TY - JOUR
AU - Humphreys, Lloyd G
AB - PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Ability Testing COMMENTARY: WHAT BOTH CRITICS AND USERS OF ABILITY TESTS NEED TO KNOW Lloyd G Humphreys University of Illinois Tests and testing have been the objects of severe cnt- Is Any One Item Ever a Good Measure of Intelhgend icism from the beginning of the use of the technology, but No Each item or task measures pnmanly a unique the more recent focus has been on race and ethnicity source of vanance which is only, in part, random error Cntics need to know what they are cnticizing 1 descnbe As highly fallible measures of the small amount of shared the “what” at two levels a generalized descnption of the vanance are added together, the central vanance is in- items in intelligence tests and the correlates of the total creased rapidly in the total score, and the random and scores on those items No scientific theory can ignore nonrandom “noise” is minimized (Humphreys, 1985) dependable correlates Armchair cntics of items focus on the noise, not the cen- Although I discuss general intelligence tests pnmanly, tral dimension The current pressure to substitute new the same approach can be taken with so-called aptitude kinds of items for multiple-choice questions 
TI - Commentary: What Both Critics and Users of Ability Tests Need to Know: 
JF - Psychological Science
DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00670.x
DA - 2017-04-25
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/commentary-what-both-critics-and-users-of-ability-tests-need-to-know-2BJPANYWK0
SP - 271
EP - 275
VL - 3
IS - 5
DP - DeepDyve
ER -