[IPAC-List] Divergent views of validation

Winfred Arthur, Jr. w-arthur at neo.tamu.edu
Fri Sep 3 11:40:51 EDT 2010

i will send you a copy of the paper offline. if anyone else is
interested in a copy as well, just let me know.

- winfred

On 9/3/2010 7:24 AM, Shekerjian, Rene wrote:

> I'd be interested in knowing the extent to which the measures of volume for the various brain regions covaried with the measures of the personality traits. My internet access to journals does not allow access to the most recent year for Psychological Science.


> Has anyone had a chance to see what it says?


> René


> René Shekerjian | Testing Services Division | NYS Department of Civil Service | 518-474-3778

> ==========================================================================


> -----Original Message-----

> From: Reid Klion [mailto:RKlion at panpowered.com]

> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:00 PM

> To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Divergent views of validation


> Good discussion! ...there is also a literature that delves into some of the challenges that have been found when attempting to replicate fMRI research. Here is a quick overview from Science News: http://tinyurl.com/ycveaac. Enjoy-


> Reid



> Reid E. Klion, Ph.D.

> Chief Science Officer

> pan - A TALX Company

> 11590 North Meridian St.

> Suite 200

> Carmel, IN 46032 USA

> 317.814.8808 Office

> 317.908.4312 Mobile

> 317.814.8888 Fax

> rklion at panpowered.com

> www.panpowered.com



> -----Original Message-----

> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Baldwin

> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 9:25 AM

> To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org; w-arthur at neo.tamu.edu

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Divergent views of validation


> ..and to piggyback on Winfred's post, there are a couple articles in the September Psych Bulletin dealing in some sense with biological bases of personality (Kotov et al. and Dietrich et al.):


> http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/136/5/


> Bryan


> Bryan Baldwin

> Staff Services Manager II

> California Department of Justice

> Division of Administrative Support

> Personnel Programs

> (916) 322-5446

>>>> "Winfred Arthur, Jr."<w-arthur at neo.tamu.edu> 09/01/10 6:03 PM>>>

> as a follow up to Jeff's last paragraph, DeYoung et al.'s (2010)

> mri/FFM study might be of interest to some of you. the full reference is:


> DeYoung et al. (2010), "Testing predictions from personality

> neuroscience: Brain structure and the big five", /Psychological Science,

> 21,/ 820-828.


> and the abstract reads as follows:


> "We used a new theory of the biological basis of the Big Five

> personality traits to generate hypotheses about the association of each

> trait with the volume of different brain regions. Controlling for age,

> sex, and whole-brain volume, results from structural magnetic resonance

> imaging of 116 healthy adults supported our hypotheses for four of the

> five traits: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and

> Conscientiousness. Extraversion covaried with volume of medial

> orbitofrontal cortex, a brain region involved in processing reward

> information. Neuroticism covaried with volume of brain regions

> associated with threat, punishment, and negative affect. Agreeableness

> covaried with volume in regions that process information about the

> intentions and mental states of other individuals. Conscientiousness

> covaried with volume in lateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in

> planning and the voluntary control of behavior. These findings support

> our biologically based, explanatory model of the Big Five and

> demonstrate the potential of personality neuroscience (i.e., the

> systematic study of individual differences in personality using

> neuroscience methods) as a discipline."



> - winfred



> On 9/1/2010 3:21 PM, Jeff Feuquay wrote:

>> If Borsboom asserts validity is what a test "should" measure, then it seems

>> he is discussing a concept quite different from what most assessment folk

>> think of as validity, i.e., whether a test measures what it purports to

>> measure. That idiosyncratic definition would quite reasonably be expected to

>> lead him down the rabbit hole to a very different world.


>> Some of the discussion seems to imply we are again caught in the trap of

>> hoping/believing that correlation reflects causation. Ah, were it only so.

>> Then, maybe we could say that whatever our tests are measuring (not

>> predicting . . . actually measuring) cause the future behavior sought. But,

>> we continue to measure the employee version of phlogiston. We've got some

>> understanding of which characteristics are likely to result in improved

>> performance, but it remains rudimentary. I mean, as Borsboom knows, it would

>> be a whole lot simpler if we were measuring temperature, something we now

>> undersatnd way better than we understand ourselves.


>> As to the level of measurment: Unless one has gone through a thorough

>> scaling process, certainly variations in item difficulty make us fall short

>> of interval mesurement. But on a practical level, how short of interval is

>> too short? When some jurisdictions continue to round T&E scores to

>> thousandths of a point and then take the top 3, is ordinal versus interval

>> or even ratio a big issue? Yeah, it is. Scaling is an issue, significant

>> digits is an issue, but most scales and most of the stats we commonly use

>> are extremely robust. We may bend the prediction but we're unlikely to break

>> it.


>> Given another hundred years to work on this, measurement of employee

>> phlogistan could conceivably evolve into something more direct and more

>> definitive . . . I mean, everybody knows that variations in the long arm of

>> chromsome 6 of the human genome account for 4% of the variance in

>> intelligence. See, we're on the way.

>> Jeff

>> -----------------------------------------

>> Dr. Jeffrey P Feuquay, I/O Psychologist& Attorney

>> Managing Consultant, Psychology-Law Center, LLC

>> 108 W. Walnut, Nevada, Mo 64772

>> ofc: 417-667-5076 cell: 417-549-0997



>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Mark Hammer<Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca>wrote:


>>> Would it be wrong to suggest that this is one of those perpetual

>>> discrepancies between theoreticians and clinicians? In this case, the

>>> discrepancy is between test/measurement specialists (the theoreticians),

>>> and test-users (the clinicians).


>>> Mark Hammer

>>> Ottawa


>>> This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may

>>> contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from

>>> disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or

>>> re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not

>>> authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this

>>> e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete

>>> the message and any copies.

>>> >

>>> Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en titre

>>> et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou

>>> soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute

>>> divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est

>>> interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes

>>> pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu

>>> par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et

>>> supprimer le courriel et les copies.


>>> _______________________________________________________

>>> 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: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

> _______________________________________________________

> 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

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list