Types of diagnosis according to Vygotsky (symptomatic, etiological, typological). Definition of psychological diagnosis

Psychological diagnostics emerged from psychology and began to take shape at the turn of the 20th century under the influence of practical requirements. Its emergence was prepared by several trends in the development of psychology. Actually, psychodiagnostic work in Russia began to develop in the post-revolutionary period. Especially many such works appeared in the 20-30s in the field of pedology and psychotechnics due to the growing popularity of the test method in Soviet Russia and abroad. Theoretical developments contributed to the development of testing in our country.

Psychodiagnostics- a field of psychological science that develops methods for identifying and measuring individual psychological characteristics of a person in order to assess their current state, forecast further development and develop recommendations determined by the task of the survey.

The attitude of specialists towards the concept of “psychological diagnosis” is ambiguous. Some authors believe that its direct use in psychological practice is not entirely correct, since behind it there is a certain clinical context, a stereotype of perception, and no matter how qualified the research is conducted by a psychologist, its results do not rise to the level of a medical diagnosis. A similar situation occurs in speech therapy: the speech therapist teacher also engages in diagnostics, formulating a “speech conclusion,” but does not make a “diagnosis.”

At the same time, the existing definitions of the concept of “psychological diagnosis” do not differentiate it clearly enough from the “psychological conclusion,” as can be seen from the following definition: a psychological diagnosis is the formulation of a conclusion about the main characteristics of the studied components of mental development or personality formation.

Psychological diagnosis is the main goal and end result of psychodiagnostics. Psychodiagnostics of deviant development is aimed at describing and clarifying the essence of individual psychological characteristics of a person with the goals of:

• assessment of their current state,
• forecast of further development,
• development of recommendations determined by the objectives of the survey.

Subject of psychological diagnosis- establishing individual psychological differences both in normal and pathological conditions. The development of a theory of psychological diagnosis is one of the most important tasks of psychodiagnostics.

The concept of psychological diagnosis cannot be considered sufficiently developed in modern psychology. In practice, this term is often used in a very broad and vague sense as a statement of the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of a particular characteristic. In psychometrics, diagnosis is derived from test measurement procedures, and psychodiagnostics is defined as the identification of the psychological characteristics of an individual using special methods. The prerequisites for a meaningful approach to determining a psychological diagnosis were outlined by L.S. Vygotsky and developed later by D.B. Elkonin, L.A. Wenger, N.F. Talyzina and others.

Psychological diagnosis (from the Greek - “recognition”) is the final result of a psychologist’s activity, aimed at clarifying the essence of individual psychological characteristics of a person in order to assess their current state, predict further development and develop recommendations determined by the task of a psychodiagnostic examination.

Purpose of the diagnostic process– answer psychological questions and prepare the foundation for solving the problem. The integrity of the process of providing psychological assistance reflects the principle of unity of diagnosis and correction. In this regard, Vygotsky’s thoughts remain relevant that the quality of diagnosis is determined not only by the quality of the diagnostic technique, but also by the professional knowledge, abilities and skills of the psychodiagnostician: the ability to interpret and decipher hieroglyphs is the main condition for a meaningful picture of a person to be revealed to the researcher and child behavior.

Vygotsky repeatedly noted that a thorough examination should be carried out by a specialist knowledgeable in issues of psychopathology, defectology and therapeutic pedagogy. He emphasized that the final goal of the pedological study of a child should be pedological or therapeutic-pedagogical purpose - i.e. the entire system of corrective individual pedagogical measures, as the most important practical part of the research, alone can prove its truth and give it meaning.

The only scientific way to construct a psychological diagnosis is to qualify a given stage of child development in the context of the stages and patterns of the entire psychological ontogenesis, to study the mechanisms of formation of established difficulties. In no way should the focus of a psychological diagnosis be on negative or painful manifestations; it should always have in mind the complex structure of the personality. In terms of studying a specific case, this means the use of two-sided analysis: on the one hand, “dismemberment of psychological functions” with clarification of their qualitative originality; on the other hand, the establishment of structural and functional connections between the development of individual aspects of the personality.

The complexity of the structure of deviant development of a child of any variant of dysontogenesis, determined by the interdependent combination of organic and psychophysical factors with acquired secondary deviations, necessitates an integrated, multimodal approach both to the study of its development and to making a diagnosis.

The most important element of a psychological diagnosis is the need to clarify in each case why these manifestations are found in the client’s behavior, what their causes and consequences are.

