Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Use Wikipedia as your Review Material for Psychometrician Licensure Exam


(Image Source - http://us.123rf.com/450wm/radiantskies/radiantskies1301/radiantskies130101036/17197657-abstract-word-cloud-for-validity-with-related-tags-and-terms.jpg)

Wikipedia is definitely the most accessible source of information too many of us with internet connection. Who needs books and text book anyway? But of course the academe will frown on you if you would insist on using wikipedia alone and not the scientific canon! So for psychometrician licensure exam reviewers, to resolve such issue, it is always good to check and refer back to your text books.  Make sure though that you also get the latest  text book at least published 3-5 years back. Psychology is a dynamic field of study that continue to evolve with the latest discoveries and scientific researches.

This is where wikipedia comes handy, the content is updated instantaneously, unlike books that will take time to get revised, but now online versions of text books  (e-books) are also now available and you can get updated version from the sites of the publishers, well the disadvantage of course is the costs.

Just to cite an example, in college in the 1990s, 2-3 decades ago, validity has a different meaning with what has evolved in late 20th century (makes me feel so ancient like a dinosaur). So there is now a different reinterpretation of test validity: a traditional view/classical models and current view/modern models  for validity as it is used and understood in psychological testing.

So compare Test Validity on:


  • with what is on your textbook - (? year)
  • and that of a later  version of textbook say by Miller, McIntire, Lovler (2011), citing  the studies of Brennan, Kane, Goodwin and Leech among others.
  • well even the text book by Philippine authors Munarriz and Cervera (2013) still discussed the classical model on test validity.


But then again it is good to know both models, the old and the new and application-wise we would know better which should prevail and more appropriate as concept and in our practice.

So my advise, maximize your internet access and read/review using wikipedia, but double check and refer back to your text book and make sure you get to compare it with a later edition. Supplement your readings with what other materials you can find online from the website of psych organizations (PAP, APA, etc), free online journals, scientific articles, and of course this blog, and even facebook, etc.

And to have some focus on what to read and review refer to this older blog post -
http://psychometricpinas.blogspot.com/p/chedcourse-specification.html


Happy reviewing!

Share your review strategies and materials as well!

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Psychometric Principles by Professor John Rust

Powerpoint Presentation for the Summer School 2009

Psychometric Principles
Professor John Rust
University of Cambridge

Source link - http://bit.ly/1agOenJ


 

Thursday, January 9, 2014

100 Likes to our page!

Wow Finally 100 Likes to our FB page Philippine Psychometrician Reviewer  and more to come. Encouraging you all to share and post in our page and make it useful for all wanting to become psychometrician and psychologist. Mabuhay!


Wednesday, January 8, 2014

PRC Board of Psychology Announces October 2014 Board Exams






December 18, 2013


Dear Prospective Psychologists and Psychometricians,

 May you have a God-filled Christmas season and a safe and prosperous 2014.

We, the PRC Board of Psychology, would like to announce that the Board Exams will be held in October, 2014. (Please see the PRC website for the details.)

Much as we had wanted to give the tests in 2013 or early 2014, we could not do so because the faculty who attended the consultation meeting after the PAP Convention (and those who communicated with us later), expressed a desire to give more time to prepare examinees, in view of the new DSM V and the Table of Specifications (TOS) then being crafted. Hence, we opted to abide by the October, 2014 schedule, as already announced in the PRC Calendar for 2014.

With this schedule, we hope that there is enough time for everyone to appreciate the DSM V and to tackle learning areas in the Board Exam subjects not covered in the old curriculum.

After a series of consultations with the representatives of different educational institutions, and several thorough reviews with the CHED Technical Committee for Psych Education/Programs, the Board has now made a Board Resolution for the TOS which is to be published in the website, once approved by the PRC Consultant. We hope that by early January, this would be out.

All the best!


