Interpreting Test Results
Part 1
Present a revised version (1,250-1,550 words total) of the paper “Reliability and Validity” that makes improvements in the caliber of the writing and incorporates instructor feedback regarding content and writing. Include the following in your submission:
- A reflection (250-300 words) that provides a bulleted list of the changes you made to the paper and discusses your revision process including how you incorporated your instructor’s feedback into the revised version. Similar to an abstract, this section will receive its own page following the title page and preceding the introduction to the paper.
- The revised paper that incorporates instructor feedback; clarifies the thesis statement and solidifies supporting arguments; edits for grammar, spelling, and punctuation; adjusts word choice to display professional and scholarly language; and adjusts sentence structure for improved readability.
Part 2
Write an additional 2,000-2,250 words using the data in the “Interpreting Test Results” resource to create a set of reports in which you interpret the test results and make recommendations about each of the three fictional clients tested. Your reports should be developed for delivery to the leader in each of the respective settings. This section should flow naturally from the revised paper. So, you may also need to revise your introduction and thesis statement to allow the ideas to connect. Each report should include the following:
- A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered.
- Private notes that describe your thought process for analyzing and drawing conclusions from the test data and the client’s situation. Note: This section represents your private notes and may be presented as a bulleted list.
- Recommendations for the leader in which you provide an overview of the client and situation, describe your conclusions, and make your formal recommendations. Note: This is a more formal statement and should exhibit a professional tone and writing style.
College of Doctoral Studies
PSY-812 Interpreting Test Results Resource
Case #1: Industrial setting
Client: Jada Andrews – Female, age 32, African-American, single, college graduate
Setting: You are and organizational psychologist. Jada is applying for a sales job with Metro Consumer Telecon, a phone company specializing in low-cost cell phone plans with a range of features that can be customized. The Human Resources department gives the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) to all of its sales candidates to help determine whether they will be successful in that role. Requirements of the job include frequent contact with customers, both face to face and by phone; communication with the customer to explain phone and plan features and options; and assistance with choosing a phone and phone plan to suit the customer’s needs and budget.
Your task is to review the test data available for the sales candidate, write a brief overview of Jada and her qualifications for the position, and make a recommendation regarding whether she is a viable candidate for the sales position. If not, suggest an alternative position if appropriate.
Test results: Myers-Briggs Type Inventory
Myers-Briggs Personality Type for Jada Andrews
ESFJ: Extraversion | Sensing | Feeling | Judging
Case #2: Educational setting
Client: Amrita Bahtti – Female, age 9:7, Indian, immigrated to US with family at age 4
Setting: You are a school psychologist for a large metropolitan school district. Amrita is a gregarious 4th grader tested near the end of the school year. Amrita’s parents have requested that she be placed in a new accelerated math track in in the upcoming school year to prepare her for a career in the sciences; they hope that Amrita will go to medical school and pursue a surgical specialty like her father. Your task is to use Amrita’s achievement test scores to make a recommendation to the principal and parents.
Test results: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA™-3) accessible at
http://downloads.pearsonclinical.com/images/Assets/KTEA-III/KTEA-3-Score-Report
.
Note: This is a sample report. Please disregard the identifying data and reason for referral given on the sample report and focus on the test results to address the scenario presented above.
Case #3: Clinical setting
Client: William Steiger – Male, Caucasian, age 32, married but separated, attorney, currently unemployed
Setting: You are a clinical psychologist in an outpatient mental health clinic associated with a major metropolitan hospital. William is being evaluated for marital counseling. He has reluctantly agreed to participate in marital therapy at his wife’s insistence after she threatened him with divorce. Your task is to review the data available for William and make a recommendation about whether he is likely to benefit from marital counseling.
Test results: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) accessible at
http://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/q-global/mmpi-2/sample-reports/mmpi-2-outpatient
.
© 2015. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Running head: RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 1
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 3
, you wrote a very succinct paper, just shy of the required word count. Adding in the conclusion would have helped you meet that goal. Make sure to include appropriate references as noted. Use the available template to help with formatting. Over all, good work.
Comment by Carol Gegenheimer PhD: Use the APA style template to help with the format issues. You should still be using the APA 6th edition until you receive notice to switch to APA 7th edition for classes starting after October 8, 2020.
