Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

.
. . , - .
.
-
.
2
. . .
.--...-. . _---- .-- --__ L.--i- . .._._” . ..- _ . .._I. __ .I__^ ---._..-___ ._.-.--.--^ . . _. - --.. .- -,
.-
-. __...._e._.--.I_ ,i
The pictorial test had a correlatfon of .90 vith instructore’ marks
based on gun operation wherea the valfdfty of the verbal test was
only .62. The verbal test war in large measure a reading tes‘t; it.
correlated .59 with a Navy reading test, while the picture test
correlated only .26 with reading.”
After these introductory remarks were prepared, the October 1964
i88Ue of the American Psychologist arrived with an outstanding presentation
of concept8 closely paralleling some of those we have been considering.
In fact,eurpriaingly enough he used a quadrant idea to represent variance
in ,comon, soqedat like this hart (F’fgure 2) that had been prepared to -
-depict clearly the magnitude of O’ar challange. There is no better way to
close theae introductory problem defining remarks thsn to quote the opening
sentence in Dr. Melvin R. Harkr’ article entitled “How tab Build Better
Theories, Test8 and Therapiecr.*’ Dr. Hark8 aptly stated:
‘@The theai of this paper ia that psychological researcher8
too frequently define their problem8 in ways which intrinsically
. . preclude solution; that they spend their time in Bflding lilies
of dubious quality rather than in determining why or how’
.- promieing new blooms were blighted; further, that this
.deplorable state is characteristic of theories, therapies,
a n d tests.”
. .-.-.....-... .-._-__,- __.I____...I____ ---- -
.
*
.
,
. ,:
_^._ ._-__ _ .____ _I___ -__. _ . I.._. - ._..... _I. --
.
.
.
,/
$’
1 iI
tI
i
I
3. :
I i
-