Psychological Testing - Science topic

Millisecond has a demo script (with their software Inquisit) on their website.

Mostly the psychological scale includes certain paragraphs that determine the individual's position on them to reveal the characteristics that characterize him

Resultal.com is an affordable and reliable research platform. Resultal offers online questionnaires, tests and experiments for PC, tablet and smartphone for research on every location. For only 5,50. Check: https://www.resultal.com

The sun was just an example. I would make the statement and then using likert scales have 1 as never, going up the scale to 5 always. Sorry, I should have put that.

done. thank you for such good survey i have start analyzing the mental health of mine due to this corona virus.

Dear Dr. Asyikin Jane ,

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734282910394976?journalCode=jpaa

Psytoolkit? https://www.psytoolkit.org/experiment-library/ldt.html

Kailash Jandu I am glad you have used something other than principal component analysis (PCA). Despite what many people think, PCA is not really (exploratory) factor analysis and it is probably often used because it's the default option in SPSS. I suggest you rely on principal axis factoring as your extraction method, though maximum likelihood is also a possibility if your data satisfy its requirements.

Also, I suggest you try an oblique rotation rather than varimax. Although varimax seems to be most commonly used, the methodologists I trust recommend oblique rather than orthogonal (e.g., varimax) rotations because most factors are correlated.

For what it's worth, a colleague and I recently used an oblique rotation on our data because of the advice from methodologists, but we tried a varimax rotation as a double check. Contrary to what might be expected, the outcome was much clearer with the oblique rotation. Don't ask me why!

Hayes (2013) offers a good discussion of mean centering, pp. 282-290. As he states mean centering is not necessary, and it actually does nothing to reduce multicollinearity between predictor X and moderator (or mediator) M. However, mean centering is still generally recommended because it assures your regression coefficients (b1, b2 etc) are meaningful (depending on the scaling of X and M). So it's a good idea to mean center, though not required.

I would agree with Stephen Joy's 2nd suggestion but slight complementary points. Understanding the rationale why we need to have both( direct and indirect) measures may move us forwards in selecting the options. If I am correct, the direct ones are straight forward/ explicit measures. We expect relatively higher validity and reliability (than indirect) in measuring the constructs. Assuming this, we need to examine if the indirect items are correlated with the direct ones. Once, we found acceptable correlation, to me, we need to proceed performing analysis with the indirect ones for three reasons:

1) The indirect measures are more specific to capture the dimensions

2) They are of our more interest for intervention

3) The strengthen of TPB is also measuring the dimensions(attitude, subjective norm and PBC) at more specific level

We will provide the test and the necessary instructions to researchers (graduate students and faculty only) without charge. Please note that the test is copyrighted and that individuals and institutions who provide the test (cf. reference by Solange Cailet) violate copyright agreements.

My e-mail is mpeters@uoguelph.ca

I have been using PCQ software, which is adequate for identifying significant sorters and correlations of beliefs, viewpoints, etc. The downside to this software is I cannot find a way to extract Z scores. If anyone knows how to extract Z scores from PCQ softwre, I am all ears.

In addition to the personality and intelligence tests, especially taking into account the good experience in work teams and the management of human talent.

My Institute purchased the WAIS-IV on its release against my advice. I have not been a regular user of the WAIS since version 3 when I began favoring tests developed by Kaufman and Reynolds who were basing their test development on more recent theoretical advances (think CHC, XBA). in my private medicolegal work I have almost invariably required reputable alternatives to the WAIS because of its ubiquitous use by practically all psychologists who appeared not to realise parallel alternatives were available. Tests should be selected on the basis of need; what do you want to know and will a (or which) particular test tell you? I don't often find I need the full WAIS because the subtests don't assess the particular cognitive abilities I'm seeking to evaluate. The XBA approach allows me to do this far more competently and efficiently. My institute-related assessment work focuses respectively on specific learning disabilities; intellectual disability; clinical psychopatholoy; and cognitive impairment following TBI, which I manage almost exclusively without ever requiring a full scale WAIS of any edition. I would recommend research into the other batteries currently available developed according to the latest test development research.

