Are Tests Valid

What are the feelings out there on tests such as the Myers-Briggs, Strong Interest Inventory, etc. I mean if the test results say, for example "You should be a College Professor" every time you take them, every test, does this mean you in essence have marching orders or what?

Dave

KC7WGB

 

If you permit a college professor to talk - I've done some work with college entrance tests - like the SAT, ACT and GMAT. The point is that measuring humans is an extremely difficult task.

Validity asks the question - "does the test actually measure what I'm looking for?" With the ACT, this means - "does a high ACT really mean that a student will do well in college?" The answer is partially yes - the ACT, GMAT, etc. are statistically valid - to a point. The problem is that they only explain 30-40% of the variation in college grades. There are other factors - like motivation and maturity that have a big impact.

The other statistical concept here is reliability. This ask - "if you take the test over and over, will you get the same result?". In your case this apparently is the case. The college tests are reasonably reliable as well.

As for the interest inventories - I believe what they are doing is asking a set of questions to find out your interests - and then comparing them with professionals in the field. If the test points you to "college professor" it is probably because you answer the interest inventory in a similar way to college professors.

Is this valid? Probably - to an extent. But every professor doesn't answer the same way. Further, test takers can alter their answers to match preconceived notions. For example, if the interest inventory asks you about your desire for structure in your work day - a person that thinks they want to be a college prof would say they prefer low structure. Further, for younger folks - they may not really know what they prefer in a work setting.

Regards - Andy

------------------
Andy Borchers, DBA
NSU (1996)

 

As another college professor and corporate trainer (with a great deal of experience in Tests and Measurements), I agree totally with Andy. Humans are difficult to measure in such areas as potential, aptitude, intelligence, etc. It is hard enough measuring what people know and can do. It is nearly impossible to measure what they are capable of doing.

Interest inventories have a stronger likelihood of validity, provided the test developers did their homework. I like what was the Strong-Campbell; I'm sure its current form is good, too. But aptitude testing? It's a bunch of self-validating voodoo.

Rich Douglas

 

can an IQ test prepared by one person for another person ever be valid? what is being measured, what you know or what they know. do you know what they know? can they know what you know? can you know what they think they know or can they know what you want them to know? who knows?

as a practicing counselor, the only time i will use an IQ test is if the court requires it. i don't put much stock in it.

------------------
Howard Rodgers

 

There was a quite controversial book entitled "Bell Curve" written several years ago that would argue to the contrary. The authors maintain that intelligence can be measured reliably. Further, they argue that our society has changed so that intelligence is a major differentiator of economic welfare. It is an interesting, if not controversial, read.

Thanks - Andy

------------------
Andy Borchers, DBA
NSU (1996)

 

Yale?