Assessment, Measurement, and Research - Assignment Example

Assessment, Measurement, and Research Assessment, Measurement, and Research Various instruments exist for conducting evaluation and assessments of counseling progress by counselors. Knowledge of the instruments is usually helpful to counselors as they explore ways and systems to make their works effective and productive. Among the instruments inquired about with a counselor in one of the local universities included cultural fair test, projective tests and personal preferences tests. During the consultations, the contacted counselor offered deep insights into each of the concepts. Culture fair test Culture fair test was a construction of Cattel in 1959 and intended to assist in conducting of intelligence tests on individuals without focus or consideration to the cultural differences and practices, as well as educational attainment or verbal and nonverbal believes (Messick et al., 1999). The culture fair test is relatively valid considering that it only reduces cultural bias and as stipulated in its construction, it admits impossibility to eliminate cultural bias. It only seeks to reduce biases during performance of intelligence tests. The first time of use of the culture fair test was after the World War II and involved screening American soldiers of average intelligence and nonnative English speakers. Since its first use, the test has gained widespread application in schools and other institutions, and applied in screening non-native English speakers (Messick, 1999). The culture fair test instrument is relatively reliable considering the various steps used in its construction and initial implementation. To begin with, there should be no timing of the test and if possible, directions can be oral or in pantomime. Secondly, the instrument has been the use of a draw a person tests that measure body concepts and differentiation to define culture fair indices of intellectual ability (Ungar, 2011). Thirdly, the structure of test allows room for use of nonverbal responses for children whose languages are different from the ones presented in the standardized test. During the consultation, the counselor noted that there is no educational threshold to guide or prove the applicability of the cultural fair test in counseling. However, the counselor reiterated that practitioners need to have at least a certificate or any higher training in counseling psychology. The method that led to the selection of the culture fair test involved listing and sampling of the tests with reference to the critical cultural issues eminent in the field of psychology. The main point of focus was intention to ensure and test possibility of cultural fairness during counseling. The reason for developing interest in the instrument related to the need to end cultural bias and rigidity in counseling and promote tolerance, which was possible and expectable through the use of the instrument. Personal preference test Personal preference test was a construction of Allen Edwards during the time spanning from 1954 to 1959. The purpose for creation of the instrument was to assist in effective personal guidance and counseling, but the use has extended into recruitment and selection fields (Bennet et al., 2006). The instrument employs forced choice principle where subjects have to choose one of two statements in 225 pairs comprising the test. Basically, the instrument measures the strength of the 15 basic human wants by performing a critical comparison of the needs. In developing the test instrument, Edwards consulted with and picked particular concepts about human needs as described and discussed by H. A. Murray (Ungar, 2011). Continued interaction with various clients with divergent challenges informed the main way towards choosing the instrument of personal preference test. Encounter with clients having diverse needs with different priorities created the understanding that urgency and viability of human needs vary from one individual to another. The clear and concise classification of the human needs by the instrument of personal preference test provides an immediate tool for effective and proper analysis of client’s needs and locate relevant resources according to their urgency of demand. The instrument of personal preference test is less reliable for use in a competitive test environment considering the ease with which individuals can fake desirability conditions (Briere, 1997). As demonstrated by the consulted counselor, the technicality of the personal preference test makes it difficult to use and conduct effective evaluation. For that reason, individuals who may qualify for applying the instrument needs to be bearers of degree or even better masters in guidance and counseling psychology. Projective test The instrument of projective test involves individuals offering responses to a number of ambiguous images, words and scenes. According to the developer of the test, human beings have unconscious urges or thoughts that shape and reflect view of the conscious awareness. Usually, the unconscious urge hides away from the conscious awareness and only activates when necessary. From the statements, the main purpose of the projective test instrument was to uncover the unconscious desires and make them become conscious. As demonstrated by Briere (1997), Hermann Rorschach was the first publisher of the projective test in 1921. The first test conducted was on Rorschach Inkblot that consisted of 10 cards depicting ambiguous inkblot. The validity and usefulness of the projective test instrument depends on the extent that is possible to find identical personality interpretations made by different evaluators who use similar test information or data. Another determinant of reliability of the instrument relates to the extent that the interpretations made by the individual evaluators have sufficient assessment support from the other sources like clinical observation and personality inventories (Messick, 1999). From the above observations, it is conclusive that projective test lack standard grading criteria and have limited or unspecified validity and reliability. According to the counselor consulted, projective test is slightly complex and requires significant professional for effective evaluation and appropriate conclusion. Practitioners using the instruments should have attained at least a degree in the field of counseling psychology. However, any person can use the test, but high professionalism and qualifications assist in reducing simple error and enhancing performance and professionally grounded conclusions. The reason for choosing the instrument relates to its ability to enhance knowledge and sensitivity to issues of diversity and foster acceptance in counselors for diverse views of clients. Conclusion Effective counselors need to perform test assessments on clients to ensure harmonization and coherence of counseling objectives with the particular needs and conditions of the given clients. Among the most important instruments include the culture fair test, projective tests and personal preference tests. The three test instruments vary in scope, validity and reliability that, however, depend on contexts and purpose of a given counseling mission. The test instruments also have different publishers motivated to develop the instruments by different reasons and conditions. References Bennett, B. E., Bricklin, P. M., Harris, E., Knapp, S., VandeCreek, L., & Younggren, J. N. (2006). Psychological assessment and testing. In , Assessing and managing risk in psychological practice: An individualized approach (pp. 143-154). The Trust. doi:10.1037/14293-008 Briere, J. (1997). General Objective and Projective Measures. In , Psychological assessment of adult posttraumatic states (pp. 107-126). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10267-006 Messick, S., Weiner, I. B., Bersoff, D. N., Hofer, P. T., Eyde, L. D., Quaintance, M. K., & ... Schneider, D. L. (1999). Psychological assessment. In D. N. Bersoff (Ed.) , Ethical conflicts in psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 283-337). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10329-005 Ungar, M. (2011). Counseling in challenging contexts. Boston, MA: Cengage. Read More