Personality testing has been applied for many years by industrial psychologists to choose suitable applicants to fill definite job positions. Particularly, fire departments and even police departments usually require personality testing of candidates. Even many seminaries demand testing of students who wish to become ministers or priests. At present time, certain professional sports teams use personality testing to help choose appropriate candidates from draft choices. The history of personality testing for work candidates and students is full of controversy because of many reasons and problems of the very process of personality testing. These problems that usually happen in using personality testing in the choice process involve the difficulty of determination personality factors, issues belonging to the validity of tests and shortage of predictive investigation, and the amount of incorrect predictions.

It is not easy to define the roots of personality testing. Fredrick Taylor in his book ‘Principles of Scientific Management’ declared that employee possibilities could be measured. Other investigations that followed created employee-rating means and other character evaluation systems. This first growth in personality testing achieved its flowering with Henry C. Link’s ‘Employment Psychology’, in 1919, in which he declared: “The ideal employment techniques are undoubtedly an immense machine which would get candidates of all types at one end, automatically sort, interview, and record them, and at last turn them out at the other end nicely labeled with the work which they are to do” (Henry C. Link, Employment Psychology, 48, 1919). Next flowering of personality testing was filled with a more florid metaphor: Jungian “samples.” In the early 1940, Katherine C. Briggs and Isabel Myers developed the Meyers-Briggs Example-Indicator applying their own version of Jung’s samples. The test was applied to help employers check female candidates for factory job places.

Unlike its preceding, Taylorite boom, personality testing post, was at first used to denote “executive material.” Although testing had long been professionalized, many companies, involving IBM, designed their own tests, which placed forth apparently chance list of topics and pastimes for candidates to evaluate on a scale of “like” to “dislike.”

Personality testing drifted back down the job-placement scale in the 1960s, when hirers gave variants of Myers-Briggs or some other tests to everyone from accountants to firemen. But the revolution influenced a stumbling block in the kind of a 1971 Supreme Court solution. In Griggs v. Duke Power, the court governed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made some kinds of a worker testing unconstitutional. A small manufacturing sprang up to display the prejudice of personality tests, which was easy, given that many of tests had been developed with “control” groups composed of psychology students, their friends, and family members of psychology students: not a very specific example.

Various testing processes:

1) Black box testing is conducted by testing the system without any notion of essential design or code. This generally is performed by a functional specialist than a technical expert. Tests are based on demands and functionality.

2) White box testing is based on notion of the inward logic of a usage’s code. Tests are based on coverage of code declarations, branches, paths, and requirements.

3) Unit testing is the primary level of dynamic testing and is primary the charge of the developers and only then of the testers. Unit testing is conducted after the expected test outcomes are met or variations are acceptable.

4) Parallel (or audit) testing where the user compares the data of the new system to the production of the present system to check the new system conducts the operations in a correct way.

5) Functional testing is black-box type of testing that is geared to functional requirements of an application. Testers should perform this type of testing.

6) Application testing is testing for ‘user-friendliness’. It is clear that this is subjective and hinges on the targeted ending user or client. User interviews, investigations, video recording of user sessions, and other methods can be applied. Programmers and testers are generally not suitable as usability testers.

7) Incremental integration testing is persistent testing of a usage as new operation is recommended. This may need different aspects of an application’s operation be independent enough to work apart before all components of the program are set up, or that test drivers are developed as required. This kind of testing may be conducted by programmers or by testers.

Integration testing, which is black box testing, follows the unit testing. The objective is to provide distinct parts of the usage still work pursuant to client requirements. Test sets are developed with the clear aim of conducting the interfaces between the parts. This work is to be performed by the test team. Integration test is considered complete when real outcomes and expected outcomes are either in line or variations are explainable based on management input.

9) During system testing, which is a black box test, the full system is limited in a conducted milieu to validate its exactness and completeness in fulfillment of the functions as elaborated. The system test represents production in that it can happen in the “production-like” test milieu and test all of the system functions demanded in production. The test team finishes the system test. Previous to the system test, the part and integration test outcomes are examined by Software Quality Assurance (SQA) to provide all problems have been solved. It is significant for higher level testing attempts to perceive unsolved problems of the lower testing levels. System testing is considered complete when real outcomes and expected outcomes are either in line or distinctions are admissible based on customer input.

10) End-to-End testing is alike with system testing, the ‘macro’ end of the test project and includes testing of a complete usage milieu, such as interplaying with a database, applying network liaisons, or interplaying with other fitting, applications, or systems if necessary.

