Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Grundlagen diagnostischer Verfahren

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychologische Diagnostik

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel befasst sich mit grundlegenden Anforderungen an diagnostische Instrumente. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf psychologischen Tests. Neben einer Definition und beispielhaften Darstellungen psychologischer Tests werden Kernannahmen des Messens sowie der Klassischen Testtheorie und von Item-Response-Theorien skizziert. Wesentliche Strategien und Schritte der Testkonstruktion werden eingeführt. Schließlich erfolgt eine Betrachtung wesentlicher Testgütekriterien.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2015). Diagnostisches und Statistisches Manual Psychischer Störungen DSM-5: Deutsche Ausgabe herausgegeben von Peter Falkai und Hans-Ulrich Wittchen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology 76, 732–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105, 1013–1037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9, 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgärtel, F., & Thomas-Langel, R. (2015). TBS-TK Rezension. Psychologische Rundschau 66, 152–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (2009). Alpha, dimension-free, and model-based internal consistency reliability. Psychometrika 74, 137–143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2005). Situational Judgment Test on personal initiative. https://docplayer.org/34298704-Situational-judgment-test-on-personal-initiative.html Zugegriffen: 01.09.2021

  • Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology 62, 229–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin 117, 187–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, R. F. (2011). Toward a process-focused model of test score validity: Improving psychological assessment in science and practice. Psychological Assessment 23, 532–544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brem-Gräser, L. (2001). Familie in Tieren: Die Familiensituation im Spiegel der Kinderzeichnung. Entwicklung eines Testverfahrens (8. Aufl.). München: Reinhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickenkamp, R. (2002). Test d2: Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test (9. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickenkamp, R., Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Liepmann, D. (2010). d2-R: Test d2 – Revision. Aufmerksamkeits- und Konzentrationstest. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broughton, R. (1984). A prototype strategy for construction of personality scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, 1334–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods 18, 36–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühner, M. (2011). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3. Aufl.). München: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühner, M. (2021). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (4. Aufl.). München: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56, 81–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canfield, A. A. (1951). The "sten" scale—a modified C-Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 11, 295–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. Oxford: World Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1, 245–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, E. (2016). Making reliability reliable: A systematic approach to reliability coefficients. Organizational Research Methods 19, 651–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. A. (1968). Test bias: Prediction of grades of Negro and white students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement 5, 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colella, A., Hebl, M., & King, E. (2017). One hundred years of discrimination research in the Journal of Applied Psychology: A sobering synopsis. Journal of Applied Psychology 102, 500–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Sabey, T. B., Rodell, J. B., & Hill, E. T. (2019). Content validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 104, 1243–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15, 110–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113, 492–511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 52, 281–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlke, J. A., Kostal, J. W., Sackett, P. R., & Kuncel, N. R. (2018). Changing abilities vs. changing tasks: Examining validity degradation with test scores and college performance criteria both assessed longitudinally. Journal of Applied Psychology 103, 980–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence 35, 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCastellarnau, A. (2017). A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review. Quality & Quantity 52, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diagnostik- und Testkuratorium (2018a). Personalauswahl kompetent gestalten: Grundlagen und Praxis der Eignungsdiagnostik nach DIN 33430. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Diagnostik- und Testkuratorium (2018b). TBS-DTK. Testbeurteilungssystem des Diagnostik- und Testkuratoriums der Föderation Deutscher Psychologenvereinigungen. Revidierte Fassung vom 03. Jan. 2018. Psychologische Rundschau 18, 109–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2017). Empirical option weights improve the validity of a multiple-choice knowledge test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 33, 336–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2006). Further investigating method effects associated with negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling 13, 440–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology 105, 399–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ebenrett, H. J., Hansen, D., & Puzicha, K. J. (2003). Verlust von Humankapital in Regionen mit hoher Arbeitslosigkeit. Politik und Zeitgeschichte 6–7, 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., & Schmidt, K. (2014). Testtheorie und Testkonstruktion. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Nussbeck, F. W., Geiser, C., Cole, D. A., Gollwitzer, M., & Lischetzke, T. (2008). Structural equation modeling of multitrait-multimethod data: different models for different types of methods. Psychological Methods 13, 230–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Gollwitzer, M., & Schmitt, M. (2017). Statistik und Forschungsmethoden (4. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) (2012). Serena Williams collapses in opener. ESPN.com news services vom 29. Mai 2012. Zugegriffen: 06. Juni 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 4, 272–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrenberg, J., Hampel, R., & Selg, H. (2010). FPI-R: Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar (8. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 51, 327–358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, 1097–1114.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, F., & Kanning, U. P. (2014). Lücken im Lebenslauf. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie 58, 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenstein, J.-P., Strauch, C., Mussel, P., & Ziegler, M. (2019). Four personality types may be neither robust nor exhaustive. Nature Human Behaviour 3, 1045–1046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, M., Pfattheicher, S., Hartung, J., Weiss, S., Schindler, S., & Wilhelm, O. (2018). Self‐compassion as a facet of neuroticism? A reply to the comments of Neff, Tóth‐Király, and Colosimo (2018). European Journal of Personality 32, 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach, M., Farb, B., Revelle, W., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2018). A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nature Human Behaviour 2, 735–742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Golden, J. P., Bents, R., & Blank, R. (2004). Golden Profiler of Personality (GPOP). Deutsche Adaptation des Golden Personality Type Profiler von John P. Golden. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1980). The adjective check list manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. J. (2004). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guion, R. M. (1980). On Trinitarian doctrines of validity. Professional Psychology 11, 385–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, P., Reuter, M., & Nyborg, H. (2006). The relationship between date of birth and individual differences in personality and general intelligence: A large-scale study. Personality and Individual Differences 40, 1349–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, S. R., McKinley, J. C., & Engel, R. R. (2000). MMPI-2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (Manual). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausknecht, J. P., Halpert, J. A., Di Paolo, N. T., & Gerrard, M. M. O. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hautzinger, M., Keller, F., & Kühner, C. (2006). BDI-II: Beck Depressions-Inventar, Revision. Frankfurt am Main: Harcourt Test Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidenreich, K. (1993). Die Verwendung standardisierter Tests. In E. Roth (Hrsg.), Sozialwissenschaftliche Methoden. Lehr- und Handbuch für Forschung und Praxis (3. Aufl., S. 389–406). München: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist 58, 78–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods 1, 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods 2, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, R., Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21, 1157–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höft, S., & Muck, P. M. (2009). TBS-TK Rezension: "Golden Profiler of Personality (GPOP). Deutsche Adaptation des Golden Personality Type Profiler von John P. Golden". Report Psychologie 34, 322–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, T. P., Benjamin, A., & Brezinski, K. L. (2000). Reliability methods: A note on the frequency of use of various types. Educational and Psychological Measurement 60, 523–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30, 179–185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H. (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H., & Duval, J. L. (2004). Determining the number of factors in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 302–317). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • International Test Commission (ITC). (2013). ITC Guidelines on Test Use. 8th October, 2013, Version 1.2. Final Version. Document reference: ITC-G-TU-20131008. https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_use.pdf. Zugegriffen: 26. März 2020.

  • Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59, 12–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kanning, U. P. (2012). Diagnostik zwischen Inkompetenz und Scharlatanerie: Phänomen, Ursachen, Perspektiven. Report Psychologie 37, 100–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005). Psychological testing – Principles, applications, and issues. Berlmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasten, N., & Freund, P. A. (2016). A meta-analytical multilevel reliability generalization of Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs). European Journal of Psychological Assessment 32, 230–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelava, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2020a). Deskriptivstatistische Itemanalyse und Testwertbestimmung. In H. Moosbrugger & A. Kelava (Hrsg.), Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3. Aufl., S. 143–158). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelava, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2020b). Einführung in die Item-Response-Theorie (IRT). In H. Moosbrugger & A. Kelava (Hrsg.), Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3. Aufl., S. 369–410). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, C., Brähler, E., & Zenger, M. (2014). Psychologische und sozialwissenschaftliche Kurzskalen für Wissenschaft und Praxis – Eine Einführung. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersting, M. (2006). "DIN Screen": Leitfaden zur Kontrolle und Optimierung der Qualität von Verfahren und deren Einsatz bei beruflichen Eignungsbeurteilungen. Lengerich: Pabst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, J. (2009). Allgemeine Intelligenz und beruflicher Erfolg in Deutschland: Vertiefende und weiterführende Metaanalysen. Psychologische Rundschau 60, 82–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauth, J. (1996). Klassische Testtheorie. In K. Pawlik (Hrsg.), Grundlagen und Methoden der Differentiellen Psychologie (Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Serie Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung, Bd. 1, S. 647–671). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. De Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz, & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality (pp. 141–164). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krumm, S., Lievens, F., Hüffmeier, J., Lipnevich, A. A., Bendels, H., & Hertel, G. (2015). How "situational" is judgment in an situational judgment test? Journal of Applied Psychology 100, 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krumm, S., Schäpers, P., & Göbel, A. (2016). Motive arousal without pictures? An experimental validation of a hybrid implicit motive test. Journal of Personality Assessment 98, 514–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing 13, 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubinger, K. D., & Holocher-Ertl, S. (2014). Adaptives Intelligenz Diagnostikum 3. Göttingen: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika 2, 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F. J. (1986). Stamp collecting versus science: Validation as hypothesis testing. American Psychologist 41, 1183–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz-Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation (ZPID). (2001). Internationale Richtlinien für die Testanwendung, Version 2000. Deutsche Fassung. https://www.zpid.de/pub/tests/itc_richtlinien.pdf. Zugegriffen: 15. Apr. 2020.

  • Lenhard, A., Lenhard, W., Suggate, S., & Segerer, R. (2018). A continuous solution to the norming problem. Assessment 25, 112–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liepmann, D., Beauducel, A., Brocke, B., & Amthauer, R. (2007). I-S-T 2000 R: Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R (2. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lienert, G. A., & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse (6. Aufl.). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariacher, H., & Neubauer, A. (2005). PAI 30: Test zur Praktischen Alltagsintelligenz. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 81–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contempory intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 136–181). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. (2020). Thinking twice about sum scores. Behavior Research Methods 52, 2287–2305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). Generalized linear item response theory. Psychological Bulletin 115, 300–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menold, N., & Bogner, K. (2015). Gestaltung von Ratingskalen in Fragebögen. Mannheim: GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Read, G. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist 56, 128–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millman, J., Bishop, C. H., & Ebel, R. (1965). An analysis of test-wiseness. Educational and Psychological Measurement 25, 707–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittring, G., & Rost, D. H. (2008). Die verflixten Distraktoren. Über den Nutzen einer theoretischen Distraktorenanalyse bei Matrizentests (für besser Begabte und Hochbegabte). Diagnostica 54, 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moosbrugger, H. (2012a). Item-Response-Theorie (IRT). In L. Schmidt-Atzert, & M. Amelang (Hrsg.), Psychologische Diagnostik (2. Aufl., S. 62–83). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moosbrugger, H. (2012b). Klassische Testtheorie (KTT). In H. Moosbrugger & A. Kelava (Hrsg.), Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (S. 103–117). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (2020). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3. Aufl.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moosbrugger, H., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2012). Exploratorische (EFA) und konfirmatorische Faktorenanalyse (CFA). In H. Moosbrugger & A. Kelava (Hrsg.), Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Aufl., S. 325–343). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, J., Artelt, C., Schneider, W., & Stanat, P. (2010). Lesekompetenz von PISA 2000 bis PISA 2009. In E. Klieme, C. Artelt, J. Hartig, N. Jude, O. Köller, M. Prenzel, W. Schneider, & P. Stanat (Hrsg.), PISA 2009 – Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt (S. 23–71). Frankfurt am Main: Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung (DIPF).

