[IPAC-List] Testing Education

[RPClare at aol.com]

I, too, am an optimist. One of the many mentors I had trying to teach me  
this business once said "no one ever failed a good exam". His explanation was 
 that once you fail, it must be the tests fault. We have two reasons for 
test  advanced information/instructions. The first is to prepare those who 
will accept  the information constructively and the second is to prepare a 
defense to a  challenge that asserts they were never told xxxx.
 
Another important factor is how we communicate the results and afford  
candidates the opportunity to learn from the process. I have several wonderful  
anecdotes above the process and the bias in which candidates interpret the  
process. I believe PT Barnum once said "No one ever went broke 
underestimating  the American public." At an open seating exam, I jokingly said "there is 
no  reason for anyone to try to copy other candidate's answers since they 
were each  seated surrounded by folks that weren't as smart as they were". At 
the end of  the test 4 or 5 people came up and asked how I did that. There 
will always be a  portion of our customers who will complain about 
everything and just don't/won't  get it.
 
We need to focus on continuous education and PR about our processes and  
create realistic expectations about the outcomes. 
 
 
In a message dated 11/23/2009 8:29:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
EReed1 at Columbus.gov writes:

You can  add me to list of hopeless idealist. I agree that we need to 
change the  message that we send to test takers, but that message begins by 
developing  well-constructed, valid, reliable exams, that are administered and 
scored  consistently and fairly. It doesn't take a person educated in testing 
to  identify a poorly developed exam. While such an individual may not 
understand  all the ins and outs of testing, they often have the feedback we need 
to  hear.

We go through painstaking efforts to develop valid and reliable  public 
safety exams--I wouldn't have it any other way. After all, if we create  lists 
full of persons with little competence then we are literally putting  lives 
on the line. Candidates in public safety are critical of the examination  
process and rightfully so. The pressure is on to ensure the testing process,  
especially in a rule of three environment, is on target. We do get 
candidates  who will never understand that their performance of the exams was lower 
or  lower than some other person, because they demonstrated less competence 
the  important areas that were assessed. However, we also get candidates, who 
after  it's all said and done that state; I will follow whoever does well 
on the this  exam--as they have earned it.

When we can achieve that type of  sentiment when we know we did it well.

Liz

Elizabeth A.  Reed
Police and Fire Assessment Supervisor
Columbus Civil Service  Commission
750 Piedmont Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43224
Office: (614)  645-6032 Fax: (614) 645-0866
Email:  Ereed1 at columbus.gov


-----Original Message-----
From:  ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] 
On Behalf  Of Mark Hammer
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:40 PM
To:  IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Testing  Education


It's not so much educated about tests, as much as  educated about testing
process, sometimes.  As for "by whom?",  slipping a useful phrase or two
into the test administrators instruction  sheet and script couldn't hurt.

We're in a rut when it comes to test  instructions and the scripts we hand 
administrators.  We need to get out  of it.  Testees need to be able to think
of us as being on their side,  not merely another instance of the teacher
they remember who took immense  pride in failing everyone.

Our job is to help employers and candidates  find a match.  People deserve 
to be in jobs where they thrive, employers  deserve to hire people who will
be terrific AND happy in the job, and tests  are in service of that.  Call 
me a hopeless idealist, but that message  needs to get out there more often.

And not just in the employment  context but in the education context too. 
The goal of any test I might apply  in a class is to find out if what I'm 
trying
to get across to students is  making it through, and for students to confirm
for themselves that their  subjective impression of learning is 
substantiated by objective  evidence.

If a test is "biased", it is telling you you're not good  enough when 
possibly
you are.  If a test is inaccurate, it is telling  you that there are things 
you
can do that maybe you can't, or that you  can't do things that maybe you
can.  When it comes to the resentment  and paranoia many people have
about tests, they arrive at that view because  they think purely in terms
of "bias", and rarely in terms of the value to  themselves of an accurate 
assessment.  Maybe if we broached the whole  topic in terms of achieving
a win-win match, instead of pitching tests as  if they are intended to keep 
out the riff-riff, we'd meet with less hostility  in a less adversarial 
arena.

Mark


>>> "Dennis  Doverspike " <dd1 at uakron.edu> 11/22/09 11:43 AM >>>

Educated  - by whom? One of my great fears regarding testing, is that the 
problem is  getting worse rather than better. Due to standardized testing 
pressures in the  schools, from 1st grade on, or even before, school children 
are now being  taught by their teachers that tests are bad, unfair, do not 
assess knowledge,  and are otherwise full of testing tricks. The situation 
does not get better  when students get to college, in Introduction to 
Psychology classes, students  are taught about the evils of testing including the 
inherent biases against  most cultures. The government can point to SIOP 
members and argue that there  is no consensus that ability tests are really valid 
and free of bias, even if  one could argue there is as much consensus as 
there is in the medical  community regarding drugs or surgeries.

My esteemed colleague Winfred  Arthur often asks the question as to whether 
if a test could be 100% accurate,  would people want to use it or see the 
result? I fear we know how most people  would answer that question.

We have met the enemy - and it is  testing.

Of course, this problem is not limited to psychological tests  for 
employment purposes. People often cheat or fake on clinical psychology  tests, 
usually to fake bad rather than good (and see for example the huge  controversy 
recently over the release of the Rorschach ok Wikipedia). People  cheat on 
drug tests. People cheat on medical exams.

And believe it or  not, I am an optimist regarding human nature.

Dennis  Doverspike

_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org  http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list