There's an online survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WMX85ZR

When I was at the VA we conducted a battery of tests to assess for MCI, normal aging, and dementia. These included the WRAT-4 to estimate intellectual baseline abilities. Mental Status Screenings were conducted with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), clock draw, and Trails A (motor-speed, visual search, and simple sequencing abilities) and B (similar task with divided attention). Cognitive Domains were assessed with RBANS (immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional), Semantic Fluency, Digit Span (attention), Coding, and List Recall, Story Recall, and List Recognition (delayed memory). These tests were given in conjunction with relevant historical, medical, psychological, and familial information. Hope this helps!

Hello Dylan,

I suspect that, regardless of the time frame(s) chosen, were you to factor items associated with such different characteristics: (a) gambling behavior; (b) cognitive-emotional symptoms severity; and (c) beliefs/attitudes, you'd find that they do not coalesce well into a single factor. One might envision, for example, a client who makes progress on behaviors, but not so much on emotional symptoms. Testing for a common second-order factor is something you could try.

All of which is a lengthy way of saying that the time frame is likely not as important as the context/focus of the questions or stimuli. Time frame is probably more important from the perspective of how accurately informants can appraise and report the characteristic of interest over the chosen window.

Good luck with your work!

good point

regards

Thank you so much.

At the moment its hard for me to grasp what are the hypotheses in your study - and this is what will determine usage of certain statistics.

With design you described you could look into all sorts of tests which serve as tools for comparing group means: analysis of variance with repeated measures, analysis of covariance (with baseline measure as covariant), dependent and independent t-tests.

I do not know of any tests suitable for non-randomized small samples (depends on what you mean by small sample). For small sample design with randomized allocation to groups randomization tests are quite the tool: Dugard, P. (2014). Randomization tests: A new gold standard?. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(3), 65-68.

All in all: answer to your question would be more accurate if based on information on specific hypotheses you want to test.

Best regards!

The risk assessment can not rely on a sole psychometric result. 

You mentionned the PCL -R which is not a test per se but a scale determining the degree of psychopathy that an individual can have. 

Psychopathy is a personality trait that is highly correlated with aggressive behaviors, and linked statistically with rape. But as the two former colleagues put it, it is not because you scored positively to a PCL-R scale, that you WILL indeed commit a specific type of offense.

The MMPI-2 is one of the most famous personnality questionaire but it does not have a predictive value by itself, if there are some scale such as the O-H and the 43/34 and 49/94 profiles  which are linked to impulsive behavior and sometime violent conducts, it does not provide a predictive certainty. Check this book by Ben Porath, Graham & al "Forensic applications of the MMPI-2",

Risk assessment is a mix combination of psychometric testing, actuarial tools and an analysis of the situational risks inherent to the singularity of the individual. 

Some elements correlated with agressive and / or violent behavior are the use of psychoactive drugs, personality traits such as psychopathy, delusion and psychiatric disorders left untreated, past offenses. But it remains a probabilty that an offense can occur, but sometimes it does not (check false negative and false positive)

Most of the time a better coordination between services would provide a far more effective result on a crime prevention field, than a psychometric score. 

As Ben Levin said in his answer the passion shall be left outside of the Court, probabilty and scores are not an insurance of a zero risk.

Hi Elena,

Your scales are pretty hard to find. I've found these references:

May be you should try to contact the authors.

Hope that helps a little bit.

Best regards, 

Julian

 Dear Sonam! Strongly speaking adaptation consists of the change of questions for the persons of the same age as it was at an original test (taking into account culture`s differences and so on). If you use the same factors as it was at an original test you can`t say that you have a deal with pure test construction. So you are between construction and adaptation. If you add or change one factor you will have the right to consider your test as constructed one. I think it is a better way for you in your situation. I wish you much success. Sincerely Ivan Voloshchuk

Dear François,

Thank you for your reply and interesting comments and suggestions. It was first a curiosity because I do not intend to test this hypothesis (or at least not yet) but I was wondering if maybe it had already been tested...probably not yet (or it has been tested but with another purpose in mind, which is why it is so difficult to retrieve this information)..I think more and more often at the possibility that unstructured interviews have been underestimated by academics (and overestimated by practitioners). I am wondering if it is not worth investing time to reflect even further on this issue and to develop structured "unstructured interviews"... I know it is a strange expression but it expresses my idea that there is important information elicited in unstructured interviews that is not captured in classic "structured interviews" such as applicant personality...It is unfortunate that this information is not captured because it predicts important outcomes at work...Now the question is "how can we structure unstructured interviews"?...It will be maybe my focus for the next years

Relevant text books include: Neuropsychological Assessment (5th Edition) by Lezak, Howieson, Bigler, and Tranel, and A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests (3rd Edition) by Strauss, Sherman, and Spreen. 