    Google Scholar 

  • Olaru, G., Witthöft, M., & Wilhelm, O. (2015). Methods matter: Testing competing models for designing short-scale big-five assessments. Journal of Research in Personality 59, 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2000). PISA 2000: Beispielaufgaben aus dem Lesekompetenztest. https://www.oecd.org/berlin/39803735.pdf. Zugegriffen: 02. April 2020.

  • Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (2004). NEO-PI-R: NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae, revidierte Fassung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, W. D., & Roth, E. (1997). Der Zahlen-Verbindungs-Test. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pargent, F., Hilbert, S., Eichhorn, K., & Bühner, M. (2019). Can’t make it better nor worse. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 35, 891–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, 598–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petermann, F. (2014). WAIS-IV: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Deutschsprachige Adaptation nach David Wechsler. Frankfurt am Main: Pearson Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin 135, 322–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raju, N. S. (1970). New formula for estimating total test reliability from parts of unequal lengths. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 5(Pt. 1), 143–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., & Krebs, D. (2007). Does response scale format affect the answering of personality scales? Assessing the Big Five dimensions of personality with different response scales in a dependent sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 23, 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, J. G. (1965). Standard Progressive Matrices. Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 130, 261–288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann, B. (1978). Empirische Studien zur Entwicklung von Antwortskalen für die sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 9, 222–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. (1999). Test- und Fragebogenanalysen. In B. Strauß, H. Haag, & M. Kolb (Hrsg.), Datenanalyse in der Sportwissenschaft (S. 455–480). Schorndorf: Hofmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion (2. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., de Fruyt, F., & Rolland, J. P. (2003a). A meta-analytic study of general mental ability validity for different occupations in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 1068–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., & de Fruyt, F. (2003b). International validity generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities: A European community meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 56, 573–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargent, S. S. (1940). Thinking processes at various levels of difficulty. Archives of Psychology 249, 5–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaarschmidt, U., & Fischer, A. W. (2008). AVEM – Arbeitsbezogenes Verhaltens- und Erlebensmuster (3. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherpenzeel, A. C., & Saris, W. E. (1997). The validity and reliability of survey questions: A meta-analysis of MTMM studies. Sociological Methods & Research 25, 341–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalt, H. D., Sokolowski, K., & Langens, T. A. (2000). Das Multi-Motiv-Gitter für Anschluss, Leistung und Macht MMG. Frankfurt am Main: Swets.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L. (1992). What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist 47, 1173–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin 124, 262–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Atzert, L. (2007). Objektiver Leistungsmotivationstest OLMT – Software und Manual (2. Aufl., unter Mitarbeit von M. Sommer, M. Bühner & A. Jurecka). Mödling: Schuhfried.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Atzert, L., Hommers, W., & Hess, M. (1995). Der I-S-T 70: Eine Analyse und Neubewertung. Diagnostica 41, 108–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Atzert, L., Bühner, M., Rischen, S., & Warkentin, V. (2004). Erkennen von Simulation und Dissimulation im Test d2. Diagnostica 50, 124–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality 47, 609–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, H., & Stehle, W. (1983). Neuere Entwicklungen des Assessment-Center-Ansatzes – beurteilt unter dem Aspekt der sozialen Validität. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie 27, 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, M. (2017). Constructing subtests using ant colony optimization [Dissertation]. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, J., West, S. G., Freudenstein, J.-P., Schäpers, P., Mussel, P., Eid, M., & Krumm, S. (2020). Hidden framings and hidden asymmetries in the measurement of personality – A combined lens‐model and frame‐of‐reference perspective. Journal of Personality, 89, 357–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparfeldt, J. R., Kimmel, R., Lowenkamp, L., Steingraber, A., & Rost, D. H. (2012). Not read, but nevertheless solved? Three experiments on PIRLS multiple choice reading comprehension test items. Educational Assessment 17, 214–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staatsinstitut für Schulqualität und Bildungsforschung (ISB). (2004). Jahrgangsstufe 7: Mathematik. Genehmigter Lehrplan. https://www.isb-gym8-lehrplan.de/contentserv/3.1.neu/g8.de/index.php?StoryID=26298. Zugegriffen: 20. April 2020.

