Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

.
of the two evaluation purposes stated above - that of certifying student'
achievement. ,Xn testing a student to dcteraine ifi,hc: is qualified to
advance to the next level of training, or ultimately out of training and on
r
to the job, we Gould, as mentioned, normally prefer;. to use a product score.
Before a man is certified as a gunner we would likk tohnve him demonstrate
that he can hit targets; or before certification as a navigator he should
actually demonstrate that he can get frcm point A to point B; etc.
Although it may safely be said that every task has a purpose -- the
fact of the natt(:r is that in practice a great many perfomance tests are
used chich em?131 process measures o.:fy in evaluating student achievement
or job readiness. Khy is this the case? Is the substitution of process for.
product measurement justified? If so, when? If not, how nay the test
developer inprovt: his methods? These are the questions that I will be
addressing today.
Product, Proces s and Tvpes of Tasks
Before exploring in yore detail the i&sue of why process measures are
I
so widely substi tu:ed for measures of task produc:, it will first be helpful
to consider three categories of tasks:
I
1. Tasks in cbich the product i' the process.
2.
-f
Tasks in which the product a'kdays follows
from the process.
!
3. Tasks in !:hich the product cnv follow from
t!.c prucczx.
P
Relatively fev tasks are of the fir&t type, thGse in which product-and
process arc one and the same. These arc normally tasks which serve an
aesthetic purpose such as g}mnas:fc exercises or springboard diving. Close
251
_. I
.
‘.
..- . .
b
._ * ::
.-L- ---- . . . ,- ._
;’ .:
: $. p: pt
,
:r
i /-
4