The MHC-SF (as proposed by Paul) is an interesting measure; brief, self-report, integrating hedonic and eudemonic approaches through the evaluation of emotional, psychological and social well-being. This scale is based on Ryff model of psychological well-being. Corey Keyes developed the scale; it has been translated in many languages and its psychometrics properties have been evaluate across many cultures and languages.

Isabelle

I dont think there is any theory that will give you an authoritative answer to this important question,  Surely though this is a prime example of the need for a pilot study?  I am a great believer in these in our field.  Ss try finding a number that feels right to you and run it with a small sample not to get data but to answer your question.  Of course you then need to follow it up witht eh participants to get their views on this question.

Can you calculate accuracy on the running trial count instead of the total trial count? 

Or after x number of trials (20? 50?) begin a calculation of accuracy over running trial count?  

YES. See attached paper published in Nature (2013). The software is called NeuroRacer, a videogame. findings highlight the robust plasticity of the prefrontal cognitive control system in the ageing brain, and provide the first evidence of how a custom-designed videogame can be used to assess cognitive abilities across the lifespan, evaluate underlying neural mechanisms, and serve as a powerful tool for cognitive enhancement. I am interested in exploring this methodological approach in treating older adults with the early stages of AD (prodromal AD, aMCI). Let me know how we can collaborate.

If the decrease in scores is mostly seen in competitive matches, with new opponents every game, it is possible that your player has good reaction to novel stimuli, but is unable to adapt to changes (when the opponent changes/improves a tactic). I would suggest that your player try to use the first set not to win, but to understand the opponent's playing style, strengths, and weakness. Then, on the second set, knowing what (s)he's up against, follow a strategy to win. (I have very limited knowledge of tennis, but that's one psychological explanation).

Hello, You can write to Mark Parent for a copy of the instrument. I believe he is on Reserachgate. All the best

Whichever you choose, it will be the same result

As Mary Ainsworth frequently said, strength of attachment is not assessed by any attachment measure. Children who may seem "strongly attached" are usually overly anxious about separation, but according to research findings this kind of infant behavior is likely to be due to inconsistently sensitive-responsive behavior by the caregiver.

Maybe information from this article can be helpful:

Endedijk, H. M., & Cillessen, A. H. (2015). Computerized sociometric assessment for preschool children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 383-388. doi: 10.1177/0165025414561706

I'm not sure what state measures are available, but consider the Interpersonal Reactivity Index or the Empathy Quotient as starting points for trait measures.  

Dear Amandeep:

You ask whether there is any psychological test  to measure thinking pattern of school children (age group 13-16).

As you certainly know, Jean Piaget was highly concerned, not with how much one is intelligent (e. g. one's IQ = 120, 130, 140, and so forth), but with one's type or pattern of intelligence, knowing, and thinking (e.g., concrete operational intelligence, formal operational intelligence).

As is obvious, one's quantitative intelligence has nothing to do with one's thinking pattern, just because it is quantitative. In contradistinction, Piaget's developmental tasks (e.g., the number conservation task, the pendulum task) are, above all, concerned with one's thinking pattern, not with how much we are intelligent

In this vein, compared to concrete operational thinking, formal operational thinking represents a better and more developed thinking pattern, form, or structure because it differentiates and integrates more dimensions, perspectives, and the like.

Also, according to Piaget, formal operational thinking tends to exist in adolescents, not in children.

Thus, I would say that Piagetian developmental tasks are the most suitable tasks (tests in your question) to assess one's thinking pattern, form, or structure. As you want to assess such pattern in a age group (13-16-year-olds) composed of adolescents, then you could employ Piagetian developmental tasks that are appropriate to grasp adolescents' thinking pattern. The great majority of these tasks appear in the following book: Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York. Basic Books. (Original work published in 1955).

