• A A A
  • EN

Test authors at SCHUHFRIED

Learn more about test development

More than 100 authors have already developed tests together with SCHUHFRIED. We are very proud of our successful collaboration with some of the best-known researchers in psychological assessment. Some test authors were so kind as to make themselves available for brief interviews that yielded some interesting insights. Meet the people behind the tests and be inspired by what they have to say.

Brief biography:

Martin Arendasy is Professor of Psychological Assessment and Methodology at Karl Franzens University in Graz.

03/1998: Mag.rer.nat. (psychology: focusing on differential psychology, applied psychology); 1999-2001: Head of department (applied psychometrics) Manpower-Austria; May 2000: Dr.phil. (psychology, focusing on applied psychometrics); April 2004: Post-doctoral lecturing qualification (psychology, Vienna); June 2007: Awarded a patent for automatic item generation; February 2009: Professor of Psychological Methodology and Computer-based Modeling, Graz; September 2011: DGP Prize for Computerized Psychological Assessment; September 2013: Professor of Psychological Assessment and Methodology, Graz. Since 2009 advisor (psychological assessment, methodology) to various professional bodies; since 2012 chair of the MedAT expert group (admission procedures for degree courses in human medicine and dental medicine at public medical universities in Austria); since 2015 in charge of test development for the talent center of the Styrian chamber of commerce.

Tests:
INSBAT, INSSV-R, BFSI


Interview:

What was the aim behind development of the tests?
Cognitive abilities and specific facets of personality are among the most important success factors in different careers and types of training. Assessment decisions often have far-reaching practical consequences. We were therefore particularly concerned that the tests should not only be reliable and practically relevant: they also needed to be fair and not discriminate against anyone.

A key challenge was to meet the steadily growing need for items of good psychometric quality. Because of the increasing prevalence of test repetition and coaching to prepare people for tests in HR and education, test items reach the end of their useful life relatively quickly. The increasingly multicultural nature of our society also poses new challenges for assessment. It is therefore becoming more important to develop tests simultaneously in various languages in such a way that comparison of their results is both fair and valid. Using the min-max approach to automatic item construction that we have developed we have managed to find a way of coping with this challenge.

For what target group were the tests developed?
BFSI and INSBAT can be used quite widely. We were particularly interested in personnel recruitment and development, the selection of trainees and students, and occupational and career counseling in the civil and military sectors.

What are the special features of the tests?
INSBAT and BFSI are theory-led and modular in design, which means that they are easy to adapt to the particular assessment query. They have also been proved to be fair and valid. In addition, because the INSBAT items are presented adaptively the test is particularly secure. This enables the need for test repetition, and applicants’ need for information about the test and opportunities to practice, to be combined without difficulty with the need for the tests to be of high psychometric quality. Practice and psychometric quality are not at odds with each other but a challenge that we are addressing and will continue to address. I believe that in Schuhfried we have chosen the right partner for this.

How to you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
We are currently working on the further development of INSBAT. New practically relevant subtests of linguistic and spatial abilities have been created for INSBAT II and the item pools of the existing subtests have been significantly enlarged. This enables us to achieve greater differentiation in the upper and lower parts of the ability range where this is relevant for assessment purposes. In addition there will in future be exclusive item pools for an online version and customer-specific item pools. Finally, the new developments include a new item selection algorithm. Here we are trying to strike a balance between reasonableness and acceptance on the one hand and psychometric quality and test security on the other. These new developments are based on ongoing customer feedback on practical use of the tests, combined with research by the Department of Psychological Assessment and Methodology at the University of Graz.

In due course there will also be new test forms for BFSI that will help reduce the problem of deliberate faking. The relevant studies are already in progress.

The authors of INSBAT and BFSI regard their tests as living tools that need to be constantly updated on the basis of practice and research in order to meet the practical requirements of everyday assessment in the best way possible.


For further information visit the website of Karl Franzens University, Graz.

Profile:
Dr. Aschenbrenner is a clinical neuropsychologist (GNP, LPK) and psychological psychotherapist. As chief psychologist at Klinikum Karlsbad Langensteinbach his management responsibilities cover the Section for Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, the Center for Multimodal Pain Therapy, the Driving Fitness Center, the Psychotraumatology Section and the Assessment Clinic. He also has his own practice for neuropsychology, traffic psychology and behavior therapy in Heidelberg and Karlsbad-Langensteinbach. He is qualified as an advanced trainer in clinical neuropsychology and head of training at the South-West Academy for Neuropsychology in Heidelberg. His research focuses on ADHD in adults, fitness to drive in people with mental health problems and neuropsychological therapy for mental disorders.

