Objectivity of psychological measurement. Basic methods of psychological research

Historically, it has been customary to identify the following three methods as the main structures for organizing research.

Methods: introspection, exterospection, understanding.

according to Teplov, the term objective - as opposed to the term subjective - denotes those existing outside of human consciousness, independent of the consciousness and will of a person, i.e.

This refers to the content of our knowledge, the cat correctly reflects reality and does not depend on the subject, i.e. from the consciousness and will of man. An objective method should be understood as a method that leads to the knowledge of objective truth.

The objective method in y is, first of all, a method based on the principle of determinism and aimed at discovering objective laws, controlling human behavior and the phenomena of his subjective world.

1. Introspection is generally considered a subjective method. The essence of the sub-method is that the psychologist interprets the mental life of other people from the point of view of the information he received from the person himself. Those. The psychologist attributes to other people those feelings and thoughts that he believes, based on his own experience, to be most reasonable to attribute to them in this case. This is not an objective method.

2. the exterospection method is observation of another person and a group of people (or external observation). The criteria for the objectivity of observation (as well as any other method in y) involve an assessment of the truth not so much of the results themselves, but of the hypothesis. To evaluate the results themselves, criteria such as reliability, validity, and reproducibility are used.

In observation, reliability refers to the degree of agreement between observers giving reports about the same “object” of observation.

Data reproducibility criteria are concerned with assessing whether similar data can be obtained by other studies in similar situations.

Observations as a research method can be carried out in terms of external validity. An increase in the degree of validity of observation must be associated with an increase in its focus, mediation by theory and the activity of the observer in constructing structures of cognitive goals.

3. method of understanding (empathy) – a general name for a number of forms of cognition that involve direct perception of someone else’s soul. Methods of understanding are based on the professionalism of the experimenter’s thinking and are associated with attempts at reflection both in the case of results in y interpretations and methods of obtaining them.

There is another classification of methods (modern):

Observation

Measurement

Experiment

Diagnostic tools.

The objective criteria of these methods remain common. reliability, validity, reproducibility.

Reliability – stability of results when repeating an experiment several times. If it is high, then when the experiment is repeated many times, approximately the same knowledge of the dependent variable will be reproduced.

Validity is the reliability of the conclusion, which is ensured by the results of a real experiment in comparison with the results of a perfect experiment.

Reproducibility is the ability to repeat an experiment, guided by the description of the methodological procedures used.

An experiment is one of the most objective research methods.

The criterion for compliance of the selected indicators with the hypothesis and the purpose of the study.

More on the topic Criteria for the objectivity of research methods:

1. TOPIC 5. NON-PARAMETRIC METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE RELIABILITY OF STATISTICAL RESEARCH RESULTS. CONFORMITY CRITERION (chi-square)

Psychology, like any other science, has its own methods. Scientific research methods are the techniques and means by which information necessary for making decisions is obtained. practical recommendations and construction scientific theories. The development of any science depends on how perfect the methods it uses are, how reliable and correct they are. All this is true in relation to psychology.

The phenomena studied by psychology are so complex and diverse, so difficult for scientific knowledge, that throughout development psychological science its successes directly depended on the degree of perfection of the research methods used. Psychology became an independent science only in the middle of the 19th century, so it very often relies on the methods of other, “older” sciences - philosophy, mathematics, physics, physiology, medicine, biology and history. In addition, psychology uses methods of modern sciences such as computer science and cybernetics.

It should be emphasized that any independent science has only its own methods. Psychology also has such methods. All of them can be divided into two main groups: subjective and objective.

Subjective methods are based on self-assessments or self-reports of subjects, as well as on the opinion of researchers about a particular observed phenomenon or information received. With the separation of psychology into an independent science, subjective methods received priority development and continue to be improved at the present time. The very first methods of studying psychological phenomena were observation, introspection and questioning.

Observation method in psychology is one of the oldest and at first glance the simplest. It is based on systematic observation of people's activities, which is carried out under normal living conditions without any deliberate intervention on the part of the observer. Observation in psychology involves a complete and accurate description of the observed phenomena, as well as their psychological interpretation. This is exactly what it is the main objective psychological observation: it should, based on the facts, reveal their psychological content.

Observation- This is a method that all people use. However, scientific observation and the observation that most people use in everyday life have a number of significant differences. Scientific observation is characterized by systematicity and is carried out on the basis of a specific plan in order to obtain an objective picture. Consequently, scientific observation requires special training, during which special knowledge is acquired and contributes to the objectivity of the psychological interpretation of quality.

Observation can be carried out in a variety of ways. For example, the method of participant observation is widely used. This method is used in cases where the psychologist himself is a direct participant in the events. However, if, under the influence of the personal participation of the researcher, his perception and understanding of the event may be distorted, then it is better to turn to third-party observation, which allows a more objective judgment of the events taking place. Participant observation in its content is very close to another method - self-observation.

Introspection, i.e. observation of one’s experiences, is one of the specific methods used only in psychology. It should be noted that this method In addition to its advantages, it has a number of disadvantages. Firstly, it is very difficult to observe your experiences. They either change under the influence of observation or stop altogether. Secondly, during self-observation it is very difficult to avoid subjectivity, since our perception of what is happening is subjective. Thirdly, during self-observation it is difficult to express some shades of our experiences.

