conduct research on other popular instruments used to measure the same or similar construct, develop a 12-15 item instrument, administer the instrument to 3-5 participants, discuss the methods used to administer the instrument, provide a strengths and weaknesses/limitation section regarding the development of the instrument, and discuss ways to increase the reliability and validity of the instrument. 1. This assignment is the first step toward completing your Test Development Proposal in Week 6. Select a construct of interest (e.g. depressiond using the test publisher websites (i.e. Pearson Assessments, Western Psychological Services (WPS), etc.) provided in the week’s readings (or through other sources such as articles, test reviews, etc. found in the UoR library), compile a list of currently available standardized tests/instruments that purport to measure the construct (between 5 and 7 tests/instruments is adequate). Provide a brief summary of your construct of interest and the tests/instruments available that measure it. Write a two-three page paper, not including the Title and References page (an Abstract page is not required for this assignment), on the following: Concerning your construct of interest: What specifically about your construct are you wanting to assess? Are there different characteristics or behaviors that can be assessed within your construct? For example, if measuring depression as a construct, would you want to measure the severity of depression or the symptoms related to depression? What are all the characteristics of depression? Would you be assessing all of the characteristics? Develop a research question addressing what you will be assessing. conduct research on other popular instruments used to measure the same or similar construct, develop a 12-15 item instrument, administer the instrument to 3-5 participants, discuss the methods used to administer the instrument, provide a strengths and weaknesses/limitation section regarding the development of the instrument, and discuss ways to increase the reliability and validity of the instrument. 2. This assignment is the second step toward completing your Final Test Development Proposal in Week 6. Using your construct of interest from Week 1 and building upon the instruments and information you found in Step One (Week 1), develop a 7-8 page literature review (not including the title page, abstract, and references page) on your construct of interest and the 57 instruments used to assess it. Thus, the literature review should explain your construct of interest thoroughly, as well as provide thorough reviews of the 5-7 instruments used to measure it. This is slightly different from other literature reviews, whereby the idea is to review and critique the study and findings. For this literature review you are not reviewing the study but rather are reviewing and critiquing the instrument based on what studies and other researchers have found. The idea here is to review the instrument and its usefulness in measuring your construct. Thus, what does the instrument measure, how reliable and valid is it, and what are its strengths and weaknesses? What is lacking in the instrument which paves the way for the necessity of your newly developed instrument? How are these instruments different from what you will develop? Use the Forbush, Wildes, Pollack, Dunbar, Patterson and Watson (2013) Development and validation of the Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory (EPSI) and the O'Neill, and Sevastos (2013) The development and validation of a new multidimensional Job Insecurity Measure (JIM): An inductive methodology articles for examples of how to conduct literature reviews of current or previous instruments/tests. Use 5-7 scholarly resources, including mostly research studies and articles related to your construct and the instruments used to measure it. Information should be drawn from appropriate sources, such as professional journals, test publisher websites, and dissertations. Information gathered from sources must be appropriately cited, following APA guidelines. 3. This assignment is the third step toward completing your Test Development Proposal in Week 6. Develop a 12-15 item test/instrument on the construct of interest you selected during Step One and Step Two (e.g. depression, anxiety, self-esteem, marital satisfaction, social persuasion, job satisfaction, etc.). Construct the items and response choices for the instrument (can either be in multiple choice, true/false, rating scale, and/or open ended question format). Include an introduction to the instrument (e.g. what the test is proposing to measure and why) and explicit instructions on how the instrument should be completed by the participants. Use the Diem (2002), Derrington (2009), and Siebert (2002) websites to assist you in your item and test construction. Information gathered from sources must be appropriately cited on the References page, following APA guidelines. Your test submission should include a title page and a References page (if sources were used). Although not required for this Week’s written assignment, you will need to administer your instrument to 3-5 people (e.g., family members, friends, etc.) before the beginning of Week 6. Please ensure that each participant reviews the consent form (which should include the instructor’s information and student’s name) provided in the Assignment folder for this week (See Participant Consent Form). Since this proposal is completely anonymous, you will not be required to return the consent forms, but will receive credit during Week 6 for acknowledging in the final proposal that you presented this to your participants. 