I do not pretend that with the help of this test it is really possible to understand whether you are a good psychologist or a bad one. But perhaps the result will make you think about your understanding of some situations. Before proceeding to the test, I would like to draw attention to the following:
- The test will not return results until ALL questions have been answered.
- Some (I emphasize: SOME!) correct answers are not absolute truth, but only reflect the personal opinion of the author of the test, although it is quite reasonable.
- To answer MOST of the questions, you do not need special knowledge, just think logically.
- So DO NOT TAKE THE RESULT TO HEART, especially if it is unsatisfactory for you.
- All answers are explained on this page.
- It is advisable to read the instructions given below (click on the word "Instructions").
So let's get started!
Are you a good psychologist?Instruction
- Choose one of the options in each of the 23 questions;
- Click on the "Show result" button;
- The script will not show the result until you answer all the questions;
- Look in the window next to the job number. If the answer is correct, then there (+). If you made a mistake, there (-).
- 1 point is awarded for each correct answer;
- Grades: less than 11.5 points - UNSATISFACTORY, from 11.5 but less than 17.25 - SATISFACTORY, 17.25 and less than 23 - GOOD, 23 - EXCELLENT;
- To reset the test result, click the "Reset Answers" button;
Self test tests
Here are selected tests for non-professional use. Anyone can independently test themselves using these tests. The results obtained from these tests should not be taken too seriously. However, they are good for expanding "inner horizons", developing self-criticism, a source of ideas for self-improvement. Polish doctors from the Institute of National Health, together with graphologists and psychologists, developed a test to determine a person's propensity for certain diseases by handwriting. Do you tend to plan your time and not be at the mercy of external circumstances. The purpose of this questionnaire is to identify the level of honesty, openness of the subject. Designed for professional psychological diagnostics. The "Honesty" questionnaire goes well with those questionnaires that do not include a scale of lies: with low scores, Square, triangle, rectangle, circle, zigzag - diligence, leadership, transition, harmony, creativity. Equal or unequal union. Many of us, well-versed in ourselves people, are able to assess the degree of our activity and show it in accordance with our own potential. At the same time, many people who are endowed by nature with great vital activity, but do not realize it and do not even know about its existence. Anancast has a powerful force of unjustified resistance to circumstances. Instead of adapting to them, he tries at all costs to keep them unchanged. But in life everything changes, much in it is relative or does not matter at all for the existence of a person. Diagnosis of propensity to artistic professions. Diagnostics of the general psychological climate in the family. Prudent people love comfort, before they do something, they "measure seven times." Others rush through life at breakneck speed: they don't care! They are able to risk everything, even if the success of the enterprise is not guaranteed. If you are a girl or a young woman who sometimes finds it very difficult to sort out her feelings for another person (young man), then let's hope that this test, developed by Professor Kovalev, will help you sort out your feelings to some extent. This test will help for introspection in determining the nature of the relationship with your spouse. Irritability. How important is sex and related things to you and your life? Evaluate each five years of your life according to the degree of saturation with important events for you. Aggressive or peaceful. If the number of points matches your age, then everything is in order. For those who prefer creative activity, it is desirable that the psychological age is not ahead of the passport one. Do you have significant creative potential that presents you with a wide range of possibilities. If you can actually apply your abilities, then a wide variety of forms of creativity are available to you. Choleric. Sanguine. Phlegmatic person. Melancholic. The level of general communicative tolerance is evidenced by the fact that you do not know how, or do not want to understand or accept the individuality of other people. The individuality of another is, first of all, what is special in him: given by nature, brought up, learned in the environment. Veiled cruelty in relation to people, in judgments about them. Open cruelty in relation to people. Justified negativism in judgments about people. Grumbling, that is, the tendency to make unreasonable generalizations of negative facts in the field of relationships with partners and in observing social reality. ... Exhibitionism, homosexuality, masochism, sadism, polygamy, perversion, animalism, narcissism, voyeurism. Test for women. Bodily health. Well-being. Relationships with friends are very important. And what are yours? Some experts say that you can learn a lot about each of us from the initials. Unbalance. Excitability. Some