Talk:Psychological testing

I/O assessments and mental health assessments

User:Graywalls. I know the websites you deleted and which I referenced. The websites are managed by an expert in industrial/organizational psychology and occupational health psychology. The expert is Paul Spector. His websites are very well known to researchers in i/o psychology and OHP. It is an error to claim that the sites are not reliable. The sites are curated by a leading expert. At the same time, the sites are highly accessible. They should be restored. I will restore them in a day or two if I don't hear from you. Iss246 (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel the inclusion is undue and WP:POV given the context it is added in. It would be the same thing if New York Times rep was going around putting NY Times citations everywhere they can find. @Sundayclose:, Ive seen Iss246's talk page post about the same issue about maintaining Paul Spector in articles where they were historically added. Do you have any thoughts to add? Graywalls (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This issue is not analogous to a NYT representative placing NYT citations "everywhere." The citations in question are not everywhere. We have here a false comparison. If a WP editor cites a NYT article because it has a relevant to an encyclopedia article, that is legitimate. What I did by citing Spector is also legitimate. Spector, a respected member of IO psychology community, provides a reliably informative, accessible websites that visitors to the site can easily use. He published numerous books, including a textbook devoted to IO psychology. If I cited Spector elsewhere, it is because his websites are a solid source of relevant information. Iss246 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that referencing the website would be valuable. The website offers great resources in free access. Mentioning the website does not hurt anyone. To the contrary, it is very helpful. 2001:4652:443C:0:5C3E:7FDF:6E89:5E8A (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion to the talk page in the hopes that we can come to consensus and prevent further edit warring. @Graywalls: has stated that the inclusion of these links is undue weight, POV, and potentially COI. @Iss246: has stated that the sites are noncommercial, run by an individual having great expertise in the field, they provide a central location where readers can access a good deal of information in one place, and that no other website that provides as much information in an accessible form could be located. Does anyone other than Graywalls still have an objection to including these links? ParticipantObserver (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Any thoughts on the inclusion of these links? You had previously suggested that they might be undue weight (too many links to a single scholar's websites). ParticipantObserver (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to use traditional citation to specific reference to directly support what's being said and only lean back on self-published expertise as the absolute last resort. The value added by the addition of paulspector.com is not convincing. I also don't understand why the addition of stevenericspector.com has any place. If we open up to posting paulspector.com, then that's sort of an open invitation for website of any author to be coatracked as long as they have published journals that has been highly cited. When the contents to be added are disputed and there is no clear consensus favoring inclusion, it defaults to omission. Graywalls (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Considering the level of disagreement in these discussions, I think a link to any personal website (not just those of either Spector) needs consensus, particularly if there are links to other high quality websites. Note that I am not necessarily opposed to inclusion of personal websites, just that I think consensus should be necessary. It doesn't look like there will be a consensus based on the few editors involved here, so this may require an RfC with notications to related talk pages and Wikiprojects (but no canvassing to individual editors). With a little more participation from other editors, I would feel comfortable with any clear consensus (either favoring or opposing). I think it would be very helpful (although not necessarily required) if the organization or person that owns the website has a Wikipedia article for more details about the sponsor of the website. Earlier I was accused of making a threat of a block (which I didn't consider a threat), so let me emphasize that no threat whatsoever is intended here, just an attempt to resolve this conflict. My only goal at this point is maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. Because of that accusation, however, I'll reserve my opinion about specific personal websites until we get more input from a broader range of editors. Sundayclose (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Growth of list of Psychological symptom scales

I am wondering if the ever growing list is due. Graywalls (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I compiled a list of prominent psychological symptom scales. However, I anticipated that you would have some objection (or veiled objection) to the list of symptom scales. I didn't know exactly when the objection would land on the talk page. But I guessed that I wouldn't have to wait long. And my guess was right.