Levels of psychological diagnosis according to L.S. Vygotsky

Diagnosis can be installed at different levels.

1. L. S. Vygotsky called the first level symptomatic (or empirical) - the diagnosis is limited to the statement of certain features or symptoms, on the basis of which practical conclusions are directly drawn. Here, when establishing certain individual psychological characteristics, the researcher is deprived of the opportunity to directly indicate their causes and place in the structure of the personality. L. S. Vygotsky noted that such a diagnosis is not strictly scientific, because the establishment of symptoms never automatically leads to a true diagnosis. Here, the work of a psychologist can be completely replaced by machine data processing.
2. The second level - etiological - takes into account not only the presence of certain characteristics and characteristics (symptoms) of the individual, but also the reasons for their appearance. The most important element of a scientific psychological diagnosis is to clarify in each individual case why these manifestations are found in the behavior of the subject, what are the causes of the observed characteristics and what are their possible consequences for child development. A diagnosis that takes into account not only the presence of certain features (symptoms), but also the cause of their occurrence is called etiological.
3. The third level - the highest - consists of determining the place and meaning of the identified characteristics in a holistic, dynamic picture of the personality, in the overall picture of the client’s mental life. For now, we often have to limit ourselves to a first-level diagnosis, and psychodiagnostics and its methods are usually talked about in connection with the methods of identifying and measuring themselves.

Relationship between diagnosis and prognosis

The diagnosis is inextricably linked with the prognosis; according to L. S. Vygotsky, the content of the prognosis and diagnosis coincide, but the prognosis requires the ability to understand the “internal logic of self-movement” of the development process so much as to be able to anticipate the path of subsequent development based on the existing picture of the present. It is recommended to divide the forecast into separate periods and resort to long-term repeated observations.

L. S. Vygotsky’s ideas about psychological diagnosis, expressed in his work “Diagnostics of Development and Pedological Clinic of Difficult Childhood” (1936), are still important today. As L. S. Vygotsky believed, this should be a developmental diagnosis, the main task of which is to monitor the progress of the child’s mental development. To carry out control, it is necessary to give a general assessment of the child’s mental development based on compliance with standard age indicators, as well as to identify the causes of the child’s psychological problems.

The latter involves an analysis of the holistic picture of his development, including the study of the social situation of development, the level of development of activities leading for a given age (playing, learning, drawing, designing, etc.). It is quite obvious that such a diagnosis is impossible without relying on age-related developmental psychology. In addition, the practice of developmental psychological counseling requires improving the existing one and searching for a new methodological arsenal.

Experience shows that significant difficulties in making a diagnosis are associated with an insufficiently clear understanding of the child psychologist about the boundaries of his professional competence.

There are two main forms of developmental delay:

1. retardation associated with organic disorders of the nervous system and requiring clinical, psychological or medical diagnosis and theory;
2. temporary lag and inappropriate behavior associated with unfavorable external and internal conditions for the development of practically healthy children.

It is important that in cases where a psychologist has suspicions about the pathopsychological or defectological nature of the identified disorders, he does not try to make a diagnosis himself, but recommends to parents and tactfully convinces them to contact the appropriate institutions. The same applies to the problem of social factors that determined this or that characteristic of the child. A psychological diagnosis must be made by a psychologist in strict accordance with professional competence and at the level at which specific psychological and pedagogical correction or other psychological assistance can be provided.

The formulation of the diagnosis must necessarily contain a prognosis - a professionally substantiated prediction of the path and nature of the child’s further development. Moreover, the forecast, as noted, is in two directions: provided that the necessary work is carried out with the child in a timely manner, and provided that such work is not carried out with him in a timely manner. You should carefully consider who and in what form to report the diagnosis and prognosis of the child’s mental and personal development. When introducing the diagnosis to people interested in it - educators, teachers, parents, children - it, first of all, needs to be translated into a language that everyone understands, cleared of scientific terminology, otherwise the diagnosis will not be understood, and the psychologist’s work will be in vain.

The trend towards individualization of diagnostics, which has emerged recently, is that attempts are being made to develop techniques that correspond to the specific problems of clients, social institutions, enterprises, and organizations. Developmental diagnostics is a diagnosis of the developmental process, that is, the changes that occur with an individual throughout life. Such diagnostics, in the words of L. S. Vygotsky, is multidimensional, allowing us to establish the multi-layered, heterogeneous development of personality: to reveal its internal dynamics, to understand the deep connections and relationships of individual components of the psyche. By supplementing the identified symptoms and syndromes of properties with an analysis of their interdependencies and the laws of their dynamic coupling, we can finally solve the problem of individual prognosis.

