Topic: PSY 640 Reply to Tim’s Post Week 2 Debating Ability Testing
| Style | APA |
| Number of words | 344 |
| Number of sources | 1 |
| Spacing | Double |
| PowerPoint slides | 0 |
Questions
Details: (Reply to Tim’s Post below under the instructions)
Which of the assessment instruments presented by your classmate demonstrates the strongest validity, and which (if any) do not show strong validity for the age group being discussed? Were there appropriate age, socioeconomic, language, and/or cultural considerations your classmate did not mention but should have been included in her or his initial post? What ethical consideration(s), in addition to those mentioned by your classmate, might you recommend be included? Provide a rationale for the inclusion of these considerations. Use information from the required resources as well as any other appropriate peer-reviewed articles to support your statements.
***********************************************************************
Reply to Tim’s Week 2 Post Below
Debating Ability Testing: Adolescents and Young Adults (16-25)
Intelligence tests are used to measure the performance of one person in comparison to a standard. Many theorists have different intelligence denotations, and their theories have been used to structure various intelligence tests. Charles Spearman is responsible for proposing the G Factor theory. He suggested that intelligence is comprised of two factors: a single general factor (g) and a multitude of specific elements (Gregory, 2014). Spearman expressed that the two factors could help measure an individual’s performance and intellectual abilities. Since specific factors can vary from each intellectual test, he focused his attention on expounding the general factor’s essence, which was considered the primary cortex (Gregory, 2014). Spearman used three principles of cognition in his work: the apprehension of experience, education of relations, and education of correlations. To further assist his theory, Spearman helped create factor analysis as a method to analyze the correlations between tests (Gregory, 2014).
An intelligence test related to this theory is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales: Fifth Edition (SB5). The SB5 intelligent scales model consists of five factors: working memory, fluid reasoning, visual-spatial processing, knowledge, and quantitative reasoning (Gregory, 2014). These five factors are assessed through verbal and nonverbal areas. Routing procedures are used to determine an individual’s general cognitive ability and provides a starting point before facilitating additional testing while reducing the number of items administered. This test can be provided to adolescents and young adults, resulting in scores of full scale, verbal, and nonverbal IQs, along with the level of gifted performance (Gregory, 2014)
Thurstone and the Primary Mental Abilities
Louis Thurstone is accountable for the Primary Mental Abilities (PMA) theory. Initially, Thurstone suggested that several broad factors could explain mental abilities rather than a single general factor, contrasting to Spearman’s G Factor theory. Thurstone’s theory measures seven factors through different subtests: inductive reasoning, associative memory, perceptual speed, space, number, verbal comprehension, and word fluency (Gregory, 2014). He eventually acknowledged the general factor’s actuality and incorporated this aspect to help determine the correlations between test scores.
The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV) is related to this theory and consists of fifteen subtests, four index scores, and ten core subtests (Gregory, 2014). The four index scores are working memory, processing speed, verbal comprehension, and perceptual reasoning. The WAIS-IV standardization was effectively produced based on data gathered by the United States Bureau of the Consensus of 2005 and can be administered to adolescents and young adults ranging from 16 years of age and older (Gregory, 2014).
Challenges, Ethical Concerns, and Sociocultural Issues
There can be challenges, ethical concerns, or sociocultural issues that test users must be aware of when administering IQ tests to adolescents and young adults. Challenges to consider are specific disabilities that can affect the individual from adequately completing the assessment. Test users must ensure that available accommodations are provided. Adolescents may not be competent to give informed consent to testing, so it is critical that examiners thoroughly explain the test’s purpose to a legal representative to obtain permission. Since cultures are not monolithic, test users should avoid stereotyping and generalizing individuals or populations (Gregory, 2014). Instead, test administrators should acquire a frame of reference that will allow them to understand distinct behaviors needed to perceive various cultures. Measurements should represent groups from where the individual is from to avoid cultural biases and create disadvantages for particular groups (Benson et al., 2020). Tests should also consider linguistic diversity. Individuals from different cultures may require testing to be adjusted for lower reading levels or wording to be modified due to misinterpretations. This process can produce more accurate results by reducing the possibilities for misunderstandings.
Evidence of Test Validity
Tests are considered valid when inferences are appropriate, meaningful, and useful, such as test scores that produce conclusions related to testing manuals or research findings (Gregory, 2014). There are several different types of validity: content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity. The SB5 test has been identified as valid and reliable because it has been standardized through 4,800 individuals stratified by educational status, ethnicity, gender, and regional location (Gregory, 2014). The SB5 manual also attests to numerous correlational studies, providing compelling evidence for criterion-related validity. The test effectively supports various samples and has been deemed suitable for children, adolescents, and adults. The WAIS-IV test has been identified as valid and reliable because index scores averaged across all age groups and subtest scores of special groups were equal or higher than estimates found in the general population (Gregory, 2014). The special groups encompassed individuals with brain injuries, autism, depression, intellectual disability, and Alzheimer’s disease. Criterion-related validity was exhibited in multiple studies and strongly correlated with global scores on other mainstream measures (Gregory, 2014).
Pros and Cons of Individual Versus Group Intelligence Testing
There are both positive and negative aspects to individual and group testing. A positive factor to individual testing is that the examiner can focus and attend to the individual quickly. Behaviors can also be observed more effortlessly. A con of individual tests is that they can be time-consuming. An examiner cannot attend or administrate another test until each supervised person completes their assessment, resulting in increased costs (e.g., time and resources). A positive aspect of group testing is that norms can be easily established, and instruction can be provided to the group, producing more efficiency. More individuals can also be tested, which can reduce costs. A negative aspect of group testing is that rapport can be difficult to maintain or can be lost with some individuals. Some people may not cooperate as often, or they may also lose interest quickly in contrast to an individual test.
Implications of Labeling and Mislabeling
Many individuals fear labels and the anticipation of stigmas resulting from testing and assessments. Adolescents and adults have reported that labeling has produced negative feelings of self-worth and affected their self-views for the future (Dolphin & Hennessy, 2017). Stigmatization can increase feelings of anger, anxiety, and irritation. Mislabeling a person with a diagnosis can affect their career potential by reducing their qualifications and abilities to meet job requirements. To avoid unnecessary suffering, stigmas, or uncomfortable situations, test users must become aware of the implications that labeling and mislabeling can have on individuals.
References
Benson, N., Kranzler, J. H., & Floyd, R. G. (2020). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test—Second Edition: Testing dimensionality and invariance across age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Assessment, 27(5), 996-1006. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1177/1073191118786584
Dolphin, L., & Hennessy, E. (2017). Labeling effects and adolescent responses to peers with depression: An experimental investigation. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 1-10. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1186/s12888-017-1389-9
Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Image preview for “provide a rationale for the inclusion of these considerations. “
