Principles, Standards, and Guidelines that Impact Test Development and Use and Sources of Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Test development and use may constitute psychology's most important technical contribution to the behavior sciences. Tests are found universally, albeit distributed unevenly. Despite their somewhat widespread use, ethics codes from only 20 psychological associations address issues associated with test development and use. However, services from professionals engaged in test development and use are likely to find general guidance from policies promulgated by international (i.e., World Health Organization, International Union of Psychological Sciences, and the International Association of Applied Psychology) and regional professional associations. Guidelines from the International Test Commission specifically address issues important to test adaptation and use. Guidelines from the American Psychological Association, British Psychological Society, and Canadian Psychological Association also are featured. Prominent sources that provide information on tests are identified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.127 | 0.299 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".