PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS Psychometric tests are used, as the name suggests, to measure some psychological aspect of the person.

Most commonly in selection, this includes personality, ability and motivation. Occupational tests are used to measure maximum intellectual performance in terms of attainment, ability and aptitude, or typical behavior in terms of motivation and temperament. Typical tests identify the direction of interests and can be used to suggest types of jobs associated with these areas. Attainment tests Attainment tests are used to assess the level of achievement in a particular area, such as in high school examinations. Aptitude tests Aptitude tests assess potential in some target area, seeking to discover possible future capability. This is as opposed to ability tests, which seek current capability. They can be used to measure specific aptitudes or collective traits (eg. technical, verbal, numerical). Intelligence tests General intelligence tests include cognitive studies that focus on information processing and organization of knowledge. These tests are often made up of cells of sub-tests that each test a narrow range, such as arithmetic reasoning, verbal intelligence, etc. Intelligence tests may measure two factors:

Fluid ability: applying reasoning skills to novel situations (decreases with age). Crystallized ability: using culturally specific component (increases with age).

Intelligence is not normally distributed. At the bottom end, scores are tightly grouped, suggesting strong general factor. At the high end, scores show more independence between sub-tests, indicating specific intelligences. The overall approach to developing psychometric tests is to generate a large number of sample items, give them to a set of people and then keep only those that differentiate. Maximum-performance questions are selected based on target-related factors. Questions here are based on right-wrong difference. Typical-performance questions are selected based on personality, mood, attitude, temperament. Questions here are based on identifying differences in selected factors. There are five methods of construction, as below. Criterion-keyed Criterion-keyed tests focuses on an external domain or criterion. Thus for interest inventory, criteria are interested related to specific occupational group. They could be used in change to identify those who lack flexibility.

Example: MMPI This method is criticized as having an a theoretical basis where selection of items based on empirical data on ability to differentiate. It addresses similarities and differences, not why these are so. The domain of test may be limited: for example, mania in MMPI has only one criterion scale. The more specific a measure, the more limited it is by its generalizability. There can also be problems when moved from one context to another, especially across cultures. Factor analytic This identifies items that load onto one factor and not onto another. It has the advantage that scores always have the same meaning. Development of the test seeks strong correlation between the item and factor. Example: Cattells 16PF. He listed all personality traits he could find and gave tests to heterogeneous groups of adults. Then he used factor analysis to develop theory of structure and relationships (not for data reduction). This has since been correlated with 50 different occupations. A key in doing this is the size of the sample group. The larger the group, the lower the standard error. Item Response Theory has been devised to help test-developers assess the nature of differences. Item analytic This is a very simple method which correlates each item with the overall test. It is useful for eliminating unsatisfactory items prior to using factor analysis. This is useful in developing longer tests by eliminating weaker items. There is a need to be careful here:

Domain definition: e.g. avoid investigating trust by asking person if trustworthy. Bloated specifics: repeated coverage of same item leads to apparent high reliability. Transportability: these tests often based on social and other domain-specific values.

Thurston scales These are widely used, particularly in assessing attitude. They identify statements concerning attitude, then assess relevance of these with a panel of experts. Items are chosen on the standard deviation of rating given by experts (ie. Those they mostly agree on). A high level of values tend to be in results, hence transportability is issue. Guttman scales These are less widely used. Items in this method are sorted in terms of difficulty or intensity. Problems include getting graduation, every item must correlate with total score, which needs many items and large samples. Bright people will tend to do well on many different types of test as such tests have a high correlation with intelligence. This reduces the value of the test in differentiating individuals.

Factors affecting test experience Factors affecting test experience include:

Test: pre-test information, type of test, language, instructions, structure, medium, timescales Person: experience, confidence, emotion, motivation, memory, culture Environment: Light, heat, humidity, noise, distractions, test administrator Computers: affect both developers and test-takers. Time: affects stress, ability to complete, alertness (time of day). The test itself may also age, esp. when semantically laden. Test-taker: o Alpha ability: improves as results of the test, which teaches them things. o Beta ability: improves management ability (eg. managing time, rtfq). Attention: to test taker (Hawthorne effect).

