Tests usually contain questions and tasks that require a very short, sometimes alternative answer (“yes” or “no”, “more” or “less”, etc.), a choice of one of the given answers, or answers using a point system. Test tasks are usually diagnostic; their execution and processing do not take much time. At the same time, as world practice has shown, it is very important to see what tests can actually reveal in order not to replace the subject of diagnosis. Thus, many tests that claim to identify the level of development actually reveal only the level of preparedness, awareness or skill of the test takers.

When preparing test tasks, a number of conditions must be observed. First, you need to define and focus on a certain norm, which will allow you to objectively compare the results and achievements of different subjects. This also means that the researcher must accept some scientific concept the phenomenon being studied, focus on it and, from these positions, justify the creation and interpret the results of completing tasks. For example, test-tasks to identify the level of development of knowledge, skills and abilities in certain academic subjects are compiled and applied on the basis of certain ideas about the criteria for assessing the knowledge, skills and abilities of students and the corresponding standards of grades, or can only be designed to compare subjects with each other by success. completing their tasks. Secondly, the subjects must be in the same conditions for performing the task (regardless of time and place), which allows the researcher to objectively evaluate and compare the results obtained.

The norm of each test is determined by the compiler-developer by finding the average indicator corresponding to the results large population people belonging to a certain culture (standardization sample). This indicator is taken as average development of a property revealed by the test that is statistically characteristic of the average person. This could be, for example, age norm intellectual development or any personal characteristics. This indicator is determined empirically and taken as a starting point. The results of each subject are compared with the norm and evaluated accordingly: each test is accompanied by a method for processing the data and interpreting the results. For example, in a test to determine character accentuation (K. Leonhardt), the test taker can score a maximum of 24 points for each type of accentuation; a sign of strong expression (accentuation) is considered to be an indicator exceeding 12 points (the researcher himself, based on accumulated experience, can further clarify the characteristics of the measure of the expression of a property with indicators up to 24 points).

Tests focused on determining average statistical norms and accepting them as evaluation and integration criteria allow for normatively oriented testing (NORT). Such normative evaluative actions are often used in pedagogical practice. For example, there are criteria for assessing knowledge, abilities and skills and standards for grades in certain academic subjects, educational tasks of a test nature are used in different subjects with established standards for marking. NORT can be carried out using many tests (Raven's test, Cattell's test, level diagnostic technique subjective control etc.).

There are many cases when it is important to take into account changes in the performance of the same subject over a certain period of time, for example, before the start of training and after completing training in some educational material. This allows us to record the capabilities of the subject, and periodic diagnostics and comparison of his indicators with previous ones allows us to identify the pace and direction of development of the property being studied. In such cases, interpretation of test results is carried out from the perspective of selected criteria, showing the features of the test subject’s progress in mastering the content educational material and the development of certain mental qualities. Many intellectual tests, achievement tests, etc. allow you to use them in the above sense. The test norm in such cases is individual.

It is also possible that the test norm is determined on the basis of content, based on an analysis of the logical and psychological structure of the task material, when the success of the test is interpreted in terms of the qualitative characteristics of the property being studied. Such qualitative characteristics act as criteria for assessing the test taker’s achievements, and the testing itself becomes criterion-oriented. Criteria-based testing (KORT) allows you to quite successfully combine testing, interpretation of the result and correction of the course of learning (formation). Let us remind you once again that the results of completing tasks in KORT correlate with quality characteristics content of the task (test), and not with some average statistical level of success in its completion, as in NORT.

An example is the use of the “ARP Methodology” and the corresponding block of techniques proposed by one of the authors of this manual. Completing this block allows you to determine the level of development of the subject's thinking - a school student, which can be empirical, analytical, planning and reflective. Since the formation of one or another level of development of thinking is a prerequisite for the possible formation in the future of the next level of development, there is therefore the possibility of: 1) accepting these levels as criteria for assessing the property under study; 2) accepting the next level beyond the established level as the direction for the subsequent development of thinking and determining the immediate zone of development of the student’s thinking; 3) compiling an adequate set of exercises one at a time or in a series educational subjects, the implementation of which should lead to the student achieving the appropriate level of development of thinking1.

There are certain rules carrying out testing and interpreting the results obtained. These rules are quite clearly developed, and the main ones have the following meaning: 1)

informing the subject about the purposes of testing; 2)

familiarizing the subject with the instructions for performing test tasks and achieving the researcher’s confidence that the instructions are understood correctly; 3)

ensuring a situation of calm and self-execution tasks by subjects; conservation neutral attitude to test takers, avoiding hints and help; 4)

compliance by the researcher with the methodological instructions for processing the data obtained and interpreting the results that accompany each test or corresponding task; 5)

preventing the dissemination of psychodiagnostic information obtained as a result of testing, ensuring its confidentiality; 6)

familiarizing the subject with the test results, providing him or the responsible person with the relevant information, taking into account the principle “Do no harm!”; in this case, there is a need to solve a series of ethical and moral problems; 7)

accumulation by the researcher of information obtained by others research methods and methods, their correlation with each other and determination of consistency between them; enriching your experience with the test and knowledge about the features of its application.

As already noted, each test is accompanied by specific instructions and methodological instructions on processing and interpretation of the received data.

There are also several types of tests, each of which is accompanied by corresponding testing procedures.

Ability tests allow you to identify and measure the level of development of certain mental functions, cognitive processes.

Such tests are most often associated with diagnostics cognitive sphere personality, thinking characteristics and are usually also called intellectual. These include, for example, the Raven test, the Amthauer test, the corresponding subtests of the Wechsler test, etc., as well as task tests for generalization, classification and many other tests of a research nature.

Achievement tests are aimed at identifying the level of formation of specific knowledge, skills and abilities and as a measure

1 See: Atakhanov R.A. Mathematical thinking and methods for determining the level of its development // Scientific. ed. V.V. Davydova. - Riga, 2000.

success of implementation, and as a measure of readiness to perform some activity. All test cases can serve as examples. examination tests. In practice, “batteries” of achievement tests are usually used.

Personality tests are designed to identify the personality traits of subjects. They are numerous and varied: there are questionnaires of states and emotional makeup of the individual (for example, tests of anxiety), questionnaires of motivation for activity and preferences, determinations of personality traits and relationships.

There is a group of tests called projective, which allow us to identify attitudes, unconscious needs and impulses, anxieties and a state of fear. The subject is offered various stimulus materials such as plot-undefined pictures, unfinished sentences, plot drawings with conflict situations and others with a request to interpret them. The mechanism for performing such tasks is manifested in the fact that the subject in some way arranges the elements of the stimulus material and gives them a subjective meaning that reflects his personal experience and experiences. In other words, projective tests are based on the recognition of the existence of a mechanism for “designing” a person’s own inner world to the external, when he involuntarily attributes to other people those of his drives, needs and desires that are normally suppressed. This means that projective tests allow us to diagnose a person’s unconscious experiences with a sufficient degree of objectivity. Such tests are the thematic apperception test, the " inkblots» Rorschach, the widely used frustration test of Rosenzweig, etc. Graphic projective techniques, where the researcher puts the subject in a situation of projecting his state, personality traits and relationships onto reality by depicting a house, tree, family, person, non-existent animal and its interpretation. For example, the test " Constructive drawing person from geometric shapes“reveals individual typological differences by analyzing a person’s drawing made up of ten figures (triangles, squares and circles, and their combination can be any): the subject may turn out to belong to the type of “leaders”, “anxious-suspicious individuals”, etc. .

The use of tests is always associated with measuring the manifestation of one or another psychological property and assessing the level of its development or formation. That's why important has test quality. The quality of a test is characterized by the criteria of its accuracy, i.e. reliability and validity.

The reliability of a test is determined by how stable the results obtained are and how independent they are of random factors. Of course we're talking about about comparing the testimony of the same subjects. This means that a reliable test must have consistent test performance across multiple tests and can be confident that the test is detecting the same property. Apply different ways testing the reliability of tests. One way is the retesting just mentioned: if the results of the first and after certain time repeated testing will show the presence of a sufficient level of correlation, this will indicate the reliability of the test. The second method is associated with the use of another equivalent form of the test and the presence of a high correlation between them (some tests are offered to users in two forms; for example, the Eysenck EPI questionnaire - by definition of temperament - has equivalent forms A and B). It is also possible to use a third method of assessing reliability, when the test allows it to be split into two parts and the same group of subjects is examined using both parts of the test. Test reliability shows how stable the test results can be, how accurately psychological parameters are measured, and how high the researcher’s confidence in the results obtained can be.

Test validity answers the question of what exactly the test reveals and how suitable it is for identifying what it is intended to do. For example, ability tests often reveal something different: training, the presence of relevant experience or, conversely, the lack thereof. In this case, the test does not meet the validity requirements.

In psychodiagnostics there are different types validity. In the simplest case, the validity of a test is usually determined by comparing the indicators obtained as a result of testing with expert assessments about the presence of this property in the subjects (current validity or “simultaneous” validity), as well as by analyzing data obtained as a result of observing the subjects in various situations. life and work, and their achievements in the relevant field. The question of the validity of a test can also be resolved by comparing its data with indicators obtained using a technique associated with a given technique, the validity of which is considered established.

Starting the story about testing, we will start with the most important thing - with the definition of the concept “test”. In a general scientific sense, a test (from the English test - experience, trial) is a short-term standardized test aimed at obtaining in a relatively short period of time the most significant information about the characteristics of a given specific object in order to establish the presence or degree of expression of a certain mental property (traits). , characteristics) or qualities, as well as the totality of mental properties of an individual or mental states (relationships, mutual perceptions) of groups and collectives. The test allows, with a predetermined degree of probability, to determine a person’s existing given time level of knowledge, relatively stable personal properties, behavioral traits, as well as obtain qualitative and quantitative assessments of the measured characteristics.

The concept of testing as a method of assessing and measuring personality traits is based on the following general premises:
1. Internal (psychological) personality properties are identified using indicators - indicators or external behavioral characteristics (answers to questions, decision results various kinds tasks, etc.) through which the structures and properties of personality are manifested.
2. These indicators have an expression that can be observed and measured using special procedures.
3. Between an external (behavioral) trait and internal property personality there is an unambiguous causal relationship:
an observable action or reaction of a person is generated by a certain personal property and only by it.
4. The traits measured by tests and, accordingly, the results obtained are distributed among a large population of people quite evenly. This means that the test must not only evaluate a specific individual, but also be applicable to a large population of people.

The last requirement is reflected in the concept of “test norm”, which means “ intermediate level development of a large population of people similar to a given subject in a number of socio-demographic characteristics”3. In other words, the test norm is the average level of distribution of characteristics identified with its help in large group people for which it claims to be applicable. In most cases, the test norm is determined by averaging the test results large sample people of the same gender, approximately the same age and differentiation of the results obtained according to the most important indicators. The test norm reflects its representativeness or property sample population people (a group or a number of groups, based on an analysis of whose qualities the test was developed) represent general population all persons with similar typological characteristics. Representativeness allows you to classify test results and serves as an indicator of the quality of the test methodology.

Another criterion for the quality of a test, closely related to representativeness, is its adaptability - the ability to take into account national (including social) and regional characteristics. The authors take the material necessary for constructing tests from the historically established culture of a social community close to them. Tests that are “culture-free”, which means that the material is equally understandable to individuals from different social communities, cannot be created - this is an unavoidable property of test programs. When using tests developed in a different socio-cultural environment, the norms, validity, reliability of the tests, as well as their applicability in general, need to be checked and re-evaluated. The problem of adaptation manifested itself especially acutely in recent years, when Western test methods and Russian specialists in the field of personnel management rushed to apply them, sometimes without thinking about the need to make certain adjustments.

Due to the actual ban on the use of tests that existed in the USSR (after the well-known resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1936 “On pedological perversions in the Narkompros system”), Russian personnel management is an amateur in this area. Many are literally fascinated by the magic of “branded” Latin letters, abbreviations denoting “classical” techniques, such as MMPI ( personality questionnaire, developed at the University of Minnesota), on the basis of which it is proposed to obtain detailed opinions about the company’s employees or candidates for available vacancies. Undoubtedly, the above-mentioned test occupies a leading (in popularity) position in world psychology. However, we must not forget the fact that it was developed specifically for patients in psychiatric clinics (!) and is widely used in the practice of psychoanalysis. When taking normal healthy people This test has not been used in American companies in recent years! Persons who have undergone such testing have already won many lawsuits in court, and companies have had to pay substantial fines for causing moral damage.

Generally Western personality tests, including those more suitable for the hiring situation (“16 personal factors"Cattell-16PF, California Personality Inventory - CPI, Eysenck Questionnaire - EPI, Myers-Briggs Test, based on Jung's typology), for correct application in Russia, they need serious improvement (“cultural and psychometric adaptation”). Unadapted, without making significant amendments, the use of these and similar tests in modern, Russian conditions clearly unlawful, if only because in our country working conditions, remuneration, and traditions of labor consciousness are in many ways different from Western ones. Not all tests have been adapted, let alone “pirated” versions of Western tests. As a rule, unadapted versions are used by amateurs in the field of psychometrics, who naively believe that it is enough to simply translate test tasks into Russian and the test will work. In fact, the work on adapting test methods should include recalculating not only the so-called test norms, but also the keys to test tasks (items).

In order for tests to be fit for purpose and to adequately identify and measure certain qualities sufficiently accurately, they must also meet criteria such as objectivity, validity, reliability and scientific validity. Objectivity means that test results must be intersubjective, i.e. independent of who conducts the test. Validity (from the English valid - valid, suitable) is the suitability of a test for measuring exactly the quality that it is aimed at assessing. So, for example, if a test is used to assess a person's level of knowledge in the field of personnel management, it should measure precisely this knowledge and not, for example, general erudition or knowledge in economics. There are at least three conditions for justifying validity: criterion-related validity (requiring demonstration of a correlation or other statistical relationship between test scores and job demands); content validity (requiring demonstration that the test content represents performance-relevant behavioral traits); construct validity (requiring demonstration that the test measures the construct or characteristic it is intended to measure and that this characteristic is important for performance success).

Reliability reflects the degree of accuracy and consistency with which personality quality is measured and characterizes the freedom of the testing procedure from errors. Accuracy is reflected in the level of agreement between results this test with indicators of other tests used for the same purpose, constancy - in the stability, stability of results when re-evaluating the same group of test takers. At the same time, experts note that there are several reasons why an individual taking the test again does not receive similar scores. These include: temporary psychological or physical changes state of the person being tested; environmental factors (room temperature, lighting, noise level, or even the personality of the person conducting the test); test form (many tests have different shapes or version - on paper, electronically, orally), etc. An indicator of the reliability of a test is the extent to which the test's scoring domain is not influenced by specified factors.

The reliability of a test is determined by its coefficient, which can range from 0 to 1. It is usually said that if the reliability of a test is 0.9 or more, then its results are excellent; a test with a reliability of 0.8-0.89 gives good results, a test with a reliability of 0.7-0.79 gives adequate results, a test with a reliability of less than 0.7 has limited applicability. The acceptable level of reliability will vary depending on the type of test and the reliability measure used. The following are the main types of reliability of test procedures:
♦ test-retest reliability indicates the possibility of obtaining the same test results over time;
♦ reliability of the alternative, or parallel, form: this means that the test results are similar if the individual chooses one or more of its alternative forms;
♦ interrater reliability indicates that the test results are similar when administered by two or more raters;
♦ Internal consistency reliability indicates the extent to which a test measures the same thing.

Reliability and validity of a test are interrelated. At the same time, distinctions should be made between them: reliability refers to how true the results are given by the test, validity - how good the test is for a particular situation. Thus, a test can be reliable without being valid. It may be invalid for various purposes: for example, adequately demonstrating technical skills, but being useless in determining leadership qualities. Similarly, the validity of a test is based on specific groups of individuals (so-called reference groups); it is quite possible that the target group may not be among the latter. In general, the validity of a test can be either equal to ( perfect case), or less reliable.

