Test Administration Flashcards

The Examiner and the Subject Relationship

• Both the behavior of the examiner and their relationship to the testtaker can affect test scores.
  • Behavior:
    • Friendly conversation and verbal reinforcement can increase scores.
    • Disapproving comments decrease scores.
  • Familiarity with the examiner increases scores in most testing situations.
  • Examiners should be aware their interaction with testtakers can influence the results.
  • Subtle cues given by the test administrator can affect the level of performance expected by the examiner.

Stereotype Threat

• Test takers may face a double threat:
  • Personal concern about how they will be evaluated.
  • Whether they will do well on the test.
• Members of stereotyped groups may experience extra pressure to disconfirm negative stereotypes.
• Simply being aware of the negative stereotype may inhibit performance on tests and academic performance.

How Stereotype Threat Does Damage

• Cues about the testing environment can exacerbate fears and anxieties of test takers, as they can be provoked by the context.
• When a stereotyped group member is reminded that members of their group may not perform well on the test, lower performance might be expected.
• Hypotheses:
  • People who are threatened may engage in cognitive processes that focus their attention on themselves rather than on the test task.
  • They overattend to the threat and have less attention to concentrate on the test.
  • Efforts to suppress interfering thoughts may deplete working memory.
• "Self-handicapping":
  • Testtakers reduce their level of effort when faced with the expectation that they may not perform well in order to protect self-worth.
  • They might give themselves an alternative explanation for disappointing performance by saying that they did not try very hard.
• Physical arousal might facilitate performance on easy tests but can interfere with performance on more challenging assessments.

Remedies for Stereotype Threat

• Simple triggers can activate thoughts about stereotypes, and that cognitive processes are enough to hinder test performance.
  • Example: Indicating age, race, and sex in the beginning might activate concerns about how their group is perceived.
• Threat could be avoided by simply moving the questions about age, race, and sex to the end of the test.
  • The questions that serve as stereotype triggers would be completed after the substantive questions were done.
• Many interventions are effective, not because they change the situation, but rather because they reduce the level of threat.
• Telling testtakers that they are completing a nondiagnostic test can sometimes reduce the amount of threat.
• Interventions promoting a growth mindset can eliminate the mindset that some groups possess a fixed trait that cannot be changed.

Language of the Examiner

• Some tests are inappropriate for people whose knowledge of the language is questionable.
• Validity and reliability of tests are in question for those who do not speak English.
• Concern about the internal validity of research studies often compromises external validity.
• External validity concerns the use of research findings in groups other than those who participated in the original validation studies.
• For testtakers proficient in two or more languages, the test should be given in the language that the testtakers feel is their best.
• Interpreters should be used only with great caution because they can introduce bias into the testing situation.

Training of Test Administrators

• Different assessment procedures require different levels of training.
• Certain tests need to be administered by licensed professionals such as psychometricians and psychologists.
• Registered psychologists are the only ones trained to administer projective tests.

Expectancy Effects (Rosenthal effects)

• Refers to situations where high expectations lead to improved performance, while low expectations lead to poor performance.
• Expectancy effect results from subtle nonverbal communication between examiner and subject.
• The examiner may not even be aware of their role in the process.
• It is important to eliminate bias associated with expectation.

Effects of Reinforcing Responses

• Because reinforcement affects behavior, testers should always administer tests under controlled conditions.
• Reward can significantly affect test performance.
• Effects of praise are about as strong as effects of money or candy.
• Praising the process ("you worked hard") results in better performance than praising the person ("you are clever").
• The potency of reinforcement requires that test administrators exert strict control over the use of feedback.
• A test manual should clearly spell out the directions for administration.
• Directions should be sufficiently detailed to be duplicated in all situations in which the test is given.
• It must give the test examiner instructions that include the exact words to be read to the testtakers.
• It must also include questions that testtakers will likely ask and instructions on how administrators should answer them.
• Most test manuals and interviewer guides insist that no feedback be given.
• Whether examiners give a test or supervise others who do, they must consider that the test may not remain reliable or valid if they deviate from the specified instructions.

Mode of Administration

• Even though mode of administration has only small effects in most situations, it should be constant within any evaluation.
• In psychiatric disability studies, more distress and disability is reported in self-completed questionnaires compared with questionnaires completed using an interviewer.

State of the Subject

• Test anxiety → difficulty focusing attention on the test items and being distracted by other thoughts such as “I am not doing well” or “I am running out of time”.
• Three components:
  • Worry.
  • Emotionality.
  • Lack of self-confidence.
• Many variations in health status affect performance in behavior and in thinking.
• Those who are experiencing certain types of physical illnesses may not perform well in a test.