Psychometric testing at AOSB

Discussion in 'Officers' started by walting_matilda, Apr 10, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Ok does anyone know the name of the test that is conducted on AOSB? I have done some research into this (as well as a mate at Lancaster University in the psychology department) and am keen to find out in relation to actual ability.
  2. You mean you want to find out what the desirable answers are?!

    I'm sure somebody has mentioned its name on here before, but beware - as far as I know the whole point of a scientific, psychometric test is that the individual is unaware as to what is being tested for.

    Also, that by trying to give what you think are desirable answers, you run the risk of giving extreme scores for certain characteristics.

    You're best off just giving truthful answers.


    *edit - just re-read your post - if you are doing research, then I think a guy called Goldberg who worked for the Israli Army said he found no relation between psychometics scores and officer ability once in the field.

    Not sure if he published anything about it or not.
  3. I’m helping a mate do a study on intelligence and that “there is no clear definition of intelligence”. For example, how can you give a mensa test to a tribe warrior if they cannot count or read. Are we questioning their intelligence or the ability to have a still.
  4. Some Regiments still prefer their officers 'Mad,Married or Methodist''.Those with all these qualities are especially prized.
  5. Just want ot find out the name of the test that is conducted at ASOB and compare it to other types of test.
  6. Is it the MAP test?
  7. No the computer test
  8. The MAP is on computers and I believe MAP only stands for Mental Aptitude Test not the specific name for it
  9. I'll call westbury tomorrow but just thought I could get from here
  10. I think that is a huge problem with intelligence tests - they have to be sensitive to cultures - but that is true of many things. For example, a psychologist who is counselling an infertile British Female because she cannot have children would have to consider different aspects to treat if he were counselling someone from a culture where it is important to have children to worship you in the afterlife... You wouldn't use that to argue there is no such thing as grief...

    But, I do think you can argue that there are aspects of intelligence which are universial - such as short-term memory, long-term memory, visuo-spacial skills etc. So your friend should probably mention that there are some aspects of intelligence which are universial... But maybe manifested differently in different cultures.

    One area your friend could also consider is dyslexia. It relies on certain strengths and weaknesses to be diagnosed using IQ tests, but certain manifestations of it (such as poor spelling) are not found in phonetic languages such as German or Russian.

    Also, you may find it intersting to know that "wisdom" has also been defined in terms of a measurable, psychological construct... And it is also considered a form of intelligence.

    Good-luck :D
  11. Been a while since I studied any psychology, but as far as I was aware the underlying principle was that linguistic dexterity, cultural origin and educational background was supposed to be excluded from the scope of such evaluations. For example, you don't have to be a graduate in English to know that you can't fit a square peg in a round hole sort of thing.

    If you take a close look at most professionally produced IQ tests (and I don't include that commercial crap published by the profit making organisation, Mensa), you will find that they generally do not require specific linguistic ability, cultural association or educational background. People of any background will be able to associate colours, basic shapes, differences between objects, symbols, letters, spacing, etc, etc. Cognitive, spacial and perceptive reasoning form a large part of such evaluations.

    According to acclaimed psychologist Hans Eysenck, the Wechsler Scale or standardised IQ test is pretty much useless as a measurement tool in pre pubescent children. Unfortunately too many schools (and even doctors) ignore this, and try to apply such standardised testing to children below the age of 12. They are morons.

    Eyesenck was the person who introduced the world to psychometric testing, in the form of the Maudsley Medical Questionnaire. This is used by government agencies, along with other similar testing mechanisms.

    Whilst it may offer some useful results, it seems completely moronic to categorise and label people on the basis of a test designed for young adults. Similarly, tests on older people have to be adjusted acording to age.

    There is a great deal of interesting information on this on the internet, let Google be your friend. Just be aware that there are as many theories as there are days in the year.

    In my experience, best not to try to second guess a psychological assessment or worry too much about the outcome. People get far too hungup on the figure, and thee tests only provide a fairly vague measure. There are plenty of idiots in command, as we all know, and there are plenty of geniuses (genii?) doing mundane jobs.
  12. Thats very true. one of the main criticisms of the standard IQ test is that if is produced by white middle class Americans for white middle class Americans.
  13. Agreed. The fact that they have developed a "standardised test" for the unique character of the most non standardised lifeform (that we know of) speaks volumes for the idiocy of such tests.

    It makes me furious that children are being segregated into groups based on a test that they are no yet emotionally mature enough to even comprehend by teachers and other so-called "professionals" who should know better, or to hear of groups of people being discriminated against on the basis of testing biased towards those of a specific ethnic origin.

    Someone was reported to have said that a person's IQ is as irrelevant as the size of his penis, it's not the measurement that counts, it's what you do with what you've been given that counts

    Sorry for the lapse into crudity, but it seems a reasonable analogy to me.
  14. Actually, many IQ tests, such as the WAIS, do test areas which rely on linguistic ability, such as verbal comprehension and abstract reasoning. But people of low ability are able to take them, if that's what you mean. And another section of the WAIS asks questions such as "what is the Quaran", suggesting that cultural confounds do exist.

    Also, the first psychometric test was by Galton, in the late 1800s. I think he presented the test at the Science Museum. The next key figure was Spearman (an ex-Royal Engineer, btw!). Eysenck wasn't born until the early 1900s and died in the late 1990s and was primarily concerned with personality.

    But you are right about the predictive value of them - I have a friend with an IQ in the low 90s (has dyslexia) and is going to graduate with a first.
  15. Tests of this type should be based against a population norm of suitable size and composition e.g there is no point in administering a test to a doctor when what is wanted are the results based against a population of nuclear physicists. In effect, non-specialised tests are simply blunt instruments.

    The tests were first conducted by the War Office Selection Board (WASBie) as part of a Batttery of tests, backed up by interviews and practical examination on set-piece tasks. The aim - to identify suitable material for commissioning!

    In effect then - the less testing undertaken against desired norms, the cruder the results.