Psychology Help ASAP

you selected one standardized test that has relevancy to your academic and professional goals to be the focus of your course project. Your Unit 2 assignment focused on the first four elements of the Code for selecting a test. For this assignment, you will complete a deeper analysis of the technical quality of your selected test by focusing on the fifth element of the Code, which states that the test user will “evaluate evidence of the technical quality of the test provided by the test developer and any independent reviews.” To complete this assignment, you will draw upon the knowledge you gained in Units 3 and 4 about psychometrics in general and reliability and validity in particular.

For this assignment, use the test you selected for your assignment in Unit 2. Locate and summarize a minimum of seven articles related to the technical qualities of the selected test. You are encouraged to use the PSY7610 Library Research Guide, linked in the resources, to assist your search.

For each article:

· List the APA reference for each journal article (a minimum of seven).

· Identify if the article addresses reliability or validity.

· Discuss if the article addresses sources of error variance, reliability estimates, evidence of validity, or bias and fairness.

· Identify the specific type of reliability or validity (for example, test-retest reliability, predictive validity, et cetera).

· Identify the overall results of the research, including any psychometric or statistical outcome.

Submit your analysis as a paper using the outline provided in the section “Organize Your Paper” below.

Guidelines for Selecting the Literature

Use the most current sources you can find. Do not use sources older than 8 years. (You may cite older sources if they are classics, if you want to show the chronology of something, or if you have another good reason. If you choose to use older sources, you will need to explain why.) Use current, peer-reviewed journal articles. Do not use sources without an author or a publication date. Do not use quotes; use only your own words. Please see the Academic Integrity and Plagiarism link in the resources for concerns with high content matching in papers. Evaluate whether the results support the use of your test as appropriate for your field and populations to be served.

Note: The articles you need to complete this assignment should be available inside the library collection. In future courses, you may use the Capella library’s Interlibrary Loan service to obtain articles outside of the collection, but you should not have to use the service for this course. In the event that you cannot find articles covering a newer test edition, please refer to the List of Tests by Type document, linked in the resources. Note which tests have been designated as acceptable for searching prior test editions.

Organize Your Paper

For your paper, use the following headings:

1. Title page (required).

2. Abstract (optional).

3. Introduction.

o Identify the standardized test you selected in Unit 2.

o Describe briefly the publisher’s stated purpose for its use.

o Identify briefly a population or psychological condition that is within the standardization of the test.

4. Technical review article summaries. Each article is to be directly related to your chosen test and one aspect of its technical quality. Note: Use an annotated bibliography for evaluative information format. (See the resources for additional information available at Capella about annotated bibliographies.)

o List the APA reference for each journal article (a minimum of seven).

o Identify if the article addresses reliability or validity.

o Explain how the article addresses sources of error variance, reliability estimates, evidence of validity, or bias and fairness.

o Identify the specific type of reliability or validity (for example, test-retest reliability, predictive validity, et cetera).

o Identify the overall results of the research, including any psychometric or statistical outcome.

5. Conclusion.

o Synthesize the information from all the articles you reviewed about reliability.

o Synthesize the information from all the articles you reviewed about validity.

o Evaluate if your test continues to be deemed as appropriate for your planned use in the field and with the population to be served.

6. References (required, use current APA format and style).

Additional Requirements

Your paper should meet the following requirements:

· References: A minimum of seven journal articles (textbooks, web pages, literature reviews, and the MY book reviews do not count for these references).

· Length of paper: Evaluation must be at least five pages in length for content (not including title page, abstract, or references).

1

Evaluation of Technical Quality

Evaluation of Technical Quality 7

Evaluation of Technical Quality

Sample

Evaluation of Technical Quality

Introduction

The Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder is a screening tool to test for autism in children ages one to seventeen (Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder-Short form, 2017). When used for diagnosis criteria the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder must be completed by a qualified technician; however, it can be used for research purposes and be completed by a parent (Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder, 2017). The publisher notes the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder has the ability to differentiate between those with Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD, with one hundred percent accuracy. It is also noted the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder has tremendous agreement with the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder-Short form, 2017).