Scientificity is the validity of the test fundamental research, its conceptual meaning. Scientific justification is especially necessary when referring to a battery of tests - a series of tests designed to evaluate a complex of human qualities, indicating his professional suitability and expected work success - which is widely used in personnel selection.

The scale of use of the testing procedure in personnel management is explained, in our opinion, by a number of its advantages:
♦ objectivity of the assessment (testing results practically do not depend on the subjective approach of the tester; moreover, they can be assessed not only qualitatively, but also quantitatively);
♦ efficiency of assessment (the testing procedure itself takes relatively little time, at the same time, with its help it is possible to short term collect the required information about large quantities people);
♦ simplicity and accessibility of testing (in personnel management, standardized tests are used, which contain a description of the procedure for conducting them and evaluating the results; after professional testing they can be used wide circle managers, as well as personnel service employees);
♦ suitability of test results for computer processing and use statistical methods assessments;
♦ great heuristic evaluation capabilities;
♦ specificity and direct practical orientation (tests allow you to obtain information about certain properties personality and its behavior, and not about a person in general).

At the same time, like any other HR management tools, the testing method has its limitations and subtleties that you need to know in the process of its application:
♦ there is a serious problem of establishing an unambiguous cause-and-effect relationship between the identified test questions (tasks) and the personality traits that determine one’s professional success: when developing tests, it is not always possible to unambiguously “translate” test tasks (trait indicators) into specific personality traits, and the latter - factors of labor achievements;
♦ test results are usually assessed only for current ones, i.e. existing in at the moment, quality; at the same time, most personality characteristics and behavior are subject to changes, sometimes quite dynamic;
♦ qualified use of tests requires appropriate psychodiagnostic and ethical training of the tester;
♦ the use of tests can cause fear in subjects, which distorts the test results;
♦ public announcement of test results can hurt the self-esteem of outsiders, compromise them in the eyes of others and thereby complicate relationships in the team.

There is a strictly mathematized experimental science- testology, little known in our country, which allows us to clearly establish which test can be considered good and which can be considered bad. In developed countries, all professional and psychological tests undergo certification - independent examination. In some cases, the conducting specialists are united in a national psychological association, in others - in a specialized testological association. Unfortunately, in Russia this practice is still in its infancy.

Tests can only be useful if they are used correctly by trained specialists. General testing rules help to avoid problems and obtain objective results, which include the following:
♦ any complex testing should be carried out with the participation of a psychodiagnostic specialist or with his subsequent participation as a consultant;
♦ a person cannot be subjected to psychological examination fraudulently or against his will, no forms of direct or indirect coercion are acceptable;
♦ before testing, the subject must be warned that during the study he may unwittingly communicate information about himself, his thoughts and feelings that he is not aware of;
♦ any person (except for cases specified by law) has the right to know the results of his testing; the final data in an understandable form is provided to the subjects by the person who conducted the survey; familiarization with the test results should exclude their misinterpretation or the emergence of any concerns among the subjects;
♦ test results should not traumatize the subject or reduce his self-esteem, therefore they should be communicated in an encouraging manner, if possible accompanied by constructive recommendations;
♦ the subject must be informed about the purposes of testing and the forms of use of its results;
♦ the tester must ensure an impartial approach to the procedure and results of the study;
♦ information about test results should be provided only to those for whom it is intended; the tester is obliged to ensure the confidentiality of psychodiagnostic information received from the subject on the basis of “personal trust” or in sociometric tests.

In addition to the above rules that ensure the effectiveness of the testing procedure, special requirements are also presented to the tester. It is well known that the effectiveness of testing largely depends not only on relevant knowledge, but also on personal qualities the person conducting it. Important qualities for professional testing are: sociability and communication skills; dynamism and flexibility of behavior; emotional restraint and tolerance; professional tact (the basis of which is primarily the observance of professional secrecy and delicacy); the ability to maintain one’s line of behavior; empathy (i.e. the willingness and ability to empathize with the feelings and experiences of other people and thereby emotionally understand them); the ability to attract other people to active cooperation, joint analysis and problem solving, as well as conflict management literacy. In the process of preparing and conducting testing, four main stages can be distinguished, taking into account the features of which largely determines the success of using this method:
♦ selection of test methods (familiarization with the methods and their verification for compliance with the objectives of the study and ease of use);
♦ instructing test subjects (explaining to them the goals and objectives of testing, the procedure for performing test tasks and behavior during their implementation);
♦ control over the completion of tasks;
♦ interpretation of results and summing up testing.

Another indispensable condition for testing effectiveness is taking into account the features various types tests. On the subject of the study, three classes of tests can be distinguished: a) general personality tests, with the help of which a certain integrity of the mental properties of the individual is recorded (one of the directions modern psychology personalities - differential psychology- relies entirely on the use of psychodiagnostic techniques); b) personal - special tests, intended for diagnosing one or another special trait, characteristic, property of the subject (for example, creativity, level of general responsibility, self-control, etc.); c) group, intended for the diagnosis of group mental processes - the level of cohesion of groups and teams, characteristics of the group psychological climate, interpersonal perception, the forces of normative “pressure” of the group on its members, etc.

The general features of psychological tests are determined by the subject of study and the specifics of the technique used. From the point of view of technical techniques, four types of tests are usually distinguished: a) so-called objective, mainly instrumental, often psychophysiological tests (for example, measuring the galvanic skin reflex, which serves as an indicator of the emotional state); b) survey techniques or subjective tests, such as, for example, the general personality tests of G. Eysenck and R. Cattell (these tests consist of a series of mutually controlling judgments about various manifestations personality traits with a proposal to the subject to record the presence or absence of a given property, trait, or behavior); c) “pencil and paper” tests, for example, for diagnosing attention - crossing out certain letters in the text (“proofreading test” - see Appendix 1) or drawing the optimal way out of the maze (assessment of certain properties of intelligence), etc. .; d) tests based on expert assessment behavioral manifestations of subjects, for example, the “GOL” technique, a group personality assessment, which was actively used by Soviet psychologists.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

knowledge test task

One way to quickly test knowledge is testing. However, currently, due to the development information technology, distance learning and in particular adaptive learning systems, testing can be used as a means of identifying a student’s personality to build an individual learning sequence, when each student takes training courses in the order and volume that best suits his or her level of preparedness. In distance learning technology, in the absence of direct contact between the student and the teacher, testing becomes one of the main means of monitoring knowledge, so the problem of creating high-quality tests that could quickly, objectively and adequately measure the level of knowledge of students is especially acute.

Three types of testing can be distinguished:

· preliminary;

· current;

· final.

Preliminary testing is used before the start of training and is aimed at identifying the student’s preliminary knowledge in a number of disciplines that he will study. This may also include psychological tests to determine the individual characteristics of the student’s personality, which are taken into account during training to tune in to work with a specific student. Based on the results of the preliminary testing, a preliminary sequence of study courses is constructed.

Current testing is control or self-control of knowledge on a separate element training course, for example, a section or topic. Based on its results, a sequence of studying topics and sections within the course is built, and a return can be made to topics that have not been studied well enough.

Final testing is a control of knowledge for the course as a whole or for a set of courses. Based on its results, the sequence of study courses is adjusted.

When working with tests, you should always consider the reliability of test results. Under reliability test results is understood as a characteristic showing the accuracy of knowledge measurement by test items. It should be noted that we are not talking about the reliability of the test, but about the reliability of the test results, because it is strongly influenced by the degree of homogeneity various groups students, their level of preparedness and a number of other factors related not to the test itself, but to the conditions of the testing process.

1. Classification of tests, testing methods, advantages and disadvantages of testing student knowledge

1.1 Testing as a research method

Testing(English test - test, check) - experimental method psychodiagnostics used in empirical sociological research, as well as a method for measuring and evaluating various psychological qualities and states of the individual.

The emergence of testological procedures was due to the need for comparison (comparison, differentiation and ranking) of individuals according to the level of development or degree of expression of various psychological qualities.

The wide dissemination, development and improvement of tests has been facilitated by a number of advantages that this method provides. Tests allow you to evaluate an individual in accordance with the stated purpose of the study; provide the opportunity to receive quantification based on quantification of qualitative personality parameters and ease of mathematical processing; are a relatively quick way to assess large number unknown persons; contribute to the objectivity of assessments that do not depend on the subjective attitudes of the person conducting the research; ensure comparability of information obtained by different researchers on different subjects.

The tests have the following requirements:

Strict formalization of all stages of testing;

Standardization of tasks and conditions for their implementation;

Quantification of the results obtained and their structuring according to a given program;

Interpretation of results based on a previously obtained distribution for the characteristic being studied.

Each test that meets the reliability criteria, in addition to a set of tasks, includes the following components:

1) standard instructions for the subject about the purpose and rules for completing tasks;

2) scaling key - correlation of task items with scales of measured qualities, indicating which task item belongs to which scale;

4) the key for interpreting the resulting index, which represents the norm data with which the obtained result is correlated.

Traditionally, the norm in testing was the average statistical data obtained as a result of preliminary testing on a certain group of people. Here it is necessary to take into account that the interpretation of the results obtained can only be transferred to such groups of subjects that, in their basic sociocultural and demographic characteristics, are similar to the base one.

To overcome the main drawback of most tests, various techniques are used:

1) increasing the base sample in order to increase its representativeness in more parameters;

2) introduction of correction factors taking into account the characteristics of the sample;

3) introduction into the practice of testing a non-verbal method of presenting material.

The test consists of two parts:

a) stimulating material (task, instruction or question);

b) instructions regarding recording or integration of responses received.

Tests are classified according to different criteria.

Based on the type of personality traits, they are divided into achievement and personality tests. The first include intelligence tests, school performance tests, creativity tests, aptitude tests, sensory and motor tests. The second includes tests for attitudes, interests, temperament, characterological tests, motivational tests. However, not all tests (for example, development tests, graphics tests) can be organized by this characteristic. Depending on the type of instructions and method of application, individual and group tests differ. In group testing, a group of subjects is examined simultaneously. While there are no time limits in level tests, they are required in speed tests. Depending on the extent to which the researcher’s subjectivity is manifested as a result of testing, a distinction is made between objective and subjective tests.

Objective tests include most achievement tests and psychophysiological tests. Subjective tests include projective tests. This is the division in to a certain extent coincides with the division into direct and indirect tests, which differ depending on whether the subjects know or do not know the meaning and purpose of the test.

According to their formal structure, tests are differentiated into simple ones, i.e. elementary, the result of which can be a single answer, and complex tests, consisting of separate subtests, for each of which a score must be given. In this case, they can also be calculated general grades. A set of several single tests is called a test battery, graphic image results for each subtest - test profile. Quite often, tests include questionnaires that satisfy a number of requirements usually applied to this method collecting psychological or sociological information.

IN lately Criterion-based tests are becoming increasingly widespread, allowing the test subject to be assessed not in comparison with the average statistical data of the population, but in relation to a predetermined norm. The evaluation criterion in such tests is the degree to which an individual’s test result approaches the so-called “ideal norm”.

Test development consists of four stages.

1) at the first stage, the initial concept is developed with the formulation of the main test points or main questions of a preliminary nature;

2) at the second stage, preliminary test items are selected, followed by selection and reduction to the final form, and at the same time assessment is carried out according to qualitative criteria of reliability and validity;

3) at the third stage, the test is retested on the same population;

4) on the fourth, it is calibrated in relation to age, level of education and other characteristics of the population.

At all stages of test development, it is necessary to consider:

a) a diagnosed personality property (size, position, indicator) or only its observable manifestations (abilities, level of knowledge, temperament, interests, attitudes);

b) associated method validation, i.e. determining how well it measures the required property;

c) the size of the sample from the population on which the method should be evaluated;

d) stimulating material (placards, images, toys, films);

e) the influence of the researcher in the process of instructing, setting tasks, explaining, answering questions;

f) the conditions of the situation;

g) such forms of behavior of the subject that indicate the property being measured;

h) scaling relevant forms behavior;

i) consolidation of results for individual measured items into general values(summing answers like “Yes”);

j) formulation of results in a standardized rating scale.

One of the test options may be a questionnaire, but provided that it meets the requirements for tests.

A questionnaire is a collection of questions that are selected and arranged in relation to each other in accordance with the required content. Questionnaires are used, for example, for psychodiagnostic purposes, when the subject is required to self-assess his behavior, habits, opinions, etc. In this case, the subject, answering questions, expresses his positive and negative preferences. With the help of questionnaires, you can measure the subjects’ assessments of other people. The task usually acts as a direct response to questions that need to be answered by regret or refutation. Opportunities for an answer are in most cases given and require only a mark in the form of a cross, circle, etc. The disadvantage of the questionnaire is that the subject can simulate or dissimulate certain personality traits. The researcher can overcome this disadvantage (although not completely) by test questions, control scales, “lie” scales. Questionnaires are used primarily for diagnosing character, diagnosing personality (extraversion - introversion, interests, attitudes, motives).

Personality diagnostics is a set of methods that make it possible to recognize its non-intellectual properties, which are of the nature of relatively stable dispositions.

On modern stage V applied sociology The most commonly used test methods are those borrowed from social psychology concerning the study of personality traits. Tests specially developed by sociologists appear. These tests are often used in sociological questionnaires.

1.2 Advantages and disadvantagestestechnical testing of students' knowledge

In the system higher education the use of testing students' knowledge has its prerequisites. Therefore, testing has both advantages and disadvantages, which will be discussed below.

The following can be noted as advantages:

1. Testing is a better and more objective way of assessment. For distance learning in conditions of extremely limited number of classroom hours, testing is often the only opportunity to form a sufficient objective assessment students' knowledge.

2. Testing is a fairer method, it puts all students in equal conditions, both in the control process and in the evaluation process, excluding the subjectivity of the teacher.

3. Tests are a more comprehensive tool, since they allow you to establish the student’s level of knowledge on the subject as a whole than when performing a test.

4. Testing significantly saves the teacher’s time allocated to monitoring students’ knowledge, compared to verification and defense tests correspondence students. This is due to the fact that a group of students is tested simultaneously.

However, testing also has some disadvantages:

1. Strict time restrictions applied when performing test tasks exclude the possibility of determining the structure and level of preparedness of those test takers who, due to their psychophysiological characteristics, think and do everything slowly, but at the same time efficiently.

2. The data obtained by the teacher as a result of testing, although it includes information about knowledge gaps in specific sections, does not allow us to judge the reasons for these gaps.

3. Ensuring the objectivity and fairness of the test requires taking special measures to ensure the confidentiality of test tasks. When reusing the test, it is advisable to make changes to the tasks.

4. There is an element of chance and intuition in testing. The reason for this may be that the student is guessing the answer, so when developing the test it is necessary to anticipate this situation.

2 . Test Models

Let's look at the main testing models.

Classic model. This model is the first and simplest. There are n tasks for a specific area of ​​knowledge, for several areas of knowledge or part of a knowledge area (section, topic, etc.). From this set of tasks, k tasks are randomly selected (k

Dignity:

Ease of implementation.

Flaws:

Due to the randomness of the sample, it is impossible to determine in advance which tasks in terms of complexity will be assigned to the student. As a result, one student may get k easy tasks, and the other - k difficult ones;

The score depends only on the number of correct answers and does not take into account the complexity of the tasks.

The classic model, due to its shortcomings, has the lowest reliability, because Lack of consideration of task parameters often does not allow an objective assessment of the student’s knowledge.

Currently, there is a shift away from the use of this model towards more advanced and effective models, for example, adaptive testing.

Classic model taking into account the complexity of tasks. This testing is carried out similarly to the previous one, however, each task has a certain level of complexity Ti, i= and when calculating the test result, the complexity of the questions to which the student gave the correct answer is taken into account. The higher the complexity of the question, the higher the test result will be. For questions answered incorrectly, the difficulty is not taken into account.

