The Reliability and Validity of Hans Eysenck's EPI Test
The aim of this investigation was to look at the reliability and
validity of Hans Eysenck's EPI Test. The EPI questionnaire comprises
of items of a 'yes/no' variety. They are essentially intended as
research tools (as opposed to diagnostic tools for use in clinical
settings) and, as such, 'they are regarded as acceptable, reliable and
valid' (Kline 1981, Shackleton and Fletcher, 1984).The Alternative
Hypothesis was that there would be a positive correlation between the
E and N scores for forms A and B of the EPI. The Null Hypothesis was
that there would not be a positive correlation between the scores for
forms A and B, and any such found relationship would be down to chance
factors operating.
The correlation study was carried out because we were looking for a
relationship between the E scores and the N scores for forms A and B
of Hans Eysenck's EPI Test. The independent variable and dependent
variable were not operationalised in this case because an experimental
method was not being used and this investigation used test re-test
reliability. A repeated measure design was used because it was quick,
economical and cancelled out individual differences. Eighteen naïve
psychology students, male and female were used for this investigation.
An opportunitive sample was used because it was quick, easy and could
be carried out in a classroom.
The results, taken from the Raw Score Data table and scatter graph
showed evidence of a positive correlation. However, to accept that
this result was significant, we subjected the data to further
statistical analysis. A Spearman Rho Correlation Coefficient test (Rs)
was chosen because the data was Ordinal and parametric assumptions
were not met. The outcome stated that with number of people equalling
18 and significance set at p=0.05 for a one tailed test, the
calculated value for the 'E' score was 0.87 and for the 'N' score was
0.90. The critical table value tells us that a value 0.464 and above
has a degree of accuracy to 0.
Collected data were subjected to analysis of variance using the SAS (9.1, SAS institute, 2004) statistical software package. Statistical assessments of differences between mean values were performed by the LSD test at P = 0.05.
Standard scores are a more appropriate way to report scores because they are standardized. They have a range at which an individual’s score could fall. There are many limitations the use of AE scores has and SLP’s should not continue to use them in reporting results of norm-referenced
Sellbom, M., Bagby, R. M., Kushner, S., Quilty, L. C., & Ayearst, L. E. (2012). Diagnostic construct validity of MMPI-2 restructured form (MMPI-2-RF) scale scores. Assessment,19(2), 176-186. doi:10.1177/1073191111428763
Along with the already clear and precise guidelines for the Woodcock-Johnson III NU Tests of Cognitive Abilities, seven new features have been added to the tests (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989). In the Woodcock-Johnson III NU: Tests of Cognitive Abilities, it includes eight new tests, which measure information-processing abilities (Keith, Kranzler, & Flanagan, 2001). These tests include ones which measure working memory, planning, naming speed, and attention (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001b). Also included in this version are five new cognitive clusters (McGrew, Werder, & Woodcock, 1991). Of these five clusters, there are also two additional clusters that are available when cognitive and achievement batteries are used together (Ramos, Alfonso, & Schermerhorn, 2009). Included in the tests that is helpful are interception plans and modified organization; the interception plans and modified organization increase the depth and breadth of coverage (Benner, Ralston, & Feuerborn, 2012). New features of the Woodcock-Johnson III NU: Tests of Cognitive Abilities also includes expanded cognitive factor structure, developing comparison between the tests; in the expanded cognitive factor structure, two to three tests measure different aspects of a broader ability more clearly (Jones et al., 2008). Another change is the fact that clusters and tests are now grouped into three broad cognitive areas (Ritchey & Coker, 2013). The three cognitive areas include Verbal Ability, Thinking Ability, and Cognitive Efficiency (Floyd et al., 2010). Expanded procedures for evaluating ability and achievement discrepancies is another new feature as well (Kranzler, Flores, & Coady, 2010). Also in the list of new features is a Diagnostic Supplement to the W...
will be positively related to scores on the Health Inventory (HI) (Holmes and Rahe, 1967).
I will be using two assessment tools when conducting the final evaluation assignment, the SETT and the WATI. Before making any AT decisions it’s important that the IEP team collect initial data using a systematic and multidimensional approach (Marino, 2006).
The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group made several recommendations to change the DSM-IV approach towards diagnosing personality disorders. One of those recommendations was to delete five personality disorders as a way to reduce the level of comorbidity among the disorders. Histrionic, paranoid narcissistic, paranoid and dependent personality disorders were recommended for removal. In the present article, Zimmerman and his colleges evaluated the impact of these recommendations in three different ways, prevalence of personality disorders, comorbidity among these disorders and association with psychosocial morbidity.
Helps to establish that a student’s low academic achievement is not due to inappropriate instruction, poor developmental activities and expectations deficit
As previously mentioned, norm-referenced tests are used as a comparison in order to evaluate the client’s scores. However, the authors discuss that norm referenced tests are not truly reliable as comparisons are based on estimates and no two similar individuals will perform in an identical matter on a given task. This leads to the question of how much of a difference should there be between a client and similar individuals in their age group before the differences are indicative of an underlying problem? The use of reliability may assist clinicians in determining this issue. The authors describe that depending on how high or low the tests reliability is, is an indication of whether there is little difference or inconsistencies between the client’s ideal score, also known as their true score, and their observed score.
Our object is to find out how reliable the MADRS is. The hypothesis will be: if the MADRS is reliable we expect the means of the groups of participants who assess the patient to be similar.
...nknown. Additionally, some studies use invalid or non-standardized quantitative questionnaires. Despite these limitations, EMDR interventions have significant clinical results.
..., M., Oort, F., & Sprangers, M. (2013). Significance, truth and proof of p values:
Procedures for data collection. After consenting to take part, one trained psychologists will administer the questionnaires. The procedure will last approximately 3 hours. In particular, for the study group, a trained psychologist, who will be aware of the clinical status of the patient will administer the questionnaires in the following order, the demographics questionnaire, the Dissociative Experiences Scale, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition and after having a break they were given the CTQ-SF as part of a standard intake test
b. According to your patient’s age, state their expected psychosocial level according to the text and give examples of how they are meeting or not meeting their expected psychosocial
The Woodcock-Johnson Assessment utilizes achievement and cognitive measures that involve the entire representation of what is actually happening intellectually with a child. This information can be used to determine the diagnosis of a disability. The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement has four different versions with the latest being the VI. In 1977, the first version of the test was written and consisted of twenty-two subtest by Richard Woodcock and Mary E. Bonner Johnson (Woodcock, McGrew, Mather 2001). The assessment can be used with individuals of all ages and is given to one subject at a time and the administration is simple to manage (Blackwell, 2001). For the purpose of this paper, reliability and validity of the Woodcock-Johnson