Posts by 81stcolumn
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh and while I'm on my grumpy soap box. Edify’s Adrian Keane may not realise it but students don't buy many books any more (even required ones) and IMHE they don't read them any more either. This may be due to cost relative to freely available materials; including the possibility that many universities put lecture material on-line. The quality of which appears to be improving over time. So yet again, a drop from 80-50% may not entirely be due to those damn pirates. From my own experience getting inspection copies is difficult and unreasonably expensive at times, hence they don't get read and don't get recommended.
As you were....
-
Ahhhh CLNZ who recently posted this with hiss and a roar.
They seem very keen indeed (possibly a little desperate?) to demonstrate some value to society. Especially given that they are currently in litigation with New Zealand Universities over what existing licensing is worth. Given that their tax on education makes up by far the majority of their income; losing could be a real problem for them. With all due respect and care for freelance copyright holders, I hope they lose. This particular racket has gone on long enough.
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Lilith __,
>8-( Hmmmm he isn't so there!
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Thank you Joe.....
Am now having to swab snorted tea from between keys on my desktop.
-
My best efforts to date.
-
As I understand it a a large proportion of your retina is devoted to detecting texture. Specifically changes in texture; colours don't really matter here because the main goal of detection is to support lcomotion and location. It is possible that much of the difficultly and allure is in capturing pleasing arrays that largely feed the implicit part of our brains.
For me B/W has always punished me most with that "the box didn't capture it" moment.
-
I find this whole business disgusting. Not Brown’s affair, which I care about not at all, but the frenzy of prudish and prurient and self-righteous comments.
The difference no doubt between wanting to say something and having something to say........................
-
Must say, that is the most ridiculous piece of shit essay on anything I have read in a long time. It’s, well sums itself up quite nicely.
You will no doubt be pleased to learn that Dr. E. Gnaulati. has no expertise in autism or diagnostics, indeed his four credible (loosley termed) publications are in the field of family bonding/separation. But he's a Dr. so he has to be an expert in something right?
BTW. Tussock - The nice person reading over my shoulder wants to know if you used to sit in front of her in physiology lectures at Otago?
-
Okay – This is a long post but I had to say something……………
Some points to consider when using psychometrics of any kind in the workplace.
Problem 1.
i) Take one group of people tell them that you will film them.
ii) Tell them that you are measuring a desirable behaviour for example, letting someone finish a sentence (‘cos we all know that’s a good thing don’t we?).
iii) Do above measurements.
iv) Ask the same group to recall how many times they let people finish a sentence in a conversation.
v) Compare scores.We found that even though people knew that they could not lie about it, they still over-estimated the number of times that they demonstrated a desired behaviour. Their recall reflected their beliefs about themselves: “I am a sociable person - so of course I let people finish a sentence”. This is not duplicity but the normal functioning of a social brain. I am not arguing that there is no deliberate image management going on when completing psychometrics. I am arguing that even if there wasn’t bias would remain. The way people view themselves is a function of the way they wish to be, this process is to some extent unconscious or more specifically due to memory priming effects.
My point: People tell the truth as they experience it and may not be lying if their behaviour differs from what they say in a questionnaire.
Problem 2.
Even the best of Psychometric theory is grounded in the concept of latent variables. Latent variables reflect the balance between things we cannot truly share with others because of the uniqueness of experience/meaning and those things we can measure using common language which reflects experience/meaning that we can share. For example most people can agree on whether the animal in a picture looks like a cat, but when asked to describe what defines a cat those definitions will vary. Factor analysis and structural equation modelling seek out the common dimensions of meaning and those questions which best reflect them. Latent meaning remains in both the respondent and the person interpreting the results of psychometric measurements. Consequently a large degree of variability in meaning remains when one person fills out a questionnaire and another person tries to derive meaning from those responses. This is why psychometrics can be both valid and reliable but only meaningful to the respondent. Add another layer of meaning to their interpretation and value diminishes. Psychometrics are at their best when measuring changes in personal experience not choosing between different individual experiences of the same socio-cultural phenomenon (the rules change for large numbers of people but still sub serve to explained variance).
My point: Anyone who chooses between individuals using psychometrics does not understand their purpose. At best they permit decisions about what other measurements to take from people. The origins of psychometrics are in norms and diagnostics (still problematic), not deliberate selection between individuals.
Problem 3.
Raymond Cattell, the father of all things psychometric proposed a model of personality that included questionnaires, observations and behavioural test data. The main point here is that good practice (as has been advocated for more than 50 years) demands data from two or more valid, reliable sources. At the end of this process you might argue to know something about a person. Even then, you still have the problem of matching knowledge, selection and workplace performance. That is to say, do you have any clear evidence or robust theory about who would make the best contribution to workplace performance? I stand to be corrected here, but to my knowledge no robust theory exists that can link psychometrics to workplace performance. A problem exemplified by the nature of decisions involved, should the person required; i) Duplicate or replicate existing skills in workplace (affirmation approach). ii) Complement or contrast with existing skills in the workplace (additive/diverse or dialectic). iii) Like or value the skill involved with the job or a particular organisation regardless of the above (personality matching). Data driven theories that actually use meaningful performance measures in this respect are sparse to the point of non-existent.
My point: Theory linking psychometrics (even when performed under best practice guidelines) still has to be matched to organisational needs; this problem has never been adequately addressed.
Footnote:
I have yet to read a convincing argument for the derivation of binary constructs (eg. Introversion-Extroversion) from factor analysis neither the method nor the statistics are designed to produce this outcome. Structural equation modelling cannot do this either; though you can use binomial regression to test derived models which would argue for the same thing.
I have been surprised by the largely atheoretical approach in management, business and HR when it comes to using SEM (causal correlative modelling). SEM like factor analysis is very prone to GIGO albeit in a more complex and modern way.
No evidence for learning styles or functionally equivalent processes in the brain (sorry folks!).Problem 1 is based on data I have published but using slightly different variables.
Final point; There is no advantage to using psychometrics for workplace selection over managerial intuition other than that it has the cloak of perceived (but erroneous) scientific legitimacy.
Minor corrections 21:52.
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Sacha,
"Dale Shearer" giggle.....