List of used literature

1. Luchinin A.S. Psychodiagnostics: lecture notes.
2. Practical educational psychology; Textbook 4th ed. / Edited by I. V. Dubrovina - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004.
3. Psychological conclusion and psychological diagnosis.
4. The diagnosis is psychological. Dictionary.

Psychological diagnosis (diagnosis, from the Greek diagnosis - recognition) is the final result of a psychologist’s activity aimed at describing and clarifying the essence of individual psychological characteristics of a person in order to assess their current state, predict further development and develop recommendations determined by the task of a psychodiagnostic examination. The medical understanding of diagnosis, firmly linking it with illness, a deviation from the norm, was also reflected in the definition of this concept in psychology. In this understanding, a psychological diagnosis is always the identification of the hidden cause of the detected trouble. Such views (for example, in the works of S. Rosenzweig) lead to an undue narrowing of the subject of psychological diagnosis; everything that is associated with identifying and taking into account individual psychological differences in the norm falls out of it. Psychological diagnosis is not limited to a statement, but necessarily includes prediction and development of recommendations arising from the analysis of the entire set of data obtained during the examination in accordance with its objectives. The subject of psychological diagnosis is the establishment of individual psychological differences in both normal and pathological conditions. The most important element of a psychological diagnosis is the need to clarify in each individual case why these manifestations are found in the behavior of the subject, what their causes and consequences are.
Psychological diagnosis can be established at different levels.
1. Symptomatic or empirical diagnosis is limited to the statement of features or symptoms on the basis of which practical conclusions are directly based. Such a diagnosis is not strictly scientific (or professional) because, as stated above, identifying symptoms never automatically leads to a diagnosis.
2. Etiological diagnosis takes into account not only the presence of certain characteristics and symptoms, but also the reasons for their occurrence.
3. Typological diagnosis (the highest level) consists of determining the place and meaning of the identified characteristics in a holistic, dynamic picture of the personality, in the overall picture of the client’s mental life. The diagnosis is not simply made based on the results of the examination, but necessarily involves correlating the data obtained with how the identified features manifest themselves in so-called life situations. Of great importance is the age-specific analysis of the data obtained, taking into account the child’s zone of proximal development.
It is unacceptable to use medical (nosological) concepts in a psychological diagnosis, such as “ZPR”, “psychopathy”, “neurotic conditions”, etc. By doing this, the psychologist not only violates deontological principles, but also goes beyond the content of his professional field.
As K. Rogers emphasized, it is necessary to understand that the psychological data obtained are different and must differ in a certain, acceptable degree of inaccuracy. Conclusions are always relative, since they are made on the basis of experiments or observations carried out using one or more of the possible methods and using one of the possible ways of interpreting the data.
IN AND. Lubovsky notes that when qualifying deviations in a child’s development, it is better to underestimate than to overestimate the severity of the disorder.
Significant difficulties in making a diagnosis may be associated with an insufficiently clear understanding of the psychologist about the boundaries of his professional competence. It is important that in cases where doubts arise about the nature of the identified disorders, the psychologist does not try to make a diagnosis himself, but recommends that parents contact the appropriate specialists. The same applies to the problem of social factors that determined this or that psychological characteristic of the child (for example, in cases of drug addiction). A psychological diagnosis must be made by a psychologist in strict accordance with professional competence and at the level at which specific psychological and pedagogical correction or other psychological assistance can be provided.
The formulation of the diagnosis must necessarily contain a psychological prognosis - a prediction based on all the stages of studying the path and nature of the child’s further development that have been completed so far. The forecast must take into account: a) the conditions for carrying out timely necessary work with the child and b) the conditions for the absence of such timely work. It is recommended to divide the forecast into separate periods and resort to long-term repeated observations. One of the most important aspects of drawing up a development forecast is understanding the general dynamics of the child’s development and an idea of ​​his compensatory capabilities.

• 
  Medical understanding diagnosis, firmly connecting it with illness, deviation from the norm, was reflected in definition this concepts V psychology. In this understanding psychological diagnosis...


