Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

--
.,
-__. . . .
,Establlshment has become disillusioned with testing any more than I
believe the general public. has. This conference is evidence that the
Armed Forces are among the strongest supporters of testing. T!l2 protestors
have not caused any detectable eifect in terms of reduced sale8
of testfi or testing ecrvicee, The number of letters from educator6 or
the general public (to reputable test publishers and the APA) critfciztcg
teats has not increased. Generally, the poFuler pre6e hae not j-pad
on the band wagon to foment a public outcry against u3. Apparently, the
net effect has been little more than a few booka sold and a little high
blood preesure BJXXXI~ psychologists. The latter at least may not be such
a bad thing. Some of us need to be aroused.
If this is the case, then why should we even bother to consider
these self-styled protectors of a tyrannized society? The writings of
these critics should make us stop, look, and listen. If we are to avoid
future trouble and Improve the state of our nrt and aclence. we must
improve the quality of our tests and services. He uwst adhere more
etrictly to the ethical standards of our profession. We must give
greater attention to the technfcal cha:acterfstice of our teats and
criteria. We must continue our ef:orts to expose snd elimfnate the
quacks and incompetenta who dwell about the fringe of psychological testing.
And we muat improve our communications about testing 4th every
segment of our public which we can reach. These cmdnicutions met be
technically sound but they also must be written in underatandabl.. English.
We might even form a committee withfn this association to draw up a pmphlet
of general testing principles. and practices &ich could be diesemfnated
within the Military Establishment.
In conclusion, the basic assumptions of our critics are crroneoue
and ftIliscfou8; they are generally baaed on lack of information, aa
apparently is the case of Hoffmann, or, more seriously, on a refusal to
accept the strong eolpirical evidence showing that fudfvfdurlity can be
accurately assessed in such a way as to give better recognition toreal
merit than has ever before been the case in our educstional, fnduetrinl,
or rillitory lnetitution5.
Actually, we know that standardized objective testing is ona of
the great success stories of our day. This has been no better pointed
out than by Gardner, in his book, Excellence (1961). Psychological testing
for the firat tine enables us to look at the many facets of an individual
rether than making judgmenta based on the oo-called “lump of dough”
doctrine. Now we can truly measure and assess the individuality of each
of our military personnel and through careful guidance help each individual
realize hts potentialities ae indicated by our peychological
.
.
178
--_