CHiPs Evaluation of Psychometrics Component

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
CHiPs Evaluation of Psychometrics Component by Mind Map: CHiPs Evaluation of Psychometrics Component

1. debates over reliability of spearman's g

2. Theoretical Perspectives and Ideas

2.1. 5 Sub-disciplines

2.1.1. psycho-dynamic

2.1.1.1. (Freud)

2.1.1.1.1. unconscious motives

2.1.1.1.2. childhood experiences

2.1.1.1.3. personality: id, ego, superego

2.1.1.1.4. determinism

2.1.2. biological

2.1.2.1. mind and body

2.1.2.1.1. comparisons to animals

2.1.2.2. neural mechanisms

2.1.2.2.1. physiology

2.1.2.3. influence of hereditary behaviour

2.1.2.3.1. gene and twin studies

2.1.3. behaviourist

2.1.3.1. learn behaviours through environmental interaction

2.1.3.1.1. conditioning

2.1.4. cognitive

2.1.4.1. how we take in information and process it

2.1.4.1.1. i.e. schemas and models

2.1.4.2. mind as an information processor

2.1.5. humanistic

2.1.5.1. subjective side = questioning traditional judgement

2.2. Debates and approaches

2.2.1. reductionism vs holism

2.2.1.1. reductionism

2.2.1.1.1. breaks complex behaviours down into simpler components

2.2.1.1.2. psychometric measures can be heavily reductionist due to the scientific stance they have within psychology

2.2.1.2. holism

2.2.1.2.1. understand behaviour by looking at the individual as a whole

2.2.1.2.2. can lead to the vague generalisation of human behaviours

2.2.1.3. interactionism

2.2.1.3.1. symbolic interactionism

2.2.1.3.2. mind and body are distinct and interact to form certain behaviours

2.2.2. nature vs nurture

2.2.2.1. essentialism

2.2.2.1.1. at the start of psychometric history, essentialism takes a philosophical approach

2.2.2.2. trait theory

2.2.2.2.1. influence upon personality psychometric measures and intelligence categorisation

2.2.3. culture

2.2.4. interventionism

2.2.5. idiographic vs nomothetic

2.2.5.1. most theory dominates with the nomothetic approach

2.2.5.1.1. psychometrics seek to produce general statements about behaviour (like nomothetic)

3. Examples

3.1. Historical

3.1.1. The Gage skull

3.1.1.1. Folklore of psychology

3.1.1.1.1. constant rebuilding of Gage literature

3.1.1.2. (Damasio et al, 1994)

3.1.1.3. psychology= scientific footing

3.1.2. WEIRD samples

3.1.2.1. Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich & Democratic

3.1.2.1.1. (Henrich & Norenzayan, 2010) - we are not all WEIRD

3.1.3. Wundt

3.1.3.1. the Lab science

3.1.3.1.1. how can this represent everyday life?

3.1.3.1.2. social elements also reviewed but often overlooked in his work

3.1.3.1.3. issues with definitions and deconstructions

3.1.4. "measuring men"

3.1.4.1. plato

3.1.4.2. galton

3.1.4.2.1. the forerunner to statistical hypothesis-testing and paved the way for an apparently more scientific methodology

3.1.4.3. stanford-binet intelligence tests

3.1.4.4. MMPI multiphasic schedule

3.1.4.5. concept that traits, attitudes etc can be measured and represented statistically

3.2. Contemporary

3.2.1. Visual Illusions

3.2.1.1. psychology is not just common sense

3.2.1.1.1. common sense= false sense of security/ psychology= q's what we understand and goes beyond (Lindgren and Harvey, 1981)

3.2.1.1.2. specialist knowledge

3.2.2. Critical psychology

3.2.2.1. (Parker's Manifesto, 1999)

3.2.2.1.1. systematic examination of how some psychological experiences are privileged and dominant accounts of psychology operating ideologically

3.2.2.1.2. overtly political ideas

3.2.2.1.3. philosophical critique of "scientific psychology"

