NY Times publishes the assesment word list
Started by cara susanna
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
I haven't been able to pull up the full article here yet, but I'm wondering why the researchers even provided the actual stimulus list to the reporter? And then why the reporter didn't think it might compromise the validity of the test to put the list into print? (my knee-jerk reaction is to place more blame on the former than the latter, though, given that the psychologist/researcher is the one with the ethical responsibility to preserve the integrity of psychological tests).
Publishing this list in one article, and not giving the name of the test is basically innocuous. I can't imagine anyone practicing and practicing this in order to memorize it, when they don't even know if these words belong to one of the tests that is going to be administered.
Also, having administered a large number of neuropsych tests, it's pretty easy to tell when someone has been practicing.
Also, having administered a large number of neuropsych tests, it's pretty easy to tell when someone has been practicing.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
We probably shouldn't have the list IN this thread with the name of the assessment, as SDN gets indexed very high in google and it will pop up easily....
Fixed.
Really? With absolute certainty? You don't want to guess at something like this, particularly in cases where a person's autonomy and/or legal matters are in play.
Research has found clinicans over-estimate their ability to accurate judge the information reported to them by their patients.
You should probably remove the assessment name, as a person doing a search can just read the name and then click on the link....
You are right. Not with absolute certainty, except when they come in and tell you they've been practicing. 😀
I still think my earlier point stands. The article didn't publish the name of the test, and there is a very low probability (almost zero) of that list of words, which is buried within a long article, actually interfering with the validity of the test.
Well, it is a horrible thing for the reporter to have done, and the psychologist should have been mindful to tell them not to take these kinds of notes or recordings. But as far as the [test] goes, you can already access those word lists for free via articles that display both the standard and alternative lists via Pubmed.
Last edited:
At least there's now an editor's note that the words have been removed from the (online version of the) article
Luckily, we have 4 different versions of the avlt 😀
Very true, although the NY Times is definitely much more accessible to the general public, many of whom might not even think/know to look up such a thing in a scholarly journal.
I hadn't read the entire article, though, so I didn't know that the name of the test wasn't mentioned, which lightens the blow so to speak. And if the editor retracted the words, all the better.
