Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-md2j5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T17:39:28.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 9 - Histories of Psychological Assessments in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2022

Sumaya Laher
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
Get access


The United Kingdom is more properly called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where Great Britain includes the nations of Scotland, England, and Wales. In this chapter we will see that the development of psychological assessment as a science in the United Kingdom and more widely proceeded in parallel with and in interaction with the development of psychometrics as a set of measurement tools, which in turn was used to support a world view at that time which saw psychological differences as relatively fixed attributes that were only primarily changeable through genetic changes. We also track the development of assessment methods which were influenced strongly by the two World Wars. The greatest changes and developments in testing and assessment in the United Kingdom took place in occupational job selection and training settings before they had an impact on practice in clinical and educational assessment. As a consequence, this chapter focuses on the history of occupational assessment rather than on developments in the clinical and educational fields.

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Adeney, M. (2019). Sir Michael Edwardes obituary. Guardian Newspapers. Published 18 September 2019.Google Scholar
Adler, S., Boyce, A. S., & Caputo, P. M. (2018) Employment testing. In Scott, J. C., Bartram, D., & Reynolds, D. H. (eds.), Next generation technology-enhanced assessment (pp. 335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W.; Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Albany, NY: Psychological Review Company.Google Scholar
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure. European Journal of Personality, 19(1), 524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 126.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (1987). The development of an automated pilot testing system for pilot selection: the MICROPAT project. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 36(3/4), 279298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartram, D. (1995). Validation of the Micropat Battery. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 3(2), 8495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartram, D. (1996). Test qualifications and test use in the UK: The competence approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 6271.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (1998). The need for international guidelines on standards for test use: A review of European and international initiatives. European Psychologist, 3(2), 155163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartram, D. (2000). Internet recruitment and selection: Kissing frogs to find princes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 261274.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (2002). The MICROPAT Pilot Selection Battery: Applications of generative techniques for item-based and task-based tests. In Irvine, S. & Kyllonen, P. (eds.), Item generation for test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (2011). Contributions of the EFPA Standing Committee on Tests and Testing to Standards and Good Practice. European Psychologist, 16(2), 149159.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. & Baylis, R. (1984). Automated testing: Past, present and future. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 221237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartram, D. & Brown, A. (2004). Online testing: Mode of administration and the stability of the OPQ32i scores. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3), 278284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartram, D. (senior ed.) with Lindley, P. A., & Foster, J. (eds.). (1990). Review of psychometric tests for assessment invocational trainings. Sheffield: Training Agency, Employment Department Group.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (senior ed.) with Anderson, N., Kellett, D., Lindley, P.A., & Robertson, I. (consulting eds.). (1995). Review of personality assessment instruments (level B) for use in occupational settings. Leicester: BPS Books.Google Scholar
Bartram, D., (senior ed.) with Burke, E. B., Kandola, R., Lindley, P. A. Marshall, L., & Rasch, P. (eds.). (1997). Review of Ability and Aptitude tests (Level A) for use in occupational settings. Leicester: BPS Books.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. & Dale, H. C. A. (1991). Validation of the MICROPAT battery of pilot aptitude tests. In Dann, P. L., Irvine, S. H., & Collis, J. M. (eds.), Advances in computer-based human assessment (pp. 149170). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. & Tippins, N. (2017). The potential of online selection. In Goldstein, H. W., Pulakos, E. D., Passmore, J., & Semedo, C. (eds.), Wiley Blackwell handbooks in organizational psychology. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (p. 271292). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blinkhorn, S. F. (1989). Was Burt stitched up? Nature, 340(6233), 439440.Google Scholar
Boring, E. G. (1960). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. & Liberman, M. (December 13–23, 2010). For and Against Linguistic Relativity. The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited. Archived from the original on 15 February 2012. Retrieved 19 September 2019. (A debate between university professors.)Google Scholar
Brown, A. & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item response modelling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(3), 460502.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V. &Cervone, D. (2000). Personality: Determinants, dynamics, and potentials. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1949): The sixteen-personality factor questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability TestingGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1977). The case of Sir Cyril Burt. Encounter, 48(1), 1923.Google Scholar
