Abstract
The European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) has issued sets of test standards and guidelines for psychometric test reviews without any attempt to address the critical content of many substantive publications by measurement experts such as Joel Michell. For example, he has argued that the psychometric test-theory which underpins classical and modern IRT psychometrics is “pathological”, with the entire profession of psychometricians suffering from a methodological thought disorder. With the advent of new kinds of assessment now being created by the “Next Generation” of psychologists which no longer conform to the item-based, statistical test theory generated last century, a new framework is set out for constructing evidence-bases suitable for these “Next Generation” of assessments, which avoids the illusory beliefs of equal-interval or quantitatively structured psychological attributes. Finally, with no systematic or substantive refutations of the logic, axioms, and evidence set out by Michell and others; it is concluded psychologists and their professional associations remain in denial. As with the eventual demise of a similar attempt to maintain the status quo of professional beliefs within forensic clinical psychology and psychiatry during the last century, those following certain EFPA guidelines might now find themselves required to justify their professional beliefs in legal rather than academic environments.
Highlights
The European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA: http://www.efpa.eu/) have generated a set of test-user standards and guidelines for psychological test reviews; currently published as the Revised EFPA Review Model for the Description and Evaluation of Psychological and Educational Tests, approved by the EFPA General Assembly in July 2013 [1]
Those who formed the EFPA and the UK’s BPS and US’s APA committees chose to ignore clear facts concerning the whose design and construction were based upon a particular kind of “true-score” test theory and constituent properties of quantitative measurement, and the consequences such facts might have on questionnaire-item-based measurement model (IRT)
It is perhaps prudent to consider the example from clinical forensic psychologists and psychiatrists, who for decades had maintained that the accuracy of their clinical judgement was not a matter for empirical investigation, and who rigorously maintained that position among themselves and their professional societies
Summary
The European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA: http://www.efpa.eu/) have generated a set of test-user standards and guidelines for psychological test reviews; currently published as the Revised EFPA Review Model for the Description and Evaluation of Psychological and Educational Tests, approved by the EFPA General Assembly in July 2013 [1]. Joel Michell [2] had previously set out the constituent axiomatic properties of quantitative measurement upon which many of the EFPA psychometric guidelines rely, noting that no empirical evidence existed to support a claim that any psychological attribute varied as a quantity. His statements concerning the pathology of psychometrics seem to negate many of the good intentions of the EFPA committee. This article examines the applicability and future relevance of the EFPA test review guidelines Some of these guidelines are based upon beliefs about psychological measurement rather than evidence-based empirical facts; beliefs which are unsustainable given the axioms defining the constituent properties of quantitative measurement. They do share some of the more justifiable and sensible EFPA requirements for a psychological assessment to be considered acceptable for practical use
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call