people find it very difficult to look at themselves from the outside. It seems to many that they are "darlings", they are pleasant in communication, it is pleasant for interlocutors to talk. In fact, it often happens that we underestimate the feelings of our neighbor, are rude and insult, without noticing it ourselves. This test (the so-called Leary Questionnaire) is very popular among professional psychologists because of its convenience and information content. Try it out for yourself as well. There are people who are always on the alert - nothing can surprise them, stun them, confuse them. Their opposite is scattered and inattentive people, lost in the simplest situations. The purpose of this test is to help deal with inner feelings. The main idea of the test is to find the key word that will help unravel the tangle of a person's pressing problems. The key word is just the end of the thread that you need to grab onto in order to unravel the tangle of problems. This test was developed by English psychologists. It will help you figure out how stingy you are with gifts. Are you kind and considerate to others? Are you able to give the last shirt to someone who needs it more? What is the dominance of the organization in which you work, male or female? To find out, just answer a few questions. Your dominant psychological defense strategy in dealing with partners. level of neuroticism. Are you the kind of woman from whom men can lose their heads? Shyness. Introspection of the manner of laughing. What is your management style: directive, collegial or conniving. If you are a pedestrian, then this test is not for you. Otherwise, it will not hurt you to find out for yourself whether you are a good driver or not. The proposed test, compiled by a French psychologist, is at the same time an exercise that will allow parents to better understand the issues of raising boys and girls. Captain or passenger, leader or follower, leader or subordinate? Test for women. Contact people feel free in any company. They easily get acquainted with unfamiliar men. The level of conflict. Sixteen types of functional brain asymmetry. Amusement lover or not, hedonist or ascetic? There are eight types of love for a partner: affection, passionate love, formal, romantic, friendly, fatal, perfect love, no love (or very weak). With the help of this short test, you can determine what type of love you have with you. This test is widely used in America to diagnose the entrepreneurial streak. You can judge the personality of a person by wrinkles: joy, shyness, attention to detail, honesty, intelligence, good nature, disappointment, anxiety, aggressiveness, nervousness, surprise, indifference. Introspection of character. This table for evaluating husbands, candidates for husbands was proposed by American and Canadian sexologists. A worthy man must score at least 100 positive and no more than 45 negative points. Questionnaire aimed at self-assessment of observation. Are you a reliable person? Or is it not always possible to rely on you, are you somewhat, as they say, selfish? The methodology is for personal use only. It will help to identify people prone to fraud in your environment. What is independence? This is the ability to take responsibility at the right time, this is decisiveness combined with a sober approach. Can you attribute yourself to people who are ready to boast of their independence, self-sufficiency? "Who is looking for a treasure - rarely finds it. And who is not looking - never finds." It is persistent people who clearly see goals and stubbornly strive for them to achieve some kind of success in life. Is this perseverance enough for you? Unprofessional test to study the level of motivation for personal wealth. This test is designed to help you understand the subtle question of whether you are too self-confident person. With the help of this test, you can test your ideas about the character and behavior inherent in people of different sexes, knowledge of social stereotypes. Analysis of drawings that are made during boring meetings or just having nothing to do: different patterns in a notebook, on a piece of paper. This test will help you find out if you are really touchy, as you sometimes hear. Or you yourself are tolerance. The level of anxiety. Are you just a pessimist or a morbid pessimist? Are you a healthy optimist or unbridled frivolous? What is he, the father of the family? .. To know this better, the wife must answer 24 questions. A rational hypocrite or a violent libertine. Most people spend about 8 hours a day at work and communicate with their colleagues as much as with their families. Therefore, relationships with colleagues are an important element of human life. Bad relationships with colleagues can not only damage a career, business, but also unbalance any person for a very long time. This stress tolerance test was developed by a psychologist at the University of Boston Medical Center. attitude towards current work. The likelihood of masturbation. The possibility of exhibitionism. Predisposition to deformed relationships with peers. A fighter for truth or an opportunist? Designed for self-testing. Assessment of own entrepreneurial abilities. Sometimes it is difficult for a person to