Smith Bruce L, Evans F Barton
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
J Pers Assess. 2004 Feb;82(1):39-43; discussion 44-7. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8201_7.
We review Erard's (this issue) article. We laud him for the measured tone and carefully reasoned position that is taken. Although his main point that The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the new American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code (2002) need not be seen as disasters for the practice of assessment, we pose several problems with his analysis. In particular, we argue that although his point that test security is not airtight at present is well taken, nonetheless, it is important to set the bar as high as possible to limit breaches in security. Although Erard is correct that more complex instruments may withstand attempts to manipulate the results, many smaller or more focused instruments may be irrevocably damaged. Furthermore, the release of raw test data can have a deleterious effect in the clinical arena, especially in instances in which it could be subject to misinterpretation and misuse. Finally, we criticize the APA for subjugating the interests of the profession to political expediency.
我们回顾了埃拉德（本期）的文章。我们赞赏他所采用的审慎语气和经过深思熟虑的立场。尽管他的主要观点是，1996年的《健康保险流通与责任法案》（HIPAA）和新的美国心理学会（APA）伦理准则（2002年）不一定被视为评估实践的灾难，但我们对他的分析提出了几个问题。特别是，我们认为，虽然他关于目前测试安全性并非无懈可击的观点很有道理，但尽可能提高标准以限制安全漏洞仍然很重要。虽然埃拉德说得对，更复杂的工具可能经得起操纵结果的企图，但许多较小或针对性更强的工具可能会受到不可挽回的损害。此外，原始测试数据的发布可能会在临床领域产生有害影响，尤其是在可能会被误解和滥用的情况下。最后，我们批评美国心理学会将该行业的利益屈从于政治权宜之计。
