Psychometric testing during COVID-19
The year 2020 will be remembered as a year that has transformed the way we undertake many activities in psychology. We have adapted well in some areas, with many direct client services being provided relatively easily and in most cases effectively through online platforms. One of the areas that has most challenged the profession at this time, however, is the provision of psychometric testing.
There are many tests that have been validated and normed in a digital format. This is particularly the case for tests used in organisational settings but to a much lesser extent for tests in clinical, forensic and educational settings. With the shift to telehealth and restrictions on face-to-face client services, some test suppliers waived costs to increase access to tests that have been validated for online delivery.
As a result, there has been excellent collaboration and support provided to psychologists who use psychometric instruments. Test developers have also been working towards adapting many tests for an online mode of delivery. Nevertheless, for some tests, there is no replacement for face-to-face administration, including cognitive, educational and neuropsychological assessment tools. These tests have been developed and standardised for face-to-face administration and varying from manualised procedures means we can no longer be confident that the test results are valid for the intended purpose.
Indeed the administration of formalised psychometric tests in an online format, that were developed for standardised face-to-face administration, has generally been a foray into unknown territory and many psychologists have sought guidance on how to navigate this situation. Whereas verbal items in a psychological test may be easily adapted to an online delivery format, aspects of tests that require manipulation of objects and measures of motor responses cannot be reliably administered remotely.
Further, standardised interactions between the psychologist and test-taker are altered and in some cases, observational aspects of an assessment may be less robust when using an online platform. Certainly, test equivalence cannot be expected. So how have psychologists managed formal assessment at this time?
Delaying assessment
Initially, because of the unknown context of the national restrictions, in many cases testing was delayed. This resulted from the challenges in how psychological testing could be undertaken remotely along with requests for a delay by individuals and organisations. However, as time progressed and it was clear that there needed to be longer term planning about how psychological testing could continue to ensure access to needed services (e.g., special needs, aged care), psychologists investigated novel ways to undertake these assessments safely and effectively.
Do what has to be done – with caution
In many states and territories a return to face-to-face assessment occurred quickly but looked slightly different. Face-to-face services with appropriate social distancing and hygiene practices were implemented. Hygiene and protective equipment was particularly important, for example, arranging seating for physical distancing where it can be facilitated, requesting that clients bring their own pen or pencil, being vigilant about cleaning test items that must be handled (e.g., blocks), and the use of masks and other protective equipment that do not impede assessment procedures. It remains unclear, however, what the impact on equivalence is as a result of incorporating some of these changes to face-to-face services (e.g., physical distancing, protective equipment).
In other states, such as Victoria, the road to a return to face-to-face services has been much longer and the use of remote testing was inevitable. Some resources have been provided, both internationally and in Australia, to support psychologists looking to adapt their testing practices for online platforms (see boxed information).
Much of this was aimed at guiding psychologists in how they could work closely with developer instructions to ensure as reliable an assessment as possible. Strategies included focusing on verbal tests, test substitution where allowable, supplementing testing with other assessment procedures such as reports on daily activities, interpreting results with caution, being clear about limitations, and in some cases providing only a provisional formulation.
Ethical considerations included maintaining security of test materials, ensuring test-taker authentication, monitoring potential risks of harm, and developing our own competence for online administration. In deciding whether to continue with an assessment using an approach that is contrary to standardised practice it is important that psychologists consider whether appropriate accommodations (changes that allow access to a test while measuring the same construct, and with known psychometric properties) can be made or whether changes to a test may reflect modifications that may impact on the construct being assessed and the test scores.
Where accommodations or modifications to tests have been made this needs to be fully documented in the report along with the psychologist’s assessment of the impact of the changes on the test results.
Returning to best practice
As indicated at the beginning of this article, many psychologists have now been able to return to face-to-face administration of psychology tests where this is the standardised mode of delivery. Modifying the presentation of these tests to online administration was important in some cases during lockdown but should not continue to occur beyond the necessary period. Abiding by standardised procedures in administration, observation, scoring and interpretation ensures the integrity of the test and test process and allows for a valid and meaningful assessment outcome that will be of most benefit to the test taker and other stakeholders.
Resources
Guidance from the APS Test and Testing Expert Group bit.ly/3cvnTun
American Psychological Association. (2020). Guidance on psychological tele-assessment during the COVID-19 crisis. bit.ly/3i3bz5F
APS College of Clinical Neuropsychologists. (2020). Guidelines for the use of telehealth for clinical neuropsychological services. bit.ly/32ZcLCz
APS College of Forensic Psychologists. (2020). Interim guidance for undertaking forensic psychological assessments in the era of COVID-10. bit.ly/335VEzn
British Psychological Society. Psychological assessment undertaken remotely. bit.ly/3kFDMB4