• 
  Definition concepts psychological diagnosis. Kinds psychological diagnosis. Psychological diagnosis (diagnosis, from Greek. diagnosis


• 
  Definition concepts psychological diagnosis. Kinds psychological diagnosis. Psychological diagnosis (diagnosis, from Greek. diagnosis


• 
  Definition concepts psychological diagnosis. Kinds psychological diagnosis. Psychological diagnosis (diagnosis, from Greek. diagnosis- recognition) - the final result is active.


• 
  Definition concepts psychological diagnosis. Kinds psychological diagnosis. Psychological diagnosis (diagnosis, from Greek. diagnosis- recognition) - the final result is active... more ».


• 
  General concept psychodiagnostics. Psychological diagnostics- science of design
  These kinds activities of practical psychologists called staging diagnosis And
  Two types diagnosis: Clinical ( definition) Statistical (comparison) Forecast Three...


• 
  Psychological diagnosis(from Greek diagnosis– “recognition”) – final
  The highest level is typological diagnosis, consisting in definition places and meanings received
  According to L. S. Vygotsky, diagnosis should always have in mind complex personality structure.


• 
  Psychological diagnostics acts as an obligatory stage and means of solving practical problems, c.
  Mandatory methods are conversation and observation. Psychologist obliged to deliver diagnosis.


• 
  Thanks to construct validity data, we can psychological positions to naturally explain the test results and their variance, justify diagnosis, introducing the measured property into the system psychological categories...


• 
  Kinds psychological climate in organizational teams. One universal definitions how is it determined psychological climate, no.
  For definitions PC use concepts: « psychological atmosphere", "psychological mood".

Similar pages found:10

The concept of “psychological diagnosis” is key in psychological diagnostics and at the same time the least developed. It is used by all diagnostic psychologists, although there is no common understanding of the essence, specificity and content of psychological information necessary to make a diagnosis. Further expansion of the functions of a diagnostic psychologist, as well as the improvement of the system of professional training of psychologists, is directly related to the development of this concept.

The very concept of “psychological diagnosis,” first of all, indicates a close connection with medicine, and more precisely with psychiatry. It is interesting that the word “diagnosis” comes from military affairs. In ancient times, diagnosticians were called warriors who carried out the dead and wounded between battles. The term then appeared in medicine and was originally used to refer to mental disorders or conditions that deviate from the norm. In the medical sense, the purpose of psychodiagnostics comes down to making a diagnosis, that is, to determining the differences between the psychological characteristics identified in a particular person and the currently known standard. The penetration of psychodiagnostics into many areas of human activity and private life makes it necessary to understand the term “psychological diagnosis” more broadly and more clearly differentiate pathopsychology from the identification of normal mental phenomena.

L.S. Vygotsky established three stages of psychological diagnosis.

The first stage is a symptomatic (empirical) diagnosis. It may be limited only to the statement of certain mental characteristics or symptoms, from which a practical conclusion is then drawn. Such a diagnosis is not considered purely scientific, since the symptoms are not always identified by professionals. A symptomatic diagnosis is available to almost everyone around the person being examined. One of the main methods for making a symptomatic diagnosis is observation and introspection, the high subjectivity of which is well known.

Second stage - Etiological diagnosis. It takes into account not only the presence of certain mental characteristics (symptoms), but also the reasons for their occurrence. Finding out the possible causes of a person’s characteristics of experiences, behavior, and relationships is an important element of a psychological diagnosis. However, one must realize that a person’s actions, behavior and relationships with people around him are determined by many reasons. A diagnostic psychologist can trace the role of only a small number of causes of a particular psychological feature.

Third stage - Typological diagnosis (highest level). It consists in determining the place and significance of the results obtained in the average statistical series, as well as in the holistic picture of the personality.

The diagnosis is inextricably linked with the prognosis, which is based on the ability to understand the internal logic of the development of a mental phenomenon. Forecasting requires the ability to see and connect past, present and future.

Psychodiagnostic means. Representativeness, reliability, validity of psychodiagnostic techniques.

28. The use of computer technologies in diagnostic and correctional and developmental work in the special education system.

