Swedish Evaluation of the Oxford Capacity Analysis
by Chris Owen
| From | ronthewarhero@yahoo.co.uk (Chris Owen) |
|---|---|
| Subject | Swedish evaluation of the Oxford Capacity Analysis |
| Date | 5 Feb 2003 14:13:51 -0800 |
| Msg-ID | <f758becc.0302151413.4b24528b@posting.google.com> |
| Newsgroups | alt.religion.scientology |
A Swedish correspondent has very helpfully forwarded the following to me:
In 1980 the County Prosecutor for Stockholm, Mr. Torsten Rosenberg, decided to start a criminal inquiry, whether Narconon Sweden run a treatment home at Vårby Gård in Huddinge without proper legal license to do so. He asked the National Board for Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to get an expert witness. The Board recommended professor Bo Gerle, who accepted the public function with the exception of an evaluation of the Oxford Capacity Analysis (OCA). That part of the task was instead given to professor Gudmund Smith at the University of Lund.
Professor Smith is still (as of 2002) active as professor emeritus at the Institution of Psychology at the University.
A copy (in Swedish) of his evaluation can be ordered from the Chief Registrar of the Municipality of Huddinge, Sweden, telephone +46 8 5353 0175. The case number is 150.82 000.285. The file attachment number is 42. The Swedish title is "Granskning av Oxford Capacity Analysis".
The Church of Scientology as well as Narconon International have always attached great importance to evaluations, which they consider to be "official" and "independent". Almost all of their own examples are neither, but here we find a remarkable study, which is incontestably official, and which origin is completely detached from the Church of Scientology.
Professor Smith's text speaks for itself.
Review of "The Oxford Capacity Analysis"
The Oxford Capacity Analysis can be regarded as a so-called personality evaluation form. The person tested will answer 200 questions regarding her/his response in certain situations, attitude to various phenomena in the surrounding world, the opinion of fellow men, etc. The answers are compiled to give a personality profile, comprising 11 dimensions.
These kind of methods have been and still are used in psychological practice. However, they have also been subject to such sustained and devastating criticism that their use as a sorting tool for employment in Public Service in the US has been forbidden. The criticism has focused on the sensitivity of the tool for what is called Social Bias, i.e. the opinions that the people tested consider current, correct or agreeable for the testing organization. Experiments have demonstrated that the results vary considerably depending on the test situation, the directions given, etc. A person of average intelligence can easily avoid self incriminating alternatives. People having difficulties penetrating more complicated expressions or to understand uncommon words (often necessary to get the nuances of a question) tend, on the other hand to give more or less random answers.
As the questionnaires are convenient to handle they have survived in many situations, e.g. as a method to group people taking part in psychological experiments. The designers responsible have, however, tried to answer the criticism of the shortcomings of the form. They have, e.g., built in so-called lie scales aimed at the detection of systematic attempts to "improve" the results. Special care has also been given to the wording of the questions. The scales rely on extensive, openly studie[d] investigations. The designer analyses their reliability and ability to actually measure essential personality factors. When applied for individual cases the weaknesses of the method are taken into consideration. Such questionnaires are mainly best suited for situations where the result is not the base for actions in relation to the person submitting the answers.
To the best of my knowledge, the Oxford Capacity Analysis has never been subjected to such a statistical analysis. A validation of the personality profile would anyhow be impossible, regarding the difficulties in finding criteria for the variables that give the dimensions creating the basis for the profile. Consequently, the 11 dimensions lack an empirical foundation. In the 11th dimension the intelligence quotient is estimated, evidently based on the questionnaire only. Such a procedure not only is absurd but unjustifiable in relation to what is known about the difficulties in subjectively estimating intelligence. Some of the dimensions have a moralistic slant, e.g. trustworthy-untrustworthy, which do not fit together with the more unbiased, descriptive words as stable-unstable. Both dimensions are also too general to be used for the characterization of an individual. In some dimensions the alternatives are not equivalent, e.g. capable - inhibited: capable is an adjective used for social valuation, inhibited more of a clinical characteristic. By the polarization in a desirable-undesirable state the final profile pronounces a kind of a moral judgment of the person evaluated. The intention of the scale seems to be to differentiate between good and evil individuals. My evaluation cannot find any other guiding personality model.
The quasi-scientific evaluation with its quantified summary profile rests as said on 200 questions (provided it rests on anything). Reading these questions one fully realizes the deplorable standard of the evaluation form. You could compare it with the worst level of the tabloids, but it would be an insult to these periodicals. A great number of questions are openly leading, e.g. Are you against suspended sentences for criminals? or Do you think that too much money is spent on social welfare? A close analysis of some questions shows that they are impossible to answer: If you have a choice, do you select what is best for everybody or best for yourself? (everybody??) or Do you always collect things, which "could be good to keep"? (always?? good for what??) How do you understand this question: Are there certain things about yourself that you are sensitive about? or Before expressing your opinion, do you consider your education, your experience and your profession? or Can you sometimes impossibly understand the true nature of things? How does an ordinary Swedish citizen answer the question: Is your life a constant struggle for life? In many of the questions quoted one finds an influence from the US original, but even disregarding translation errors it would be a terrible mess.
The Oxford Capacity Analysis consists to a high degree of unclearly formulated, ambiguous or leading questions. It is used as a foundation, in a non-specific way, for an individual evaluation in 11 dimensions, partly incoherent or openly judgmental, as a whole diffuse. In view of the weaknesses also characterizing serious instruments of this type, this instrument must be regarded as completely unreliable. Using the Oxford Capacity Analysis for evaluation of an individual is, in my opinion, manifestly unethical.
Lund August 1981
Gudmund Smith
Professor of psychology