Approbation of the Problem Situation Analysis Test (TAPS)
Suggested citation:
Noss IN, Borodina TI. [Approbation of the Problem Situation Analysis Test (TAPS)]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry]. 2022;(1):55-64. Russian
In the controlled experiment, the approbation of the problem situation analysis test (TAPS), built on the theoretical and experimental basis of system-situational analysis of activity, implemented as a Method of sequential dynamic evaluation by B.Ya. Shvedin, was given. The opinions of 486 law enforcement officers who make difficult decisions within the framework of their functional activities were used as material. As a result of the approbation, the conceptual and substantive validity of the test was clarified. The presence of an external criterion (expert assessment) and the use of parallel testing of respondents using cognitive, characterological, behavioral, and value-motivational methods made it possible to verify the empirical validity and reliability of TAPS by means of correlation analysis. As a result, the conclusion is made about the possibility of using the test as a means of evaluating decision-making by respondents in problematic conditions of their professionalization.
Keywords system-situational analysis of activity; problem situation; operational components; situational factors; factor of efficiency of problem situation resolution; cognitive-informational factor; socio-psychological factor; operational-behavioral factor; valid
1. Shvedin BYa. Proektirovanie voennoy deyatelnosty. Morskoy sbornik. 1989;8:26–9. (In Russ.) 2. Shvedin BYa. Chelovecheskiy factor v upravlenii voiyskami: problemi I poiski. Мoscow; 1989. 52 p. (In Russ.) 3. Noss IN, Noss NV, Psikhologiya upravleniya personalom predpriyatiya (Professiologicheskiy aspect). Мoscow; 2002. 240 p. (In Russ.) 4. Shvedin BYa. Ontologiya predpriyatiya: eksperiontologicheskiy podkhod: Tekhnologiya postroeniya ontologicheskoy modeli predpriyatiya. Мoscow; 2010. 234 p. (In Russ.) 5. Shvedin BYa. Ontologiya proektirovaniya – TERA INCOGNITA? Ontologiya proektirovaniya. 2011;1:9–21. (In Russ.) 6. Zakharov IV, Govorukha OS, Noss IN, et al. Ocenka pcikhologicheskogo statusa voennosluzhaschikh-likvidatorov avarii na Chernjbilskoiy AES pri pomoschi diagnosticheskoiy situacionnoy igri «Test». Voenno-medicinskiy jurnal. 1994;7:42–4. (In Russ.) 7. Noss IN. O razrabotke avtomatizirovannikh diagnosticheskikh situacionnikh igr v celyakh profotbora I psikhologicheskogo soprovozhdeniya uchebnogo processa v akademii. Nauchno-metodicheskiy sbornik. 1994;44:51–4. 8. Kulagin BV. Osnovi professionalnoy psikhodiagnostikhi. Leningrad; 1984. 216 p. (In Russ.). 9. Kempbell D. Modeli experimentov v socialnoy psikhologii i prikladnikh issledovaniyakh. Мoscow; 1996. 395 p. (In Russ.) 10. Istratova ON. Psikhodiagnostika. Kollekciya luchshikh testov. Rostov-on-Don; 2006. 375 p. (In Russ.) 11. Noss IN. Tekhnologiya psikhosemanticheskogo analiza deyatelnosti. Psikhologiya I psikhotekhnika. 2010;5:83–91. (In Russ.) 12. Sobchik LN. SMIL. Standartizirovanniy mnogofaktorniy metod issledovaniya lichnosti. Saint-Petersburg; 2003. 219 p. (In Russ.) 13. Rosenzweig S, Adelman S. Construct validity of the Picture-Frustration Study. Journal of personality Assessment. 1977;44:578–88. 14. Arneklev BJ, Grasmick HG, Bursik RJ. Evaluating the unidimensionality and invariance of «low self-control». J. Quant. Criminol. 1999;15:307–31. 15. Fetiskin NP, Kozlov VV, Manuylov GM. Socialno-psikhologicheskaya diagnostika razvitiya lichnosti I malih grupp. Мoscow; 2002. P. 244–5. (In Russ.) 16. Ritchie Sh, Martin P. Motivation Management. Aldershot: Gower, 1999. 293 р. 17. Knyazev GG, Slobodskaya HR, Wilson GD. Comparison of construct validity of the Gray–Wilson personality questionnaire and the BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences. 2004;37:1565–82.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.47877/1560-957Х-2022-10107
Article Metrics
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM