Historical, Cultural, and Legal/Ethical Considerations in Psychological Testing
Historical Perspective
Psychological testing traces back to ancient China (~2200\,\text{b.c.e.}) where civil service candidates were examined; by 196\,\text{b.c.e.} recommendation & investigation replaced hereditary selection.
Sui dynasty (7th century) imperial exams every 3 yrs: reading, writing, arithmetic for taxes, civil law, geography, agriculture, military strategy, plus archery, horsemanship, poetry.
Privileges for passers varied: jobs, special garb, tax exemptions, even exemption from torture.
System lasted \approx 1300 years until 1906 reforms.
Ancient Greco-Roman & Medieval attempts at personality categorization (humors; witch-hunts).
Renaissance: foundations of modern psychological assessment; Christian von Wolff (1730s) predicted scientific measurement of mind.
Charles Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species spurred interest in individual differences; half-cousin Francis Galton pioneered measurement tools (questionnaires, rating scales, self-reports) and the coefficient of correlation.
Galton’s 1884 Anthropometric Laboratory measured height, breathing, grip, reaction, etc.
Wilhelm Wundt (1879 Leipzig lab) studied reaction time, perception; sought similarities, not differences. Controlled conditions → idea of standardization.
James McKeen Cattell (Wundt’s student) coined “mental test” (1890), founded Psychological Corporation (1921).
Other Leipzig alumni: Charles Spearman (reliability, factor analysis), Victor Henri (high-level mental testing), Emil Kraepelin (word-association), E. B. Titchener, G. Stanley Hall, Lightner Witmer (1907 founded journal Psychological Clinic, first U.S. clinic 1896).
Twentieth-Century Testing Boom
Pre-1900 tests focused on sensory & reaction measures; limited applied value.
Alfred Binet & Victor Henri (1895) advocated measuring memory, social comprehension.
Binet–Simon 30-item scale (1905) identified schoolchildren with intellectual disability → revisions, translations, launch of intelligence & clinical testing.
U.S. military WWI → group intelligence tests (Army Alpha/Beta) for recruits; repeated WWII.
Psychologists brought testing skills to schools, businesses, hospitals.
David Wechsler (1939) WAIS concept: intelligence = “aggregate or global capacity … to act purposefully, think rationally, deal effectively.”
Personality assessment:
Robert S. Woodworth’s Personal Data Sheet (WWI) evolved into Woodworth Psychoneurotic Inventory → first widely used self-report.
Pros/cons of self-report: direct access vs. lack of insight, faking.
Projective methods (Rorschach inkblots; Murray & Morgan’s TAT picture stories) infer motives via ambiguous stimuli.
By late 1930s ≈4000 psychological tests; critics claimed psychology was “too test-oriented.”
Academic vs. Applied Traditions
Academic: advance knowledge (Galton, Wundt).
Applied: solve real problems (ancient exams, modern HR, schools, courts).
Culture and Assessment
Definition & Influence
Culture = “socially transmitted behavior patterns, beliefs, products of work of a group.” Affects language, rituals, values, gender roles.
Assessors must be culturally sensitive at all stages: design, administration, interpretation.
Evolution of Cultural Issues
Early misuse: U.S. Public Health Service used Binet tests on immigrants (Ellis Island, 1913-17). Henry Goddard found \ge 79\% of samples “feebleminded”—a flawed conclusion due to translation bias.
Response: development of culture-specific tests; e.g., 1937 Stanford-Binet & original Wechsler scales normed only on white, middle-class samples; Blacks explicitly excluded from norms.
Modern practice: diverse try-out samples, item-bias analyses, expert reviews, census-matched standardization.
Communication Issues
Verbal barriers: language proficiency, dialect differences, misuse of translators.
Nonverbal barriers: eye contact norms, body language, pace of life; cultural misunderstanding can affect timed tests & behaviors.
Standards of Evaluation
Judgments (e.g., intelligence, assertiveness) are culture-relative; individualist vs. collectivist value systems (Markus & Kitayama).
Diagnostic labels (e.g., dependent personality disorder) may pathologize culturally normative behaviors.
Tests & Group Membership
Systematic score gaps → conflict over fairness (e.g., hiring, admissions).
Height, appearance, religion can be de-facto discriminatory.
Affirmative action: proactive equal opportunity; may involve altering cutoff scores or selection ratios → critics label “inequity in equity.”
Key court cases: Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) – tests must be job-related; Albemarle Paper v. Moody (1976); Ricci v. DeStefano (2009).
Legal & Ethical Framework
Legislation Highlights
Civil Rights Act 1964/1991: illegal to adjust scores by race.
Americans with Disabilities Act 1990: tests must not disadvantage disabled unless essential.
FERPA 1974: student records access.
HIPAA 1996: privacy of health & “psychotherapy notes.”
PL 94-142 Education for All Handicapped Children 1975 → IDEA 1997, 2004: mandated evaluation & accommodations.
ESSA 2015 (replaced NCLB): accountability & testing proficiency.
State laws: Minimum Competency Testing, Truth-in-Testing (disclose purposes, items, scoring).
Litigation Landmarks
Hobson v. Hansen (1967): tests developed on whites can’t track Black students.
Larry P. v. Riles (1979/86): IQ tests for Black special ed placement discriminatory.
Debra P. v. Turlington (1981): competency test perpetuated past discrimination.
Regents v. Bakke (1978), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): race in admissions.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993): judges = “gatekeepers” of expert testimony; supplemented Frye (1923).
Public Concerns & History
Post-WWI/II test expansion → magazines decried “abuse of tests.”
Sputnik 1957 → National Defense Education Act: gifted identification.
Jensen (1969) IQ heritability article rekindled nature-nurture debate.
Professional Standards
APA Technical Recommendations 1954; AERA/APA/NCME Standards.
Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education (4 areas: development, interpretation, fairness, informing).
Test user qualification levels: A (manual only), B (some psychometrics), C (advanced training + supervision).
Rights of Testtakers
Informed consent: purpose, use, confidentiality; competency assessed via MacCAT-T, etc.
Feedback: right to understandable results & recommendations.
Privacy & confidentiality: privileged communications (Tarasoff duty to warn; Jaffee v. Redmond 1996).
Least-stigmatizing labels: avoid “moron”-type designations; example Iverson v. Frandsen (1956).
Testing People with Disabilities
Must adapt materials, response formats, interpretation.
Ethical dilemmas: assisted-dying evaluations in Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (ODDA) – 7-step assessment (records, consultation, interviews, competence & psychopathology assessment, reporting).
Computerized Assessment (CAPA)
Growing norm: disk/web delivery, adaptive testing.
Issues: comparability with paper (\neq always equal), accuracy of computer interpretations, unregulated online tests.
International Test Commission guidelines address quality & security.
Meet an Assessment Professional: Dr. Neil Krishan Aggarwal
Cultural psychiatry; uses DSM-5 16-item Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) – covers illness explanations, stressors, cultural identity, functioning, barriers, expectations.
Field-tested in 321 patients / 75 clinicians, 6 countries; takes 15-20 min.
Variants: caregivers, children, elders, immigrants.
CFI strengths: narrative, standardized; limits: rigidity, acutely ill cannot respond, self-report focus.
Everyday Psychometrics: Life-or-Death Assessments
Oregon ODDA allows lethal prescription for terminal (<6 mo) illness after competency eval by psychologist/psychiatrist.
Seven-part evaluation: records, consults, patient & family interviews, competence, psychopathology, reporting (Psychiatric/Psychological Consultant’s Compliance Form).
Controversies: suicide stigma vs. autonomy; potential “hired guns”; lessons from Dutch practice.
Key Terms for Self-Study (selection)
Darwinian individual differences, Galtonian tools, Wundtian standardization.
Culture-specific test, collectivist vs. individualist culture, disparate impact vs. treatment.
Daubert standard, affirmative action, truth-in-testing, HIPAA.
Projective test, self-report inventory, standard of care, privilege.