11) Decline testing: its purpose is to provide software rests unharmed. A baseline set of information and scripts are maintained and performed to check changes made during the release have not “undone” any preceding code. Expected outcomes from the baseline are paralleled to outcomes of the software being decline tested. All divergences are revealed and accounted for, before testing goes on to the following level.

12) Sanity testing is used whenever glance testing is enough to prove that usage is functioning in accordance with specifications. This level of testing is a part of decline testing. It usually contains a set of basis tests of main functionality to display connection to the database, usage servers, printers, etc.

13) Conduct testing is a certain level of testing that check the load, sound, and response times as determined by requirements.

14) Load testing deals with checking a usage under heavy weight, such as the checking of a web site under a number of loads to define when the systems response time worsens or fails.

15) Fitting testing is testing full, partial, or modern install and uninstall measurement. The fitting test for a release is performed with the purpose of displaying production readiness. This test is performed after the usage has been sent to the customer’s site. It includes the inventory of configuration parts (conducted by the use’s system administration) and assessment of information preparedness, as well as dynamic tests concentrated on main system functionality. When obligatory, a sanity test is conducted after the fitting testing.

16) Protection (or penetration) testing is testing that deals with how well the system is defended against unauthorized inward or outward access, intentional damage. This kind of testing may need special testing methods.

17) Convalesce (or error) testing is testing that deals with how well a system convalesce from accidents, fitting failures, or other catastrophic questions.

18) Consistency testing is testing that deals with how well software carries out in a particular fitting, software, operating system or network milieu.

19) Comparative testing is testing that correlate software advantages and disadvantages to competing output.

20) Admission testing, that is black box testing, will give customer the possibility to check the functioning and usage of the system before it is moved to production. The admission test is the responsibility of the customer; however, it is performed with full payment from the project team side. The test team works with the customer to develop the admission criteria.

21) Alpha testing is a testing of a use when development is coming to its completion. Insignificant design modifications may still be applied as an outcome of this testing. Alpha testing is usually applied by end users or others and not by testers.

22) Beta testing is a testing when working out and testing are almost finished and the last errors and questions need to be found out before the last release. Beta testing is usually completed by end users or others and not by testers.

Validity and Reliability of tests:

Validity denotes how well any device criterions what it is intended to define. Is the process of defining an authentic conception of what was about to be determined? Types of validity that are usually essential in day-to-day evaluation practices contain:

a) Instructional validity: How well the criterion belongs to what was studied or intended to be learned? It is also called content validity.

b) Construction validity: How solid is the foundation of the criterion, and how sound is the theoretical basis of the test?

c) Prognostic validity: If the criterion is believed to predict the following abilities, is it effective in this prognostication? For instance, propensity tests are believed to predict the following achievement.

d) Resultant validity: What occurs as a result of the application of the criterion such as advantages, long-term consequences, intended and unintended coming results? If the test is exact but has negative effects to learning, is it entirely valid?

e) Corresponding validity: Does this test correspond to the process sought; is it a suitable measure, and what is the aim of applying it?

f) Outward validity: Does the process correspond to other problems? For instance, if a few students did not like the film, how certain can you be that the most part of the students would not like the film?

Reliability deals almost with problems of how well a criterion could be made and how relevant criterions are. Statistical reliability of tests investigates how much process mistake there is correlating to a test corresponding to the test itself. Some types of reliability that are usually used in day to day educational evaluation practices contain:

a) Inter-rater reliability: how appropriately two or more raters would achieve something.

b) Intra-rater reliability: how appropriately a rater achieves alike things over various ratings. For instance, if you watch a film during the first part of the day, would you value it similar as if you watched it in the second part of the day?

c) Pursuance reliability: how appropriate is a certain form of pursuance over intervals? Have taken into consideration all the above problems and notions, it is possible to apply personality testing in certain conditions only. Police and fire departments as well as seminary programs use personality testing that evaluate dysfunctional personality and the availability of mental maladies can be applied in the appropriate candidate selection. Usually, the validity of personality tests for this aim is more powerful and does not have the tendency to falsely define many individuals as dysfunctional and in the same time it may incorrectly define individuals as healthy. On this ground it is significant that testing is performed by a psychologist and contains more than a test and an interview. However, nevertheless, personality testing may arouse more questions than it settles.

