socsciguy31

Looks like I'm late to this discussion, but I will pass on a bit of what I know in hopes that it helps. I think the advice you've gotten is good, but I find some of it to also be a touch misleading, But keep in mind, what follows is all based on my experience, which is limited in ways. First, I agree that, yes, given your interests, you may want to consider an Educational Measurement program; however, with that being said, the difference between educational measurement and quant psych programs is sometimes very small (and I will stress very). Essentially, it's the focus and the questions that differ, the methods and methodological training are, in many cases, nearly the same. If you examine programs/programs of study and talk to and interact with people from both fields, you'll quickly come to realize this. I've had the pleasure of working with both, and I will be the first to say that at times the difference seems almost trivial, in my experience. I will say, though, that quant psych programs are generally more quantitatively-oriented. As far as your mathematical background being an issue, it's going to (heavily) depend on the program to which you apply and your area of focus. But in all, I don't think it's an issue and I know of many quant psych/measurement students with little to no math background (you can pick it up along the way! And I agree with others, take such courses outside the Psych dept, if possible). I think this thread seems to slightly overemphasize mathematical training as some sort of requisite, with people even saying advanced mathematics is absolutely required for quant psych. Quant psych programs are not stats programs, and are thus much more forgiving in this regard (try getting into a PhD stats program without at least Analysis). Simply put, if they were stats programs, they'd be stats programs (except for maybe Ohio, I really can't tell the difference between that and a stats program lol). All jokes aside, they can be like stats programs, but advanced math a hard requirement? No, it simply isn't true, and I think some are forgetting or simply overlooking the fact that there is a lot of applied work being done in quant psych departments. A lot. Look in journals such as the Journal of Personality and so on and you'll see some great quant psych people from great quant psych schools doing more applied, but great, stuff. Many programs accept both types of students, those with more applied interests and those with more theoretical interests. Focusing more on the use (not creation) of analytic techniques flies in some quant psych depts. But now I will say this, the more math/theory the better lol. But many programs have a great deal of flexibility, and if your interests are more applied then that certainly shouldn't stop you. The fact you have stated an interest in a method (i.e., HLM), that's a good start right there. Absolutely agree that programming skills are huge, and you should jump at the opportunity to learn R. Sometimes SPSS is useful, sometimes it's not. The fact is, you'll want to know multiple software packages (and languages, too, shoot, don't stop at R, pick up Python and Java, if you can). That's it for right now, if anything else comes to mind I'll be happy to give advice. I think the advice here has been good, I just wanted to add my piece.

Hey, econteacher: So this is tough to answer for a few reasons. Truthfully, both are very feasible, so it really depends on what you want to do and your particular interests. With that said, here is my take. A psychometrics/measurement program (in my experience) is going to focus much more heavily on the methods/statistics side of things and, as a result, pushes classroom assessment and some of the topics you've expressed interest in (e.g., how teachers use assessments in the classroom, teacher-set criteria) a bit to the wayside. The aim of such programs (generally speaking) is to develop students' knowledge and competence in the understanding and application of specialized statistical models and analyses (and often psychometricians are quite 'removed' from the classroom, for better or worse). Thus the curriculum may be more regimented, as they want you to take certain coursework and ensure that you meet minimum competency requirements in certain technical areas. Not saying you won't explore classroom assessment or even take a course or two on classroom assessment and other areas, but in my experience it really isn't as much of a focus (I've taken one such course, and again classroom assessment is different and can be quite non-statistical). Psychometrics is more suited for large-scale testing and assessment so this instead tends to take precedent. But then again, there are electives to help you balance things out! But the focus here is more on statistics and the analysis of data, usually larger data sets arising from large-scale testing or observational studies. Although I do not know much about Curriculum and Instruction, these students at my school have much more flexibility when it comes to designing their program of study and many of them often take a lot of the stats/measurement courses, developing a sort of minor in applied stats along the way. I mean both options can you give you a nice blend, given you use your electives wisely, but C&I in my experience gives students much more flexibility in their course selection. In terms of prep, you are prepped for both, although some more math and stats training wouldn't hurt if going the measurement route. The reason I say you are prepped for both is because you can boost your math/stats skills in grad school, so don't worry too much if you don't have a deep math background, a lot of students don't upon entering (as they recognize that many are entering from social science backgrounds). But be ready to read and brush up because you will need to learn it and learn it well. You did mention that you have some time before entering, so I would recommend at least taking some coursework in maths or stats to make yourself more competitive and better prepared (again if going into psychometrics). In terms of fit, I think you are well suited for both, even the measurement program; you would just have to express your interests and make a compelling case for why such specialized training (measurement/psychometrics) would be beneficial to you all the while making sure that your research interests align with those of the faculty at your school of interest. If you are interested in the theory underlying psychological measurement and test construction as well as data analysis and statistical methods, then measurement is a great fit. If your focus is more at the classroom level and on instruction and test assembly/administration, well then you may want to pursue other options and go a bit more blended. I would say examine individual programs along with associated faculty research interests and look for fit and flexibility in the program of study. Both are recognized and are great areas of study. I just want to close this by saying that you and only you will know the best decision for you. I hope I have provided at least a bit of clarity.