Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

.
. . . _. . - ._
.
. .
Perhaps tha potentially mo6t damaging a66w$ion, rind the one which
would be the mont difffcvlt for R0ffraan.n to 6u6tain, has to do with the
effect of teatrr in the identification of individual mertt, He 6tate6,
“They have a pernicious effect on education, and the recognition of merit.”
Thi6 io cf cour6e -wholly without fcwundation. There have been too many
6ucce66 6torie6 for u8 to even bother to refute hio claim.
Now let u6 briefly turn to 6ome of our other critics. A major as-
6umption found throughout the =fCfnpe of Packed, Barrum, Grose, tatlFte,
Xarringtm, ard other6 i6 that “mind” cannot be meaeured. Tbcy seem to
Consider ‘hind” a human “mystery 6y6tem” outeide the realm of rcientific
otudy. This may be true, but if “Axi” is defined aa behavior, it indeed
can be measured. In fact, the measurement of man’s fndividual differences
perhapr ha6 been the greate6t sccwplishment of psychology thus far. We
can anaeas the individuality of persons rind make pretty good predicitions
about their future behevior.
Our critics make tin assumption exactly opposite to the aerrtqtion
I just mentioned. They se+- that test leads to conformity by picking
perecmo who are all of the same type. This, of course, as6ume6 that
“mind” can be measured only to well -- in fact, considerably better than
we are able to measure it. Anyvay, there is considerable evidence to
substantiate intra-individual trait variability. Thfa principle of
p6ychologlcal testing 16 fgnored by these critics, The feet that people
do differ vithfn themselves has long been recognized srnd submitted to
careful etudy by peychologfste.
It i6 complained that testing is an inva< ?on of prlvocy, and this
criticicm m.6~ have 6ai~e merit. It i6 incumbent upon ‘:6 to demonstrate
the validity of any item6 which might otherxiae be regarded a6 such an
invarion. In the military eetting we arc seldom bothered by rhfs problem,
especially in proficiency evaluation.
The critic6 very rarely euggert alternative8 to p6yChOlOgiCal testing.
Gardner, in hi6 book, Excellence, 6aye,“Anyone attacking the ueefulnerrr
of te6t6 6w6t suggeet workable elternatlves. It ha6 been proven over and
over again that the alternative method6 of evaluating ability arc subject
to groso error6 and capable of producing grave injucticcr.” WC have only
to look et our = rating ryrtem6 to realize how truly Gardaer rpoke.
Or we could return to the day6 when perronnel decisions vere made on the
baeir of hair color, family background, shape of the head, or sate other
equally intuitive basis. The alternatives to testing when they are euggeeted,
are cIearly rldfculous.
So far thir morning,1 have attempted to point out the merits of our
crltlc’6 charge6 agafnat testing, and we can conclude that the proterts
tith oubatance are those about which we already knew. Hov we ahould take
a look at the impact of our crftica. I do not believe that the Mllttary