In your question, you refer to measure. As I see it, in psychology, it's better to speak of assessment or evaluation instead of measure. To speak of measure in psychology makes us think of a degree or rigor that doesn't exist in psychology, and that exists only in the so called "hard sciences", physics, for instance. Note that in a mental test (e.g., WAIS or WISC), a given score ( 120, for instance) can be got by answering differently to the several items the test/scale contains. Thus, the same score can refer to different mental realities. I know that we, as psychologists, often speak of measure instead of assessment or evaluation. However, if we perform a conceptual, grammatical or philosophical investigation a la Wittgenstein, we may reach the conclusion that rarely, if ever, psychology attains the level of measure. Moreover, a falsity does not become true simply because it is accepted by a great number of  people.

The lack of conceptual clarity in most psychological domains partly explains what Paul Meehl called in 1978 (see Journal  of Consulting and Clinical Psychology) the "slow progress of soft psychology".

In my answer to your question, I wanted to pay due attention to the concept of thinking pattern, style or structure. As I see it, this concept has more to do with one's type of qualitative intelligence a la Piaget, for  example, than one's quantitative intelligence a la  Catell, for instance. Also, I am sure that you  are fully aware that to ask for adolescents' thinking pattern has more to do with their form, structure, or type of thinking  than their quantitative intelligence. This is the main reason that led me to suggest that you may appeal to Piagetian developmental tasks to  assess the thinking pattern of your age group.

I hope that I have got your  question and that  this  helps.

Best regards .

Here it is an online program calculating CR:

In my opinion, the regression coefficient of Anxiety (IV) doesn't increase after you add the mediator. It is simply a different kind of coefficient. The a coefficient is reported in the upper part of your results (not visible in the screenshot) and it represents the effect of X (IV) on M (mediator).The screenshot reported the direct effect of Anxiety on Work (c' = -.374) and the coefficient for the mediator (b= .851, from LMXQ to Work), as well as the total effect of Anxiety on Work (c= -.561). The total effect of Anxiety on Work is equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects of Anxiety. If you look at the underlying results (not visible in the screenshot), you can see also the indirect effect of Anxiety (ab). 

Wow, that's a tall order! If it were me, I'd try inter-library loan first. I know York University has a copy, but that may not help you much in the U.K. 

Maybe you should contact Patrick Rabbitt at Oxford. He has used the test in some of his research and may still have the manual. He's on ResearchGate, too. Worth a try!

Congratulations on your research project. We are, however, on the field of Sciences of the Spirit, and in them the concrete objectivity is impossible, since the responses of the subjects / individuals are all different to the same stimuli. So many places in the brain, its bio-electric intensity as the perceptions of levels of individuals and their interpretation of reality styles are different. Therefore, talking of paradigms or creativity patterns is something extremely elastic, and forces to manipulate data or to condition responses. The electrodes do not measure the preceptive levels, emotions, feelings or affections of respondents.

Prior exposure to the Rorschach test and differences in selected Rorschach variables.

By Castro-Villarreal, Felicia

Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, Vol 17(2), Jul 2010, 126-134.

The present study examined the effect of prior exposure to the Rorschach on selected Rorschach variables. An availability sample of Mexican-American undergraduate students (N = 59) was randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (a) an experimental group (n = 28) or (b) a control group (n = 31). Experimental participants were exposed to Card I of the Rorschach at Time 1 and one week later at Time 2. Control participants were exposed to the same card at Time 2 only. Both groups provided demographic information. Response differences were investigated using independent t-test analyses. As hypothesized due to increased media and pop-culture exposure and the release of all ten cards on Wikipedia, the majority of participants reported having seen the Rorschach before. However, between-group differences on the dependent variables were not significant; thus prior exposure did not differentially impact response on selected Rorschach variables. Implications are presented with regard to the validity of Rorschach administration, scoring, and interpretation, support for the appropriateness of re-testing, test security issues, and to undercut efforts to opt out of being administered the Rorschach on the basis of prior exposure. Research with a Mexican-American sample is also noted as a much needed addition to the Rorschach literature base. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Yea Niken. 

There are lots of scales to measure psychological resilience and many of them have robust validity across cultures. I personally prefer the Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008) beacause its items are few and yet it's proven to be so reliable. I've attached an MS word format here for you and also a reference to the article where it was first published. Good luck with your work.

