On not "giving psychology away": The Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory and public controversy over testing in the 1960s (original) (raw)
Psychological tests, especially the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, became the center of public controversy and Congressional scrutiny during the 1960s. This unwanted attention actually helped American psychologists more than they imagined. Assisted by those on Capitol Hill, psychologists were able to defend their science in a manner that avoided imposed forms of public accountability. Social questions were reformulated as technical problems. The need to adjust intelligence and aptitude tests reinforced psychologists' control over them. Conversely, personality tests were not made more transparent and nonintrusive, unless psychologists thought these changes were scientifically necessary. This episode prompted tighter regulation of test use and demonstrated that traditional forms of testing were far too important to popularize and "give away."
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
1980
An effort to confront the science of psychometrics from a legal point of view must begin with the recognition that lawyers and courts have had considerable difficulty with social science data. The general problem has stimulated a growing body of commentary, particularly in the field of law and education.' The marriage of law and social science envisioned by Brown v. Board of Education 2 has not been a happy one. 3 A number of commentators, for example, have suggested that the courts have erred because they
THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS AND ANALYZING THE CONCEPT OFVALIDITY IN PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING
This paper attempts to historically trace and asses the use of psychological tests and the value of using them. On the other hand the paper does not pretend to analyze every variable that encompasses this vast and complex field of study. The history of testing can be traced back to 2200 B.C. when proficiency testing took place in China, and 4000 years ago when the Chinese used tests for civil selection (Cohen, Swerdlik and Smith, 1992; Friedenberg, 1995). As Shelly and Cohen (1986:3) put it: " Long before there were psychologists there were psychological tests " (p3). And as long as there were tests, there were debates and arguments surrounding it. In the 40s, Hoffman (1962: 7) points out, " it was manifestly useless to raise even a question about the value and effect of these tests " because it was believed that individuals could be properly evaluated if given a range of psychological tests (Cohen et al., 1992). In the 1960s this changed, and proponents of testing began " fighting… the irresistible force of the argument which says that their questions are in practice often bad and in theory very dangerous " (Hoffman, 1962:8). This essay will look at anti-test arguments and the proponents' responses in relation to: psychometric properties, social and cultural factors, privacy issues and the " correct " versus. the " best " answer. The strongest argument for proponents of psychological testing is the psychometric properties of the test. According to Hoffman (1962: 60), testers " do not hesitate to point out that they have statistics to prove [tests] valid and reliable… [And] seem to believe that their scientific routines place them in an impregnable position so far as outside criticism is concerned. " Hoffman (1962: 135) from the side of the anti-test group, states that although statistics can be misleading and cannot defend all types of criticisms, proponents of testing believe " criticisms unbacked by specific statistics may be dismissed as mere opinions… [Because] the testers build their tests on a statistical foundation, and defend their tests statistically. " In 1913, when John B. Watson declared that psychology is about the prediction of behavior, psychologists started creating tests that would predict individuals' behavior and performance. Predictive validity, as Shelly and Cohen (1986:83) state " is perhaps at the heart of the matter. "
Psychometrics as Political Theory
2005
The author of this article challenges a common assumption made by both critics and defenders of standardized-testing technology (or psychometry), namely that standardized tests “measure” something (culture, ability, etc.). It argues that psychometric practice cannot be classified as a form of measurement and instead is best understood as a marker of social value, an inherently political act. The chapter concludes by suggesting the significance of this argument for debates regarding “standards,” “accountability,” and educational assessment more generally.
The author of this article challenges a common assumption made by both critics and defenders of standardized-testing technology (or psychometry), namely that standardized tests "measure" something (culture, ability, etc.). It argues that psychometric practice cannot be classified as a form of measurement and instead is best understood as a marker of social value, an inherently political act. The chapter concludes by suggesting the significance of this argument for debates regarding "standards," "accountability," and educational assessment more generally.
Ninety-three outpatient mental health centers and clinics in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi were surveyed for the frequency of use of various psychological tests. Each component and satellite facility of a center was asked to complete a separate questionnaire. Usable returns were received from 61 of the 93 centers during the 11'-week response period, for an adjusted rate of return of 66%. Data were presented from 111 questionnaires from the 61 centers. The results were discussed in light of recent claims that psychological testing, especially projective techniques, is on the decline. The current findings indicate that testing is an important function of outpatient mental health centers.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.