Validating a psychometric instrument

6854933580_2c8b688306_z

Validity is at the core of testing and assessment, as it legitimises the content of the tests, meaning the information gained from the test answers is relevant to the topic needed.For a test to be considered ‘valid’ it has to pass a series of measures; the first, concurrent validity, suggests that the test may stand up to previous analysis in the same subject, this is important as it relies on previously validated tests.Methods: Relevant studies of the BDI-II were retrieved through a search of electronic databases, a hand search, and contact with authors. Retained studies (k = 118) were allocated into three groups: non-clinical, psychiatric/institutionalized, and medical samples. Joe S, Woolley ME, Brown GK, Ghahramanlou-Holloway M, Beck AT.

These psychometrics are crucial for the interpretability and the generalizability of the constructs being measured.In this example, the overall reliability statistic is .732.The analysis also elucidates the efficacy of each individual item by reporting information such as corrected item-total correlation and Cronbach’s Alpha if an item were deleted.As defined by National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), psychometrics refers to psychological measurement.Generally, it refers to the field in psychology and education that is devoted to testing, measurement, assessment, and related activities.The various criteria fulfilled by the assessments, should hopefully insure that only the best, most well suited people are chosen for the job; not only this but if the tests were not valid it would be a waste of time and money for the company to use them.Psychometrics is a field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement.First introduced by Blake and Mouton (1964), and reinterpreted by Thomas (1976), the scheme includes the five modes of competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating.One of the advantages of this classification scheme is that the five specific modes reflect independent dimensions of interpersonal conflict behavior.As interpreted by Thomas (1976), the scheme is based upon the two separate dimensions of cooperation (attempting to satisfy the other person’s concerns) and assertiveness (attempting to satisfy one’s own concerns): competing is assertive and uncooperative, collaborating is assertive and cooperative, avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative, accommodating is unassertive and cooperative, and compromising is intermediate in both cooperativeness and assertiveness.Several research studies have explored the relationships between the five conflict-handling modes and social and organizational variables (e.g., Blake and Mouton, 1964; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Burke, 1970; Aram, Morgan, and Esbeck, 1971; Thomas, 1971; Thomas and Walton, 1971; Renwick, 1972; Ryan and Clemence, 1973).

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!