Test summaries:
CFADHD, CFSD, COGBAT, 5POINT, FGT, FLEI, INHIB, SWITCH, TMT-L, TOL-F

Interview:

What was the aim behind development of the test?
It usually takes decades for scientific findings to be comprehensively incorporated into clinical practice. Our main aim, therefore, was to see proven experimental paradigms more quickly established in clinical assessment. We found the right partner for this in Schuhfried.

What was the greatest challenge in developing your tests?
There were often conflicts of goals between scientific standards and the requirements of user friendliness and economy of time; these were things we had to sort out.

For what target group were the tests developed?
The tests have been developed for patients with neurological brain damage and mental illnesses. However, some tests are also suitable for determining ability in other contexts, such as in the field of human resources.

What are the special features of the tests?
We were particularly interested in creating assessment tests with a broad application spectrum; we were less concerned about assessment in peripheral areas. Our tests are thus of relevance to a wide range of users. It was important to us to produce tests that can be administered and interpreted both by highly specialized experts and by users with relatively little neuropsychological expertise.

How to you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
In my view there are going to be major challenges with regard to developing tests for high-performing older respondents. I am also aware of the need to develop tests that do not discriminate against respondents with a migration background. I can see the potential for computer-based assessment that integrates the respondents’ life context into the assessment process in virtual form.


There is further information on the author’s website: www.steffenaschenbrenner.de
or see the following websites for information on specific topics:

Profile:
Prof. Joachim Funke, born in 1953, studied at the universities of Dusseldorf, Basel and Trier. He obtained his doctorate at Trier University in 1984 and his post-doctoral lecturing and research qualification (Habilitation) at Bonn University in 1990. Since April 1997 he has headed the General and Theoretical Psychology Unit at the University of Heidelberg’s Psychology Institute. He was a Marsilius Fellow in 2008/09. His research focuses on thinking, problem-solving and creativity. From 2009 to 2014 he was Chairman of the International Expert Group on Problem Solving for the OECD’s international PISA studies.

Test summaries:
PAD

Interview:

What was the aim behind development of the test?
Daniel Holt (who co-authored PLAND with me) and I wanted an easy-to-take test of higher cognitive functions that would be suitable for both assessment and training purposes. It needed to meet psychometric criteria and to be rooted in everyday life.

What was the greatest challenge in developing your tests?
One challenge was creating a wide range of demands of varying difficulty; another was devising suitable indicators of planning ability. In my view we have coped well with both challenges.

For what target group were the tests developed?
The target group is patients at the rehabilitation stage in whom higher cognitive functions are already largely present. Problem-solving planning is usually a particularly difficult task.

What are the special features of the tests?
The test requires integrated planning of multiple tasks; both spatial and temporal constraints need to be observed.

How to you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
I find adaptive tests appealing, because they are linked to the respondent’s ability and thus provide the optimum level of challenge. The linking of assessment and training should be increased.

There is further information on the author’s website: https://www.psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de/ae/allg/mitarb/jf/

“The main goal of our work is to link computer-based test formats with established methods of scaling and psychometrics to create new and innovative test formats that are both scientifically validated and have a high benefit for practical application.

Profile:
Samuel Greiff commenced his studies in psychology in Marburg (Germany; 2000-2003), and continued them in Bergen (Norway; 2004) and Heidelberg (Germany; 2003-2006). He completed his doctoral dissertation on “Assessment of individual problem solving ability” in 2010. Mr. Greiff has been teaching and conducting research as an ATTRACT fellow since 2012 and has been Associate Professor at the University of Luxembourg since 2015. In addition to individual problem solving, his Computer-Based Assessment research group also researches other 21st century skills such as creativity, collaborative problem solving and global competencies. In addition to conducting research, the group maintains a close cooperation with international large-scale studies such as PISA and PIACC.

Test short describtion:
COMPRO

Interview:

What was the aim behind development of the test?
The aim of developing COMPRO was to make complex problem solving – an ability construct that is highly interesting and relevant as an individual feature – recordable in a test procedure for individual assessment.