I also vaguely remember that you added a scale to the list. Which was nice of you. Iss246 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

An idea regarding what to do when some text is missing a source

In the last month, a user deleted two sections of text on the grounds that each was unsourced. One concerned a few sentences I wrote about measurement invariance. The other was the entire Interest inventories section. I had not gotten around to adding a source when I wrote about measurement invariance but I was going to get to it. It was on my "To Do List." The other was the section on interest inventories. Both are legitimate topics in psychological testing. Rather than delete cogently written text that does not yet have a source, I recommend that an editor do one of two things. The first, which may be more difficult for a nonspecialist, is to identify the appropriate source or sources (I did that for the Interest inventories section). The other, and less of a bother than pinning down sources, is to mark the text with the cn tag, which looks like this: {{cn|date=September 2023}}. The tag turns into this next to the text in question. In that way an editor who either wrote the original text or knows about the subject matter can respond by entering the appropriate sources. Doing that would be more considerate to the original contributor and more in the spirit of collegiality.

I add that writing this note was also on my "To Do List" for ten days. Most of us have busy lives. Sometimes it takes time to close a gap. A gentle reminder is preferable to the starkness of deletion. Iss246 (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

New chapter involving Graywalls and me

I am taking this matter to the talk page and I ask for consensus. I placed the website https://www.stevenericspector.com/mental-health-assessment-archive/ among the external links, citing the WP:Verifiability page. Consistent with the verifiabiilty page, the coauthor of the site is Paul Spector, a leading expert in psychology. Steven Spector did the site construction and contributed to related aspects of the site. According to the WP verifiability page, one can cite a self-created website if the person involved is a leading expert. I did my homework.

I add that the site is not in the text, which is where I had placed it previously. Today I placed it among the external links, which is where it probably better belongs. The site provides a compendium of measures that are helpful in assessing conditions related to mental health. The site is well constructed and can be helpful to WP users who want to follow up. Iss246 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand you wish to include it, although this has been hotly debated over several talk pages and there's consensus in its inclusion. Please understand that an author being published in the field is not a guaranteed right to indefinite inclusion. The criteria for inclusion isn't based on your opinion on how desirable the source is. Tagging @Sundayclose and @ParticipantObserver who have participated over Spector site insertion concerns all along. Graywalls (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your tone. I also understand that there are no guarantees on WP, which is true of life in general. Yes, the matter was debated. This time two elements have changed. First, I conducted a more thorough investigation. Paul Spector is an important contributor to the site. According to his Google Scholar profile, Spector has 110,000 citations and an h-index of 129, making clear that he is well respected and influential in psychology. Those figures are far beyond what is seen in most psychologists. He has excellent credibiity. Second, instead I placing the site in the text of the Psychological testing page, which is what I did previously, I placed the site among the external links. The positioning is better, allowing for WP users to peruse a variety of external links to easily explore related material outside the confines of the encyclopedia but without adding to the body of the page. Iss246 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to push contents that does not have consensus regardless of how you try to argue the quality of the source. Someone wishing to include it has the responsibility to establish consensus and the way you're going about it, you're gleefully ignoring community input. Graywalls (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to obtain a consensus by showing what is different in this attempt (e.g., new information) to include the website. However, I am not "gleefully" trying. Iss246 (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You are by the very act of forcing in Stevenericspector.com into the article knowing that its in dispute, prior to establishing consensus. Please kindly revert the insertion. Graywalls (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really. I am entering the source in a way that is different from what I had previously done. I am entering the source in the External links section. I had previously entered it the in body of the text. The source more aptly belongs in the External links section. I also researched Paul Spector. He has a spectacularly good publication record and record of being cited by other researchers. Although I knew he had a great publication record and a record of being cited, it turns out that his record is even better than what I previously thought. I wanted to bring that record forward here on the talk page to illustrate that when I included that source I am not making stuff up out of thin air. His record makes the source highly credible. Iss246 (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Which part of expectations to establish consensus falls on editors seeking to include the disputed contents as said in WP:ONUS is not clear? This is approaching WP:IDHT. Presenting your own argument until you feel like the argument presented is to your own satisfaction is not consensus. If the contents you're trying to insert is being objected, consensus is not approached by presenting an argument, and proclaiming yourself that your argument is adequate. Graywalls (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am incorporating the source in a different, more apt location, and helping other editors understand that the source is sustained by expertise. You keep going after me as if I am part of your usual quarry, the user who posts press releases or plagiarized text. Recognize that I'm not the contributor who is your usual target. I'm a serious guy who wants to make the encyclopedia better for users (which includes incorporating helpful external links). It would be nice if you recognized that and not keep badgering me as if you are the district attorney giving me the third degree. Iss246 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about you, it's about source(s) that's not decided as inclusion worthy. While you placed it in a different location, it's nonetheless just a bloggy doorway page. Graywalls (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it is about me. We are having a discussion and you reverted my edit. I'm a bigger trophy than than the yokels who post plagiarized material. Iss246 (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It is about the source that is being added, which is the Stevenericspector.com blog; which has been removed fairly recently by multiple editors. If the addition is challenged and removed, it doesn't default to remaining in place. Graywalls (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding the objection to including this website as a source of psychological tests. I am on the website now on the Mental Health Assessments page. What I see is a resource that provides links to dozens of free-use psychological tests that can be found in the psychological literature, organized into several categories (e.g., Behavior, Disabilities/Neurodiversity, Education). The tests are coming from reliable sources. Click on a test and it takes you to a peer-reviewed article, often downloadable). It seems to me that this source would be helpful to readers who might be looking for psychological tests.Psyc12 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The original objection was about giving undue weight to a single scholar, and to the particular context that the link was in. I think as an external link it's fine, as that limits the weight it's being given and also removes it from the context.

