Types of Bias in Psychometric Test Translation

Types of Bias in Psychometric Test Translation

With the demand and need for psychological tests increasing in various different cultures and countries, there has been much greater awareness regarding some of the issues that are associated with the development or adaptation of tests to be used in contexts and situations that may be different from which the test was developed for. This article focuses on one of the key aspects of translating tests, the types of bias that can occur.

When utilizing the test in a new cultural group, it is not quite as simple as directly translating the test, administering it and then comparing the results for its validity. There are a number of issues that need to be considered such as whether the area assessed with the test applies to the new culture or whether is may be biased towards that group and whether what is assessed by the test also has similar behavioral indicators? These are just some of the potential areas where bias can be found in the translation of tests and affect the validity of the test being utilized in the new context.

Van der Vijer & Hambleton (1996) differentiates between three distinct types of bias that may affect the validity of tests that have been adapted for different cultural contexts and these are construct bias, method bias and item bias.

Construct bias occurs when the construct (e.g. personality) that is measured by the test displays significant differences between the original culture for which it was developed and the new culture where it is going to be utilized. These differences can occur in the way that the construct was formulated and developed as well as in the relevant behaviors that are associated with the construct. It is critical to examine whether the underlying theory of the test is subject to construct bias and this can be examined through the studies examining the construct and its associated behaviors in the context that it will be utilized in. If there are significant differences found in these studies, it may indicative that there is construct bias. Major revisions may be required to overcome this bias. If not, the validity of the test will be affected.

Method bias refers to factors or issues related to the administration of the test that may affect the validity of the test. Examples of areas that method bias can occur include social desirability, acquiescence response styles, the conditions in which the test was conducted and the motivation of the respondents. Across cultures, there potentially can be differences that can occur in these areas and these can affect the way that the respondents answer the items in the test. This potentially may lead to differences between found that can be erroneously attributed to cultural differences when in fact, these differences are the result of differences in the administration procedures. As a result, it is threat to the validity of tests that have been adapted for use in new cultures. Test developers also not only need to focus on the adaptation of the test itself but also need to be aware of issues regarding the implementation of the test in a new context.

Item bias is another source of bias that can occur in the translation of tests and these refer to biases that occur with the items in the test. This is usually the result of either poor translation choices for items or due to culturally inappropriate translations. For example, the phrase “kick the bucket” is essentially a phrase that referring to passing away in the Western context and is commonly known by most people in that culture; unfortunately, this phrase would have no meaning for people from cultures without any prior experience with that phrase. In this manner, a literal translation of that phrase would be a poor translation as it does not convey the correct meaning of the item. The items in the test need to be culturally equivalent, where the meaning of the items needs to be correctly translated so as to maintain the validity of the test in the new cultural context.

These are some of the biases that may occur during the translation of tests. Test developers will need to be aware of the sources of bias and take the appropriate measures to avoid these biases.

References:

Van der Vijer, F. and Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89-99.


Psychometric Training in Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and China
If you are serious about using psychometric tests properly then we recommend joining PsyAsia International’s Psychometric Assessment at Work Course which leads to a certificate of competence in Occupational Testing Level A and Level B from the British Psychological Society. The Course is run publically in Singapore and Hong Kong or in-house anywhere.
More details about BPS Level A and B in Singapore and Hong Kong

Online Psychometric Training – Worldwide
Alternatively, you might be interested in introductory Online Psychometric Test Training presented live by a registered psychologist. PsyAsia is offering a special fee of just US$12 for anybody who registers for the February online psychometric training course!
More details about online psychometric test training

International Society for Intelligence Research provides grants to students

1. ISIR has instituted a new program to help defray travel costs for post-doctoral students and faculty members without travel support or with only partial support. We will be able to support ten or more persons. First priority will go to those presenting papers who are post-doctoral students or junior faculty without travel support. Travel will be funded for up to $1,500 per person. This program is being funded by ISIR.

2. The second program supports student travel and is fully explained in the conference announcement found at http://www.isironline.org/meeting/. This program is supported by the Templeton Foundation grant that we recently received. To apply for either program, send an email by September 25th to detterman@case.edu with an attachment stating 1) Name, 2) Affiliation, 3) Current Status (e.g., 3rd year graduate student, postdoctoral student, faculty member, etc.), 4) Travel support currently available to you, 5) Indicate if you have submitted a paper to be presented at the conference and if you will be the presenter, 6) Any other information that may be relevant to your application. Note that, because of the new program, the deadline for application to both programs has been extended to September 25, 2009.

Nature vs Nurture – Intelligence

The nature versus nature debate of intelligence has been going on for a several years.  The debate revolves around how intelligence is formed, either from a person’s genes and physiological attributes (nature), or from personal experiences and learnt through education and exposure to the world.

The nurture debate states that all humans are born as a ‘blank slate’ and the amount of intelligence we have is dependent upon our experiences. This view states that all humans have the capacity to learn and have the same abilities as everyone else when it comes to IQ.  Research has shown that family factors have an effect on a child’s IQ up to adolescence, but after a certain point it seems that nature tends to play a part. Twin studies have been used to investigate this debate further and from these studies we can see that genetics can play a huge role in influencing a person’s IQ. Twin studies have shown that twins raised in different environments have similar IQs that fraternal siblings raised together, suggesting that nature plays a more important part in IQ.

Previous research has shown that both, our genes and the environment play a role in intelligence, and we are all born with different levels of capabilities which can be developed through the years.  Of important note here is the work of American Psychologist, Robert Plomin.  Plomin has demonstrated that genetic factors can mediate the link between the environment and person outcomes such as intelligence.  Research is somewhat divided in this area then with some researchers suggesting a 40%/60% divide between nature and nurture, others view the exact opposite, whilst some go with 50%/50%.  What is clear is that both nature and nurture are responsible for how we are today.  The nature versus nature debate can also be applied to other areas of psychology, such as development of language, identity or personality.

References
Petrill, SA., Wilkerson, B, (2004). Intelligence and Achievement: A behavioural Genetic Perspective, Educational Psychology Review, 12 (2) pp 185-199.
Plomin, R., Loehlin, J. C., & DeFries, J. C. (1985). Genetic and environmental components of “environmental” influences. Developmental Psychology, 21, 391-402.

PsyAsia answers your human resource, business psychology and psychometric assessment questions at assessmentcentral.com

Over the years, PsyAsia International has placed tremendous effort into putting together a knowledgebase at our website as well as a knowledge blog at assessmentcentral.com.  We continue to add to and develop these further.  We’re now offering you the opportunity to ask questions pertinent to you and for our psychologists to answer them at our blog.  Your question should be related to human resource management or business psychology. It can be under the categories listed at this blog or you may request a new category.  We may also open some questions/answers up for discussion and general comment if we feel relevant.  Please keep in mind that your question should be able to be answered within a blog submission (i.e., don’t ask anything that might require a very complex or long response!!).  Our psychologists will aim to respond to one question per day and the target time for the response is 10-15 minutes.  Answers will be posted at assessmentcentral.com and the PsyAsia knowledgebase. 

Please feel free to submit your questions now by emailing our ONLINE LEARNING SECTION. You must complete all details in the form accurately. We will not answer questions from those who enter FREE email addresses such as yahoo/google/msn etc or where a company name is not provided.  However, we will not mention your personal details in the response in order to protect your privacy. Thank you for your participation!

Organisational Psychology in HRM: A PsyAsia Seminar

Wondering what organisational psychology is and how it relates to HRM?  Come along to our seminar on 24 July in Causeway Bay.  The seminar will be run in Cantonese and English (2 sessions).  Registration is managed by the Hong Kong Institute for HRM.  Click below for more details and registration:

http://www.hkihrm.org/ihrm_eng/ih_eve_mon_read_01.asp?id=466

Free PsyAsia Seminar in Hong Kong: Saville Consulting Wave outperforms other personality assessments

Saville Consulting Wave® Outperforms Major Personality Assessments
A free seminar hosted by PsyAsia International and presented by the MD of Saville Consulting Asia Pacific, Scott Rufus
Registration: Click here    More information on the seminar: click here

Over the past four years, Saville Consulting has developed revolutionary assessment tools designed to address the 21st century workplace. Concerns over unsupervised internet testing have now been largely overcome by Saville Consulting’s development of their Swift aptitude assessment portfolio. Additionally, the Saville Consulting Wave®, translated into over 20 languages takes one quarter of the time of the OPQ® with superior validity and is rapidly becoming the definitive personality assessment tool worldwide. The Saville Consulting Wave® has demonstrated outstanding ability to predict performance at work and groundbreaking research by Professor Peter Saville and his team has shown that the tool outperforms the OPQ32, NEO, 16PF, MBTI, Disc and HPI in predicting job performance.

At this PsyAsia seminar in Hong Kong, Scott Rufus will present some of these findings and introduce the Wave tool along with its practical applications.

About the presenter
Scott Ruhfus, Managing Director Saville Consulting Asia Pacific
BA Hons (Syd), MAPS, MAICD, Registered Psychologist

Scott Ruhfus is an organizational psychologist with 30 years experience in human resources, consulting and management. He is part of the management team that looks after Saville Consulting clients in the Asia Pacific region.

Scott is a passionate advocate for the role of assessment as an aid to organizational effectiveness and individual satisfaction. He has assisted many organizations in the region to do just that and he has the practical experience of seeing both sides of the fence, first as a user, then as an adviser and trainer.

