[IPAC-List] Testing Education

[Brull, Harry]

I appreciate your latest E-mail, Ron.
It was H. L. Mencken who did the quote about underestimating the US
public. 
P.T. Barnum said "There is a sucker born every minute."

Harry

 


------------------------------------------------
Harry Brull |  Senior Vice-President 
PDI Ninth House
Global Leadership Solutions
 
1.612.337.8233  office
1.612.414.8998  mobile
1.612.337.3695  fax
Harry.Brull at pdininthhouse.com

33 South Sixth Street
Suite 4900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
 
www.pdininthhouse.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org
[mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On Behalf Of RPClare at aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 7:55 AM
To: EReed1 at Columbus.gov; IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Testing Education

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


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

Confidentiality Notice: All information in this communication, including any files or attachments, is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information entitled to protection and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete this communication from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.