Disadvantage: due to the randomness of the sample, it is impossible to determine in advance which tasks in terms of complexity will be assigned to the student. As a result, one student may be given k easy tasks, and another – k difficult ones.

Models that take into account the complexity of tasks allow a more adequate approach to assessing knowledge. But the randomness of the choice of tasks does not allow us to achieve parallel tests in terms of complexity, i.e. the sameness of the total characteristics of the complexity of tasks, which reduces the reliability of testing.

Model with increasing complexity. There are m difficulty levels. The test must contain tasks of all difficulty levels. From this set of tasks, k tasks are randomly selected (k

The test result is determined similarly to the model taking into account complexity.

This model ensures parallelism of tests in terms of complexity, i.e. The reliability of test results is even higher than in previous models.

Model with division of tasks according to levels of mastery.

There are five levels of mastering educational material.

Zero level (Understanding) is the level at which the learner is able to understand, i.e. comprehend new information meaningfully. In fact, we are talking about the previous training of the student.

The first level (Recognition) is the recognition of studied objects upon repeated perception of previously acquired information about them or actions with them, for example, identifying the studied object from a number of presented objects.

The second level (Reproduction) is the reproduction of previously acquired knowledge from a literal copy to application in typical situations. Examples: reproducing information from memory, solving typical problems using a model.

The third level (Application) is a level of information assimilation at which the learner is able to independently reproduce and transform the acquired information to discuss known objects and apply it in atypical situations. At the same time, the learner is able to generate new information about the objects being studied. Examples: solving atypical problems, choosing a suitable algorithm from a set of previously studied algorithms to solve a specific problem.

The fourth level (Creative activity) is a level of mastery of the educational material of the topic at which the student is able to create new information previously unknown to anyone. Example: developing a new algorithm for solving a problem.

The presentation level is designated a and can range from 0 to 4.

Tasks are compiled for each of the five levels. First, testing is carried out using tasks at level 0, then at levels 1, 2, etc. Before moving from level to level, the degree of mastery of educational material at a given level is calculated and the possibility of moving to the next level is determined.

To measure the degree of mastery of educational material at each level, the following coefficient is used:

where P 1 is the number of correctly performed significant operations during the testing process;

P 2 - the total number of significant operations in the test.

Essential operations are those operations that are performed at the auditable level a. Operations belonging to lower levels are not included in the number of significant ones.

Based on this: 0 ? K b? 1.

Thus, the level of mastery of educational material can be used to assess the quality of the student’s knowledge and assign a grade. The following scoring criteria are recommended:

K b< 0,7 Неудовлетворительно

0.7? K b<0,8Удовлетворительно

0.8? K b<0,9Хорошо

K b? 0.9 Excellent

At K b< 0,7 следует продолжать процесс обучения на том же уровне.

Model taking into account task response time. In this model, when determining the test result, the response time to each task is taken into account. This is done in order to take into account the possibility of a non-independent answer to tasks: a student can search for an answer for a long time in a textbook or other sources, but in the end his grade will still be low, even if he answered all the questions correctly. On the other hand, if he did not use the hints, but thought about the answers for a long time, this means that he did not study the theory well enough, and as a result, even with correct answers, the grade will be reduced.

Response time can be calculated, for example, using formulas.

The result of the answer to the i-th test task:

knowledge test task

If R i > 1, then R i =1.

If R i< 0, то R i =0.

where: tresponse - task response time,

t max is the time during which the rating does not decrease.

t max is set so that the student has the opportunity to read the question and answer options, comprehend them and choose the correct answer, in his opinion. The t max parameter can be set as a constant for all test tasks or calculated for each individual task depending on its complexity, i.e. t 2 max =f(T i), because It is logical to assume that it takes more time to answer a complex task than a simple task. Another possible dependence of the t max parameter is on the individual abilities of the student, which must be determined earlier.

Test result:

Models that take into account item response times can also improve the reliability of test results, especially when combined with a model that takes into account item difficulty.

Model with time limit for testing. To evaluate test results, only those tasks are taken that the student managed to answer during a given time.

Currently, this model is used quite widely.

In some works, it is recommended to necessarily sort tasks in increasing complexity and set a testing time such that not a single student, even the strongest student, can answer all the test tasks. This approach is proposed to be used when testing on forms, when students see all the tasks in front of them at once. Its essence is that when the student answers all the tasks, and he still has time left, he can begin to check his answers, doubt, and in the end he can correct the correct answers to the incorrect ones. Therefore, it is recommended to either limit the time for the test or pick up the form immediately after answering all test questions.

Adaptive model. This model is a continuation of the classical model, taking into account the complexity of tasks.

An adaptive test is a test in which the difficulty of the tasks varies depending on the correctness of the test taker’s answers. If the student answers test tasks correctly, the difficulty of subsequent tasks increases; if incorrectly, it decreases. It is also possible to ask additional questions on topics that the student does not know very well in order to more accurately determine the level of knowledge in these areas. Thus, we can say that the adaptive model is reminiscent of a teacher taking an exam - if the student answers the questions asked confidently and correctly, the teacher quickly gives him a positive mark. If the student begins to “float”, then the teacher asks him additional or guiding questions of the same level of complexity or on the same topic. And finally, if the student answers poorly from the very beginning, the teacher also gives a grade quickly enough, but negative.

This model is used for testing students using a computer, because It is impossible to place as many questions in advance on a paper form and in the order in which they should be presented to the student.

Testing usually begins with tasks of medium complexity, but you can also start with easy tasks, i.e. follow the principle of increasing complexity.

Testing ends when the student reaches a certain constant level of difficulty, for example, answers a certain critical number of questions of the same difficulty level in a row.

Advantages:

1) allows you to more flexibly and accurately measure the knowledge of students;

2) allows you to measure knowledge with fewer tasks than in the classical model;

3) identifies topics that the student knows poorly and allows him to ask a number of additional questions about them.

Flaws:

1) it is not known in advance how many questions need to be asked to the student in order to determine his level of knowledge. If the questions included in the testing system are not enough, you can interrupt the testing and evaluate the result based on the number of questions answered by the student;

2) can only be used on a computer.

The reliability of testing results in this case is the highest, because adaptation is made to the level of knowledge of a particular student, which ensures higher accuracy of measurements.

Possible algorithm for an adaptive testing model. This algorithm is quite simple and allows you to vary only the level of difficulty, without taking into account the statistics of answers to previous questions. At each testing step, for each level of complexity, the student is given two tasks, and based on the results of the answers to them, the level of complexity for the following tasks is determined. This number of tasks (two) allows a more adequate assessment of the level of knowledge than one task, for which the student can guess or accidentally forget the answer, and at the same time does not provide a large number of combinations of answer options, as in the case of three or even more tasks .

Let there be m levels of difficulty. The coefficient k r =100/m is entered.

Let us denote t - the current level of knowledge of the student, t n - the lower level of knowledge, t in - the upper level of knowledge. We will measure all levels of knowledge from 0 to 100 (0 - no knowledge, 100 - absolute knowledge).

1. Set t = 50; tn = 0; t in = 100.

2. Calculate the current difficulty level T=t/k r .

3. Give two tasks of complexity T. Let k pr - the number of correct answers, k pr?.

4. Recalculation of knowledge level:

· if k pr = 2, then t n = t; t in = t in + 0.5t. If t in > 100, then t in = 100;

· if k pr = 1, then t n = t n / 4; t in = t in + 0.1t. If t in > 100, then t in = 100;

· if k pr = 0, then t n = t n / 2; t in = t.

5. If |t-t 1 |<е, то уровень знаний равен t 1 , выход.

6. Go to step (2).

It is established based on the required accuracy of knowledge assessment. However, as e decreases, the number of questions required to be included in the test increases.

Scenario testing model. This model is also a continuation of the classic model. This model is implemented in the Distance Asynchronous Learning system being developed at the Tatar Institute for Business Promotion (TISBI).

A significant disadvantage of the classical model is the non-parallelism of tests for different students, since it is impossible to determine in advance what tasks in terms of complexity and on what topics the student will get. Therefore, during scenario testing, the teacher creates a testing scenario before testing, where he can indicate:

· the number of tasks on each topic that must be included in the test;

· the number of tasks of each difficulty level that must be included in the test;

· the number of tasks of each form that must be included in the test”;

· test time

· and other parameters.

A script can be created for any amount of educational material: section, subject, specialty, etc.

There are four forms of test items:

1. Tasks with choice, which are divided into 3 subgroups: tasks with the choice of one correct answer or single-choice tasks, tasks with the choice of several correct answers or multi-choice tasks, tasks with the choice of the most correct answer.

2. Open tasks.

3. Tasks to establish compliance.

4. Tasks to establish the correct sequence.

Directly during testing, a selection of tasks of each level of complexity, for each topic, each form, etc. is produced randomly from a common base of assignments, so each student receives his own assignments. The resulting tests for all students are parallel, i.e. have the same number of tasks and the same total complexity. But unlike the model with increasing complexity, which also ensures parallelism, here the test developer decides for himself how many and what tasks should be presented for each topic, therefore, absolutely identical testing conditions are provided for all students.

Compared to the adaptive model, this model is less effective, because It is not customized to the individual characteristics of each student, but it has a psychological advantage: when testing using an adaptive model, students answer a different number of questions and seem to be in different conditions. In the case of scenario testing, all students receive the same number of questions on each topic and at each difficulty level.

The reliability of the test results is comparable to the reliability obtained by testing with increasing complexity.

Model based on fuzzy mathematics. The purpose of introducing fuzzy mathematics is an attempt to mathematically formalize fuzzy, qualitative phenomena and objects with blurred boundaries found in the real world. Fuzzy control is particularly useful when the processes being described are too complex to be analyzed using conventional quantitative methods or when available sources of information are interpreted qualitatively, imprecisely, or vaguely. It has been experimentally shown that fuzzy control gives better results compared to those obtained with generally accepted control algorithms. Fuzzy logic, on which fuzzy control is based, is closer in spirit to human thinking and natural languages ​​than traditional logic systems. Fuzzy logic basically provides an efficient means of representing the uncertainties and imprecisions of the real world. The presence of mathematical means of reflecting the vagueness of the initial information allows us to build a model that is adequate to reality.

This testing model is a development of any previous model, in which instead of clear characteristics of test items and answers, their fuzzy analogues are used. Examples include:

Difficulty of the task (“easy”, “average”, “above average”, “difficult”, etc.);

Correctness of the answer (“correct”, “partially correct”, “most likely incorrect”, “incorrect”, etc.);

Response time (“small”, “medium”, “large”, “very long”, etc.);

Percentage of correct answers (“small”, “medium”, “large”, “very large”, etc.);

Final grade;

Introducing fuzzy characteristics can help teachers design tests. For example, a teacher can quickly determine whether a task is difficult or not. But it will be quite difficult for him to say exactly how difficult it is, for example, on a 100-point scale, or to accurately assess the difference in the difficulties of two tasks. From the student’s point of view, there is a fuzzy assessment of his knowledge in the form of “good”, “excellent”, “not very good”, etc. more understandable to him than the clear number of points he scored as a result of testing.

Models can be combined, for example:

A classical model taking into account the complexity of tasks and a model taking into account the response time to a task;

A model with increasing complexity and a model taking into account task response time;

A model with increasing complexity and a model with a time limit for the test;

Model taking into account task response time and adaptive model;

A model taking into account the response time to a task and a model based on fuzzy mathematics;

A model with division of tasks by levels of mastery and a model taking into account the complexity of tasks;

3 . Development of test tasks

3.1 Creation of computer testing

A computer test is a tool designed to measure a student’s learning, consisting of a system of test tasks in electronic form, a certain procedure for conducting, processing and analyzing the results. The computer test is generated programmatically from an electronic bank of test items in accordance with the specification (plan, test passport).

Systematic testing of the knowledge of a large number of people being tested leads to the need to automate knowledge testing, use computer technology and appropriate knowledge testing programs.

Computer testing as an effective way to test knowledge is increasingly used in education. One of its advantages is the minimum time spent on obtaining reliable control results, and obtaining results almost immediately upon completion of the control test. Tests differ from traditional assessments and knowledge control by the objectivity of measuring learning outcomes, since they are guided not by the subjective opinion of teachers, but by objective criteria.

The main requirements for a computer control system are that:

Test questions and answer options must be clear and understandable in content;

The computer test should be easy to use;

There should be so many test questions that the totality of these questions covers all the material that the student must learn;

Questions should be presented to the subject in random order to exclude the possibility of mechanical memorization of their sequence;

Possible answer options should also follow in random order;

It is necessary to keep track of the time spent answering and limit this time.

A test was created to test the knowledge of students of the Faculty of Physics in the specialization discipline “Tolerances, fits and technical measurements.” The survey in the form of testing is conducted for 15 minutes and includes 15 questions that are sequentially presented to the student in an automated manner. During testing, only one test task is displayed on the monitor screen.

Each student is allowed to take the test only once. After 15 minutes, the computer program automatically completes the testing procedure and displays the final result on the monitor screen.

During testing, negotiations between students are not permitted. Questions not related to the content of the educational material should be addressed to the teacher or administrator of the computer class, raising your hand first so as not to distract other test takers during testing.

The presence of training and reference materials during the testing session is not permitted. You are not allowed to leave the computer lab during the testing session.

For computer testing, the “Crab 2” program was used, in which 15 are randomly selected from 50 questions and offered to the student. Each question has 4 possible answers. There can be from one to three correct answers.

Figure 1 - Example of a question with one correct answer

Figure 2 - Example of a question with multiple correct answers

When testing, you are allowed to skip a question, return to a previous question, and complete the test on time. The test result is displayed on the screen when the test is completed. The number of correct, incorrect and missing answers is indicated. Upon completion of the test, you can see all the tasks to which the student gave the wrong answer.

Figure 3 - Test result

3.2 Test tasks

1. Product quality should be considered:

a.throughout the entire “life cycle”;

b. at the manufacturing stage;

c. at the operational stage;

d. there is no right answer

2. A term conventionally used to designate the external elements of parts, including non-cylindrical elements:

a. hole;

b.shaft;

d. hinge.

3. Item size set by measurement:

a. smallest size limit;

b. nominal;

c. limit size;

d.actual size.

Which diagram is shown in the picture below?

b. tolerance fields of main holes and main shafts of different relative accuracy with main deviations;

d.tolerance fields with the same basic deviations and different levels of relative accuracy.

4. Which diagram is shown in the picture presented:

planting patterns in the main hole systems;

b.tolerance fields with different main deviations and levels of relative accuracy;

5. Which diagram is shown in the presented figure:

a. planting patterns in the main hole systems;

b.tolerance fields of main holes and main shafts of different relative accuracy with main deviations;

c. tolerance fields with different main deviations and levels of relative accuracy;

d. tolerance fields with the same basic deviations and different levels of relative accuracy.

6. Which diagram is shown in the presented figure:

planting patterns in the main hole systems;

a. tolerance fields of main holes and main shafts of different relative accuracy with main deviations;

b. tolerance fields with different main deviations and levels of relative accuracy;

c. tolerance fields with the same basic deviations and different levels of relative accuracy.

7. Which calibers provide control over the highest and lowest limit values ​​of parameters:

a.limit;

b. workers;

c. control;

d. normal.

8. Gauges designed to control parts during their manufacturing process:

a. limit;

b.workers;

c. control;

d. normal.

9. Calibers designed to control working calipers:

a. limit;

b. workers;

c.control;

d. normal.

10. Form tolerance is:

a.regulatory restrictions on shape deviation by designated tolerance fields;

b. characteristics of any real surface;

c. straightness of the axes of the surface of rotation;

d. straightness of the cylinder and cone.

11. What types of interchangeability are distinguished:

a.functional;

b. algebraic;

c.geometric;

d. complete.

12. Total deviations of shape and location include:

a.end runout;

b. specified runout;

c.radial runout;

d. normal beat.

