Tips to Spot A Myth
Well there it is: another year down and another year to look forward to. This brings to an end this series on
Attacking the Myth That Personality Tests Don’t Add Value
For this month’s myth, the last on the topic of psychometrics, I have chosen a slightly different approach. I’m coming out in
New Zealand: The Home Of Culturally Appropriate Testing
New Zealand is a fantastic country. This statement will come as no surprise to many but it is often taken for granted
Is Meta-Analysis All it is Cracked Up to Be?
As a student of psychology, I was taught that meta-analysis exceeded all other forms of research. However, his view has been brought
Response Style Indicators And The Concept Of Integrity
Two recent papers have questioned the assumption that validity scales in personality testing, such as social desirability, address inherent problems of self-report
Ipsative Tests: Psychometric Properties
In this final blog, I want to look at the psychometric properties of ipsative measures and also look at the supporting evidence for ipsative tests.
Why Do People Recommend Ipsative Tools for Selection If They Are Not Designed for That Purpose?
There are two reasons that people recommend ipsative measures for selection. The first is a misbelief that they are less resistant to faking and therefore produce more valid results. The second is that marketing is fundamentally about having a point of difference.
Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) and Ipsative Personality Assessments
There appears to be a resurgence of ipsative testing under the veil of CAT (Computer Adaptive Testing) for personality. Clearly, there is
Faking and It’s Implication for the Use of Personality Tests
Faking in personality tests exists. Anyone who tries to deny this is either a liar or deluded. The question is what this
Are Personality Tests Really That Different?
One of the myths I have long spoken about is the idea that there are great differences between various psychological tests. In