Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

. .
.
. .
.
need another sort of test item when you are trying to measure memory for
obscure facts. There ar,e times wher each of these purposes is pertinent,
but do not USC them blindly. Use them knowingly. It. brings to mind one
definition of a gentlemen --, one who never unwittingly offends another.
We need to know how the test vi11 be used; we need to know what kinds of
persona will take the test: ve need .to know where and how the test takers
learn the material covered by the test; ve need to know these as part
of the mission of the test we are trying to build, and until we know that
ve run a serious risk of being our own best enemy.
Another current form of opposition, and perhaps not as real as those
just pointed out is represented by those who seem to enjoy swinging at
straw men. They single out some of our weaker, less adequate test items=those
that may be viewed with alarm, with scorn, derision, double-meanlng-and
hold up to ridicule ail testing because they found a flaw in our work.
Some openly question the use of tests at all. I have n.>lt found out what
they propose to substitute for testing, but I suppose there must be something
from the “good old days” which they find adequate. Now when you
look at the kinds of things published by our critics - a castfgation of
tests built on some misuse of test items from such tests as the Bemreuter
or the Bell Inventory, an attack on testing in Fortune Magazine some ten
years ago, and, more recently, a very interesting book b:y Dr. Benesch
Hoffmann who seems to believe that multiple-choice questions are the
bane of our social order -- should we ignore their strident and exaggerated
criticisms? Within each such criticism is some useful information. This
is why I cannot label them as our most dangerous opposition. I personally
value Dr. Hoffmann as my most competent test item critic, He accuses me
of the worst kind of ekulduggery and of a great desire to take unfair
advantage in wrfting test questions. So when WC read these articles and
hear these sp,eches that take us to task for what we may consider a minor
sin, or some error that we have outgrown --- take a second look. We may
learn something, perhaps ,comething useful.
One cannot fight such critics effectively because o.f the many facts
and assumptions which must be righted. But, from them we can see places
where we might improve: how we might build more acceptable programs, how
we might better market our products, and SO on.
The third phase of this talk tonight is our look ahead to see if there
is anything in the future other thsn the manufacture of more tests just
like the latest models we have been nr.king. Recently I visited an automotive
museum. One thing struck me forcibly; there were cars prior to 1912 that
looked like overgrown buggies , pcvered with washing machine motors. But
all of those ca:s built since 1312 were not so old-fashioned. About all
we have done with automobiles since 1912 is improve them,, We have put on
bigger motors and better tires; FJt we have made little real change in them-a
here in a period of 52 years no ,.&al basic change; improvements, yes;
change, yes; but no real breakthr *ugh-
25.