Tests may appear to measure an ability while actually measuring an unintended one, such as speed of writing figures or attention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1921 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Many marketed tests seem to test an ability but in reality do not: an arithmetic test stressing time may test speed in writing figures, and a reading test with artificial difficulties may test attention. → Franzen 1921

Evidence¶

Franzen 1921¶

Franzen, R., & Knight, F. B. (1921). Criteria to Employ in Choice of Tests. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075312

q2 · i? · theoretical · r2

Authors' interpretive warning, attributed to points made by Thorndike and Courtis and by Pressey and Pressey, that face appearance of validity is insufficient. Support is argument and cited prior critique, not new data; hence the first criterion is 'not a pedantic insistence on the obvious'.

"There are many tests on the market which seem to test an ability and which in reality do not. An "arithmetic" test, for instance, which lays undue stress on time might test speed in writing figures, a "reading" test which had in it too many artificial difficulties not ordinarily encountered in reading might test attention."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Directional correlations between test scores and discrepancy direction are low but suggest tension tests track scholarship superiority and assimilation tests track intelligence superiority — related
• The increased efficiency effect threatens the validity of response-time models that presume item response time is influenced only by item time intensity, ability, and working speed — related
• The increased efficiency effect confounds attempts to exploit the speed-ability trade-off central to many response-time models — related