The Ethical and Social Implications of Testing
Confidentiality of results is a cornerstone of psychological research and consent and awareness. The most striking consequences, perhaps sometimes associated with scandals or courts, are connected. Within the scope of the question of voluntary participation, it is difficult to reason when tests are taken by people who are under care because of their mental state. Their guardians should be notified about the tests in such cases to avoid conflicts. If they pass the test, children must also inform their parents about it. Usually, this can also be done by doctors or teachers.
The edge of criticism of psychological tests can often also be directed at the lack of opportunities to measure or understand the degree of creativity of another person. Tests drive people into frames and consider them exclusively, although a person has many different representations. Tests can cause or risk discrimination by labeling people. Perhaps some recognize universal school psychological testing as a form of institutional discrimination. The framework of tests can sometimes give conflicting results; therefore, scientists cannot compile the data into a logical structure. Tests constantly invade privacy, no matter how diligently scientists approach their development.
Professional Responsibilities
Publishers are fully responsible for the “body” of the test and the texts that accompany it. These texts can be a prologue to the test and an introduction to the theory (for example, Carl Leonhard’s approach for the test about 12 types of accentuation). They can print the biographical data of the theorists whose writings form the basis of the test. The most important aspect is the interpretation of the test results. Publishers should repeatedly check the understanding of the results for inconsistencies or omissions. Typically, test publishers are psychologists or teams that have psychologists. These specialists can act as editors, and it is up to them to check the interpretation. The interpretation of the results should not contradict itself and the theory on which testing is based in general. Researchers and publishers should provide links to materials used or to materials that other psychologists or even people taking the test can read.
Users have a direct opportunity to communicate with patients or other people taking the test. They also have access to communication functions with relatives of patients or children who have agreed to participate in testing. Users should contact them to ask about expectations and clarify warnings. The results of the tests that a mentally ill person undergoes should be beneficial for him and his family (Ægisdóttir et al., 2006). The test will help relatives decide on further treatment and determine its type (medication, psychotherapy, or transition to a new kind of therapy, such as art therapy, for example).
Testing Individuals Representing Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
Access to psychological (and sometimes even medical) care can differ for people with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. It is more difficult for foreigners to receive medical support in any field (dentistry, psychiatry, neurology) since they cannot express many of their feelings due to the language barrier. The same applies to psychological assistance and testing, where specialists use speech as the central tool. Of particular importance are stigma and internal stigma, which expresses shame in going to a doctor or psychologist. It is only now that the scientific community has noticed and begun to articulate the problem of the cultural background that influences the receipt of assistance.
Reliability
Researchers can make mistakes due to respondents who may have misunderstood the task. Sometimes respondents do not finish reading the tasks or are embarrassed to ask a clarifying question. In addition, researchers can make mistakes due to interviewers who did not carefully study the instructions. Investigators can make mistakes because the original directives given by the publishers have been changed. Still, psychologists have not been taken into account in the interpretation. Researchers can make errors because of tools, and often these tools are computers and programs for calculating results or storing data. Information technologies and even artificial intelligence are actively used in medicine to protect and organize patient data (Youngstrom, 2013). Researchers can make mistakes due to the wrong way of collecting data or disordered storage.
Validity
The issues of extra validity include the effects of psychodiagnostic that were not taken into account in advance or unpredictable results. Investigators should not involve such results in the general results because they can spoil the output. Such data can pass off the particular as the public, which is fraught with misinterpretations. Unforeseen consequences of testing are also included in the issues of extra validity. There is always the possibility of a feature that does not fit into the trend.
References
Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., Nichols, C. N., Lampropoulos, G. K., Walker, B. S., Cohen, G., & Rush, J. D. (2006). The Meta-Analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-Six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341–382.
Grove, W. M., & Lloyd, M. (2006). Meehl’s contribution to clinical versus statistical prediction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(2), 192–194.
Youngstrom, E. A. (2013). Future directions in psychological assessment: Combining Evidence-Based medicine innovations with psychology’s historical strengths to enhance utility. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42(1), 139–159.