Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

psychologists who were unfam.iliar with specific doctrine and subject
areas to come up with instant test items, schemes or scenarios.
1Ve managed this by continuin g to iterate performance testing as the
goal under a stance we termed ”urgent evolution, not instant revolt -
tion”; by frequent, open, and sometimes protracted test item develop-
ment sessions between instructors and test specialists. These took
on a Socratic aura in that the testers continually asked questions of a
“could you do this” type until the instructor himself eventually con-
structed the test. N-e, in the words of Doll and his associates (ii):
“held firmly to the notions that people support what
they help create, that people affected by change must be
allowed acti\*e participation and sense of ownership in the
planning and the conduct of the change. ”
(SLIDE OFF)
WC believe that the approach was successful because both the test
t
psychologist and tho instructor gave freely of themselves in order
that the instructor might succeed. If this sounds humanistic, it is
so intended, for it fits rather well with Buehler and Allen’s (1 1) dis-
cussion of Bugental!s humanistic ethic:
I
!
I
318