Unit8Assignment
Unit 8 Assignment
Ruth Name
Kaplan University
Testing, Measurement, and Assessment
PS505-01
Professor Name
October 13, 2013
Abstract
In this paper, the historical facts are given, as described by both of the authors Meyer and Kurtz. To illustrate, the results are revealed, as the search for a better distinction of the historical use, and descriptive terminology of the words, "objective" and "projective" begins to take form. First, the journey begins with the two authors, Meyer and Kurtz, since then many other psychologists and psychiatrists have joined in on their own behalf. Then, the paper will go into further detail about problems and, dilemmas, that accompanied the old traditional classification. As a consequence of this state of affairs, the psychological community all agreed upon one matter. In short, it's a fact of necessity, that the old terms, "projective" and "objective " must be parted with." Finally, substitute terms are needed to be designated as suitable the new placements, and, the community is all in agreement to simply refer to assessment tasks by their specific name.
Unit 8 Assignment
Historical use of the Terms Objective and Projective
More than 10 years ago, psychologists have been labeling personality tests by dividing them into two separate types either the objective method or the projective method. Many people have seen them in documents, in the same exact way. Those two words continue to be seen in textbooks, in all types of articles, in graduate programs, and, generally all over the place. Historically, many psychologists have become used to utilizing these terms without fully realizing that they do not begin to define, the psychological personality assessment tests that, they are purported to identify. "The terms "objective" and "projective" are not only scientifically inaccurate, but problematic from a professional standpoint as well" (Bornstein, 2007, p. 202). Because, science is trying to keep up with today's times they are
Ruth Name
Kaplan University
Testing, Measurement, and Assessment
PS505-01
Professor Name
October 13, 2013
Abstract
In this paper, the historical facts are given, as described by both of the authors Meyer and Kurtz. To illustrate, the results are revealed, as the search for a better distinction of the historical use, and descriptive terminology of the words, "objective" and "projective" begins to take form. First, the journey begins with the two authors, Meyer and Kurtz, since then many other psychologists and psychiatrists have joined in on their own behalf. Then, the paper will go into further detail about problems and, dilemmas, that accompanied the old traditional classification. As a consequence of this state of affairs, the psychological community all agreed upon one matter. In short, it's a fact of necessity, that the old terms, "projective" and "objective " must be parted with." Finally, substitute terms are needed to be designated as suitable the new placements, and, the community is all in agreement to simply refer to assessment tasks by their specific name.
Unit 8 Assignment
Historical use of the Terms Objective and Projective
More than 10 years ago, psychologists have been labeling personality tests by dividing them into two separate types either the objective method or the projective method. Many people have seen them in documents, in the same exact way. Those two words continue to be seen in textbooks, in all types of articles, in graduate programs, and, generally all over the place. Historically, many psychologists have become used to utilizing these terms without fully realizing that they do not begin to define, the psychological personality assessment tests that, they are purported to identify. "The terms "objective" and "projective" are not only scientifically inaccurate, but problematic from a professional standpoint as well" (Bornstein, 2007, p. 202). Because, science is trying to keep up with today's times they are
References: Bornstein, R. F. (2007). Toward a process-based framework for classifying personality tests [Peer comments on the journal article “Advancing personality assessment terminology: time to retire ”objective“ and ”projective“ as personality test descriptors” by G. J. Meyer, & J. E. Kurtz. Journal of personality assessment, 2 (89), 202-207. Brathen, G., Ben-Menachem, E., Brodtkorb, E., Galvin, R., Garcia-Monco, J., Halasz, P., ... Blackwell, W. (2010, September 6). Alcohol-related seizures. European Handbook of Neurological Management, 1, 429-436. Buros, O. K. (2014). Buros Center for testing: Test reviews. Retrieved from http://buroshttp://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/western-personality-inventory-the.html Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: an introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality assessment terminology: Time to retire “objective” and “projective” as personality test descriptors [Guidelines editorial]. Journal of personality assessment, 3 (87), 223-225. Psychometric success. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.psychometric-success.com/psychometric-tests/psychometric-tests-introduction.htm Schultheiss, O. C. (2007). A memory-systems approach to the classification of personality tests [Peer comments on the journal article “Advancing personality assessment terminology: Time to retire ”objective“ and ”projective“ as personality test descriptors” by G. J. Meyer, & J. E. Kurtz]. Journal of personality assessment, 2, 197- 201. Wagner, E. E. (2008). Beyond “objective” and “projective”: A logical system for classifying psychological tests [Peer comments on the journal article “Advancing personality assessment terminology: Time to retire ”objective“ and ”projective“ as personality tests descriptors” by G. J. Meyer, & J. E. Kurtz]. Journal of personality assessment, 4, 402-405.