In this article, we present and argue our assertion that current routine psychological testing of individuals is not valid. To support our assertion, we review the concept of ergodicity, Birkhoff's theorem, and Molenaar's manifesto, which together support our contention that the direct transposition of population estimations for producing inferences about the individual is not valid. We argue that this practice of direct transposition is the root cause of why routine psychological testing of individual is not valid. We then provide an example of a common application of psychological testing of an individual, explaining why this practice is not valid. Finally, we discuss how the intraindividual (or within-person) approach provides some prospect for valid individual testing and also introduces new challenges. We hope that our questioning of current psychological testing practices motivates researchers to propose and study novel methodological propositions to address the issues raised by our assertion.
This preprint shows initial evidence that the complexity cost criterion may not be a good approach in the regression tree method
The theory of students’ approaches to learning makes direct contributions to the teaching-learning process. For instance, it provides a conceptual repertoire that helps improve the teacher’s pedagogical practice and the student’s self-assessment of their own learning. Despite its contributions, the field of approaches has an important limitation: the measurement of its constructs is carried out exclusively by self-report tests. Although these measures have brought advances to the field, self-report is permeated by important biases that impair the quality of measurement. Considering this limitation, the Laboratory for Cognitive Architecture Research (LAICO) has initiated an agenda to develop performance-based tests for the measurement of approaches. The Approach-in-Process Test Version 2 is part of this agenda. It is a performance-based test that measures approach in the context of school/academic learning. In addition to the performance-based measurement, the test has two self-report measurements. The first measures the student’s perception of the impact of certain lessons on his or her deep approach to learning. The second measures the student’s perception of how often he or she manifests the deep approach to learning. The test items for the self-report measurements are multiple choice, while the items for the performance measure are open-ended in nature and require a correction guide. This paper presents, for the first time, the Correction Guide for the Approach-in-Process Test Version 2. In this paper, all the structural components of the correction guide are shown as well as its application to the specific content “we have no direct access to reality” taught in a particular university discipline. Applications of the Correction Guide in other teaching contents will be presented in future publications. They will show that the Approach-in-Process Test Version 2 can be applied and corrected in the diversity of school/academic contents.
Students’ approaches to learning are an important tool used by researchers in the field of educational psychology. The theory assumes that students have two basic ways of approaching objects of knowledge, a deep one and a superficial one. Both are reasonable predictors of academic performance. The study of the learning process requires instruments to be applied to students, nevertheless, the exclusive use of self-report instruments has substantially hindered an adequate study of this process. The Laboratory for Research on Cognitive Architecture (LAICO) at the Federal University of Minas Gerais brought forth an important recent contribution to learning approaches. This is the development of the Approach-in-Process Test (Version 2) which measures the students' process when using their learning approaches. The Approach-in-Process Test (Version 2) is completely original since it is a test based on performance that measures students’ learning approach in the academic learning context. In this paper, we make a presentation of the Approach-in-Process Test (Version 2) where we show in detail its structure and content.
Metacognition is predominantly measured by the self-report and think-aloud methods. This is problematic since they produce considerable both respondent and confirmatory biases, which implies damage to the measurement. The Metacognitive Monitoring Test (MMT) was created to evaluate metacognition through performance and eliminate the aforementioned biases. There is evidence of MMT convergent, divergent, structural, predictive and incremental validity. This article expands the validity studies about the MMT by analyzing the configural, metric and scalar invariance of MMT across sex, nationality, and educational level variables. The sample is composed of Brazilian and Honduran subjects, as well as 6st to 12st grades and higher education students. Results indicate configural, metric and scalar invariance for the sex variable, as well as configural invariance and metric and scalar partial invariance for nationality and educational level. It is concluded that the MMT allows comparing means of the latent variable measured in the analyzed groups.
Studies on prediction recognize the presence of a large number of predictors of school-academic performance, as well as the existence of well-established predictors, nevertheless some psychoeducational variables remain little explored, even though their great potential. One of these is reflective thinking. The Laboratory for Research on Cognitive Architecture (LAICO) at the Federal University of Minas Gerais brought forth a contribution to reflective thinking. This is the development of the Interest Scale on Reflective Thinking which measures the interest of people in thinking reflectively. In this paper we present the Interest Scale on Reflective Thinking where it is shown in detail its structure and content. We also show evidence of structural validity, external validity and reliability of the scale.
<p>De acordo com a teoria das abordagens de aprendizagem, o estudante pode construir conhecimento de forma superficial ou profunda. Na abordagem superficial, o estudante é motivado por razões extrínsecas e utiliza estratégias de aprendizagem mecânica, enquanto na abordagem profunda ele é motivado por razões intrínsecas e utiliza estratégias de alto nível de processamento cognitivo. Essa teoria é um importante referencial teórico para a prática pedagógica, pois ajuda no diagnóstico de problemas de aprendizagem e guia o processo de ensino, além de ser um preditor do desempenho acadêmico. No entanto, a mensuração das abordagens é realizada exclusivamente por meio de instrumentos de autorrelato, permeados por vieses inerentes ao próprio autorrelato. O Teste Abordagem-em-Processo (Versão 2) é uma alternativa proposta para superar essa limitação. Esse teste produz uma medida das abordagens a partir do desempenho dos respondentes em seis itens abertos. Em cada um desses itens o estudante é solicitado a desempenhar um comportamento de abordagem profunda ao interagir com conteúdos selecionados pelo professor. Considerando a natureza aberta desses itens, foi criado no Laboratório de Investigação da Arquitetura Cognitiva (LAICO) um Guia de Correção para nortear a correção por parte do professor. Este artigo apresenta a aplicação do Guia de Correção no conteúdo "Questões epistemológicas na aquisição dos conhecimentos na teoria de Jean Piaget", proveniente de uma disciplina do curso de Pedagogia de uma universidade estadual no estado de São Paulo, Brasil. O artigo descreve o preenchimento completo de todas as seções do Guia de Correção pelo professor, assim como apresenta comentários feitos pelo professor durante a elaboração do Guia. Todo o preenchimento do Guia foi supervisionado por um especialista do LAICO no Guia de Correção.</p><p>According to the theory of students' approaches to learning, students can construct knowledge in either a superficial or deep manner. In the surface approach, students are motivated by extrinsic reasons and use mechanical learning strategies, while in the deep approach, they are motivated by intrinsic reasons and use high-level cognitive processing strategies. This theory is an important pedagogical framework, as it not only helps diagnose learning problems and guide the teaching process, but also predicts academic performance. However, the measurement of approaches is exclusively done through self-report instruments, which are inherently biased. The Approach-in-Process Test (Version 2) is a proposed alternative to overcome this limitation. This test produces a measure of approaches based on the performance of respondents in six open-ended items. In each of these items, students are asked to engage in a behavior of deep approach when interacting with content selected by the teacher. Considering the open nature of these items, a Correction Guide was created at the Laboratory for Cognitive Architecture Research (LAICO) to guide the correction process by the teacher. This article presents the application of the Correction Guide to the content “Epistemological Issues in Knowledge Acquisition in Jean Piaget's Theory”, from a discipline in the Pedagogy course at a state university in São Paulo, Brazil. The article describes the complete filling of all sections of the Correction Guide by the teacher, as well as presents comments made by the teacher during the guide's elaboration. The entire filling out of the Guide was supervised by an LAICO expert in the Correction Guide.</p><p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/soc/0605/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.