The current objection from Graywalls (which I think is legitimate) is that we discussed the inclusion of the link, the consensus was against it, and Iss246 is unilaterally trying to re-add it against consensus. I think if they had simply posted on this discussion page "Hey, what if I include that as an external link instead? Would that be OK?" everyone would have agreed and we'd be past all of this.

@Graywalls:@Sundayclose: I'm fine with the link being included in External Links. @Psyc12: seems to agree with its inclusion as an external link. Is everyone else OK with that? ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I missed something here. Apparently Iss246 did ask precisely that on this discussion page. I'm lost. @Grawalls: What is the current objection? ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree @ParticipantObserver. The External Links seems a good place to put this kind of resource.Psyc12 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ParticipantObserver. The external links section is a better place for the link than in the middle of the text. Iss246 (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Stevenspector link belongs in the external links section. 2001:4652:443C:0:5C3E:7FDF:6E89:5E8A (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@ParticipantObserver:, We're talking about the Stevenericspectator.com blog, which is one of the links that you, as well as I've removed. It's one of the two links right here. The page is just a doorway page to various articles. The appropriateness of inclusion shouldn't differ from any other blogs, which is likely a no. If Paul Spector site is fine, that doesn't extend over to their family, friends, coworkers blog sites. If it's Spector's official .edu site, maybe. Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iss246: you said this site is co-authored by Paul Spector. Can you link to where that information is provided? I don't see an indication of that on the site. ParticipantObserver (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iss246 I believe this is a very reasonable request. Graywalls (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

User:ParticipantObserver, you make a good point. If you go to the website, you will observe Paul Spector's blogs on mental health stigma, mental health counseling, etc. He has a reputation for having a deep interest in this area. Iss246 (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@ParticipantObserver I think treating something co-authored by the presence of one co-author who may be appropriate for WP:EXPERTSPS is pushing it. A class project website built with some level of co-authorship by the professor, for example, shouldn't be treated the same as professor's website. Also, Psyc12 is the main user who has been adding Paulspector.com and Stevenericspector.com into different articles over several years.Graywalls (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Graywalls, that is a very good observation. The idea to remember is that one member of the team is the website/computer expert and the other is the subject area expert. Paul Spector has the reputation for being a very generous person. It is not surprising that he put himself as "other" member of the team. Iss246 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

For this article, what is relevant is the Mental Health Assessment page not the blog page. It is this one https://www.stevenericspector.com/mental-health-assessment-archive/. The only content here is lists of psychological tests and links to their sources. Psyc12 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Then, the individual links to specific sources should be considered. I oppose the insertion of linkfarm doorway Stevenericspector.com blog page. Graywalls (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Wouldn't that alternative lead to a long list of individual tests, which is an approach you previously opposed for this article? ParticipantObserver (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