Criticisms and hazards Criticisms, hazards and potential problems with psychometric test include:

Inadequate definition of concept to be measured. Bias (undesirable) in differentiation (desirable) between test takers. Eg. gender bias. Poor application of tools, eg. inadequate job analysis, wrong usage of tools. Words defined differently by developers (eg. extravert, innovator), causing confusion. Misinterpretation of results by users. Not reading the test manual properly (which tells how/where it is to be used).

Research in the Psychology Department at the University of Hull under the direction of Dr. Peter Clough Ch. Psych. has identified the four key components of Mental Toughness which in turn enables us to answer each of these key questions with a positive. Peter Coughs works main Focus is the first articulation of the concept of Mental Toughness. The first occupational psychometric measure which measures an individuals Mental Toughness it is valid & reliable. Ultimately research and practice has shown that Mental Toughness is closely and positively related to: Performance individual and group Reduction in stress levels Wellbeing Positive behaviour

The result is a complete package which has clear and valuable applications in the social, health, educational and occupational worlds. MTQ48 The four subscales are called the 4C's - CONTROL; CHALLENGE; COMMITMENT and CONFIDENCE. 1. CONTROL Individuals who score high on this scale feel that they are in control of their work and of the environment in which they work. They are capable of exerting more influence on their working environment and are more confident about working in complex or multi-tasked situations. This means for example that, at one end of the scale individuals are able handle lots of things at the same time. At the other end they may only be comfortable handling one thing at a time. Ongoing development of MTQ48 has enabled the identification of 2 subscales to this scale: a. CONTROL (EMOTION) - Individuals scoring highly on this scale are better able to control their emotions. They are able to keep anxieties in check and are less likely to reveal their emotional state to other people. b. CONTROL (LIFE) - Individuals scoring higher on this scale are more likely to believe that they control their lives. They feel that their plans will not be thwarted and that they can make a difference.

2. CHALLENGE (Can be also called CHANGE ORIENTATION) Describes the extent to which individuals see problems as opportunities. Those who see them as opportunities will actively seek them out and will identify problems as ways for self-development. At the other end problems are perceived as threats. So, for example, at one end of the scale we find those who thrive in continually changing environments. At the other end we find those who prefer to minimize their exposure to change and the problems that come with that - and will strongly prefer to work in stable environments.

3. COMMITMENT Sometimes described as "stickability / staying power", this describes the ability for an individual to carry out tasks successfully despite any problems or obstacles that arise whilst achieving the goal.Consequently an individual who scores at the high end of the scale will be able to handle and achieve things to tough unyielding deadlines. Whereas an individual at the other end will need to be free from those kind of demands to achieve their goals.

4. CONFIDENCE Individuals who are high in confidence have the self-belief to successfully complete tasks, which may be considered too difficult by individuals with similar abilities but with lower confidence. Less confident individuals are also likely to be less persistent and to make more errors. For example, individuals at one end of the scale will be able to take setbacks (externally and self generated) in their stride. They keep their heads when things go wrong and it may even strengthen their resolve to do something. At the other end individuals will be unsettled by setbacks and will feel undermined by these. a. CONFIDENCE (ABILITIES) - Individuals scoring highly on this scale are more likely to believe that they are a truly worthwhile person. They are less dependent on external validation and tend to be more optimistic about life in general. CONFIDENCE (INTERPERSONAL) - Individuals scoring highly on this scale tend to be more assertive. They are less likely to be intimidated in social settings and are more likely to push themselves forward in groups. They are also better able to cope with difficult or awkward people.

b.

Overview The Mental Toughness model and its associated measures and programmes have clear applications for any person(s) who work in an environment which is subject to stressors, pressures and challenges. That means most working environments. There are two areas where the model adds considerable value. Firstly as an assessment tool in RECRUITMENT and SELECTION enabling better fit in a critical area for good job performance. It is also invaluable in MANAGEMENT/EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT and COACHING either to help people identify and cope with stressors or to show people how they can be more effective in key areas. The challenge lies in identifying what might the causes of stress and pressure be for each individual and to help the individual to become aware of these. Awareness leads to understanding, which, in turn, can lead to positive action and improved performance. Similarly, where the organization and one's peers/managers become aware of the potential causes of stress and pressure they are more able to plan and to act to minimize their impact.