Buy Dissertation

Custom Essays

Term paper

As there are multiple common typologies and dimensions of organizational culture, only two types that examine the degree to which organizations equally value opportunities will be discussed in this research. The masculine type of culture normally present in organizations that are created, maintained, and controlled by female population values more men then women. This type of culture is commonly associated with stereotypical male traits such as ambitiousness, decisiveness, status and authority. This code of conduct at times is absolutely alienable to women. Even though women can and do function in masculine corporate cultures, it often involves significant difficulties. Firstly, those who try to undertake male gender roles generally do not end up at higher positions within an organization, neither this leads to creation of more hospitable settings for other women in the organization. Coming to the workplace with a firm belief in equal opportunity and ending up being unaccepted by culture, women become confused still believing that they have done everything to succeed in this organization. Other women tend to emulate to male behaviours, as it is necessary of carrier advancement, but they remain untrue to their female identity. Others, being frustrated with corporate failure, switch to development of own businesses. Masculine organizational culture leads to low level of work satisfaction among women, decreases the degree of commitment of organizational interests, and, consequently, results in poor productivity and falling profits.

On the other side of the fence, collectivistic culture dimension emphasizes cooperation among workers, harmony, and subordination of individual values. Collectivistic culture values individualism and captures the potential of every individual to contribute to corporate success, it also recognizes the impact of full utilization on productivity. Employees in collectivistic cultures tend to identify with their work groups based on the sense of moral duty, are more satisfied with their jobs, and tend to develop positive attitudes towards the workplace.

Despite the fact that it is 21st century now, women still remain a minority in many positions. As stated above, the reasons for this are multiple. But whose fault is this? This question is likely to remain unaddressed for many years yet to come. I would advice you to gradually change your attitude to step into the 21st century.

Projective testing was used in 1920s. As part of this testing, respondents are asked to respond to a vague stimulus; as such, personal fantasies and emotional associations are projected on the stimulus. The stimulus normally was an inkblot that subjects were to describe. Performance situational testing was developed in 1930’s and 1940’s. Under this testing, examinees are placed to life like or stimulated situations designed to provoke evidence of specific features of character, attitudes, and characteristics. At the present moment this type of testing is used to assess an employee’s leadership ability. However, initially these tests were administered to school children in order to identify and measure such behaviour as cheating, stealing, and lying. Further, services developed a performance test as a way to assess emotional and social behaviour. Based on this type of testing, modern rating scales and standardized questionnaires were developed that are used in employee screening.

In contemporary work environment, there are several hundreds of personality tests. However, all personality tests can be subdivided into two major groups: objective and projective. Objective tests are normally administered on a group basis and are generally referred to as self-reporting inventories with true or false type of questions. Interest inventories are a common type of objective tests that measures individual’s interest and attitudes towards a certain type of activities.

Objective tests can further be subdivided into two broad subcategories: normative and ipsative. Normative questions correspond to specific qualities or scales being measured and, consequently, each question is scored for a specific scale. Ipsative tests, on the other hand, require examinee to choose between two responses that measure for different qualities or scales. As such, choosing between either one or the other option indicates examinee’s preferences, attitudes, and abilities in either one quality or the other.

Pre-employment screening has come under a lot of criticism for invading individual privacy, inability to consider multiple situational factors that influence human behaviour, overlooking personal motivation, which is a rather strong stimulus when it comes to employee work performance, overlooking the impact of personality testing on the handicapped, ignoring of stress factor and its’ impact on examinee’s responses. Even though personality testing are not the best predictor of employee work performance, they still are being used more and more widely in employer’s attempt to hire the most productive and reliable employees.

If we put those who care to think into seminars and teach them how to think then we may be able to show them thru a dynamic presentation and data visualization. So let me give you an example of the power of visualization; I think you will enjoy this very much;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2670820702819322251&q=TED+population&hl=en

You see it speaks to the empirical data and gets someone to think beyond the data, knowledge, stigma, belief system or discrimination. I bet you will like this video, it actually justifies the entire argument about the need to use decision-making processes and train human brains to think again.

When you watch this you will see why I believe that a mission and system is needed to help propel thought. Humans just do not think. In fact I have dismissed myself from their domain. I have elevated myself to Human (+) and I no longer consider myself human when considering solutions to mankind’s challenges. Instead I observe now from outside the human society looking into the box and only participating in the flickering flame C.A.V.E. as necessary you see?

Nevertheless in doing so, I see all and I am not impressed with all I see. So, I think fixing the World is a good idea and first we must turn on some of these human brains so they can see the bigger picture. Lets get these people to think again, wake them up and shake them back to life. Perhaps this article might propel thought in 2007.

The Online Think Tank was completely honored to interview the Founder and Author of “The Human Knowledge MindMap.” William Sheridan after 30 years of research has produced an incredible work of genius and adds this to his long list of accomplishments and credits.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/cypher2/biobill.htm

We were impressed talking with William Sheridan and learning how simple it is to produce better decisions and processes in the human brain. The Human Knowledge MindMap is an excellent method to help the human mind to process information and come to better decisions and solutions.