13. The plane tolerance symbol looks like:

a.;

14. Symbol for tolerance of the shape of a given surface:

c.;

15. For what accuracy classes are general dimensional tolerances established:

a. last, middle;

b. normal, accurate;

c.accurate, average;

d. rude, very rude.

16. What is the designation of a radial ball bearing:

a.0;

17. What is the designation of a radial spherical ball bearing:

b.1;

18. What is the designation of a radial roller bearing with twisted rollers:

d.5.

19. What is the designation of an angular contact ball bearing:

c.6;

20. The main advantages of threaded connections are:

a. complication of design;

b.easy assembly;

c. high level of product interchangeability;

d. increasing complexity of technology.

21. The main disadvantages of threaded connections are:

a.complication of design;

b. easy assembly;

c. high level of product interchangeability;

d.increasing complexity of technology.

22. For metric threads the following are standardized:

a.thread profile;

b. nominal diameters and pitches;

c. accuracy standards;

d. there is no right answer.

23. Depending on what operating characteristics threaded connections are distinguished:

a.motionless;

b. movable;

c. standard;

d. non-standard.

24. Quality of measurements, reflecting the proximity to zero of systematic errors and their result:

a.correctness of measurements;

b. convergence of measurements;

d. normality of measurements.

25. Quality of measurements, reflecting the closeness to each other of measurement results performed under the same conditions:

a. correctness of measurements;

b.convergence of measurements;

c. reproducibility of measurements;

d. normality of measurements.

26. Quality of measurements, reflecting the closeness to each other of the results of measurements performed under different conditions:

a. correctness of measurements;

b. convergence of measurements;

c.reproducibility of measurements;

d. normality of measurements.

27. What kind of interchangeability does complete interchangeability presuppose the presence of:

a. full;

b.incomplete;

c. initial;

d. final.

28. The maximum size is:

a.two maximum permissible sizes of elements, between which the actual size must lie;

29. The actual size is:

b. the largest allowable element size;

c.element size established by measurement;

d. the size relative to which deviations are determined.

30. Nominal size is:

a. two maximum permissible sizes of elements, between which the actual size must lie;

b. the largest allowable element size;

c. element size established by measurement;

d.the size relative to which deviations are determined.

31. The largest limit size is:

a. two maximum permissible sizes of elements, between which the actual size must lie;

b.the largest allowable element size;

c. element size established by measurement;

d. the size relative to which deviations are determined.

32. The actual deviation is:

a.algebraic difference between real and corresponding nominal sizes;

33. The maximum deviation is:

b.algebraic difference between the limit and the corresponding nominal sizes;

c. algebraic difference between the largest limit and the corresponding nominal size;

d. algebraic difference between the smallest limit and the corresponding nominal sizes.

34. The upper deviation is:

a. algebraic difference between real and corresponding nominal sizes;

b. algebraic difference between the limit and the corresponding nominal sizes;

c.algebraic difference between the largest limit and the corresponding nominal size;

d. algebraic difference between the smallest limit and the corresponding nominal sizes.

35. The lower deviation is:

a. algebraic difference between real and corresponding nominal sizes;

b. algebraic difference between the limit and the corresponding nominal sizes;

c. algebraic difference between the largest limit and the corresponding nominal size;

d.algebraic difference between the smallest limit and the corresponding nominal sizes.

36. The main deviation is:

a.one of two maximum deviations that determines the position of the tolerance field relative to the zero line;

b. algebraic difference between the limit and the corresponding nominal sizes;

c. algebraic difference between the largest limit and the corresponding nominal size;

d. algebraic difference between the smallest limit and the corresponding nominal sizes.

37. Quality is:

c. a set of tolerances considered to correspond to the same level of accuracy for all nominal sizes;

38. Admission is:

a. a field limited by the largest and smallest limit sizes and determined by the tolerance value and its position relative to the nominal size;

b. the difference between the largest and smallest limit sizes or the algebraic difference between the upper and lower deviations;

d. a hole whose lower deviation is zero.

39. The tolerance field is:

a. a field limited by the largest and smallest limit sizes and determined by the tolerance value and its position relative to the nominal size;

b. the difference between the largest and smallest limit sizes or the algebraic difference between the upper and lower deviations;

c. a set of tolerances considered to correspond to the same level of accuracy for all nominal sizes;

d. a hole whose lower deviation is zero.

40. The main hole is:

a. a field limited by the largest and smallest limit sizes and determined by the tolerance value and its position relative to the nominal size;

b. the difference between the largest and smallest limit sizes or the algebraic difference between the upper and lower deviations;

c. a set of tolerances considered to correspond to the same level of accuracy for all nominal sizes;

d.a hole whose lower deviation is zero.

41. The nature of the connection of two parts, determined by the difference in their sizes before assembly:

a. admission;

b.landing;

42. The difference between the dimensions of the hole and the shaft before assembly, if the hole size is larger than the shaft size:

a. admission;

b. landing;

c.gap;

43. The difference between the dimensions of the shaft and the hole before assembly, if the shaft size is larger than the hole size:

a. admission;

b. landing;

d.preload

44. The difference between the largest and smallest limit sizes or the algebraic difference between the upper and lower deviations:

a.admission;

b. landing;

45. The smallest gap is:

a. the difference between the smallest maximum hole size and the largest maximum shaft size in a clearance fit;

46. ​​The largest gap is:

b. the difference between the largest maximum hole size and the smallest maximum shaft size in a clearance fit or in a transition fit;

c. the largest maximum hole size is less than or equal to the smallest maximum shaft size;

47. An interference fit is:

a. the difference between the smallest maximum hole size and the largest maximum shaft size in a clearance fit;

b. the difference between the largest maximum hole size and the smallest maximum shaft size in a clearance fit or in a transition fit;

c.the largest maximum hole size is less than or equal to the smallest maximum shaft size;

d. the difference between the largest limit size of the shaft and the smallest limit size of the hole before assembly in an interference fit or transition fit.

48. The smallest interference is:

a. the difference between the smallest maximum hole size and the largest maximum shaft size in a clearance fit;

b. the difference between the largest maximum hole size and the smallest maximum shaft size in a clearance fit or in a transition fit;

c. the smallest limit size of the hole is less than or equal to the smallest limit size of the shaft;

d. the difference between the smallest limit size of the shaft and the largest limit size of the hole before assembly in an interference fit.

49. The greatest interference is:

a. the difference between the largest limit size of the shaft and the smallest limit size of the hole before assembly in an interference fit or in a transition fit;

b. the largest maximum hole size is less than or equal to the smallest maximum shaft size;

c. the difference between the largest maximum hole size and the smallest maximum shaft size in a clearance fit or in a transition fit;

d. the difference between the smallest limit size of the shaft and the largest limit size of the hole before assembly in an interference fit.

Conclusion

Testing is one of the main types of knowledge testing, both during the admissions committee to a higher education institution and during the learning process. This method of testing knowledge allows you to give an assessment impartially, systematically, objectively and quickly enough, excluding the subjective characteristics of the examiner.

The course work examined the main models of test tasks (classical, adaptive, time-based, complexity-based), their advantages and disadvantages. Computer testing was also developed to test the knowledge of students of the Faculty of Physics on the topics: “Tolerances, fits and technical measurements.”

Test tasks are educational for students, they contribute to the development of interest in the subject and improve the quality of knowledge. Students with different levels of training feel psychologically comfortable when taking the test. Test tasks contribute to the development of thinking, teach students to compare and contrast, analyze and draw conclusions, and plan future activities.

Based on the material in this course work, we can say that the use of tests to test students’ knowledge is a reliable and promising method and can be widely used in the future.

List of sources used

knowledge test task

1. Sociological reference book / ed. V.I. Volovich. - Kyiv, 1990. - 379 p.

2. Sociological dictionary / comp.: A.N. Elsukov, K.V. Shulga. - Mn., 1991. - 528 p.

3. Fund of time and events in the social sphere / ed. V.D. Patrusheva. - M.: Nauka, 1989. - 176 p.

4. Bespalko, V.P. Systematic and methodological support of the educational process of training specialists / V.P. Bespalko, Yu.G. Tatur - M.: “Higher School”, 1989. - 144 p.

6. Glova, V.I. Soft computing and their applications / V.I. Glova, I.V. Anikin, M.A. Ajeli. - Kazan: 2000. - 98 p.

Similar documents

The history of testing. The concept of a test, test tasks. Classification of tests, main forms of testing. Closed and open test tasks. Matching tasks and establishing the correct sequence. Analysis of testing systems.

presentation, added 04/07/2014


Features of organizing knowledge testing. Recommendations for the use of test tasks at different stages of training and in various types of classes, evaluation of their results. Analysis of the role and place of history test tasks in testing students' knowledge and skills.

course work, added 08/30/2010


The importance of testing students' knowledge in biology. Classification of test tasks. Basic forms and methods of testing students' knowledge and skills. Using test tasks for current and final testing. Teaching students how to work with test tasks.

course work, added 03/17/2010


Pedagogical testing in Russia and abroad. Historical background of modern testing in domestic education. Classification of types of pedagogical tests, pre-test tasks and requirements for them. Innovative forms of test tasks.

course work, added 10/28/2008


Use of electronic learning management systems. Formation of a bank of test tasks of all main forms. Matrix of test task results. Index of ease of tasks for the test group. Tools for analyzing the results of system test tasks.

abstract, added 03/31/2011


The purpose and methods of the assessment procedure. Preparation of test and measurement materials for the final certification in technical mechanics. Structuring the task bank. Evaluation of test results. Examination and testing of a bank of test tasks.

thesis, added 05/25/2014


Qualitative expert-oriented methods for assessing students' knowledge and skills. The purpose and main tasks of testing. Main types of test tasks. Test functions and main stages of its development. End-to-end application of the testing method by teachers.

course work, added 12/27/2011


History of testing knowledge and abilities using various tasks. Experience of centralized applicant and rehearsal testing in Russia. Tests in the American education system. Characteristics of test methods used in America.

abstract, added 02/05/2008


Methodological basis for creating test items, their features, classification, quality criteria, examination. Checking the laws of conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and conservation of angular momentum in test tasks.

thesis, added 07/29/2011


Theoretical and methodological foundations of test tasks and its types. Psychological and pedagogical foundations. Tests in mathematics lessons. Analysis of teachers' experience in using test items. Brief description of the advantages of using a test form of control.

Psychological testing is a method of measuring and assessing a person’s psychological characteristics using special techniques. The subject of testing can be any psychological characteristics of a person: mental processes, states, properties, relationships, etc. The basis of psychological testing is psychological test– a standardized test system that allows you to detect and measure qualitative and quantitative individual psychological differences.

Initially, testing was considered as a type of experiment. However, to date, the specificity and independent significance of testing in psychology make it possible to distinguish it from the experiment itself.

The theory and practice of testing are generalized in independent scientific disciplines - psychological diagnostics and testology. Psychological diagnostics is the science of ways to identify and measure individual psychological and individual psychophysiological characteristics of a person. Thus, psychodiagnostics is an experimental psychological section of differential psychology. Testology is the science of developing and constructing tests.

The testing process typically includes three stages:

1) selection of a methodology adequate to the goals and objectives of testing;

2) testing itself, i.e. collecting data in accordance with the instructions;

3) comparison of the obtained data with the “norm” or with each other and making an assessment.

Due to the presence of two ways of assessing the test, two types of psychological diagnosis are distinguished. The first type is to state the presence or absence of any sign. In this case, the data obtained about the individual characteristics of the psyche of the person being tested are correlated with some given criterion. The second type of diagnosis allows you to compare several test takers with each other and find the place of each of them on a certain “axis” depending on the degree of expression of certain qualities. To do this, all subjects are ranked according to the degree of representation of the indicator under study, and high, medium, low, etc. levels of the studied characteristics in a given sample are introduced.

Strictly speaking, a psychological diagnosis is not only the result of comparing empirical data with a test scale or with each other, but also the result of a qualified interpretation, taking into account many factors involved (the mental state of the person being tested, his readiness to perceive tasks and report on his indicators, the testing situation, etc. ).

Psychological tests especially clearly demonstrate the connection between the research method and the methodological views of the psychologist. For example, depending on the preferred theory of personality, the researcher selects the type of personality questionnaire.

The use of tests is an integral feature of modern psychodiagnostics. Several areas of practical use of the results of psychodiagnostics can be distinguished: the field of training and education, the field of professional selection and career guidance, advisory and psychotherapeutic practice, and, finally, the field of expertise - medical, judicial, etc.

The emergence of the testing method, as mentioned above, occurred at the end of the 19th century. based on the development of experimental methods for studying mental phenomena. The ability to quantitatively assess mental phenomena and compare on this basis the results of different subjects with each other led to the rapid development of the testing method. At the same time, knowledge about the individual psychological characteristics of people was accumulated.

The differential psychological study of man was formed not only as a consequence of the development of experimental psychology. Differential psychology “grew up” from the tasks facing medical and pedagogical practice, where there was a great need to differentiate between mentally ill and mentally retarded people.

The development of psychological tests was carried out in many European countries and in the USA. Initially, ordinary laboratory experiments were used as tests, but the meaning of their use was different. These experiments did not study differences in the subject's reactions to different stimuli, but individual differences in the subject's reactions under constant experimental conditions.

In 1905, the first intellectual test corresponding to the modern understanding of tests appeared. By order of the French Ministry of Education, French psychologist A. Binet developed an intelligence test to identify mentally handicapped children who are not able to study in regular schools. In 1907, this test was improved by compatriot A. Binet T. Simon and was called the Binet-Simon mental development scale. The developed scale contained 30 tasks, arranged in order of increasing difficulty. For example, for a three-year-old child it was required: 1) show his eyes, nose, mouth; 2) repeat a sentence up to six words long; 3) repeat two numbers from memory; 4) name the drawn objects; 5) state your last name. If the child solved all the tasks, he was offered tasks of a higher age level. Tasks were considered appropriate for a certain age level if they were performed correctly by the majority (80–90%) of children of a given age.

The Binet–Simon scale in subsequent editions (1908 and 1911) was translated into English and German. In these editions, the age range was expanded to 13 years, the number of tasks was increased, and the concept of mental age was introduced. Mental age was determined by the success of completing test tasks in the following way: first, the child was offered tasks corresponding to his chronological age. If he coped with all the tasks, he was offered tasks of the next older age group. If he did not complete the tasks of his age group, he was offered tasks of the previous younger age group. The basic mental age was considered to be the one for which all tasks were completed by the child. If the child performed, in addition to them, some tasks from the subsequent older age, then several “mental months” were added to his basic mental age.

In 1912, the German psychologist W. Stern introduced the concept of intelligence quotient (IQ) defined as the ratio of mental age to chronological age, expressed as a percentage.

The improvement of A. Binet's scale was continued at Stanford University (USA) under the leadership of the American psychologist L.M. Theremin. In 1916, a new, standardized version of this scale was proposed, which became known as the Stanford–Binet scale. It had two significant differences from previous editions. Firstly, it used the IQ, and secondly, it introduced the concept of a statistical norm. For each age, the most typical mean test score was 100, and the statistical measure of spread, the standard deviation, was 16. Thus, all individual scores between 84 and 116 were considered normal. If the test score was above 116, the child was considered gifted, if below 84, the child was considered mentally retarded. The Stanford-Binet scale subsequently had several more editions (1937, 1960, 1972, 1986). Newly created intelligence tests are still tested for validity by comparison with the results of this scale.

At the beginning of the 20th century. the development of testing was also determined by the demands of industry and the army. Tests were created for selection in various branches of production and the service sector (Münsterberg tests for the professional selection of telephone operators, Friedrich tests for the selection of mechanics, Guth tests for typesetters, etc.), as well as for the distribution of recruits by branch of the military (tests “Army Alpha” and “Army Beta"). This led to the advent of group testing. Subsequently, army tests were used for civilian purposes.