At the present stage of development of psychodiagnostics, the computer has become an integral element of the diagnostic activity of a psychologist. The introduction of computers into psychodiagnostics has its own history. At the initial stage of the development of information technology (early 1960s), the functions of the computer were very limited and were reduced mainly to the presentation of fairly simple stimuli, recording of elementary reactions and statistical data processing. The computer acts as an auxiliary tool for the researcher; the most labor-intensive, routine operations are assigned to it. However, already at this time, machine interpretation of tests began to develop.
Actually, the emergence of so-called computer psychodiagnostics abroad occurs during the second stage of the development of information technologies (1960s). First of all, all labor-intensive procedures for processing diagnostic information were automated (calculating “raw” scores, accumulating a database, calculating test norms, converting primary data into standard indicators, etc.). Multidimensional data analysis systems also received a certain development during this period.

2.5. Test as the main tool of psychodiagnostics 115

Advances in the development of electronics have led to a rapid decline in the cost of machine resources, while the cost of software has increased. The concept of this stage in the development of information technology can be formulated as follows: “Everything that can be programmed must be done by machines; people should do only what they are not yet able to write programs for” (Gromov, 1985). The main achievements of Western computer psychodiagnostics date back to this period. By the time of the emergence of new machine technology for information processing, psychodiagnostics had a significant arsenal of standardized techniques. Some survey samples numbered millions. Due to the need for rapid analysis of data sets, computer tools for collecting psychodiagnostic information are rapidly developing, and special software tools are being developed. The computer is increasingly playing the role
"experimenter".
The third stage of development of information technology (starting from the 1970s) created the conditions for the emergence of a new generation of PC-based computer psychodiagnostic systems, accelerated the process of introducing automated test methods into practice, and created the basis for subsequent formalization and automation of the process collection and processing of psychodiagnostic information. The examination procedure changes, the subject’s communication with the computer takes the form of a “dialogue”. The introduction of feedback allows you to change the research strategy depending on previous results. It was during this period that the first actual computer tests appeared, tests specially created for the computer environment. The development of these tests creates the preconditions for adaptive testing, which is primarily associated with adapting tasks to the characteristics of the test subject’s answers. Hence, it is advisable to divide tests into computerized, or adapted to computer conditions, and computer-based.
In the last decade of the 20th century. computers are becoming available not only to institutes and laboratories, but also to every researcher. Currently, complex psychodiagnostic studies are carried out on the basis of powerful personal computers with high speed and a diverse set of peripheral devices.
Domestic computer psychodiagnostics as a direction of research took shape by the mid-1980s, and its development is not as directly related to the improvement of information technology as

Requirements for the construction and testing of psychodiagnostic techniques.

Chapter III REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTING AND TESTING METHODS

§ 1. STANDARDIZATION

A diagnostic technique differs from any research technique in that it is standardized. As A. Anastasi (1982) notes, standardization is the uniformity of the procedure for conducting and assessing test performance. Thus, standardization is considered in two ways: as the development of uniform requirements for the experimental procedure and as the definition of a single criterion for assessing the results of diagnostic tests.

Standardization of the experimental procedure implies the unification of instructions, survey forms, methods of recording results, and survey conditions.

The requirements that must be observed when conducting an experiment include, for example:

1) instructions should be communicated to subjects in the same way, usually
in writing; in the case of oral instructions, they are given in different groups by the same
in words that everyone can understand, in the same manner;

2) no subject should be given any advantage over others;

3) during the experiment should not be given to individual subjects
additional explanations;

4) the experiment with different groups should be carried out at the same time
opportunities time of day, under similar conditions;

5) time restrictions in completing tasks for all subjects must
be the same, etc.

Typically, the authors of the methodology provide precise and detailed instructions on the procedure for carrying it out in the manual. The formulation of such instructions constitutes the main part of the standardization of the new technique, since only strict adherence to them makes it possible to compare the indicators obtained by different subjects.

The other most important step in standardizing a technique is the choice of criterion by which the results of diagnostic tests should be compared, since diagnostic techniques do not have predetermined standards for success or failure in their performance. So, for example, a six-year-old child, taking a mental development test, received a score of 117. How do we understand this? Is it good or bad? How often does this indicator occur in children of this age? The quantitative result as such does not mean anything. The score obtained by a preschooler cannot be interpreted as an indicator of relatively high, average or low development, since this development is expressed in the units of measurement inherent in this technique, and, thus, the results obtained cannot have an absolute meaning. Obviously, it is necessary to have a starting point and some strictly defined measures in order to use them to evaluate the individual and group data obtained during diagnosis. The question arises, what should we take as this starting point? In traditional testing, such a point is obtained statistically - this is the so-called statistical norm.