However, the method of introspection is very important for a psychologist. When faced with the behavior of other people in practice, the psychologist strives to understand its psychological content and turns to his own experience, including the analysis of his own experiences. Therefore, in order to work successfully, a psychologist must learn to objectively assess his condition and his experiences.

Self-observation is often used in experimental settings. In this case, it acquires the most accurate character and is usually called experimental introspection. Characteristic feature it is that the interview of a person is carried out under precisely taken into account experimental conditions, at those moments that most interest the researcher. In this case, the self-observation method is very often used in conjunction with the survey method.

Survey is a method based on obtaining the necessary information from the subjects themselves through questions and answers. There are several options for conducting a survey. Each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages. There are three main types of questioning: oral, written and free.

Oral survey, as a rule, is used in cases where it is necessary to monitor the reactions and behavior of the subject. This type of survey allows you to penetrate deeper into human psychology than a written survey, since the questions asked by the researcher can be adjusted during the research process depending on the characteristics of the behavior and reactions of the subject. However this option a survey requires more time to conduct, as well as special training for the researcher, since the degree of objectivity of the answers very often depends on the behavior and personal characteristics of the researcher himself.

Written survey allows you to reach a larger number of people in a relatively short time. The most common form of this survey is a questionnaire. But its disadvantage is that it is impossible to predict the reaction of the subjects to its questions and change its content during the study.

Free poll- a type of written or oral survey in which the list of questions asked is not determined in advance. When polling of this type You can change the tactics and content of the study quite flexibly, which allows you to obtain a variety of information about the subject. At the same time, a standard survey requires less time and, most importantly, the information obtained about a particular subject can be compared with information about another person, since in this case the list of questions does not change.

Attempts quantification psychological phenomena began to be undertaken starting from the second half of the nineteenth century, when the need arose to make psychology a more accurate and useful science. But even earlier, in 1835, the book “Social Physics” by the creator of modern statistics A. Quetelet (1796-1874) was published. In this book, Quetelet, relying on the theory of probability, showed that its formulas make it possible to detect the subordination of human behavior to certain patterns. Analyzing statistical material, he obtained constant values ​​that provide a quantitative description of such human acts as marriage, suicide, etc. These acts were previously considered arbitrary. And although the concept formulated by Quetelet was inextricably linked with the metaphysical approach to social phenomena, it introduced a number of new points. For example, Quetelet expressed the idea that if the average number is constant, then behind it there must be a reality comparable to the physical one, making it possible to predict various phenomena (including psychological ones) on the basis of statistical laws. To understand these laws, it is hopeless to study each person individually. The object of studying behavior should be large masses of people, and the main method should be variation statistics.

Already the first serious attempts to solve the problem of quantitative measurements in psychology made it possible to discover and formulate several laws connecting the strength of a person’s sensations with stimuli expressed in physical units that affect the body. These include the Bouguer-Weber, Weber-Fechner, and Stevens laws, which are mathematical formulas that help determine the relationship between physical stimuli and human sensations, as well as the relative and absolute thresholds of sensations. Subsequently, mathematics was widely included in psychological research, which to a certain extent increased the objectivity of research and contributed to the transformation of psychology into one of the most practical sciences. The widespread introduction of mathematics into psychology determined the need to develop methods that make it possible to repeatedly carry out the same type of research, i.e., it required solving the problem of standardization of procedures and techniques.

The main meaning of standardization is that in order to ensure the lowest probability of error when comparing the results of psychological examinations of two people or several groups, it is necessary first of all to ensure the use of the same methods, stably, i.e., regardless of external conditions, measuring the same psychological characteristic.

Among these psychological methods tests include. Its popularity is due to the possibility of obtaining an accurate and high-quality characterization of a psychological phenomenon, as well as the ability to compare research results, which is primarily necessary for solving practical problems. Tests differ from other methods in that they have a clear procedure for collecting and processing data, as well as a psychological interpretation of the results obtained.

It is customary to distinguish several test options: questionnaire tests, task tests, projective tests.

Test questionnaire as a method it is based on the analysis of test subjects' answers to questions that allow one to obtain reliable and reliable information about the presence or severity of a certain psychological characteristic. Judgment about the development of this characteristic is made on the basis of the number of answers that coincide in their content with the idea of ​​it. Test task involves obtaining information about psychological characteristics a person based on an analysis of the success of completing certain tasks. In tests of this type, the test taker is asked to complete a certain list of tasks. The number of tasks completed is the basis for judging the presence or absence, as well as the degree of development of a certain psychological quality. Most tests to determine the level of mental development fall into this category.

One of the very first attempts to develop tests was made by F. Galton (1822-1911). At the International Exhibition in London in 1884, Galton organized an anthropometric laboratory (later transferred to the South Kensington Museum in London). Over nine thousand subjects passed through it, in whom, along with height, weight, etc., various types of sensitivity, reaction time and other sensorimotor qualities were measured. The tests and statistical methods proposed by Galton were later widely used to solve practical issues life. This was the beginning of the creation of applied psychology, called “psychotechnics”.

