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.

Socio-Economic Class & Intelligence

Written by: Deanna Shelby and Julia Carlson for PSYCH/525

Literature Review: Socio-Economic Class & Intelligence

Although it should never be considered an issue in a perfectly unbiased testing method, socio-economic class is thought to have an effect on levels of intelligence. Basically socio-economic class status dictates and labels where an individual or group of individuals lands financially and demographically in their culture. Knowing someone’s socio-economic status can tell someone what financial bracket said individual would fall into, and based on that one can deduce with some accuracy as to where this individual lives (upscale part of town versus areas that would be considered “the ghetto” or things like that), and even can sometimes lend a hint as to the racial or ethnic identity of the individual (however, this is not accurate in all situations).                    Based on the chances, or lack thereof, that one would obtain based on their socio-economic class level, it can be reasonably said that one may lack the ability to develop an intelligence level to match or exceed that of their counterparts holding higher socio-economic statuses than they currently are. “It is a sociological truism, evidenced by a number of studies, that children of higher social class origins are more likely to aspire to high educational and occupational goals than children of lower social class origins” (Sewell & Shad, 1968). While intelligence is different than achievement, which is usually obtained through observations and through the educational system, intelligence can also be stimulated and motivated through the school system as well.                                                                                                                            

For example, sound judgments and rational thought are factors that are taken into consideration when measuring intelligence levels, and these things can be taught at a young age in school, either through the experiences an individual may come across on their own in that setting, or through actual problem-solving practices employed by the education system and teachers.

Based on the above mentioned factors, and the fact that socio-economic status is directly related to financial stability/instability, which in turn can be related to the type of education that a person or family can afford, it can reasonably be deduced that intelligence can to some extent be influenced by ones’ socio-economic class and the experiences directly related to that level.

Division of Work Investigated into Themes                                                                                  

Within this paper, there is a breakdown of some of the works under investigation into themes with those in support and those against socio-economic class and intelligence testing.  Along with major contributions that this kind of test offers, the current positions are discussed.  Also considered are challenges of test reliability and validity, and gaps in research for this kind of test. Individuals differ in their abilities to comprehend, learn, and understand all different scopes. SES can play a part into their experiences with reasoning, obstacles, and their environments (Neisser, 1995). 

Support and Advantages of Intelligence Testing                                                                          

With SES intelligence testing, there are advantages and disadvantages. Those that are in support of the testing see more of the advantages and those that do not support see the disadvantage side more. One of the advantages of intelligence testing (IQ Test) is that it can help identify individuals that may benefit from additional assistance and lead them to a better, more sustainable life (Carman, 2010). Behavioral explanations during any type of IQ testing can help provide more information about the socioeconomic status and the personality characteristics. This can help with the stress and anxiety of one’s life. Those that are in favor for the testing also feel that the tests are extremely accurate and standardized, reliable, normed, and validated (Neisser, 1995).                                                                                             

Against Intelligence Testing and Disadvantages                                                                           

Those who oppose the testing typically look at the disadvantages versus the advantages of the testing. Some of the disadvantages relate to classifying individuals into stereotypes based on their socioeconomic status. Those that are not in support of this testing feel that the intelligence tests are inadequate in forecasting non-test and nonacademic activities but are still used to make those presumption’s about the individuals academic abilities (Jensen,1969). The test can be less accurate when it comes to long term predictions because many of them are not controlled or monitored. Some also feel that individuals are capable to have more cognitive abilities than the intelligence testing measures.

Gaps of Research and Contradictions                                                                               

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), there is a large gap of research when it comes to intelligence testing related to socioeconomic status. Tests are consistently being revamped and altered to fit various needs across multiple avenues. However, according to the APA, there are several gaps and contradictions when it comes to the testing (American Psychological Association, 2004).  For example, the APA uses the SAT test. There has been several research projects that assert practical intelligence based on socioeconomic status that show different scores among different statuses. The research showed that by expanding the questions and other related subjects, more college students were able to be more accurate and successful later on in life (Schmitt, Keeney, Oswald, Pleskac, Billington, Sinha,  & Zorzie, 2009).                                                                                                                                      

There is another article that shows the contradictions of student performance using cognitive and non-cognitive predictors and the impact on demographic stats of admitted students. The article covers the gap in research for the grade point averages of several students based on their socioeconomic status and intelligence. The test was given to several colleges in their admission process and added situational judgment based on SES (Schmitt, Keeney, Oswald, Pleskac, Billington, Sinha,  & Zorzie, 2009). 


American Psycholoigcal Association. (2004, June 17). Intelligence and Achievement Testing: Is the Half-Full Glass Getting Fuller? Retrieved from

Carman, C. (2010, April). Socioeconomic Status Effects on Using the Nagileri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to Identify the Gifted/Talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 75-84.doi:10.1177/0016986209355976

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

Jensen, R. (1969, January). Intelligence, Learning Ability and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Special Education, 3(1), 23-35. doi:10.1177/002246696900300103

Neisser, U. (1995, August 7). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Retrieved from

Schmitt, N., Keeney, J., Oswald, F. L., Pleskac, T. J., Billington, A. Q., Sinha, R., & Zorzie, M. (2009, November). Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and non-cognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1479-1497. doi:10.1037/a0016810