Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

._“...-
.
,
._ I . . ..,_ . _, _ . . .-
.
__ .I ^., bL
PAPEA
Answers to Common Criticisms of Tests
FRANK H. PR-ICE, JR.
US Army Enlisted Evaluation Center
It is appropriate at s conference of this type that we constder sane
of the common criticisms of tests. This consideration is especially fitting
since the mass testing movement was spawned as a result of the rush
to military prcperdncss for World War I.
The criticisms of testing come from many sources both within and
without professional psychology. Generally, the psychologist critics are
constructive while the lay critics are destructive. This morning we are
concerned with these lay critics who have protested in the popular press
and books such as Hoffmann’s The Tryanny of Testing, Harrington’s Life in
the Crystnl Palace, Gross’s The Brain Watches, and Whyte’s Crgnnfzation
&, indicating public distrust, uneasiness, and ignorance about which
we mus’t be concerned,
Most of our critics have leveled their blncts at so c6lled educational
and industrial tests. Very seldom have our military testing programs been
the direct victims cr’ such scath:ng attacks; but, just because we have not
been the subjects a; eloquently set forth pronouncements does not mean
that we are not discussed and “cussed” in the dayrooms and barracks of
those we test and even in the offices and headquarters of those for whom
we test.
My remarks this morning will not be limited to testing in the military
setting. Almost all of the recent protests against psychological
testing are as applicable, if not more so, to the testing of military
personnel as to the testing of school children, college students, or
Industrial applicants and employees. And I hope that you will be able
to apply this discussion of some of the criticisms in terms of the
particular problems and Interests of your military programs.
In this vein, I will devote particular attention to The Tyranny
Testing (1962) primarily because Hoffmann appears to be more sophisticated
atld-devious, but slightly less venemous than other of our critfcs. To
give credit where credit is due, a symposium on this subject presented
by Owens, Astin, Dunnette, and Albright at the 1963 meetings 4 t’,e Midwestern
Psychological Association has provided much of the source material
for this paper.
First, let us examine some of the major assumptions found in
Hoffmann’s detailed indictment of the multiple-choice test. He (p. 150)
states, and here he is talking about multiple-choice tests -- the same
type we construct and admfnfster -- “The tests deny the creative person
a significant opportunity to.demonstrate his creativity and favor the
shrewd and facile candidate over the one who has sometning to say.” The
173
, I
_ . _ . _