Dear Vuyelwa,

It is common practice to use Big 5 Factor Model for workplaces. This is also good for tracing impressionism and self-deception effects during both recruitment and selection  processes. Try extracting this journal - 

Best regards - Mariam

I'm pretty sure you have to buy the scoring materials from PsychCorp/Pearson. All the version III information is at http://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000662/millon-clinical-multiaxial-inventory-iii-mcmi-iii.html

They may be able to help you with version II. Or The Millon Group may be able to help. At

Hi,

Check out the HighCharts library, I use it all the time to visualise different data, it is very easy to use - http://www.highcharts.com/demo , for your purpose I think heatmap would be ok  - http://www.highcharts.com/demo/heatmap , or you can use one of the charts with drilldown option.

Hi Mohammed,

I use SurveyMonkey. It is free if you have something like less than 10 questions otherwise it is pretty cheap for the full functioning site. It is easy to use and create surveys then distribute them via a link which you can email or paste on social media etc. Once you have enough responses you can easily download the data into excel from SurveyMonkey and analyse it.

Cheers, Leanne

Ömer, let's review some points. (1) You have a theoretically supported questionnaire or test, (2) with psychometric validations for the original and translated versions, and (3) you want to apply it in another study.

In that case, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) should be ruled out since, as it has been said above, you are not developing a test or a theory, you are applying it to some particular use. What could be asked, and has some sense, is a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

CFA allows for evaluation of a priori defined structures, assessing the global goodness-of-fit, and particular areas of constraint in the model. This CFA lets you say "the answers/scores to the questionnaire/test behaves reasonably close to what we expected". You could use some guide from Brown (2015).

EFA is not useful because it doesn't help to build significant knowledge over previous research. Probably, your data is best explained by other factor structures, but the question is: could it be reasonably explained by the previously validated structure? CFA is not necessary if you can show your sample is independent (socio-demographically equal) to the original validation sample. But if it's not, or you can't demonstrate it, is better to show through CFA that your sample scores/answers behaves similarly to the original validation sample scores/answers, and therefore could be interpreted with the same theoretical framework, empirically sustained.

What you need to demonstrate is not EFA results, but that there is empirical evidence that the questionnaire/test with it's associated factor structure is valid for your sample. CFA is better for that, and maybe you don't need it if you can argue that it has been done in a representative sample of your sample's population.

Hope it helps! And if you need help with the CFA, you can write me a personal message.

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. London: the Guilford Press.

You're welcome. The tool is free, and has been validated in a study of stroke survivors (paper upcoming).

Dear Emma,

Check these papers out: 

Dana Joseph and Daniel Newman have done a comprehensive meta-analysis on different measures of emotional intelligence: http://stat-athens.aueb.gr/~jpan/Joseph-Newman-2010.pdf

Basically, they find that ability based measures of EI are the most valid measures while self-report measures are less so. STEU and STEM measures are free ability based measures of EI that you may want to consider.

Hi Mirjana,

I recommend the one below - please let me know if you need a copy - good luck! Nick

Taylor, S., Zvolensky, M. J., Cox, B. J., Deacon, B., Heimberg, R. G., Ledley, D. R., . . . Cardenas, S. J. (2007). Robust dimensions of anxiety sensitivity: development and initial validation of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3. Psychological Assessment, 19, 176-188. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.176

Great question.

There is a pretty decent task despository linked to Inquisit experimental software (www.millisecond.com) where you for instance can find a lot of typical experimental tasks (O-span, dot probe, IAT, and many many more). Unfortunately this is linked to specific software (which needs to be the case for many tasks I guess).

One thing that would be awesome is to have a website where an overview is provided about the availability of such task and all kind of scoring algortihms as well. At the lab we sometimes spent quite a bit of time making Code for data cleaning etc. It would be nice to have the ability to share and compare. Also very important in research transparency

You can get the copy from the authors themselves. Provided below is a link to the website of one of the authors where you can find his email address and his publications.

Dear Bei, 

mail this address and you are likely to get it: 

caterina.primi@unifi.it <caterina.primi@unifi.it>

Hi Laurence,

The related paper on this issue is attached.

Regards.

Hello Sheryl!

I suggest you to consider reading the attached papers. Both of them described scales developed to assess bullying considering 2 factors: bullying aggression and bullying victimization. Previous findings indicate that it seems appropriate to differentiate these two patterns of bullying behavior. Reasonable psychometric properties are reported for both questionnaires.

Kind regards,

Natan

Dear Vicki, 

If you're using just a basic visual dot probe paradigm; i.e., flanking a visual fixation cross with two images and then replacing an image with a dot, it's not a particularly difficult task to create this in Eprime. I have experience with using Eprime for other cognitive tasks, for example Posner's cueing paradigm (detection and discrimination), and that has worked quite well. 

One consideration that you should take note of, though, is the stimulus display duration - Eprime isn't the greatest when it comes down to very quick display times (anything presented under 80-100ms I tend not to trust and would advise using Matlab to generate an experimental script). If you're using  a standard image presentation of around 500ms and for the dot around 100-200ms you should be fine! 

I also recommend having a look at the user guide for Eprime; it's very intuitive and will show you how to present this information. 

Best of luck, 

Robert

Could you further explain the methodology with respect to how the number of studies was reduced to 12? After removing 350 studies that were not relevant, there would be (125 - oops ... arithmetic error (I thought it had said 475) .... there would be 75 left. It is difficult to determine the extent to which the meta-analysis is meaningful without being able to re-assure oneself that lack of results didn't lead to removal from the meta-analysis in the first place. 

Essentials of 16PF assessment.

Essentials of psychological assessment series.

By Cattell, Heather E. P.; Schuerger, James M.

2003.

Essentials of 16PF® Assessment is a valuable guide to administering, scoring, and interpreting this popular measure of normal personality. Using the proven Essentials format, Cattell and Schuerger clearly describe how to use the instrument; provide critical information about its validity and reliability; and include helpful guidelines for using the instrument effectively with individuals, couples, and families, in settings ranging from clinical and forensic to corporate environments and other workplaces. Essentials of 16PF® Assessment provides comprehensive coverage of test administration, scoring, and interpretation. As well, this informative resource provides expert assessment of the method's relative strengths and weaknesses, valuable advice on its clinical applications, and illuminating sample cases. This book is designed to help professionals quickly acquire the knowledge and skills they need to make optimal use of a major psychological assessment instrument. Each concise chapter features numerous callout boxes highlighting key concepts, bulleted points, and extensive illustrative material, as well as test questions that help you gauge and reinforce your understanding of the information covered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) Questionnaire.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1185-4_10

Understanding psychological assessment.

By Cattell, Heather E. P.

Dorfman, William I. (Ed); Hersen, Michel (Ed), (2001). Understanding psychological assessment. Perspectives on individual differences., (pp. 187-215). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, xii, 380 pp.

Describes the development, administration, scoring, and interpretation of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) Questionnaire. This normal range measure of personality can be used to comprehensively assess an individual's enduring personality make-up, rather than merely provide fragmentary information about symptomatology. The 1st section briefly describes the development of the 16PF test from basic research onto the structure of personality, including the discovery of the original Big-Five Factors. Next, the simple administration and scoring of the test are described. The rest of this chapter focuses on providing a sequence of interpretative steps to aid in 16PF interpretation. A case study of a 23-yr-old male illustrates how the test can be used to provide a comprehensive understanding of an individual from the beginning of the therapeutic process. It demonstrates how, particularly in a managed care setting, this information can be very effective in helping the clinician to place the presenting problem in context, develop empathy and rapport, and develop a treatment plan and appropriate therapeutic interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

I think you can find it on "WJ Diagnostic Reading Battery", this book is standard test book

Dear Emily

Fred Ayeroff · Robert P. Abelson · are here on RG sp the easiest way for you is to ask them directly: 

ESP and ESB: Belief in personal success in mental telepathy

Fred Ayeroff · Robert P. Abelson ·

ABSTRACT: 32 undergraduate student pairs undertook 100 trials in each of which the sender tried to transmit mentally 1 of 5 possible symbols to the receiver in another room. After each trial both members indicated whether they believed a hit had been scored. These hunches or "extrasensible beliefs" (ESB) were compared across 2 experimental variations. For half of the pairs (choice and involvement condition) the members chose the symbol set to be used, and the sender shuffled and dealt the symbol deck. Orthogonally, for half of the pairs there was a warm-up period (communicative experience condition) during which members discussed their telepathic technique. It was predicted and strongly confirmed that both of these variations would independently increase ESB. It was also found that senders had higher ESB than receivers. These belief variations were entirely independent of actual telepathic success (ESP), which was no different from chance levels. Results are interpreted within the framework of E. J. Langer's (1975) "illusion of control" theory that people behave in chance situations as though in skill situations, to the extent that skill-related cues are situationally present. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Dear Julie, 

Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is a projective test where you tell what is on the pictures

Check out paper by Khan et al on non-parametric item response analysis of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale: the PANSS was developed by using the 18-item Overall and Gorham BPRS and supplementing it with 12 selected items from Singh and Kay's PRS, so this paper includes BPRS-derived items

A nice example. Maybe there is a little confusion on the terms. In my view, "conceptually independent predictors" means that each has an independent/unique predictive value, and not that there are unrelated. Correlations among the concepts are a common observation, so if you find correlations in your data than that's not untypical.

Thank you Veronika, these tests are great!

Felix

Dear Ellen, 

Some papers on the issue:

Dear Erinn, 

I have tried to locate that you want to have without success. Here is a link with an online schizophrenia test along with scoring instructions in case it helps you. 

Lonny, I just finished reading a paper by Dr. Bokon that elucidates the unconscious decision making that precedes conscious awareness by 4 seconds originating in the default mode network (medial prefrontal and precuneus). He also characterizes what he calls epigenetic cellular memory which makes the issue of the "self" even more marvelously complex.

Béatrice, I completely understand.  It seems that "morale" and "moral" started with similar roots.  While definition 1 does not pertain to my study, definition 3 is the best, while definitions 2a&b would be close.  However, my construct has been replaced with job satisfaction, motivation, well-being, but morale is more of a psychological state than an enduring characteristic.  Morale began in the military and is also related to "outlook" vis-a-vis current and recent conditions.  I hope this is clearer.  Thanks again.

Hello . You could use the PBI 

PARENTAL BONDING INSTRUMENT (PBI)

Authors

Gordon Parker, Hilary Tupling and L.B. Brown

Variables measured

Two scales termed ‘care’ and ‘overprotection’ or ‘control’, measure fundamental parental styles as

perceived by the child. The measure is ‘retrospective’, meaning that adults (over 16 years) complete

the measure for how they remember their parents during their first 16 years. The measure is to be

completed for both mothers and fathers separately. There are 25 item questions, including 12 ‘care’

items and 13 ‘overprotection’ items.

It really depends on the clinical environment you work in. I'm working in a Neuropsychiatric rehabilitation facility and we have a set of exams, but they might differ from the ones performed in, for example, Neurology departments. I suggest you check with the facility you are working in, and what their usual evaluation tests are. In our facility we usually have a Neuropsychiatrist evaluate them first and then our team works with them.

Good task--you might also be interested in DEPOT, developed by Esther Rabinowitz to assess numerosity in persons with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, but definitely worth using in other populations (see attached article by Rabinowicz et al.

Take a look at Alfred Binet's remarkable questions.  I compared responses to each question from nine cultures.  It shows that many questions commonly used are culturally loaded.  I would go to each culture and test long term memory, short term memory, abstraction levels, talents for math, literacy, art, science with reference to their common experiences. Perhaps you could ask teachers how they determine who is smart.

You may also want to look at Buros Tests in Print.  Here is the link: http://buros.org/tests-print - Here is the description from their website:  Tests in Print (TIP) serves as a comprehensive bibliography to all known commercially available tests that are currently in print in the English language. Now in its Eighth Edition, TIP provides vital information to users including test purpose, test publisher, in-print status, price, test acronym, intended test population, administration times, publication date(s), and test author(s). A score index permits users to identify what is being measured by each test. Tests in Print also guides readers to critical, candid test reviews published in the Mental Measurements Yearbook series. Tests in Print is an indispensable reference for professionals (including such areas as education, psychology, business) and anyone interested in the critical issues of tests and testing.

Hello Sheila, our group at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (under the direction of Dr. Eric Youngstrom) are translating multiple measures and questionnaires from English into Spanish, French, and many other languages. We are starting with bipolar disorder, and would be happy to connect if you have any interest.

En fait, la BDI fast screen comprend uniquement les items 1 à 4 et 7 à 9 de la BDI-II. 

You can use Heart Rate Variability, which is an indirect method of assessing said parameters. All you need is the correct equipment and software.