What was the greatest challenge in developing your tests?
The cognitive psychology definition of complex problem solving has to be covered in the tasks of COMPRO, while at the same time guaranteeing the psychometric quality and scalability of the tasks – bridging the gap between the breadth of the content and standardization, so to speak.

For what target group were these tests developed?
For now, COMPRO is geared towards adolescents and adults and is suited particularly for diagnosing persons who have to think strategically and act purposefully in their jobs.

What are the special features of the tests?
Unlike many other test procedures, COMPRO includes an item format that can be administered exclusively computer-based and in which the interaction between the person and the prescribed problem situation are at the focus.

How do you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
In my research, I’m personally most interested in making process and behavior data usable in a form that gives us important findings beyond overall performance. Some of these aspects are already realized in COMPRO.

Additional Information on Website Université du Luxembourg or Facebook Profile.

Testing and training are interlinked, especially when it comes to optimization. When selecting or configuring tests, the aim is to generate data and information relating generally to intervention and specifically to training. In training the need is to evaluate and monitor impacts and outcomes in terms of process and results. The Mental Test and Training System (MTTS) that I have designed on the basis of action theory and that is being developed with contributions from colleagues and international cooperation partners and realized in collaboration with Schuhfried is therefore a combination of assessment and intervention tools.

Profile:
Prof. Dieter Hackfort is Professor of Sport Psychology in the Department of Sport Science within the Faculty of Human Sciences at the Bundeswehr University in Munich. For his work, which is documented in 28 books and more than 170 journal articles, he has received many awards, including the Science Prize of the Deutscher Sportbund and the Honor Award of the International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP); he is also an honorary professor of the university in Wuhan, China. From 1989 to 1993 he was chairman of Germany’s Working Group for Sport Psychology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Sportpsychologie, ASP); from 2005 until 2009 he was president of the ISSP and for 12 years he was editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. In addition to his research and teaching activities he is also involved in advising and supporting professional sportspeople, including Formula 1 and DTM drivers and Olympic athletes in various disciplines.

Test summary:
MDT

Interview:

What was the aim behind development of the test?
The basic aim was to develop a tool for testing and training a dimension that is relevant in a variety of action areas and activities. Specifically we wanted to operationalize the processes of (cognitive) decision-making and (motor) response differentially in order to identify differential starting points for training. It was important to do this in relation to movement.

What was the greatest challenge in developing your tests?
Designing the test task and the course of the test in such a way that both implementation of the test concept and the basis for data interpretation can be judged to be appropriate.

For what target group were the tests developed?
Initially for aspiring young sportspeople and those in the elite group, but then also for individuals who can be helped by the identification of disorders or weaknesses in this field and the application of specific training.

What are the special features of the tests?
The basing of the test task on movement and the differential assessment of the ability parameters.

How to you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
The variation of test tasks (in tests that in principle exist already) for the purpose of developing or refining their relation to action and their ecological validity, combined with developing test instruments or configurations into training instruments or configurations.

For further information visit: www.unibw.de/hum/dfs/personen/prof/dieterhackfort

“When we care about something, we measure it. Often the things we care the most about (for example the ability to think critically) are the most difficult to measure and validate, but the instruments we develop are also the most important assessments for the good of society—they help individuals make personal decisions, employers make the best hires, and educators know how to help individuals succeed. All measurement is imperfect, but solid psychometric practices yield the fairest and least biased assessments.”

Short biography:
Diane F. Halpern is a past-president of the American Psychological Association, the largest psychological association in the world with over 150,000 members and affiliates in 80 countries. Diane is also a past-president for the Western Psychological Association and the Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Diane has published hundreds of articles and many books including, Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (5th Ed.); Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities (4th ed.), and Women at the Top: Powerful Leaders Tell Us How to Combine Work and Family (co-authored with Fanny Cheung).
Diane has won many awards for her teaching and research, including the Outstanding Professor Award from the Western Psychological Association, the American Psychological Foundation Award for Distinguished Teaching, the Distinguished Career Award for Contributions to Education given by the American Psychological Association, the California State University’s State-Wide Outstanding Professor Award. Diane is the author of the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (Schuhfried Publishers) that uses multiple response formats, which allow test takers to demonstrate their ability to think about everyday topics using both constructed response and recognition formats.