In the first half of the 20th century. A number of techniques have appeared aimed at differential diagnosis of various types of pathology. The German psychiatrist E. Kraepelin continued the work of F. Galton on the technique of free associations. Subsequently, the associative experiment was transformed into the “incomplete sentence method”, which is widely used to this day. In 1921, the Swiss psychiatrist G. Rorschach created the “inkblot test,” which is one of the most popular projective techniques.

In 1935, American psychologists H. Morgan and G. Murray developed the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), which currently has many modifications. At the same time, the theoretical foundations for constructing tests were developed, and methods of mathematical and statistical processing were improved. Correlation and factor analysis appeared (C. Spearman, T.L. Keeley, L.L. Thurston, etc.). This allowed the development of test standardization principles, which made it possible to create consistent test batteries. As a result, methods were proposed based on the factorial principle (R. Cattell's 16PF questionnaire, etc.), and new intelligence tests (1936 - J. Raven's test, 1949 - D. Wechsler's test, 1953 - Amthauer's test ). At the same time, occupational selection tests (GATB battery for the US Army in 1957) and clinical tests (MMPI questionnaire in the 1940s) were improved.

In 1950–1960 There have been important changes in the ideology of testing. If earlier tests were aimed at screening, selecting, typing people into various categories, then in the 1950-1960s. psychodiagnostics addressed the needs and problems of the individual. A huge number of personality questionnaires have appeared, the purpose of which is to in-depth knowledge of the personality and identify its characteristics (questionnaires by G. Eysenck, etc.).

A significant number of special ability and achievement tests have been created in response to requests from industry and education. In the middle of the 20th century, criterion-referenced tests appeared.

Currently, psychologists have more than ten thousand test methods in their arsenal.

One of the most successful classifications was proposed by the American psychologist S. Rosenzweig in 1950. He divided psychodiagnostic methods into three groups: subjective, objective and projective.

Subjective methods, which Rosenzweig included questionnaires and autobiographies, require the subject to observe himself as an object. Objective methods require research through observation of external behavior. Projective methods are based on the analysis of the subject’s reactions to seemingly personality-neutral material.

American psychologist G.W. Allport proposed to distinguish between direct and indirect methods in psychodiagnostics. IN direct methods, conclusions about the properties and relationships of the subject are made based on his conscious report; they correspond to the subjective and objective methods of Rosenzweig. IN indirect methods, conclusions are drawn based on the identifications of the subject; they correspond to the projective methods in the Rosenzweig classification.

In domestic psychology, it is customary to divide all psychodiagnostic methods into two types: methods of a high level of formalization (formalized) and low-formalized methods (M.K. Akimova).

For formalized The methods are characterized by strict regulation of the examination procedure (exact adherence to instructions, strictly defined methods of presenting stimulus material, etc.); they provide norms or other criteria for evaluating results. These techniques make it possible to collect diagnostic information in a relatively short time and to quantitatively and qualitatively compare the results of a large number of subjects.

Slightly formalized techniques provide valuable information about the subject in cases where the phenomena being studied are difficult to objectify (personal meanings, subjective experiences) or are extremely changeable (states, moods). Less formalized methods require high professionalism of the psychologist and a significant investment of time. However, these types of techniques should not be completely opposed, since in general they complement each other.

The entire group of formalized techniques is sometimes called tests. However, in this classification they include four classes of techniques: tests, questionnaires, projective techniques and psychophysiological techniques. Less formalized methods include: observation, conversation, analysis of activity products.

In the context of the topic under consideration, let us turn to the classification of S. Rosenzweig, presented and discussed in detail in the work of V.V. Nikandrova and V.V. Novochadova.

Subjective psychodiagnostic techniques. When using a subjective diagnostic approach, obtaining information is based on the subject’s self-assessment of his behavior and personal characteristics. Accordingly, methods based on the principle of self-assessment are called subjective.

Subjective methods in psychodiagnostics are mainly represented by questionnaires. The Dictionary-Reference Book on Psychodiagnostics states that questionnaires include psychodiagnostic techniques, the tasks of which are presented in the form of questions. However, such a presentation of tasks is only an external sign that unites questionnaires, but is not at all sufficient to classify methods into this group, since tasks of both intellectual and projective tests are formulated in the form of questions.

By procedure for use Questionnaires are moving closer to questionnaires. In both cases, communication between the researcher and the subject is mediated by a questionnaire or survey. The subject himself reads the questions proposed to him and records his answers. Such indirectness makes it possible to conduct mass psychodiagnostic research using questionnaires. At the same time, there are a number of differences that do not allow us to consider questionnaires and questionnaires as synonyms. The determining factor is the difference in focus: unlike questionnaires that perform the function of collecting information of any direction, questionnaires are aimed at identifying personal characteristics, due to which the feature that comes to the fore is not a technological one (obtaining answers to questions), but a target one (measuring personal qualities ). This leads to differences in the specifics of the research procedures of questioning and testing using a questionnaire. Questioning is usually anonymous, testing using a questionnaire is personalized. Questioning, as a rule, is formal; the respondent’s answers do not lead to any immediate consequences; testing is personal. Questioning is more free in the procedure for collecting information, including sending questionnaires by mail; testing usually involves direct contact with the person being tested.

Thus, questionnaire is a test for identifying individual psychological differences based on the self-description of their manifestations by subjects. A questionnaire in the strict sense of the word, it is a set of sequentially asked questions included in a questionnaire or questionnaire during its construction. The questionnaire, therefore, includes instructions to the subject, a list of questions (i.e., a questionnaire), keys for processing the data obtained, and information on interpreting the results.

By construction principle There are questionnaires and questionnaires themselves. TO questionnaires include methods that contain elements of a questionnaire. They are characterized by the inclusion of not only closed, but also open-ended questions. Closed questions are processed using the appropriate keys and scales; the results are supplemented and clarified by information obtained using open questions. Typically, questionnaires include questions to identify socio-demographic indicators: information about gender, age, education, etc. A questionnaire can consist entirely of open-ended questions, and sometimes the number of answers to questions is not limited. In addition, questionnaires usually include methods whose diagnostic subject is weakly related to personal characteristics, even if such methods have formal characteristics of a questionnaire (for example, the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test).

By area of ​​primary application a distinction is made between narrow-profile questionnaires and questionnaires of broad application (broad profile). Narrow profile questionnaires, in turn, are divided according to the area of ​​primary application into clinical, career guidance, educational areas, areas of management and work with personnel, etc. Some questionnaires were created specifically for university and school psychodiagnostics (Phillips School Anxiety Diagnosis Questionnaire), psychodiagnostics in the field of management (questionnaires for self-assessment of business and personal qualities of managers at various levels, identifying the degree of loyalty to the company, etc.). Sometimes narrow-profile questionnaires eventually become questionnaires wide profile. For example, the well-known Minnesota Multidisciplinary Personality Inventory (MMPI) was created as a purely clinical assessment of mental illness. Then, thanks to the creation of a significant number of additional non-clinical scales, it became universal, one of the most commonly used personality questionnaires.

Depending on which category the phenomenon studied with the help of a questionnaire belongs to, state questionnaires and property questionnaires (personality questionnaires) are distinguished. There are also comprehensive questionnaires.

Mental states are situationally determined and measured in minutes, hours, days, very rarely - weeks or months. Therefore, the instructions for the questionnaires states indicate the need to answer questions (or evaluate statements) in accordance with current (rather than typical) experiences, attitudes, and moods. Quite often, state questionnaires are used to assess the effectiveness of corrective interventions when states are diagnosed before and after an intervention session or before and after a series of sessions (for example, the SAN questionnaire, which allows assessing the state according to three parameters: well-being, activity, mood).

Mental properties are more stable phenomena than states. Numerous efforts have been made to identify them. personal questionnaires. Complex The questionnaires combine the characteristics of a state questionnaire and a property questionnaire. In such a case, diagnostic information is more complete, since the condition is diagnosed against a certain background of personal characteristics that facilitate or complicate the occurrence of the condition. For example, the Spielberger-Hanin questionnaire contains a reactive anxiety scale (with the help of which anxiety as a state is diagnosed) and a personal anxiety scale (for the diagnosis of anxiety as a personal property).

Depending on the degree of coverage of properties, personality questionnaires are divided into those implementing the principle of traits and typological ones.

Questionnaires, realizing the principle of traits, are divided into one-dimensional and multidimensional. One-dimensional Personality questionnaires are aimed at identifying the presence or degree of expression of one property. The severity of the property is implied in some range from the minimum to the maximum possible level. Therefore, such questionnaires are often called scales (for example, the J. Taylor anxiety scale). Quite often, scale questionnaires are used for screening purposes, i.e., screening out subjects based on a specific diagnostic characteristic.

Multidimensional personality questionnaires aim to measure more than one trait. The list of identified properties, as a rule, depends on the specific field of application of the questionnaire and the conceptual views of the authors. Thus, E. Shostrom’s questionnaire, created within the framework of humanistic psychology, is aimed at identifying such properties as self-acceptance, spontaneity, self-esteem, self-actualization, the ability to make close contacts, etc. Sometimes multidimensional questionnaires serve as the basis for creating one-dimensional questionnaires. For example, J. Taylor's anxiety scale was created on the basis of one of the scales of the MMPI questionnaire. At the same time, reliability and validity indicators of the original multidimensional questionnaires cannot be automatically transferred to the created one-dimensional questionnaires. In this case, additional assessment of these characteristics of derivative techniques is required.

The number of scales in multidimensional questionnaires has certain limits. Thus, testing with the 16PF questionnaire by R. Cattell, which assesses personality traits according to 16 parameters and contains 187 questions, takes from 30 to 50 minutes. The MMPI questionnaire contains 10 main scales and three control scales. The test taker must answer 566 questions. The time required to work on the questionnaire is 1.5–2 hours and, perhaps, has a maximum duration. As practice shows, a further increase in the number of questions is unproductive, since it leads to an almost exponential increase in the time required for answers, the development of fatigue and monotony, and a decrease in the motivation of the subjects.

Typological questionnaires are created on the basis of identifying personality types - holistic formations that cannot be reduced to a set of individual properties. The description of the type is given through the characteristics of an average or, conversely, a pronounced representative of the type. This characteristic may contain a significant number of personal properties, which are not necessarily strictly limited. And then the purpose of testing will be to identify not individual properties, but the proximity of the person being tested to one or another personality type, which can be done using a questionnaire with a fairly small number of questions.

A striking example of typological questionnaires are the methods of G. Eysenck. His EPI questionnaire, created in 1963 and aimed at identifying introversion-extraversion and neuroticism (affective stability-instability), is widely used. These two personal characteristics are presented in the form of orthogonal axes and a circle, in the sectors of which four personality types are distinguished: extroverted unstable, extroverted stable, introverted stable, introverted unstable. To describe Eysenck's types, he used about 50 multi-level traits that correlate with each other: properties of the nervous system, properties of temperament, character traits. Subsequently, Eysenck proposed comparing these types with the types of temperament according to Hippocrates and I.P. Pavlov, which was implemented when adapting the questionnaire in 1985 by A.G. Shmelev. When creating a method for express diagnostics of the characterological characteristics of adolescents, T.V. Matolin divided the initial personality types according to Eysenck into 32 more detailed types with a description of the ways of psychological and pedagogical influence, which allows the questionnaire to be used in the work of a teacher, school psychologist, and employment service worker.

By assessed personality substructure distinguished: temperament questionnaires, character questionnaires, ability questionnaires, personality orientation questionnaires; mixed questionnaires. Questionnaires for each group can be either typological or non-typological. For example, a temperament questionnaire can be aimed at diagnosing both individual properties of temperament (activity, reactivity, sensitivity, emotional excitability, etc.), and at diagnosing the type of temperament as a whole according to one of the existing typologies.

From diagnostic questionnaires temperament V.M.’s methods have become very popular. Rusalova, Y. Strelyau and a number of others. The questionnaires are designed in such a way that the temperament properties of a particular subject can be judged by his description of his emotional and behavioral reactions in various life situations. Diagnosis of temperament using such questionnaires does not require special equipment, takes relatively little time and can be a massive procedure. The main disadvantage of these tests is that behavioral manifestations attributed to temperament bear the imprint of not only temperament, but also character. Character smoothes out the real manifestations of certain properties of temperament, due to which they appear in a disguised form (the phenomenon of “disguise of temperament”). Therefore, temperament questionnaires provide information not so much about temperament as about the typical forms of a subject’s response in certain situations.

Questionnaires for diagnostics character They can also be either questionnaires of individual traits or questionnaires of character type in general. Examples of a typological approach to character are the X. Shmishek questionnaire, aimed at identifying the type of character accentuation according to the typology of K. Leonhard, and the PDO questionnaire (pathocharacterological diagnostic questionnaire), identifying the type of character accentuation according to the typology of the Russian psychiatrist A.E. Lichko. In the works of the German psychiatrist K. Leonhard one can find the terms “accentuation of character” and “accentuation of personality.” A.E. Lichko believes that it would be more correct to talk about accentuations of character only, because in reality we are talking about characteristics and types of character, and not personality.

Diagnostics abilities using subjective questionnaires is rarely carried out. It is believed that most people are unable to give a reliable assessment of their abilities. Therefore, when assessing abilities, preference is given to objective tests, where the level of development of abilities is determined on the basis of the test subjects’ performance in completing test tasks. However, a number of abilities, the self-assessment of the development of which does not trigger the activation of psychological defense mechanisms, can be successfully measured using subjective tests, for example, communication abilities.

Diagnostics focus personality can be a determination of the type of orientation as a whole or a study of its components, i.e. needs, motives, interests, attitudes, ideals, values, worldview. Of these, fairly large groups of methods include interest questionnaires, motive questionnaires, and values ​​questionnaires.

Finally, if the properties revealed by the questionnaire belong not to one, but to several personality substructures, we speak of mixed questionnaire. These can be adapted foreign questionnaires, where there is no tradition of drawing boundaries between temperament and character, character and personality as a whole. There are also domestic questionnaires created for the purpose of comprehensive diagnostics, for example, the “Character Traits and Temperament” (CHT) questionnaire.

Objective tests. Within the framework of an objective approach, the diagnosis is made on the basis of information about the characteristics of the activity and its effectiveness. These indicators depend minimally on the subject's self-image (as opposed to subjective tests) and on the opinion of the person conducting the testing and interpretation (as opposed to projective tests).

Depending on the subject of testing, there is the following classification of objective tests:

Personality tests;

Intelligence tests (verbal, non-verbal, complex);

Ability tests (general and special;)

Creativity tests;

Achievement tests (action tests, written, oral).

Tests personalities, like personality questionnaires, they are aimed at identifying personal characteristics, however, not on the basis of a self-description of these characteristics by the subject, but through the completion of a series of tasks with a clearly structured, fixed procedure. For example, the masked figure test (EFT) involves the subject searching for simple black and white figures within complex colored figures. The results provide information about a person’s perceptual style, the defining indicator of which the test authors consider “field-dependent” or “field-independent”.

Tests intelligence aimed at assessing the level of intellectual development. With a narrow interpretation of the concept of “intelligence,” methods are used that allow one to evaluate only the mental (mental) characteristics of a person, his mental potential. With a broad understanding of the category “intelligence,” methods are used that make it possible to characterize, in addition to thinking, other cognitive functions (memory, spatial orientation, speech, etc.), as well as attention, imagination, emotional-volitional and motivational components of intelligence.

Both conceptual (verbal-logical) and figurative and visual-effective (objective) thinking are subject to measurement in intelligence tests. In the first case, tasks are usually carried verbal(speech) character and invite the subject to establish logical relationships, identify analogies, make a classification or generalize between different words denoting any objects, phenomena, concepts. Mathematical problems are also used. In the second case, you are asked to complete tasks non-verbal(non-verbal) nature: operations with geometric shapes, folding pictures from separate images, grouping graphic material, etc.

