Talk:List of tests

Assesment vs. Experiment
The term test links to a disambiguation page, which further distinguishes between many uses for the term. There are two that seem to apply to this list, Test (student assessment) and Experiment. Considering the ambiguity of the term test, would it not make more sense to split this list into two lists, a "List of types of experimnets" and a "List of tests (assesments)"? LeilaniLad (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
I have posted a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is so general it may be useless
The term test is so wide I'm not convinced this article is serving a purpose. It seems that there are many tests in wikipedia not included here. 194.83.136.47 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Personality tests
If everyone adds his favorite test, the table could become a huge mess. In fact, if you look at the table, the description for a number of the tests is simply "?". Why list a test if no one can explain it? There is a serious issue of notability here. I propose that the table should be a small representative sample of personality tests that have Wikipedia articles that can be linked (that does not include a link to the author of the test). Personality test is linked in the section, which can be what the reader clicks to find more information. These tests should be removed: Personality and Preference Inventory, Personality Inventory for DSM-5, Pro Development assessment, Kahler Personality Pattern Inventory, Strength Deployment Inventory, Winslow Personality Profile, Semi-structured Interview for the Assessment of the Five-Factor Model, Five Factor Personality Inventory — Children, Five-Factor Model Rating Form, Big Five Inventory. If some of those have articles that are not linked, the wikilink should be made. If someone wants to write an article about one of these tests, it can be restored. I will remove these in a week or so unless someone objects. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I edited to add the Kahler PPI because this page listed 'Process Communication Model' as a test. My edit was to make the existing entry more accurate. The PPI is a test to determine where an individual fits within the model. The majority of the other tests you list within the section I edited are easily found within the psychology literature. Given this is a list page, shouldn't the existence of an item on the list act as a spur to editors to make main articles for them if they don't exist? The tests referring to the Big Five personality traits in particular just need a tidy up and linking to that, their main article, rather than deleting wholesale. I think different editors should decide on the deletions, if any. aeon-lakes 08:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You have it backward. The article for each test should be written first, with appropriate evidence of the test's notability. Then it should be added to the list. Otherwise every test that has ever been developed, regardless of notability, will be added and the list will go on endlessly with a bunch of garbage. If the tests are notable in the psychological literature, they should be notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. And I know that there is an article of the Big Five, but if 100 tests are developed on the Big Five that doesn't mean they all belong in the list. You seem to be missing the point about notability. Wikipedia requires notability because anyone can edit Wikipedia, which means that without some policies and guidelines about notability, most articles would contain endless amounts of unimportant crap. And by the way, since so far you are a single purpose account focusing almost entirely on Kahler and the PPI, are you in any way affiliated with Kahler or the PPI? Sundayclose (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no financial interest in Kahler or the PPI. I have received Process Communication Model training through my work and found it useful. I picked that topic to tidy up, as while notable it has little coverage. Every account has to start somewhere. I've added a COI to that end to my Talk page. The edit on this page was to clarify an entry by previous editor who thought PCM notable enough to add. I would not have added it, nor do I have any strong feelings about it staying. I do believe that neither you or I should make that edit. aeon-lakes 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly can make the edit if a consensus to keep the item doesn't emerge here; there's no policy or guideline against it. See WP:BURDEN; the responsibility for adding or restoring information is on the editor(s) wishing to do so. If you have no strong feelings about it staying, there shouldn't be a problem with removing it unless others object (or fix it). And by the way, my original post in this section is directed toward several other tests listed with no evidence of notability, not just the PPI. Sundayclose (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)