The MindMap works well for all ages and is an excellent tool for R and D, problem solving or improving critical thinking skills. Currently special programs are available for University Students. We recommend The Human Knowledge MindMap for Corporate R and D Departments, Government Leadership, Universities, Students and You. William Sheridan stated in the interview that favorable results from thinking and decision making was much about both;

“Methodology and Philosophy”

Imagine how honored we were when he indicated his intent to help our own Think Tank talents. Of course we were just as pleased use the Human Knowledge MindMap to assist us. For more information on William Sheridan’s breakthrough please see the links below so you can improve your Thinking Skills, the methodology is clearly outlined and is available to you;

http://www3.sympatico.ca/cypher2/WebMindMapBook.pdf

Well that was today’s interview, who knows what tomorrow will bring to the Online Think Tank? I hope this article helps you in your own logic and critical thinking skills as our goal is to get the world to think again; one mind at a time!

In a sense cognitive therapy is a misnomer. The definition of therapy is the treatment of illness or disability. The use of cognitive therapy in mental illness is largely ineffective because you can’t use cognitive restructuring training on someone who is not cognitive. The same holds true to criminals. Cognitive therapy is ineffective on criminals for the same reason, because they are not yet cognitive.

The problem with using therapists to facilitate cognitive therapy programs is that most therapists are emotionally sick themselves with mainly living in the box of self-deception. That is they don’t know they are sick and therefore pass on their sickness (untruths) to their clients. Millions of people go to psychotherapists for years at great costs, yet never get b better and with many, getting worse. Yet skilled cognitive life skills counselors with a correct responsive proven curriculum can assist people to make permanent change in a matter of hours instead of days, months and years.

This is not to say that all therapists are bad. The best counselors/therapists have a positive way of being. People respond because of the goodness of their hearts, not to counseling techniques. Who would you like to work with, a stony cold dry creek bed or a flowing river that nourishes all that it comes in contact with?

Ponder the use of cognitive restructuring life skills versus clinical approach of cognitive therapy. Look for evidence based cognitive restructuring programs that can provide proof that their curriculum and approach works. Look for authors and organizations that have years of experience in holding and facilitating groups. No book learning can replace actual hands on experience.

Indeed and with regard to Freud and Irish Blood; he might have a point the Irish are somewhat difficult to figure out. This human variation appears to activate chemicals in their brain faster than others and seems to have more high-level energy to ramp up for a cause of their choosing and although highly efficient with their use of those fiery genes (piss and vinegar) they do promote change, strength of character and the ability to press on often enough as history has indeed shown. Having a few “Mc’s” in my own genetic line?

So is their something about the Irish that we do not know? Is there more to the story that we need to hear? What is it about the Irish and their personality that makes them so unique and so often puts them at the top of the food chain in society? Think about how many folks with Irish Blood are important folks in our society and modern civilizations. And if you use proper thinking methodology like a Mind Mapping Technique, maybe you can answer this question that Freud never could?

http://www3.sympatico.ca/cypher2/WebMindMapBook.pdf

There is a disproportionate amount? Why? Why do they work so hard and have such tough convictions? Is it nurturing or is Freud onto something? They are different and thus is it nature and that means it is that 80% of their personality that can be attributed to genetics. Well I hope this is thought for food for you in 2007.

How many times have you been in a situation where you knew you were absolutely in the right? And despite even having solid proof to support your position, the emotional blamer refused to accept any responsibility for their role?

I feel as if it stems from childhood and these people have been conditioned since that time to belive this behavior is acceptable. They think it’s acceptable because it’s partly all they know and it also has to do with the fact that they are in a comfort zone and no one has stepped up to challenge them out of it.

By challenge them out of it, I mean just that. These people need someone to challenge them to get out of their comfort zone and to explore the true reality of responsible adult behavior.

This sounds easy enough but of course the number one obstacle you will encounter with emotional blamers is denial. When a person has any type of emotional issue, it always comes from an association of pain or trauma. The emotion is their escape. It’s how they deal with it. For many, it’s all they know. And these people think their behavior is normal.

A child picks the behavior up from a parent. It’s called modeling. They see mom and dad do it… so it must be acceptable and all right for them to do it as well.

An emotional blamer is always going to find some reason to push the blame on to the next guy and to come up with a reason or multiple reasons if they need to justify themselves.