Test short describtion:
HCTA

Interview:

What was the objective in development of the tests?
I have written about and taught university classes in critical thinking for several decades, but there was no psychometrically-sound validated assessment that could provide information on the multiple dimensions of critical thinking. The HCTA was developed so that critical thinking could be assessed using everyday scenarios that were familiar across cultures.

What was the biggest challenge in the development of your tests?
The biggest challenge was the validation of the HCTA. Construct validity was fairly easy, but what is the appropriate criterion for predictive validity? After decades of work, there are now several studies that show that the HCTA predicts real-world outcomes and is a stronger predictor than alternative measures such as IQ scores.

Who should use the tests which have been developed?
The HCTA was designed to be broadly applicable. It is widely used in education, business and the military.

What are the characteristics of the tests?
The HCTA is the only test of critical thinking (and one of few tests in any area) that uses multiple response formants (multiple choice and constructed response). The constructed response assesses how test takers respond to open-ended questions that are common in the real world. The multiple choice format assesses whether test-takers can recognize a correct (or best) answer when it is presented to them. Cognitive psychologists know that recall and recognition can show different properties and both are important components in understanding how people think about complex everyday issues.

What opportunities for development of tests do you see in the future or which are you particularly interested?
Thanks to emerging technologies, it is now possible to collect data from large international samples very quickly and cheaply. The use of international standardization pools could change the way we norm instruments in the near future.

Profile:
Born in Bischofsheim near Mainz. Studied psychology, logic and the philosophy of science at the University of Mannheim. 1998 – researcher (German Research Foundation) at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. January 1989 – February 1991 – ward psychologist and research assistant at the Central Institute of Mental Health (ZISG), Mannheim. Doctorate 1990 at the University of Mannheim. From March 1991 lecturer at the University of Constance with postdoctoral qualification (habilitation) in 1997. Since January 1998 head of the Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology working group at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy at the Rechts der Isar Hospital of Munich Technical University, working in patient care, research, teaching and the preparation of expert opinions. Member of the German Society for Psychology (DGPs) and the Society for Neuropsychology (GNP). Since 2005 co-editor of the Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie.

Test set summary:

CFD

Interview:

What was the aim behind development of the test set?
The CFD (Cognitive Functions Dementia) test set, which combines adaptations of established tests (CORSI, TMT, WAFA, WAFGwith newly developed ones (AWLT, VISCO, WIWO, WOBT) was designed for the investigation of cognitive functions that are key to the early identification and differential diagnosis of dementia disorders and that are not assessed in this breadth by existing “dementia tests”; it needed to be easy to complete, even for older people with little computer experience, while at the same time meeting high psychometric standards.

What was the greatest challenge in developing your test set?
The computer-based recording of respondents’ verbal responses by means of the construction of speech tasks in the areas of verbal learning, memory and object naming that were theoretically sound and at the same time practicable.

For what target group was the test set developed?
The CFD test set provides improved early identification and differential diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders, especially neurodegenerative dementia syndromes, in people between the ages of 50 and 95. But its use is not restricted to issues of dementia diagnosis in the narrow sense; it can also support neuropsychological ability assessment in older people generally.

What are the special features of the test set?
For the first time in the context of the Vienna Test System (VTS) we have created a test set that can be used on a convertible laptop with touch screen, so that it as portable as a tablet and can be used with a bedbound patient if necessary. With regression-based test norming (continuous norming) and measurement of progression, backed up by single-case statistics, on the basis of two parallel versions (reliable change indices), the CFD provides opportunities that until now have not been standard in neuropsychological dementia diagnosis.

How to you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
The general aim is to continuously improve clinical usability and the differential diagnostic potential of computer-based tests. This requires close cooperation between test developers and test users, of the sort that Schuhfried has been able to achieve in an inspiring and fruitful way. And with regard to the CFD in particular, in accordance with the DSM 5 recommendations on the diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders it would in future also be desirable to measure key aspects of social cognition.

 

Homepage of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology Unit: http://www.neuropsy.med.tum.de/en/home/

“I want to transfer scientific findings into practice, provide a scientific response to questions that arise from practice and promote dialogue between scientists and practitioners.”

Profile:
Prof. Martin Kersting studied psychology; he was an advisor to the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Personalwesen (German Society for Human Resource Management) and has worked for Kienbaum Consultants. He worked at RWTH Aachen University for eight years. He is a member of the Arbeitskreis Assessment Center and the DIN Commission (DIN 33430 on personnel selection) and chairman of the Assessment and Testing Board (Diagnostik- und Testkuratorium). From 2008 to 2011 he was head of the Management and Supervision Department at the Federal Revenue Administration's Centre for Education and Science. Since 2011 Martin Kersting has been Professor of Psychological Assessment at Justus Liebig University in Giessen. He has authored or co-authored various tests of cognitive competence and soft skills and more than 100 publications, and he has given more than 200 lectures on aspects of business and personnel psychology. Martin Kersting is one of the “leading thinkers in human resources” (Personalmagazin, 2015) and has been named a “professor of the year” (national competition, Unicum 2015).

Test summary:

SMART

Interview:

A live interview with Prof. Kersting on this subject is available under Videos.

What was the aim behind development of the test?
My aim was to develop a test to measure cognitive competence. Cognitive competence is the most important factor in educational and career success. There are many tests of cognitive competence, but most of them are abstract and have little face validity. Such tests are often not accepted by users and participants. The aim was to develop a test of cognitive competence that is valid and acceptable.

What was the greatest challenge in developing your tests?
The greatest challenge was making the items in the test as realistic as possible while maintaining the high standards required of psychometric measurement. For example, participants are allowed to use a calculator – but nevertheless the items have the necessary difficulty.

For what target group were the tests developed?
There is a particular need for the test in recruitment, especially when the applicants include “seasoned” personnel who might not accept a classical suitability test. But the test can also be used with anyone aged 16 or more when a well-accepted test of general cognitive competence is required.

What are the special features of the tests?
SMART relates to a specific (fictive) company. All tasks are associated with a higher-level "story" called an overarching scenario. As in a case study, the tasks arise from various events within “inversagi”, a mail-order electronics company. There are realistic tables, diagrams and newspaper articles. Participants have access to a calculator, there is an email program for them to use in planning tasks, and so on.

How to you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
I am excited by the idea of “individualizing” the test even more. For example, the overarching scenario could be adapted to the specific company that is using SMART for recruitment. The participant’s role could match his CV (e.g. intern vs. CEO).


There is further information on the author’s website: http://kersting-internet.de

Elucidating psychological phenomena (a person’s mental characteristics) requires mathematical and statistical models of measurement whose correctness must be empirically proven. Psychometrics is the discipline that achieves this. Assigning numerical values to people’s actions or characteristics is an impermissible practice in psychology if these values do not demonstrably depict empirically given relationships.

For further information see:
1. Kubinger, K.D. (2009). Psychologische Diagnostik – Theorie und Praxis psychologischen Diagnostizierens (2., überarb. u. erweiterte Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
2. Kubinger, K.D., Rasch, D. & Yanagida, T. (2011). Statistik in der Psychologie – vom Einführungskurs bis zur Dissertation. Göttingen: Hogrefe.


Profile:
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Mag. Klaus D. Kubinger, born in 1949, is a retired professor of psychological assessment. He studied psychology (obtaining his doctorate in 1973) and statistics (completing his Master’s degree in 1989) in Vienna, where he also obtained his postdoctoral lecturing qualification in psychology (1985). From 1985 until 2012 he was head of training in psychological assessment at the Psychology Faculty of Vienna University, where he was director of the psychological assessment department, including the testing and counseling center. He has published numerous scientific papers and written or contributed to a number of books. His most important publication (in collaboration with S. Holocher-Ertl) is the Adaptives Intelligenz Diagnostikum – Version 3.1 (2014). His research currently focuses on the development of models in item response theory (IRT) and on globalized intelligence testing. From 2000 until 2006 he was a member of the Test Board. In 2007 he received the Alfred Binet Award of the German Psychological Society (DGPs) for his lifelong work in the field of computerized psychological assessment; this was followed in 2015 by an award in recognition of his services to the Methods and Evaluation section of the DGPs.


Test summaries:
AHA, BACO, DSI, LAMBDA 2

The interview relates to the Attitudes to Work test (AHA):

  1. Kubinger & Ebenhöh: Kubinger, K.D. & Ebenhöh, J. (2002). Arbeitshaltungen - Kurze Testbatterie: Anspruchsniveau, Frustrationstoleranz, Leistungsmotivation, Impulsivität/Reflexivität – Version 26.00. Test: Software and manual (authors of this manual: T. Karner & M. Sommer). Mödling: Vienna Test System/Schuhfried.
  2. Kubinger, K.D. & Ebenhöh, J. (1996). Arbeitshaltungen - Kurze Testbatterie: Anspruchsniveau, Frustrationstoleranz, Leistungsmotivation, Impulsivität/Reflexivität. Test: software and manual. Frankfurt: Swets.