Of course, the dyad “figurative thinking - conceptual thinking” is not the same as the dyad “non-verbal thinking - verbal thinking”, since the word denotes not only concepts, but also images and specific objects, and mental work with objects and images requires reference to concepts , for example, when classifying or summarizing nonverbal material. Nevertheless, in diagnostic practice, verbal methods are often correlated with the study of verbal intelligence, the main component of which is conceptual thinking, and non-verbal methods - with the study of non-verbal intelligence, the basis of which is figurative or substantive thinking.

Considering the above, it would be more correct to talk not about studying the types of thinking or intelligence, but about the types of methods used to study intelligence: verbal - non-verbal methods. The first category includes tests such as “Simple and complex analogies”, “Logical connections”, “Finding patterns”, “Comparison of concepts”, “Elimination of the superfluous” (in the verbal version), and the school test of mental development (SHTUR). Examples of methods of the second category: “Pictograms”, “Classification of pictures”, J. Raven’s “Progressive Matrices” test, etc.

As a rule, in modern intelligence tests, both verbal and nonverbal tasks are combined in one technique, for example, in the tests of A. Binet, R. Amthauer, D. Wechsler. Such tests are complex. The D. Wechsler test (WAIS), one of the most popular, consists of 11 subtests: six verbal and five nonverbal. The tasks of the verbal subtests are aimed at identifying general awareness, intelligibility, ease of handling numerical material, the ability to abstract and classify, the tasks of the non-verbal subtests are aimed at studying sensorimotor coordination, features of visual perception, the ability to organize fragments into a logical whole, etc. Based on the results of completion tasks, intelligence coefficients are calculated: verbal, non-verbal and general.

Intelligence tests are subject to constant criticism, since in most cases it is unclear what they measure: either a person’s actual mental potential, or the degree of training, i.e., his knowledge and skills, which very much depend on the conditions of development and upbringing. This fact even served as the basis for designating test results as test, or psychometric, intelligence. Systematically observed discrepancies between actual achievements in mental activity and test intelligence led to the introduction of the concept of “unfair” tests into psychodiagnostic practice. This “injustice” manifests itself especially sharply when using tests developed for one community (social group, social stratum, nationality, etc.) in examining people of another community, with other cultural traditions, and a different level of education. In psychodiagnostics, attempts are constantly being made to create intelligence tests that are free from the influence of culture (R. Cattell’s culture-free test).

It is generally accepted that classical intelligence tests only measure the level of convergent thinking - non-creative, “cautious” thinking. Another component of intelligence—divergent (creative) thinking—cannot be tested in this way. The resulting coefficients (IQ) do not provide an idea of ​​this side of intelligence, which has led to attempts to develop special methods - creativity tests (see below).

Tests abilities– these are methods aimed at assessing a person’s capabilities in mastering knowledge, skills and abilities of both general and specific nature. In the first case, we are talking about assessing general abilities (sensory, motor, mnemonic, etc.), in the second, about assessing special abilities, usually associated with professional activities (mathematical, musical, artistic, reading speed, etc.) .

Depending on the objectives of the study, aptitude tests are often combined into one battery or another; sometimes they are included in batteries with intelligence tests, for example, for a more complete assessment of a person’s abilities during professional selection and career guidance. The GATB General Ability Test Battery, developed by the American Employment Service in 1956, contains 12 subtests for verbal and mathematical abilities, spatial perception, finger motor skills, hand motor skills, etc. Currently, the GATB battery, through the development of a number of its modifications for individual groups of professions is one of the most widely used in foreign professional diagnostics, in particular in the USA.

A separate type of ability is creative ability. The totality of creative abilities is called creativity. In theoretical terms, a clear line has not been drawn between creativity as a quality of intelligence, as a creative ability and as a personality trait. Therefore, the group of creativity tests includes very diverse methods. The most famous are the tests of J. Guilford and E. Torrance, developed at the turn of the 1950-1960s. The E. Torrance test consists of three subtests that allow one to assess the levels of development of verbal, figurative and auditory creative thinking, and to get an idea of ​​the qualitative uniqueness of these structures of creativity in different people. The tasks require the subject to produce ideas in verbal form, in the form of some drawing or image. Depending on the number and originality of ideas, the level of development of creativity of the subject is judged.

Tests achievements are intended to assess the level of mastery of knowledge, skills and abilities in any specific activity and are used primarily in the areas of training and vocational selection. Tests are classified according to the type of task actions, written and oral tests.

Tests actions identify the degree of ability to perform actions with certain tools, implements, materials, mechanisms, etc., for example, when testing a typist, parts assembler, car driver, etc. Written tests are a system of questions and possible answers on a special form. Sometimes questions are illustrated with pictures accompanying the question. The subject’s task is either to choose the correct verbal answer, or to mark on the graph the display of the situation described in the question, or to find in the picture a detail that gives the correct solution to the corresponding question. Oral tests are systems of oral questions that avoid difficulties arising from the test taker's lack of experience in formulating answers. Achievement tests are used primarily in the fields of education and vocational selection. Recently they have gained immense popularity in the form of various games on radio and television.

Projective tests. Within the framework of the projective diagnostic approach, obtaining information is based on an analysis of the characteristics of the subject’s actions with outwardly neutral, seemingly impersonal material, which, due to its weak structure and uncertainty, becomes an object of projection. Accordingly, techniques based on the use of the projection principle are called projective(projective). The concept of projection to refer to these techniques was first used by the French psychologist L.K. Frank in 1939 and, despite repeated attempts to change their name, it stuck and became generally accepted.

The need to change the name was dictated by the gradual departure in the interpretation of the methods of this group from the ideas of psychoanalysis. Today, the term “projection” in psychology has two meanings; 1) in the psychoanalytic understanding, one of the defense mechanisms through which internal impulses and feelings that are unacceptable to the “I” are attributed to an external object and only then penetrate consciousness (in this sense, the term was first introduced into science by 3. Freud in 1894. ); 2) in a non-psychoanalytical understanding - manifestations of personality outside. Each manifestation of activity (emotional, speech, motor) bears the imprint of the personality as a whole. The less stereotypical the incentives that encourage activity, the brighter the manifestation of personality.

The first description of projection as a natural tendency of people to act under the influence of their needs, interests and the entire mental organization (and defense mechanisms may or may not manifest themselves) belongs to the American psychologist G.A. Murray. The creation of a theoretical concept of projection in a form applicable to personality research led to the rapid development of projective techniques, which currently occupy a prominent position in foreign psychodiagnostic practice.

Testing using projective methods has the following most common features. The techniques use ambiguous, weakly structured stimulus material, allowing for a large number of options for perception and interpretation. It is assumed that the weaker it is structured, the higher the degree of projection: “The subject, absorbed in attempts to interpret seemingly subjectively meaningless material, does not notice how he reveals his worries, fears, desires and anxieties. In this way, resistance to disclosing personal, sometimes very painful problems is significantly reduced.” To overcome the resistance of the test subject, instructions are given to him without disclosing the true goal, and the testing procedure itself is often carried out in a game form. The subject, as a rule, is not limited in the choice of answers, and the answers are not assessed as “correct” or “incorrect”. Due to these features, projective techniques are often used at the initial stages of psychological work with a client or at the beginning of complex psychological personality testing, since they allow establishing contact and arousing interest in the examination. An important advantage of many projective techniques is that the test subjects’ responses do not necessarily have to be given in verbal form (as is the case with questionnaires), which allows them to be used in work with both adults and children.

The classification of projective methods belongs to L.K. Frank. He proposed to distinguish between projective methods depending on the nature of the subject’s reactions. In the modern, updated classification of projective methods, there are constitutive, constructive, interpretative, cathartic, expressive, impressive, additive methods.

Constitutive techniques are characterized by a situation in which the subject is required to create a certain structure from weakly structured, amorphous material, formulate stimuli, and give them meaning. An example of the methods of this group is the G. Rorschach test, the stimulus material of which consists of 10 standard tables with black-and-white and color symmetrical “blots”. The subject is asked to answer the question what, in his opinion, each spot looks like. Depending on the responses of the subject, they judge his experiences, the characteristics of interaction with the environment, the realistic perception of reality, tendencies towards worry and anxiety, etc. G. Rorschach’s test highly satisfies the orientation of projective psychology towards the use of non-stereotypical stimuli. The stimulus material of this test does not impose answers on the test subject, and therefore it is the most commonly used projective technique in foreign psychodiagnostics. An attempt to further develop the principle of weakly structured stimulus material is the “Paintings of Clouds” technique by V. Stern et al., which uses cloud-like stimulus material that, unlike “Rorschach spots,” does not have symmetry and a clear contour. The subject is asked to independently mark the contours and talk about what is shown in the pictures.

Constructive techniques involve design, the creation of a meaningful whole from designed parts. For example, the stimulus material of the “Village” and “Peace Test” methods consists of small objects, the number of which in different versions reaches up to 300. Among them are a school, hospital, city hall, church, shopping shops, trees, cars, figures of people and animals etc. The subject is invited, at his own discretion, to build from these objects a village in which he would like to live, or some space of his existence (in the authors’ terminology, a “small world”). The subject’s approach to constructing the model, the realism of its construction, its proximity to structures characteristic of different contingents, etc. are determined.

Interpretive techniques involve the subject’s interpretation of an event or situation. Examples are thematic apperception test (TAT), word association tests. The TAT stimulus material is a set of 30 black-and-white images that present relatively vague scenes that are susceptible to ambiguous interpretation. The subject is asked to compose a story for each image: what is happening there, what the characters are experiencing, what preceded it, how the situation will end. Based on the subject’s story, an idea is created about his experiences, conscious and unconscious needs, conflicts and ways to resolve them. In word association tests, the stimulus material consists of a list of unrelated words, for each of which the subject must give the first association word that comes to mind as quickly as possible. The nature and reaction time of the responses make it possible to identify the most “emotionally charged” stimulus words for a given subject and to judge the presence of certain problematic topics.

Cathartic methods represent the implementation of gaming activities in specially organized conditions. These include, in particular, the psychodrama of J. (J.) Moreno, considered as a projective technique for studying personality. During the mini-performance, in which the subject (protagonist) plays the role of himself or an imaginary person in situations that are significant to him, his personal characteristics are revealed, and through an affective response in dramatic situations consonant with the experiences of the subject, a therapeutic effect is achieved (catharsis - cleansing and insight - illumination). The technique does not have a standard procedure for implementation, data on validity and reliability, as a result of which it is used as not so much a psychodiagnostic, but a psychotherapeutic technique in group psychotherapy.

IN expressive methods, obtaining information is based on the analysis of the subject’s drawings. Drawings can be on a free or specified topic. Well-known drawing techniques are “Non-existent animal” by M.Z. Drukarevich, “House – Tree – Man” by J. Book, “Drawing of a Family” by V. Hals, “Draw a Person” by K. Makhover, “My Life Path” by I.L. Solomina, “A child's hand that worries” by R. Davido, “Faces and Emotions” by A. Jahez and N. Manshi, multidimensional drawing test by R. Bloch, finger drawing test by R. Shaw, etc. According to D. Harris, the author of one from F. Goodenough's modification of the Drawing of a Person Test, "drawings can reveal much about the affect, temperament, attitude and personality of the person who drew them."

Carrying out drawing tests does not require much time and usually allows for a group form. The main elements of the picture to be analyzed are its size, position on the sheet (top, bottom, center, corner), rotation of the picture to the left or right, pressure (weak, standard, strong), characteristics of the lines (smooth, quivering, intermittent, double) , inclination of the figure, density and area of ​​shading, number and nature of details. As a rule, drawing techniques involve supplementing the drawing with the subject’s story about what is depicted, compiling a story based on the drawing, and questioning the subject using the attached list of questions. The subject’s behavior during the task, his statements, vegetative manifestations, and the duration of work on the drawing are also analyzed. To increase the reliability of interpretation, it is advisable to carry out drawing techniques in combination with other tests, supplementing them with the results of conversation and observation.

Impressive techniques imply preference for some stimuli (as the most desirable) over others. The subject finds himself in a situation where it is necessary either to select the most preferred stimuli or to rank stimuli according to degree of preference. For example, in L. Szondi’s test, the subject is presented with 48 portraits of mentally ill people, divided into six series, with instructions to select the two most and least liked portraits in each series. Depending on the preferences of the subject, the most significant “diagnostic areas” for him are judged.

A separate subgroup of impressive tests consists of color choice tests (color relationship test by A.M. Etkind, color metaphor test by I.L. Solomin, color pyramid test by M. Pfister and R. Heiss, “Paired comparisons” by Yu.I. Filimonenko, etc. ). All these tests are based on a test by the Swiss psychologist M. Luscher, published in 1948. The Luscher test is based on the assumption that the choice of color reflects mood, functional state and the most stable personality traits. Each color of the spectrum is a trigger signal that evokes in a person various, not fully realized, associations. For example, a person encounters the color red primarily in situations of danger and intense struggle (this is the color of blood, fire), which leads to the association of this color with the corresponding state of neuropsychic tension, mobilization, and active action for such situations. Accordingly, in a testing situation, the color red will be preferred by an active and well-rested person, for whom the associative specificity of color perception will correspond to his energetic capabilities and motivational attitudes, but rejected by a tired and inhibited person, for whom excitement at the moment is inappropriate, goes against the existing energy potential and installations.

Additive techniques involve the subject’s voluntary completion of stimulus material, for example, completion of a sentence (methods of A. Payne, D. Sachs and S. Levy, A. Tendler, J. Rotter, B. Forer, A. Rohde, etc.) or completion of a story (methods of L. . Dussa, M. Thoma, etc.). Depending on the nature of the completions, they judge the needs and motives of the subject, his attitude towards family, sex, superiors at work, etc.

K. Frank's classification has been repeatedly criticized for its descriptiveness, confusion of criteria, and unclear division of groups of methods. It is not clear, for example, whether tests like “Drawing Completion” should be classified as expressive, constitutive or additive methods. When identifying a group of cathartic methods, the emphasis shifted from process to result (catharsis). It is unlikely that the choice of the nature of the subject’s reactions as a criterion for constructing a classification of projective methods that claims to be comprehensive is sufficiently justified, especially since the categories identified by Frank turned out to be determined not so much by the nature of the subject’s reactions, but by the nature of the stimulus material itself and the purpose of the study.

In this regard, there is a need to develop projective tests according to several criteria. V.V. Nikandrov and V.V. Novochadov propose the following classification system of projective techniques:

1) according to the modality involved (methods with visual, tactile, audio and other stimulation);

2) by the nature of the stimulus material (verbal, non-verbal);

3) according to the type of reaction of the subject (associative, interpretative, manipulative, free choice);

4) by the presence or absence of ready-made answer options (projective, semi-projective).

Most psychodiagnostic techniques involve the use of the visual modality. This is a reflection of the special importance of the role of vision in the reception of information in modern man: it is assumed that addressing stimulus material to the eyes allows one to receive answers that sufficiently fully characterize the personality. Nevertheless, there are methods where stimulation is presented to the test subject by ear, for example, in a word association test, where the test subject must as quickly as possible give an association word to the stimulus word pronounced by the psychodiagnostician. There are also attempts to create projective techniques that address tactile sensations.

According to the nature of the stimulus material, projective techniques can be verbal, where the stimulus is a word, sentence or text, and non-verbal, with subject, color, drawing and other stimulation. In word association tests, individual words are used as stimuli; in Sentence Completion methods, unfinished sentences are used; in Story Completion methods, incomplete texts are used.

It is customary to distinguish the following types of responses from subjects: association, interpretation, manipulation (on a scale of actions with objects, materials, etc., which has creative and reproductive manipulation at its poles), free choice (i.e., a certain distribution, ranking of stimulus material). In accordance with this, it is proposed to divide projective techniques into associative, interpretative, manipulative and free choice techniques.