Technical Review

Hollway, J. & Aman, M. (2011). Sleep correlates of pervasive developmental disorders: A review of the literature. Research In Developmental Disabilities32(5), 1399- 1421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.04.001

This test addressed reliability. The reliability coefficient when the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder was completed by a qualified clinician was .33. When the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder was completed by a parent the reliability coefficient was .44. This shows there is no strong correlation between sleep disorders and autism when the test is completed by both a qualified clinician and a parent. The type of reliability being tested was internal consistency. The source of error variance could be contributed to test construction.

Mayes, S., Black, A., & Tierney, C. (2013). DSM-5 under-identifies PDDNOS: Diagnostic agreement between the DSM-5, DSM-IV, and Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder. Research In Autism Spectrum Disorders7(2), 298-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.08.011

This test addressed reliability and validity. There were several factors involved in this test. The reliability coefficient when addressing the DSM-V, DSM-IV, and Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder was 1. All three of these tests were in agreement in the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder for high functioning autism and low functioning autism. The type of reliability was internal consistency and the source of error variance could be contributed to test construction. When using the DSM-V, DSM-IV, and Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder to test for pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified, the reliability coefficient was .2. This type of reliability was also internal consistency and the source of error variance could be contributed to test construction. The type of validity being measured was convergent validity. The authors wanted to know how well the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder complied with the DSM-V and the DSM-IV when testing for autism and pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified.

Mayes, S., Calhoun, S., Murray, M., & Zahid, J. (2011). Variables Associated with Anxiety and Depression in Children with Autism. Journal Of Developmental And Physical Disabilities23(4), 325-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10882-011-9231- 7

This test addressed reliability. While the authors do not provide a reliability coefficient, they do state there is a high agreement between maternal anxiety/depression and adolescents diagnosed with autism. The agreement is more profound in the high functioning autism range as well as those who were older in age. The type of reliability being addressed is inter-scorer and the source of error variance could be contributed to scoring and interpretation.

Mayes, S., Calhoun, S., Murray, M., Morrow, J., Yurich, K., & Mahr, F. et al. (2009). Comparison of Scores on the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder, Childhood Autism Rating Scale, and Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale for Children with Low Functioning Autism, High Functioning Autism, Asperger’s Disorder, ADHD, and Typical Development. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders39(12), 1682-1693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0812-6 This test addressed reliability and validity. The reliability coefficient between the Childhood Autism Rating Scale and the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder was .98 for parent agreement. The reliability coefficient between the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder and the Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale was .94 for parent agreement. When it came to clinician scores the reliability coefficient for the Childhood Autism Rating Scale and the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder was .82. The clinician reliability coefficient for the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder and the Gilliam Apserger’s Disorder Scale was .81. The type of reliability being tested was internal consistency and the source of error variance could be contributed to test construct. The type of validity being measured is concurrent validity. Each test was being utilized to determine if they all met a certain criteria to diagnose autism spectrum disorder.

Mayes, S., Calhoun, S., Murray, M., Pearl, A., Black, A., & Tierney, C. (2014). Final DSM-5 under-identifies mild Autism Spectrum Disorder: Agreement between the DSM-5, CARS, CASD, and clinical diagnoses. Research In Autism Spectrum Disorders8(2), 68-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.11.002

This test addressed reliability and validity. The reliability coefficient between the Childhood Autism Rating Scale and the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder was .94; however, when these two tests were compared against the DSM-V their reliability coefficient was .84 for the Childhood Autism Rating Scale and .88 for the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder. The type of reliability was alternate- form and the source of error variance could be contributed to test construction or administration. The type of validity being measured was concurrent. The DSM-V has a specific criterion that must be met; the Childhood Autism Rating Scale and the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder must comply with these criteria in order to offer a conclusive diagnosis.

Murray, M., Mayes, S., & Smith, L. (2011). Brief Report: Excellent Agreement Between Two Brief Autism Scales (Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder and Social Responsiveness Scale) Completed Independently by Parents and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders41(11), 1586-1590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1178-0

This test addressed reliability. The reliability coefficient between the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder was .93. The type of reliability being assessed was alternate-form and the source of error variance could be contributed to test construction or administration.

