Scores on a test
In graduate-level assessment practicum, we’ve been grappling with how to conduct high-quality clinical assessments given our public university’s limited funds to procure standardized tests. There is a reason why psychological assessments in private settings are cost prohibitive. One test I was looking at would cost us P180,000. Another would cost P90,000. A full assessment battery would need roughly around seven to 10 different tests so you can see how quickly these expenses would add up. It is worth mentioning that these are typically consumable tests. To reorder more response forms would cost another P20,000 or higher. For private centers to recoup their costs, they would have to charge around P20,000 to P40,000 for a comprehensive psychological evaluation to break even. Such pricing makes psychological evaluation out of reach for the majority of Filipinos.
Still, we must find a way for assessment to be accessible to all. Psychological assessment can help identify what a person needs and recommend strategies suited specifically to the person. In the school setting, this is crucial. It can give input into the type of learning environment that fits the child best. It can recommend accommodations and inclusions to ensure that the child is able to demonstrate their true capacity without hindrances. A good evaluation also focuses on strengths and resources, which can be anchors for a child’s emerging confidence and self-esteem.
Moreover, a good psychological assessment shouldn’t just be based on scores on a test. We need to gather information from different sources, including interviews and behavioral observation, to form a sound conclusion. In assessment, we call this triangulation of data. We do this because we know that a single test score may not be truly representative of a person’s capacity or skills. It could be that the client was tired or hungry, which affected their test performance. They could be in significant emotional distress during the time of testing, which could lower their scores on cognitive tests. We need corroborative information, preferably from different sources and collected at different points in time, to have a better understanding of a person’s true capacity.
So, when our practicumers get anxious and frustrated about not being able to afford the “premium” tests, I assure them that there is additional information we can work with. More importantly, at least in learning, working with scarce technology and resources gives us a golden opportunity to sharpen our clinical skills. We are forced to be creative and develop the sophistication of our clinical hypothesis. We become masters of context and systemic thinking. We immerse ourselves in the narratives of our clients and deepen a better holistic understanding of what they are going through. More than just seeing our clients as a set of scores, we get to see them as human beings.
We have been primed by modern society to look at numbers as indicative of value. In school, for example, we issue numerical grades as a measure of performance or achievement. Numbers make for a great shorthand. They give us a sense of how we are doing compared to our expectations. The risk in numbers, however, is in giving it too much weight. How many students overly focus on their grades at the exclusion of all other indicators of learning? Instead of focusing on what knowledge they gained or looking forward to what skills they can develop, they let their grades affect their sense of self-worth.
There is a grade inflation, too, though not in the manner that most think of. The inflation I’m referring to is the increasing lower limit of what we consider an “acceptable grade.” I remember jumping for joy back in high school when I received a 65 because it meant that I passed. For context, only half of the class usually pass that exam. Nowadays, anything less than 90 percent is a cause for concern. For some, a single-point deduction can already ruin one’s day. Higher grade inflation means we can no longer afford to make mistakes. This contributes to paralyzing anxiety among students.
Scores on a test should not be the totality of assessing someone’s capability or worth. A single number cannot capture someone’s intelligence. IQ is no longer sufficient. It is not enough to simply list what a person is good or bad at. To help a person maximize their potential, it is more relevant that we can elucidate the process of how they learn. We need to see how they cope with challenges and how they recover from setbacks. We need to see them outside of a testing environment and see how they interact with the real world. True assessment—in schools and in clinics—is not just summarizing scores on tests. It is a process of genuinely understanding the person in a way that helps us find pathways toward their life goals.
—————-
aatuazon@up.edu.ph