4. Although the testing is completely anonymous, students will need to write a brief summary about the Methods used, including non-identifying information about the participants (e.g. age, gender, occupation, education level, etc.) and how the test was administered (e.g. the setting, was it administered in person or via a computer, etc.). Thus, when administering the test to each participant, please be sure to record non-identifying information about the participant, as well as document how the test was administered to the participant. Overview of Assignment Details: Throughout the course, students will conduct research on instruments that are currently used to measure a particular construct, develop a new instrument to measure that construct, administer the instrument to participants, and report on data arising from those administrations. . Students are free to select any construct of their interest, such as some ability, a personality construct, or any kind of attitude or belief. Over the six-week course, students will select a construct of interest (such as depression, anxiety, job satisfaction, etc.), conduct research on other popular instruments used to measure the same or similar construct, develop a 12-15 item instrument, administer the instrument to 35 participants, discuss the methods used to administer the instrument, provide a strengths and weaknesses/limitation section regarding the development of the instrument, and discuss ways to increase the reliability and validity of the instrument. 5. Test Development Proposal: The paper needs to have all of the following points included FINAL PAPER: The goal of this final assignment is to integrate Step One, Step Two, and Step Three of your Test Development Proposal, as well as to discuss the methods used, provide a critique of the instrument you developed, and discuss the strengths and limitations involved in the study and with the instrument developed. The Test Development Proposal should be at least 15 pages (but not more than 25 pages), double-spaced, not including your title page, abstract, Appendix, and references page, and should contain the following sections: a) A title page b) Abstract c) Rationale/Problem Statement: Explain your construct of interest. Make a case for why this construct is important to you, the field of psychology, or your specialization area. What specifically about your construct are you wanting to assess? Are there different characteristics or behaviors that can be assessed within your construct? For example, if measuring depression as a construct, would you want to measure the severity of depression or the symptoms related to depression? What are all the characteristics of depression? Would you be assessing all of the characteristics? d) Research Question: Develop a research question addressing what you will be assessing. The paper needs too have all of the following points included FINAL PAPER: Literature Review: Taken from Step Two, along with any required edits. Write a 7-8 page literature review on your construct of interest and the 5-7 instruments used to assess it. Thus, the literature review should explain your construct of interest thoroughly, as well as provide thorough reviews of the 5-7 instruments used to measure it. This is slightly different from other literature reviews, whereby the idea is to review and critique the study and findings. For this literature review you are not reviewing the study but rather are reviewing and critiquing the instrument based on what studies and other research have found. The idea here is review the instrument and its usefulness in measuring your construct. Thus, what does the instrument measure, how reliable and valid is it, and what are its strengths and weaknesses? What is lacking in the instrument which paves the way for the necessity of your newly developed instrument? How are these instruments different from what you will develop? Use 5-7 scholarly resources, including mostly research studies and articles related to your construct and the instruments used to measure it. Information should be drawn from appropriate sources, such as professional journals, test publisher websites, and dissertations. Information gathered from sources must be appropriately cited, following APA guidelines. Please be sure to include the following in your literature review: · A thorough discussion of each instrument you review for your construct, including the name of the test, what the test is used for, whether the test is appropriate for this area, what the reliability and validity of the test is, and what reviewers say about the strengths and weaknesses of it with regard to assessing this construct · What, in general, appears to be adequately assessed on each test with respect to the construct that you selected? · What does not appear to be adequately assessed? · Your literature review should justify your development of an assessment—is there a hole in what is currently being assessed that you can fill with your test? Make a case for why your proposed test would address an area that is not already well assessed. e) Methodology: Provide detailed information regarding the scale that you developed, who the participants were, and how the scale was administered. Include the following: · Participant Selection: Explain who your participants were (e.g. total number, gender, age, etc.) and how you selected them. Be as specific as possible, as if you were giving directions to someone on how to choose and obtain the participants. Include instructions on how informed consent was provided to the participants. Be sure to indicate whether each participant received and reviewed the consent form provided. · Measures: Discuss the instrument you developed, including what the instrument measures, how many items were developed, what type of scale it is (e.g. rating scale, observation, multiple choice, etc.), and how you developed the instruments (e.g. did you use examples from preexisting scales, etc.). Include a copy of the instrument in the Appendix. · Data Collection: Discuss how and where the data was collected (e.g. was the data collected via an internet survey, a group setting, individualized administrations, etc.). Was the data collected in an office setting, house, etc.? Were the participants provided with explicit instructions on how to complete the scale? f) Discussion: Include the following