look at himself from the outside. This test is designed to find out how pleasant you are in communication. In countries that pay close attention to the study of workaholism, such as Japan, the United States and Canada, semi-structured interviews are used to identify workaholism. One of these interviews is a questionnaire proposed by B. Killinger. It has long been noted that men and women are often very different in their behavior. The experiments of psychologists have shown that in the presence of other people these differences manifest themselves doubly. This is explained by the fact that we are used to playing roles, the roles of men and the roles of women. As Shakespeare used to say, "The whole world is a theater, and the people in it are actors." Do you know your role? Alert and meticulous, or dreamy and distracted? Self-analysis of the degree of jealousy. Are you decisive? Answer the test, and, probably, after that you can answer this question more boldly. The level of ambition and readiness for a career. Is there some manipulative tendency or have engrams become familiar to you on the emotional spectrum. Impulsiveness. Emotional excitability. Efficiency. Reproducibility of unreacted experiences. Increased hyperthymia usually leads to a non-critical manifestation of activity. A person claims more than knows, knows how and does, she strives to take on everything, criticize and teach everyone, tries to attract attention to herself at any cost. Excessive energy interferes with clear and logical thinking, so hyperthymia often "carries". The level of unmotivated anxiety. The test is intended for self-testing. Diagnoses the presence or absence of a syndrome of self-destruction, that is, a tendency to self-destruction, self-aggression, self-injury. Tendency to be depressed. Frustration tendency. Tendency to cyclothymia. Tendency to euphoria. Tendency to exaltation. This test was compiled by American doctors. I advise you to answer most sincerely, without prevarication. It should be especially noted that the results of this test are not a definitive "diagnosis". Maybe you need to change your lifestyle in some way. Sometimes it's good to be a tough leader. Here, however, a sober assessment of the peculiarities of the style of one's leadership and one's character is necessary. To help you with this self-assessment, American management experts have developed a simple but useful test. It is based on the thesis that every leader has two types of mental resources: D-resources and B-resources. ... The degree of tension in the relationship. The level of respect for the feelings of a partner. Ability to yield. The test is intended for self-testing. Do you have a true passion for travel or are you a homebody? The questionnaire is designed to identify the level of anxiety of a person in relation to their own mistakes. Indirectly, it also helps to judge the attitude towards the opinions of others, the desire for objectivity, a tendency to self-deception and the use of psychological ones. Are you adamant and, excuse me, stubborn? Does the firmness of your convictions go well with the great subtlety and flexibility of your mind? According to Carl Gustav Jung, there are two ways to adapt to the world around you. One of them is expansion: constantly communicate, expand contacts, business ties, take everything that life gives. Such is the extrovert. Introverts, on the contrary, limit their contacts, withdraw into themselves, as if hiding in a shell. Very insecure, self-confident or overconfident? Questions for my husband. Questions for my wife. Are you a good diplomat? Do you lead the discussion in an authoritarian, overbearing and unceremonious way? Your behavior does not receive an unambiguous assessment in the team?The test is aimed at identifying psychological abnormalities. It consists of several stages. At each of them you will be shown portraits, from which you will need to choose the least and most pleasant in your opinion.
This testing method was developed by psychiatrist Leopold Szondi in 1947. The doctor noticed that in the clinic, patients communicated closer with those who had the same diseases. Of course, the Internet test will not give you a diagnosis - it will just help to detect some tendencies. Moreover, depending on the state, the results will be different, so you can take the Szondi test in any incomprehensible situation.
2. Beck depression scale
As the name suggests, this test measures how depressed you are. It takes into account the common symptoms and complaints of patients with this disease. When answering each question, you have to choose the closest one from several statements.
The test is worth taking even for those who are absolutely sure that they are healthy. Some of the statements in the questionnaire may seem strange to you, but many of them are true for a person with a disease. So if you think that depression is when someone is depressed from idleness, it's time to rethink your attitude.
3. Zang (Tsung) scale for self-reported depression
4. Beck Anxiety Scale
The test allows you to assess the severity of various phobias, panic attacks and other anxiety disorders. The results are not very telling. They will only tell you if you have reason to be concerned or not.