Sorokin, A., Zotova, M., & Korovina, N. (2016). Screening Methods for Identification of the Target Group Autism Spectrum For Special Education Teachers and Psychologists. Psychological Science And Education21(3), 7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.17759/pse.2016210302

This test addressed reliability. The reliability coefficient when comparing the Social Communicative Questionnaire and the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder was .82. The type of reliability addressed was alternate form and the source of error variance could be contributed to test construction or administration.

Conclusion

In regards to reliability, the reliability was quite high (1) when testing for autism with the DSM-V, DSM-IV, and the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder. When the DSM-V, DSM-IV, and the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder were used to test for pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified the reliability dropped to .2 (Mayes, Black, & Tierney, 2013). In a later study the DSM-V is compared to the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder and the reliability coefficient is .88 (Mayes et al., 2014). One can infer from these coefficients the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder can conclusively diagnose a person with autism spectrum disorder. When compared to other autism diagnosis tests the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder received a reliability coefficient of .82 against the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (Mayes et al., 2009), a .81 against the Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale (Mayes et al., 2009), and a .93 against the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (Murray, Mayes, & Smith, 2011). This shows the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder and these other tests are as dependable when testing for autism. The Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder had a low reliability coefficient when it came to sleep disorders (Hollway & Aman, 2011). This would infer the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder was not effective when testing for sleep disorders in children with autism.

The Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder deemed to be accurate according to the DSM-V standards when testing for autism spectrum disorder (Mayes, Black, & Tierney, 2013). Concurrent validity is shown between the DSM-V and the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder (Mayes et al., 2014), as well as between the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder, Childhood Autism Rating Scale, and Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale (Mayes et al., 2009).

Based on my findings I can evaluate the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder is effective in testing for autism spectrum disorder. It has been proven to be an effective method amongst more expensive tests and is conclusive with the DSM-IV and DSM-V. Although it is not an effective test for all measures, such as determining a correlation between sleep disorders and autism (Hollway & Aman, 2011), it can provide a clear diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.

References

Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder. (2017). EBSCOhost. Mental Measurements Yearbook.

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=5e8dce30-25d9-4c2f-a84c-13eb8d042780%40sessionmgr4007&hid=4114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=test.6465&db=mmt

Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder- Short Form (CASD-SF). (2017). Stoeltingco. http://www.stoeltingco.com/checklist-for-autism-spectrum-disorder-short-form-casd-sf.html

Hollway, J. & Aman, M. (2011). Sleep correlates of pervasive developmental disorders: A review of the literature. Research In Developmental Disabilities32(5), 1399-1421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.04.001

Mayes, S., Black, A., & Tierney, C. (2013). DSM-5 under-identifies PDDNOS: Diagnostic agreement between the DSM-5, DSM-IV, and Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder. Research In Autism Spectrum Disorders7(2), 298-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.08.011

Mayes, S., Calhoun, S., Murray, M., & Zahid, J. (2011). Variables Associated with Anxiety and Depression in Children with Autism. Journal Of Developmental And Physical Disabilities23(4), 325-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10882-011-9231-7

Mayes, S., Calhoun, S., Murray, M., Morrow, J., Yurich, K., & Mahr, F. et al. (2009). Comparison of Scores on the Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder, Childhood Autism Rating Scale, and Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale for Children with Low Functioning Autism, High Functioning Autism, Asperger’s Disorder, ADHD, and Typical Development. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders39(12), 1682-1693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0812-6

Mayes, S., Calhoun, S., Murray, M., Pearl, A., Black, A., & Tierney, C. (2014). Final DSM-5 under-identifies mild Autism Spectrum Disorder: Agreement between the DSM-5, CARS, CASD, and clinical diagnoses. Research In Autism Spectrum Disorders8(2), 68-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.11.002

Murray, M., Mayes, S., & Smith, L. (2011). Brief Report: Excellent Agreement Between Two Brief Autism Scales (Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder and Social Responsiveness Scale) Completed Independently by Parents and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders41(11), 1586-1590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1178-0

