Final blog

This issue of assessment issues with diverse populations is one that we've addressed in class a number of times, and I've appreciated the insights our discussions have offered. Chapter 15 provided some additional clarification and detail which I found useful. In class, specifically, we have discussed the potential test bias of particular exams, which is "construct underrepresentation or construct-irrelevant components of tests that result in systematically lower or higher scores for groups of examinees" (AERA et al., 1999, p.76). Three three different types of test bias, content bias (when the content of a test is more familiar to one group than another), internal structure bias (when internal consistency differs from one group to another), and selection bias (when the test varies in predictive validity across groups) are pretty straightforward, but important to keep in mind as additional considerations when interpreting exams. During my final preparations, I've been reviewing some of the landmark cases related to selection bias, such as Larry P. v. Riles and Diana v. California State Board of Education, and it was interesting to see how these issues play in judicial arenas. I also think the test taker factors, such as language, test-wiseness, motivation, and other cultural differences, and examiner bias, such as language differences and differences in class and culture, are really important factors to consider in our future psychometric roles. The importance of multicultural counseling is something that we've really stressed in our Group Counseling course, so I feel as if I am already fairly sensitive to these issues in general. I appreciated learning more about assessment of individuals with disabilities because I do not have a background in this area. In this section, I thought the specific examples of testing modifications were really useful. For example, when assessing individuals with hearing impairment, it is important to be aware of the following guidelines: 1) make sure individuals have a hearing evaluation if required, 2) keep the test environment controlled and free of distraction, 3) avoid visual distractions, 4) have an interpreter available if necessary, 5) allow the interpreter and the person with a hearing impairment to arrange the seating, and 6) have more than one assessment approach to measure the construct (Drummond and Jones, 2010). Other sections of the chapter provide equally helpful guidelines for administering various exams for individuals with a diverse range of disabilities. Drummond, R. J. and Jones, K. (2010). Assessment Procedures for Counselors and Helping Professionals. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.