Reliability and Validity
Grand Canyon University – PSY812
September 16, 2020
Reliability and Validity
Reliability concerns the consistency of a measure, while validity is about the accuracy of a measure. The process of data collection in research involves making sure that the instrument is used to collect the data is both valid and reliable. The researchers reduce the chances of making errors when they ensure that the instrument in use is valid and reliable. Reliability and validity are the two major aspects of measurement integrity. Research would not be considered credible if the instrument used to measure the variable fails to produce correct and consistent results (Markon, Chmielewski, & Miller, 2011). These two concepts of a test shows the usefulness and the quality of the test and are the most vital parts of a test; therefore, one has to watch out the essential features when evaluating the efficiency of the test. Assessment instruments should also be both valid and reliable to make study results credible. Therefore, validity and reliability should be examined.
Importance of using tests that have high levels of reliability and validity Comment by Carol Gegenheimer PhD: For this first level heading, use title case, centered.
A test needs to have high reliability for two reasons. Primary reason is that high reliability enhances measurement to an extent, which a score reflects the random measurement error. Measurement errors are typically caused by any of the three factors, which include the first one being examinee-specific factors, including boredom and fatigue. The second one is test-specific factors such as ambiguity or faulty directions, and thirdly scoring particular factors, which include computational and carelessness errors. It is therefore; better to involve tests, which have good measures of reliability. To ensure that the test scores reflect more than just random error. The second reason for ensuring high reliability in a test is that it is a precursor to test validity. This shows that if the test scores are not assigned consistently, it becomes a challenge to conclude that the scores measure the domain of interest accurately. Hence, the extent which the inferences are accurate and justified is validity. Consequently, validity is the psychometric property about which one is most concerned. Nonetheless, a good assessment of the validity of a specific test can be a time-consuming (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010). This particular reliability analysis is usually seen as the initial step in the validation process of a test. This implies that when a test is unreliable, one does not have to waste time finding out if it is valid because it would not be there. However, if there was enough reliability for the taste, a study of validation would then be essential.
It is important to ensure that a test is reliable since having an unreliable or invalid give inaccurate results and thus harm the study. It should determine if future observations or measurements confirm the measure or other forms of observations. It would be able to give the same score if the same thing is measured and if the instrument accurately reflects the true score, which is considered reliable, thus reduces the chances of error.
In terms of validity, a test that is considered valid is free from bias. It refers to how well it measures the construct it is meant to measure, and it determines the suitability or meaningfulness of the measurement. It determines if the instrument accurately describes the construct, it is intended to measure, and if the test has an accurate measurement. For instance, a test of mental ability, typically measures an individual’s mental ability. Hence, it gives meaning to a test also (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010). Besides, validity shows the degree to which an individual can make particular conclusions or even predictions concerning people depending on the scores from the tests. Hence, it shows the importance of the test.
Ramifications for not having high levels of reliability and validity Comment by Carol Gegenheimer PhD: Same formatting note as above. Also move this to the next page.
Having low levels of validity and reliability creates problems in testing since it leads to bad results. For example, low levels of validity will not measure what is expected to measure. Moreover, the people taking a particular questionnaire view it as a valid measure of depression. Besides, the questions, including the range of responses, would not seem as appropriate for measuring a particular factor such as depression. Some testing instruments, such as questionnaires, are not well checked and proved by researchers, with the help of experts, hence do not measure what is intended. When there is a lack of construct validity, the questionnaires do not measure the abstract concept adequately. Also, there are cases when there is no criterion validity. Hence, there is no specified extend in which a measurement tool can be able to provide accurate findings. For instance, the questionnaire results may not relate to the actual clinical diagnoses among the participants who have been surveyed. There is also another psychological testing tool used for face validity. Hence, when the validity level is low, the test would not be said to have face validity, especially since it will not measure the level of happiness. Comment by Carol Gegenheimer PhD: Make sure to include supportive references.
About having low levels of reliability, it leads to unintended outcomes of measurement. For instance, the researchers will not get comparable results, especially if they repeat their questionnaire, even after the conditions have not changed. Therefore, if the questionnaire was administered to the same participants after the first one, the researchers are likely to expect similar levels of depression. In this case, the test-retest reliability is faulty (Shankman, Funkhouser, Klein, Davila, Lerner, & Hee, 2018). Also, similar questions may not provide similar answers; hence, there is no internal consistency. Besides, when there are low levels of reliability, different individuals assessing the same thing will not score the same way, hence lack faulty inter-rater ability. Hence, in this manner, if the researchers are not careful in ensuring the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, it causes a challenge in believing the overall results of the study. Comment by Carol Gegenheimer PhD: Your paper ends without a conclusion.