What was the aim behind development of the test?
The aim was to implement a contemporary – i.e. computerized – refinement of what are known as objective personality tests sensu R.B. Cattell (later: “Experimentalpsychologische Verhaltensdiagnostik”, Kubinger, 2006*)). Among the many developments in this field stemming from the Viennese research group headed by Kubinger, Attitudes to Work is the first and the most frequently used test. “The experiment-based psychological assessment of behavior is a (psychological) technology involving tests that use observable behavior in experimentally varied performance situations to identify personal style characteristics, with the way in which the problems are worked being recorded by the computer” (Kubinger, 2006, p. 50).

*) Kubinger, K.D. (2006). Ein Update der Definition von Objektiven Persönlichkeitstests: Experimentalpsychologische Verhaltensdiagnostik. In T.M. Ortner, R. Proyer & K.D. Kubinger (Hrsg.). Theorie und Praxis Objektiver Persönlichkeitstests (S. 38-52). Bern: Huber.

What was the greatest challenge in developing your tests?
Despite many validation studies with positive results, the problem of questionable generalizability of the test results ultimately arises for all tests used in psychological behavior assessment: to what extent is the particular scenario that has been chosen (the content of the selected situation in which the respondent is being asked to demonstrate his behavior) representative?

For what target group was the test developed?
For all personality assessment situations in which an alternative to personality questionnaires – which are usually very easy to fake – is sought, in other words in particular in recruitment.

What are the special features of the test?
A new genre of personality assessment that largely guarantees resistance to coaching.

How to you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
Adaptive testing.

There is further information on the author’s website: http://www.klaus-kubinger.com/ or "Klaus Kubinger" in Wikipedia, German, and "Klaus Kubinger" in Wikipedia, English.

Short biography:
John Carlyle Raven was born in London on 28 June 1902.
His main interests were in topics that many would today regard as peripheral, such as the psychology of religion, particularly its spiritual/parapsychological components. Nevertheless, his detailed notes on his undergraduate laboratory work are remarkable.
As an undergraduate, he became friendly with Charles Spearman and shortly after graduation, this relationship led to an introduction to Lionel Penrose who needed an assistant. Around this time, he met his wife (Mary Elizabeth Wild) who became a crucial assistant throughout his life.
Penrose was a geneticist conducting an investigation of the genetic and environmental origins of mental deficiency. This involved administering the Stanfort-Binet Intelligence Scales tests to all parents and siblings of children identified as mentally deficient by the school system in East Anglia.

Raven found the tests cumbersome to administer in homes, schools, and workplaces (where, as he commented, there were friends and parents anxious to assist, no separate facilities for testing, and often a great deal of noise) and the results impossible to interpret because so many different things were composited together.
Accordingly, he set about developing tests of the two components of g identified by Spearman – namely eductive (meaning making) and reproductive ability. The former was measured by the Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) tests and the latter by a vocabulary test which later became known as the Mill Hill Vocabulary Test (MHV). The development of the RPM is described in his Master’s dissertation. Significantly, this does not mainly consist of the kind of literature review one would normally expect but a specification of the operational criteria to be met by the, as yet non-existent, test. He and his wife, with the support of a grant from the Darwin Trust, then set about developing a test to meet these requirements.

It would appear that Raven was one of the very few people (another was Louis Guttman) who appreciated the importance of developing tests which yielded something approaching an interval scale (although that term was not the stated objective of either author). Among other things, this meant that the sequence of item difficulties must be the same for persons of all levels of ability. In order to demonstrate this … and identify those items which needed to be modified or rejected … Raven plotted what have since become known in Item Response Theory terminology as Item Characteristic Curves. (When Georg Rasch appeared on the scene in the late 1950s and developed a mathematical model for doing this he tested it on the RPM and was satisfied when it worked!)

The SPM came into its own with the advent of the Second World War. High levels of illiteracy and huge numbers to be tested rendered the use of most other tests unfeasible. The absence of any dependence on language facilitated the diffusion of the tests into military systems throughout the world. (One sees the same requirement for language independence in such places as the mines of South Africa today. Again, there are many prospective entrants speaking many languages – all differing from that of the test administrator.)

