Confused

[psychRA]

An "annoyance" is far different from insinuating unethical conduct or claiming that one is failing the EPPP because they have to answer experimental items.

Those are two separate issues.

I personally feel that having to pay money to provide assistance to the testing company - without any way to opt out - is annoying. You commented that it's low on the priority list, and I responded that it's still annoying.

The question of whether experimental items could contribute to unnecessary test anxiety, which could then contribute to poorer performance for some test takers, is not a mere annoyance. I don't think we can conclusively say that there is no relationship among those pieces (experimental items that add unnecessary time/effort to the test, test anxiety, test performance).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych.meout]

Those are two separate issues.

I personally feel that having to pay money to provide assistance to the testing company - without any way to opt out - is annoying. You commented that it's low on the priority list, and I responded that it's still annoying.

The flipside is that without this kind of test development, you'll have people complaining about the validity and reliability of the testing. How do you propose to accomplish this in an alternate manner without detracting from this test development process (e.g., allowing people to opt out causing the sample to not be representative of the overall population)?

The question of whether experimental items could contribute to unnecessary test anxiety, which could then contribute to poorer performance for some test takers, is not a mere annoyance. I don't think we can conclusively say that there is no relationship among those pieces (experimental items that add unnecessary time/effort to the test, test anxiety, test performance).

1. I'd respond by saying that these are people who are not only trained in addressing these kinds of anxiety issues, but who are taking the exam specifically so that they can be licensed to provide this same service to the public.

2. These same people are also ostensibly trained in psychometrics, test and measure development, and clinical application of testing, so they should have a good understanding of how and why experimental items are added and be able to handle it.

3. Could it cause test anxiety, which could contribute to poor performance? Possibly, but the mere possibility of it and the inability to prove a negative (i.e., that it's impossible that it significantly affects test performance) isn't necessarily a great argument for scientists to be making for why they shouldn't have to endure the annoyance of experimental items.

 

[LadyHalcyon]

This thread is amazing

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[AbnormalPsych]

This thread is amazing

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

This is why I come to SDN.

 

[psychRA]

The flipside is that without this kind of test development, you'll have people complaining about the validity and reliability of the testing. How do you propose to accomplish this in an alternate manner without detracting from this test development process (e.g., allowing people to opt out causing the sample to not be representative of the overall population)?
....
These same people are also ostensibly trained in psychometrics, test and measure development, and clinical application of testing, so they should have a good understanding of how and why experimental items are added and be able to handle it.

I don't think we disagree on those pieces. I came from a research-heavy program with a very rigorous focus on the scientific method, including statistics, test and measure development, cognitive/intellectual/academic assessment, etc.. I understand why this matters, and why it's complicated to develop and test new items prior to rolling them out. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance when it comes to standardized assessment. I'm coming from a sense of frustration over being expected to donate even one minute of my time to ASPPB and/or Pearson.

I worked a ton of unpaid hours during my graduate training, yes, but: a. Working a lot of hours on research and clinical work is just something comes along with going to a fully-funded PhD program; and b. All of that "donated" time was also in the service of training to become a competent psychologist. I also worked too many hours for very little money during internship and fellowship, but again, that was in the service of my training. I don't regret that work - that's just what we do as part of our training.

ASPPB, on the other hand, is not awarding me a free doctoral degree in exchange for my years of hard work, and it's not providing me with essential training that I need in order to become a competent professional. I don't owe them any of my time.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't think we disagree on those pieces. I came from a research-heavy program with a very rigorous focus on the scientific method, including statistics, test and measure development, cognitive/intellectual/academic assessment, etc.. I understand why this matters, and why it's complicated to develop and test new items prior to rolling them out. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance when it comes to standardized assessment. I'm coming from a sense of frustration over being expected to donate even one minute of my time to ASPPB and/or Pearson.

I worked a ton of unpaid hours during my graduate training, yes, but: a. Working a lot of hours on research and clinical work is just something comes along with going to a fully-funded PhD program; and b. All of that "donated" time was also in the service of training to become a competent psychologist. I also worked too many hours for very little money during internship and fellowship, but again, that was in the service of my training. I don't regret that work - that's just what we do as part of our training.

ASPPB, on the other hand, is not awarding me a free doctoral degree in exchange for my years of hard work, and it's not providing me with essential training that I need in order to become a competent professional. I don't owe them any of my time.

Honestly, most test takers likely are not even aware of the extra items. It's an extremely minor burden. If you feel strongly about it, you could always get involved with your state board and engage in a Sisyphean effort to get them to not use the EPPP for licensure. Honestly, they could run studies on those test items without including them on the exam. Though, that'd be pretty costly, and I imagine it'd drive up the exam a great deal. In all likelihood, this is the lesser of several evils. People would find something to bitch about no matter what happened. Fact of the matter, you are owed nothing. Everything about getting a doctoral degree and license is a known quantity for anyone who takes the minimum amount of effort to look it up. Your "informed consent" is applying to graduate school in the first place.[

 

[psych.meout]

I don't think we disagree on those pieces. I came from a research-heavy program with a very rigorous focus on the scientific method, including statistics, test and measure development, cognitive/intellectual/academic assessment, etc.. I understand why this matters, and why it's complicated to develop and test new items prior to rolling them out. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance when it comes to standardized assessment. I'm coming from a sense of frustration over being expected to donate even one minute of my time to ASPPB and/or Pearson.