Yours,

Miriam P. Cue, Ph.D.
Imelda V. G. Villar, Ph.D.
Board of Psychology


 (Source: http://pap.org.ph/)

Related link:

http://psychometricpinas.blogspot.com/p/schedule-of-licensure-exam.html

Friday, December 6, 2013

DLSU holds lecture/workshop on psycho-social approaches




DLSU-D Center for Applied Psychology and Student Wellness Center invite you to a Lecture/Workshop titled “Different Approaches in Handling Survivors.”

As part of the short-term and long-term continuing preparations for natural and man-made disasters, we are calling anyone interested, especially those within Cavite and other neighboring towns, to join us. The lecture/workshop is focused mainly on psycho-social approaches. This is a FREE LECTURE/WORKSHOP and we have limited slots so you will have to register. 

To register, please call (046) 416-4531 loc.3075 or visit JFH 306 and look for Ricky Clores or Romelee Alegre.


Schedules:


December 10, 2013/ For Non-DLSU-D Community
Session 1:     9:00 AM to 12:00 NN
Session 2:     1:00 PM to 3:00 PM
Speaker/Lecturer:
Dr. Jocelyn Mercado of AUP
Venue: Bulwagang Jose Basa


December 11, 2013/ For DLSU-D Community
Session 1:     9:00 AM to 12:00 NN
Session 2:     1:00 PM to 3:00 PM
Speakers/Lecturers:
Dr.Evangeline Ruga
Dr. Ann Margaret Martin
Mr. Seigfred  Gamueda
Venue: Luis Aguado Viewing Room



Source - http://www.dlsud.edu.ph/announcement/handlingsurvivorsSEMINAR.htm

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Sikolohiyang Pilipino: 50 Years of Critical-Emancipatory Social Science in the Philippines

Sikolohiyang Pilipino: 50 Years of Critical-Emancipatory Social Science in the Philippines

Authors

Narcisa Paredes-Canilao
University of the Philippines Baguio

Maria Ana Babaran-Diaz
University of the Philippines Baguio


Abstract 


Sikolohiyang Pilipino, or efforts of Filipino psychologists and social scientists to indigenize Psychology in the
Philippines started in the 1960s, further crystallized into a distinct movement from the mid-1970s and continued to flourish in the 21st century. Using the broad outlines of critical-emancipatory social science, we argue in this paper that Sikolohiyang Pilipino since its inception in the works of V.D. Enriquez, was meant and has proven to be a liberated and liberating psychology (literally malaya at mapagpalayang sikolohiya), and may therefore be a unique type of criticl psychology in the Philippine setting. We first examine the academic and cultural circumstances that led to the movement of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, then describe its aims, methodologies, advocacies and theoretical contributions and how these resulted in the establishment of professional organizations, research programs, and circular offerings.

The movement from the traditional academic psychology as taught in the universities was brought about by
dissatisfaction with too much emphasis on Western theories particularly on the tendency for quantification to
emulate the scientific method to examine human phenomena. The end of the colonization period in the Philippines brought with it the beginning of a post-colonial psychology that focused on indigenous knowledge, practices, and methods.

Key words: Critical-emancipatory social science, critical psychology, decolonization, indigenization, indigenous psychology, mainstreamed psychology, liberated and liberating psychology, mainstreamed psychology, pantayong pananaw, Philippine Psychology, pilipinolohiya, Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Source - http://www.discourseunit.com/arcp10/Philippines%20I%20765-783.pdf


 

Excerpts

Indigenization, because for the proponents and advocates of SP, decolonization is to be sought side-by-side with the constructive work of proposing indigenous psychology as alternative to Western Psychology. Seminal texts of its founders coming from different disciplines were all engaged in laying down the parameters, empirical base, and directions of the ‘indigenous’.

Indigenous, as described by Pe-Pua (2006, p. 110), is to be distinguished from ‘Western’, or ‘exogenous’ and will try to understand Filipino traits and values from the insider’s point of view. Indigenization of psychology, however, does not mean the total rejection of anything Western.

Thus Enriquez has often made the distinction between the forms of indigenization: indigenization from without, and indigenization from within. The first one is the appropriation or adaptation of foreign psychological concepts that are applicable to the Philippine context, while the latter is the search and recovery of traditional traits and values that are native to the Filipinos (Enriquez, 1995a; Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000).

