Psychometric testing at AOSB

#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.

A__L

*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.
 
#10
walting_matilda said:
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.
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
pyrogenica said:
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.
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
pyrogenica said:
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.
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
pyrogenica said:
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.
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.
 
#16
pyrogenica said:
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.

Wasn't the originally set of more complex tasks (and I'm purposefully not using the 'IQ test' phrase) meant only as a means to differentiate between normal mental ability at a given age and sub normal mental ability that might indicate such individuals need more specific help.
I think the original inventor even said it would be a real shame if people used his test to seperate out the 'more intelligent' people from the 'less intelligent' people
 
#17
The original IQ test was developed in Paris for special needs kid and was not intended to classify people, but merely to identify problems. However, as tests developed (the EPI etc), which gave the mental age to the intelligence age (out of 100) people through right lets classify.
 
#18
walting_matilda said:
The original IQ test was developed in Paris for special needs kid and was not intended to classify people, but merely to identify problems. However, as tests developed (the EPI etc), which gave the mental age to the intelligence age (out of 100) people through right lets classify.
Are you sure it was paris and not someone (and I forget his name) was commissioned by the UK government (I think it was the ministry of education but I'll be damned if I can be 100% on this).



edit- before I finish the above I thought I should check and I found this
http://www.audiblox2000.com/dyslexia_dyslexic/dyslexia014.htm

My mistake. I guess I had the details correct except the country of origin
 
#19
A stimulating debate, and perhaps I am ranting too much specifically regarding the "IQ test" issue.

I certainly stand corrected on the introduction of psychometric testing, as I had always thought that the introduction was attributed to Eysenck. I have certainly heard of Spearman, didn't know he was ex RN! (That kills another of my theories :D )

The first intelligence test was designed by Binet, a Frenchman, in association with Theodore Simon, to be developed further by the German pioneer Stern and taken to a further level by Stamford university. (yes, I looked it up)

From memory (I should Google more but too much work on today) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) was the first generally used IQ test specific to adults. Again, if I recall correctly, accuracy dropped off considerably when the scale reached 130, given the wide range of such testing mechanisms.

I would think that the worst problem when trying to assess juvenile intelligence using any form of standardised testing would arise from the difficulty in establishing a reliable measure of mental development ("maturity") determined largely by biological issues such as hormonal development (as well as certain environmental factors) against a chronological timeline.

I'm sure the original intention behind such standarised testing was an honourable and well intentioned one such as that mentioned, to identify those experiencing particular difficulties. As so often in life, the best intentions can be turned to more sinister applications. I rather doubt that messrs Rutherford, Cockroft and Walton envisaged that their original research work in splitting the atom to find the secret of life would result in weapons of such awesome destruction.

Whereas such tests work wonderfully alongside other pattern-cognitive testing if you are looking to employ template style selection, there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the exclusion of those who fall outside of this "norm" tends to exclude more individual, creative or perhaps even more academic personalities. I wonder how many brilliant strategists, analysts and scientists have failed officer selection?

The reliance on standardised scores causes me great concern, largely because I have witnessed the testing, labelling and inappropriate streaming of incredibly young children and the consequences that this has had on their later education and their subsequent careers. The convenient labelling of a young person as potentially unskilled could (and often has) resulted in their consignement to a fairly uninspiring career path, and the reverse is equally true.

My own observations suggest that the damage cause by inappropriate testing techniques equates to the supression of individuality, and I believe there is little to equal human judgement when assessing suitability for a specific role in life.
 
#20
pyrogenica said:
A stimulating debate, and perhaps I am ranting too much specifically regarding the "IQ test" issue.

I certainly stand corrected on the introduction of psychometric testing, as I had always thought that the introduction was attributed to Eysenck. I have certainly heard of Spearman, didn't know he was ex RN! (That kills another of my theories :D )

The first intelligence test was designed by Binet, a Frenchman, in association with Theodore Simon, to be developed further by the German pioneer Stern and taken to a further level by Stamford university. (yes, I looked it up)

From memory (I should Google more but too much work on today) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) was the first generally used IQ test specific to adults. Again, if I recall correctly, accuracy dropped off considerably when the scale reached 130, given the wide range of such testing mechanisms.

I would think that the worst problem when trying to assess juvenile intelligence using any form of standardised testing would arise from the difficulty in establishing a reliable measure of mental development ("maturity") determined largely by biological issues such as hormonal development (as well as certain environmental factors) against a chronological timeline.

I'm sure the original intention behind such standarised testing was an honourable and well intentioned one such as that mentioned, to identify those experiencing particular difficulties. As so often in life, the best intentions can be turned to more sinister applications. I rather doubt that messrs Rutherford, Cockroft and Walton envisaged that their original research work in splitting the atom to find the secret of life would result in weapons of such awesome destruction.

Whereas such tests work wonderfully alongside other pattern-cognitive testing if you are looking to employ template style selection, there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the exclusion of those who fall outside of this "norm" tends to exclude more individual, creative or perhaps even more academic personalities. I wonder how many brilliant strategists, analysts and scientists have failed officer selection?

The reliance on standardised scores causes me great concern, largely because I have witnessed the testing, labelling and inappropriate streaming of incredibly young children and the consequences that this has had on their later education and their subsequent careers. The convenient labelling of a young person as potentially unskilled could (and often has) resulted in their consignement to a fairly uninspiring career path, and the reverse is equally true.

My own observations suggest that the damage cause by inappropriate testing techniques equates to the supression of individuality, and I believe there is little to equal human judgement when assessing suitability for a specific role in life.
You are clearly swamped...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top