In general terms, the standardization of a norm-referenced diagnostic technique is carried out by conducting this technique on a large representative sample of the type for which it is intended. With respect to this group of subjects, called the standardization sample, norms are developed that indicate not only the average level of performance, but also its relative variability above and below the average level. As a result, different degrees of success or failure in performing a diagnostic test can be assessed. This makes it possible to determine the position of a particular subject relative to a normative sample or a standardization sample (A. Anastasi, 1982).

To calculate the statistical norm, diagnostic psychologists turned to the methods of mathematical statistics that have long been used in biology. Let's look at an example.

Several thousand young people showed up at the recruiting station. Let's assume that they are all about the same age. What do we get when we measure their height? It usually turns out that the majority are almost the same height, there will be very few people of very short and very tall stature. The rest will be distributed symmetrically, decreasing in number from the average maximum in both directions. The distribution of the quantities under consideration is a normal distribution (or distribution according to the normal law, Gaussian distribution curve). Mathematicians have shown that to describe such a distribution it is enough to know two indicators - the arithmetic mean and the so-called standard deviation, which is obtained by simple calculations.

Let's call the arithmetic mean X, and the standard deviation (J (small sigma). With a normal distribution, all studied values ​​are practically within + 5 (J.

The normal distribution has many advantages, in particular it allows you to calculate in advance how many cases will be located at a certain distance from the arithmetic mean when used to determine the distance of the standard deviation. There are special tables for this. From them it is clear that within X± (J is 68% of the studied cases. 32% of cases are outside these limits, and since the distribution is symmetrical, then 16% on each side. So, the predominant and most representative part of the distribution is within x±G.

Let's consider the standardization of diagnostic techniques using the Stanford-Vine tests as an example. The group of subjects included 4498 people from 2.5 to 18 years old. The efforts of Stanford psychologists were aimed at ensuring that the distribution of test performance data obtained for each age was close to normal. This result was not achieved immediately; in some cases, scientists had to replace some tasks with others. Eventually the work was completed and tests were prepared for each age with an arithmetic mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16, with a distribution close to normal.

It was said above that when measuring the height of recruits, a normal distribution of data on their height was obtained. No one interfered in the measurement process or replaced some recruits with others. Everything happened naturally, by itself. But when working with psychological techniques, things don’t work out that way. Experienced psychologists, who have a good understanding of the mental capabilities of children, had to replace some tasks in order to bring the results closer to the normal distribution. The results of diagnostic tests in psychology very rarely fit into the framework of normal law; they have to be specially adjusted for this purpose. The reasons for this phenomenon must be sought in the very essence of the test, in the conditionality of its performance by the preparation of the subjects.

So, Stanford psychologists obtained a distribution close to normal. What is it for? This made it possible to classify all the material obtained by each age. For this classification, the standard deviation ST and the arithmetic mean jc are used. It is accepted that the results within jc ± (J show the boundaries of the most characteristic, representative part of the distribution, the limits of the norm for a given age. With (J = 16х=100, these limits of the norm will be from 84 to 116. This is interpreted as follows: the results of subjects who do not go beyond these limits, are within the normal range. Those whose results are less than 84 are below the norm, and those whose results are more than 116 are above the norm. Often the same technique is used for further classification. Then the results range from jc - ST to X - 2(J are interpreted as “slightly below the norm,” and from jc -2(J to jc - ZsT) as “significantly below the norm.” Results that are above the norm are classified accordingly.

Let us return to the result obtained by a six-year-old child, which was mentioned above. His success on the test is 117. This result is above the norm, but very slightly (the upper limit of the norm is 116).

In addition to the statistical norm, indicators such as percentiles can also become the basis for comparison and interpretation of diagnostic test results

A percentile is the percentage of individuals in the standardization sample whose primary score is below a given primary score. For example, if 28% of people solve 15 problems correctly on an arithmetic test, then a primary score of 15 corresponds to the 28th percentile (P 2 s). Percentiles indicate an individual's relative position in the standardization sample. They can also be considered as rank gradations, the total number of which is 100, with the only difference that when ranking it is customary to start counting from the top, with the best member of the group receiving rank 1. In the case of percentiles, counting is carried out from the bottom, so the lower the percentile, the worse the individual's position.

The 50th percentile (P 5 o) corresponds to the median - one of the indicators of central tendency. Percentiles above 50 represent above average performance, and those below 50 represent comparatively poor performance. The 25th and 75th percentiles are also known as the 1st and 3rd quartiles because they distinguish the bottom and top quarters of the distribution . Like the median, they are useful for describing the distribution of indicators and comparing with other distributions.

