在着不同的特殊矛盾:“在数学中,十和一,微分和积分。在力学中,作用和反作用。在物理学中,阳电和阴电。在化学中,原子的化合和离解。在社会科学中,阶級斗爭。”同时他也指出:是否承认不同事物具有不同的內部矛盾或特殊矛盾,是否承认事物的內部矛盾或特殊矛盾是事物发展的动力,乃是形而上学观点和辯証法观点的分水岭。     

关于心理学研究方法分类的初探

一、心理学研究方法的发展史二、八木冕、鲁宾斯坦、皮尔奥夫的分类法三、作者的分类