PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS 
Regarding the technique of constructing tests, quite a 
body of knowledge has accumulated, but no very complete 
statement of it has found its way into the literature. Per- 
haps most writers have neglected to record their technique 
because they consider it merely the application of common 
sense or a modification of well-known laboratory practice. 
Some treatment of test construction is, however, to be found 
in Monroe (117), Toops (202), Burtt (23), Symonds 
(180), May and Hartshorne (109), Chapman (28), Pater- 
son (129), Whipple (220), McCall (104), Pressey (141), 
Scott and Clothier (166), and O’Rourke (124), and in 
“Psychological Examining in the United States Army” 
(228). 
When in 1917 a little group of seven psychologists met at 
Vineland to construct the army mental tests, they formu- 
lated a number of criteria to guide them in the adaptation 
of test materials to military purposes. Some of these cri- 
teria of a good test are widely applicable, while others are 
limited by the special purposes for which these tests were 
designed. They are (228, p. 299): (1) adaptability for 
group use, (2) validity as a measure of intelligence, (3) 
range of intelligence measured, (4) objectivity of scoring, 
(5) rapidity of scoring, (6) unfavorableness to coaching, 
(7) unfavorableness to malingering, (8) unfavorableness to 
cheating, (9) independence of schooling, (10) minimum of 
writing in response, (11) interest and appeal, and (12) 
economy of time. The report from which these criteria 
were abstracted enlarges upon them very little, although the 
account is the most complete one to be found on the develop- 
ment of a group intelligence examination. 
Some of these criteria of a good test may be subsumed 
under the headings (a) reliability and (&) validity. Tests 
intended for industrial use should be characterized also 
by (c) freedom from ludicrous or silly items, (d) apparent 
relevance to the purpose, and (e) convenience of administer- 
Ing.