Testing Practices in European Countries

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 201-211

  Muñiz, José ^a   Bartram, Dave ^b   Evers, Arne ^b   Boben, Dusica ^b   Matesic, Kruno ^b   Glabeke, Kathia ^b   Ferńandez Hermida, José R ^b   Zaal, Jac N ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OVIEDO   (Spain)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Psychological assessment; Test use; Testing practices

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035633063     PISSN: 10155759     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.201     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Anastasi, A. (1987). What test users should know about the interpretation of test scores. Keynote address at Joint Committee on Testing Practices Second Test Publishers Conference, Rockville, Maryland. (Quoted from Fremer, 1996).
3. American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
4. Bartram, D. (1996). Test qualifications and test use in the UK: The competence approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12, 62-71.
5. Bartram, D. (1998). The need for international guidelines on standards for test use: A review of European and international initiatives. European Psychologist, 2, 155-163.
6. Bartram, D., & Coyne, I. (1998a). The ITC/EFPPA survey of testing and test use in countries world-wide. Technical report for the ITC Council.
7. Bartram, D., & Coyne, I. (1998b). Variations in national patterns of testing and test use: The ITC/EFPPA international survey. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14, 249-260.
8. Bejar, I.I. (1993). A generative approach to psychological and educational measurement. In N. Frederiksen, R.J. Mislevy, & I.I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 323-357). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Bennett, R.E. (1999). Using new technology to improve assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, 5-12.
10. Bennett, R.E., & Bejar, I.I. (1998). Validity and automated scoring: It's not only the scoring. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 9-17.
11. Braun, H.I., Bennett, R.E., Frye, D., & Soloway, E. (1990). Scoring constructed responses using expert systems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 93-108.
12. Clauser, B.E. (2000). Recurrent issues and recent advances in scoring performance assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 310-324.
13. Clauser, B.E., Subhiyah, R.G., Nungenster, R.J., Ripkey, D.R., Clyman, D., & McKinley, D. (1995). Scoring a performance-based assessment by modeling the judgment process of experts. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 397-415.
14. Colom, R. (2000). Algunos mitos de la psicología: entre la ciencia y la ideología [Some myths in psychology: Science and ideology]. Psicothema, 12, 1-14.
15. Cronbach, L.J. (1975). Five decades of public controversy over mental testing. American Psychologist, 30, 1-14.
16. Deinzer, R., Steyer, R., Eid, M., Notz, P., Schwenkmezger, P., Ostendorf, F., & Neubauer, A. (1995). Situational effects in the psychological assessment of traits: The FPI, NEOFFI, and EPI questionnaires. European Journal of Personality, 9, 1-23.
17. Embretson, S.E. (1998). A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3, 380-396.
18. European Federation of Professional Psychologists' Associations (1996). Meta-code of ethics. European Psychologist, 1, 151-154.
19. Evers, A. (1996). Regulations concerning test qualifications and test use in The Netherlands. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12, 153-159.
20. Evers, A., Van Vliet-Mulder, J.C., & Groot, C.J. (2000). Documentatie van tests en testresearch in Nederland [Documentation of tests and test research in the Netherlands]. Amsterdam, NIP/Assen: Van Gorcum.
21. Eyde, L.D., Moreland, K.L., Robertson, G.J., Primoff, E.S., & Most, R.B. (1988). Test user qualifications: A data-based approach to promoting good test use. Issues in scientific psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
22. Eyde, L.D., Robertson, G.J., Krug, S.E., Moreland, K.L., Robertson, A.G., Shewan, C.M., Harrison, P.L., Porch, B.E., Hammer, A.L., & Primoff, E.S. (1993). Responsible test use. Case studies for assessing human behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23. Fernández-Ballesteros, R. (1997). Guidelines for the assessment process. European Psychologist, 2, 352-355.
24. Fremer, J. (1996). Promoting high standards for test use: Developments in the United States. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12, 160-168.
25. Hambleton, R.K. (1993). Translating achievement tests for use in cross-national studies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9, 54-65.
26. Hambleton, R.K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229-240.
27. Hambleton, R.K., & Bollwark, J. (1991). Adapting tests for use in different cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 18, 3-32.
28. Irvine, S., & Kyllonen, P. (Eds.). (2001). Item generation for test development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Martínez, J., García, E., & Muñz, J. (2000a). Efecto del entrenamiento sobre las propiedades psicométricas de los tests [Coaching effects on the psychometric properties of tests]. Psicothema, 12(Suppl. 2), 358-362.
30. Martínez, J., Muñiz, J., & García, E. (2000b). Mejora de las puntuaciones de los tests mediante el entrenamiento [Coaching effects on test scores]. Psicothema, 12(Suppl. 2), 63-367.
31. Moreland, K.L., Eyde, L.D., Robertson, G.J., Primoff, E.S., & Most, R.B. (1995). Assessment of test user qualifications. American Psychologist, 5, 14-23.
32. Muñiz, J. (1997). Aspectos éticos y deontológicos de la evaluación psicológica [Ethical and deontological issues in psychological assessment]. In A. Cordero (Ed.), Evaluación psicológica en el año 2000 [Psychological evaluation in the year 2000] (pp. 307-345). Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
33. Muñiz, J., & Ferńandez-Hermida, J.R. (2000). La utilización de los tests en España [The use of tests in Spain]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 76, 41-49.
34. Muñiz, J., Prieto, G., Almeida, L., & Bartram, D. (1999). Test use in Spain, Portugal and Latin American countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 151-157.
35. Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & Prieto, G. (1999). Tests informatizados: fundamentos y aplicaciones [Computer based tests: Basis and applications]. Madrid: Pirámide.
36. Page, E.B., & Petersen, N.S. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading: Updating the ancient test. Phi Delta Kappa, 76, 561-565.
37. Poortinga, Y., Coetsier, P, Meuris, G., Miller, K.M., Samsonowitz, V., & Seisdedos, N. (1982). A survey of attitude toward tests among psychologists in six European countries. International Review of Applied Psychology, 31, 7-34.
38. Prieto, G., & Muñiz, J. (2000). Un modelo para evaluar la calidad de los tests utilizados en España [Test review model to assess the quality of tests used in Spain]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 77, 65-71.
39. Prieto, J.M., & Simon, C. (1997). Network and its implications for assessment. In N. Anderson, & P. Herriot (Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp.9 7-124). Chichester: Wiley.
40. Sands, W.A., Waters, B.K., & McBride, J.R. (Eds.) (1997). Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation. Washington: APA.
41. Simner, M.L. (1996). Recommendations by the Canadian Psychological Association for improving the North American safeguards that help protect the public against test misuse. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12, 72-82.
42. Sternberg, R.J., & Kaufman, J.C. (1996). Innovation and intelligence testing: The curious case of the dog that didn't bark. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12, 175-182.
43. Stevens, R., Lopo, A., & Wang, P. (1996). Artificial neural networks can distinguish novice and expert strategies during complex problem solving. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 3, 131-138.
44. Steyer, R., Ferring, D., & Schmitt, M.J. (1992). States and traits in psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 79-98.
45. Steyer, R., & Partchev, I. (2001). Latent state-trait modeling with logistic item response models. In R. Cudeck, S. Du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 481-520). Chicago: Scientific Software International.
46. Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 389-408.
47. Tyler, B. (1986). Responsibility in practice: Some implications of the BPS survey on test use. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 39, 410-413.
48. Wainer, H. (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.