[sarahsweets]

I am talking about the sanity scores, the ADHD scores, autism, depression, SAT, IQ, Meyers Brigg- any type of scores used to measure a person. I did terrible on my SAT's yet got into college and made Deans list. I have taken online IQ tests and done terrible yet I know I am not a stupid person. How reliable are these scores? Do they honestly mean anything or are they a psychological means of making us feel better or worse about ourselves?

[*Beth*]

Well, I straight-out stood up and walked out of my SAT's. What a waste of time and effort. But then, it was the '70's...

If I take those other quizzes I do so for amusement. No, they do not mean anything to me.

[unaluna]

Well, this is something i wish i had known earlier so i could shove it up peoples noses, but my scores on the test to get into graduate business school showed that i scored low 90's in both verbal and analytical, but THAT combination scored a 97 percentile. So everytime someone said, "well you HAVE to be EITHER big picture OR detail oriented", i wish i would have had my 97% there to tell them here is my proof i am both so shut up!

So yeah even if you score well, someone will bust your bricks about it.

[WastingAsparagus]

In a word: yes, they're accurate (with caveats).

There are statistical measures of whether or not someone is in a high percentile, etc. You can calculcate how many standard deviations one person is away from the norm (median), among other ways. Those seem to be somewhat accurate because if statistically speaking, someone scores better than the median, that means they're above average.

Do they mean anything? I don't think they have much of an independent meaning. Who decided that such a test was the best way to measure people's ability or aptitude on a certain topic?

I hate exams like the SAT, etc. Luckily I didn't have to take the GRE to get into graduate school. I think test-making is a racket, to be 100% honest. It's a complete scam put on by College Board or whatever they're called.

[downandlonely]

I did very well on my SAT and ACT without studying at all. My grades in school were not that great (again, because I did not study). I do well at standardized tests. I think they are a separate skill, not really related to how well you do in school or anything else.

I thought Meyers-Briggs was pretty accurate too. And I have done some personality tests that were dead on.

[MuseumGhost]

Hello, love.

I would urge anyone suffering from any kind of debilitating chronic condition to NEVER take an online test of any kind. They are constructed by hacks who are not true psychologists or educators. And they are there mostly for distraction/entertainment.

Our cognitive functions can be very dampened by the issues we all face. This could result in a poor score---and more demoralization than we need.

Now, that's very different from professionally administered tests. I would encourage anyone who has no choice, and HAS TO take those tests to do everything possible to keep yourself as well as you can: Eat right, exercise (oxygenating the brain does more for us that I ever realized, earlier in life), get lots of rest, and allow yourself to focus exclusively on what's immediately before you---so that your scores are closer to reflecting your true aptitudes, abilities, and strengths.

Such tests will show where you're at, in a certain place and time. If you want to re-take them at any time, I'm sure there are ways of doing that (for when you're feeling better, say.)

Originally Posted by sarahsweets

I am talking about the sanity scores, the ADHD scores, autism, depression, SAT, IQ, Meyers Brigg- any type of scores used to measure a person. I did terrible on my SAT's yet got into college and made Deans list. I have taken online IQ tests and done terrible yet I know I am not a stupid person. How reliable are these scores? Do they honestly mean anything or are they a psychological means of making us feel better or worse about ourselves?

Great question. I personally think Myers Briggs is pointless. I think there's validity to the depression, autism, diagnostic tests. They can be used as a tool to help oneself. IQ test I have mixed feelings about. People get too into it and it is not the best predictor of success or happiness imo. And ppl treat it like it is.

[Nammu]

IQ tests are biased. They test how white you are, I'm very white. Grew up very wasp, upper middle class. School was easy cause I loved tests. SAT was easy too. I was given a battery of personality tests and normal. Personally I think the mmpi is rigged in favor of wasp too although that one usually showed severe depression, which was true but only half the equation. It was only given to me when I was severely depressed. I think most test are geared towards father knows best background. I think the Meyers Briggs is ridiculous. Tests are only as good as the tester, online tests are suspect.

[Ford Puma]

There is a pluss and a minus to the OPs question about scores. The idea behind them is correct and off use to professionals however some can be manipulated which can make them unreliable. IQ tests are my 'horribilis' mainly as I do not score well in them. I tend to spend too much time trying to figure out the clever-what comes next- questions! I have done three tests here the; Autism test, the sanity score, and the mood disorder/bipolar tests.

[bpcyclist]

As far as all the battery of psychological tests most of us here on PC have taken multiple times, I actually have no idea how accurate of useful they are. I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist. I just don't know. As for the various academic tests out there, those I do know quite a bit about. And what I have learned after 8000 years of schooling and test-taking and test-writing is that test-taking is a skill. It's something you can get much better at if you so choose. An average test-taker can, in fact, become outstanding if they work hard enough. That's been my experience, anyway. Anyhow, because I believe it is really a skill, I do not consider academic testing to be a good or accurate predictor of future job performance. Just my take. Lastly, IQ testing only measures a very narrow band on the total spectrum of what constitutes human intelligence. It is, therefore, in my opinion, of very little predictive value.

[divine1966]

Well I certainly wouldn’t consider random online tests and quizzes to be any kind of serious measurement of anything.

Yes real testing has its validity. Absolutely. In conjunction with other means and observations.

We do need proper IQ testing (in conjunction with other measures and no, not online quizzes) to determine cognitive impairment. You can’t distegard testing completely

I don’t want doctors who can’t pass board exams to operate on me. Yes test taking is a skill, and it’s a valid skill. It could determine how fast one can make decisions and if one can think logically and if one can do more than just memorize etc

Now of course we aren’t talking about some random online quizzes.

And of course not all test results are equally valid or accurate. And there are many factors to consider. If you are trilingual, what language should you be tested in? Native? What if you mostly speak your third language, which isn’t even near being native but that’s the one you mostly use? What if you have Tourette’s and tick with your hand so bad it slows down your responses and you can’t finish test on time? What if you have ASD and simply don’t want to answer some questions? Your IQ test won’t be accurate. That’s why we need other measures

But we can’t really argue that tests have no validity. It’s just not realistic.