Scott’s testing expertise is in the development of decision support systems and reporting formats which address the practical need to identify, develop and retain talent, and to do it better than the competition. He has led projects as diverse as pilot selection for airlines and entry level screening for retail banks.

With his management experience and behavioural background he now also coaches and counsels senior executives in a number of public and private companies as well as the professional services sector.

Until 2002, he was President, Asia Pacific, of SHL, having joined the fledgling Australian office in 1988. Early on, he helped to introduce modern concepts in testing to the Australian and other regional markets, and later, was involved in product development and strategy. He has headed the Australian HR function of 3 multinationals, and was a military psychologist before that.

Scott has a degree in psychology from Sydney University, is a Registered Psychologist and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He has enjoyed a close link to the profession, speaking at many seminars on advances in testing and assessment, taking an active interest in the postgraduate training of business psychologists, and serving on a number of professional committees. He is a past Chair of the Australian Psychological Society’s College of Organisational Psychologists in Sydney.

More information on the seminar: click here

expressCONSULT service launched by PsyAsia International

In response to continuous requests of quick advice from our clients, PsyAsia International proudly presents the expressCONSULT™ service. Very often our clients need professional advice from our psychologists which is brief enough to be delivered in one email or a telephone call. As experts in the area, we are always very keen to help but often we find ourselves very busy and responding to 20 or more requests for quick support each day means cutting into work for our full-paying clients or leaving work very late!! To overcome this dilemma, PsyAsia has invented the expressCONSULT™ solution of “Purchasing time from our Psychologists”. With this service, you can purchase our psychologists’ time for their professional advice without the need for a formal consultancy service! It is quick and easy and your problem can be solved in as fast as 15 minutes!

What do we offer?
With expressCONSULT™, we offer a wide range of advisory and consultancy services that are not longer than 2 working hours (for projects that are estimated to take longer than 2 hours to complete, you would need to opt for our regular consulting services).

Examples of expressCONSULT™ services include, but are not limited to: checking interview questions, assessment centre exercises and training materials; advice on selection procedures, training design and performance appraisal; and any other advisory services that call on our expertise.

More information at http://www.psychologicalconsultancy.com

PsyAsia International launches Online Learning Centre

PsyAsia International has launched an Online Learning centre.  At the current time the Centre houses a free seminar “Putting Psychometric Tests to Work”. The seminar includes narration as presented in real-life in both Hong Kong and Singapore during February and March 2008. 

PsyAsia will gradually add more seminars as well as full e-learning courses.  The full courses will be specially adapted versions of our popular in-house and public training programs. In addition to slides and narration, we will offer interactive content that will make learning fun, as well as end of segment quizzes and final course assessments.  Those who pass the end of course assessments will be able to apply for a hard-copy certificate signed by a registered psychologist.

Now, people from anywhere in the world interested in developing various organizational psychology or human resource skills can benefit from our renowned training.  Our training, which is always current, based on science and designed by top, government-registered organizational psychologists, is recognized as being exceptional.

Registering in our online programs will enable busy professionals to access this training on their own schedule and work at their own pace from any location equipped with the internet.

PsyAsia is also pleased to offer the design of custom e-learning courses. We will put together a course especially for your organization in the area of your choice (within our competency range) and allow access only by your employees!  For organizations who hire our psychologists to deliver real-life in-house training, we offer the additional free benefit of publishing the slides and quizzes to the Online Learning Centre for 2 weeks following the course to enable review and reflection of the material.

Have a great learning experience with PsyAsia International’s Online Learning Center.

Nature and nuture in ability and intelligence – a resource

The following external site explains our knowledge to date in these areas:
THE NEUROSCIENCE OF INTELLIGENCE

» The idea of g

» Types of Intelligence

» Intelligence, Heredity, and Environment
History
Evidence for Nature
Evidence for Nurture
Comments on Research
Conclusion

» Neuropsychological Testing
Normal Intelligence
Abnormal Examination and Brain Trauma
Personality

» Spectroscopy Data

» Disorders related to Intelligence

» Gender Differences
Self-Estimated Intelligence
Anatomical Differences
Gray vs. White Matter

» Artificial Intelligence
A Timeline of AI
Ancient History of AI
Modern History of AI
The Future of AI

» Age and Intelligence
Areas of Function
Effects of Lesions

Multiple intelligences leading to individual performance differences at work?

Gardner (1984) proposed that rather than a ‘g’ or general factor being responsible for an individual’s ability and therefore performance at work, multiple intelligences are responsible.

Read a summary of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences here

Also see Howard Gardner’s home page at: http://pzweb.harvard.edu/PIs/HG.htm