But perhaps the saddest part of the emotional blamer behavior is that some actually know deep down they are dead wrong. And yet they remain an emotional blamer anyway.

It’s like they weigh the two behaviors in their mind and pick the least painful one and stick with it. Which in this case is actually the most painful to them in the long run.

An emotional blamer will encounter a life full of disappointments and continual frustrations. They will have a limited number of friends with one exception.

People who engage in this type of dysfunctional behavior always tend to seek out and befriend others who are just like them to act as their support mechanism or enablers.

This of course is the worst thing that could happen since the emotional blamer does not have anyone in their life to challenge them out of the behavior and to grow as a person.

I liken this to a person who keeps walking sideways across the road going from side to side instead of walking forward and actually making progress on their journey.

For the emotional blamer, they do not want to go forward. They fear the unknown and are more comfortable with people and surroundings they already know.

The question becomes how do emotional blamers ever get ahead in life and go on to become great creators of success? Sadly the answer is pretty obvious isn’t it? They don’t. They would rather remain in their comfort zone and in the world they created, even if it is not a world that includes rational behavior.

The next time you encounter an emotional blamer, ask them to allow you the benefit of asking them two simple questions…

What Role Do You Have In The Problem?

Can You Define The Responsibility You Personally Have?

Emotional blamers will always quickly attempt to do one of two things. They will either dismiss your questions as stupid questions because they know deep down to answer them truthfully would mean they must admit they do have responsibility. Or they will actually try to wear you down with lengthy explanations and logic that will only ever make sense to them.

Remember, the emotional blamer does not want to freely admit they are wrong or they bear any fault or responsibility for anything. Even if they know deep down they do. They associate a lot of pain and fear with doing it. However there is one thing you can try.

Most of the time emotional blamers have their guard way up. Their protective shields are always in place and trying to get through and get those shields to drop even just a little bit, can only be accomplished in one way. You have to turn the tables on the emotional blamer and present your position such a way as to enable them to have an escape. You need to make them feel as if it is ok. They need to know their pride will still be intact afterwards and you will not laugh at them, or say anything to cause them emotional pain or discomfort.

Emotional blamers do not want anyone to make them feel as if they are not as intelligent. They see any blame or attempt to place blame or responsibility on their shoulders as you calling them dumb.

So always remember to watch how you present yourself and what you say to someone you suspect as being an emotional blamer. With a little practice you might even be able to help some folks out by challenging them out of this dead end behavior.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently a participant of our Online Think Tank, a very bright College Student observed something fairly interesting and that is that men have different physical responses to conversation than do women. In fact often women find enjoyment just conversing while many men enjoy debate, arguments or challenging conversation around themes of sports, war, conflict, sex or physical activity. So, perhaps more MRI brain scans need to be done to test high-conflict dialogue with men during highly intellectual topics.

Of course not everyone agreed with this premise and at least one Online Think Tank member stated that; In reality the way brains think would be similar for a man or a woman. Most of the scans show so much similarity between men and women, making it hard to say if the male conflict and physical pleasure during conversations or such premises or comments are correct.

Although how one has used their memorization by association process thru their own brain learning formatting nurturing; that is to say while taking in their observation and experiences would change that individual. The social conditioning of men and women are different of course as that is somewhat obvious in observation of average men and women. But humans in Think Tanks are anything but normal or average.

Thus these speculations may be good points, although how can we know for sure? The purpose of this article is to make you think and propel thought in 2007. It is just something we noticed and thought we might pass on you see?

Although we have not done any experimentation in the matter it does appear from an observational standpoint that the average American Man, does indeed communicate much different than the average female and generally does not achieve the same level of physical pleasure in normal conversation as women. Unless it is thought, the man is involved in certain types of conversation.

This was recently brought to our attention by a University of Colorado Law Student who noted and observed this phenomena. Now then a communication process, which brings up visual imagery might work might be the cause of this. As it is said that men are more visual in many regards in their psychological displacement.

During a cell phone conversation with slight microwave stimulus to the very near “visual part of the brain” which is right near the ear, such an observation might be even more notable it is further postulated as that area of the brain would heat up. Visual parts of the brain are also attached to doing things like driving, motion and etc. Therefore it would be activated and correspond more to physical activity.

You could prove this with an fMRI quick scan right? For a man to get physical pleasure from a conversation and thus increase their intensity and memorization of the conversation, it might be good to discuss matters during teaching involving themes around sports, physical activity or even sex.

This would most likely aid in the teaching process. Where as with women it may not be needed, as normal social conversation might do just as well in the teaching process? Well in any case we hope this article propels thought in 2007.