One way to implement it is in bibliography format only to relevant references which you'll see in many articles. This can be done while avoiding links to linktr.ee or blogs like Stevenericspector.com Graywalls (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. The assessment page is not a blog. It is an organized list of psychological tests with links. Why do you keep referring to this as a blog? And why go to the trouble of including a long list of tests in this article when a single link to an existing list would accomplish the same thing much more easily? Such a list would make this a long and cumbersome article.Psyc12 (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Steven Eric Spector blog

I am seeking input from uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Steven_Eric_Spector. @Psyc12:. I am pinging you because I mentioned you there. Graywalls (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't stand for the baloney you put on the noticeboard that I placed into the external links a site that are equivalent to a randomly selected website. That speaks to your lack of collegiality. That lack of collegiality shows up in other ways too. Instead of hunting for the appropriate source for the entry's Interest inventory section, you simply deleted the entire section, which was sufficiently well written that it dovetailed with the Interest inventory page. The least you could have done was put the "citation needed" marker on the section to alert other editors that a source is needed. If an editor came late, he or she would have failed to notice that something was missing from the Psychological testing page. You police Wikipedia like Inspector Javert. Iss246 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk). The issue of the external links was settled at wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Steven_Eric_Spector. WhatamIdoing explained why the stevenericspector link was appropriate for an external link section. Please stop deleting this link.Psyc12 (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Refer to Special:Diff/1177976799, a reasonable compromise that introduces comparable contents without having any doubt over the authorship. :So it’s probably true that Steven’s site is a reliable source, though IMHO it maybe better for us to link to Paul’s website (https://paulspector.com/assessments/assessment-archive/), as our readers may not know who Steven is. Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Graywalls, I am more or less repeating what I wrote to you on the EL Noticeboard. I don't want to fight. I want to settle this issue. I think I have come to understand your frustration because you want to improve WP; however, unfortunately your efforts in connection to the Spectors do not work although your efforts work in many other parts of WP. I explain. The Steven Spector website is not a blog although it can lead you to a blog if you want to go there BUT only if you want to go there. The site, which honors Steven Spector who has demonstrated expertise in website development, houses an array of links to psychological symptom scales, relevant to the psychological testing WP entry. Paul Spector is the co-creator of the Steven Spector site.

We both recognize that there is also a Paul Spector website. I want to keep the two Spector sites separate for the sake of this discussion. You replaced the Steven Spector site with the Paul Spector site. The Paul Spector site, while an excellent source of information, does not belong in the psychological testing space. On the contrary, it belongs in the I-O psychology space because it assembles measures used in I-O psychology. For example, it provides information on assessing job leadership and the work environment. I hope what I wrote settles the issue amicably. It is an excellent site for the I-O psychology entry but not the psychological testing entry. Iss246 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Graywalls. I am confused about how replacing the steven site with the paul site is a compromise. The paul site has nothing to do with your original objection that the steven site was not appropriate. You were unable to achieve consensus (note WhatamIdoing's explanation) so we need to move on. The steven site is appropriate, and so it should remain.Psyc12 (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with @Graywalls about removing the web directory? If not, then it should be kept, and I'd like to suggest that the other personal website be removed, because I think it's already linked in the web directory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the current arrangement. DON'T REMOVE. Iss246 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The "other personal website" I mentioned is listed as "International Item Pool, an alternative and free source of items available for research on personality". Despite the domain name, it's just a website by Lewis Goldberg, and I'm pretty sure that I saw it linked in the more comprehensive list on Spector's website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes @WhatamIdoing, you are right. I favor keeping the IPIP website in the psychological testing entry. Goldberg's website has been a goldmine for researchers and graduate students on a budget. Many excellent personality measures, for example, the NEO, are proprietary. The creators or the publishers charge others to use those instruments. Personality researchers and their graduate students use the IPIP site to obtain relevant, psychometrically valid scales at no cost. Researchers and graduate students who don't have a grant or have insufficient grant money are helped by that website. Goldberg provides a worthy service to the field.