In 1905, the French psychologist A. Vinet created one of the first psychological tests - a test for assessing intelligence. At the beginning of the twentieth century. The French government commissioned Binet to compile a scale of intellectual abilities for schoolchildren in order to use it to correctly distribute schoolchildren according to levels of education. Subsequently, various scientists create entire series of tests. Their focus on quickly solving practical problems led to the rapid and widespread dissemination of psychological tests. For example, G. Münsterberg (1863-1916) proposed tests for professional selection, which were created as follows: initially they were tested on a group of workers who achieved the best results, and then newly hired workers were subjected to them. Obviously, the premise of this procedure was the idea of ​​interdependence between the mental structures necessary for the successful performance of an activity and those structures thanks to which the subject copes with tests.

During the First World War, the use of psychological tests became widespread. At this time, the United States was actively preparing to enter the war. However, they did not have the same military potential as other warring parties. Therefore, even before entering the war (1917), the military authorities turned to the country's largest psychologists E. Thorndike (1874-1949), R. Yerkes (1876-1956) and G. Whipple (1878-1976) with a proposal to lead the solution to the problem of using psychology in military affairs. The American Psychological Association and universities quickly began working in this direction. Under Yerkes' leadership, the first group tests were created to mass assess the suitability (mainly on intelligence) of conscripts for service in various branches of the military: the Army Alpha test for literate people and the Army Beta test for illiterate people. The first test was similar to A. Binet's verbal tests for children. The second test consisted of nonverbal tasks. 1,700,000 soldiers and about 40,000 officers were examined. The distribution of indicators was divided into seven parts. In accordance with this, according to the degree of suitability, the subjects were divided into seven groups. The first two groups included persons with the highest abilities to perform the duties of officers and who were to be sent to the appropriate military educational establishments. The three subsequent groups had average statistical indicators of the abilities of the population under study.

At the same time, the development of tests as a psychological method was carried out in Russia. The development of this direction in Russian psychology of that time is associated with the names of A. F. Lazursky (1874-1917), G. I. Rossolimo (1860-1928), V. M. Bekhterev (1857-1927) and P. F. Lesgaft ( 1837-1909).

Today, tests are the most widely used method of psychological research. However, it is necessary to note the fact that the tests occupy an intermediate position between subjective and objective methods. This is due to the wide variety of test methods. There are tests based on the subjects' self-report, for example, questionnaire tests. When performing these tests, the test taker can consciously or unconsciously influence the test result, especially if he knows how his answers will be interpreted. But there are also more objective tests. Among them, first of all, it is necessary to include projective tests. This category of tests does not use self-reports from subjects. They assume free interpretation by the researcher of the tasks performed by the subject. For example, based on the most preferred choice of color cards for a subject, a psychologist determines his emotional state. In other cases, the subject is presented with pictures depicting an uncertain situation, after which the psychologist offers to describe the events reflected in the picture, and based on the analysis of the subject’s interpretation of the depicted situation, a conclusion is drawn about the characteristics of his psyche. However, projective type tests place increased demands on the level of professional training and practical work experience of a psychologist, and also require sufficient high level intellectual development of the subject.

Objective data can be obtained using an experiment - a method based on creating an artificial situation in which the property being studied is isolated, manifested and assessed best. The main advantage of the experiment is that it allows, more reliably than other psychological methods, to draw conclusions about the cause-and-effect relationships of the phenomenon under study with other phenomena, to scientifically explain the origin of the phenomenon and its development. There are two main types of experiment: laboratory and natural. They differ from each other in the conditions of the experiment.

A laboratory experiment involves creating an artificial situation in which the property being studied can best be assessed. A natural experiment is organized and carried out in ordinary life conditions, where the experimenter does not interfere with the course of events, recording them as they are. One of the first to use the method of natural experiment was the Russian scientist A.F. Lazursky. Data received in natural experiment, best correspond to the typical life behavior of people. However, it should be borne in mind that the results of a natural experiment are not always accurate due to the experimenter’s lack of ability to strictly control the influence of various factors on the property being studied. From this point of view, the laboratory experiment wins in accuracy, but at the same time is inferior in the degree of correspondence to the life situation.

Another group of methods of psychological science consists of modeling methods. They should be classified as a separate class of methods. They are used when using other methods is difficult. Their peculiarity is that, on the one hand, they rely on certain information about a particular mental phenomenon, and, on the other hand, their use, as a rule, does not require the participation of subjects or taking into account the real situation. Therefore, it can be very difficult to classify various modeling techniques as objective or subjective methods.

Models can be technical, logical, mathematical, cybernetic, etc. In mathematical modeling, a mathematical expression or formula is used, which reflects the relationship of variables and the relationships between them, reproducing elements and relationships in the phenomena being studied. Technical modeling involves the creation of a device or device that, in its action, resembles what is being studied. Cybernetic modeling is based on the use of concepts from the field of computer science and cybernetics to solve psychological problems. Logic modeling is based on the ideas and symbolism used in mathematical logic.

Development of computers and software for them it gave impetus to the modeling of mental phenomena based on the laws of computer operation, since it turned out that mental operations, used by people, the logic of their reasoning when solving problems is close to the operations and logic on the basis of which they work computer programs. This led to attempts to imagine and describe human behavior by analogy with the operation of a computer. In connection with these studies, the names of American scientists D. Miller, Y. Galanter, K. Pribram, as well as the Russian psychologist L. M. Wekker became widely known.