Sorokin, A., Zotova, M., & Korovina, N. (2016). Screening Methods for Identification of the Target Group Autism Spectrum For Special Education Teachers and Psychologists. Psychological Science And Education21(3), 7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.17759/pse.2016210302

Running head: STANDARDIZED TESTS 1

STANDARDIZED TESTS 8

Standardized Tests

Template

Standardized Tests

Introduction

Psychology tests are techniques of accurately measuring the aspects associated with people’s problems. There are different types of tests available in psychology profession. These tests determine the psychological construct of the individuals. The instruments assess different factors including the interests, mental conditions such as anxiety, attitudes, intelligence, aptitude, achievement and personality. This representation considers a specific category of tests and examples of tools used in the case. The focus lies in personality. The tests involved are Revised NEO Personality Inventory, HEXACO Model of Personality Structure and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). These tools are compared and contrasted across the paper.

Element 1

The Revised NEO Personality (NEO-PI-R) is an instrument developed to measure the big five personality traits as outlined in the five factor model. The traits include conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism and agreeableness. Each of the traits has six subcategories. The inventory has a total of 240 items and is useful for both adults and children. The test can be used by doctors, educators, counselors, psychiatrists and psychologists in evaluation of mental state of individuals (Buros Center, 2019).

The HEXACO model evaluates personality dimensions and theoretical interpretations. It measures six personality dimensions which are emotionality, openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness and honesty-humility. The inventory has sets of 60, 100 and 200 questions. The test can be self-administered through accessing and filling out the questionnaire (Revolvy, 2019). MMPI is utilized in assessment of adult psychopathology and personality. The instrument bases the testing across ten scales. These are depression hysteria, hypochondriasis, psychopathic deviate, paranoia, masculinity or femininity, psychastenia schizophrenia, hypomania and social introversion. The test is comprised of 567 questions which are developed on true-false basis. There is a shorter version consisting of 338 questions in the same structure. This inventory is mainly used in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. It is also used to assess the mental stability of people joining critical professions (Mental Help, 2019).

Element 2

NEO-PI-R examines the five core personality traits which make it essential in assessing psychological state of individuals. The subcategories and the items included in the test ascertain that important facets of captured. The test is highly reliable and has significant internal consistency therefore it is quite suitable for the purpose. The aspects tested are basic parts of mental state evaluation which means the tool is well equipped to serve its objective. This revised version has made it more applicable in psychology. The aspects involved in the test ensure that it is appropriate for children, adults, persons with learning problems or employees (Big Five, 2019).

HEXACO model covers the same features as NEO-PI-R thus they display similar suitability in the psychological tests. The difference is in the addition of honesty-humility factor. This provides an extra dimension that provides basis of assessing the personality of individuals. The ease of administration of the test is vital in usability of the instrument (HEXACO, 2019). MMPI covers several elements of mental issues which puts the tool in a position to effectively assess psychological problems. It is very useful due to the high clinical reference that the methodology has. The fact that it is effective in dealing with mental illness and also in workplace situations means that is highly reliable (MMPI, 2019).

Element 3

NEO-PI-R uses 240 items and three other validity items which is extensive. The simplicity of the test is important to its effectiveness as children from 6th grade and above are able to discern the questions. Use of different forms helps in reaching more definitive test outcomes. It mainly uses self-reports for adults men and women but there are also observer reports which supplement the self-reported information. The 5-likert scale provides feasible outcomes from measurement of psychological factors. The questionnaire provides an effective way of collecting information. T scores are calculated from normative data collected (Maples-Keller et al, 2019)

HEXACO model has each domain with specific scales for measurement of the scores for the different dimensions. The HEXACO-60 scales show low correlations between scales and have high internal consistency levels. Self-reports and observer reports show high correlation which proves the reliability of the tests. The elements in HEXACO enhance the understanding of specific phenomena beyond the 5-factor model. The test encompasses all core factors impacting mental health in a comprehensive manner (De Vries et al, 2016)

The use of true-false questions presents a simple format in application of MMPI. The questions cover all areas imaginable on issues of mental capacity in relation to personality.. MMPI utilizes different forms of the test which expands the scope of the tool. Each of the scales used features distinct questions which are user-oriented. Validity scales provide an instrument for gauging the representativeness of the test results as they evaluate the accuracy and honesty (Sellbom, 2019).

