Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
Aim: Assessing the psychological fitness of professionals working in child protection is a crucial element in safeguarding the physical and mental well-being of children. Government Decree No. 191/2024 (VII. 8.) introduced mandatory preliminary, periodic, and extraordinary psychological assessments for child protection professionals. The present study provides a preliminary psychometric evaluation of the “Six-Tests” battery — a core component of the Child Protection Aptitude Testing System (CPATS).
Methodology: The study outlines the structure of CPATS, describes the methodology applied in the psychometric assessment of the “Six-Tests” battery, and summarises the key findings from the analyses conducted on data collected between April 2024 and March 2025.
Findings: Results indicate that the “Six-Tests” battery reliably captures the psychological attributes essential for effective and responsible professional functioning in child protection. The reliability indices are robust, and partial evidence supports its construct validity. The test battery also shows potential for detecting high-risk psychological profiles, thereby contributing to the prevention of abuse risks within the system.
Value: This study offers insight into the professional and methodological foundations of CPATS, demonstrating that modern, psychometrically sound tools can enhance the transparency, objectivity, and preventive capacity of aptitude testing in the Hungarian child protection system.
References
AERA, APA, NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Guion, R. M. (2011). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Routledge.
Malét-Szabó E., & Somogyi Zs. (2025). A gyermekvédelmi pszichológiai alkalmasságvizsgálatok szakmai koncepciója: a GYVA rendszer születéstörténete. Belügyi Szemle, 73(12), xxxx–xxxx. https://doi.org/10.38146/BSZ-AJIA.2025.v73.i12.ppxxx-xxx
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Revelle, W. (1979). Hierarchical cluster analysis and the internal structure of tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14(4), 437–458. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR1401_4
Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 419–450. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093716
Sackett, P. R., & Yang, H. (2000). Correction for range restriction: An expanded typology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.112
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωH: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Academic Journal of Internal Affairs