Percentiles should not be confused with regular percentages. The latter are primary indicators and represent the percentage of correctly completed tasks, while the percentile is a derived indicator indicating the proportion of the total number of group members. A primary outcome that is lower than any indicator obtained in the standardization sample has a percentile rank of zero (P 0). A score that exceeds any score in the standardization sample receives a percentile rank of 100 (Ryuo). These percentiles, however, do not mean a zero or absolute score on the test.

Percentile scores have a number of advantages. They are easy to calculate and understand even for a relatively untrained person. Their application is quite universal and suitable for any type of test. However, the disadvantage of percentiles is a significant inequality of units of reference in the case when the extreme points of the distribution are analyzed. When using percentiles (as noted above), only the relative position of an individual score is determined, but not the magnitude of the differences between individual indicators.

In psychodiagnostics, there is another approach to assessing the results of diagnostic tests. In our country, under the leadership of K.M. Gurevich develops tests in which the starting point is not a statistical norm, but an objectively specified socio-psychological standard independent of the test results. Chapter XII defines this concept and shows the advantage of such an assessment criterion compared to the statistical norm.

The socio-psychological standard is implemented in a set of tasks that make up the test. Consequently, the test itself in its entirety is such a standard. All comparisons of individual or group test results are carried out with the maximum that is presented in the test (and this is a complete set of knowledge). The evaluation criterion is an indicator reflecting the degree of closeness of the results to the standard. There is a developed scheme for presenting group quantitative data.

To analyze the data regarding their proximity to the socio-psychological standard, conventionally considered as 100% completion of the entire test, all subjects are divided according to the test results into 5 subgroups (%):

1) the most successful - 10;

2) close to successful - 20;

3) average in terms of success - 40;

4) less successful - 20;

5) least successful - 10.

For each subgroup, the average percentage of correctly completed tasks is calculated. A coordinate system is constructed, where the numbers of subgroups go along the abscissa axis, and the percentage of tasks completed by each of the subgroups goes along the ordinate axis. After plotting the corresponding points, a graph is drawn reflecting the approximation of each subgroup to the socio-psychological standard. This processing is carried out based on the results of both the test as a whole and each subtest separately.

§ 2 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Before psychodiagnostic techniques can be used for practical purposes, they must be tested against a number of formal criteria that prove their high quality and effectiveness. These requirements in psychodiagnostics have evolved over the years in the process of working on tests and improving them. As a result, it became possible to protect psychology from all sorts of illiterate fakes that pretend to be called diagnostic techniques.

The main criteria for evaluating psychodiagnostic techniques include reliability and validity. Foreign psychologists made a great contribution to the development of these concepts (A. Anastasi, E. Ghiselli, J. Guilford, L. Cronbach, R. Thorndike and E. Hagen, etc.). They developed both formal logical and mathematical-statistical apparatus (primarily the correlation method and factual analysis) to substantiate the degree of compliance of the methods with the noted criteria.

In psychodiagnostics, the problems of reliability and validity of methods are closely interrelated, however, there is a tradition of separately presenting these most important characteristics. Following it, we begin by considering the reliability of the methods.

RELIABILITY

In traditional testing, the term “reliability” means the relative constancy, stability, and consistency of test results during initial and repeated use on the same subjects. As A. Anastasi (1982) writes, one can hardly trust an intelligence test if at the beginning of the week the child had an indicator equal to BUT, and by the end of the week it was 80. Repeated use of reliable methods gives similar estimates. In this case, to a certain extent, both the results themselves and the ordinal place (rank) occupied by the subject in the group may coincide. In both cases, when repeating the experiment, some discrepancies are possible, but it is important that they are insignificant, within the same group. Thus, we can say that the reliability of a technique is a criterion that indicates the accuracy of psychological measurements, i.e. allows us to judge how credible the results are.

