Why Psychometric Measurement Is Often Described as Problematic - Coursework Example

Psychometric measurement is often described as problematic. Why is this? of Psychometric measurement is often described as problematic. Why is this? Personality assessment has remained one of the crucial aspects for the researchers of human psychology. There have been a number of tests that have been conducted in order to assess the human behavioral working but it should be noted that scores were questioned because of certain arguments posed in the researches. Undoubtedly, there are an increased number of researches and hype of the psychometric measures but at the same time, there is no proof that confirms effectiveness of its working schema. This paper aims to find out the problems that are noted in the psychometric measurements. This will be done by introducing a discussion regarding scales and tests which have been working upon poorly defined constructs. Various investigations and researches conducted by scientists have also been added in the paper in order to address the weakness of the psychometrics. A number of researchers have critiques psychometrics and its usage in the mainstream practice of psychology. According to the written critique of Joel Michelle (2008) science would undergo pathology because few hypotheses are considered believable for which no major testing is undertaken to prove its workability. This claim has been directed by Michelle towards the psychometric field and its mainstream practice. It has been a common behavior among the practitioners of psychometrics measure that psychological attributes are merely quantitative values. However, the fact remains that there has been no justification that has been successful in acknowledge this hypothesis. Michelle (2008) rather comes up with a claim that it is because some of the psychologists in the mainstream want to make use of these psychometric measures in order to gain economic benefit. Another reason is considered to be social interests of the practitioners to make use of psychometrics in order to assess psychological attributes of individuals who seek assistance from them (Michelle, 2008). In simpler words, it can be stated that there has been no demonstration of the fact regarding quantitative nature of human psychological attributes such as intelligence, personality etc. This can surely raise a concern or rather proves that psychometrics is flawed. The testing through psychometric measurements is quantitative in nature with no proof of formulas that are applicable on the personality and intelligence quotient of human behavior. It will not be incorrect to state as Michelle (2008) stated that psychometrics basically is in contradiction to the core values of scientific investigation i.e. to prove the workability of a model before measuring through it and applying it (Michelle, 2008). To sum up the problem through the lens of Michelle’s lens to look at psychometrics, it is easily provable that the definition of this type of testing is flawed itself as it overlaps two different constructs (Hughway, 2012). In addition, statistical models and testing criterion are developed with clear reliability and validity tests. Herein, the case of psychometric testing comes with little or no reliability and validity tests. Thus, this avid problem makes psychometrics to be limited in terms of its statistical reliance. Another astonishing claim that provides us understanding regarding problems of psychometrics is that mainstream psychometricians have disregarded the Spearman’s Law which was published in the form of a paper about measurements back in 1904. According to this paper, measurements could be taken of the quantities that are calculated under real number system as it’s the foundation of measurement. In order to provide justification, it has been forwarded by psychometricians that psychological attributes are mere latent constructs that can easily be interpreted in the form of test scores. This is explained as, “item response modelers are no less pathological in their approach to psychometrics than more traditional psychometricians: The implicit assumption that psychological attributes are quantitative is as pervasive as it is hidden. However, there is one important difference between item response modelers and more traditional psychometricians. The former, now, typically test the fit of their models to data, whereas the latter are less inclined to do this (Michelle, 2008)”. Overall, it can be said in order to prove the problems of psychometrics that there is an avid absence of natural scare for the latent variables which according to the mainstream psychometricians is possible to calculate (Saklofske, Zhiming, Zhu, & Austin, 2008). Another address to the problems that psychometric measurements have has been forwarded by the authors Petegam, Vanteenkiste and Beyers (2013). According to these authors, the theory of Jingle-Jangle Fallacy best fits the debate regarding psychometric measures. The Jingle Jangle fallacy is basically reflective of the idea that measuring scales used in order to assess behavioral attributes have wrong names that relate to their content. This means that behavior attributes do not work out for all ages. They consider its application on all making it evident that two constructs are same. However, the fact remains that these scales have little or no application on adolescents groups when it applies on adults. These measurements also lack association with the variability of decision-making processes that occur differently with everyone. (Petegem, Vansteenkiste, & Beyers, 2013). An example can be drawn from a scale which does not fit with its content and title application. This example is of the MIS subscale that defines emotional connectedness however, in real terms it just assess feelings and loyalty of parents. In the similar article, the authors have discussed about Jingle and Jangle fallacy. Jingle fallacy states that if scales have same names (two constructs) then their applicability is also same on two different situations. On the other hand, Jangle fallacy notes that two scales with different names will only be measuring constructs that are different in terms of their content (Petegem, Vansteenkiste, & Beyers, 2013). To provide a clear cut understanding of proofs that have been put forwarded by authors Petegam, Vanteenkiste and Beyers (2013), it can be well stated that in particularly adolescent autonomy, definitions are different of each scales. There are no clear definitions given to define the implied results of the scales. Another dimension is that, in case, these scales are named then they are not defined correctly (Petegem, Vansteenkiste, & Beyers, 2013). The concluding remarks of the claim would be essential to note in order to understand the problem with the psychometric scales. It notes that there are many investigations and trials of constructs through psychometric scales but the fact remains that there is an avid need of meanings to be defined. Later on, there can be investigational processes that can be conducted regarding scale calculations (Hughway, 2012). Furthermore, Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts (2012) have also provided an understanding regarding the problems of psychometrics. They mark in their research that other than personality and intelligence, psychological field of practice has witnessed emotional intelligence as a new construct. Psychometricians who have been involved in understanding of emotional intelligence as a very significant indicator of human behavior have put forward the claim that it is a very significant factor in evaluating human psychological attributes in applied psychology. The authors Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts claim that by taking a closer look at the Emotional Intelligence after investigating the scales and tests that are used in order to assess the quotient of emotional intelligence, it came to our understand that these scales are fairly weak. At one point, the investigation undertaken by proponents of EI claim suggested that the area needed increased number of studies but on the other hand, they were unable to provide effective emotional intelligence scales and tests. Likewise any other psychometric tests and scales, EI related methods also lacked their respective validity and reliability tests (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2012). Instead it was proven by researches that studied the EI trait of emotional intelligence is not strong enough to affect human functioning. As stated, “The initial promise of research on EI has not been fulfilled, and it seems that the dream of establishing an “EQ” factor as important in human affairs as IQ will not be attained.None- theless, the new construct of EI has proved its worth in stimulating a variety of new and pro- ductive lines of research, including the potential for enhancing practice in several applied fields (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2012)”.Emotional intelligence on its contradictory note to the point of proponents does not fulfill the promise that it can play the role of the factor that can fairly allow one to understand behavioral testing of humans. The challenge that the proponents of EI took seems to fail as it can never compare the outlining aspects of Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Herein, it is accepted that EI remains one of the most important subject in the applied psychology because it directly affects human temperament. Along with emotional intelligence being a strong area of study in applied psychology, other fields of interests have also made use of investigative studies to find out application of EI (Petegem, Vansteenkiste, & Beyers, 2013). Through research, it has been proven that the tests and scales of emotional intelligence have failed to prove their effectiveness. It is thus recommended by the authors that there is quick paced research for the understanding of EI that will also incorporate other factors of personality assessment. Every factor that will be assessed for making effective hypothesis for tests and scales must be clearly defined in terms of its construct (Waiyavutti & Johnson, 2012). Most commonly, many users of these scales and tests have questioned the effectiveness of these scales which has rather increased the intensity of debate in the field. It should be noted that almost every other psychologists has come up with the idea of opening a clinic where assistants would undertake scales and tests in order to investigate attributes of individual’s behavior. Many patients would not ask for a confirmation as they have little or no knowledge regarding the scores interpretation. But at the same time, there are many people who would be concerned about their tests scores. They often ask for the base models and hypothesis behind the tests and scores for which there has always been a lack of investigation. At one point, the psychometricians would not be able to answer the questions of their patients (Rammstedt & Goldberg, 2010). The mainstream usage of psychometric tests has nearly reached to the point where these tests and scales are used in order to identify the ability of employees in recruitment process. This shows that there is an avid need of these scales workability justification. However, there is invariance in the degree of final results. As noted above, these scales are not effective enough to evaluate the position of young children. At the same time, it has also been observed that psychometric measures have clearly marked the inability of effective scoring for blind and disable people. As stated by “In prior studies examining associations between personality and cognitive abilities, group differences have been confounded with measurement differences, leaving the effects of cognitive ability on personality scores unclear. Our study used IRT to investigate whether the IPIP and NEO-FFI measured personality consistently in people with differences in cognitive abilities. We found that the IPIP and NEO-FFI items for all five scales were measurement invariant across people with high and low IQs, making it possible to conclude