Test short descriptions:
APM, CPM, SPM, SPMPLS


More Information:

Another website, www.eyeonsociety.co.uk, is devoted to exploring ways of taking the work forward. A complete list of his publications can be found here and for more general information, feel free to visit Wikipedia.

Profile:

Born 1949 in Aachen, studied psychology at RWTH Aachen University, 1983 doctorate at University of Trier, 1994 post-doctoral lecturing and research qualification (Habilitation) in neuropsychology at the Medical Faculty of RWTH Aachen University, 1995 director of the Clinical Neuropsychology Department at the Neurology Clinic at Uniklinikum Aachen (part of RWTH Aachen University), 2000 appointed adjunct professor, 2001 member of the Scientific Board of the German Neuropsychological Society (GNP), 2001 head of the Guidelines Commission of the German Neuropsychological Society (GNP), 2007 speaker of the joint DGN/GNP Guidelines Commission for guidelines on neuropsychological assessment and therapy.
Main areas of research: basic and therapy research into attention functions, functional imaging of attention and memory functions.

Test summaries:
CVLT, NVLT, VLT, WAF

Interview:

What was the aim behind development of the test?
Development of assessment tools that are in conformity with the theory and that can be used with patients with sensory and motor deficits.

What was the greatest challenge in developing your tests?
Drawing up paradigms that measure the function areas reliably and validly while at the same time placing minimal demands on sensory and motor abilities.

For what target group were the tests developed?
Healthy respondents and patients with impairments of brain functioning.

What are the special features of the tests?
They measure the entire spectrum of attention functions with a few basic parameters and low-level demands on sensory and motor abilities.

How to you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
Expansion of the tests to assess deficits that precede sensory and cognitive functions but influence measurement of them.

Profile:
Since 2012 Matthias Ziegler has been Professor of Psychological Assessment at the Humboldt University in Berlin. After studying psychology at the Philipps University in Marburg he obtained his doctorate in the field of psychological methodology and evaluation at Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich. After a post-doc phase he was called to be a Junior Professor of Psychological Assessment at the Humboldt University in Berlin. In his research he studies issues of personality, situations and intelligence. He focuses partly on the structures and measurement of these constructs and partly on the interaction between them in the development of learning and performance over an individual’s lifetime. Prof. Ziegler has advised companies on recruitment, staff development and evaluation in various projects. He is the author of more than 80 scientific publications and a member of the editorial board of several international journals.

Test summary:
B5PS

Interview:

What was the aim behind development of the test?
The aim in developing the B5NT was to implement the things I had learned from large numbers of test feedback meetings in a useful and scientifically sound way. I have too often found that the personality tests I have used have been rated as insufficiently job-specific and in particular insufficiently situation-specific. So I wanted to develop a job-related test that enables the different ways in which our working environment influences our behavior to be depicted.

What was the greatest challenge in developing your tests?
At the start there was no widespread and empirically tested model of situational perception. In the course of several years of research, we developed such a model – the Situation 5 – empirically. This made it possible to develop a test that not only reflects different situational circumstances in the questions but can also take them into account in the description of the personality profile.

For what target group were the tests developed?
The B5PS is intended for use in personnel recruitment and development, so its target group is working adults.

What are the special features of the test?
The B5PS measures the Big 5 personality dimensions. In addition, these five can be examined in more detail on the basis of 42 facets. The modular assessment option increases the usefulness of the test in recruitment. In addition, measuring the Situation 5 makes it possible to say how people usually perceive work-related situations. This is where what I see as the really unique feature of the B5PS comes in. By combining the five personality dimensions with the five dimensions of situational perception it is possible to draw up an individual profile that shows how the personality is manifested generally in behavior but also how this manifestation varies depending on the situation. For example, we have seen profiles of people whose emotional stability was apparently similar to that of most other people, but in situations of stress this stability increased sharply. These situationally induced variations make it possible to look at the tested person more specifically, especially in connection with talent management and staff development.

How to you see tests developing in the future? What aspects of this are you particularly interested in?
Because of my research focus on deliberate falsification, I think that new impetus may come from new test formats such as pairwise preference models. In addition I foresee completely new possibilities in the measurement of human personality arising from the combining of virtual reality and adaptive testing.

There is further information on the author’s website: http://www.psychologie.hu-berlin.de/prof/dia