[Perna]

I just retook the test, it's been 6 months or a year since I took it the first time, and I got the same score :-) My biggest problem turned out to be physical and I don't know that there is anything more I can do about that since I have been doing the doctor thing faithfully, etc. I had 5 other areas but I only got 25s in each of them so there's nothing major going on and those areas were "default" areas for me where I've always had problems? I'm wondering if it gets harder and harder to see any improvement as you get older and life stages/circumstances change. I'm retired now so not like I can fix things at "work" or have a zillion relationships that need adjusting, etc. Aren't I kind of getting "set" in my ways?

[DocClyde]

I dunno, mine (I have retaken I think 5 times--Yes, I have no life) has been around 30-40 every time...perhaps it is pretty valid?



I think anyone over about 30 is "set" in their ways

[DocJohn]

6 months is probably a good time frame...

But because it's main purpose is meant as a "screening" for mental health and related life issues, I wouldn't expect too much movement or change on the score in a period like that. Maybe a little up or down, but not more than that.

DocJohn

[Rio_]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Clyde said:
I dunno, mine (I have retaken I think 5 times--Yes, I have no life) has been around 30-40 every time...perhaps it is pretty valid?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I've taken it ten times so far. The highest I've had is 53, and the lowest is 35, but it normally seems to be in the low-mid 40s.

[chalmette70043]

I've taken it 4-5 times. Can't get a score lower than 144. Even tried given answers less than what i am actually feeling. Maybe i will wait six months before i take it again.

chalmette

test retest reliability is when retesting gives you the same or a similar score on subsequent sittings.

of course test retest reliability should be balanced with sensitivity to change over time.

personally... i'm dubious about the utility of the test.

people post here 'cause they know they have mental health issues already.

people who post here typically have psychologists / psychiatrists / councellors already.

i'm concerned about people 'making up tests' especially when... they aren't really qualified to make up reliable and valid tests... are they? i'm also dubious about the attempt to operationalise and test the construct 'sanity'. still... going with the unscientific construct 'sanity' means that one doesn't have to worry about conflicting with tests that have already been constructed to test for actual psychological / psychiatric conditions, i suppose... there certainly isn't a consensus on an operational definition of 'sanity' and i don't suppose there is even inter-rater reliability for judgements as to whether a person is 'sane'.

one might as well design a test for 'witchcraft'. i mean... one is of course free to operationally define a term however one wants to... its utility with respect to capturing interesting phenomena in the world, on the other hand...

i mean... people post here because they are worried about their mental health already. the test is supposed to... what? tell them they should worry more / less / much the same? why on earth should they worry more / less / much the same? a high score is correlated with... what, precisely?????

[Perna]

Sane/insane are legal concepts. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" has to do with understanding one's self/one's actions, the difference between right and wrong; or, one of my favorite expressions, "which way is up" :-) But it's a society sort of quiz to me, for fun and a little to see how one may be doing with all one's psychologists / psychiatrists / councellors :-)

I just wondered, with tweaking and changes announced, if there would be any differences in results. Apparently not anything major.

The biggest difference in my first and second takes was the physical issue and that has been a big issue. I find it "comforting" that the quiz does in fact reflect my issues and doesn't show something I was not aware of or not show something I personally thought was a problem, etc. I think that is primarily what the test is good at.

thats true, it IS a legal concept, i had forgotten about that. mcnaughten defence 'n all :-)

but... its not measuring that - is it?

i mean... even psychiatrists don't measure insanity 'that is for jurys to decide' the DSM says...

while psychiatrists give specialist testimony about likely mental state insanity is only for juries to decide...

i guess... i'm a little sceptical about the 'for fun' tests. in this instance i'm concerned that people will think that it is more than 'for fun'. that it is a tool that really does measure insanity...

how could the test show you something you weren't aware of when the test measures self report?????

and...

if you are aware that it is a problem enough to report it in the test then how does the test tell you anything you didn't already know?????

[Perna]

It measures self report but who among us does not have some self sabotage, self deceit or "conceit" that can keep us from seeing what is in front of our noses? Other people make comments about us that we don't like and we deny them/"that" problem. Yes, we often know deep down we have a problem but getting it into consciousness where it can be worked on is a different situation isn't it? :-)

I don't find it a straightforward test that one can know what the "correct" answers are so one can appear a certain way like most magazine quizzes contain; too many questions and no way to know what questions are grouped to what "ends". I can't see what I'm "reporting" on the test. It's a bit like a garden maze to me; a maze is some part fun and some part "test" of my navigating/directional skills and memory. This test is "fun" in that sense too, I like testing myself, seeing if I can find my way "out" and get a bit of a consensus of who I think I am and who I present? Isn't that what sanity is about, whether those two match?

so if you are sane your self conception should match the verdict of the test but insane if the verdict is out of synch with your self conception?

(i'm granting here that the relevant notion of sanity isn't the legal notion)

[Perna]

Indicators only. . .:-) Not too literal with the "insane" please. But I think if self conception doesn't match, it might be easier to "fool" yourself so you could conceviably do something you weren't aware of/didn't "mean" to, etc.? That could bring you toward the legal definition?

I'd rather "think" I had lots of problems and have those lots of problems I thought I had show up than either think I had lots of problems and get a much lower score or think I didn't have problems and get a much higher score? Granted, some people who think they have problems and then get a much lower result than expected are going to be pleased but I would see it as having a perception problem within myself and that would not please me.

[ECHOES]

i just did a re-take.

Basically it said DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN THINK OF QUITTING THERAPY!!

[selfy]

heh. i reckon those tests should only be used as a pointer, so that when u take it, if u get high in certain areas, u know that they are of more significance to u. and should u go to a pdoc, u could use that, to point out what worries you.
i dont think there are any amount of times you have to redo it, i just use it for fun. and to monitor myself.
take care all
self