Search

In order to provide technical information on the tests published in Spain, and continuing with the evaluation of some of the tests that are most frequently used in this country, this paper describes the results of the third evaluation of psychological and educational tests carried out by the Test Commission of the Spanish Psychological Association. In total, 11 tests were evaluated. As in the previous evaluations, each test was evaluated by two experts who responded to the Questionnaire for the Assessment of Tests – CET- (Prieto & Muñiz, 2000). However, considering that the European Federation of Psychological Associations has recently revised the European model -which was partially based on the CET model-, for this third evaluation we have introduced a number of changes that are described in this paper. In addition, for each test, results are presented regarding the quality of the documentation and materials, the theoretical foundation, the Spanish adaptation, the item analysis, the coverage of the validation studies, the reliability, and the norms. Both quantitative and qualitative information is provided, highlighting the main strengths and weaknesses of the test. Finally, we also present a number of recommendations and suggestions for future test evaluations.

This article describes the results of the second evaluation of psychological tests published in Spain. The Official Association of Psychologists Testing Committee decided that 12 tests, selected mainly because they were innovative and widely used, should be assessed. Each test was evaluated by two experts. As in the first evaluation (Muñiz, Fernández-Hermida, Fonseca-Pedrero, Campillo-Álvarez and Peña-Suárez, 2011), the evaluators’ work was done by responding to the questions on the Questionnaire for Test Evaluation (Prieto and Muñiz, 2000), which adapts the model prepared by the European Federation of Professional Psychologist Associations to the Spanish context. Each test was evaluated for quality of materials and documentation, score reliability, coverage of validation studies, quality of scales, etc. The reviewers also reported on the suitability of the instrument and the evaluation process and made suggestions that might be useful to improve future assessments.