You have to read 21 statements and decide how true they are for you.
5. Luscher color test
This test helps to assess the psychological state through the subjective perception of color. Everything is very simple: from several colored rectangles, you first choose those that you like more, and then those that you like less.
Based on the results of the Luscher test, a specialist will be able to give recommendations on how to avoid, but you just look deeper inside yourself.
6. Projective test "Cube in the desert"
This test looks less serious than the previous ones, and it really is. It consists of fantasy exercises. Few questions, but the result is simple and clear.
You will be asked to present a series of images, and then they will give an interpretation of what you made up. This test, most likely, will not discover America, but will simply introduce you to the real you once again.
7. Diagnosis of temperament according to Eysenck
You have to answer 70 questions to find out who you are: choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic or melancholic. At the same time, the test determines the level of extraversion, so you can find out if you are or are just temporarily tired of people.
8. Extended test of Leonhard - Shmishek
The test helps to reveal personality traits. The final grade is set on several scales, each of which reveals one or another aspect. Separately, it is checked whether you sincerely answered questions or tried to be better than you really are.
9. The method of rapid diagnosis of Heck's neurosis - Hess
This scale will help determine the likelihood of neurosis. If it is high, then it may be worth contacting a specialist.
10. Hall Emotional Intelligence Test
Emotional intelligence is the ability of a person to recognize the mood and feelings of others. To evaluate it, psychologist Nicholas Hall came up with a 30-question test.
For further analysis, it is important to clarify the basic concepts once again.
Reliability is such a sign of a psychological test that allows you to judge how trustworthy the data obtained during its application are, how reasonable the expectation of the researcher is that, while maintaining a certain minimum of unchanged conditions, the subjects in the sample will remain at approximately the same ordinal levels during repeated tests ( ranking) places. The level of the safety factor and its statistical significance will indicate the likelihood that this expectation will come true.
Validity is a sign of a test, by which one can judge how much the data obtained when applying the test coincide with the indicators of some activity of the subjects: educational, sports, production. Validity is the effectiveness of the test, which characterizes the ability to make a practically important diagnosis and, in some cases, outline a prognosis. It can be assumed that the researcher who applies the tests usually expects the practical use of the results obtained in the future, that is, he means validity. The question of validity will require special consideration.
Continuing the discussion of the highlighted problem, we recall that reliability and validity are interrelated. Reliability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for validity, which means that reliable test scores cannot be valid. But reliable indicators do not in themselves represent validity.
A simple argument confirms the correctness of the above statement. Indeed, if a test is of low reliability, this means that its performance varies greatly from one test to another. A subject who, in one trial, was a representative of the most successful part of the sample, in another may fall into the most unsuccessful part of the sample. It is obviously pointless to compare the data of one of these tests with the indicators of some activity of the subjects. On the other hand, high reliability also does not give the right to believe that the test results can be essentially comparable with performance indicators. Success or failure on a test may be something self-sufficient or inconsistent with any other external indicators relevant to a given study - in relation to the test. Therefore, tests using tasks of a psychological nature, the reliability and validity of which in relation to a given population or sample have not been established, cannot have any practical diagnostic value, although they are given at the initial stage of test preparation only as the first step in a research search.
In the second part of this book, we have already touched on this topic in connection with the problem of the reliability of psychophysiological indicators (see section 2, subsection 2.2). Let us recall how the reliability of a psychological test is established, and we will continue the discussion of this issue.
The test literature describes several methods recommended for this purpose.
1. Repeated testing with the same test after some period, the duration of which is determined by the nature of the test and the objectives of the study.