The degree of reliability of methods depends on many reasons. Therefore, an important problem in practical diagnostics is the identification of negative factors affecting the accuracy of measurements. Many authors have tried to classify such factors. Among them, the most frequently mentioned are the following:

1) instability of the property being diagnosed;

2) imperfection of diagnostic techniques (carelessly compiled instructions,
tasks are heterogeneous in nature, instructions for
presentation of the technique to subjects, etc.);

3) changing examination situation (different times of day when carried out
experiments, different room lighting, presence or absence of strangers
noise, etc.);

4) differences in the behavior of the experimenter (different from experience to experience
presents instructions, stimulates the completion of tasks in different ways, etc.);

5) fluctuations in the functional state of the subject (in one experiment
good health is noted, fatigue is noted in others, etc.);

6) elements of subjectivity in the methods of assessing and interpreting the results (when
The test subjects' responses are recorded and the responses are assessed according to the degree
completeness, originality, etc.).

If you keep all these factors in mind and try to eliminate the conditions in each of them that reduce the accuracy of measurements, then you can achieve an acceptable level of test reliability. One of the most important means of increasing the reliability of a psychodiagnostic technique is the uniformity of the examination procedure, its strict regulation: the same environment and working conditions for the examined sample of subjects, the same type of instructions, the same time restrictions for everyone, methods and features of contact with subjects, the order of presentation of tasks, etc. d. With such standardization of the research procedure, it is possible to significantly reduce the influence of extraneous random factors on the test results and thus increase their reliability.

The reliability characteristics of the methods are greatly influenced by the sample being studied. It can either reduce or increase this indicator; for example, reliability can be artificially increased if there is a small scatter of results in the sample, i.e. if the results are close in value to each other. In this case, during a repeat examination, the new results will also be located in a close group. Possible changes in the rank places of the subjects will be insignificant, and, therefore, the reliability of the technique will be high. The same unjustified overestimation of reliability can occur when analyzing the results of a sample consisting of a group with very high scores and a group with very low test scores. Then these widely separated results will not overlap, even if random factors interfere with the experimental conditions. Therefore, the manual usually describes the sample on which the reliability of the technique was determined.

Currently, reliability is increasingly determined on the most homogeneous samples, i.e. on samples similar in gender, age, level of education, professional training, etc. For each such sample, its own reliability coefficients are given. The reliability indicator given is applicable only to groups similar to those on which it was determined. If a technique is applied to a sample different from the one on which its reliability was tested, then this procedure must be repeated.

As many authors emphasize, there are as many types of reliability of methods as there are conditions affecting the results of diagnostic tests (V Cherny, 1983). However, only a few types of reliability find practical application

Since all types of reliability reflect the degree of consistency of two independently obtained series of indicators, the mathematical and statistical technique by which the reliability of the methodology is established is correlation (according to Pearson or Spearman, see Chapter XIV). The more the resulting correlation coefficient approaches unity, the higher the reliability, and vice versa.

In this manual, when describing the types of reliability, the main emphasis is on the works of K.M. Gurevich (1969, 1975, 1977, 1979), who, after conducting a thorough analysis of foreign literature on this issue, proposed to interpret reliability as:

1) reliability of the measuring instrument itself,

2) stability of the studied trait;

3) constancy, i.e. relative independence of results from personality
experimenter

The indicator characterizing the measuring instrument is proposed to be called the reliability coefficient, the indicator characterizing the stability of the measured property is the stability coefficient; and the indicator for assessing the influence of the experimenter’s personality is the coefficient of constancy.

It is in this order that it is recommended to check the methodology: it is advisable to first check the measurement tool. If the data obtained are satisfactory, then we can proceed to establishing a measure of stability of the property being measured, and after that, if necessary, consider the criterion of constancy.

Let us take a closer look at these indicators, which characterize the reliability of the psychodiagnostic technique from different angles.

1. Determination of the reliability of the measuring instrument. The accuracy and objectivity of any psychological measurement depends on how the methodology is compiled, how correctly the tasks are selected from the point of view of their mutual consistency, and how homogeneous it is. The internal homogeneity of the methodology shows that its tasks actualize the same property, sign.

To check the reliability of a measuring instrument, indicating its homogeneity (or homogeneity), the so-called “splitting” method is used. Typically, tasks are divided into even and odd, processed separately, and then the results of the two obtained series are correlated with each other. To use this method, it is necessary to put the subjects in such conditions that they can have time to solve (or try to solve) all the tasks. If the technique is homogeneous, then there will not be a big difference in the success of the solution for such halves, and, therefore, the correlation coefficient will be quite high.

You can divide tasks in another way, for example, compare the first half of the test with the second, the first and third quarters with the second and fourth, etc. However, “splitting” into even and odd tasks seems to be the most appropriate, since it is this method that is most independent of the influence of such factors such as workability, training, fatigue, etc.