In addition to these methods, there are other methods for studying mental phenomena. For example, a conversation is a variant of a survey. The conversation method differs from a survey in greater freedom of procedure. As a rule, the conversation is conducted in a relaxed atmosphere, and the content of the questions varies depending on the situation and characteristics of the subject. Another method is the method of studying documents, or analyzing human activity. It should be kept in mind that most effective learning mental phenomena is carried out through the complex use of various methods.

We will not consider in detail the history of Russian psychology, but will dwell on the most significant stages of its development, since Russian psychological schools have long gained well-deserved fame throughout the world.

The works of M. V. Lomonosov occupy a special place in the development of psychological thought in Russia. In his works on rhetoric and physics, Lomonosov develops a materialistic understanding of sensations and ideas and speaks of the primacy of matter. This idea was reflected especially clearly in his theory of light, which was subsequently supplemented and developed by G. Helmholtz. According to Lomonosov, it is necessary to distinguish between cognitive (mental) processes and mental qualities of a person. The latter arise from the relationship between mental abilities and passions. In turn, he considers human actions and suffering to be the source of passions. Thus, already in the middle of the 18th century. The materialistic foundations of Russian psychology were laid.

The formation of Russian psychology took place under the influence of French educators and materialists of the 18th century. This influence is clearly noticeable in the works of Ya. P. Kozelsky and the psychological concept of A. N. Radishchev. Speaking about Radishchev’s scientific works, it is necessary to emphasize that in his works he establishes the leading role of speech for everything mental development person.

In our country, psychology as an independent science began to develop in the 19th century. A major role in its development at this stage was played by the works of A. I. Herzen, who spoke about “action” as an essential factor spiritual development person. It should be noted that the psychological views of domestic scientists in the second half of the 19th century. largely contradicted the religious point of view on psychic phenomena.

One of the most striking works of that time was the work of I. M. Sechenov “Reflexes of the Brain.” This work made a significant contribution to the development of psychophysiology, neuropsychology, and the physiology of higher nervous activity. It should be noted that Sechenov was not only a physiologist, whose works created the natural scientific basis for modern psychology. From early youth, Sechenov was interested in psychology and, according to S. L. Rubinstein, was the largest Russian psychologist of that time. Sechenov the psychologist not only put forward a psychological concept in which he defined the subject of scientific knowledge of psychology - mental processes, but also had a serious influence on the formation of experimental psychology in Russia. But perhaps highest value His scientific activity lies in the fact that it influenced the research of V. M. Bekhterev and I. P. Pavlov.

Pavlov's works were of great importance for world psychological science. Thanks to the discovery of the mechanism of formation of the conditioned reflex, many psychological concepts and even directions were formed, including behaviorism.

Later, at the turn of the century, experimental research was continued by such scientists as A.F. Lazursky, N.N. Lange, G.I. Chelpanov. A.F. Lazursky worked a lot on personality issues, especially the study of human character. In addition, he is known for his experimental work, including his proposed method of natural experiment.

Having started a conversation about the experiment, we cannot help but mention the name of N. N. Lange, one of the founders of experimental psychology in Russia. He is known not only for his study of sensation, perception, and attention. Lange created one of the first experimental psychology laboratories in Russia at Odessa University.

Simultaneously with experimental psychology in Russia at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. Other scientific psychological areas are also developing, including general psychology, zoopsychology, and child psychology. Psychological knowledge began to be actively used in the clinic by S. S. Korsakov, I. R. Tarkhanov, V. M. Bekhterev. Psychology began to penetrate the pedagogical process. In particular, the works of P. F. Lesgaft devoted to the typology of children became widely known.

A particularly noticeable role in the history of domestic pre-revolutionary psychology was played by G. I. Chelpanov, who was the founder of the first and oldest Psychological Institute in our country. Preaching the position of idealism in psychology, Chelpanov could not engage in scientific research after the October Revolution. However, the founders of Russian psychological science were replaced by new talented scientists. These are S. L. Rubinstein, L. S. Vygotsky, A. R. Luria, who not only continued the research of their predecessors, but also raised an equally famous generation of scientists. These include B. G. Ananyev, A. N. Leontiev, P. Ya. Galperin, A. V. Zaporozhets, D. B. Elkonin. The main works of this group of scientists date back to the period 30–60s of the twentieth century.



In practice psychological work the main goal is the correct identification of the magnitude of the studied signs, independent of the psychologist’s opinion; the psychologist strives to objectively assess the mental situation and personality traits of the subjects. This can be achieved through the repeated use of various methods, long-term observation of the manifestations of signs by various subjects, and also by identifying the high-frequency probability of their assessment in various or typical situations.

Thus, objectivity in psychological research – this is the adequacy and independence of the results of assessing the qualities or properties of the object or phenomenon being studied from the subjectivity of the researcher. It can be achieved by abstracting the psychologist from the individual interpretation of the research results, when a situation arises in which the sign is definitely and unambiguously identified in the majority of subjects by different researchers. However, the experience of a psychologist allows one to intuitively or on the basis of accumulated facts and a formulated algorithm cut off insignificant, biased information, thereby objectifying one’s subjective conclusion.

Thus, the objectivity of psychological research in general and empirical indicators in particular is achieved by acquiring experience in obtaining, using and interpreting data, as well as strict adherence to the reliability criteria of psychological measurement.

