Encyclopedia ofPsychological Assessment

Volume 1A–L

Encyclopedia ofPsychological Assessment

Volume 1A–L

Edited by Rocı́o Fernández-Ballesteros

Editorial Board

Dave Bartram Lilianne Manning

Gian Vittorio Caprara Rudolf Moos

Ronald K. Hambleton Charles D. Spielberger

Lutz F. Hornke Irving B. Weiner

Jan ter Laak Hans Westmeyer

SAGEPublicationsLondon �Thousand Oaks � New Delhi

� Rocı́o Fernández-Ballesteros 2003

First published 2003

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research orprivate study, or criticism or review, as permitted under theCopyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publicationmay be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or byany means, only with the prior permission in writing of thepublishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, inaccordance with the terms of licences issued by the CopyrightLicensing Agency. Inquiries concerning reproduction outsidethose terms should be sent to the publishers.

SAGE Publications Ltd6 Bonhill StreetLondon EC2A 4PU

SAGE Publications Inc2455 Teller RoadThousand Oaks, California 91320

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd32, M-Block MarketGreater Kailash-INew Delhi 110 048

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

A catalogue record for this book is available fromthe British Library

ISBN 0 7619 5494 5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2002104967

Typeset by Keyword Publishing Services, Barking, EssexPrinted in Great Britain by The Alden Press, Oxford

C o n t e n t s

List of Entries vii

Reader’s Guide xiii

Contributors xvii

Preface xxv

About the Editor xxvii

Editorial Board xxix

L i s t o f E n t r i e s

Volume 1

Achievement Motivation. Uwe Kleinbeck 1Achievement Testing. Anita M. Hubley 5Adaptive and Tailored Testing (including IRT and Non-IRT Application). Vicente Ponsoda

and Julio Olea 9Ambulatory Assessment. Jochen Fahrenberg 13Analogue Methods. Richard E. Heyman and Amy M. Smith Slep 19Anger, Hostility and Aggression Assessment. Manolete S. Moscoso and

Miguel Angel Pérez-Nieto 22Antisocial Disorders Assessment. Concetta Pastorelli and Maria Gerbino 28Anxiety Assessment. Norman S. Endler and Nancy L. Kocovski 35Anxiety Disorders Assessment. Juan José Miguel-Tobal and Héctor González-Ordi 40Applied Behavioural Analysis. Erik Arntzen 45Applied Fields: Clinical. Irving B. Weiner 49Applied Fields: Education. Filip Dochy 53Applied Fields: Forensic. Marie-Luise Kluck and Karl Westhoff 59Applied Fields: Gerontology. Hans-Werner Wahl and Ursula Lehr 63Applied Fields: Health. Britta Renner and Ralf Schwarzer 69Applied Fields: Neuropsychology. Carmen Armengol de la Miyar, Elisabeth J. Moes and

Edith Kaplan 72Applied Fields: Organizations. José Marı́a Peiró and Vicente Martı́nez-Tur 78Applied Fields: Psychophysiology. Graham Turpin 83Applied Fields: Work and Industry. Lutz F. Hornke 88Assessment Process. Eric E.J. De Bruyn 93Assessor’s Bias. Friedrich Lösel and Martin Schmucker 98Attachment. Marinus Van Ijzendoorn and Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg 101Attention. Sarah Friedman and Anita Konachoff 106Attitudes. Icek Ajzen 110Attributional Styles. Robert M. Hessling, Craig A. Anderson and Daniel W. Russell 116Autobiography. Torbjörn Svensson and William Randall 120Automated Test Assembly Systems. Wim van der Linden 123

Behavioural Assessment Techniques. William J. Korotitsch and Rosemery O. Nelson-Gray 129Behavioural Settings and Behaviour Mapping. Robert B. Bechtel 135Big Five Model Assessment. Boele De Raad and Marco Perugini 138

Brain Activity Measurement. Rainer Bösel and Sascha Tamm 145Burnout Assessment. Christina Maslach 150

Career and Personnel Development. Peter Herriot 155Caregiver Burden. Constança Paúl and Ignacio Martin 161Case Formulation. William H. O’Brien, Allison Collins and Mary Kaplar 164Centres (Assessment Centres). Alvaro de Ansorena 167Child and Adolescent Assessment in Clinical Settings. Marı́a Victoria del Barrio 171Child Custody. Shlomo Romi and Nurit Levi 178Children with Disabilities. Miguel Angel Verdugo 182Classical and Modern Item Analysis. Ronald K. Hambleton and Mohamed Dirir 188Classical Test Theory. José Muñiz 192Classification (General, including Diagnosis). Hubert Feger 199Clinical Judgement. Antonio Godoy 203Coaching Candidates to Score Higher on Tests. Avi Allalouf 207Cognitive Ability: g Factor. Arthur R. Jensen 211Cognitive Ability: Multiple Cognitive Abilities. Roberto Colom 214Cognitive Decline/Impairment. Christopher Hertzog and Simeon Feldstein 219Cognitive Maps. Reginald G. Golledge 223Cognitive/Mental Abilities in Work and Organizational Settings. Edwin A. Fleishman 228Cognitive Plasticity. Reinhold Kliegl and Doris Philipp 234Cognitive Processes: Current Status. Patrick C. Kyllonen and Richard D. Roberts 237Cognitive Processes: Historical Perspective. Phillip L. Ackerman 241Cognitive Psychology and Assessment Practices. Mark Wilson 244Cognitive Styles. Alessandro Antonietti 248Communicative Language Abilities. Marı́a Forns 254Computer-Based Testing. Walter D. Way and Jerry Gorham 258Coping Styles. Timo Suutama 263Counselling, Assessment in. Greg J. Neimeyer, Jocelyn Saferstein and Jason Z. Bowman 270Couple Assessment in Clinical Settings. Douglas K. Snyder 273Creativity. Dean Keith Simonton 276Criterion-Referenced Testing: Methods and Procedures. Ronald K. Hambleton 280Cross-Cultural Assessment. Ype H. Poortinga 284

Dangerous/Violence Potential Behaviour. Carl B. Gacono and Robert H. Bodholdt 289Decision (including Decision Theory). Manfred Amelang 293Dementia. Suvarna Wagle, Ajay Wagle and German E. Berrios 297Development (General). J. ter Laak, G. Brugman and M. de Goede 301Development: Intelligence/Cognitive. Jennifer M. Gillis, James C. Kaufman and

Alan S. Kaufman 308Development: Language. Mercedes Belinchón 311Development: Psychomotor. Orli Yazdi-Ugav and Shlomo Romi 317Development: Socio-Emotional. Marı́a Victoria del Barrio 324Diagnosis of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Pierre Pichot 332Diagnostic Testing in Educational Settings. Jacques Gregoire 334Dynamic Assessment (Learning Potential Testing, Testing the Limits). Carol S. Lidz 337

Eating Disorders. Carmina Saldaña 345Emotional Intelligence. John D. Mayer 351Emotions. José-Miguel Fernández-Dols and Jo-Anne Bachorowski 356Empowerment. Donata Francescato 361Environmental Attitudes and Values. Riley E. Dunlap and Robert Emmet Jones 364

viii List of Entries

Equipment for Assessing Basic Processes. Rainer M. Bösel 369Ethics. Gerhard Blickle 373Evaluability Assessment. José Manuel Hernández 378Evaluation: Programme Evaluation (General). Michael Scriven 381Evaluation in Higher Education. Salvador Chacón Moscoso and

Francisco Pablo Holgado Tello 387Executive Functions Disorders. José León-Carrión 391Explanation. Hans Westmeyer 394

Factor Analysis: Confirmatory. Barbara M. Byrne 399Factor Analysis: Exploratory. Claudio Barbaranelli 403Family. Theodore Jacob and Jon Randolph Haber 407Field Survey: Protocols Development. Juan Dı́ez Medrano 413Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence. André Beauducel 416Formats for Assessment. April L. Zenisky and Ronald K. Hambleton 420

Generalizability Theory. Fabio Ferlazzo 425Giftedness. H. Lee Swanson 430Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). Thomas J. Kiresuk 435

Health. Abilio Reig-Ferrer and Antonio Cepeda-Benito 441History of Psychological Assessment. Heliodoro Carpintero 447

Identity Disorders. Jane Kroger and Jan H. Rosenvinge 453Idiographic Methods. Daniel Cervone and William G. Shadel 456Instructional Strategies. Carmen Vizcarro Guarch 461Intelligence Assessment (General). James C. Kaufman and Alan S. Kaufman 465Intelligence Assessment through Cohort and Time. Georg Rudinger

and Christian Rietz 470Interest. Rodney L. Lowman 477Interview (General). Marı́a Martina Casullo and Marı́a Oliva Márquez 481Interview in Behavioural and Health Settings. Marı́a Xesús Froján Parga 487Interview in Child and Family Settings. Anna Silvia Bombi 490Interview in Work and Organizational Settings. Karl Westhoff 495Irrational Beliefs. K. Robert Bridges 498Item Banking. Manfred Steffen and Martha Stocking 502Item Bias. Bruno D. Zumbo and Anita M. Hubley 505Item Response Theory: Models and Features. Ronald K. Hambleton

and Michael Jodoin 509

Job Characteristics. David Scheffer 515Job Stress. Günter Debus and Maike Oppe 522

