Cultural, Environmental, and Ethical Considerations

When it comes to test creation and development, it is important for test developers to consider and account for cultural, environmental, and ethical considerations. Test developers need to consider the culture of the people that will be taking the test in order to ensure test takers will be willing and able to take the test. For example, if the test developers plan for the test takers to come from a Christian population, then they would need to ensure the test was not administered on Sundays as many of their target population would likely be attending church. Test developers also need to be aware of any environmental concerns that could affect the test. For example, if the test requires a proctor or if it needs to be administered in a certain type of environment, that type of test would require more consideration than a self-reported test that could be taken online from any computer. Ethical considerations can vary based on the type of test being developed. For example, a test that requires physical activities would need to have a method in place to ensure that the test takers were both safe to take the test and that the test takers could physically handle the test without them being harmed in any manner. However, regardless of the test form, one ethical consideration that holds true for all administered tests is the need to ensure the administrator of the test is qualified and well briefed on the test.

Normed for a Population

Norming is the process of deriving the test performance statistics of a group of test takers; a test is typically normed for a population in order to provide a reference for evaluating individual test scores (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). The process of norming a test for a population begins when the test developer creates a standard set of directions and conditions for the test to ensure it will be administer the same every time. For example, a test of how toddlers interact with different toys might require the test to take place in a playroom that has specific toys available and the test administrator might begin the test by telling the child that they could play with any of the toys for thirty minutes. These instructions and the conditions of the playroom would become a standardized part of the test which would allow for the scores collected from the normative sample to be comparable to future test scores (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018). Once the instructions were created, the test would then be administered to a representative sample of test takers of the population with the intent of providing normative data that can be used for scoring the test (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018).

Self-Reported and Administered Tests

Self-reported and administered tests are two popular forms of tests. Administered tests are any form of tests that makes use of a test proctor or test monitor; an example of this form of assessment would be the SAT and ACT tests. Self-reported tests are an assessment form that does not make use of a proctor or monitor; an example of this test form would be surveyed. The selection of which of these two assessment forms to make use of should be selected with regards to the goal of the test, the time frame, and budget.

Administered tests are best suited for situations that require a high degree of validity and reliability as the involvement of a proctor is a strength in ensuring the lack of cheating, communication between test takers, and that a suitable test environment is kept for the duration of the test. The major weaknesses of administered tests are that the test takers all have to be able to travel to a location that can be proctored and that proctoring the test often requires a financial fee from either the test takers or those seeking to have the test administered.

Self-reported tests have the strength of being able to be taken at almost any location, the lack of a fee, and the ability for test takers to select the time and date of their test. Brallier and Palm (2015) conducted a research study to examine the difference in testing scores between college students taking a proctored exam in comparison to online students taking a non-proctored exam; their study found that the students who took the non-proctored online tests scored significantly higher than those who took the proctored test. This research study shows that many test takers score better in a proctor free environment; however, the lack of a proctor makes it impossible to confirm if the difference in scores was genuine or due to cheating. The largest weakness of self-reported academic tests is cheating. In regards to self-reported surveys, the lack of oversight often leads to survey takers rushing through the survey without giving each question the time needed to ensure an accurate answer.

References

Bolarinwa, O. A. (2015). Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of

questionnaires used in social and health science researches. The Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, 22(4), 195–201. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.4103/1117-1936.173959

Brallier, S., & Palm, L. (2015). Proctored and Unproctored Test Performance. International

Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(2), 221–226. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1082856&site=eds-live&scope=site

Cohen, R., & Swerdlik, M. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment, 9th Ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Custom.