The experience of a psychologist as an indicator of the objectivity of psychological research is manifested in at least three aspects. First, over time, the researcher compares the results of the subjective assessment with the objective results of the subjects' vital activity. Moreover, the accumulated empirical result in this comparison acquires its objectivity, since the experimental assessment is “edited” and corrected, becoming real and objective. Secondly, the researcher adjusts the research instrument itself. Insignificant indicators and scales are “cut off,” their interpretation is changed, and new standards and evaluation criteria are developed. Thirdly, in the process of psychological practice, the researcher assimilates the experience of others through publications and in the course of direct exchange of information. These facts illustrate the transition of the psychologist’s subjective psychological assessment into the mainstream of objective conclusion.

Reliability should be understood as “sufficient accuracy” of measurements, i.e. sufficient for this level psychological ideas correctness (truth) of the results. The permissible error should not exceed the degree of assumption about the actual value of the attribute. Thus, reliability can consist of the accuracy of measurements and the adequacy of the assessment of the actual characteristic being studied.

In practice, the reliability of a psychological measurement is determined, first of all, by validity (compliance of test data with the property being measured), reliability (accuracy of psychodiagnostic measurements), predictiveness (assumption about the development of the measured property) and normativity of the psychological techniques used.

Validity of psychological methods. Quite a lot of research has been devoted to the problem of validity in psychology. Moreover, the classification of types and types of validity and their names are given in quite a variety of ways (Fig. 4.10).

Rice. 4.10.

Validity as an element of the reliability of the psychological measurement of the properties of a psychological phenomenon, the measure of compliance of empirical assessments with ideas about the essence of properties or their role in a particular phenomenon under study is called. In the theory of psychometrics, two main types and several types of validity of methods are defined. The types of validity include: external and internal validity.

External validity is a measure of the generalizability of measurement results to the population under study. It is determined by forming a representative study sample and cross-validation.

Representativeness of the sample – this is the representativeness of the experimental sample, reflecting the main properties of the population under study (general population). It is determined by comparing the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the experimental sample with the characteristics of the population in order to establish their homogeneity. TO quality characteristics socio-demographic, species, intellectual (educational), professional and other characteristics of the population (group) that are the subject of the study or significantly influence it can be included. Quantitative characteristics An experimental group is its minimum size, which retains the properties of the general population. In the psychological literature, there are several theoretical approaches to calculating the size of a minimum representative sample; tables of experimentally obtained data are often provided.

Cross Validation is carried out by testing the methodology on a sample different from the experimental one in order to determine the limits of its applicability according to the criterion of “population characteristics” (to determine the level of development of a property in children, adolescents, men or women, a certain group of specialists, etc.). During cross-validation, correlation coefficients between indicators obtained as a result of testing different groups of subjects are calculated. The conclusion about the possibility of using a technique on a specific population is made using certain statistical criteria.

Internal validity – a measure of compliance of test scores with the level of development of the property being measured. She consists of, at least, of five types of elements : A) conceptual (theoretical) validity (theoretical justification for the possibility of measuring the property under study using this psychological tool); b) content validity (degree of representativeness of the content of the posterior methodology of the measured area of ​​mental properties; c) construct validity (the degree of representation of the psychological construct under study in the results of the measuring instrument (“the extent to which the test results are considered as a measure of the psychological construct under study – factor, property”)); G) operational validity (degree of representation of real operating conditions in experimental operations psychic reality); d) empirical validity (a set of characteristics of the validity of the methodology obtained by comparative statistically assessment. These characteristics include the so-called autovalidity, obvious, criterion and other types of validity. Empirical validity is measured using validity coefficients).

Predictive validity is an element of the content of the reliability of the method and is defined as the degree of accuracy and validity of the judgment about the mental property under study based on its result, a certain time after the measurement.

An indicator of predictiveness is the degree of regression of test data to objective criteria. Regression is a function f(x1, x2 x3,... xn), which describes the dependence of the average indicator of a technique measuring a certain psychological phenomenon on the given fixed values ​​of the actual manifestation of this phenomenon (external criterion - y). This function can have linear and nonlinear form.

IN practical psychology To predict the development or manifestation of a measured property, linear or multiple linear regression is more often used (y = b + a1x1 + + a2x2 + ..., + anxn). Physical meaning it consists in equating the dependent and independent variables. The change in the independent variable determines the corresponding fluctuation in the dependent variable. The coefficients of the equation reflect the degree of predictiveness of the function, i.e. the level of variance explained by "x" due to changes in "y". When using a test battery, the prediction of the measured property is carried out through several interconnected dependent variables (x1, x2, x3, ..., xn), which form multiple linear regression. When using a multiple linear function to predict the development of the phenomenon or property under study, the level of predictiveness of the measurement and its reliability increases due to the overlapping of different aspects of the phenomenon or property under study with different methods.

Reliability - this is a characteristic psychological technique, reflecting the accuracy of measurements, as well as the resistance (stability) of the results to the action of extraneous random factors. Reliability and validity are the most important characteristics of the technique as a tool for psychological research.