  • Stemmler, G., Hagemann, D., Amelang, M., Spinath, F. M., Hasselhorn, M., Kunde, W., & Schneider, S. (2016). Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment 80, 99–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence 35, 401–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thielsch, M. T., Lenzner, T., & Melles, T. (2012). Wie gestalte ich gute Items und Interviewfragen? Praxis der Wirtschaftspsychologie II: Themen und Fallbeispiele für Studium und Praxis, 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thissen, A., Koch, M., Becker, N., & Spinath, F. M. (2016). Construct your own response: The cube construction task asa novel format for the assessment of spatial ability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 34, 304–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thissen, A., Spinath, F. M., & Becker, N. (2019). The cube construction task allows for a better manipulation of item difficulties than current cube rotation tasks European Journal of Psychological Assessment, e-pub ahead of print. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000534.

  • Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Concepts of culture‐fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement 8, 63–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Flaugher, R., Green, B. F., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods 15, 96–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, E., & Greiff, S. (2018). The world beyond rating scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 34, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, M. A. (2013). Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (16. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wittchen, H.-U., Zaudig, M., & Fydrich, T. (1997). Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV. Achse I: Psychische Störungen/Achse II: Persönlichkeitsstörungen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittmann, W. W. (1988). Multivariate reliability theory: Principles of symmetry and successful validation strategies. In J. R. Nesselroade, & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 505–560). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wittmann, W. W. (2012). Principles of symmetry in evaluation research with implications for offender treatment. In T. Bliesener, A. Beelmann, & M. Stemmler (Eds.), Antisocial behavior and crime: Contributions of developmental and evaluation research to prevention and intervention (pp. 357–368). Cambridge: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO) (2018). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11). Genf: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, P., & Symons, F. (2010). Observational measurement of behavior. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M. (2014). Stop and state your intentions! European Journal of Psychological Assessment 30, 239–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., & Reichert, A. (2017). TBS-TK Rezension: „Adaptives Intelligenz Diagnostikum 3 (AID 3)“. Psychologische Rundschau 68, 237–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales–Five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences 34, 185–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., Maaß, U., Griffith, R., & Gammon, A. (2015). What is the nature of faking? Modeling distinct response patterns and quantitative differences in faking at the same time. Organizational Research Methods 18, 679–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. (2011). New perspectives on faking in personality assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arbeitsbereich Psychologische Diagnostik, Differentielle und Persönlichkeitspsychologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Stefan Krumm

  2. Fachbereich Psychologie, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Hessen, Deutschland

    Lothar Schmidt-Atzert

  3. Psychologisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Deutschland

    Manfred Amelang

Authors
  1. Stefan Krumm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lothar Schmidt-Atzert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manfred Amelang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Krumm .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fachbereich Psychologie, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Hessen, Deutschland

    Lothar Schmidt-Atzert

  2. Arbeitsbereich Psychologische Diagnostik, Differentielle und Persönlichkeitspsychologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Stefan Krumm

  3. Psychologisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Deutschland

    Manfred Amelang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Krumm, S., Schmidt-Atzert, L., Amelang, M. (2021). Grundlagen diagnostischer Verfahren. In: Schmidt-Atzert, L., Krumm, S., Amelang, M. (eds) Psychologische Diagnostik. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61643-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61643-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-61642-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-61643-7

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation