During psychological testing, a practitioner holds a position of power over the client, especially minors and people whose future life direction depends on the outcome of the assessment. As such, one should take care not to be biased or prejudices against a client, and to make professional decisions that are constructive rather than harmful to the client. The International Test Commission recommends that testing should be professional, take the rights and needs of the client into consideration, and the wider context in which the evaluation is done. One of the components of the context in which testing takes place is culture and language. Therefore, cultural competence is an invaluable skill in practitioners who work in a cross-cultural setting or encounter clients with a different cultural background. There are many pitfalls into which a culturally incompetent practitioner may fall during the administration of a test on a client of a different cultural background, such as ethnocentrism. In such a case, it would be unethical and professionally irresponsible for the practitioner to undertake the assessment of the client because the outcomes would invariably be marred by bias.
Dat’s cultural and linguistic background might affect the outcome of the test if the testing methods and techniques are culturally or linguistically biased. For instance, if the tests take language comprehension and understanding into account in ability tests, Dat might be disadvantaged if the test heavily focuses on the English language or elements of the Indo-European language family. Dat is bilingual in Vietnamese and English, hence any linguistic components of the tests should be multi-cultural. Scholars and researchers in cross-cultural cognition and thought have shown that cultures have developed diverse “styles” of cognition and attitudes towards intelligence. Furthermore, not all individuals will necessarily adopt the cognitive patterns of their cultural background, meaning that intelligence is more nuanced. Several studies have shown that test takers who are sometimes unable to solve abstract problems often solve them when they are in a context which is familiar. In the case of Dat, this means that he might perform poorly in tests in a strange context but perform well in a familiar context. Apart from culture loading in the testing techniques and methods, the examiner might be biased in several ways, such as in verbal and non-verbal communication and stereotyping. Another source of bias might be situational bias, such as intimidation and anxiety of the examinee. Although many professionals insist that the ethnicity of the examiner may be a determining factor in test scores, empirical findings refute these assertion.
William Glaser identified potency as one of the core human psychological needs. Ability can be especially harmful to test takers because it may undermine the client’s sense of potency. Therefore, Keith needs to take care not to label Dat in a stigmatizing way. At the same time, Keith needs to offer his professional opinion in order to constructively address Dat’s educational needs. If Keithis unfamiliar with Vietnamese culture, he needs either to extensively and satisfactorily familiarize himself with Dat’s cultural background or to seek a professional colleague with the cultural competence needed for Dat’s test outcomes to be comprehensive, accurate and unbiased.
The results from Dat’s psychometric assessment could possibly identify learning disabilities or challenges, which means that Dat would possibly be placed in a special needs curriculum, which may limit Dat’s higher-educational opportunities. If the outcomes of the test are erroneous, the test could have far-reaching negative consequences for Dat and his family. Therefore, Keith should pay due care to adhere to industry and professional best practices regarding cross-cultural testing.
References
Benson, E. (2003). Intelligence across cultures. Monitor on Psychology, 56.
Fitzgerald, D., & Farrell, C. (2013). Best Practice, Ethical and Legal Considerations in Psychometric Testing for Guidance Councellors. Enact, Dublin: National Centre for Guidance in Education.
Reynolds, C. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2003). Bias in Psychological Assessment An Empirical Review and Recommendations. In C. R. Reynolds, & M. C. Ramsay, Handbook of Psychology (pp. 67-93). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