The greatest stability of results is observed when using graphic and graphological tests, the indicators of which change extremely slowly. The handwriting changes slowly, and the quality of the lines of the drawings and their composition remain practically unchanged. The most dynamic indicators are observed in intellectual tests, which directly depend on a person’s ability to accumulate and process information.

The stability (stability) of the method indicators is influenced by: the state and mood of the subjects, the motivation of the subjects for testing, ergonomic factors (lighting, room temperature, vibration, noise, etc.), characteristics of the activity (monotonicity - dynamism, interference, etc.) , the degree of learning (or training) of the subjects, the variability of the psychological measurement instrument, the stability of the measurement procedure itself, etc. Reliability, therefore, is the degree of consistency of the test results obtained during the first and subsequent measurements.

In practice, it is most widely used six types of reliability: test-retest reliability (test-retest reliability); reliability of parallel forms; reliability of test parts (reliability as homogeneity of tests); Kuder–Richardson reliability; reliability of the interpreter ("evaluator") and standard error measurements.

The determination of the reliability coefficient of the first two types is calculated using formulas for calculating correlation coefficients (depending on the scale in which the data are measured) between the first and subsequent measurements or between parallel forms of the technique.

The calculation of the reliability coefficient when studying homogeneity is carried out by dividing the technique into equal subtests and calculating the correlation between these parts. To determine the overall reliability of the method, the obtained correlation coefficients are entered into the Spearman–Brown formula:

where R is the correlation of the “halves” of the test.

If parts of the technique are separate dichotomous tasks, for example, questions that can be given two answers (yes or no), or tasks with the result assessed as either correct or incorrect, the formula is used

where is the share of the first answer to question i; – share of the second option for question i.

The reliability of parts of the method can also be calculated using the Kuder–Richardson formula:

where K is the quantity equal parts test; – variance of test part i; – variance of the whole test.

When working with clinical questionnaires, creativity tests and projective technologies, the reliability of the methods is determined by comparing the interpretations of the results by two or more expert psychologists. Significant correlation coefficients between them indicate the reliability of the examination.

Reliability coefficients for psychological measures represent the amount of dispersion of the measures, which is calculated by squaring the correlation coefficient. It is interpreted as follows. For example, the correlation coefficient between parallel forms of the technique is 0.75. The reliability coefficient is calculated as 0.752 = 0.56. This means that 56% of the variance in the empirical data under study depends on the true variance of the attributes (parallel test data), and 44% is due to errors or random variables.

Reliability can be expressed by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEM) (standard error of a measure), which is calculated using the formula

where is the standard deviation of the test indicators, and is the value of the reliability coefficient.

The physical meaning of SEM is to determine the dispersion of the method’s indicators around the “true indicator”, which is characterized by the density of the normal distribution of the data. If, for example, 68% of all cases of a normal distribution of psychological data fall within the interval , then there are approximately two to one chances (68/32) that the measurement error will “fluctuate” within ± 1SEM. As the density of data distribution increases, for example, the probability of prediction also increases (99.7 / 0.3) with a corresponding increase in the error interval in both directions.

Thus, the reliability, validity and predictiveness of empirical data make it possible to measure psychological variables at the appropriate level of reliability, which is dictated by the practice of social research.

• See for example: Anastasi A. Psychological testing: in 2 volumes. M.: Pedagogika, 1982; Anastasi A., Urbina S. Psychological testing. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001; BurlachukL. F., Morozov S. M. Dictionary-reference book on psychodiagnostics. St. Petersburg: Peter Kom, 1999; Bodalev A. A., Stolin V. V. General psychodiagnostics. SPb.: RECH, 2002: Gilbukh Yu. Z. Current issues Validation of psychological tests // Questions of psychology. No. 5. M.: Pedagogika, 1978. P. 108–118; Gaida V.K., Zakharov V.P. Psychological testing: textbook, manual. L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1982. pp. 13–18, etc.
• The formation of a representative sample on a quantitative basis is carried out using P. A. Chebyshev’s theorem on the probability of representativeness error, which states: “With a probability arbitrarily close to unity, it can be argued that for sufficiently large number independent observations, the sample average will differ as little as desired from the general average." According to the first corollary from the theorem of P. L. Chebyshev "...With with a probability as close to unity as desired (“virtually certain”), the sample share will differ as little as desired from the general share if the sample size is large enough" (See: Karasev A. I. Fundamentals of mathematical statistics. M.: Rosvuzizdat, 1962. P. 172).
• See for example: Moskvin S. Sampling in sociological research // Military sociological research, 1993. pp. 27–30; Introduction to the profession. M.: Voenizdat, 1992; Karasev A. I. Fundamentals of mathematical statistics. M.: Rosvuzizdat. 1962. pp. 212–213: Burlachuk L. F., Morozov S. M. Dictionary-reference book on psychodiagnostics. St. Petersburg: Peter Kom, 1999. pp. 64–65, etc.
• S. Moskvin notes that with a population size of 400, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000 or more people, the minimum sample is 200, 222, 286, 333, 370, 398 and 400 subjects, respectively. G. Loza points out the following ratio of the general population and the volume of the experimental sample when conducting sociological research: 100/16–17 people, 300/50 people, 1000/100 people and 5000/200 subjects. A. Goncharov’s minimum representative sample relative to the general population is respectively: 500/222, 1000/286, 2000/333, 3000/350, 4000/360, 5000/370, 10,000/385, 100,000/398 and more than 100,000 – 400 respondents.
• Anastasi A., Urbina S. Psychological testing. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. P. 140.
• Cm . Anastasi A., Urbina S. Psychological testing. pp. 103–132.
• Mx – expected value(average value).