Depending on the availability of ready-made response options, a distinction is made between semi-projective methods, where the subject is asked to choose one of the proposed response options to projective stimulation (in a sense, an analogue of closed questionnaires), and actual projective ones, where such options are absent. An example of a semi-projective technique can be L. Szondi’s test (usually the most famous tests are called only by last name, this is exactly the case here), where the subject is asked to choose two portraits he liked and two he didn’t like in each series of portraits. The subject may not like a single portrait, and there may be more than two who do not like it, but the forced instruction puts the subject in certain conditions that he must follow, which imposes certain restrictions on the manifestation of his personal properties. The undoubted advantages of semi-projective methods are the ease of quantitative processing of results, the availability of translation of methods into computer form, and less vulnerability to the subjectivity of the interpreter.

The generally accepted idea is that projective tests have an advantage over subjective ones, since they allow us to identify unconscious components of the psyche. However, it should be noted that these unconscious components will not necessarily appear in the test results. According to G.U. Allport, a normal, adequately adapted subject, when conducting projective tests, gives answers similar to the conscious report in subjective tests, or, thanks to sufficiently developed self-control, does not show his dominant motives in any way. Therefore, projective testing acquires special significance only when “emotionally loaded material is found in projective reactions that contradicts conscious reports. And only then can we speak with confidence about the presence or absence of neurotic tendencies.”

Computer testing. This is a relatively young area of ​​psychodiagnostics associated with the use of electronic computer technology. The emergence of computer psychodiagnostics is due to the development of information technology. Attempts to automate the presentation of stimulus material to the subject and subsequent processing of the results have been made since the 1930s, but only since the 1970s. The true development of computer psychodiagnostics began, due to the advent of personal computers. Since the 1980s computer tests began to be developed on a mass scale: first, as computer versions of well-known blank methods, and in the 1990s. - as special techniques that take into account the capabilities of modern technology and are not used in blank form, since they are designed for complex stimulus material that varies in space and time, specific sound, etc. Beginning of the 21st century. marked by the fact that testing control is increasingly transferred to the computer. If in past years certain stages of the study were automated, for example, presentation of material, data processing, interpretation of results, then at the present stage it is increasingly possible to find programs that take on the entire examination up to the diagnosis, which reduces the need for the presence of a psychologist to a minimum.

The undoubted advantages of computer tests are: quick implementation; high speed and error-free processing; the ability to immediately obtain results; ensuring standard testing conditions for all subjects; clear control of the testing procedure (questions cannot be skipped; if necessary, the time of each answer can be recorded, which is especially important for intelligence tests); the possibility of excluding the psychologist as an additional variable (which is of particular importance when conducting an examination); visibility and entertainment of the process (supporting attention with the help of color, sound, game elements, which is most important for training programs); easy archiving of results; the ability to combine tests into batteries (software packages) with a single final interpretation; mobility of the experimenter (all instruments on one floppy disk); the possibility of conducting mass research (for example, via the Internet).

Disadvantages of computer tests: complexity, labor intensity and high cost of program development; the need for expensive computer equipment; the difficulty of using computers in the field; the need for special training for the test subject to work with computer tests; difficulties in working with non-verbal material, the particular difficulty of translating projective tests into computer form; lack of an individual approach to the person being tested (loss of some of the psychodiagnostic information obtained in conversation and observation); latency of the stages of data processing and interpretation (the quality of these procedures depends entirely on the program developers). Some subjects may experience the effects of a “psychological barrier” or “overconfidence” when interacting with a computer. Therefore, data on the validity, reliability and representativeness of blank tests cannot be automatically transferred to their computer counterparts, which leads to the need for new standardization of tests.

The shortcomings of computer tests cause psychologists to be wary of them. Such tests are rarely used in clinical psychology, where the cost of error is too high. Domestic psychologist L.S. Vygotsky identified three levels of psychodiagnostics: 1) symptomatic (identification of symptoms); 2) etiological (identification of causes); 3) typological (a holistic, dynamic picture of the personality, on the basis of which the forecast is based). Computer psychodiagnostics today is at the lowest level - the level of symptomatic diagnosis, providing practically no material for identifying causes and making a prognosis.

Nevertheless, computer tests appear to have a bright future. Many of the listed disadvantages of computer psychodiagnostics will certainly be eliminated thanks to the further development of electronic technology and the improvement of psychodiagnostic technologies. The key to such optimism is the growing interest of science and practice in computer diagnostics, which already has over 1000 computer tests in its arsenal.

Among the existing computer tests, the following types can be distinguished:

1) in structure - analogues of blank tests and actual computer tests;

2) by the number of test takers – individual and group testing tests;

3) according to the degree of automation of testing - automating one or more stages of the examination and automating the entire examination;

4) according to the task - diagnostic and educational;

5) by addressee – professional psychological, semi-professional and non-professional (entertainment).

by the user professional computer tests are conducted by a psychologist, so they are developed by specialized laboratories or centers of computer psychodiagnostics. These tests have a number of specific features: a) the presence of an archive (database); b) the presence of a password to enter the test or database to ensure the confidentiality of the results; c) detailed interpretation of the results using professional terms, coefficients, with the construction of graphs (profiles); d) availability of information about the developers of the methodology, information about validity and reliability, reference materials about the theoretical principles underlying the methodology.

Semi-professional computer tests are aimed at specialists in related professions, for example, teachers, personnel managers. Such tests are often provided with a reduced interpretation without the use of special vocabulary, and are easy to learn and use. Tests of this level can also be intended for a non-specialist, an ordinary personal computer user interested in psychology. Finally, there are also a large number of non-professional computer tests aimed at popularizing psychological ideas or for entertainment purposes.

When using professional or semi-professional computer-based tests, you must adhere to the same ethical principles as when using blank testing. It is important not to distribute test results and protect your files with a password, especially if there are multiple users on the computer. And the main thing is “not to create an idol for yourself,” that is, remember that a computer test is only a means, an assistant and has its own limits of application.

Let's consider the concepts of standardization, reliability and validity of a test from the standpoint of classical empirical-statistical theory. In accordance with this theory, the design of tests to change psychological properties and states is based on an interval scale. The mental property being measured is assumed to be linear and one-dimensional. It is also assumed that the distribution of the population of people possessing this property is described by a normal distribution curve.

Psychological testing is based on the classical theory of measurement error. It is believed that the test is the same measuring device as any physical device, and the results it shows depend on the value of the property in the subject, as well as on the measurement procedure itself. Any mental property has a “true” indicator, and the test readings deviate from the true value by the amount of random error. The test readings are also affected by the “systematic” error, but it comes down to adding (subtracting) a constant to the “true” value of the parameter, which does not matter for the interval scale.

Test reliability. If the test is carried out many times, the average value will be a characteristic of the “true” value of the parameter. Under reliability It is customary to understand the stability of the test results to the influence of random factors, external and internal. Most frequently assessed retest reliability. The more closely the results of the initial and repeated (usually delayed by several months) tests are correlated, the more reliable it is.

It is assumed that there is an unlimited number of tasks that can “work” on the property being measured. A test is only a sample of tasks from their general population. Ideally, it is possible to create as many equivalent forms of a test as desired, so determining the reliability of a test can be done by correlating parallel forms or equivalent equal parts obtained by splitting the test item into two parts. Since in a real test the number of tasks is limited (no more than 100), the assessment of the reliability of the test is always approximate. The test is considered reliable if the correlation coefficient of the results is at least 0.75.

Validity of the test. The problem of validity in classical test theory is given a lot of attention, but theoretically it is not solved in any way. Validity means the suitability of a test to measure the property it is intended to measure. Consequently, the more the result of a test or individual task is influenced by the property being measured and the less other variables (including external ones), the more valid the test.

A test is valid (and reliable) if its results are influenced only by the property being measured. A test is invalid (and unreliable) if the test results are determined by the influence of irrelevant variables.

There are the following types of test validity.

Clear validity. A test is considered valid if the test taker feels that it measures what it is supposed to measure.

Specific validity(convergent – ​​divergent validity). The test should correlate well with tests that measure a specific property or one similar in content, and have low correlations with tests that measure obviously different properties.

Predictive validity. The test must correlate with distant external criteria.

Construct validity. It involves a complete description of the variable being measured, the development of a system of hypotheses about its connections with other variables, and empirical confirmation (non-refutation) of these hypotheses.

From a theoretical point of view, the only way to establish the “internal” validity of the test and individual tasks is the method of factor analysis (and similar ones), which allows: a) to identify latent (hidden) properties and calculate the value of “factor loadings” - the coefficients of determination of the properties of certain behavioral signs; b) determine the measure of influence of each latent property on the test results.

Test standardization consists in bringing the assessment procedure to generally accepted standards. Standardization involves the transformation of a normal or artificially normalized scale of primary ratings into scale ratings (for more information on this, see 5.2). Test norms obtained during standardization represent a system of scales with characteristics of test score distribution for various samples. They are not “internal” properties of the test, but only facilitate its practical use.

There are two known ways to create psychodiagnostic methods: adaptation of known methods (foreign, outdated, for other purposes) and the development of new, original methods.

Adaptation test is a set of measures to ensure the adequacy of the test under new conditions of use. The following stages of test adaptation are distinguished:

1) analysis of the initial theoretical provisions of the test author;

2) for foreign methods – translation of the test and its instructions into the user’s language (with mandatory expert assessment of compliance with the original);

3) checking reliability and validity in accordance with psychometric requirements;

4) standardization on appropriate samples.

The most serious problems arise when adapting verbal tests (questionnaires, verbal subtests as part of intelligence tests). These problems are associated with linguistic and sociocultural differences between the peoples of different countries. Multiple variations in the translation of a term and the impossibility of accurately conveying idiomatic phrases are a common phenomenon when translating from language to language. Sometimes it is so difficult to select linguistic and semantic analogues of test items that its complete adaptation becomes comparable to the development of an original methodology.

The concept of adaptation is applicable not only to foreign methods that are supposed to be used in the conditions of our country, but also to outdated domestic methods. They become outdated quite quickly: due to the development of language and the variability of sociocultural stereotypes, methods must be adjusted every 5–7 years, which implies clarification of the wording of questions, correction of standards, updating of stimulus material, and revision of interpretive criteria.

Self-development The test procedure usually consists of the following steps.

1. Selection of the subject (phenomenon) and object of study (contingent).

2. Selecting the type of test (objective, subjective, projective), type of tasks (with prescribed answers, with free answers) and scales (numerical, verbal, graphic).

3. Selection of the primary task bank. It can be carried out in two ways: questions are formulated based on theoretical ideas about the phenomenon being measured (factor-analytic principle) or are selected in accordance with their discriminativity, i.e. the ability to separate subjects based on the presence of the required attribute (criteria-key principle). The second principle is effective when developing selection tests (for example, vocational or clinical).

4. Evaluation of tasks of the primary bank (content validity of the test, i.e., the correspondence of each task to the phenomenon being measured, and the completeness of coverage of the phenomenon being studied by the test as a whole). Conducted using the expert assessment method.

5. Preliminary testing, formation of a bank of empirical data.

6. Empirical validation of the test. It is carried out using a correlation analysis of test scores and indicators on the external parameter of the property being studied (for example, school performance when validating an intelligence test, a medical diagnosis when validating clinical tests, data from other tests whose validity is known, etc.).

7. Assessment of test reliability (resistibility of results to the action of random factors, external and internal). The most commonly assessed are test-retest reliability (consistency with repeated testing, usually after several months), subtest reliability (consistency of results on individual tasks or groups of tasks, such as odd-even), and parallel-form reliability, if available. The technique is considered reliable if the correlation coefficient of the results (initial and repeated testing, one and the other parts of the test, one and the other parallel forms) is at least 0.75. If the reliability indicator is lower, test items are adjusted and questions that reduce reliability are reformulated.

8. Standardization of the test, i.e. bringing the procedure and assessments to generally accepted standards. Standardization of assessments implies the transformation of a normal or artificially normalized scale of primary assessments (empirical values ​​of the indicator being studied) into scale assessments (reflecting the place in the distribution of the results of a sample of subjects). Types of scale ratings: walls (1-10), stanines (1–9), 7-grades (10-100), etc.

9. Determination of predictive validity, i.e. information about the degree of accuracy with which the technique allows one to judge the diagnosed psychological quality a certain time after measurement. Predictive validity is also determined by external criterion, but data on it is collected some time after testing.

Thus, reliability and validity are collective concepts that include several types of indicators that reflect the focus of the methodology on the subject of research (validity) and the object of research (reliability). The degree of reliability and validity is reflected by the corresponding coefficients indicated in the certificate of the methodology.

Creating a methodology is labor-intensive work that requires a developed system for ordering methods with appropriate remuneration for developers and fees for the use of proprietary methods.

• Tutorial

Good day!

I want to collect all the most necessary theory on testing, which is asked during interviews with trainees, juniors and a little middle ones. Actually, I have already collected quite a bit. The purpose of this post is to collectively add what was missed and correct/paraphrase/add/do Something Else with what is already there, so that it becomes good and you can take it all and repeat it before the next interview, just in case. In general, colleagues, I ask under the cut who should learn something new, who should systematize the old, and who should contribute.

The result should be a comprehensive cheat sheet that you need to re-read on the way to the interview.

Everything listed below was not invented by me personally, but was taken from various sources, where I personally liked the wording and definition more. At the end is a list of sources.

Topic: definition of testing, quality, verification / validation, goals, stages, test plan, test plan points, test design, test design techniques, traceability matrix, tets case, checklist, defect, error/deffect/failure, bug report , severity vs priority, testing levels, types / types, approaches to integration testing, testing principles, static and dynamic testing, exploratory / ad-hoc testing, requirements, bug life cycle, software development stages, decision table, qa/qc/test engineer, connection diagram.

Let's go!

Software testing- checking the correspondence between the actual and expected behavior of the program, carried out on a finite set of tests selected in a certain way. In a broader sense, testing is one of the quality control techniques that includes the activities of work planning (Test Management), test design (Test Design), testing execution (Test Execution) and analysis of the results (Test Analysis).

Software Quality is a set of characteristics of software related to its ability to satisfy stated and anticipated needs.

Verification is the process of evaluating a system or its components to determine whether the results of the current development stage satisfy the conditions formed at the beginning of this stage. Those. whether our goals, deadlines, and project development tasks defined at the beginning of the current phase are being met.
Validation- this is a determination of whether the software being developed meets the user's expectations and needs, and system requirements.
You can also find another interpretation:
The process of assessing a product's compliance with explicit requirements (specifications) is verification, while at the same time assessing whether a product meets the expectations and requirements of users is validation. You can also often find the following definition of these concepts:
Validation - ‘is this the right specification?’.
Verification - ‘is the system correct to specification?’.

Testing Goals
Increase the likelihood that the application intended for testing will work correctly under all circumstances.
Increase the likelihood that the application being tested will meet all of the described requirements.
Providing up-to-date information about the current state of the product.

Testing stages:
1. Analysis
2. Development of a testing strategy
and planning quality control procedures
3. Working with requirements
4. Creation of test documentation
5. Prototype testing
6. Basic testing
7. Stabilization
8. Operation

Test Plan- this is a document that describes the entire scope of testing work, starting from a description of the object, strategy, schedule, criteria for starting and ending testing, to the equipment required in the process, special knowledge, as well as risk assessment with options for their resolution.
Answers questions:
What should be tested?
What will you test?
How will you test?
When will you test?
Criteria for starting testing.
Test completion criteria.

Main points of the test plan
The IEEE 829 standard lists the points that a test plan should (may) consist of:
a) Test plan identifier;
b) Introduction;
c) Test items;
d) Features to be tested;
e) Features not to be tested;
f) Approach;
g) Item pass/fail criteria;
h) Suspension criteria and resumption requirements;
i) Test deliverables;
j) Testing tasks;
k) Environmental needs;
l) Responsibilities;
m) Staffing and training needs;
n) Schedule;
o) Risks and contingencies;
p) Approvals.