Landscapes and Natural Environments. Terry Hartig 529Language (General). José Manuel Igoa and Mercedes Belinchón 533Latent Class Analysis. Jürgen Rost 540Leadership in Organizational Settings. Francisco Fernández Ballesteros 544Leadership Personality. Robert Hogan and Robert Tett 548Learning Disabilities. H. Lee Swanson 553Learning Strategies. Carmen Vizcarro Guarch 558Life Events. Elaine Wethington 561Locus of Control. Christopher Peterson 564

List of Entries ix

Volume 2

Memory (General). José Marı́a Ruiz Vargas 569Memory Disorders. Lilianne Manning 574Mental Retardation. Miguel Angel Verdugo 579Mood Disorders. Elaine M. Heiby, Velma A. Kameoka and Judy H. Lee 585Motivation. Richard Koestner 589Motor Skills in Work Settings. Will A.C. Spijkers 595Multidimensional Item Response Theory. Cees A.W. Glas 598Multidimensional Scaling Methods. Mark L. Davison 602Multimodal Assessment (including Triangulation). Rolf-Dieter Stieglitz 606Multitrait–Multimethod Matrices. Levent Dumenci 610

Needs Assessment. Salvador Chacón-Moscoso, Ángel Lara-Ruiz andJosé Antonio Pérez-Gil 615

Neuropsychological Test Batteries. Andreas Kruse 619Norm-Referenced Testing: Methods and Procedures. Anil Kanjee 625

Objectivity. Hans Westmeyer 629Observational Methods (General). Marı́a Teresa Anguera Argilaga 632Observational Techniques in Clinical Settings. Warren W. Tryon 638Observational Techniques in Work and Organizational Settings. Siegfried Greif 643Optimism. Christopher Peterson, Fiona Lee and Martin E.P. Seligman 646Organizational Culture. Annette Kluge 649Organizational Structure, Assessment of. James L. Zazzali 657Outcome Assessment/Treatment Assessment. Mark E. Maruish 661Outcome Evaluation in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. José León-Carrión 665

Palliative Care. Pilar Barreto 671Perceived Environmental Quality. José Antonio Corraliza 674Performance. Eva L. Baker and Richard S. Brown 680Performance Standards: Constructed Response Item Formats. Barbara S. Plake 685Performance Standards: Selected Response Item Formats. Gregory J. Cizek 690Person/Situation (Environment) Assessment. Jens B. Asendorpf 695Personal Constructs. David A. Winter 699Personality Assessment (General). Gian Vittorio Caprara and Daniel Cervone 701Personality Assessment through Longitudinal Designs. Georg Rudinger and Christian Rietz 708Personnel Selection, Assessment in. Kevin R. Murphy and Zinta S. Byrne 714Physical Abilities in Work Settings. Edwin A. Fleishman 718Planning. Sarah L. Friedman and Heather Biggar 723Planning Classroom Tests. Giray Berberoğlu 726Post-Occupancy Evaluation for the Built Environment. Richard Wener 732Practical Intelligence: Conceptual Aspects. Richard K. Wagner 736Practical Intelligence: Its Measurement. Linda S. Gottfredson 740Prediction (General). Hubert Feger 745Prediction: Clinical vs. Statistical. Hans Westmeyer 749Pre-School Children. Robin L. Phaneuf and Gary Stoner 753Problem Solving. Martin Kersting 757Projective Techniques. Danilo R. Silva 761Prosocial Behaviour. Gian Vittorio Caprara 766Psychoeducational Test Batteries. John M. Hintze 770

x List of Entries

Psychoneuroimmunology. Vı́ctor J. Rubio 774Psychophysiological Equipment and Measurements. Jaime Vila 778

Qualitative Methods. Greg J. Neimeyer and Marco Gemignani 785Quality of Life. Abilio Reig-Ferrer 800

Reliability. Dato N.M. de Gruijter 807Report (General). Gary Groth-Marnat 812Reporting Test Results in Education. Howard Wainer 817Residential and Treatment Facilities. Svein Friis and Torleif Ruud 825Risk and Prevention in Work and Organizational Settings. Babette Fahlbruch 829

Self, The (General). Alfredo Fierro 835Self-Control. Elaine M. Heiby, Peter G. Mezo and Velma A. Kameoka 841Self-Efficacy. Albert Bandura 848Self-Observation (Self-Monitoring). William J. Korotitsch and Rosemery O. Nelson-Gray 853Self-Presentation Measurement. Delroy L. Paulhus 858Self-Report Distortions (including Faking, Lying, Malingering, Social Desirability).

Ruth A. Baer, Jason C. Rinaldo and David T.R. Berry 861Self-Report Questionnaires. Leslie C. Morey 866Self-Reports (General). Rocı́o Fernández-Ballesteros and Marı́a Oliva Márquez 871Self-Reports in Behavioural Clinical Settings. Marı́a Xesús Froján Parga 877Self-Reports in Work and Organizational Settings. Peter F. Merenda 880Sensation Seeking. Marvin Zuckerman 884Social Climate. Rudolf H. Moos and Charles J. Holahan 888Social Competence (including Social Skills, Assertion). Francisco Xavier Méndez Carrillo

and José Olivares 894Social Networks. Marc Pilisuk and Angela Wong 901Social Resources. Benjamin H. Gottlieb 907Socio-Demographic Conditions. Juan Dı́ez Nicolás 911Sociometric Methods. Rosario Martı́nez Arias 914Standard for Educational and Psychological Testing. Daniel R. Eignor 917Stress. Hannelore Weber 920Stressors: Physical. Nancy M. Wells and Gary W. Evans 925Stressors: Social. Toni C. Antonucci and Jessica M. McIlvane 931Subjective Methods. Guillem Feixas 937Substance Abuse. Marı́a Xesús Froján Parga 943

Temperament. Jan Strelau 949Test Accommodations for Disabilities. Stan Scarpati 957Test Adaptation/Translation Methods. Fons van de Vijver 960Test Anxiety. Moshe Zeidner and Gerald Matthews 964Test Designs: Developments. Patrick C. Kyllonen 969Test Directions and Scoring. Gerardo Prieto and Ana R. Delgado 975Test User Competence/Responsible Test Use. Lorraine Dittrich Eyde 978Testing in the Second Language in Minorities. Juana Gómez-Benito 982Testing through the Internet. Dave Bartram 985Theoretical Perspective: Behavioural. John D. Cone 991Theoretical Perspective: Cognitive. Cesare Cornoldi and Nicola Mammarella 997Theoretical Perspective: Cognitive-Behavioural. Susan B. Watson,

Joseph K. Kaholokula, Karl Nelson and Stephen N. Haynes 1001Theoretical Perspective: Constructivism. Robert A. Neimeyer and Heidi Levitt 1008

List of Entries xi

Theoretical Perspective: Psychoanalytic. Irving B. Weiner 1011Theoretical Perspective: Psychological Behaviourism. Arthur W. Staats 1014Theoretical Perspective: Psychometrics. Kurt Pawlik 1019Theoretical Perspective: Systemic. Günter Schiepek 1023Thinking Disorders Assessment. James H. Kleiger 1027Time Orientation. Philip G. Zimbardo and John N. Boyd 1031Total Quality Management. Francisco Fernández Ballesteros 1035Trait–State Models. Rolf Steyer 1041Triarchic Intelligence Components. Robert J. Sternberg 1044Type A: A Proposed Psychosocial Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Diseases. José Bermúdez 1048Type C: A Proposed Psychosocial Risk Factor for Cancer. Lydia R. Temoshok 1052

Unobtrusive Measures. Lee Sechrest and Rebecca J. Hill 1057Utility. Katrin Borcherding 1062

Validity (General). Stephen G. Sireci 1067Validity: Construct. Wayne J. Camara 1070Validity: Content. Stephen G. Sireci 1075Validity: Criterion-Related. Stephen B. Dunbar and Virginia L. Ordman 1078Values. Piotr K. Oles and Hubert J.M. Hermans 1082Visuo-Perceptual Impairments. José León-Carrión 1088Voluntary Movement. Georg Goldenberg 1092

Well-Being (including Life Satisfaction). William Pavot and Ed Diener 1097Wisdom. Ursula M. Staudinger 1102Work Performance. Fred R.H. Zijlstra 1107

Index 1115

xii List of Entries

R e a d e r ’ s G u i d e

This list is provided to assist readers in locating entries on related topics. It classifies entries into ninegeneral categories: (1) Theory and Methodology; (2) Methods, Tests and Equipment; (3) Personality;(4) Intelligence; (5) Clinical and Health; (6) Educational and Child Assessment; (7) Work andOrganizations; (8) Neurophysiopsychological Assessment; and (9) Environmental Assessment. Someentry titles appear in more than one category.

1. Theory and MethodologyAmbulatory AssessmentAssessment ProcessAssessor’s BiasAutomated Test Assembly SystemsClassical and Modern Item AnalysisClassical Test TheoryClassification (General, including Diagnosis)Criterion-Referenced Testing: Methods and

ProceduresCross-Cultural AssessmentDecision (including Decision Theory)Diagnosis of Mental and Behavioural

DisordersDiagnostic Testing in Educational SettingsDynamic Assessment (Learning Potential

Testing, Testing the Limits)EthicsEvaluability AssessmentEvaluation: Programme Evaluation (General)ExplanationFactor Analysis: ConfirmatoryFactor Analysis: ExploratoryFormats for AssessmentGeneralizability TheoryHistory of Psychological AssessmentIntelligence Assessment through Cohort and

TimeItem BankingItem Bias

Item Response Theory: Models and FeaturesLatent Class AnalysisMultidimensional Item Response TheoryMultidimensional Scaling MethodsMultimodal Assessment (including

Triangulation)Multitrait–Multimethod MatricesNeeds AssessmentNorm-Referenced Testing: Methods and

ProceduresObjectivityOutcome Assessment/Treatment AssessmentPerson/Situation (Environment) AssessmentPersonality Assessment through Longitudinal

DesignsPrediction (General)Prediction: Clinical vs. StatisticalQualitative MethodsReliabilityReport (General)Reporting Test Results in EducationSelf-Presentation MeasurementSelf-Report Distortions (including Faking,

Lying, Malingering, Social Desirability)Test Adaptation/Translation MethodsTest User Competence/Responsible Test UseTheoretical Perspective: CognitiveTheoretical Perspective: Cognitive-BehaviouralTheoretical Perspective: ConstructivismTheoretical Perspective: Psychoanalytic

Theoretical Perspective: PsychologicalBehaviourism

Theoretical Perspective: PsychometricsTheoretical Perspective: SystemicTrait–State ModelsUtilityValidity (General)Validity: ConstructValidity: ContentValidity: Criterion-Related

2. Methods, Tests and EquipmentAdaptive and Tailored TestingAnalogue MethodsAutobiographyBehavioural Assessment TechniquesBrain Activity MeasurementCase FormulationCoaching Candidates to Score Higher on TestsComputer-Based TestingEquipment for Assessing Basic ProcessesField Survey: Protocols DevelopmentGoal Attainment Scaling (GAS)Idiographic MethodsInterview (General)Interview in Behavioural and Health SettingsInterview in Child and Family SettingsInterview in Work and Organizational SettingsNeuropsychological Test BatteriesObservational Methods (General)Observational Techniques in Clinical SettingsObservational Techniques in Work and

Organizational SettingsProjective TechniquesPsychoeducational Test BatteriesPsychophysiological Equipment and

MeasurementsSelf-Observation (Self-Monitoring)Self-Report QuestionnairesSelf-Reports (General)Self-Reports in Behavioural Clinical SettingsSelf-Reports in Work and Organizational

SettingsSocio-Demographic ConditionsSociometric MethodsStandard for Educational and Psychological

TestingSubjective MethodsTest Accommodations for DisabilitiesTest AnxietyTest Designs: Developments

Test Directions and ScoringTesting through the InternetUnobtrusive Measures

3. PersonalityAnxiety AssessmentAttachmentAttitudesAttribution StylesBig Five Model AssessmentBurnout AssessmentCognitive StylesCoping StylesEmotionsEmpowermentInterestLeadership PersonalityLocus of ControlMotivationOptimismPerson/Situation (Environment) AssessmentPersonal ConstructsPersonality Assessment (General)Personality Assessment through Longitudinal

DesignsProsocial BehaviourSelf, The (General)Self-ControlSelf-EfficacySelf-Presentation MeasurementSensation SeekingSocial Competence (including Social Skills,

Assertion)TemperamentTime OrientationTrait–State ModelsValuesWell-Being (including Life Satisfaction)

4. IntelligenceAttentionCognitive Ability: g FactorCognitive Ability: Multiple Cognitive AbilitiesCognitive Decline/ImpairmentCognitive/Mental Abilities in Work and

Organizational SettingsCognitive PlasticityCognitive Processes: Current StatusCognitive Processes: Historical PerspectiveCreativity

xiv Reader’s Guide

Dynamic Assessment (Learning PotentialTesting, Testing the Limits)

Emotional IntelligenceEquipment for Assessing Basic ProcessesFluid and Crystallized IntelligenceIntelligence Assessment (General)Intelligence Assessment through Cohort and

TimeLanguage (General)Learning DisabilitiesMemory (General)Mental RetardationPractical Intelligence: Conceptual AspectsPractical Intelligence: Its MeasurementProblem SolvingTriarchic Intelligence ComponentsWisdom

5. Clinical and HealthAnger, Hostility and Aggression AssessmentAntisocial Disorders AssessmentAnxiety AssessmentAnxiety Disorders AssessmentApplied Behavioural AnalysisApplied Fields: ClinicalApplied Fields: GerontologyApplied Fields: HealthCaregiver BurdenChild and Adolescent Assessment in Clinical

SettingsClinical JudgementCoping StylesCounselling, Assessment inCouple Assessment in Clinical SettingsDangerous/Violence Potential BehaviourDementiaDiagnosis of Mental and Behavioural

DisordersDynamic Assessment (Learning Potential

Testing, Testing the Limits)Eating DisordersHealthIdentity DisordersInterview in Behavioural and Health SettingsIrrational BeliefsLearning DisabilitiesMental RetardationMood DisordersObservational Techniques in Clinical SettingsOutcome Assessment/Treatment AssessmentPalliative Care

Prediction: Clinical vs. StatisticalPsychoneuroimmunologyQuality of LifeSelf-Observation (Self-Monitoring)Self-Reports in Behavioural Clinical SettingsSocial Competence (including Social Skills,

Assertion)StressSubstance AbuseText AnxietyThinking Disorders AssessmentType A: A Proposed Psychosocial Risk Factor

for Cardiovascular DiseasesType C: A Proposed Psychosocial Risk Factor

for Cancer

6. Educational and Child AssessmentAchievement TestingApplied Fields: EducationChild CustodyChildren with DisabilitiesCoaching Candidates to Score Higher on TestsCognitive Psychology and Assessment PracticesCommunicative Language AbilitiesDevelopment (General)Development: Intelligence/CognitiveDevelopment: LanguageDevelopment: PsychomotorDevelopment: Socio-EmotionalDiagnostic Testing in Educational SettingsDynamic Assessment (Learning Potential

Testing, Testing the Limits)Evaluation in Higher EducationGiftednessInstructional StrategiesInterview in Child and Family SettingsItem BankingLearning StrategiesPerformancePerformance Standards: Constructed Response

Item FormatsPerformance Standards: Selected Response

Item FormatsPlanningPlanning Classroom TestsPre-School ChildrenPsychoeducational Test BatteriesReporting Test Results in EducationStandard for Educational and Psychological

TestingTest Accommodations for Disabilities

Reader’s Guide xv

Test Directions and ScoringTesting in the Second Language in Minorities

7. Work and OrganizationsAchievement MotivationApplied Fields: ForensicApplied Fields: OrganizationsApplied Fields: Work and IndustryCareer and Personnel DevelopmentCentres (Assessment Centres)Cognitive/Mental Abilities in Work and

Organizational SettingsEmpowermentInterview in Work and Organizational SettingsJob CharacteristicsJob StressLeadership in Organizational SettingsLeadership PersonalityMotor Skills in Work SettingsObservational Techniques in Work and

Organizational SettingsOrganizational CulturePerformancePersonnel Selection, Assessment inPhysical Abilities in Work SettingsRisk and Prevention in Work and

Organizational SettingsSelf-Reports in Work and Organizational

SettingsTotal Quality Management

8. Neurophysiopsychological AssessmentApplied Fields: Neuropsychology

Applied Fields: PsychophysiologyBrain Activity MeasurementDementiaEquipment for Assessing Basic ProcessesExecutive Functions DisordersMemory DisordersNeuropsychological Test BatteriesOutcome Evaluation in Neuropsychological

RehabilitationPsychoneuroimmunologyPsychophysiological Equipment and

MeasurementsVisuo-Perceptual ImpairmentsVoluntary Movement

9. Environmental AssessmentBehavioural Settings and Behaviour MappingCognitive MapsCouple Assessment in Clinical SettingsEnvironmental Attitudes and ValuesFamilyLandscapes and Natural EnvironmentsLife EventsOrganizational Structure, Assessment ofPerceived Environmental QualityPerson/Situation (Environment) AssessmentPost-Occupancy Evaluation for the Built

EnvironmentResidential and Treatment FacilitiesSocial ClimateSocial NetworksSocial ResourcesStressors: PhysicalStressors: Social

xvi Reader’s Guide

C o n t r i b u t o r s

Phillip L. Ackerman, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USAIcek Ajzen, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USAAvi Allalouf, National Institute for Testing and Evaluation, Jerusalem, IsraelManfred Amelang, Psychology Institute, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, GermanyCraig A. Anderson, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USAMarı́a Teresa Anguera Argilaga, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainAlvaro de Ansorena, Euroresearch, Madrid, SpainAlessandro Antonietti, Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan, ItalyToni C. Antonucci, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USACarmen Armengol de la Miyar, ABPP, Counseling and Applied Educational Psychology, Northeastern

University, Boston, Massachusetts, USAErik Arntzen, Akershus University College, Sadvika, NorwayJens B. Asendorpf, Institute of Psychology, Humboldt University, Berlin, GermanyJo-Anne Bachorowski, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USARuth A. Baer, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USAEva L. Baker, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USAMarian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, Center for Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, Leiden,

The NetherlandsAlbert Bandura, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USAClaudio Barbaranelli, Department of Psychology, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, ItalyPilar Barreto Martin, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, SpainMarı́a Victoria del Barrio, Faculty of Psychology, UNED, Madrid, SpainDave Bartram, SHL Group plc, Thames Ditton, Surrey, UKAndré Beauducel, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, GermanyRobert B. Bechtel, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Arizona, USAMercedes Belinchón, Faculty of Psychology, Autónoma University of Madrid, Madrid, SpainGiray Berberoğlu, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TurkeyJosé Bermudez, Faculty of Psychology, UNED, Madrid, SpainGerman E. Berrios, Addenbrooke’s Hospital (Box 189), University of Cambridge and Robinson College,

Cambridge, UKDavid T.R. Berry, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Kentucky, USAHeather Biggar, Center for Research for Mothers and Children, National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development, Rockville, Maryland, USAGerhard Blickle, University Koblenz-Landau, Landau, GermanyRobert H. Bodholt, Bastrop, Texas, USAAnna Silvia Bombi, Department of Psychology, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy

Katrin Borcherding, Institute of Psychology, Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, GermanyRainer Bösel, Department of Psychology, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, GermanyJason Z. Bowman, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USAJohn N. Boyd, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USAK. Robert Bridges, Penn State University, New Kensington, Philadelphia, USARichard S. Brown, School of Education, University of California, Irvine, California, USAG. Brugman, Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht,

The NetherlandsEric E.J. De Bruyn, Nijmegen Institute for Cognition and Information, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen,

The NetherlandsBarbara M. Byrne, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaZinta S. Byrne, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USAWayne J. Camara, The College Board, New York, New York, USAGian Vittorio Caprara, Department of Psychology, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, ItalyHeliodoro Carpintero, Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University, Madrid, SpainMaria Martina Casullo, Faculty of Psychology, Buenos Aires University, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaAntonio Cepeda-Benito, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USADaniel Cervone, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, USASalvador Chacón-Moscoso, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, SpainGregory J. Cizek, School of Education, University of North Carolina, North Carolina, USAAllison Collins, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USARoberto Colom, Faculty of Psychology, Autónoma University of Madrid, Madrid, SpainJohn D. Cone, California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San Diego,

California, USACesare Cornoldi, Department of Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, ItalyJosé Antonio Corraliza, Faculty of Psychology, Autónoma University of Madrid, Madrid, SpainMark L. Davison, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,

Minnesota, USAGünter Debus, Department of Psychology, Aachen University of Technology, Aachen, GermanyAna R. Delgado, Department of Psychology, Salamanca University, Salamanca, SpainEd Diener, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois, USAJuan Dı́ez Medrano, Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California,

USAJuan Dı́ez Nicolas, Faculty of Political Science and Sociology, Complutense University, Madrid, SpainMohamed Dirir, Connecticut Department of Education, Hartford, Connecticut, USAFilip Dochy, Department EDIT Educational Innovarion & IT, University of Maastricht, Maastricht,

The NetherlandsLevent Dumenci, Depatment of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Vermont, USAStephen B. Dunbar, Iowa Testing Programs, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USARiley E. Dunlap, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USADaniel R. Eignor, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USANorman S. Endler, Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaGary W. Evans, Departments of Design and Environmental Analysis and of Human Development,

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USALorraine Dittrich Eyde, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Arlington, Virginia, USABabette Fahlbruch, Institute of Psychology, Technological University, Berlin, GermanyJochen Fahrenberg, Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, GermanyHubert Feger, Department of Psychology, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, GermanyGuillem Feixas, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainSimeon Feldstein, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USAFabio Ferlazzo, Department of Psychology, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, ItalyFrancisco Fernández Ballesteros, Quality and Training, Javea, Alicante, Spain

xviii Contributors

Rocı́o Fernández-Ballesteros, Department of Psychobiology and Health Psychology, AutónomaUniversity of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

José-Miguel Fernández-Dols, Faculty of Psychology, Autónoma University of Madrid, Madrid, SpainAlfredo Fierro, Faculty of Psychology, University of Málaga, Málaga, SpainEdwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University, Potomac, Maryland, USAMaria Forns, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainDonata Francescato, Department of Psychology, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, ItalySarah L. Friedman, Center for Research for Mothers and Children, Bethesda, Maryland, USASvein Friis, Department of Research and Education, Division of Psychiatry, Ulleval University Hospital,

Oslo, NorwayMarı́a Xesús Froján Parga, Department of Psychobiology and Health Psychology, Autónoma University

of Madrid, Madrid, SpainCarl B. Gacono, Austin, Texas, USAMarco Gemignani, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USAMaria Gerbino, Department of Psychology, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, ItalyJennifer M. Gillis, Center for Educational Partnerships, University of California, Irvine, California, USACees A.W. Glas, Department of Educational Measurement and Data Analysis, University of Twente,

Enschede, The NetherlandsAntonio Godoy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Málaga, Málaga, SpainM.P.M. de Goede, Department of Methodology and Statistics, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The

NetherlandsGeorg Goldenberg, Neuropsychological Department, Bogenhausen Hospital, Munich, GermanyReginald G. Golledge, Department of Geography and Research Unit on Spatial Cognition and Choice,

University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USAJuana Gómez-Benito, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainHéctor González-Ordi, Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, SpainJerry Gorham, CTB McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, USALinda S. Gottfredson, School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USABenjamin H. Gottlieb, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, CanadaJaques Gregoire, Faculty of Psychology, Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, BelgiumSiegfried Greif, Department of Psychology, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, GermanyGary Groth-Marnat, School of Psychology, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA, AustraliaDato N.M. de Gruijter, School of Education, Leiden, The NetherlandsJon Randolph Haber, V.A. Medical Center, Menlo Park, California, USARonald K. Hambleton, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USATerry Hartig, Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Gävle, SwedenStephen N. Haynes, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAElaine M. Heiby, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAHubert J. M. Hermans, Department of Clinical Psychology and Personality, Catholic University of

Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsJosé Manuel Hernández, Department of Psychobiology and Health Psychology, Autónoma University of

Madrid, Madrid, SpainPeter Herriot, CSA/Empower Management Consultants, Bromley, Kent, UKChristopher Hertzog, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USARobert M. Hessling, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USARichard E. Heyman, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York,

USARebecca J. Hill, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USAJohn M. Hintze, School of Education, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts,

USARobert Hogan, Hogan Assessment Systems, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USACharles J. Holahan, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA

Contributors xix

Francisco Pablo Holgado Tello, Department of Methodology, UNED, Madrid, SpainLutz F. Hornke, Department of Industrial Psychology, Aachen University of Technology, Aachen,

GermanyAnita M. Hubley, Department of ECPS, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, CanadaJosé Manuel Igoa, Faculty of Psychology, Autónoma University of Madrid, Madrid, SpainMarinus Van Ijzendoorn, Center for Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The NetherlandsTheodore Jacob, V.A. Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, USAArthur R. Jensen, School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, California, USAMichael Jodoin, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USARobert Emmet Jones, Department of Sociology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USAJoseph K. Kaholokula, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAVelma A. Kameoka, School of Social Work, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAAnil Kanjee, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South AfricaEdith Kaplan, Department of Psychology, Suffolk University, Boston, Massachusetts, USAMary Kaplar, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USAAlan S. Kaufman, Department of Psychology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven,

Connecticut, USAJames C. Kaufman, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USAMartin Kersting, Institute of Psychology, Aachen Technical University, Aachen, GermanyThomas J. Kiresuk, Center for Addiction and Alternative Medicine Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota,

USAJames H. Kleiger, Bethesda, Maryland, USAUwe Kleinbeck, Organizational Psychology, University of Dortmund, Dortmund, GermanyReinhold Kliegl, Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, GermanyMarie-Luise Kluck, Institute of Psychology, Bonn University, Bonn, GermanyAnnette Kluge, Institute of Psychology, Aachen Technical University, Aachen, GermanyNancy L. Kocovski, Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRichard Koestner, Psychology Department, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaAnita Konachoff, Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAWilliam J. Korotitsch, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro,

Greensboro, North Carolina, USAJane Kroger, Psychology Department, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, NorwayAndreas Kruse, Institute of Gerontology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, GermanyPatrick C. Kyllonen, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USAJ. ter Laak, Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht,

The NetherlandsÁngel Lara-Ruiz, Faculty of Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, SpainFiona Lee, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Michigan, USAJudy H. Lee, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAUrsula Lehr, The German Centre for Research on Ageing, Heidelberg, GermanyJosé León-Carrión, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, SpainNurit Levi, Beit-Berl College, Beit-Berl, IsraelHeidi Levitt, Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USACarol S. Lidz, Touro College, New York, New York, USAWim van der Linden, Department of Educational Measurement and Data Analysis, University of Twente,

Enschede, The NetherlandsFriedrich Lösel, Institute of Psychology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg, GermanyRodney L. Lowman, College of Organizational Studies, Alliant International University, San Diego,

California, USANicola Mammarella, Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, ItalyLilianne Manning, Behavioural and Cognitive Neurosciences Laboratory, Louis Pasteur University,

Strasbourg, France

xx Contributors

Marı́a Oliva Márquez, Department of Psychobiology and Health Psychology, Autónoma University ofMadrid, Madrid, Spain

Ignacio Martin, Institute of Social Sciences, Oporto, PortugalRosario Martı́nez Arias, Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University, Madrid, SpainVicente Martinez-Tur, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, SpainMark E. Maruish, United Behavioral Health, Minnetonka, Minnesota, USAChristina Maslach, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California, USAGerald Matthews, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USAJohn D. Mayer, Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire,

USAJessica M. McIlvane, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAFrancisco Xavier Méndez Carrillo, Faculty of Psychology, University of Murcia, Murcia, SpainPeter F. Merenda, Department of Psychology, Kingston, Rhode Island, USAPeter G. Mezo, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAJuan José Miguel-Tobal, Department of Basic Psychology II, Complutense University, Madrid, SpainElisabeth J. Moes, Psychology Department, Suffolk University, Boston, Massachusetts, USARudolf H. Moos, Stanford University Medical Center, Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Palo Alto,

California, USALeslie C. Morey, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USAManolete S. Moscoso, Morton Plant Hospital, Cancer Center, Clearwater, Florida, USAJosé Muñiz, Faculty of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, SpainKevin R. Murphy, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,

Pennsylvania, USARobert A. Neimeyer, Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USAGreg J. Neimeyer, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USAKarl Nelson, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USARosemery O. Nelson-Gray, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro,

Greensboro, North Carolina, USAWilliam H. O’Brien, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio,

USAJulio Olea, Department of Methdology and Social Psychology, Autónoma University of Madrid, Madrid,

SpainPiotr K. Oles, Department of Clinical and Personality Psychology, Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin,

PolandJosé Olivares, Faculty of Psychology, University of Murcia, SpainMaike Oppe, Institute of Psychology, University of Aachen, Aachen, GermanyVirginia L. Ordman, Lindquist Center, University of Iowa, Ames, Zowa, USAConcetta Pastorelli, Department of Psychology, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, ItalyConstança Paúl, Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar, University of Oporto, Oporto, PortugalDelroy L. Paulhus, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,

CanadaWilliam Pavot, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois, USAKurt Pawlik, Institute of Psychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, GermanyJosé Marı́a Peiró, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, SpainJosé Antonio Pérez-Gil, Faculty of Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, SpainMiguel Angel Pérez-Nieto, Madrid, SpainMarco Perugini, Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UKChristopher Peterson, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

USARobin L. Phaneuf, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USADoris Philipp, Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, GermanyPierre Pichot, Paris, France

Contributors xxi

Marc Pilisuk, Saybrook Institute, San Francisco, California, USABarbara S. Plake, Buros Center for Testing, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USAVicente Ponsoda, Department of Methodology and Social Psychology, Autónoma University of Madrid,

Madrid, SpainYpe H. Poortinga, Department of Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The NetherlandsGerardo Prieto, Faculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, SpainGeorge P. Prigatano, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix,

Arizona, USABoele De Raad, Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The NetherlandsWilliam Randall, Department of Gerontology, St. Thomas University, Fredericton, New Brunswick,

CanadaAbilio Reig-Ferrer, Department of Health Psychology, University of Alicante, Alicante, SpainBritta Renner, Department of Psychology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, GermanyChristian Rietz, Department of Psychology/Centre of Evaluation and Methodology (CEM), University of

Bonn, Bonn, GermanyJason C. Rinaldo, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Kentucky, USARichard D. Roberts, Department of Psychology, Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaShlomo Romi, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, IsraelJan H. Rosenvinge, Psychology Department, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, NorwayJürgen Rost, Institute for Science Education, Kiel, GermanyVictor J. Rubio, Department of Psychobiology and Health Psychology, Autónoma University of Madrid,

Madrid, SpainGeorg Rudinger, Department of Psychology, Bonn University, Bonn, GermanyJosé Marı́a Ruiz Vargas, Faculty of Psychology, Autónoma University of Madrid, Madrid, SpainDaniel W. Russell, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USATorleif Ruud, Department of Health Care Research in Mental Health, SINTEF Unimed, NorwayJocelyn Saferstein, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USACarmina Saldaña, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainStan Scarpati, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USADavid Scheffer, Organisational Psychology, University of Bundeswehr Hamburg, Hamburg, GermanyGünter Schiepek, University Clinic, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, GermanyMartin Schmucker, Institute of Psychology, University of Erlangen-Nuremburg, Nuremburg, GermanyRalf Schwarzer, Department of Health Psychology, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, GermanyMichael Scriven, Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, USALee Sechrest, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USAMartin E.P. Seligman, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

USAWilliam G. Shadel, Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburg, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, USADanilo R. Silva, Faculty of Psychology, Lisbon University, Lisbon, PortugalDean Keith Simonton, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California, USAStephen G. Sireci, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USAAmy M. Smith Slep, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York,

USADouglas K. Snyder, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station,

Texas, USAWill A.C. Spijkers, Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, GermanyArthur W. Staats, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAUrsula M. Staudinger, Department of Psychology, Dresden University, Dresden, GermanyManfred Steffen, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USARobert J. Sternberg, Centre for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise, Yale University,

New Haven, Connecticut, USARolf Steyer, Institute of Psychology, Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena, Germany

xxii Contributors

Rolf-Dieter Stieglitz, University Psychiatric Outpatients Department, Basel, SwitzerlandMartha Stocking, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USAGary Stoner, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USAJan Strelau, School of Social Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, PolandTimo Suutama, Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FinlandTorbjörn Svensson, Gerontology Research Center, Lund, SwedenH. Lee Swanson, School of Education, University of California, Riverside, California, USASascha Tamm, Department of Psychology, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, GermanyLydia R. Temoshok, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USAChristine Temple, Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UKRobert Tett, Department of Psychology University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USAWarren W. Tryon, Department of Psychology, Fordham University, Bronx, New York, USAGraham Turpin, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UKMiguel Angel Verdugo, Faculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, SpainFons van de Vijver, Department of Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The NetherlandsJaime Vila, Faculty of Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, SpainCarmen Vizcarro Guarch, Department of Psychobiology and Health Psychology, Autónoma University of

Madrid, Madrid, SpainAjay Wagle, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn, UKSuvarna Wagle, Julian Hospital, Norwich, UKRichard K. Wagner, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USAHans-Werner Wahl, The German Centre for Research on Ageing, Heidelberg, GermanyHoward Wainer, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USASusan B. Watson, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAWalter D. Way, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USAHannelore Weber, Department of Psychology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, GermanyIrving B. Weiner, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USANancy M. Wells, School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, California, USARichard Wener, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York, USAKarl Westhoff, Department of Psychology, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, GermanyHans Westmeyer, Department of Psychology, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, GermanyElaine Wethington, Department of Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USAMark Wilson, Department of Education, University of California, Berkeley, California, USADavid A. Winter, Barnet Healthcare NHS Trust, Edgware, Middlesex, UKAngela Wong, University of California, Berkeley, California, USAOrli Yazdi-Ugav, The Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Wingate Institute,

Netania, IsraelJames L. Zazzali, Department of Health Administration, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond,

Virginia, USAMoshe Zeidner, University of Haifa, Haifa, IsraelApril L. Zenisky, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USAFred R.H. Zijlstra, School of Human Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UKPhilip G. Zimbardo, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USAMarvin Zuckerman, Department of Psychology, Delaware University, Newark, Delaware, USABruno D. Zumbo, Department of ECPS, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Contributors xxiii

P r e f a c e

Psychological assessment is the discipline of scientific psychology devoted to the study of a given humansubject (or group of subjects) in a specific applied field (clinical, educational, work, etc.), by means ofscientific tools (tests and other measurement instruments), with the purpose of answering clients’ demandsthat require scientific operations such as describing, diagnosing, predicting, explaining or changingthe behaviour of that subject (Fernández-Ballesteros et al., 2001). Therefore, from this perspective,psychological assessment cannot be reduced to any of its applied fields (it has sometimes been reduced tothe clinical field: e.g. Meyer et al., 2001; Fernández-Ballesteros, 2002) or to specific scientific tools (it hasbeen reduced to psychological testing: e.g. Anastasi, 1988) or to a scientific operation (in the past it wasusually reduced to diagnosis and prediction).Psychological assessment is one of the key disciplines of psychology, being an ever-present applied task

in the activity of any psychologist (Bomholt, 1996; Greenberg, Smith &Muenzen, 1995). Researchers andprofessionals of all kinds (in the clinical, work, educational, etc., fields) are faced with the task ofassessing, in one way or another, relevant variables in the particular individual or group of individualsthat constitute the object of study. Whether this assessment is made by means of sophisticated equipmentin the laboratory, through psychological tests, or through non-structured interviews and other qualitativetechniques, the same condition applies: any type of psychological assessment device requiresmethodological evaluation and scientific guarantees.The Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment (EPA) will cover the following objectives:

1 To present the reader with a comprehensive network for psychological assessment as a conceptualand methodological discipline, and as a professional activity.

2 To make the reader aware of the complexity of assessment, which involves not only testing, but alsoa process of decision-making for answering relevant questions (diagnostic, prediction, personnelselection, treatment, etc.) that arise in the different applied fields.

3 To present relevant issues from basic theory (theoretical perspectives, ethics, etc.), methodology(validity, reliability, item response theory, etc.) to technology (tests, instruments and equipment formeasuring behavioural operations, etc.).

4 To congregate the diverse applied field form in a comprehensive text: from themost traditional such asclinical, educational, and work and organizational psychology to the most recent applications linkedto health, gerontology, neuropsychology and psychophysiology, and environmental assessment.

The Encyclopedia will be oriented to the psychology community, from psychology students toacademics and practitioners. It may also be of interest to other professionals, such as health professions,educators, sociologists and other social scientists involved in assessment and measurement.The Encyclopedia might be considered as supplementary reading for psychological assessment courses,

as well as for courses related to theory, methodology, psychometrics, measurement, and areas such ascounselling, programme evaluation or personnel selection.