230 Part 3. Problems of psychological diagnostics
2. Conducting tests with two options, two different "forms" of the test, usually built on the same principle.
3. Dividing, "splitting" the test into two halves, usually into halves, consisting of even and odd tasks.
4. Conducting two equivalent forms of the test. This method introduces a clarification 2nd method1.
AT in establishing reliability, thus, the two obtained indicators are compared and most often they resort to calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient-Brave or Spearman. The reliability is the higher, the more the obtained coefficient approaches unity, and vice versa. Remaining within the limits of formal analysis, it can be noted that the higher the correlation coefficient, the smaller the variance, that is, the scatter of data obtained by a particular test subject. If, according to one of the compared indicators, the subject is in the upper part of the table, compiled in descending order of success, and according to another indicator, in the lower part, then the variance of the test data is obviously - at least in this sample - large and does not allow us to conclude about what, in fact, is his characteristic according to the results of this psychological research. On the contrary, the smaller the dispersion, the more grounds for certain psychological conclusions. In this sense, correlation can provide sufficient information to judge reliability.
Imagine that a researcher is faced with the following fact: the reliability of the test he developed turned out to be too low. What to do, how to achieve its increase?
Obviously, even a careful acquaintance with the methods of establishing reliability leads to the conclusion that the variance that reduces the level of the correlation coefficient depends not on one, but on several different causes.
AT in fact, by checking the reliability by the splitting method, the researcher obtains information about the internal homogeneity of the test, about its homogeneity. If test- heterogeneous in the composition of the tasks included in it, this will be revealed in the fact that if it is randomly divided into halves, the subjects will perform tasks that are heterogeneous in their psychological difficulty, and one can hardly expect that their success in each of these halves will be the same . With the homogeneity of tasks, it can be assumed that there will not be a big difference in the success of the halves. Therefore, the variance in this method indicates how homogeneous the test is.
The researcher receives completely different information when repeating the same test after a certain period of time. The variance in this case may depend on the fact that the process that was tested by the test has changed. Why this happened, statistics will not answer this question. But the fact of a greater or lesser change in the process in terms of the parameter to which the test is directed, it will detect and record. The question of the homogeneity of the test in this method is not updated.
1 It seems to us that in some experiments one should take into account the impact on the reliability of some non-formalizable conditions, for example, the personality of the experimenter.
Both the second and the fourth methods give out very special information - this is information about how close - in essence - two different "forms" of the test, two of its variants. The researcher may consider that if these two forms, when tested, gave the same or close results on the sample chosen by him, then it follows that during the development of the test, a sufficiently distinct psychological sign was found for testing. In this case, the question of homogeneity is again raised, but not for one test, but for a test and a variant, for two more or less equivalent "forms".
It turns out that the concept of "reliability" has a completely different meaning, depending on which of the methods the researcher takes. Therefore, it is impossible to recognize as satisfactory a solution in which it is stated that all four methods are estimates of the repetitions of indicators on the test and in some cases one, and in others - another of the methods provides a better measure (reliability). But it is not a matter of a better or worse measure of reliability, the point is that these are essentially different measures of reliability. Rather, one can agree with the authors of the "Standard Requirements ...", who believe that the reliability coefficient in the modern sense is a generic indicator covering several of its differentiated types, and each type has its own special meaning (Standards for Educational and Psychological Test, 1974) . However, what causes these various types of reliability, what determines the small or large dispersion that affects the coefficients of these various types of reliability - all this is not said in the "Standard Requirements ...".
Apparently, it would be completely illogical, giving a characteristic of reliability, to report some coefficient without disclosing how it is determined and why the author believes that reliability in this case should be represented by just such a coefficient. Obviously, it is necessary to reasonably interpret these essentially different coefficients.
What is established when comparing the results for the two halves of the test (splitting method)? Most of all, there is reason to believe that this establishes the reliability of the test itself as a diagnostic tool. Undoubtedly, only that test should be considered reliable, which consists of homogeneous and, moreover, equally difficult tasks. The assessment of the success of the subjects' work is derived from the total number of tasks they correctly completed. If the test meets its purpose as a diagnostic tool, then it can be assumed that in any of its arbitrarily chosen halves, the subject must correctly perform approximately the same number of tasks. The correctness of this assumption is checked by the researcher by calculating the correlation coefficient between the results shown by the subjects on the two halves of the test.