Test design- this is the stage of the software testing process at which test cases (test cases) are designed and created in accordance with previously defined quality criteria and testing goals.
Roles responsible for test design:
Test analyst - determines “WHAT to test?”
Test designer - determines “HOW to test?”

Test design techniques

Equivalence Partitioning (EP). As an example, if you have a range of valid values ​​from 1 to 10, you must choose one correct value inside the interval, say 5, and one incorrect value outside the interval, 0.

Boundary Value Analysis (BVA). If we take the example above, we will select the minimum and maximum limits (1 and 10) as values ​​for positive testing, and values ​​greater and less than the limits (0 and 11). Boundary value analysis can be applied to fields, records, files, or any kind of constrained entity.

Cause/Effect - CE. This is, as a rule, entering combinations of conditions (reasons) to obtain a response from the system (Effect). For example, you are testing the ability to add a customer using a specific display. To do this, you will need to enter several fields such as “Name”, “Address”, “Phone Number” and then click the “Add” button - this is the “Reason”. After clicking the “Add” button, the system adds the client to the database and shows his number on the screen - this is “Investigation”.

Exhaustive Testing (ET)- this is an extreme case. Within this technique, you should test all possible combinations of input values, and in principle, this should find all problems. In practice, the use of this method is not possible due to the huge number of input values.

Traceability matrix- The requirements compliance matrix is ​​a two-dimensional table containing the correspondence between the functional requirements of the product and the prepared test cases. The table column headings contain requirements, and the row headings contain test scenarios. At the intersection there is a mark indicating that the requirement of the current column is covered by the test case of the current row.
The requirements compliance matrix is ​​used by QA engineers to validate product test coverage. MCT is an integral part of the test plan.

Test Case is an artifact that describes a set of steps, specific conditions and parameters necessary to check the implementation of the function under test or its part.
Example:
Action Expected Result Test Result
(passed/failed/blocked)
Open page “login” Login page is opened Passed

Each test case must have 3 parts:
PreConditions A list of actions that bring the system to a condition suitable for basic testing. Or a list of conditions, the fulfillment of which indicates that the system is in a state suitable for conducting the main test.
Test Case Description A list of actions that transfer the system from one state to another to obtain a result on the basis of which it can be concluded that the implementation satisfies the requirements
PostConditions List of actions that transfer the system to the initial state (state before the test - initial state)
Types of Test Cases:
Test cases are divided according to the expected result into positive and negative:
A positive test case uses only correct data and verifies that the application correctly executed the called function.
A negative test case operates with both correct and incorrect data (at least 1 incorrect parameter) and aims to check for exceptional situations (validators are triggered), and also check that the function called by the application is not executed when the validator is triggered.

Check list is a document that describes what should be tested. At the same time, the checklist can be of completely different levels of detail. How detailed the checklist will be depends on reporting requirements, the level of product knowledge of employees and the complexity of the product.
As a rule, a checklist contains only actions (steps), without the expected result. The checklist is less formalized than the test script. It is appropriate to use it when test scripts are redundant. Checklists are also associated with flexible approaches to testing.

Defect (aka bug)- this is a discrepancy between the actual result of program execution and the expected result. Defects are discovered during the software testing stage, when the tester compares the results of the program (component or design) with the expected result described in the requirements specification.

Error- user error, that is, he tries to use the program in a different way.
Example - enters letters into fields where you need to enter numbers (age, quantity of goods, etc.).
A high-quality program provides for such situations and displays an error message with a red cross.
Bug (defect)- an error by the programmer (or designer or anyone else who takes part in the development), that is, when something in the program does not go as planned and the program gets out of control. For example, when user input is not controlled in any way, as a result, incorrect data causes crashes or other “joys” in the operation of the program. Or the program is built internally in such a way that it initially does not correspond to what is expected of it.
Failure- a failure (and not necessarily a hardware one) in the operation of a component, an entire program or system. That is, there are defects that lead to failures (A defect caused the failure) and there are those that do not. UI defects for example. But a hardware failure that has nothing to do with software is also a failure.

Bug Report is a document describing the situation or sequence of actions that led to the incorrect operation of the test object, indicating the reasons and the expected result.
Cap
Short description (Summary) A short description of the problem, clearly indicating the cause and type of error situation.
Project Name of the project being tested
Application Component (Component) The name of the part or function of the product being tested
Version number The version on which the error was found
Severity The most common five-level system for grading the severity of a defect is:
S1 Blocker
S2 Critical
S3 Major
S4 Minor
S5 Trivial
Priority The priority of the defect:
P1 High
P2 Medium
P3 Low
Status The status of the bug. Depends on the procedure used and the bug workflow and life cycle

Author (Author) Bug report creator
Assigned To The name of the person assigned to the problem.
Environment
OS / Service Pack, etc. / Browser + version /… Information about the environment in which the bug was found: operating system, service pack, for WEB testing - browser name and version, etc.
…
Description
Steps to Reproduce Steps by which you can easily reproduce the situation that led to the error.
Actual Result The result obtained after going through the steps to reproduce
Expected Result Expected correct result
Add-ons
Attachment A log file, screenshot, or any other document that can help clarify the cause of the error or indicate a way to solve the problem.

Severity vs Priority
Severity is an attribute that characterizes the impact of a defect on the performance of an application.
Priority is an attribute that indicates the priority of performing a task or eliminating a defect. We can say that this is a work planning manager's tool. The higher the priority, the faster the defect needs to be fixed.
Severity is exposed by the tester
Priority - manager, team lead or customer

Gradation of Defect Severity (Severity)

S1 Blocker
A blocking error that renders the application inoperative, making further work with the system under test or its key functions impossible. Solving the problem is necessary for the further functioning of the system.

S2 Critical
A critical error, a malfunctioning key business logic, a hole in the security system, a problem that led to a temporary crash of the server or rendered some part of the system inoperative, without the ability to solve the problem using other entry points. Solving the problem is necessary for further work with key functions of the system under test.

S3 Major
A significant error, part of the main business logic does not work correctly. The error is not critical or it is possible to work with the function under test using other input points.

S4 Minor
A minor error that does not violate the business logic of the part of the application being tested, an obvious user interface problem.

S5 Trivial
A trivial error that does not affect the business logic of the application, a poorly reproducible problem that is hardly noticeable through the user interface, a problem with third-party libraries or services, a problem that does not have any impact on the overall quality of the product.

Gradation of Defect Priority (Priority)
P1 High
The error must be corrected as quickly as possible, because... its presence is critical for the project.
P2 Medium
The error must be corrected; its presence is not critical, but requires a mandatory solution.
P3 Low
The error must be corrected; its presence is not critical and does not require an urgent solution.

Testing Levels

1. Unit Testing
Component (unit) testing checks functionality and looks for defects in parts of the application that are accessible and can be tested separately (program modules, objects, classes, functions, etc.).

2. Integration Testing
The interaction between system components is checked after component testing.

3. System Testing
The main objective of system testing is to verify both functional and non-functional requirements in the system as a whole. This identifies defects such as incorrect use of system resources, unintended combinations of user-level data, incompatibility with the environment, unintended use cases, missing or incorrect functionality, inconvenience of use, etc.

4. Operational testing (Release Testing).
Even if a system meets all requirements, it is important to ensure that it meets the needs of the user and fulfills its role in its operating environment as defined in the system's business model. It should be taken into account that the business model may contain errors. This is why it is so important to conduct operational testing as the final validation step. In addition, testing in the operating environment allows us to identify non-functional problems, such as: conflicts with other systems related to the business area or in software and electronic environments; insufficient system performance in the operating environment, etc. Obviously, finding such things at the implementation stage is a critical and expensive problem. That is why it is so important to carry out not only verification, but also validation, from the earliest stages of software development.

5. Acceptance Testing
A formal testing process that verifies that a system meets requirements and is conducted to:
determining whether the system meets acceptance criteria;
making a decision by the customer or other authorized person whether the application is accepted or not.

Types/types of testing

Functional types of testing
Functional testing
Security and Access Control Testing
Interoperability Testing

Non-functional types of testing
All types of performance testing:
o load testing (Performance and Load Testing)
o Stress Testing
o Stability / Reliability Testing
o Volume Testing
Installation testing
Usability Testing
Failover and Recovery Testing
Configuration Testing

Change-Related Types of Testing
Smoke Testing
Regression Testing
Re-testing
Build Verification Test
Sanity Testing

Functional testing considers pre-specified behavior and is based on an analysis of the specifications of the functionality of the component or the system as a whole.

Security testing is a testing strategy used to check the security of the system, as well as to analyze the risks associated with providing a holistic approach to protecting the application, attacks by hackers, viruses, unauthorized access to confidential data.

Interoperability Testing is functional testing that tests the ability of an application to interact with one or more components or systems and includes compatibility testing and integration testing

Load testing- this is automated testing that simulates the work of a certain number of business users on some common (shared by them) resource.

Stress Testing allows you to check how efficient the application and the system as a whole are under stress and also evaluate the system’s ability to regenerate, i.e. to return to normal after the cessation of stress. Stress in this context can be an increase in the intensity of operations to very high values ​​or an emergency change in the server configuration. Also, one of the tasks of stress testing may be to assess performance degradation, so the goals of stress testing may overlap with the goals of performance testing.

Volume Testing. The purpose of volume testing is to obtain an assessment of performance as the volume of data in the application database increases

Stability / Reliability Testing. The task of stability (reliability) testing is to check the functionality of the application during long-term (many hours) testing with an average load level.

Testing the installation aimed at verifying successful installation and configuration, as well as updating or uninstalling software.

Usability testing is a testing method aimed at establishing the degree of usability, learnability, understandability and attractiveness for users of the product being developed in the context of given conditions. This also includes:
UI Testing is a type of research testing performed to determine whether some artificial object (such as a web page, user interface, or device) is suitable for its intended use.
User eXperience (UX) is the feeling experienced by the user while using a digital product, while User interface is a tool that allows user-web resource interaction.

Failover and Recovery Testing tests the product under test in terms of its ability to withstand and successfully recover from possible failures resulting from software errors, hardware failures, or communications problems (for example, network failure). The purpose of this type of testing is to test recovery systems (or systems duplicating the main functionality), which, in the event of failures, will ensure the safety and integrity of the data of the product being tested.

Configuration Testing- a special type of testing aimed at checking the operation of the software under different system configurations (declared platforms, supported drivers, different computer configurations, etc.)

Smoke testing is considered as a short cycle of tests performed to confirm that after building the code (new or fixed), the installed application starts and performs basic functions.

Regression testing is a type of testing aimed at verifying changes made to an application or environment (fixing a defect, merging code, migrating to another operating system, database, web server or application server), to confirm the fact that pre-existing functionality works as intended before. Regression tests can be both functional and non-functional tests.

Retesting- testing, during which test scripts that identified errors during the last run are executed to confirm the success of correcting these errors.
What is the difference between regression testing and re-testing?
Re-testing - bug fixes are checked
Regression testing - checks that bug fixes did not affect other software modules and did not cause new bugs.

Assembly testing or Build Verification Test- testing aimed at determining compliance of the released version with quality criteria to begin testing. In terms of its goals, it is analogous to Smoke Testing, aimed at accepting a new version for further testing or operation. It can penetrate deeper, depending on the quality requirements of the released version.

Sanitary testing- this is narrowly focused testing sufficient to prove that a specific function works according to the requirements stated in the specification. It is a subset of regression testing. Used to determine the performance of a certain part of the application after changes made to it or the environment. Usually done manually.

Error Guessing - EG. This is when the test analyst uses his knowledge of the system and ability to interpret the specification to “predict” under what input conditions the system might fail. For example, the specification says "the user must enter a code." The test analyst will think: “What if I don’t enter the code?”, “What if I enter the wrong code? ", and so on. This is the prediction of error.

Integration testing approaches:

Bottom Up Integration
All low-level modules, procedures or functions are collected together and then tested. After which the next level of modules is assembled for integration testing. This approach is considered useful if all or almost all modules of the level being developed are ready. This approach also helps determine the level of application readiness based on testing results.

Top Down Integration
First, all high-level modules are tested, and gradually low-level ones are added one by one. All lower-level modules are simulated as stubs with similar functionality, then when ready, they are replaced with real active components. This way we test from top to bottom.

Big Bang (“Big Bang” Integration)
All or almost all of the developed modules are assembled together as a complete system or its main part, and then integration testing is carried out. This approach is very good for saving time. However, if the test cases and their results are not recorded correctly, then the integration process itself will be greatly complicated, which will become an obstacle for the testing team in achieving the main goal of integration testing.

Testing principles

Principle 1- Testing shows presence of defects
Testing can show that defects are present, but cannot prove that they are not present. Testing reduces the likelihood of defects in the software, but even if no defects are found, this does not prove its correctness.

Principle 2- Exhaustive testing is impossible
Complete testing using all combinations of inputs and preconditions is physically infeasible except in trivial cases. Instead of exhaustive testing, risk analysis and prioritization should be used to better focus testing efforts.

Principle 3- Early testing
To find defects as early as possible, testing activities should be started as early as possible in the software or system development life cycle, and should be focused on specific goals.

Principle 4- Defects clustering
Testing efforts should be concentrated in proportion to the expected, and later the actual, module defect density. As a rule, most of the defects discovered during testing or that caused the majority of system failures are contained in a small number of modules.

Principle 5- Pesticide paradox
If the same tests are run over and over again, eventually this set of test cases will no longer find new defects. To overcome this “pesticide paradox,” test cases must be regularly reviewed and revised, and new tests must be comprehensive to cover all components of the software or system and find as many defects as possible.

Principle 6- Testing is concept depending
Testing is done differently depending on the context. For example, security-critical software is tested differently than an e-commerce site.

Principle 7- Absence-of-errors fallacy
Finding and fixing defects will not help if the created system does not suit the user and does not meet his expectations and needs.

Static and dynamic testing
Static testing differs from dynamic testing in that it is performed without running the product code. Testing is carried out by analyzing the program code (code review) or compiled code. The analysis can be done either manually or using special tools. The purpose of the analysis is to early identify errors and potential problems in the product. Static testing also includes testing specifications and other documentation.

Exploratory/ad-hoc testing
The simplest definition of exploratory testing is designing and running tests at the same time. Which is the opposite of the scenario approach (with its predefined testing procedures, whether manual or automated). Exploratory tests, unlike scenario tests, are not predetermined and are not executed exactly as planned.

The difference between ad hoc and exploratory testing is that theoretically, ad hoc testing can be carried out by anyone, while exploratory testing requires skill and knowledge of certain techniques. Please note that certain techniques are not just testing techniques.

Requirements is a specification (description) of what should be implemented.
Requirements describe what needs to be implemented, without detailing the technical side of the solution. What, not how.

Requirements Requirements:
Correctness
Unambiguity
Completeness of the set of requirements
Consistency of a set of requirements
Verifiability (testability)
Traceability
Understandability

Bug life cycle

Software development stages- these are the stages that software development teams go through before the program becomes available to a wide range of users. Software development begins with the initial development stage (pre-alpha stage) and continues with stages in which the product is refined and upgraded. The final stage of this process is the release of the final version of the software to the market (“generally available release”).

The software product goes through the following stages:
analysis of project requirements;
design;
implementation;
product testing;
implementation and support.

Each stage of software development is assigned a specific serial number. Also, each stage has its own name, which characterizes the readiness of the product at this stage.

Software development life cycle:
Pre-alpha
Alpha
Beta
Release candidate
Release
Post release

Decision table- a great tool for organizing complex business requirements that must be implemented in a product. Decision tables present a set of conditions, the simultaneous fulfillment of which should lead to a specific action.

QA/QC/Test Engineer


Thus, we can build a model of the hierarchy of quality assurance processes: Testing is part of QC. QC is part of QA.

Connection diagram is a quality management tool based on identifying logical relationships between various data. This tool is used to compare causes and effects on the problem under study.