Objectivity is one of the basic principles of scientific knowledge. What are the basic principles of scientific knowledge? Many authors name as such: I) objectivity, 2) determinism, 3) systematicity, 4) evidence and validity of the results obtained in research, 5) constant reflection of the methods used, etc. However, in Lately objectivity as a universal principle of scientific knowledge begins to be questioned.

The problem of the objectivity of scientific knowledge in psychological science has always been one of the most difficult and still ambiguously solved problems. After all, psychology seemed to many to be a special science, because in it the cognitive activity of the subject is directed not at external reality, but at himself, at his own inner world. Many psychologists, on this basis, initially refused to recognize psychology as an objective science. " Is it possible to objectively study the subjective?? - they asked, meaning by subjective the inner world of the subject, supposedly open for knowledge only to himself and no one else. Within the framework of this point of view, the main (and sometimes even the only) method of cognition of mental phenomena was proclaimed to be the method of introspection, i.e. "looking inside oneself" The dubiousness of this method has long been emphasized by many researchers, for example I.M. Sechenov, who once said that if psychology really had such a special “tool” for “direct” knowledge of the psyche, it would have long ago overtaken other sciences in its development.

Other authors, such as, for example, representatives of what arose at the beginning of the 20th century. in the USA, behaviorism insisted that psychology should still be an objective science. But since, as the behaviorists believed, consciousness (as internally observable) cannot be studied objectively, they proposed another way out: it is necessary to study objectively what is truly objectively (this means, in their opinion, externally) observable. Behaviorists saw such a reality in the behavior of the subject and therefore proclaimed that the subject of psychology is not consciousness (which was understood in principle in the same way as in the psychology that preceded them), but behavior.

In Russian psychology, a different point of view has emerged on the solution to this problem: it is possible and should study consciousness and psyche objectively, but then the view on their subjectivity should be changed. Within the framework of this point of view, the idea arose that the term subjective can have (and had in the history of psychology) 3 different meanings:

1. In the first sense, the subjective is interpreted as the complete opposite of objective reality, as a world of “immediate” experience, which must be studied by completely different methods than objective reality.

2. In the second sense, subjective means distorted, biased, incomplete, etc. In this respect, it is contrasted with the objective as true, impartial, complete, etc. Partiality can also be studied objectively, as shown, for example, by L.S. Vygotsky, who once said about the psyche: “The purpose of the psyche is not at all to reflect reality in a mirror, but to distort reality in favor of the organism.” So understood, the subjectivity of the psyche means, therefore, that the psyche is conditioned primarily by the needs (motives) of its subject and the adequacy of mental reflection to the extent that it helps the subject to navigate the world and act in it. Modern psychology of motivation proves the possibility of a scientifically objective study of the specifics of the subjective distortion of reality by the subject, depending on the specific motives of his activity.

3. In the third sense, “subjective” is what belongs to the subject, performs specific functions in his life activity, has completely objective forms of existence and therefore can be studied by various objective methods (the term “subjective” is more suitable to express this meaning). As was shown by supporters of the activity approach in psychology (S.L. Rubinshtein, A.N. Leontiev, A.R. Luria, P.Ya. Galperin, D. B. Elkonin, etc.), the existence mental processes in various subjective (in the first sense) forms is a secondary phenomenon, while the initial and main way of their existence is their objective existence in various forms subject-related practical activity of the subject.

The development of modern psychology can be described as a movement towards objective knowledge of the psyche as a subjective one, performing its specific functions in human life.

Let us now return to the concept of “objectivity.” What kind of ideal of objectivity is possible in psychological science? After all, the object of psychological science itself is, by definition, subjective: it is the activity of the subject in the world of objects. In psychology, one subject learns about another subject, and this significantly changes our ideas about the laws of such research. After all, the very mental activity of the subject we study depends on his interaction with us, and, conversely, our interaction with the subject can change our own consciousness. Consciousness in general is in a certain sense artificial product: it is formed in ontogenesis in joint activities a child with an adult, and subsequently changes when interacting with other people. Finally, knowledge of the processes occurring in a person’s own consciousness leads to changes in the functioning of this consciousness. We actively influence our being, including the being of our consciousness.

The famous Russian philosopher M. M. Bakhtin wrote that human knowledge can only be dialogical. Following him, M.K. Mamardashvili said that in sciences dealing with the subject, one cannot talk about eternal and unchanging laws of the existence of subjective reality before interaction with another subject: these laws must be considered “as a function of some broader whole, as a function of the activity itself, in the continuum of which a connection becomes possible, which we then call laws.”

Thus, the process of psychological cognition of another person inevitably includes the knower in a constructive dialogue with him, but it still cannot be said that objective research is generally impossible in psychology. This dialogue itself unfolds not according to the arbitrariness of the researcher and not according to the free will of the subject - in the dialogue itself there are some rules that are relatively independent of the desires of the persons participating in it, some of its objective contours (determined by many circumstances beyond the control of the subjects).

From all of the above, it follows that explanation in psychology includes 1) correlating the subjective image with the objective reality that is the object of reflection; 2) establishing the neural mechanisms of the reflection process; 3) clarification of the dependence of the phenomena of consciousness on the social conditions by which they are determined, and on the objective activity in which human existence is expressed.

The objective method in psychology is a method of indirect knowledge of the psyche and consciousness. For the objective method, someone else's mental life is no less accessible to scientific study than one's own. The subjective is the subject scientific psychology not in itself, but only in unity with the objective.

Mental activity always receives its objective expression in certain actions, speech reactions, changes in the functioning of internal organs, etc. This is an integral property of the psyche.

The objectivity of the psychological method depends on what the concepts

The problem of the objectivity of psychological data has different meanings in the literature. In many ways, the criteria of objectivity repeat those that were not formulated specifically for the psychological field of knowledge. The problem of data reproducibility is discussed, i.e. the possibility of repeated studies obtaining the same phenomena and patterns. Reproducibility is thus considered as the ability to compare experimental data obtained for different subjects or different populations.

It may also be about the reproducibility of data in relation to individual experience or the subjective reality of the same person. Data stability is distinguished when it is clearly associated with the demonstration of a certain pattern (for example, the illusion of apparent movement) or expresses only some shifts in the recorded indicators, but these shifts always have the same direction.

For example, in social and educational psychology such a pattern is discussed as the best agreement between subjective assessments of teachers when the subject of assessment is the properties of students, and the worst when teachers evaluate their colleagues. In one example of demonstrating the features of a correlation study, other established dependencies will be considered - improving the forecast in assessing the properties of higher education teachers, both by the teachers themselves and by students.

For similar cases of research design, it is important to point out that a psychological pattern is revealed when comparing a series of sample indicators, i.e. The dependencies are probabilistic in nature, i.e. statistically estimated.

In the context of statistical assessment of the reliability of empirical results, the concept of data reliability is introduced. Data are considered reliable if, when obtained again under the same procedural conditions, they give insignificant deviations from the original values. In this case, reliability is associated not simply with the stability of certain effects, but also with the requirement for their probabilistic assessment based on statistical decisions. The unreliability of psychological research data can be a consequence of many reasons: fluctuations in the measured variables themselves, measurement errors, the influence of side factors that provide unsystematic shifts in the recorded indicators, etc.

The problem of data reproducibility is also related to the problem of their intersubjectivity, i.e. opportunities to be obtained by different researchers. The fact that subjective reality cannot be accessible to the gaze of another person does not mean a requirement to abandon the criterion of the intersubjective nature of knowledge. In psychology, methodological means depend to varying degrees on the researcher’s interpretation of the data from the subjective experience of another person – the subject.

The term “validity” is of European origin. It literally means: “complete”, “suitable”, “appropriate”.

The characterization of a psychodiagnostic technique as valid indicates its compliance and suitability for assessing exactly the psychological quality for which it is intended.

Characteristics of the validity of a technique include not only information about what the technique actually measures, but also information about the conditions and scope of its application.

There are several types of validity, each of which should be considered and assessed separately when the question of determining the validity of a psychodiagnostic technique is raised. Validity can be theoretical and practical (empirical), internal and external.

Theoretical validity is determined by the correspondence of the indicators of the quality being studied, obtained using this technique, to the indicators obtained using other methods - those with the indicators of which there should be a theoretically justified relationship. Theoretical validity is checked by correlations of indicators of the same property obtained using different methods based on or based on the same theory.

Empirical validity is checked by the correspondence of diagnostic indicators to real behavior, observed actions and reactions of the subject. If, for example, with the help of some technique we assess the character traits of a given subject, then the technique used will be considered practically or empirically valid when we establish that this person leads his life exactly as the technique predicts, i.e. in accordance with his existing character trait.

According to the criterion of empirical validity, the methodology is checked by comparing its indicators with real life behavior or the results of people’s practical activities.

Internal validity means the compliance of the tasks, subtests, judgments, etc. contained in the methodology with the general goal and intent of the methodology as a whole. It is considered internally invalid or insufficiently internally valid when all or part of the questions, tasks or subtests included in it do not measure what is required of this technique.

External validity is approximately the same as empirical validity, with the only difference that in this case we are talking about the connection between the indicators of the methodology and the most important, key external signs related to the behavior of the subject.

When creating a methodology, it is difficult to immediately assess its validity. Typically, the validity of the methodology is checked and clarified during its rather long use, especially since we are talking about verification from at least the four sides described above.

In addition to the types of validity, it is important to know the criteria of validity. These are the main signs by which one can practically judge whether a given technique is valid or not. Such criteria could be the following:

1. Behavioral indicators - reactions, actions and actions of the subject in various life situations.

2.Achievements of the subject in various types activities: educational, labor, creative and others.

3. Data indicating the completion of various control tests and tasks.

4. Data obtained using other methods, the validity or relationship of which with the method being tested is considered to be reliably established.

Reliability– one of the three main psychometric properties of any measuring psychodiagnostic technique (test).

Reliability is the immunity of a test to noise, the independence of its result from the action of various random factors:

a) a variety of external material testing conditions, varying from one subject to another;

b) dynamic internal factors that act differently on different subjects during testing;

c) informational and social circumstances.