| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ipsative article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
I removed the See Also section, which pointed to Ultima IV. There is no relation between the 2 articles. Bmackenty (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
POW The article currently only lists reasons for NOT using ipsative questions. Is this not bias? There are plenty of ipsative questions out there and most likely there is a good reason for this. Ipsative questions can be of value if the questions is very difficult to answer and you want to force the respondent in to making a choice. This can be relevant if there is a tendency for pleasing bias. Consider two likerttype questions: To what degree are you able to maintain a close frienship with a/ caucasians b/african americans? In this situation many will answer that they are very able to maintain frienship with both categories. An ipsitive answer forces the respondent to choose.... Some times this is good. Sometimes this is bad.
Ipsative test can sometimes helt prevent faking. Se eg. this link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achristoffersen (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Further: if a and b are considered mutual exclusive, ipsative test can be a good idea.
The thing thats unscientific,unethical, and pressumptious/inaccurate about ipsative testing methods is the assessment process is naturally far too subjective to the assumptions/paradigm of the observer/evaluator. eg If someone starts being inconsistent with answers one can only assume based on theory that that there is a logical reason that is or is not intentional by the subject. For example, how often do these tests account for the possibility that the subject is reacting to the test or mediums/conditions(wording/paper/fonts/screen settings) themselves or something completely unrelated to the test, the receptionist's "squeaky" voice etc...and not to the particular logic of the questions? When we consider all the realities, we must completely throw any fundamental reliability of these tests as personality assessments out the window, unless you already quantify the entire subject, environment AND observer interaction anthropologically which I'm sure should lead to further lawsuits, when these test are used in the employment screening process of any society that respects civil rights.71.239.91.179 (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Although I agree this represents possible POV bias, I don't believe there has been any edit warring over this (not that you're claiming otherwise). Therefore, it would typically be more productive to fix the article than to put a POV tag on it. Anyways, I'll look into finding good sources to address your valid concern. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)