The sources we have been provided with are indeed ambiguous regarding that! Lilienfeld categorizes DAP as a "construction technique" , while in Gregory they list it among "expression techniques" instead of "construction techniques"
Thank you so Much for these questions. Currently I do not have access to the Gregory Book, but I think I remembered that it stated that the exact formula for T can differ. Just keep in mind that the mean is preferably 5 times as high as the SD (to keep avoiding negative numbers). So does not have to be T=10Z+50 persé... One can also standardize it to T=20Z+100 for example (I do agree that 10Z+50 is most commonly used)
So according to what I found on the discussion board both Gregory and Kaplan are in line with what Anonymous Pineapple stated:
- Qualified Individualism: DISREGARDS gender, race, etc. in practice (I think the ambiguity stems from Kaplan stating that the Qualified Individualists still note that gender, race, etc. could be good predictors but do not include them nevertheless), so it is focused solely on the quality of individuals I suppose
- Unqualified Individualism: INCLUDES gender, race, etc. in practice
This is awesome, thank you! I'm not sure if I'm correct, but I think that in question 12 both A and C are correct. I thought that Thurstone method was the same as the method of equal-appearing intervals? Correct me if I'm wrong
I dont understand why you say that lower prescision=lower alpha and this is good
But than you state that if a test has high alpha, a large portion of the variance in the test is attributable to group factors, so alpha should lay above 0.7
Im confused, sorry. It would be lovely if you could explain :)
Our tutor told us to focus on the following things: For the ethics: confidentiality and data provision, file and reporting, getting big picture out of it and then smth about the empirical cycle & diagnostic cycle and how to distinguish those (- Diagnostic Cycle: recognize which one Empirical vs. regulative Goal & reasoning behind it (steps)) so yeah haha I dont really know but thank you!
Anonymous Space Invader
7 months ago
i think a low precision in numerical terms can be translated into 1 (or something close to that). high precision (unidimensionality) means a value close to 0.
These overviews are amazing! Thanks so much! I got a quesion about the inductive strategies. Because I thought that Internal was inductive and external was deductive? Or am I wrong, would love if someone could clarify :)
I think in 4. Testing the items 0,3 is difficult and 0,7 is easy :) as P equals the proportion of how many people got it correct, thus the higher p, the more people got it correct and therefore the easier it was :) THANKS for all your hard work :)
Hey Leonie, first thank you for all your hard work and amazing summaries in the last 3 years!! Is there any chance that you will still upload the missing summaries (5, 7, 8)?:) even if they are not complete..I just love your structure! Thanks again :)
Hi everyone, does someone have the following two articles for task 8 and could maybe upload them?
Dutch Association of Psychologists (NIP) (2017). Guidelines for the use of tests 2017
Van Strien, P.J. (1997). Towards a methodology of psychological practice. The regulative cycle.
I've tried to get the articles in multiple ways , but I cannot seem to get access to it.
Thank you in advance!
I have a minor question, and was hoping that you guys could help me.. I'm struggling a bit with all the kinds of validity, and I was wondering if it's true that Criterion and Content both are closely related to Construct? Meaning that 'Construct Validity' can be seen as a sort umbrella of validity..
I've found this somewhere: In psychometric theories, construct validity is usually seen as unifying concept for all types of validity evidence --> individual studies of 3 validity types are regarded merely as supportive evidence for construct validation.
Don't know if that helps? Other than this I'm also quite lost
Yes! Thank you, just needed the confirmation. I found in Messick (literature task 2) that he was the one proposing this unified concept of construct-validity. But I also find that it was a very hard paper to read, therefore that I seeked your confirmation :)
updated 1 year ago
Hiii btw all the definitions documents I'm posting are from Psychodiagnostics >>> A <<<.
Oh, now I'm not sure anymoree.. Maybe I'm using old summaries or something, but I've had to choose between the two and also every mail I get has 2017-600-IPN3109A in the subject, so I figured there's still a division.
thanks for uploading! I found 2 minor things that might be important for examination: hunter & schmidt's ethical positions are not about test use per se, but about institutions selecting people based on test scores.
Second, the chapter does not state that quotas are unfair, but that not using quotas would be considered unfair.
thanks for uploading! Could you upload it as a word file as well? it is pretty annoying to copy/paste it into word and change the whole layout. I would like to add / shorten some things for my own use.