Assignment: Approaches for Interpreting Psychological Measures
Tests and Measurements
Professor Richard Thompson
1
Approaches for Interpreting Psychological Measures
Approaches to Interpreting Psychological Measures Human thinking is complicated,
making it challenging researchers to construct valid psychological measures. Test developers are
frequently unsure how well their measures will function, even after rigorous testing and
retesting. Test interpretation informs researchers on the limitations of a test; without this
information, researchers may misinterpret results from their assessment (Ludbrook, 2002).
A comparison analysis of norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, and ipsative approaches
Criterion-referenced tests compare a person's knowledge or skills to a set of standards,
learning goals, performance levels, or other criteria. Criterion-referenced assessments compare
each person's performance to the standard without considering how other students do on the test
(Thorndike & Thorndike-Christ, 2010). Both sorts of testing have different purposes, and the
results are used in various ways. Schools and teachers can rank student achievement across broad
areas of knowledge using norm-referenced test scores. A growth chart is another example of a
norm-referenced score. Growth points are rated compared to others in the same age group, just
like exam scores. Criterion-referenced scores on the other hand can be used to see if a student
has mastered specific abilities or concepts in a particular subject. This concept is illustrated by
the example of a driver's education exam. The driver's education exam results are not used to
rank test-takers. Instead, individuals pass or fail based on whether or not they meet the
predetermined criteria (Kline, 2005).5
On the contrary, individual test scores are often interpreted differently in ipsative
approaches to neuropsychological testing. The number of comparisons between scores and the
reliability of neuropsychological difference scores restricts the utility of these methods. Ipsative
2
assessments ask students to make a forced-choice. The participant must choose one option over
the rest. The user is asked to choose the statement that best characterizes them from a list of two
or more statements (Bowen et al., 2002). The questions in normative assessments are presented
as a rating-scale choice. Only one statement is asked of the participant at a time. They respond
on a scale, indicating how much they agree or disagree with the statement (Bowen et al., 2002).
Conclusions
Ipsative assessments are not acceptable for recruiting or employment-related decisions due
to the primary issues mentioned. They can be beneficial for personal development or team
building, but adopting an Ipsative measure for selection procedures can have legal repercussions.
Valid and reliable normative assessments are legally justifiable for recruiting and selection, as
well as other employment-related decisions (Bowen et al., 2002).
References
Bowen, C.-C., Martin, B. A., & Hunt, S. T. (2002). A comparison of ipsative and normative
approaches for ability to control faking in personality questionnaires. The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 240-259.
Kline, T. J. (2005).5Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. SAGE
Publications, Inc. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483385693
Ludbrook, J. (2002). Statistical techniques for comparing measurers and methods of
measurement: A critical review. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and
Physiology, 29(7), 527-536. doi:DOI 10.1046/j.1440-1681.2002.03686.x
3
Thorndike, R. M., & Thorndike-Christ, T. M. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in
psychology and education (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
4
