Psychological Disorder

The Urgency and Necessity For Understanding Change!

Psychometric and Ecometric Differences

Introduction: Traditions have been used from the early 1920 when Flexner (1915) c/f Siegel (1994;44) and many academics were debating the criteria necessary to quantify human behavior and the interpretations of such behavior.
Dr. A C Faul in her dissertation on: "Measurement and Ecometrics in Social Work" (1995) we found the following information as a basis to revisit the present inefficiencies found in the present methodologies still being used 15 years later. It is absolutely frightening in fact to see what little progress has taken place in this time frame. Technology has increased dramatically. Let us ask ourselves why have the Human Resource, Recruitment Agencies and Psychologists stagnated in their present methodologies?

After studying and researching the subject over the past 10 years Dr. Neil Whitehouse understood the gigantic gap between the Psychological and the Sociological perspectives of Human Behavior and the reluctance to except clearly defined facts and the benefits of new technology. The primary reason for reluctant attitudes is Money and we mean Big Money. Educate yourselves and understand the absolute truth?

Dr. Whitehouse states: "The reluctance to accept the scientific evidence produced and ignoring these essential dramatic differences are mind blowing and frightening as people are being destroyed in the name of invented diseases. Despite the proof and the evidence we daily allow innocent people to be destroyed by allowing the authorities, to proceed unchecked without us murmuring a word. Every second of every day a child or person is being destroyed because we allow them to be prescribed psychotic poisonous drugs due to our flippancy and ignorance. Check out the overwhelming evidence and research that has been produced by many academics and scholars over the past 20 years.

The use of psychometrical instruments and such like practices are repeated daily affecting millions of peoples lives through recruitment processes, school systems, prison services, business enterprises and false psychoanalysis  methodologies.

Further, research has proven without any doubt that no human behavior can be described as normal or as a mental disease. That is proven scientific facts.
There is not a single scientific case study that can measure the lack of chemicals in the brain, there is not a single pathological test one can do to determine any psychotic disease. Amazingly enough no pathologist can determine whether or not anyone is suffering from a metal disease as described under the Diagnostic Statistical Manual. Why is that?  Please ask the people involved to explain this scenario? How does one determine that anyone is Bipolar, ADHD,  Anxiety disorder, Schizophrenia,etc etc?

Watch the Video's on the left and thereafter let us study the overwhelming evidences through hard scientific facts and by examining the evidence you can decide for yourself. We do not expect you to believe us nor listen to what we are teaching, but certainly expect everyone to check the true facts for themselves. It could be the difference between life and death. Ask these experts to give you the test that they use to determine the chemical imbalances in the brain. There simple is no test!  You owe it to yourself and to your own children, become counted as one who is prepared to fight back in order to help our precious children as they have become soft targets for some very unscrupulous, unjust, money mongers called professional doctors, deceiving us into believing that they use a medical science to diagnose so called mental disorders. What makes them experts? There is certainly no science whatsoever behind these so called mental experts called Doctors.

In Faul’s research from 1995 we find the following facts and quotes:

“An example of such different opinion debates between academics within the different profession is the one between Allen-Meares, DeRoos and Siegel (1994) about the issue: “Are practitioner intuition and empirical evidence equally valid sources of professional knowledge?” Siegel is of the opinion that practitioner intuition cannot provide a suitable foundation for professional knowledge and that empirical evidence is a much more valid source of professional knowledge".

She quotes Flexner’s statement of the criteria that define a profession, which stresses the fact that professional practice must be based upon a “systematic body of knowledge and theory” (Flexner (1915) c/f Siegel 1994:44). She further defends her opinion with the knowledge criteria necessary for validity, which she defines from Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: “... to be considered valid, knowledge must be well grounded, sound, cogent, and convincing. It must be supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority, be based on flawless reasoning and on solid grounds, and have the power of overcoming doubt” (Siegel 1994:43). She concludes with a statement from Gordon that says “knowledge refers to what, in fact, seems to be established by the highest standards of objectivity and rationality, of which [people] are capable” (Gordon (1965) c/f Siegel 1994:43).”

While Dr Whitehouse the author of this paper commenced studying “Psychology” as a starter, was fascinated and impressed with Siegels statements above and was confronted with the reality of the measurement term “diagnostic” which had been gained from the medical fraternity (as if it were a medical science) and this was a basic terms used for analysis. Continuing investigation and research he found Hudson saying;
“Psychometric tests are normally connected with specific norms that are used for interpretation. It is decided what is normal in society, a client is measured against this "normal standard" and if there is a deviation from this standard, the client is recognized as an "abnormal individual". Population standards are therefore used to evaluate clients (Hudson 1994b; Aiken 1976).” This rational has not changed much to this very day.

“Diagnosis usually is a classification in terms of an illness or abnormality. Diagnosis implies labeling, that forms an integral part of psycho-analytic terminology. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association vol IV describes a myriad of terms that professionals use to label clients. This labeling has no scientific evidence or study to prove these diagnostic terms".

"Observed behavior is used as a sign of more important underlying processes, typically of a pathological nature. Use of a diagnostic label often assumes a trait conception of behavior in which consistency of behavior across situations are assumed. The whole process of diagnosing a client is practitioner-centered where a client is judged on the basis of test results interpreted by a second party, without involving the client in the process itself” (Meyer 1993; Goldfried 1976; Joubert & Francisco-La Grange 1988).

This diagnostic methodology really got the author realizing that a norm or norms would be impossible to meet the criteria whereby valid quantification of human behavior would have to be based on a solid foundation which was “supported by objective truth and flawless reasoning, nor have the power to overcome doubt” as quoted by Siegal (1994:43) Knowing that each individual human is uniquely different which is equitably proven through the forensic sciences. Dr. Whitehouse realized that trying to rationalize scientific measurement was impossible when using the diagnostic "social norm" concept and that it was totally flawed with too many obvious errors and through further research revealed that not one psychological scholar or academic could reasonable answer the objection to the term "normal" if every one was uniquely different.

Sociology then became an obvious option for Whitehouse, though little credibility had been bestowed on the Social Sciences at the time. Research showed in late 1995, when several researches and academics started to bring a very credible form of measurement based on the ecometric model, which was a form of measurement that originated with Van Zyl. This was known as the Heimler Scale of Social Functioning (HSSF).  “It had to do with the quantification of the degree of balance between living organisms and their environment. Ecometry therefore is the methodology of measurement of all aspects of social work and focuses on the manner in which people adapt in their environments” (Van Zyl 1995 & A C Faul 1995)

History showed that Psychology had made a huge impact on the world and the market place through tradition and the thought of Sociology as an alternative was reluctantly accepted by Whitehouse due to the perceived second best alternative at best. Sociology especially Ecometrics was stigmatized into being “social worker” material which carried the perception that social work was a far inferior form to “Diagnosis” than psychology. In 2002 Whitehouse  started to do some serious comparison research resulting in Whitehouse placing himself into a full time research and study program. He started researching the fundamental differences between Psychological and Sociological methodologies. The difference between Psychometrics and Ecometrics.

Psychometrics vs Ecometrics.

Ecometrics is different from psychometrics, sociometrics and econometrics and can be seen as a development out of these different disciplines. For the purpose of this paper, ecometrics will be compared mainly with psychometrics that forms part of the psychological profession's social norm concept. Psychology is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior” (cf. Morgan & King 1971).
Psychometrics is defined in the same dictionary as “the science of measuring mental capacities and processes” The concept of "social norm" is flawed so any science between a flawed concept base must lead to flawed out comes. Just by studying these basic definitions it became clear that ecometrics, which accepts the uniqueness of people and by placing the emphasis on that basic uniqueness on the quality of adaption between people and their environments, made perfect sense and therefore totally impossible to draw a comparison between psychometrics and ecometrics.

Measurement of Personality Types vs Measurement of Ecology

“The psychological profession has been and remains person "norm centered". Most psychological test techniques reflect the preoccupation with persons, particularly with presumably enduring characteristics of individuals, such as intelligence, abilities, attitudes and personality traits. Personality types are seen as consisting of certain relatively stable and interrelated motives, characteristics, and dynamics which underlie and are responsible for a person’s overt actions”   (McAdams 1990; Meyer, Moore & Viljoen 1988; Wicker 1981).

“Although the above reasoning has some truth, Ecometrics must also be concerned with measurement of the environment, because it is important to give a clearer understanding of the individual in the immediate context of his environment. Ecometrics acknowledges the fact that results obtained from individuals by a measurement device, must always be interpreted in the context of the individual's environment. It is also recognized that measurement within the ecological context can differ from one minute to the next, because of the intense dynamics involved in the interaction between the individual and his environment.

To make the quantification of the individual within his environment less complicated, Ecometrics has taken a person-centered approach when the environments of individuals are assessed. Ecometrics relies on the capacities of respondents to remember, anticipate, interpret, and report their transactions through feelings about certain designated environments. This approach coincides with the environmental psychologists who rely on the individual’s affective appraisals of his/her environment” (c.f. Wicker 1981; Bell et al. 1990).

Psychometrics for Diagnostic purposes vs Ecometrics for Assessment Purposes.

“Psychometric Tests are usually applied for diagnostic purposes, where Ecometrics is usually applied as part of a broader assessment phase that has as its main purpose the gaining of a fuller understanding of the client within his/her environment” (Hepworth & Larson 1993; Brammer & Shostrom 1982).