I worked a ton of unpaid hours during my graduate training, yes, but: a. Working a lot of hours on research and clinical work is just something comes along with going to a fully-funded PhD program; and b. All of that "donated" time was also in the service of training to become a competent psychologist. I also worked too many hours for very little money during internship and fellowship, but again, that was in the service of my training. I don't regret that work - that's just what we do as part of our training.

ASPPB, on the other hand, is not awarding me a free doctoral degree in exchange for my years of hard work, and it's not providing me with essential training that I need in order to become a competent professional. I don't owe them any of my time.

Which would you prefer: a few minutes of your time to take some experimental test items that don't even get counted vs. paying even more than the existing $600 test fee to pay for other research on the experimental test items?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I think we can generally agree that answering extra questions is no one's idea of fun (or almost no one's). But we also live in a world where we sometimes have to do things that are annoying and potentially stressful. If someone started a campaign to change the system, I'd consider joining it. For now, I don't dwell on the EPPP. I am much more interested in other aspects of training in the field that screw over students and hurt the field.

 

[Sanman]

I think we can generally agree that answering extra questions is no one's idea of fun (or almost no one's). But we also live in a world where we sometimes have to do things that are annoying and potentially stressful. If someone started a campaign to change the system, I'd consider joining it. For now, I don't dwell on the EPPP. I am much more interested in other aspects of training in the field that screw over students and hurt the field.

As entertaining as this thread is, does anyone believe we have any power to change this practice? What are you going to do, boycott the EPPP?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

As entertaining as this thread is, does anyone believe we have any power to change this practice? What are you going to do, boycott the EPPP?

I think a concerted effort could result in some sort of change/movement (e.g., see EPPP Part 2). However, I don't see a way out of the dichotomy of either "donating" time to go through experimental items in exchange for a lower exam cost (which is the way I see it: a trade-off rather than a strict donation) and potentially higher-quality items, or paying more for the exam so the test company can develop those items in a different way that may be less effective.

 

[WisNeuro]

I am much more interested in other aspects of training in the field that screw over students and hurt the field.

Exactly, I am always astounded at the stupid hills that some psychologists choose to die on, considering the much bigger threats to their profession.

 

[psychRA]

Exactly, I am always astounded at the stupid hills that some psychologists choose to die on, considering the much bigger threats to their profession.

I agree that this is a very minor issue. As I've said, it's not something that I feel strongly about or that I would ever bother trying to take action to address.

There seems to be some all or nothing thinking around this, though. It's a very minor issue relatively speaking, and it's an issue. The fact that an issue is small enough that it isn't worth addressing doesn't automatically mean that the issue no longer exists. The construction of the EPPP is not a hill that I will ever choose to die on, and paying to help ASPPB test out new items is frustrating.

Surely we can hold both of those realities at once.

 

[WisNeuro]

I agree that this is a very minor issue. As I've said, it's not something that I feel strongly about or that I would ever bother trying to take action to address.

There seems to be some all or nothing thinking around this, though. It's a very minor issue relatively speaking, and it's an issue. The fact that an issue is small enough that it isn't worth addressing doesn't automatically mean that the issue no longer exists. The construction of the EPPP is not a hill that I will ever choose to die on, and paying to help ASPPB test out new items is frustrating.

Surely we can hold both of those realities at once.

We can hold both of those realities at once, just not sure why anyone would want to waste mind space on that frustration give that it's the likely best option available.

 

[psychRA]

We can hold both of those realities at once, just not sure why anyone would want to waste mind space on that frustration give that it's the likely best option available.

I don't consider it a waste of mind space. And the fact that it's the best option doesn't make it less frustrating during the 10 minutes a year that I think about it.

If humans could automatically stop being annoyed by things by virtue of the fact that there are no better options, most of us would be out of jobs.

 

[psych.meout]

I agree that this is a very minor issue. As I've said, it's not something that I feel strongly about or that I would ever bother trying to take action to address.

There seems to be some all or nothing thinking around this, though. It's a very minor issue relatively speaking, and it's an issue. The fact that an issue is small enough that it isn't worth addressing doesn't automatically mean that the issue no longer exists. The construction of the EPPP is not a hill that I will ever choose to die on, and paying to help ASPPB test out new items is frustrating.

Surely we can hold both of those realities at once.

Except that there are people like the OP of this thread who go well beyond this and are insinuating that this is somehow a violation of research ethics and some kind of great injustice that caused them to fail the EPPP the first time around. Ruminating about this minor issue is at best a distraction and at worst exacerbating their test anxiety issues, preventing them from making progress on passing.

 

[TXneuronerd15]

I never intended this to blow up; I wrote this primarily for your thoughts on how goofy it can be to try to calculate how you did on a practice test. To compensate for being out of school for years, and what possible knowledge limit I may have for not having a doctorate, I just decided to study longer.

 

[Justanothergrad]

The flipside is that without this kind of test development, you'll have people complaining about the validity and reliability of the testing.

I mean, I wouldn't go so far as to say it has stopped concerns of validity.