information, using at least 2-3 scholarly sources to support your discussion: · Strengths and Weaknesses: Provide a thorough critique of your scale. What do you believe are the strengths of your scale? The weaknesses? Regarding test construction, are there any items that appear to be problematic or vague? Are the response choices clear and appropriate? Does the scale appear to measure the construct you have selected? How could you increase the validity of your scale? · Ethical Considerations: Could your participants be harmed by your scale, either in taking it or after it is finished? Address this and other possibly relevant questions of ethics. · Limitations: No research covers everything. What are the obvious limitations to this study/proposal? g) References Page: The references page should be formatted according to APA style. h) Appendix of your test development scale: Taken from Step Three, along with any required edits. In today's general public, the attributes of depression are unmistakably illustrative to those of despondency from the early Greek societies. Subsequently, in later years it has got to be standard to assign this depressive condition as a full of feeling issue or an essential disposition issue relating to the past. An individual experiencing discouragement has a shocking dissimilarity between their individual visions of themselves and withdrew from reality (Beck, 1973). These discouraged individuals see themselves on a more subjective level than they are really seen by levelheaded society. They abrasively corrupt themselves with a dishonorable and undignified mien, feeling as though they don't merit certain fortunate angles in life, and that their presence is unworthy of bearing the agreeable components of mankind (Beck, 1967). With these indicated mentality and practices, discouraged people are slanted to execute activity that create and escalate their tribulation, without being impacted or induced by sound illumination or by verifiable confirmation of their silly musings (Beck, 1973). This specific idea of thought and way of behavior contradict the essential recommendation of liberated intelligence the "joy rule," which expresses that a common individual asks to boost fulfillment notwithstanding minimizing one's anguish (Beck 1967). Depression is a psychological construct which describes a low mood and a general aversion to activity that can affect an individual’s behaviors, feelings, thoughts, and overall sense of wellbeing. Common symptoms in depression include sadness, hopelessness, anxiety, guilty, and irritability, among others. The most common form of depression is Major depressive disorder (MDD), which is a state of a persistent low mood that is accompanied by loss of interest in enjoyable activities. It is important to differentiate between depression as a general state of low mood, and clinical depression, the later one being a classified disorder that is diagnosed according to a specific set of criteria (Verboom, Sijtsema, Ormel, Penninx & Nolen, 2011). Beck’s Depression Inventory One of the most known and used test to asses depression level is the Beck Depression Inventory, the last version being BDI-II. This instrument consists of 21-question multiple-choice self-report inventory, and it measures the severity of depression. The latest version can be used with individuals aged 13 and over, and consists of items that measure psychological symptoms such as hopelessness, irritability, guilt, as well as physical symptoms such as weight loss, fatigue, and lack of interest in sex. In terms of advantages, BDI-II shows a good agreement with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (r = 0.71), a correlations which suggest a good validity. The test also shows to have a positive one-week testretest reliability (Pearson r = 0.93). Additionally, the test has a high internal consistency (alpha = .91). In terms of limitations, the BDI-II scores can be exaggerated or minimized by the person giving the test. Another limitation is that the way the instrument is administrated can affect the final score, for example due to social expectations (Aalto, Elovainio, Kivimäki, Uutela & Pirkola, 2012). In (2001) researchers examined Beck's hypothesis by checking understudy's negative musings with the "Beck depression inventory" (BDI). They gave an outline of Beck's thoughts: People who are discouraged misjudge actualities and encounters in an antagonistic manner, restricting their center to the adverse parts of circumstances, accordingly feeling miserable about what's to come. The result- -which BDI-II scores altogether corresponded with the quantity of programmed musings, number of center convictions, and distinctive sorts of center convictions in both time periods backings Beck's deductions that negative thought constituent and describes sadness. Beck's supposition has framed into what is called "Beck's depression inventory scale" Stock, which is utilized to quantify despondency in numerous studies. Obviously, the results demonstrated that individuals who balanced their individual objectives to match the specific stage-particular requests of the move to demonstrated a reduction in depressive side effects, though the individuals who withdrew from the objectives that concentrated on managing such requests demonstrated an increment in depressive indications. As they utilized Beck's supposition as a foundation for their study, we can extrapolate that the subjects who had an objective had the capacity keep away from negative deduction designs all the more regularly then the subjects whom did not have centered objectives, so we see that numerous cutting edge speculations of melancholy are really based off of Beck's Intellectual Supposition. Beck's Cognitive Hypothesis of Discouragement Peculiarities Cognitive Inclinations, a key part of Beck's Supposition is not just that the subject will feel negative fundamental convictions, additionally that these convictions fall into a certain field which divides them from different issue, for