The EFPA Test-Review Model: When Good Intentions Meet a Methodological Thought Disorder
AbstractThe European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) has issued sets of test standards and guidelines for psychometric test reviews without any attempt to address the critical content of many substantive publications by measurement experts such as Joel Michell. For example, he has argued that the psychometric test-theory which underpins classical and modern IRT psychometrics is “pathological”, with the entire profession of psychometricians suffering from a methodological thought disorder. With the advent of new kinds of assessment now being created by the “Next Generation” of psychologists which no longer conform to the item-based, statistical test theory generated last century, a new framework is set out for constructing evidence-bases suitable for these “Next Generation” of assessments, which avoids the illusory beliefs of equal-interval or quantitatively structured psychological attributes. Finally, with no systematic or substantive refutations of the logic, axioms, and evidence set out by Michell and others; it is concluded psychologists and their professional associations remain in denial. As with the eventual demise of a similar attempt to maintain the status quo of professional beliefs within forensic clinical psychology and psychiatry during the last century, those following certain EFPA guidelines might now find themselves required to justify their professional beliefs in legal rather than academic environments. View Full-Text
- Supplementary File 2:
author response (PDF, 138 KB)
- Review Report 1:
review reports (PDF, 135 KB)
Share & Cite This Article
Barrett, P. The EFPA Test-Review Model: When Good Intentions Meet a Methodological Thought Disorder. Behav. Sci. 2018, 8, 5.
Barrett P. The EFPA Test-Review Model: When Good Intentions Meet a Methodological Thought Disorder. Behavioral Sciences. 2018; 8(1):5.Chicago/Turabian Style
Barrett, Paul. 2018. "The EFPA Test-Review Model: When Good Intentions Meet a Methodological Thought Disorder." Behav. Sci. 8, no. 1: 5.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.