And comparing the results shown by the subjects during the first and second, repeated, testing has a completely different meaning. It speaks about how stable, stable is the property of the psyche (function, skill, ability, etc.), for the diagnosis of which the test was applied. Let us leave open for now the question of what explains the stability or variability of the diagnosed property. It is important that the correlation coefficient calculated in this case indicates the degree of stability of the diagnosed property. This will be
232 Part 3. Problems of psychological diagnostics
testify to the preservation of each subject of his ordinal place
in sample (in ranks or in sigma units) at the first and repeated application of the test after a certain period of time.
AT Such an interpretation clearly reveals that different ways of establishing reliability refer essentially to different objects. When calculating the coefficient between the results shown in each of the two halves of the test, the reliability of the test itself is established, when calculating the same coefficient between the results of the first and second tests, the stability of the diagnosed property is established.
It is very possible that the low reliability of the test itself (the method of comparing halves) will have an adverse effect on the results of both the first and repeated tests. Therefore, care should be taken in advance to ensure that such impacts are eliminated or minimized. To do this, it is necessary to follow the natural sequence of establishing reliability: first, you need to check the reliability of the test, achieve its proper quality as a measuring tool by eliminating unreliable tasks, and then proceed to establishing the reliability of the diagnosed property.
As for the methods of establishing the reliability of the test, consisting
in comparison of two parallel or equivalent form-variants, then the conclusions from such comparisons can rather be understood as an argument in favor of the psychological significance of a single principle, which the researcher underlies the creation of both variants of the test. The principle is tested by comparing the results of the success of subjects who completed two forms prepared by the researcher or two test options. From the point of view of test application, it is most natural to interpret these methods as the study of the possibility of interchangeability of test variants. But any convincing answer to the question
about the reliability of each of the options, these methods, Apparently they can't. The authors of Standards for Educational and Psychological Test (1974) also write about the uncertainty of the conclusions obtained when comparing two forms or variants of a test to establish reliability. Therefore, at least until new interpretations of these methods are proposed, their use for establishing reliability seems unreasonable.
It was said above that the method of dividing the test into two halves makes it possible to characterize the reliability of the test itself as a diagnostic tool, and the method of repeated testing provides material for judging the reliability (or stability) of the studied property of the psyche. The use of the words "reliability of the test and the reliability of the properties of the psyche" should not mask the most important specific feature of psychological tests - their results, the results of the work of the subjects are always the product of the interaction of the subject (with all the features inherent in him at the time of the test) and the situation of the psychological test. Here, the subject is presented with a test with its specific content: words, drawings, tasks that require logical-perceptual actions, on the implementation of which the success of his work depends. The reliability of a test and the reliability (stability) of a diagnosed mental property do not exist "in general", they always act as a product of the contact of a specific situation.
tests with specific samples and populations of subjects. At first glance, the stated judgments seem to be an unnecessary triviality - it is clear to everyone that it is impossible to obtain information about reliability in any other way. However, one should take into account the specific, ingrained opinions of ignorant people about tests in order to agree that further clarification on this point will not be superfluous.
Here is one example that does not cover the entire complexity of the situation: the subject is asked to cross out one of the four words, the one that "does not fit the other three" - this is a task from the classification test. The test examines a simple operation of logical generalization: it is necessary to find such a pronounced functional feature that is inherent in three objects and is absent in the fourth. Words are given: turnips, cabbage, carrots, beets. A fourth-grade student of one of the Moscow schools crossed out the word "beet" while doing the test; when questioned, the boy explained that the first three vegetables can be eaten raw, and beets - only boiled. However, he was not firmly convinced of the correctness of such a decision. Although the task was completed, the subject's own solution remained doubtful, and it is possible that, upon repeated testing, he would have chosen a different solution. For children of the same age living in rural areas, the task, on the contrary, did not cause the slightest doubt: immediately after reading, the word “cabbage” was crossed out on a sign that was clear to them: the other three vegetables were “roots”.
As is known, questioning subjects after performing a test is usually not practiced - this is the convenience of testing, that in a short time - on the order of one hour or a little more - you can get some information about a psychological trait characteristic of a whole group of subjects. There are also no clear methodological rules on how to use the data of such a survey.