example, nervousness issue. Such sentiments advance disappointment in the first and last and misfortune in the second. Dichotomous thinking is great, so even a slight waiver from is considered a disappointment. Deliberation implies that victories are disregarded, and lost to the subject, who is left with a troubling disposition. Overgeneralization infers one will do poor at one thing, and accept disappointment in all related things. In this manner, the principle sentiments of despondency as per Beck are disappointment and misfortune. He found that "the cognitive substance specificity theory was emphatically upheld by the present study. Contemplations of misfortune and disappointment were interestingly prescient of dejection, while comprehensions of damage and risk were particularly connected with uneasiness. Here we see the even Beck himself was taking a shot at fleshing out parts of his hypothesis. Beck is mindful so as to alert us however that his discoveries are not just from the subjects cognitive contemplations, yet that the 'fleeting introduction' of the cognitive considerations must be analyzed also keeping in mind the end goal to unhesitatingly indicate a cognitive-full of feeling relationship. While individuals may feel disappointment, it is not identified with gloom yet because of those sentiments' unmistakable quality amid and after a break down. Beck's cognitive treatment is esteemed a standout amongst the best manifestations of treatment for depressive episodes. Also, cognitive treatment is the most far reaching treatment used all through our general public today. Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS) A different instrument that is used for a quick assessment of symptoms that correspond to major depressive disorder and dysthymic disorder is Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS). The test consists of 18 items that asses all of the DSM-IV inclusion criteria for major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder and psychosocial impairment and quality of life. The advantages of this test are given by its short time required to be completed (less than 2 minutes), its high levels of reliability and validity, as well as its low cost. In recent research, CUDOS demonstrated a high internal consistency (Cronbachs Cronbach’s alpha at intake = .90; Cronbach’s alpha at follow-up=.90) and a high test-retest reliability (Pearson r = .92 at baseline and .95 at follow-up). The discriminant and convergent validity of CODUS has also been analyzed, with results showing that CUDOS best correlate with the Beck Depression Inventory (Pearson r = .81). As most other test of this type, CUDOS limitations include the fact that the scores can be exaggerated or minimized by the person giving the test, and that the context within which the test is given can affect the outcome(Antunes et al. , 2014). Patient Health Questionnaire depression module (PHQ-9) A different tool used for diagnosing depression is Patient Health Questionnaire depression module PHQ-9, which is able to score each of the nine DSM-IV criteria as 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). The advantages of this test are its high reliability and validity levels, and its accessibility in terms of simplicity. PHQ-9 validity was established as high in studies involving primary care and obstetrical clinics; PHQ-9 scores have shown 88 percent sensitivity and 88 percent specificity for major depressive disorder. In terms of reliability, PHQ-9 has shown a high internal consistency in a study involving two patient populations which found a Cronbach alpha of .86 and .89. In terms of disadvantages, PHQ-9 is also limited by the fact that the scores can be exaggerated or minimized by the person giving the test and that the context within which the test is given can affect the outcome (Manea, Gilbody & McMillan, 2012). Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) is a different tool used to evaluate the nine criterion symptom domains of major depressive disorder. QIDS is available as a clinical rating (QIDS-C16), an automated interactive voice response (QIDS-IVR16), and a self-report (QIDS-SR16).With an internal consistency characterized by a Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.69 to 0.89, a moderate correlation to several depression severity scales and an acceptable internal consistency, QIDS seems to be a useful test for the diagnostic of major depression disorder. However, the test has limitations, such as the fact that its convergent and discriminant validity are not yet well analyzed, and few researches have analyzed the usefulness of the test with foreign population or immigrants (Zimmerman et al., 2014). Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ-4) Another clinical assessment tool is the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ-4), which is used to quickly screen for the presence of personality disorder-including depressive personality disorder. The test consists of 100 items, self-administered true-false questionnaire, and can be taken in 10-20 minutes. The PDQ-4 has the advantage of being easy and fast to take, while its main disadvantage is its questionable validity. Recent research highlighted that the positive predictive power of the PDQ-4 is relatively low, as its results consist of a large number of false positives. Additionally, the value of the validity scales of the PDQ-4 is questionable (Calvo, Gutiérrez & Casas, 2013). These capacities are assembled to decide how individuals follow up on a strategy and how individuals see a circumstance which will advantage people by distinguishing their dominating practices. Mindfulness is the capacity of a single person in evaluating others' assessments of self and joins those assessments in one appraisal toward oneself, which then would help focus his potentials. Individual who is mindful has a profound comprehension, which would help on amplify their qualities, figure out how to minimize or even beat their shortcomings. Mindfulness can be increased through