Comment by Carol Gegenheimer PhD: Omit extra spaces at the top of the page.
References
Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive therapy and research, 34(3), 241-253.
Markon, K. E., Chmielewski, M., & Miller, C. J. (2011). The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: Aa quantitative review. Psychological bulletin, 137(5), 856.
Shankman, S. A., Funkhouser, C. J., Klein, D. N., Davila, J., Lerner, D., & Hee, D. (2018). Reliability and validity of severity dimensions of psychopathology assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐5 (SCID). International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 27(1), e1590.
Rubic_Print_
Format
| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points | ||||||||
| PSY-812 | PSY-812-O500 | Interpreting Test Results | 270.0 | ||||||||
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (73.00%) | Satisfactory (82.00%) | Good (91.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned | |||
| Content | 80.0% | ||||||||||
| Reflection | 5.0% | A reflection is either missing or not evident to the reader. | A reflection is present, but incomplete. A list of specific revisions made is not present. | A reflection is presented, but cursory and lacking depth of insight. A list of revisions made is present, but lacks specificity; the revisions noted are not substantive. | A reflection is present and reasonable. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are reasonable. | A reflection is thoroughly presented and demonstrates thoughtful insight. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are impactful. | |||||
| Integration of Instructor Feedback | Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader. | Integration of instructor feedback is attempted, but does not address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident and meaningful. Feedback is seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. | ||||||
| Revision of Thesis and Argument | No improvements to the thesis and argument are evident. | Thesis and/or main claim remain insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. The argument presented remains disorganized and unclear. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. The argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. | ||||||
| Revision of Writing Mechanics | No improvements to the writing mechanics are evident. | Changes to the writing components are largely cosmetic rather than substantive. Mechanical errors continue to be a distraction to the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice remain present. | Changes to the writing components are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. | Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. Writer demonstrates command of standard, written, academic English. | ||||
| Synopsis of the Reliability and Validity of the Test Administered | 10.0% | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is either missing or not evident to the reader. | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is present, but incomplete or inaccurate. | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is present, but is cursory and lacking in depth. Key ideas are treated casually while less important concepts are emphasized. | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is present and thorough. Key ideas are balanced with less important concepts. | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is present and thorough. Key ideas are emphasized while less important concepts are treated more casually. | |||||
| Private Notes | 15.0% | Private notes are either missing or not evident to the reader. | Private notes are present, but incomplete or illogical. | Private notes are present, but they are cursory and lacking in depth. The thought process involved in conducting the analysis and drawing conclusions cannot easily be discerned. | Private notes are present and thorough. The thought process involved in conducting the analysis and drawing conclusions can be discerned. | Private notes are present and thorough. The thought process involved in conducting the analysis and drawing conclusions is readily evident to the reader. | |||||
| Recommendations | 25.0% | A statement of recommendations is not presented. | A statement of recommendations is presented, but the conclusions are flawed or illogical. | A statement of recommendations is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. | A statement of recommendations is presented and thorough. The conclusions and recommendations are relatively logical and appropriate | A statement of recommendations is thoroughly presented with rich detail. The conclusions and recommendations are fully logical and appropriate. | |||||
| Synthesis and Argument | No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources. | Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Synthesis of source information is present and scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. The synthesis and argument in the paper are of publication caliber. | ||||||
| Organization and Effectiveness | |||||||||||
| Thesis Development and Purpose | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. | Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. The development indicated by the thesis and/or main claim is acceptable for publication. | |||||||
| Mechanics of Writing | Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | ||||||||
| APA Format | Required format is rarely followed correctly. An appropriate number of topic-related scholarly research sources and related in-text citations is not present. No reference page is included. No citations are used. | Required format is attempted, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Some included sources are not scholarly research or topic-related. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. | Required format is used correctly, although some minor errors may be present. Scholarly research sources are present and topic-related, but the source and quality of some references is questionable. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. | Required format is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. Scholarly research accounts for the majority of sources presented and is topic-related and obtained from reputable professional sources. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. | The document is correctly formatted to publication standards. All research presented is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. The paper could readily be accepted for publication. | ||||||
| Total Weightage | 100% |