The site of emergence of SP was the academe – in the 1960s the Community Development Research Council of the University of the Philippines started to question the applicability of Western concepts, theories and research tools to Philippine context. Filipino psychologist Virgilio G. Enriquez started around this time to initiate the double movements of critique-reconstruction and decolonization-indigenization in his psychology classes, and started using Filipino as medium of instruction. SP gradually gained following as it became a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach with support from the historian-ethnologist Zeus Salazar and the anthropologist Prospero Covar.

SP, in the beginning was an intellectual movement. SP formed together with Pantayong Pananaw and Pilipinolohiya, ‘the indigenization movement in the Philippine academy’ (Mendoza, 2002). At the outset it is important to note that SP was not a singular or isolated unidirectional phenomenon.

SP is seen to be both a response to socio-political and economic events as well as an effective perspective for confronting current problems brought about by globalized capitalism and natural disasters.


‘Sikolohiyang Pilipino was essentially a form of resistance to the hegemony of Western paradigms. Its ultimate agenda was the liberation of psychology from its Western origins’ (Bautista, 1999, p. 392).


The problem that was mainly the target of SP to eradicate was ideological in nature – academic dependency,  educational neocolonialism (Alatas, 2003, 2006; Altbach, 2003; Apfelbaum, 2002). In this sense  SP is ideology critique, which called for the emancipation of subjects from subjection to limiting or constraining knowledge held by a superior class (colonizers, the elites) as a means to perpetuate their power.


SP as was discussed earlier, was a continuation of the decolonization struggle for independence from colonial mentality, academic dependency and neocolonial education, all after independence has been granted formally. Thus Alatas (2006) wrote: ‘the critical tradition initiated by Rizal continued in the Philippines in the form of indigenization movements that influenced the three areas of psychology, historiography and Philipinology’ (p. 35). Second, indigenization or cultural recognition per se was not its end objective; it was always crucially integrated with the critique of Western colonialist constructions of Filipino identity or character.


Conclusion: Sikolohiyang Pilipino as a Critical Psychology in the Philippines 

Psychology is an academic discipline that seeks to develop frameworks, perspectives, and methodologies that are appropriate to the understanding of differences in individuals and groups, their relationships and interactions, their self-definitions, their capabilities and potentials, their coping and adjustment mechanisms.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino believes that there should not be one, uniform psychology to be taught in the classroom (the Western positivist one), and to be used for social research and services. Each cultural setting has developed psychological knowledge endemic to its contexts, experiences, and challenges, before, and outside of academic psychology. This psychological knowledge is embedded in the lifeworld, in worldviews, in the way people view themselves in relation to others and the environment. Academic psychology in different cultural settings should thus draw from this-pre-academic, or outside-the-academy
psychological knowledge, discourses and practices.

Sikolohiyang Pilipino is by far what would come closest to being a critical form of psychology in the Philippines, because of its attempt at theoretical critique and reconstruction, such theory
having encompassed curricular, institutional, and ethodological reforms. It was shown in the discussion of the history of academic psychology in the Philippines, that Marxism and poststructuralist Marxism did not affect psychology as much as political science, sociology, and anthropology.


Sikolohiyang Pilipino was a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary movement, having been part of a three-pronged decolonization-indigenization program in the University of the Philippines – from history – Pantayong Pananaw, and from Anthropology – Pilipinolohiya. As reactions to the universal and objectivist and scientific pretensions of the positivist social science paradigm, these movements tended to favor the phenomenological-interpretative approach coupled with sociolinguistics, or the close study of local languages as clues to a people’s culture.


The PAP or the Psychological Association of the Philippines may be considered to carry the  mainstream banner, however, the lines dividing SP and Philippine mainstream psychology has been gradually blurred because of the very strong advocacy, social service and policy component of PAP members though their research. Further blurring the difference is the recent move of PAP members away from scientific-experimental to more hermeneutic and interpretative approaches. The comment has been – that the only difference in the two groups is their membership in one rather than the other group, and the language used.