Q5
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) "Some psychological measures can be reliable but not valid". Elaborate it with examples. (10 marks) (b) IQ scores predict success in academic, job and other life outcomes. Evaluate. (10 marks) (c) What is self-efficacy? Discuss the potential benefits of enhancing self-efficacy. (10 marks) (d) Formal operational thought is not universally achieved. Discuss. (10 marks) (e) Give a critical appraisal on the practice of using aptitude tests to predict professions for high school children. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) "कुछ मनोवैज्ञानिक मापन विश्वसनीय हो सकते हैं लेकिन मान्य नहीं" । इसका उदाहरणों सहित वर्णन कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) आई.क्यू स्कोर शैक्षिक, नौकरी, और अन्य जीवन परिणामों में सफलता की भविष्यवाणी करता है । मूल्यांकन करें । (10 अंक) (c) आत्म-प्रभावकारिता क्या है ? आत्म-प्रभावकारिता बढ़ाने के संभावित लाभों पर चर्चा कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) औपचारिक संक्रियात्मक विचार सार्वभौमिक रूप से प्राप्त नहीं होता है । चर्चा करें । (10 अंक) (e) हाई स्कूल के बच्चों के लिए व्यवसायों के बारे में पूर्वानुमान लगाने के लिए अभिक्षमता परीक्षणों का उपयोग करने के अभ्यास पर एक आलोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन करें । (10 अंक)
Directive word: Evaluate
This question asks you to evaluate. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
The directive 'evaluate' in (b) and 'elaborate' in (a) demand critical judgment with evidence. Allocate ~30 words/2 minutes per sub-part (equal marks). Structure: define core concept → present evidence/theory → offer balanced critique → conclude with synthesis. For (a) distinguish reliability-validity; (b) present IQ predictive evidence then limitations; (c) define Bandura's construct with benefits; (d) critique Piaget's universalism with cross-cultural evidence; (e) evaluate aptitude testing ethics and utility for Indian adolescents.
Key points expected
- (a) Distinguishes reliability (consistency) from validity (accuracy); gives example like a bathroom scale showing consistent wrong weight (reliable but not valid); mentions test-retest reliability vs. content/criterion validity
- (b) Presents positive correlations between IQ and academic/job success (Schmidt & Hunter meta-analyses); then critiques via emotional intelligence, creativity, grit, socioeconomic factors; notes Indian context of coaching bias in IQ tests
- (c) Defines Bandura's self-efficacy as belief in capability to execute behaviors; lists benefits: persistence, stress resilience, academic performance, health behaviors; cites mastery experiences and vicarious learning
- (d) Explains Piaget's formal operations (hypothetico-deductive reasoning); critiques with Dasen's Papua New Guinea studies, Cole's Liberian research showing concrete operations suffice for traditional societies; notes schooling as mediator
- (e) Critiques aptitude tests for career prediction: developmental instability of adolescence, cultural bias, restriction of opportunity, self-fulfilling prophecy; contrasts with Gandhian emphasis on multiple intelligences and vocational diversity
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precisely defines all five constructs: reliability/validity distinction, IQ predictive validity, Bandura's self-efficacy, formal operations stage, and aptitude test mechanics; no conflation of similar terms (e.g., self-efficacy vs. self-esteem) | Defines most concepts adequately but conflates 1-2 terms or provides incomplete definitions (e.g., describes reliability without contrasting with validity) | Major conceptual errors: confuses reliability with validity, treats IQ as fixed innate capacity, or misidentifies formal operations as concrete operations |
| Theory & studies cited | 20% | 10 | Cites specific researchers across parts: Cronbach for reliability theory; Schmidt & Hunter for IQ validity; Bandura for self-efficacy; Dasen, Cole or Rogoff for formal operations critique; critiques based on Indian psychologists like J.P. Das or Anandlakshmy | Mentions major theorists (Piaget, Bandura) but lacks specific studies or cites only generic 'research shows' without attribution | No theoretical grounding or incorrect attributions; relies on commonsense assertions without psychological research backing |
| Application examples | 20% | 10 | Provides concrete, contextually appropriate examples: Indian educational testing (JEE coaching effects on IQ scores); rural-urban differences in formal operations; KVPY or NTSE aptitude test controversies; Bandura's Bobo doll applied to Indian classroom resilience | Generic Western examples or hypothetical scenarios without Indian context; examples partially illustrate the concept | No examples, or irrelevant examples that misapply concepts; purely abstract treatment |
| Multi-perspective analysis | 20% | 10 | Balances perspectives across all parts: for (a) shows reliability as necessary but insufficient; (b) weighs predictive validity against situational and cultural factors; (c) notes potential overconfidence risks; (d) integrates biological maturation with cultural transmission; (e) weighs psychometric utility against developmental ethics | Presents both sides for 2-3 parts but remains one-sided on others; limited integration of competing viewpoints | Entirely one-sided treatment; no acknowledgment of limitations or counter-evidence; purely descriptive without evaluation |
| Conclusion & evaluation | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across parts: notes that psychological measurement requires both reliability and validity with cultural adaptation; concludes that IQ and aptitude tests have utility but must be supplemented by broader assessments in Indian educational policy; ends with forward-looking recommendation | Summarizes each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusions restate points without advancing evaluation | No conclusion, or abrupt ending; conclusions contradict earlier arguments or introduce new unsupported claims |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Psychology 2021 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) What are the limits of intuition and common sense? Why do psychologists emphasi…
- Q2 (a) How do basic and applied research differ? Explain how knowledge from basic research helps solve practical problems. (20 marks) (b) Disc…
- Q3 (a) How much nature (genetic factors) and nurture (environmental factors) contribute to a person's physical, cognitive and socio-emotional…
- Q4 (a) Why is selective attention important? Discuss the theories of selective attention. (20 marks) (b) Which method is most appropriate to i…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) "Some psychological measures can be reliable but not valid". Elaborate it with…
- Q6 (a) Are we born with personality? Critically evaluate with theoretical interpretation. (20 marks) (b) Describe the strategies of effective…
- Q7 (a) Which approaches to motivation are more commonly used in an organization? How these approaches might help to sustain or increase motiva…
- Q8 (a) Humans strive to assign causes to actions of self and others and fall into traps of biases and errors. Critically discuss. (20 marks) (…