Forsythe, A. (2019). Key thinkers in individual differences: Ideas on personality and intelligence. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J. C. (2011). The Routledge history of the holocaust. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
de la P. Garforth, F. I. (1945). War office selection boards (O.C.T.U.). Journal of Occupational Psychology, 19, 97108.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: Macmillan Publishers.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review. 36, 179185.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1889). Natural inheritance. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gillie, O. (1976). Crucial data was faked by eminent psychologist. London: Sunday Times, October [24], 1976.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of personality traits: Vertical and horizontal aspects. In Funder, D. C., Parke, R. D., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., & Widaman, K. (eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development (pp. 169188). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 8496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1996). The real error of Cyril Burt factor analysis and the reification of intelligence. In Gould, S. J., The Mismeasure of Man (ch. 6). London: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18(2), 135164.Google Scholar
Hamilton-Dickson, J. D. (1886). Appendix to Galton, Proceedings of the Royal Society. London, 40, 6366.Google Scholar
Hawkes, B., Cek, I., & Handler, C. (2018). The gamification of employee selection tools: An exploration of viability, utility and future directions. In Scott, J. C., Bartram, D., & Reynolds, D. H. (eds.), Next generation technology-enhanced assessment (pp. 288316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hearnshaw, L. (1979). Cyril Burt: Psychologist. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hearnshaw, L. (1992). Burt Redivivus. The Psychologist, 5(4), 169170.Google Scholar (eds.). (2020). Eugenics. Downloaded from, October q0, 2020. Last updated May 26, 2020.Google Scholar
Irvine, S. H., Dann, P. L., & Anderson, J. D. (1990). Towards a theory of algorithm-determined cognitive test construction. British Journal of Psychology, 81(2), 173195.Google Scholar
Irvine, S. H. (2002). The foundations of item generation for mass testing. In Irvine, S. H. & Kyllonen, P. (eds.), Item generation for test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Irvine, S. H. & Kyllonen, P. (eds.) (2002). Item generation for test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Joynson, R. B. (1989). The Burt affair. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. (1974). The science and politics of IQ. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. (ed.). (1995). Cyril Burt: Fraud or framed? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, B. S. (1949). Officer selection in the British army 1942–1945. Occupational Psychology 23(4), 219234.Google Scholar
Muñiz, J., Bartram, D., Evers, A., Boben, D., Matesic, K., Glabeke, K., Fernandez-Hermida, J. R., & Zaal, J. N. (2001). Testing practices in European countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 17(3), 201211.Google Scholar
Myers, C. S. (1915). The study of shell shock. The Lancet (February 13), 316–320.Google Scholar
Pearson, K. (1920). Notes on the history of correlation. Biometrika, 13(1), 2545.Google Scholar
Rothstein, M. G. & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review. 16(2), 155180.Google Scholar
Schaller, B. (1996). The origin, nature, and implications of “MOORE’S LAW.” Microsoft. (September 26, 1996), Retrieved September 10, 2014. Scholar
Scott, M., Milbourn, B., Falkmer, M., Black, M., Bölte, S., Halladay, A., Lerner, M. Taylor, J., & Girdler, S. (2018). Factors impacting employment for people with autism spectrum disorder: A scoping review. Autism 23(4), 133.Google Scholar
Shephard, B. (2015). Psychology and the great war, 1914–1918. The Psychologist, 28(11), 944946.Google Scholar
Shimmin, S. & Wallis, D. (1994). Fifty years of occupational psychology in Britain. Leicester: The BPS.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201293.Google Scholar
Stigler, S. M. (1997). Regression toward the mean, historically considered. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 6(2), 103114.Google Scholar
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 703742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, W. H. (1997). “Re-reconsidering Burt: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 33 (2): 145-162.Google Scholar
Turner, C. (2020). College to take down eugenicist memorial. Daily Telegraph, June 27, 2020.Google Scholar
Vernon, P. E. & Parry, J. B. (1949). Personnel selection in the British forces. London: London University Press.Google Scholar
Vinden, F. H. (1977). The introduction of war office selection boards in the British Army: A personal recollection. In Bond, B. & Roy, I. (eds.). A yearbook of military history (vol 2). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
UNESCO. (1950). The race question. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
UNESCO. (1952). The race concept: Results of an inquiry. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
UNESCO. (1969). Four statements on the race question. Document code: COM.69/II.27/A.Google Scholar
UNESCO. (1978). Draft Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice. Presented at the 20th UNESCO General Conference in Paris.Google Scholar
Waller, J. C., (2001). Ideas of heredity, reproduction and eugenics in Britain, 1800–1875. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 32(3), 457489.Google Scholar
Zibarras, L. & Lewis, R. (2013). Work and occupational psychology: Integrating theory and practice. London: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats