Think of a personal characteristic that would be normally distributed, such as height or shoe size. Where do you fall on the bell curve? Explain why? What are examples of characteristics that are not normally distributed? Explain.

In order for the test to show normal distribution, there must be enough test subjects. For example, in order to find out where I would be on the bell curve, one would need to test a number or women regarding their shoe size. There have been several studies that show the average size of height for women is between 5’3’’ and 5’6’’. The average shoe size for women is 8-9. My shoe size is 10-11 depending on the shoe and I am 5’10’’. Clearly I am not in the middle of the bell curve as I am much taller than the average woman. Things that also must be taken into consideration are that shorter individuals usually have smaller feet and taller individuals have larger and longer feet. This may affect the end result depending on the height of the women tested. When looking at the bell curve, one must determine where the numbers came from and if there were any characteristics that are not normally distributed. According to our text, Cohen & Swerdlik (2010) state that “the normal curve is a bell-shaped, smooth, mathematically defined curve that is highest at its center. From the center it tapers on both sides approaching the X-axis asymptotically (meaning that it approaches, but never touches, the axis)” (p. 93). It is important to understand what the bell curve in when conducting measurements and statistics; this will give the tester the norms, the unusual, and the highest percentile information on the test being given.

Some characteristics that may affect the test would not normally be distributed. For example, Women with health issues may have different variables for the height and shoe size. The ages of the women are also a definite factor.



Cohen, R. J. & Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Training in the Workplace…Beneficial?

Training in the workplace is crucial to a healthy workplace. Recently I have found with many new regulations in education, the higher education industries have cut back in training or developing as the funding is lower. When employees are not up to date on the industries they work in, it can become hard for them to be experts. The benefit to ongoing training is the lifelong learning and continues to help people professionally develop. 

Here is an interesting article I found in which it discusses the advantages of lifelong learning, motivations, and maintaining knowledge and skill. Check it out if you have a minute. 

Other Attributes for Hiring

“When you say assessments can help to an extent what do you mean? What other attributes do you think needs to be applied to hiring and communication in the workplace?”

I believe that personality tests are a great tool to understand more about the individual. The tests can sometimes show an individual’s motivations as well. The tests can also help forecast attitudes and reactions of the potential employee. By knowing the predictable behaviors, the company can immediately benefit by that forecast. Integrity tests are also used in the hiring process (Trainor, 2002, para. 4-5). These tests measure everything from predicting if an employee will steal to one’s reliability. The results of the tests could also not be as reliable due to someone’s mood. If an individual taking a test had a bad day, he or she may be more inclined to respond negatively or in a defense. This attitude could negatively affect the results.

This is why I believe to an extent that the testing is beneficial. Yes it helps in a variety of ways, but personality testing is not always 100% true and correct. I believe that the interview process should also be crucial when making such large decisions. 


Trainor, L. (2002, January). Personality Testing: Benefits and Risks Galore. Best Practices in HR and Compliance Tools for HR Professionals, Retrieved from

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment, a dramatic simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment and one of the best known psychology experiments ever undertaken. Dr. Zimbardo takes us through the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which healthy college students are transformed into unstable prisoners and brutal prison guards within days by the power of the situation in which they found themselves.
Video from: HeroicImaginationTV

Validity and Reliability Matrix

Reference: Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurements (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Completed by: Deanna Shelby, Shernard Robinson, & Julia Carlson for PSYCH/525

Validity and Reliability Matrix

For each of the tests of reliability and validity listed on the matrix, prepare a description of test’s application and under what conditions these types of reliability would be used as well as when it would be inappropriate.  Then prepare a description of each test’s strengths and a description of each test’s weaknesses.


TEST of Reliability





Test/retest administrations occur at two different times with the same test presented to the same group (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). The reliability of this test is assessed when querying “reaction time or perceptual judgments” (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010, p. 144). An inappropriate administering of this test occurs when a person’s abilities skew test results (such as data retention, tiredness, repetitive simulated testing, intent) (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).

One of the strengths of test/retest is that this tool is able to measure over a stable period of time and gives an estimated stability to the overall picture (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). Researchers tend to gravitate towards this method because it refers to consistency within test scores. Scores are measured based on the 1st and 2nd attempt to look at the correlation. Researchers believe this is a strength because they are able to see factual numbers over a period of time (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). 

 Sometimes, characteristics being tested may fluctuate over time, thus rendering the test-retest reliability invalid- since it will not yield the same results on the retest aspect if the testing factor has changed (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). Outlying factors can also affect the retest aspect. If a factor completely changes over time, then the retest, although it may be asking the same material, may not apply anymore.

Test of Validity





Construct validity is an idea or variable designed to predict behavior or allow for certain findings to be made based on the test administer or questions being answered (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). For instance, a test predicted on the construct of affability. This particular example highlights a participants behavior in a perceived social environment as a means of explaining why a participants reacts a certain way during a particular social setting (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). Using this sort of test to prove a particular bias can be seen as an inappropriate approach to determining construct validity.

The test administrator is able to explain the behavior by creating a hypothesis. An example would be a student doing well in school and the construct would be smart or intelligent. Being able to label out of perception/bias can be helpful to the test administrators but also could be seen as a weakness (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).

The factors leading up to this test are unobservable and presupposed. Therefore, if factors in the test do not happen or behave as primarily predicted, then the test must be discarded and re-done (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). Also, if test takers have a different perspective on the testing information, this can also leave the test unpredictable, which would again render results invalid.

Construct Development, Scale Criterion, & Process Analysis

Part I:

Construct Development and Scale Criterion; Construct Measured: Self-Confidence

The chosen construct, self-confidence, is defined in the article of Self-Confidence in Human Factors Research as “extent to which human factors is satisfied with its beliefs and assumptions about how it knows what it knows” (Dekker, Nyce, Winsen,  & Henriqson, 2010, p.27).  Self-confidence is one’s ability to evaluate his or her social abilities, how one thinks independently, and how one can rely on themselves. Conflict resolution is done internally with self-confidence and it processes self-esteem and helps individuals make decisions based on their self-efficacy (Kohn, 1994).

Five Items Used to Sample the Domain:

The survey and scaling method for self-confidence will be conducted as a survey in which it measures one’s ability to understand regarding their level of self-confidence and their knowledge of his or her confidence. The survey will also look at one’s ability to work autonomously and how their comfort level is with their preferred style of working individualistically. In order to determine if this test would be interview or self-report based, the issue needs to be investigated and make an objective assessment based on the investigation. This is a self-report instrument. The five items are designed to be a survey to show one’s self-confidence and how he or she works independently.

The five items that will be sampling the domain will be the following outlined questions:

1.)    When dealing with a problem in your life, what do you tend to do?

  1. Blame others, it is rarely my fault
  2. Complain and vent, but do not address that I am at error
  3. Take responsibility and follow through

2.)    I prefer to work individually versus in a group project so I can work out the details and final edits on my own.

  1. Yes
  2. No

3.)    If my wants and needs are different than others, I am more likely to:

  1. Argue until I get my way
  2. Accommodate, give up or give in
  3. Create a win-win situation for all sides
  4. Avoid conflict at all costs

4.)    I am comfortable coming up with a strategy on my own to solve problems before going to others for help.

  1. Yes
  2. No

5.)    People give me positive feedback on my work and achievements versus a team or group’s feedback altogether.

  1. Often
  2. Sometimes
  3. Rare
  4. Never


Dekker, S. W., Nyce, J. M., Winsen, R. V., & Henriqson, E. (March 20th 2010). Epistemological Self-Confidence in Human. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(1), 27-38. doi:10.1518/155534310X495573

Kohn, A. (1994). The Truth About Self Esteem. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(4), 272-283.