that any differences in IPIP and NEO-FFI scores between people with low and high cognitive abilities reflected true personality trait differences” (Waiyavutti & Johnson, 2012). This clearly links up and provided understanding of the model that is required by the psychometricians in order to come up with a logical testing and scales methods for individuals. Also, it is an astonishing fact that two people with similar leadership abilities’ will have same scores. However, the fact remains that their intelligence would surely be different leading to different decisions taking during the information assessment. Thus, two persons cannot be defined as same. Human biological systems are very different from each other. As studied above, human body works in such a way that it contributes the systems which are determined to reach their respective functioning. It is important to study how these systems or organs function. One cannot simply come up with a theory that justified that a person may make use of questionnaire to find out about the way his or her body works. If these scales and tests were effective then they would have made use of general methods which would have been applicable to any individual. Not every person has an IQ of same level. One would attain good amount of second-handed knowledge that would result in effective understanding of tests but at the same time, there can be people who are less educated and have experienced less in terms of learning. Thus, this will make the individuals majorly different from each other. Taking the example of a blind person who has good understanding about general matters would be unable to undergo these tests because these would include a number of pictures of images for testing purpose. There is no usage of haptic which could be made possible by the psychometricians. This notes that models of scientific understanding are so strong and effective in terms of their operating base that it makes different versions for everyone. Models that are applied for any other purpose such as information building and system testing serve defined constructs. These can easily be achieved with any age group or level of education. At this point of the discussion, it could be well said that there is no clinical testing that is able to gain understanding regarding the dynamic personality of humans. The question which is generally asked in the test and scale measurement remains behavioral. This makes it evident that no other proportions of the human identity can be identified with the help of these scales and tests. These tests can surely tell us the reason behind people doing similar actions. But it can never show results showing two individuals to be completely similar. Despite this fact, there are still many people who believe that these testing’s would allow them with better behavioral understanding (McLarnona & Carswell, 2013). These scores from psychometric measuring scales and tests introduce users with the fact that people do things differently but with less understanding. For instance, if during the tests, two individuals claim that they have been taking sleeping pills then it does not mean that they have taken these medicines for a similar reason. Thus, this explains the situation in hand quiet effectively those two persons can never be the same. Therefore, the hypothesis that has been set by the psychometricians becomes visible. It is rather the inability of these scales to prove their limitations (Gignac, 2009). Through the above in-depth discussion, it can be well stated that psychometric testing has been under practice for quite a long time now. Mainstream psychologists have rather made it a way to gain economic benefits. The numbers of scales and tests that make use of psychometric measures have not been able to put forward the justification about its working. Every scientific model that is made under assessment should have a validity and reliability test which is also missing in this area or field. Herein, it should also be concluded that psychometric testing have not been able to evaluate difference among two individuals because it rejects the idea stating that human personality can be differing. It is due to this reason that these scales or tests have not been able to work effectively. In addition, measuring human behavioral attributes as quantities is another big mistake that has been undertaken by these scale users. As noted in the beginning of the paper, scales and testing can be inappropriate if the scores are not calculated using real number which means that the avid different in scoring something which is entirely different from another body for testing is not quantity rather a variable. Works Cited Gignac, G. (2009). Psychometrics and the Measurement of Emotional Intelligence. New York: Springer Science. Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hughway, M. (2012). Stigma Allure and White Antiracist Identity Management. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(3), 219-241. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2012). Emotional intelligence: A promise unfulfilled? Japanese Psychological Research, 54, 105–127. McLarnona, M., & Carswell, J. (2013). The personality differentiation by intelligence hypothesis: A measurement invariance investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 557–561. Michelle, J. (2008). Is Psychometrics Pathological Science? Measurement, 6(7), 7-24. Petegem, S., Vansteenkiste, M., & Beyers, W. (2013). The Jingle–Jangle Fallacy in Adolescent Autonomy in the Family: In Search of an Underlying Structure. J Youth Adolescence, 42(1), 994–1014. Rammstedt, B., & Goldberg, L. (2010). The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 53–61. Saklofske, D., Zhiming, Y., Zhu, J., & Austin, E. (2008). Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns in Normative Samples for the WISC-IV and WAIS-III. Journal of Indvidual Differences, 29(2), 57–69. Waiyavutti, C., & Johnson, W. (2012). Do Personality Scale Items Function Differently in People With High and Low IQ? Psychological Assessment, 3, 545–555. Read More