The two volumes of the Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment contain a series of 234 entries (ofdifferent lengths depending on their importance), organized alphabetically, and covering a variety offields: theoretical, epistemological, methodological, technological, basic psychological constructs(personality and intelligence), and applied. Each entry includes a general conceptual and methodologicaloverview, a section on relevant assessment devices and a list of references. Every entry provides a list ofcross-references for entries and related concepts.The Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment has four main characteristics:

1 The EPA presents a semantic network for improving communication, serving as a usefulepistemological tool for students, academics and practitioners.

2 The EPA attempts to offer an international perspective, both in terms of the selected authors (fromtwenty countries and five continents) and of the entries (which will require authors to give a cross-cultural panorama of a given topic).

3 The EPA aims to provide an integrated view of assessment, bringing together knowledge dispersedthroughout several basic, methodological and applied fields, but united in its relevance forassessment.

4 The EPA can be considered as a source of information about psychological instruments for thecollection of both qualitative and quantitative data from basic and widely used tests to otherprocedures for data collection.

Rocı́o Fernández-BallesterosEditor-in-Chief

References

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Bomholt, N. (1996). A tale of two surveys: comparison between results of two opinion surveys. European Journal

of Psychological Assessment, 12, 169–173.Fernández-Ballesteros, R. (2002). Psychological assessment is not only clinical. American Psychologist, 57, 138–139.Fernández-Ballesteros, R., de Bruyn, E.E.J., Godoy, A., Hornke, L.F., ter Laak, J., Vizcarro, C., Westhoff, K.,

Westmeyer, H. & Zaccagnini, J.L. (2001). Guidelines for the assessment process (GAP): a proposal fordiscussion. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 187–200.

Greenberg, S., Smith, I.L. & Muenzen, P.M. (1995). Executive Summary: Study of the Licensed Psychologists in theUnited States and Canada. New York: Professional Examination Services.

Meyer, G.J., Finn, S.E., Eyde, L.D., Kay, G.G., Moreland, K.L., Dies, R.R., Eisman, E.J., Kubiszyn, T.W &Reed, M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: a review of evidence and issues. AmericanPsychologist, 56, 128–165.

xxvi Preface

A b o u t t h e E d i t o r

Rocı́o Fernández-Ballesteros is Professor of Psychological Assessment and Evaluation at the AutónomaUniversity of Madrid (UAM) since 1980, Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of PsychologicalAssessment, founder and former President of the European Association of Psychological Assessment(1992–9), President of the Division of Psychological Assessment and Evaluation of the InternationalAssociation of Psychological Assessment (1994–8), programme evaluator of UNESCO and the EU, and aUN expert on ageing. She has served as Chair of the Department of Diagnostic and Measurement andDean of the Faculty of Psychology (UAM). She is the author of twenty books and more than 200 scientificarticles published in Spanish, English, Russian and Italian in the fields of assessment, evaluation andageing.

E d i t o r i a l B o a r d

Dave Bartram (SHL Group plc, UK)Research Director for SHL Group plc, President ofthe International Test Commission (ITC), andHonorary Professor at the University of Hull,UK. He is a Chartered Occupational Psychologist,Fellow of the British Psychological Society (BPS)and Fellow of the Ergonomics Society. He isheading ITC projects on international guidelinesfor standards in test use and standards forcomputer-based testing and the Internet. He is alsoa member of the British Psychological Society’sSteering Committee on Test Standards and of theEuropean Federation of Psychologists Associa-tion’s Standing Committee on Tests and Testing.He has specialized in the design, implementationand validation of assessment procedures andpersonnel selection systems at all levels. Hisspecialist area is computer-based testing andInternet assessment systems.

Gian Vittorio Caprara (La Sapienza University,Rome, Italy)Professor of Personality at the University of Rome‘La Sapienza’. Has served as President of theEuropean Association of Personality and on theeditorial boards of several scientific journals. Fellowof NIAS and SCASSS. Member of the AcademiaEuropaea. Author of twenty books and over 200scientific articles in international journals.

Ronald K. Hambleton (University ofMassachussetts at Amherst, USA)Distinguished University Professor, Chairperson ofthe Research and Evaluation Methods Programand Co-Director of the Center for EducationalAssessment; received his Ph.D. from the University

of Toronto in 1969; received the National Councilon Measurement in Education’s Career Achieve-ment Award in 1993 for contributions and leader-ship in the field of psychometric methods and anhonorary doctorate in 1997 from the University ofUmea in Sweden; research interests are in the areasof item response theory, criterion-referenced test-ing, test translation methodology and large-scaleassessment; co-author or co-editor of seven books,including Item Response Theory: Principles andApplications and Fundamentals of Item ResponseTheory.

Lutz F. Hornke (Aachen University of Technology,Germany)Head of Department and Professor of Industrialand Organizational Psychology at Aachen Uni-versity of Technology, Aachen, Germany, since1986, after having served at the University ofDüsseldorf, Marburg University and MannheimUniversity. Since 1999 he has been President of theEuropean Association of Psychological Assess-ment. He also chairs the DIN-33430 committeeon quality assurance guidelines for professionalassessment. In the past he has acted as co-editor ofthe Zeitschrift für Differentielle und DiagnostischePsychologie. He has published some 200 articles,tests and research reports, mainly on computerizedadaptive testing. In his field of research andconsultancy activities in industry and organizationshe has led projects to evaluate and improve humanrelations in the workplace.

Jan ter Laak (Utrecht University, The Netherlands)Associate Professor in Psychological Assessmentand Personality Development at Utrecht University.

He is Associate Editor of the European Journal ofPsychological Assessment. He graduated in Devel-opmental, General and Educational Psychology,and has a B.A. in Philosophy. He was chairman ofthe Children and Youth Division of the DutchPsychological Association, and also chaired the TestCommittee of the Dutch Psychological Association.He was co-editor of two Dutch editions of Test andTest Research in the Netherlands. He has writtenmore than 100 books, articles and book reviewspublished in Dutch, English, Spanish, Russian andChinese on assessment and developmental andpersonality psychology.

Lilianne Manning (Université Louis Pasteur,France)Professor of Neuropsychology in charge of theCognitive Neuropsychology group within theLaboratory of Behavioural and Cognitive Neuro-science. Her current research deals with autobio-graphical memory and fMRI in normal subjects andbrain-damaged patients. She is the author of severalpublications in English, French and Spanish.

Rudolf Moos (Center for Health Care Evaluation,Stanford University, VA, USA)Research Career Scientist and Director of theCenter for Health Care Evaluation at the VeteransAffairs Health Care System, and Professor in theDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciencesat Stanford University. He has developed a set ofenvironmental assessment procedures and hasconducted research on the outcome of psychiatrictreatment and on the influence of life stressors,social resources and coping skills on adaptation.He has won awards for his research from severalprofessional organizations, including the AmericanPsychiatric Association, the American Psychologi-cal Association, the American Evaluation Associa-tion and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Charles D. Spielberger (University of SouthFlorida, USA)Distinguished Research Professor of Psychologyand Director of the Center for Research inBehavioral Medicine and Health Psychology atthe University of South Florida, where he has beena faculty member since 1972. He previously

directed the USF Doctoral Program in ClinicalPsychology, and was a tenured faculty member atDuke University (1955–62), Vanderbilt University(1962–6) and at Florida State University (1967–72), where he was also Director of ClinicalTraining. He is author, co-author or editor ofmore than 400 professional publications. During1991–2 he served as the hundredth President of theAmerican Psychological Association and he iscurrently President of the International Associationof Applied Psychology (1998–2002) and theInternational Stress Management Association(1993–2000), Chair of the National Academy ofScience’s International Psychology Committee(1996–2000) and a member of the APA Policyand Planning Board.

Irving B. Weiner (University of South Florida,USA)Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and BehavioralMedicine at the University of South Florida. He isa Past President of the Society for PersonalityAssessment, and he has served as editor of theJournal of Personality Assessment (1985–93) andas editor of Rorschachiana: Yearbook of the Inter-national Rorschach Society (1990–7). He is thecurrent President of the International RorschachSociety and the author of twelve books and numer-ous articles and chapters published in English,Danish, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish.

Hans Westmeyer (Free University of Berlin,Germany)Professor of Psychological Assessment and Inter-vention and Differential and Personality Psychol-ogy at the Department of Psychology of the FreeUniversity of Berlin (since 1976). Editor-in-Chief ofDiagnostica (1979–94). Associate Editor of theEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment(1992–8). Consulting Editor of PsychologicalAssessment (since 1997). Co-founder and formerVice-President (1992–6) of the European Associa-tion of Psychological Assessment. Author or editorof twelve books and more than 150 scientificcontributions published in German, English andSpanish in the fields of psychological assessment,clinical psychology, personality psychology andtheoretical psychology.

xxx Editorial Board

AA A C H I E V E M E N T M O T I V A T I O N

INTRODUCTION

Human life can be described as a continuouswork at tasks. Individuals may or may not besuccessful in facing these tasks. The psychologyof achievement motivation is engaged to runresearch projects aiming at a better under-standing of individual performance and thenature of human resources as well as at thedevelopment of assessment and interventiontechniques to increase achievement motivation.Tasks in industrial settings and in serviceorganizations become more and more complexand underlie dynamic changes arising fromchanging market demands. To keep individualshighly achievement motivated while doingtheir jobs, tasks have to be designed with highmotivating potentials.

From a motivational perspective the actionprocess is divided into two parts. The first partdescribes the development of achievement motiva-tion as a consequence of a fit between theachievement motive and the achievement-orientedmotivating potentials of the situation.Achievementmotivation initiating action arises through interac-tion of achievement-oriented motivating potentialsof the task in its situational context and the strengthof the achievement motive on the side of theperforming person. Personal goals controllingactions result directly from the strength of thisachievement motivation (Figure 1). The second

part of the motivation process responsible forthe translation of motivation into action isoften called the volitional phase in the controlof behaviour (Heckhausen, 1989); during thisphase, goal-oriented action turns into outcomescontrolled by the degree of goal commitment.Goal commitment affects the way persons chooseto reach their goals and the selection of strategiesthey pursue (Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990).Examples for such strategies are to pursuea goal persistently even in cases of hindrance orto adapt flexibly to changing aspects of thesituation. The translation process works betterwhen more specific and concrete goals are set;the higher the goal commitment the moreeffective the chosen strategies of goal pursuit(Vroom, 1964; Locke & Latham, 1990; Kleinbeck,2001).

A goal-oriented course of action immune todisturbances is especially supported by specificand concrete goals (goal characteristics;Figure 1).

Because of the many single concepts subsumedunder the label of achievement motivation, it isnecessary to develop as many measurement toolsas possible to differentiate between the concepts.Outside current research projects, measures ofachievement motivation are principally used inindustrial settings, in service organizations and ineducational fields. Here achievement motivationmeasurement is used to investigate the motivating

potentials of work tasks and work contexts tomake full use of individual resources.

INSTRUMENTS TO ASSESSACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION

The theory of achievement motivation describesperformance as multidimensional and as influ-enced by many different factors. The mainpersonal factor is the achievement motive; themain task-specific factor is the motivatingpotential of the situation. For diagnostic informa-tion about mode and strength of the achievementmotive there are three different sources (seeSchneider & Schmalt, 2000: 50–56):

1 Self-judgement2 Judgement by others3 Behavioural indices

Assessing the strength of the achievementmotive, different strategies are used according tothese sources: operant procedures (e.g. theThematic Apperception Test – TAT) and respon-dent procedures (e.g. questionnaires), and the gridtechnique that according to Schmalt (1999) lies inits methodological background between the firsttwo types of measurement. Due to this fact, one candifferentiate implicit and explicit components ofthe achievement motive. Using the material of the

TAT with pictorial presentations of situations itbecomes possible to penetrate implicitly into theachievement motive system, because this kind ofmeasurement allows one to approach materials ofmemory relevant for the motive system. Fillingout questionnaires requires ego involvement, self-insight and self-reflection, and also explicitmemory, because the answers to the questions canonly be given with the help of conscious reflec-tion to earlier experiences (Graf & Schacter,1985: 501).Schmalt and Sokolowski (2000) discuss the

quality of the different techniques to measure theachievement motive and conclude that allavailable instruments work reliably. TAT andthe grid technique have comparable and widelydiversified validity ranges that are related torespondent and operant behaviour. Question-naires used to diagnose motives seem to bespecialized to predict respondent behaviour andconscious experiences (Spangler, 1992).Tomeasure the achievement-orientedmotivating

potentials of tasks, Hackman and Oldham (1975)developed and presented an instrument, the JobDiagnostic Survey (JDS), that has well proven itsvalidity (Fried & Ferris, 1987). The JDS measuresthe motivating potentials of tasks in work situa-tions and also of tasks that students are confrontedwith in learning situations (Schmidt & Kleinbeck,1999). Measuring the achievement motive and the

Outcomes

Achievementmotivationto translategoals intoactions

Achievementmotivation

to set goals

Motivational process

to set goals

Motivational process to

to translate goals intoaction (volitional process)

Goal characteristicsGoal commitment

Strategies in pursuinggoals

Achievement motiveAchievement-orientedmotivating potential

Figure 1. Components of achievement motivation.

2 Achievement Motivation

motivating potentials of tasks allows one todetermine the strength of achievement motivation.

Rheinberg, Vollmeyer and Burns (2001) presentan instrument to measure achievement motivationas a comprehensive construct. With 18 items, fourcomponents of the current state of achievementmotivation are measured: (1) fear of failure; (2)probability of success; (3) interest; (4) challenge. Inits German and English version, the instrumentshows satisfying consistencies and according to thefirst validation data, the measured components ofcurrent achievement motivation correlate posi-tively with learning behaviour and performance.Schuler and Prochaska (2000) define achievementmotivation as a general behavioural orientation.The instrument they developed – the HohenheimTest of Achievement Motivation (HTML) – allowsmeasuring achievement motivation with 17 scalesin a highly differentiated way. The results of theHTMLmeasures correlate significantlywith neuro-ticism and conscience in the five-factor model ofpersonality (Costa & McCrae, 1989). Measures inHTML are positively related to success at school,university and work so that one can expect asuccessful application in personality research andin educational and occupational testing.

To measure goal characteristics (e.g. goalspecificity and goal difficulty) that influence the

achievement-oriented process of translating goalsinto action, Locke and Latham (1990) presenta questionnaire that has been used mainly inresearch settings. Other questionnaires try tomeasure clarity of tasks and goals (Sawyer,1992), clarity of methods (Breaugh & Colihan,1994; Schmidt & Hollmann, 1998) and alsoclarity of performance judgements (Breaugh &Colihan, 1994; Kleinbeck & Fuhrmann, 2000).These components of achievement motivationmeasured by the mentioned questionnaires affectthe motivation to translate goals into action andas a consequence performance outcome.

Recently researchers began to measure goalcommitment (Hollenbeck et al., 1989). Theyinvested considerable effort because goal settingis no homogeneous construct. As Tubbs (1993)could show there are three different componentsof goal commitment: the first component has todo with processes of weighing and evaluating thepotential goals. During these processes, onecalculates mainly values and expectancies thataffect the strength of motivational tendencies forspecific goals. The second component containsthe result of these evaluative processes focussingon calculations of values and expectancies andleading to setting a personal goal. This com-ponent is also related to the decision to attain this

Table 1. Instruments for measuring components of achievement motivation

Instruments Author Concepts measured Method used

TAT Murray, 1943;McClelland et al., 1953

Achievement motiveand other motives

Content analysis of stories(operant)

OMT Kuhl & Scheffer, 2000 Achievement motive Content analysis of writtenstories (operant)

MARPS Mehrabian, 1968 Achievement motive Questionnaire (respondent)Grid-technique Schmalt & Sokolowski,

2000Achievement motive Judgement of fit between

pictures and motive-related statements

Questionnairefor currentmotivationalstates

Rheinberg et al., 2001 Current motivation forlearning and performance

Questionnaire (respondent)

AVEM Schaarschmidt &Fischer, 1996

Current work motivation Questionnaire (respondent)

HLMT Schuler & Prochaska, 2000 Achievement motivation Questionnaire (respondent)JDS Hackman & Oldham, 1975 Motivating potential

of tasksQuestionnaire (self-judgementand judgement by others)

Fragebogen fürZielcharakteristika

Locke & Latham, 1990 Goal specificity and others Questionnaire (respondent)

Goal commitment Hollenbeck et al., 1989 Goal commitment Questionnaire (respondent)Strategies ofgoal pursuit

Brandtstädter &Renner, 1990

Strategies of goal pursuit Questionnaire (respondent)

Achievement Motivation 3

particular goal. The third component of goalcommitment is characterized by maintaining theset goal and by staying persistent even whenfaced with hindrances. Future research will showwhether it will be possible to develop differ-entiated measurement procedures on the basis ofthese considerations.

With respect to goal commitment in goal-oriented action, people seem to be able to usestable dispositions. They either persist tenaciouslyin pursuing their goals or they adjust flexibly tonew or other goals. Brandtstädter and Renner(1990) described two scales to measure ‘tenaciousgoal pursuit’ and ‘flexible goal adjustment’. Theirresults show relations between these differentstrategies and age. Older people adapt more oftenflexibly instead of pursuing their goals tenaciouslyagainst hindrances. Table 1 summarizes theinstruments for measuring components of achieve-ment motivation.

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

The current state of research can be describedas presenting a set of different measurementapproaches for the central components ofachievement motivation. Future tasks for researchand applications mainly in work and educationalsettings will be to determine the range of validityfor the different measures more exactly. This canhelp to decide under what circumstances specificinstruments can be used profitably. Althoughthere are now some reliable and valid instrumentsto measure single components of achievementmotivation, it would be helpful to have newinstruments and procedures to relate them toeach other.

CONCLUSIONS

A high achievement motivation in peopleguarantees success and wealth in humansocieties. To produce adequate conditions for thedevelopment of a high achievement motivation itis necessary to understand how achievementmotivation is formed and how it can be translatedinto successful action. In accordance with theimportance of this kind of motivation, a series ofinstruments have been designed to measure thedifferent components of achievement motivation

reliably, validly and practically. The existinginstruments can be used in research and practicalsettings.

References

Brandtstädter, J. & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goalpursuit and flexible goal adjustment: explicationsand age-related analysis of assimilative and accom-modative strategies of coping. Psychology andAging, 5, 58–67.

Breaugh, J.A. & Colihan, J.P. (1994). Measuring facetsof job ambiguity: construct validity evidence.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 191–202.

Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1989). The NEO PI/FFIManual Supplement. Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Fried, Y. & Ferris G. (1987). The validity of the jobcharacteristics model: a review and meta analysis.Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.

Graf, P. & Schacter, D.L. (1985). Implicit and explicitmemory for new associations in normal and amnesicsubjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 501–518.

Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Developmentof the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 60, 159–170.

Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation und Handeln.Berlin: Springer.

Hollenbeck, J.R., Klein, H.J., O’Leary, A.M. &Wright, P.M. (1989). Investigation of the constructvalidity of a self-report measure of goal commit-ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 951–956.

Kleinbeck, U. (2001). Das Management vonArbeitsgruppen. In Schuler, H. (Ed.), Lehrbuch derPersonalpsychologie.

Kleinbeck, U. & Fuhrmann, H. (2000). Effects of apsychologically based management system on workmotivation and productivity. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 49, 596–610.

Kuhl, J. & Scheffer, D. (2000). Auswertungsmanual fürden OperantenMulti-Motiv-Test (OMT). Osnabrück,Unpublished Manuscript.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1984). Goal-Setting: AMotivational Technique that Works. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A Theory of GoalSetting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A. &Lowell, E.L. (1953). The Achievement Motive.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mehrabian, A. (1968). Male and female scales of thetendency to achieve. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 28, 493–502.

Murray, H.A. (1943). Thematic Apperception TestManual. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R. & Burns, B.D. (2001).FAM: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung aktuellerMotivation in Lern- und Leistungssituationen.Diagnostica, 2, 57–66.

4 Achievement Motivation

Sawyer, J.E. (1992). Goal and process clarity:specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguityand a structural equation model of their antecedentsand consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 130–142.

Schaarschmidt, U. & Fischer, A. (1996) AVEM –Arbeitsbezogenes Verhaltens- und Erlebensmuster(Manual). Frankfurt am Main: Swets Testservices.

Schmalt, H.-D. (1999). Assessing the achievementmotive using the grid technique. Journal of Researchin Personality, 33, 109–130.

Schmalt, H.-D. & Sokolowski, K. (2000). Zumgegenwärtigen Stand der Motivdiagnostik. Diagnos-tica, 46, 115–123.

Schmidt, K.-H. & Hollmann, S. (1998). Eine deutsch-sprachige Skala zur Messung verschiedener Ambi-guitätsfacetten bei der Arbeit. Diagnostica, 44,21–29.

Schmidt, K.-H. & Kleinbeck, U. (1999). Job DiagnosticSurvey (JDS – deutsche Fassung). In Dunckel, H.(Ed.), Handbuch psychologischer Arbeitsanalysever-fahren (pp. 205–230). Zürich: vdf.

Schneider, K. & Schmalt, H.-D. (2000). Motivation(3rd ed.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Schuler, H. & Prochaska, M. (2000). Entwicklung undKonstruktvalidierung eines berufsbezogenen Leis-tungsmotivationstests. Diagnostica, 46, 61–72.

Spangler, W.D. (1992). Validity of questionnaireand TAT measures of need for achievement: twometa-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112,140–154.

Tubbs, M.E. (1993). Commitment as a moderatorof the goal-performance relation: a case of clearerconstruct definition. Journal of Applied Psychology,78, 86–97.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York:Wiley.

Uwe Kleinbeck

RELATED ENTRIES

APPLIED FIELDS: ORGANIZATIONS, APPLIED FIELDS: WORKAND INDUSTRY, PERSONNEL SELECTION, LEADERSHIPIN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS, LEADERSHIP PERSONALITY,MOTIVATION

A A C H I E V E M E N T T E S T I N GINTRODUCTION

Achievement testing plays a central role ineducation, particularly given the current contextof high-stakes educational reform seen in countrieslike the United States. This entry provides a briefoverview of achievement testing beginning with adescription of its role in education. Different typesof achievement tests, commonly used derivedscores, recent advances such as performanceassessments, and future directions are described(Hambleton & Zaal, 1991).

ACHIEVEMENT TESTING AND ITSROLE

Achievement tests are designed to measure theknowledge and skills that individuals learn ina relatively well-defined area through formalor informal educational experiences. Thus,achievement tests include tests designed by tea-chers for use in the classroom and standardized

tests developed by school districts, states,national and international organizations, andcommercial test publishers.

Achievement tests have been used for: (a)summative purposes such as measuring studentachievement, assigning grades, grade promotionand evaluation of competency, comparing studentachievement across states and nations, andevaluating the effectiveness of teachers, pro-grammes, districts, and states in accountabilityprogrammes; (b) formative purposes such asidentifying student strengths and weaknesses,motivating students, teachers, and administratorsto seek higher levels of performance, andinforming educational policy; and (c) placementand diagnostic purposes such as selecting andplacing students, and diagnosing learning dis-abilities, giftedness, and other special needs.

The most controversial uses of achievementtesting have been in high-stakes accountabilityprogrammes and minimum competency testing(MCT). Accountability practices vary andmay include financial rewards for improved

Achievement Testing 5

performance to providing remediation forstudents who perform poorly to sanctions suchas public hearings, staff dismissals, and dissolu-tion of districts. Two negative consequences thathave been associated with high-stakes account-ability include a pattern of inflated achievementresults as highlighted by Cannell’s (1988) findingthat all states were reporting that their studentswere scoring above the national norm (LakeWobegon effect), and the narrowing of instruc-tion or ‘teaching to the test’ so that student scorescompare favourably to norms.

MCT programmes were implemented inresponse to concerns about high levels ofilliteracy and innumeracy and subsequent poor‘work force readiness’ among high schoolgraduates. In addition to course completionrequirements, such programmes require studentsto pass tests of minimal basic skills (usually inreading, writing, and arithmetic) to graduatefrom high school. Legal cases such as Debra P.vs. Turlington raised questions about whatconstitutes minimum competency, whether theskills assessed are reflected in school curriculum,and whether students have been given adequateopportunity to learn the skills required (Anastasi& Urbina, 1997).

STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENTTESTS

Standardized tests may be classified using theoverlapping categories of purpose, breadth,administration, item format, and interpretation.

Purpose

Screening tests tend to be relatively brief with onlyone subtest covering each subject area. Thesetests are useful in determining if more expensivecomprehensive testing is warranted. Screening testsinclude the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test(WIAT) – Screener, Wide Range AchievementTest – 3, and Basic Achievement Skills IndividualScreener (BASIS). Comprehensive or diagnostictests typically include more than one subtestper subject area so each can be exploredin depth. Examples of these tests include theWIAT – Comprehensive Test,Woodcock–JohnsonComplete Battery III, Gates–McKillop–Horowitz

Reading Diagnostic Test, Comprehensive Tests ofBasic Skills, and Terra Nova.

Breadth

Single-subject tests include a number of subtestsranging from lower to higher skill levels to assessdifferent aspects of a subject area. Single-subjecttests include the Woodcock Reading MasteryTests – Revised and KeyMath – Revised. Multiple-subject tests assess at least the three commonlytaught subject areas of reading, mathematics,and written language. Such tests include theIowa Tests of Basic Skills, California Achieve-ment Test, SRA Achievement Series, StanfordAchievement Test Series, and Tests of Achieve-ment and Proficiency.

Administration

Group administered achievement tests are usuallymultiple-subject tests that contain comparablesubtests for students in different grades. Thesetests usually are administered within the classroomand are used throughout school districts or states.Examples include the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills,Metropolitan Achievement Test 8, Iowa Tests ofEducational Development, Gray Oral ReadingTest – 3, and Sequential Tests of EducationalProgress – III. Individually administered achieve-ment tests may include single- or multiple-subjecttests and typically are administered in clinical andeducational settings. Such tests include theKaufman Test of Educational Achievement, WideRange Achievement Test – III, Gates–MacGinitieReading Test, and Peabody IndividualAchievement Test – Revised.

Item Format

Fixed-response items include multiple-choice,true–false, matching, and stem completion items.A key advantage of fixed-response items is thatconsiderable material can be covered in arelatively short period of time. Criticisms ofthese items are that they emphasize recall of factsover higher order thinking and problem-solving,they are susceptible to guessing and testwiseness,and they discourage creative thinking. Theyalso tend to be difficult items to prepare.Nonetheless, multiple-choice items are the most

6 Achievement Testing

common item format used in standardizedachievement tests.

Constructed items include short answer andessay responses. The advantages of constructeditems are that they require students to constructa response rather than simply recognize the correctanswer, they assess students’ ability to organize,connect ideas, and problem-solve, they reduce theimpact of guessing, and preparation of questionsis relatively quick and easy. Disadvantages ofconstructed items are that relatively few questionscan be asked and thus adequate coverage of thesubject area may not occur, they are susceptible tobluffing, and scoring is time-consuming, requiresconsiderable subjective judgement, and is lessreliable than scoring of fixed-response items.

Interpretation

When achievement test results are interpreted withreference to a normative group, the test is referred toas a norm-referenced test (NRT). Students’ NRTscores usually are expressed in age- or grade-equivalent scores, standard scores, or percentiles.NRTs are designed to discriminate among students’performance; they do not provide information onthe amount of information learned. Most of thetests discussed already are NRTs. When test resultsare interpreted in terms of whether each student hasmastered specific knowledge and skills withoutreference to other students or a normative group,the test is said to be criterion-referenced (CRT).Students’ CRT scores are usually expressed asper cent correct or by descriptors such as mastery/non-mastery. Most CRTs are developed by schoolsor states. Examples are the Basic Skills AssessmentProgram, Kentucky Instructional Results Informa-tion System, and Louisiana Educational Assess-ment Program (LEAP 21). Some NRT tests alsoprovide CRT interpretations such as BASIS.

DE