“The term diagnosis is widely used in psychology and is borrowed from medicine, in which a physician makes a diagnosis of the patient’s condition and then recommends treatment based upon this diagnosis. Diagnosis usually is a classification in terms of an illness or abnormality. Diagnosis implies labeling that forms an integral part of psycho-analytic terminology.” Examples of such terminology or so called diseases are; mental disorders, psychological disorders, social anxiety disorders, anxiety depression, Bipolar, anxiety attacks, obsessive compulsive disorder, etc.

“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (vol IV) describes a myriad of terms that professionals use to label clients.
Observed behavior is used as a sign of more important underlying processes, typically of a pathological nature. Use of a diagnostic label mostly assumes a trait conception of behavior in which consistency of behavior across situations are assumed. The whole process of diagnosing a client is practitioner-centered where a client is judged on the basis of flawed test results without involving the client in the process” (Meyer 1993; Goldfried 1976; Joubert & Francisco-La Grange 1988).

Psychometrics and Social Norms-referenced Scaling vs Ecometrics and Criteria-referenced scaling

“Psychometric tests are mostly connected with specific social norms that are used for interpretation. It is decided what is normal in society, a client is measured against this normal standard and if there is a deviation from this standard, the client is recognized as an abnormal individual. Population standards are therefore used to evaluate clients” (Hudson 1994b; Aiken 1976).

With Ecometrics on the other hand all social norms are totally abolished, as there cannot be anything near a social norm; nor can a norm be classified as "normal" or "abnormal" functioning. This is simple because the sciences and facts are that each individual is uniquely different and all can act and react in a uniquely different way than others within the same environment.

To define normal or abnormal interaction with the environment can become a very difficult, confusing and ethical dilemma. The reason being; two individuals can act and react in their environments in more or less the same manner - for one it can be dysfunctional and for the other it can be perfectly functional This point of reasoning was put forward by Hudson (1994.) How would anyone know the differences through observation?

In Ecometrics the “norm” or better termed as "Criteria" would therefore be more concerned with whether the clients are experiencing discomfort within their holistic functioning or not. Any discomfort will manifest themselves in over-activated problem areas within the individual in acting and reacting within their specific environment.
 
From a clinical point of view it will only be important to know whether the severity or magnitude of any problem reaches a level where it can be regarded as clinically significant. For this purpose, Hudson (1982b) developed clinical cutting scores to divide clients into those who have clinically significant problem in certain area being assessed and those who do not have such problems.

With criteria-referenced scaling specific attention is given to the unique score of a client on a scale in relation to the unique problems that the client faces, rather than comparing the score with a population mean score (Nurius & Hudson 1993).
According to Nurius and Hudson (1993:241), basic comparisons are made with criteria-referenced scaling in relation to:

* “the minimum possible score of 0;
* the maximum possible score of 100;
* the clinical cutting score;
* a target or objective score that you may set in relation to the outcome objective you plan with your clients”.

Conclusion

Dr. Whitehouse realized that this DSM was a great work of fiction. One should ask ourselves the following question?
What is the difference between the DSM and a scientific book of diseases?
1. "Every disorder in the DSM is invented where as every disease in a pathlology text book is discovered.
2. "Every disease can be found in a cadaver or autopsy, mental illness is not."
3. "Mental illness refers to what a person does, real disease is something a person has."

"Let us consider this in another way. It takes one person to have a disease but it takes two people to have a mental illness." Dr. Jeffrey Schaler. (Psychologist and Professor at American University - The Thomas Szasz Awards)

There is little doubt that the methodology of “social based norm” and in this modern time of technology, that the use of Psychometric test; all of which are based on normal society based standards, are totally flawed and out dated and should be avoided. The reality is, that psychometrics does not deal with the uniqueness of each individual and the environmental affect that each environment has on every individual.  Psychometrics deals with observed behavior, and Ecometrics with Inner Feelings which become affected by the intensity of the environment on each individuals true Inner Interactive System.  Click here for more evidence

It is quit amazing that in this modern age of technology that the so called Professional Recruiters, Career Planning Experts, Teachers, Counselors, Employers and Human Resource management practitioners, continue to use perception criteria based on what is written into a CV, observed through Interviews, which have absolutely nothing to do with the environmental challenges in every job situation.

Research has proven overwhelmingly that the present methodology is like playing the lotto. It is a hit and miss affair resulting in billions of dollars being wasted in recruiting staff. This multi billion dollar industry acts as if they are professionals when if the truth be known they are using invalid and out dated technology. They openly admit that they use "Gut Feel" as they do not know any other options, mostly reluctant to change.

There are only a couple of service providers who supply assessments that deal with the individuals natural capacity to function optimally within a defined environment. FQGlobal is one of such service provider. www.career-advice-jobs.com

  Next    Previous     Home    Contact Us