Test Construction

TEST CONSTRUCTION 1

Institution Affiliation:

Psychometrictest to determine personality

Content areas

Manifestations

Detail

alertness

extraversion

introversion

Neuroticism

Humility

Industry

Honesty

Independence

ambition

High/positive

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

High/negative

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Low/positive

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Low/negative

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Questions.Choose the statement that you agree with most.

Option A.

Option B.

1

If a job lacks detail, I would ask the authorities for more details

If a job lacks details, I would go ahead and do it, but find other ways of addressing the issue

2

Am comfortable with sudden responsibilities

I prefer being informed in time about responsibilities

3

I would rather watch a match in a stadium

I would rather watch a match alone from my living room

4

It is not wrong to tell others about my problems

I prefer keeping my problems to myself

5

Am comfortable being alone in quiet places

I prefer company in silent places

6

People who humble themselves are good

Sometimes I can humble myself before my juniors

7

I can help lazy people finish their tasks

I am comfortable with receiving help to finish my tasks

8

I can tell people truths that hurt them

I would rather hide the truth than hurt my colleagues

9

I have helped many people pay their bills

I am comfortable if someone offered to pay my bills

10

I have achieve a lot so far.

I think am a failure when compared to my friends.

Stepsin creating test.

Thefirst step taken was to define the purpose of the test. According toWard &amp Bennet (2012), this helps the test developer to focus downto the most pertinent issues regarding the topic, and avoid includingtest items and questions which are irrelevant. This was followed bydesigning the blueprint of the psychometric test. The design had toaccommodate the ten items which would guide the test administrator todetermine the character of the candidate. Having chosen the rightblueprint, the choice options were identified, and appropriate scoresassigned to the various test items. This was followed by a pilotstudy. According to Downing &amp Haladyna (2006), the function ofthe pilot study is to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of theprocedures. While conducting a pilot study, there were checks toensure that the items were not offensive and that they were notlikely to lead to bias. While conducting the pilot test, there was anallowance of deleting any extreme items and omitting items with poordiscrimination.

Whilechoosing the test items, the ipsative item approach was used.According to Ward &amp Bennet (2012), this method evaluates thepersonality traits of an individual and is safeguarded againstproblems of normative items. The normative items include those withcharacteristics of social desirability bias. Whereas the traditionalpersonality questionnaire asks the candidate to respond by ratingtheir agreement to a certain statement, the ipsative form gives theapplicant the freedom to choose the statement they most agree with.One of the benefits of this approach is that it yield more honestresponses, which the test administrator can use to choose the mostqualified candidates. However, Suzuki &amp Ponterotto (2008) assertthat the major weakness of this method is that it does not yieldcomparative sample of normal to extreme personality traits, which areimportant in making decisions about hiring the candidates.

Strengthsand weaknesses

Oneof the strengths of this test is that it enables the testadministrator to measure and numerically express the characteristicsof the individuals. By doing this, the administrator can tell thebehavior of the candidate, and use the same to either hire or turndown. The questions that have been included in this particular testare objective and can be used to scientifically describe thepersonality trait of the individual. At the same time, the questionsthat have been administered can satisfactorily lead to theacquisition of quantitative data which is easy to statisticallyanalyze. Given that the questions are not biased, they providequality information which can be used to assess the characteristicsof the candidate.

However,one major concern about this particular test is that it takes theassumption that the measured characteristics are fixed. In reality,this is not the case. Most of the items investigated are subject tochange without exhibiting any external manifestation, and as such,may lead to wring conclusions about the character of the individual.Additionally, the nature of questions that have been administered maylead to wrongful labelling of an individual as possessing a certaintrait, which may lead to conformity to that particular trait. Thefinal weakness is one that has been identified by many psychologistsas pertaining to the nature of psychometric tests. According toDowning &amp Haladyna (2006), the psychometric approach generallyimplies a nomothetic view of individuals. This means that people canbe measured and classified. However, in practice, humans areindividuals and not susceptible to classification.

Guidelines

Thefollowing are general guidelines for someone interested in creating apsychometric tests

  1. Define the purpose of the test.

  2. Design a blueprint to be used for the test

  3. Conduct a pilot study to investigate the functionality of various elements

  4. Conduct an item analysis, and in the process, omit irrelevant ones and create spce for more useful ones

  5. Obtain a reliability and validity report for the test

Toadd to this, there are certain areas which need more attention thanothers. For instance, Suzuki &amp Ponterotto (2008) say that iteminvestigation is one of the most important areas of a psychometrictest. While investigating the items, the designer should aim to doaway with items that have poor discrimination. In order to retain thebalance of the test, attention should be paid to test specification,positive and negative items.

References:

Downing, S. M., &amp Haladyna, T.M. (2006).&nbspHandbookof test development.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Suzuki, L. A., &amp Ponterotto, J.G. (Eds.). (2008).&nbspHandbookof multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educationalapplications. John Wiley&amp Sons.

Ward, W. C., &amp Bennett, R. E. (Eds.). (2012). Construction versuschoice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response,performance testing, and portfolio assessment. Routledge.