Therefore, the researcher, as a rule, does not know what guided the subject who came to this, and not to another decision, when performing the test. Only by referring to the procedures that precede the publication of the test, the researcher, when studying the results of using the test in urban and rural schools, could pay attention to the fact that there are tasks that reduce the reliability of the test in some cases (in urban conditions) and not decrease in others.
At one time, B. Simon (1958), who analyzed the use of intelligence tests in an English school, drew attention to the fact that the authors include in their tests tasks consisting of words that are incomprehensible to some of the subjects. He showed with complete clarity that words included in the vocabulary of a child of one social stratum may be unknown and incomprehensible to a child from another social stratum. The tests that Simon wrote about were designed for an English child from the wealthy sections of the population, with a fairly high level of education of the people around him. Everything that this specialist writes is absolutely true. But the point is not only this: the point is also the extent to which these functional features are mastered by the subjects in their daily life and practice.
If the researcher had asked the subjects whether they knew what beets, cabbage, etc., then it can be argued that there would be no subjects who would not know these vegetables (we are talking, for example, about subjects living on a large parts of the territory of the USSR, the inhabitants of Africa, perhaps, do not know about such vegetables).
234 Part 3. Problems of psychological diagnostics
But “knowing” is one thing, and being able to process it logically is another. The latter depends not only on the possession of the rules of logical processing, but also on the features allocated for such processing.
Therefore, the specifics of the material content of the test, on the one hand, and the characteristics of the sample or population of subjects, on the other, lead in their various combinations to unequal characteristics of the reliability of the same psychological test during its repeated checks. This is recognized by modern testology. As one might conclude, testers do not consider reliability to be an essential attribute of the test itself. This gives rise to requirements for a clear description of the samples on which the reliability was established.
“Guidelines for the use of the test in reporting reliability data ... should describe the samples in sufficient detail to enable the user of the test to judge the extent to which the data are applicable to the subjects and the problems with which he has a business." The commentary accompanying this requirement contains the following indications: "... the reliability of the test intended for the selection of workers should be established by testing candidates (from among whom the selection will be made), and not college students and not persons already at work” (Standards for Educational and Psychological Test, 1974, § D. 2).
Moreover, the following wish is put forward: “The guidelines for the use of the test should provide demographic information - the distribution of test subjects by age, gender, socioeconomic and intellectual level, employment status, biography and time spent in this group” (Standards for Educational and Psychological Test, 1974, § D. 2.21).
From what has been said, it follows that the researcher cannot be satisfied with the information that the reliability of the test, according to the information provided by the author of the test, is sufficiently high. It is absolutely necessary to test this reliability under the conditions in which the test will be used, taking into account all those features that are inherent in the sample or population of interest to the researcher.
And the diagnosed properties themselves will reveal themselves in different ways, depending on what material and what sample will be presented for work. Suppose some elementary ability to generalize is diagnosed, however, the degree of knowledge by the subjects of the material on which this skill is studied, life experience in highlighting functional features to be generalized - all this will inevitably affect the final results of the work of the subjects. Consequently, not only the elementary ability to generalize will be diagnosed, but also how close to the subjects are the specific objects offered to them in the test.
It is known that subjects often give absurd answers to questions or tasks of the test, although it would seem that these questions and tasks do not contain anything difficult in themselves. If we exclude possible cases of pathology from consideration and remain within the framework of working with people with normal thinking, then the absurd answers, apparently, can be explained by the fact that the subject, having no experience in logical processing of objects in which test tasks are presented, begins look for answers by association, by random reminiscences, etc. This kind
the answers should not deceive the experimental psychologist: it is clear that he, as a specialist, does not have the right to evaluate them as evidence of the illogical thinking of the given subject. Most likely, such answers should be classified as so-called "forced". The subject considers himself obliged (since he agreed to participate in the experiment) to answer something. But he does not know how to logically process material that is alien to him, he does not have such experience, he has never needed the very awareness of the rules for such processing. This may not be the only one, but a significant and often occurring reason for ridiculous answers. It should be noted that in the history of the use of tests, there were studies in which the authors described cases of testing samples that were peculiar in terms of national and cultural composition and, on the basis of the results obtained, tried to draw a conclusion about some features of the thinking of the test participants. Meanwhile, it would be more appropriate here to speak not about the peculiarities of thinking as such, but about the originality of the subjects' vocabulary and concepts and about the methods of its logical processing that have developed in their practice. In a less pronounced form, this question constantly confronts the psychologist. Therefore, the reliability established on one sample will not necessarily be reproduced on any other.
