In various sectors—from education to organisational behaviour—psychometric tools are increasingly being used to make sense of abstract concepts. These are instruments or assessments designed to measure the psychological traits, abilities, attitudes, and characteristics of individuals. They are utilised to quantify and evaluate various aspects of human behaviour and cognition.
The tools, while powerful, often produce intricate and elusive results, pushing the limits of traditional empirical analysis. Their strength lies in being able to bridge the gap between abstract ideas and tangible metrics, appealing to data-driven individuals as well as those who value qualitative insights. Nonprofits commonly use these tools to measure programme impact in various sectors such as education, life skills, livelihood, and health, as well as in areas such as identifying needs, planning curriculum activities, monitoring client progress, and evaluating organisational culture.
Our organisation, Udhyam Learning Foundation, has leveraged these psychometric tests to detect shifts in learners’ mindsets and attitudes. However, a critical question looms: Are the results consistently trustworthy and precise?
To deepen our understanding, we initiated an in-depth study, partnering with seasoned experts to fine-tune our approach and improve testing accuracy. We’ve pinpointed common hurdles that come with the application of these tests, which, if overlooked, can skew results and lead to misjudgements.
Using tests that are not reliable or valid
Reliability is crucial because it ensures consistent and dependable scores. Without it, a test will yield erratic results, which will render it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. The lack of reliability in psychometric tests is a pertinent concern. A 2010 study found that the validity of the 16PF (personality factor), a very commonly used personality psychometric test, varied across different cultures. Although the test had good validity in Western cultures, it was less valid in non-Western cultures.
Validity is equally important as it ensures that the test measures what it intends to measure. When we create our own tools without a solid empirical foundation, we cannot guarantee the accurate assessment of the skills, traits, or knowledge we aim to evaluate. This undermines the credibility and usefulness of the results.
At Udhyam, we recently tested the validity of the standardised grit scale we’ve previously used in our work. The scale measures a person’s passion and perseverance for long-term goals. Through this examination, we discovered that the scale’s reliability and convergent validity were poor. Furthermore, it did not exhibit adequate psychometric properties for the sample we used it on. We were thus prompted to conduct further analysis, exploring whether certain items or questions required adjustments to better align with our data set.
This reinforced the importance of testing the reliability and validity of the instruments beforehand. The tests should produce similar scores when administered to the same person on different occasions, and also produce scores that are related to the target skills or knowledge.
Developing in-house psychometric-like tools
Organisations may attempt to create their own psychometric-like tools to address challenges such as the assessment form being too lengthy or parts of it being irrelevant to the programme it is being deployed for. For instance, many times organisations choose to combine multiple psychometric scales and their respective questions to make one scale that they believe will address key aspects of their programme or interventions, while simultaneously ensuring that the questionnaire is short enough to be completed quickly. However, developing such tools without adhering to rigorous processes can result in issues related to reliability and validity.
Furthermore, creating psychometric-like tools without expertise in test construction can introduce unintended biases or skewed measurements. Professionals in psychometrics have the necessary knowledge and skills to ensure fair, impartial, and accurate assessments. Developing tools without this expertise may lead to biased evaluations or discriminatory practices. For instance, there is evidence of tools exhibiting bias against women or specific racial groups, primarily due to the absence of these demographics in the initial samples.
Developing and validating psychometric tests require a substantial amount of time, effort, and resources.
However, developing and validating psychometric tests require a substantial amount of time, effort, and resources. The assessment must undergo multiple stages, including item development, pilot testing, data collection, analysis, and refinement. Organisations may not always have the expertise or resources to undertake this comprehensive process. In such cases, relying on established and validated tests developed by experts can save time and ensure quality assessment. If organisations choose to build their own tools, it is highly recommended to conduct reliability and validity testing and follow best practices for tool development. Alternatively, organisations can seek assistance from the original creators or authors of such tools to ensure effective implementation. Collaborating with experts and reaching out to the broader community is encouraged during tool problem-solving sprints.
Using tests that are not culturally appropriate
Many psychometric tests are developed in Western countries and may not be culturally appropriate for use in other parts of the world. This is because the tests might be based on values and norms that are not shared by that particular culture; this applies to India as well.
Education and literacy also significantly impact scores on various types of tests, such as those assessing working memory and visual processing of certain indigenous populations.
Therefore, when selecting psychometric tests for India, it is important to choose only those that have been validated for use keeping the cultural context in mind. There are a number of tests that have been specifically developed for use in India. For example, NIMHANS Neuropsychological Battery, Indian Adaptation of Wechsler Adult Performance Intelligence Scale (WAPIS – PR) by P Ramalingaswamy, and more.
Using tests that are not aligned with programme goals
It is important that the psychometric tests used by the organisation are aligned with the goals of their programme. If the tests do not measure the specific traits, skills, or knowledge that the programme is designed to develop, then the results of the tests will not be meaningful. Using the wrong tests can lead to incorrect diagnoses, which bears serious consequences such as stigma or missed opportunities for support.
It is imperative to use tools that match the cognitive development of individuals, ensuring that data collected is both accurate and fair.
For example, we have adopted psychometric tools to evaluate mindsets, including self-awareness, grit, and self-efficacy. If our entrepreneurship curriculum delivered to learners aged 14–18 doesn’t directly address the enhancement of these specific traits, this gap would make it challenging to align the outcomes from the psychometric evaluations with our curriculum’s content. As a result, establishing a feedback mechanism to refine and improve our curriculum interventions would become a hurdle. In order to obtain accurate data from psychometric tests, it is essential that the curriculum of the programme is appropriately tailored to meet the intended programme and learning objectives.
Administering psychometric assessments to a population requires a careful evaluation of age appropriateness and literacy levels. It is imperative to use tools that match the cognitive development of individuals, ensuring that data collected is both accurate and fair. Moreover, taking into account diverse literacy levels is vital for fostering clear communication and preventing potential bias or frustration in the assessment process. These considerations uphold the ethical standards in the assessment of individuals’ abilities and attributes.
Translating psychometric tools from English to Indian languages
Language and cultural nuances play a significant role in psychometric assessments. The meaning of certain words or concepts may vary across languages and cultures. Direct translations of items or instructions from English to Indian languages without considering these nuances can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations, affecting the accuracy and validity of the assessment results.
For instance, if a question in English asks about ‘self-esteem’, a literal translation might use a Hindi term that refers to ‘self-worth’ or ‘self-respect’. While these may be related concepts, they don’t have the exact same meaning as ‘self-esteem’, leading to a loss of the original nuance and potentially impacting the validity of the tool in the new cultural context.
The translation process for a psychometric tool should be rigorous and systematic to ensure the validity and reliability of the translated version of the tool. It involves guaranteeing conceptual equivalence, linguistic validation, cultural adaptation, back translation, and validation studies to create dependable assessments in the target language.
—
Know more
- Learn more about how to conduct psychological assessment and evaluation.
- Read this article on how nonprofits can optimise their monitoring and evaluation efforts.
- Learn more about best practices for developing and validating scales.
