Editing Psychometrics (section)

== Controversy and criticism ==
Because psychometrics is based on [[Latent variable|latent psychological processes]] measured through [[Correlation|correlations]], there has been controversy about some psychometric measures.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Tabachnick|first1=B.G.|title=Using Multivariate Analysis|last2=Fidell|first2=L.S.|publisher=Allyn and Bacon|year=2001|isbn=978-0-321-05677-1|location=Boston}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=November 2010}} Critics, including practitioners in the [[physical sciences]], have argued that such definition and quantification is difficult, and that such measurements are often misused by laymen, such as with personality tests used in employment procedures. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Measurement gives the following statement on [[test validity]]: "validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests".<ref name="1999standards">American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999) ''Standards for educational and psychological testing''. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.</ref> Simply put, a test is not valid unless it is used and interpreted in the way it is intended.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Bandalos|first=Deborah L.|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1015955756|title=Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences|date=2018|isbn=978-1-4625-3215-5|location=New York|pages=261|oclc=1015955756}}</ref> 

Two types of tools used to measure [[personality traits]] are [[Objective test|objective tests]] and [[Projective test|projective measures]]. Examples of such tests are the: [[Big Five personality traits|Big Five Inventory]] (BFI), [[Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory]] (MMPI-2), [[Rorschach test|Rorschach Inkblot test]], [[Neurotic Personality Questionnaire KON-2006]],<ref><span lang="PL">{{Cite journal|vauthors=Aleksandrowicz JW, Klasa K, Sobański JA, Stolarska D|year=2009|title=KON-2006 Neurotic Personality Questionnaire|url=http://www.archivespp.pl/uploads/images/2009_11_1/21_p_Archives_1_09.pdf|journal=Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy|volume=1|pages=21–22}}</span></ref> or [[Eysenck Personality Questionnaire]]. Some of these tests are helpful because they have adequate [[Reliability (research methods)|reliability]] and [[Test validity|validity]], two factors that make tests consistent and accurate reflections of the underlying construct. [[Myers–Briggs Type Indicator|The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator]] (MBTI), however, has questionable validity and has been the subject of much criticism. Psychometric specialist [[Robert Hogan (psychologist)|Robert Hogan]] wrote of the measure: "Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie."<ref>{{cite book|last=Hogan|first=Robert|title=Personality and the fate of organizations|date=2007|publisher=[[Lawrence Erlbaum Associates]]|isbn=978-0-8058-4142-8|location=Mahwah, NJ|page=28|oclc=65400436|author-link=Robert Hogan (psychologist)}}</ref>

[[Lee Cronbach]] noted in ''[[American Psychologist]]'' (1957) that, "correlational psychology, though fully as old as experimentation, was slower to mature. It qualifies equally as a discipline, however, because it asks a distinctive type of question and has technical methods of examining whether the question has been properly put and the data properly interpreted." He would go on to say, "The correlation method, for its part, can study what man has not learned to control or can never hope to control&nbsp;... A true federation of the disciplines is required. Kept independent, they can give only wrong answers or no answers at all regarding certain important problems."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cronbach|first=L. J.|date=1957|title=The two disciplines of scientific psychology.|journal=American Psychologist|volume=12|issue=11|pages=671–684|doi=10.1037/h0043943|via=EBSCO}}</ref>