4. Methodological

4.1. Positives

4.1.1. 3 scientific principles unifying psychology (Stanovich, 2014)

4.1.1.1. systematic empiricism

4.1.1.2. publicly verifiable knowledge

4.1.1.3. addresses empirically solvable problems and tests theories

4.1.1.3.1. psychology as a whole aims to describe or predict types and changes in behaviour and why it happens, and effective psychometrics should allow objective empirical measures to human characteristics that can be used to make judgements

4.1.1.4. Psychometrics for intelligence tend to portray it as a composite model of abilities measured by mental tests

4.1.1.4.1. i.e. number-series psychometrics tests attempt to result intelligence down to reasoning and memory ability

4.1.2. The study of scientific VARIABLES (Schiff, 2017)

4.1.2.1. variable research is limited

4.1.2.1.1. does not tell us about inner processes, interpretations or meaning-making

4.1.2.2. ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as the IQ test

4.2. Negatives

4.2.1. Replication errors

4.2.1.1. fraud

4.2.1.1.1. share data and methods

4.2.1.2. small sample size

4.2.1.2.1. larger samples

4.2.1.3. publication bias

4.2.1.3.1. replication studies

4.2.1.4. data dredging

4.2.1.4.1. increased transparency in practice

4.2.1.5. innovation desire

4.2.1.5.1. change reward models

4.2.1.6. questionable measurement practices

4.2.1.6.1. psychometric properties (Hodson, 2021)

4.2.1.6.2. methods providing different results (Fried, 2017)

4.2.1.7. (Balsamo et al., 2019)

5. Question Targeted

5.1. Critically evaluate the use of psychometrics in psychology and the implications of this use. Your critique should be balanced by considering both issues and the value of psychometrics. In your answer you could consider the following issues: • The place of psychometric measurement in psychology and its social history, e.g.: o What is the historical backdrop of measurement and classification in psychology and how has this affected people’s lives more generally? o How integral are psychometrics to contemporary psychology and our understanding of the discipline? o What is the place of trait measurement in relation to other strands of thinking in psychology, e.g. the social psychology of the self? • Measurement and epistemology, e.g. o What exactly is being measured by psychometric tools? o What potential measurement issues exist and how are these issues reduced by psychometric validity and reliability procedures? o To what extent can psychometric measurement be considered an idiographic or nomothetic approach? o How valid is it to assess individuals without considering their cultural, social, and situational milieu?

5.1.1. difference between measuring physiological and psychological activity?

5.2. This colour represents INTELLIGENCE as an example throughout the mind map

5.3. This colour represents ADVANTAGES as an example throughout the mind map

5.4. This colour represents DISADVANTAGES as an example throughout the mind map

5.5. This colour represents HISTORY as an example throughout the mind map

5.6. This colour represents CONTEMPORARY as an example throughout the mind map

5.7. This colour represents BASIC PSYCHOMETRIC KNOWLEDGE as an example throughout the mind map

5.8. This colour represents PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE KNOWLEDGE as an example throughout the mind map

6. Brief summary of Psychometrics

6.1. the science of psychological assessment and form of (often quantitative) measurement

6.1.1. fundamental principles for judging a psychometric assessment...

6.1.1.1. reliability

6.1.1.1.1. internal reliability

6.1.1.1.2. test-retest reliability

6.1.1.2. validity

6.1.1.2.1. face validity

6.1.1.2.2. construct validity

6.1.1.2.3. content validity

6.1.1.2.4. concurrent validity

6.1.1.2.5. convergent validity

6.1.1.2.6. discriminant validity

6.1.1.2.7. criterion validity

6.1.1.3. standardisation

6.1.1.4. freedom from bias

6.1.2. psychometrics covers virtually all statistical methods that are useful for the behavioral and social sciences including the handling of missing data, the combination of prior information with measured data, measurement obtained from special experiments, visualization of statistical outcomes, measurement that guarantees personal privacy

6.1.2.1. Galton, F. (1879)