practicing a few identity tests, which the results discovered to be sensibly precise, and may support by giving individuals delineations about their self. It includes the procedure of recognizing and dissecting the introductory qualifications in how individuals act, process data, learn, convey and take care of issues by investigating association between three all-inclusive standards, for example, Mental, Passionate and Physical in imparting methodology, which are focused around those three said widespread segments of identity. Mental individuals normally have a blessing for long-go viewpoint and initiative quality in which they find themselves able to guide the group to attain to the association objectives. Enthusiastic individuals are shown as socializer, in which individuals in this class express their thoughts in incredible force. In the interim, Physical individual are best depicted as individuals who concern most about emotions, whether they could call their own, or of the others. Physical Mental individuals are depicted as the ones who work from reality to extract. Bio-Social Assessments Bio-Social Assessments for substance abuse. Typical formative breakthroughs incorporate those noteworthy organic, mental, enthusiastic, educated, and social purposes of improvement that regularly happen in an individual's life encompass. This serves to evaluate each of the individuals where they are in their formative live and points of reference. This appraisal will figure out whether at all there are any issue and in the event that they have to be researched more. Qualities centered practice and intuition does not oblige experts to disregard the issues of people/families or to ask customers to overlook their issues and agonies. So by knowing some of their qualities this will help to begin the procedure of investigating answers for the issues and giving the customers instruments on the best way to possess oneself. For the most part they include the methods of investigating, observing and dealing with the expected and unintended social results, both positive and negative. Along these lines supporting the individual arranging and creating mediations and any social change methodologies summoned by those intercessions. These appraisals can empower the venture actualizing powers to not just recognize social and natural effects, additionally to put set up suitable arrangement of activities to alleviate the antagonistic impacts. They can likewise support in achieving more prominent social consideration and cooperation in the configuration and execution phases of the venture. Summary, Distinctive evaluations offer changed methodologies to gauge identity since they are produced extraordinarily as per the originator's viewpoints. Since the segments of identity are elusive and can't be gaged straightforwardly, analysts depend on an individual's reports of their contemplations inclination, conduct and sentiments to touch base at their identity. Identity tests are being embraced in numerous partnerships to help in putting representatives in positions. Each inquiry in the tests is intended to tap an exact identity trademark. An illustration is inquiring as to whether he or she appreciates being at the middle of regard for figure out whether they are an amiable individual or not. Notwithstanding, single things can't be precisely used to evaluate expansive identity attributes; the substance of these tests is to decide how interviewees are seen by others. The results gained in the tests help the questioner separate and arrange persons, and go further to give a premise to grasp earlier activities and to foreordain future conduct. It is important that not every identity test is made equivalent to an alternate. Any identity test that is to be utilized as a part of determination applications ought to at any rate exhibit sufficient legitimacy and dependability at the very least. A test is regarded trustworthy if scores stay consistent over the long run. References Aalto, A. M., Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., Uutela, A., & Pirkola, S. (2012). The Beck Depression Inventoryand General Health Questionnaire as measures of depression in the general population: avalidation study using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview as the gold standard. Psychiatry research, 197(1), 163-171. Antunes, B., Murtagh, F., Bausewein, C., Harding, R., Higginson, I. J., & IMPACT, E. (2014). Screening for Depression in Advanced Disease: Psychometric Properties, Sensitivity, and Specificity theClinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS). Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. Calvo, N., Gutiérrez, F., & Casas, M. (2013). Diagnostic agreement between the Personality DiagnosticQuestionnaire-4+(PDQ-4+) and its clinical significance scale. Psicothema, 25(4), 427-432. De Raad, B. ,Perugini, M. (2002). Big Five Assessment. Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Higgs, M. (2001). Is there a relationship between the Myers-Briggs type indicator and emotional intelligence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), pp. 509-533. Manea, L., Gilbody, S., & McMillan, D. (2012). Optimal cut-off score for diagnosing depression with thePatient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): a meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(3), E191-E196. Verboom, C., Sijtsema, J., Ormel, J., Penninx, B., & Nolen, W. (2011). O2-3.4 Heterogeneity in disabilityassociated with major depressive disorder: effects of illness, personal, and environmentalcharacteristics on the synchrony of change between depression severity and disability. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65(Suppl 1), A23-A24. Zimmerman, M., Galione, J. N., Attiullah, N., Friedman, M., Toba, C., Boerescu, D. A., & Rahgeb, M.(2011). Depressed patients' perspectives of 2 measures of outcome: the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) and the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ). Psychiatry, 23(3), 208-12. Ann Clin