There are situations when several psychological tests, which are relatively similar to one another, can yield very different results. For example, one can speak about Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory, perceived stress scale, and wellness worksheet. It is often assumed that they can throw light on the emotional wellbeing of a person (McArdle & Ritschard 2013). Furthermore, people often expect that the results of such assessments will be similar to one another. However, such expectations are not always met. The main problem is that the chosen methods lack consistency. Certainly, one cannot say that each of them is invalid, but if they are taken together, they cannot throw light on the psychological state of a person. Moreover, it is critical to remember that these measurement tools are based on different theoretical assumptions. Finally, they have different levels of accuracy. Therefore, it is not possible to combine them in order to describe the experiences of an individual. This is the main argument that should be closely examined.
Under such circumstances, it is necessary to examine the validity of each case separately. For instance, Holmes Rahe stress inventory only identifies the list of traumatic events that make a person more susceptible to stress, mental problems, and other illnesses (Eysenck, 2005, p. 153). Nevertheless, one cannot suppose that this list is a comprehensive one. It should be kept in mind that this measurement technique is premised on the idea that change is inevitably associated to stress (Eysenck, 2005, p. 153). Furthermore, this measurement tool can be valid only if people respond to such events in a similar way. This is one of the reasons why this tool may produce the results that a person may not readily accept. In contrast, the perceived stress scale can show how a person responds to difficulties or challenges (Thompson, 2007, p. 388). Therefore, one can argue that these measurement tools have to achieve different objectives. Additionally, one should take into account that the perceived stress scale has a very high standard deviation (McArdle & Ritschard 2013, p. 388). This limitation is one of the reasons why people can question the accuracy of this test (McArdle & Ritschard 2013). Therefore, one cannot say that these scales cannot be applied together in order to study the psychological state of a person.
In contrast, the wellness worksheet can throw light various aspects of a person’s experiences. Although this tool has a higher level of accuracy, it is not suitable, if a person want to examine a specific aspect of a person’s experiences such as the resilience to stress (Eysenck, 2005). In this case, one should use different techniques. This is one of the details that should be considered. While applying different measurement tools, one should examine the questions that the respondents are prompted to ask. In this way, one can determine the degree to which different tools are consistent with one another. This is one of the main precautions that should be considered.
Overall, this discussion suggests the application of different scales cannot always be an effective approach because they can differ in terms of accuracy or the major theoretical assumptions. The techniques that have been discussed lack consistency with one another, and they cannot be valid if they are taken together. This is the main problems that can be identified.
References
Eysenck, M. (2005). Psychology for AS Level. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis
McArdle, J., & Ritschard, G. (2013). Contemporary Issues in Exploratory Data Mining in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge.
Thompson, R. (2007). How Parents’ Stress, Attributions and Mental Health Relate to Their Reactions to Their Child’s Disability. New York, NY: ProQuest.