This applies not only to intelligence tests, but also to perceptual, motor, and all sorts of "special ability" tests. In general, there are no psychological tests that would not affect the past experience of the subjects, their knowledge and skills. It follows from this that the material content of the test, the objects from which the tasks are built, the actions that the subjects need to perform - all this puts the samples representing different sets in not quite the same conditions, and therefore, the reliability coefficients obtained on different samples can diverge greatly from each other.
It seems necessary to dwell in more detail on how the reliability of the function under test should be established. An adequate technique for establishing this reliability is repeated testing. However, when using this technique, the following question inevitably arises before the psychologist: if the tests really test psychological properties or functions, then it is absolutely inevitable that these diagnosed signs only in exceptional cases will remain unchanged in their level after a sufficiently long period of time. In general, the shorter the period from the first to the second test, the greater, all other things being equal, are the more likely that the diagnosed psychological traits will retain the fixed level of the first test, and the longer the period, the lower the chances of maintaining the level will be. Therefore, it seems appropriate to retest a short time after the first. But there is another side of the matter: if the test is repeated after a short time, then the subjects - at least some of them - will try to reproduce their previous answers from memory and, therefore, move away from the meaning of doing the tasks.
It is hardly possible to suggest to the researcher what time frame can be considered optimal (although such time frames are indicated by some authors of testing guidelines).
236 Part 3. Problems of psychological diagnostics
The specialist, based on the psychological essence of the test, the conditions in which the test is offered to the subjects, taking into account the characteristics of the groups of subjects, must himself choose such a period. Naturally, the choice should receive a scientific justification, taking into account the points just listed and, possibly, some other points. So, for example, if the diagnosed property of the psyche is such that it develops intensively just during the testing period, then when conducting repeated tests, it is hardly possible even with a relatively small time gap between the repeated and the first tests to count on obtaining a high reliability coefficient. - the process of intensive development, obviously, will lead to the fact that there will be a difference between the subjects: some will pass it with great success, others with less success, and this, in turn, may depend on motivation, on the acquired methods of working on the material, contacts with teachers and more. It can be assumed that a less intensive process of development in a given sample of the tested function can provide higher reliability indicators.
Therefore, it cannot be considered sufficient to simply indicate that a retest was carried out and that such and such a coefficient of reliability was established in the correlation. A researcher who offers the reader the results of his testing, possibly claiming to popularize his methodology, should briefly and clearly describe not only the procedure for establishing reliability, but also the rationale for the period chosen by him from the first to the second test. A psychological test diagnosing a property that is in the process of intensive development during the test period, for example, the ability to generalize (during the passage of some sections of the mathematics course), may be characterized by a not very high reliability coefficient, which, of course, cannot be interpreted as a lack of methodology . In other words, the reliability coefficient obtained by comparing the first and repeated testing should not be considered only from its narrowly formal side, by its absolute value, it should be interpreted as an indicator of certain changes, the development of the property under study. Probably, in some cases, the researcher presenting his test should have considered in parts the sample on which the reliability was established. With such an examination, a part of the sample will stand out, people who have gone through a similar path of development, as well as another part where the development of the subjects proceeded at an especially rapid pace, and a part of the sample where the development of the subjects is almost completely unnoticeable. Each part of the sample deserves special analysis and interpretation.
Completely different reliability requirements should be imposed on methods (or tests) diagnosing persistent natural, and even more so, genetically determined psychophysiological features, for example, the properties of the nervous system in their physiological parameters. The reliability coefficients when comparing the first and repeated tests, even with significant periods separating the first from the second, should be quite high here. Only specific functional states of the subjects can reduce this reliability. Thus, the question of the reliability of that psychological or psycho