Element 4

The revised NEO test a self-report which does not require skills apart from having the capacity to read and understand the questions. There is no qualification in this case. The observer report however requires expertise. The user-qualification depends on the specific professional putting the tool to practice. Self-report users can access the questions through online administration which uses easy questions. The level of qualification is A for the self-reported tests. This contains guidelines for children participation and also provides basic intervention guide and materials. The observer reports require level C qualification which entails graduate level training. This level of education gives the professionals the appropriate skills to apply in practice of using NEO tests (Maples-Keller et al, 2019)

The HEXACO model uses the same methods and elements as the revised NEO tests thus they share details in consideration of levels of skills knowledge and training. HEXACO has self-reports and observer reports. The latter does not require training while the observer reports require training. The administration of the MMPI tests requires knowledge on the appropriate use of the tests selection administration and interpretation of results. The participants in the test only need to understand the questions which places the group in Level A user qualification. The experts in administration require training and certification which qualifies for Level C (Sellbom, 2019; De Vries et al, 2016)

Comparison

All the tests incorporated use of series of questions to construct the psychological profiles of individuals. Each had different number of questions which were established according to the dimensions of the specific tests. The components of MMPI entailed close-ended questionnaires while HEXACO model and NEO tests included open-ended questions. HEXACO and NEO are more aligned as they feature components of five factor model. Differences exist in the subcategories that are developed for the tests and the inclusion of honesty-humility in HEXACO (Sellbom, 2019; De Vries et al, 2016)

Important aspect of the tests is that they are generally self administered even though professional administration is at times used. NEO and HEXACO both have self-reports and observer reports. There are significant similarities between these two tests. MMPI is applied in different forms which include MMPI-2 for adults and mmPI-2-RF. All of these tests have the complete version with all the necessary components and shorter versions with fewer questions and shorter period of completion. All the tests have been developed to adequately assess the mental state of people. Evaluation of the tests has show that they are very suitable in checking the psychological properties of people’s personality. NEO and HEXACO are defined by related user qualification levels given that they share some of the main parts of psychological testing. MMPI stands alone in terms of the process and elements of the implementation of the test (Maples-Keller et al 2019; De Vries et al, 2016)

The test of choice is HEXACO. This has advantages of being able to assess and predict some phenomena which are available in the big-five model. The addition of honesty-humility makes it more complete compared to the revised NEO tests. HEXACO tests are more prominent in their use therefore it presents the suitable focus for the project. The way that the test is used promotes evaluation of personality variables which other tools have failed to effectively do. The tests are an interesting assessment instrument to cover.

References

Big Five. (2019). BigFive personality test. Retrieved from https://bigfive-test.com/

Buros Center. (2019). The reviewed in the Mental Measurement Yearbook series. Retrieved from https://buros.org/tests-reviewed-mental-measurements-yearbook-series

De Vries, R. E., Tybur, J. M., Pollet, T. V., & van Vugt, M. (2016). Evolution, situational affordances, and the HEXACO model of personality. Evolution and human behavior37(5), 407-421.

HEXACO. (2019). The HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised. Retrieved fron http://hexaco.org/hexaco-online

Maples-Keller, J. L., Williamson, R. L., Sleep, C. E., Carter, N. T., Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Using item response theory to develop a 60-item representation of the NEO PI–R using the international personality item pool: Development of the IPIP–NEO–60. Journal of personality assessment101(1), 4-15.

Mental Help. (2019). Psychology testing: Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory. Retrieved from https://www.mentalhelp.net/psychological-testing/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory/

MMPI. (2019). MMPI Practice test online. Retrieved from https://www.mmpionline.com/the-mmpi-questions/

Revolvy. (2019). Psychological testing. Retrieved from https://www.revolvy.com/folder/Psychological-testing/161434

Sellbom, M. (2019). The MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): Assessment of personality and psychopathology in the twenty-first century. Annual review of clinical psychology15, 149-177.

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.