SYSTEMS PSYCHOLOGY
AND SOCIOLOGY

    Views: 633

THE POSSIBILITY OF FORMALIZATION OF DRAWING TECHNIQUES IN SPECIAL PSYCHOLOGY: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

S. M. Valyavkо,

MCU, Moscow,

ValyavkоSM@mgpu.ru

Modern psychodiagnostics, according to a number of foreign representatives of this branch of psychology, is experiencing a deep crisis. A similar systemic crisis is observed in Russia. Modern scientists identify a number of causes of this phenomenon, including the methodological impasse, and the decline of experimental psychological research. The implementation of the humanitarian paradigm in special education in Russia often occurred, yielding to the requirements of the non-professional community, including the substitution of nosological diagnoses and professional defectological vocabulary blurred definitions, rejection of specialist surveys, rejection of testing of children, test critics, etc.

However, at the beginning of the XXI century there was a number of methodological studies of American scientists — methodologists, which proposed specific steps to the validation of individual scales and tests.

Given the great scientific importance of this area, the article offers a review and discussion of the most important methodological aspects of diagnostic techniques used in practice. «Intuitively-empirical attempts» (according to V. I. Lubovsky) of standardization and interpretation of some little-formalized techniques, especially pictorial, did not give the desired result. This has long been a serious obstacle to scientific progress in this area. Despite the environmental friendliness of the drawing tests and their ease of use, the difficulties and ambiguity in the interpretation of the results significantly reduced all the advantages of their application. The attitude to them as to insufficiently reliable diagnostic tools has become common. At the same time, drawing tests continued to remain in the Arsenal of domestic and foreign researchers. The catalog of these methods is gradually supplemented and detailed.

Continuation of the relevant work on the theoretical and methodological basis of drawing tests and especially on their standardization is an urgent task of psychodiagnostics. For the psychology of development and special psychology its solution is of particular importance, as the diagnosis of young children and persons with disabilities has special requirements for psychometric instruments.

The article also proposes a new algorithm of formalization of drawing techniques, which is based on improving the method of interpretation through the introduction of quantitative evaluation procedures. The work on approbation of the proposed algorithm is described and its results are discussed.

Keywords: psycho-diagnostics; psychodiagnostics technique; the process of developing procedures formalization of diagnostic tests; validity; reliability; standardization and unification; interpretation; non-effective methods; projective drowing tests.

For citation: Valyavkо S. M. The Possibility of Formalization of Drawing Techniques in Special Psycho logy: Problems and Prospects // Systems Psychology and Sociology. 2019. № 2 (30). P. 24–35. DOI: 10.25688/2223-6872.2019.30.2.03

Valyavko Svetlana Mikhaylovna, PhD in Psychology, Docent, Docent at the Department of Clinical and Special Psychology at the Institute of Psychology, Sociology and Social Relations of the Moscow City University, Moscow, Russia.

E-mail: ValyavkоSM@mgpu.ru

References

1. Anastasi A., Urbina S. Psychological testing. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. 688 p.

2. Baturin N. A. Modern psychodiagnostics Russia: Overcoming the crisis and addressing the new challenges // Vestnik of SUSU. Series: Psychology. 2010. № 40 (216). P. 4–12.

3. Baturin N. A., Melnikova N. N. Technology development test: Part I // Vestnik of SUSU. Series: Psychology. 2009. № 30 (163). P. 4–14.

4. Burlachuk L. F. Psychodiagnostics. 2nd edition. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2010. 378 p.

5. Valyavko S. M. Empirical experience in design and formalization of diagnostics instruments to test the example of general and special motivation // Systemic Psychology and Sociology. 2014. № 3. P. 28–40.

6. Valyavko S. M., Knyazev K. E. The possibility of using projective techniques for the diagnosis of personality development of preschool children with the general underdevelopment of speech // Experimental Psychology. 2014. T. 7. № 4. P. 110–122.

7. Volfram E.-M. The phenomenological study of psychotherapy: a method of obtaining know ledge from experience // Psychotherapy: the new science of man. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt; Ekaterinburg: Delovaya kniga, 1999. P. 359–378.

8. Gurevich K. M. Psychological diagnostics. Moscow: Publishing House URAO, 1997. 304 p.

9. Zabrodin Yu. M., Pahalian V. E. Diagnostics / under the general editorship of Yu. M. Zabrodin. M.: Eksmo, 2010. 448 p.

10. Korobeynikov I. A. Back to Wexler or forward to Vygotsky? // Defectology. 2012. № 2. P. 12–14.

11. Leontiev D. A. New guidelines of understanding personality in psychology from the necessary to the possible // Questions of Psychology. 2011. № 1. P. 3–27.

12. Lubovsky V. I. Why a new approach to the differential psychological diagnostics? // Special Psychology. 2009. № 3 (21). P. 18–29.

13. Muddy S. Theories of personality: a comparative analysis. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2002. 539 p.

14. Mitina O. V. Development and adaptation of psychological questionnaires. M.: Smysl, 2011. 240 p.

15. Romanova E. S. Psychology of professional formation of the person: PhD diss. … in psycho logy (Psy. D.). Moscow, 1992. 386 p.

16. Ryzhov B. N. System structure of personality // Systems psychology and sociology. 2017. № 3 (23). C. 5–11.

17. Ryzhov B. N., Stolyarova G. I., Mashkova L. A. Dynamics of motivational indicators in high school // System psychology and sociology. 2017. № 2 (22). P. 14–23.

18. Shurdukalov V. N. Psychometric Evaluation of productivity and quality-level approach to psychodiagnostics violations of younger students: PhD thesis …. in psychology. Irkutsk, 1998. 21 p.

19. Chervinskaya K. R. Computer psychodiagnostics. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2003. 336 p.

20. Brabender V. M., Mihura J. L. (eds.) Handbook of gender and sexuality in psychological. New York: Routledge, 2016. 730 p.

21. Frederick T. L. Leong, Yong Sue Park (eds). Testing and assessment with persons & communities of color: monograph / American Psychological Association. Washington, DC, 2016. 31 p.

22. Haladyna T. M. Supporting documentation: Assuring more valid test score interpretations and used // Large-scale assessment for all students: Validity technical adequacy and implementation / ed. G. Tindal, T. Haladyna. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties, 2001. P. 89–108.

23. Haladyna T. M., Dowing S. M. Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing // Educational Measurement: Issue and Practice. 2004. № 23 (1). P. 17–27.

24. Handbook of test development / ed. by Steven M. Dowing, Thomas M. Haladyna. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties, 2006. 778 p.

25. Meijer R. Outlier detection in high-stakes certification testing // Jornal of Educational Measurement. 2002. № 11 (4). P. 301–310.

26. Mihura J. L., Roy M., Gracefoo R. A. Psychological assessment training in clinical psycho logy doctoral programs // Journal of Personality Assessment. 2016. № 98. P. 1–12.

27. Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures // Industrial and Orga nizational Psychology. 2018. № 11 (S1). P. 1–97. DOI: 10.1017/iop.2018.195.