Could it be you found out the TRUTH about True.com’s Herb Vest?

That Vest is being sued by his former fiancee. What to know something funny?

For all Vest’s claims about background checks being a “wholesome and safer courtship?

Vest ask the judge, republican judge to seal the details in the law suit against him.

There is a reason Vest is hiding the Truth.

Hey, Herb – There are other ways of getting those documents! Man I have been covering your case. I have all the documents right down to your motion to seal and the appeals being filed. The hell you put her through. I would love to know why you just didn’t do what you said you would for her? You have forced her to go public about your demands for her to have sex with other women and all those twisted manipultive, abusive, and flat out cruel crap you put her through. I’d like to hear your side about fakeing a heart attact to get off plane and Suzanne catching you peeping at her while she was catching some rays. How about all the sexually harrassment claims made against you at your old company. I would especially like to hear about the nearly 2 million dollars you never paid your mother and the monies you donated to republican and the PAC in your two son’s names.

Oh yeah! How about Sara Norton? Matchmaker? or Madam? Because I know she isn’t a Realtor!

Maybe we should have a coffee?

Thank you for your clarification.

BTW. John Brown is not my pseudonym.

Sicerly John Brown

“Mr. Brown,” I wrote a great deal of that journal article, so I know its contents extremely well. First, I have to thank you for actually reading the journal article and publicizing it. I wish the media looked into the validity of compatibility tests as meticulously as you seem to have. This is one of the things I am most proud of during my stint at True; namely, that we were able to produce a rigorous test, publish it the academic literature, and thereby set the policy and consumer expectation that compatibility tests should be grounded in professional testing standards.

What has confused you is how Rense Lange, Ilona Jerabek, and I used the term “constructed” in the section you referenced. “Constructed” is not the same as “created.” Admittedly it is a jargon, but constucted in this context means that Dr. Jerabek’s team constructed or put together (i.e., wrote) the TCT test items. This does not mean that they solely constructed or validated the scoring logic for those test items (arguably the most important part of the test creation process).

You’ll notice that my journal article discussed how the validation of the TCT was a separate issue, as well as that this issue was addressed in separate research conducted by me and Dr. Jerabek later in the same journal article that you read.

So, to be clear — Dr. Ilona Jerabek and her team (let’s not forget that we are working in a team context here!) constructed the TCT in terms of test items and preliminary scoring logic, but that it was my team that validated and significantly revised the scoring logic/algorithms for those test items.

Accordingly, it is most accurate to say that the final version of the TCT used today (and described in the journal article you cited) was the joint brainchild of the PsychTests team and the TRUE psychology team. This is why Dr. Jerabek and I both appear as authors on the article.

However, I remain firm that the impetus to stringently audit and revise the original TCT items and scoring components came from me. In other words, it is also accurate to say that the push for adopting and promoting professional testing standards in online dating tests was my brainchild — not that of Dr. Jerabek and Psychtests.

Thanks,

Dr. Jim

What I’m challenging is the statement of Mr. Houran:
“Dr. James Houran, the brains behind the True.com Compatability Test�
Posted October 30, 2005.

This claim is false and I hope Mr. Houran will confirm that he is not the “brain behind the True compatibility test based� on facts that I posted on this site.

Thank you
John Brown

Btw… His name on the paper doesn’t make him the brain behind the test ;-)

In fact, the description referenced tells me that Plumeus developed the questions that make up the test itself, but Dr. Houran is trying to tell John Brown that his team was responsible for the scoring algorithms. Together, Drs. Jim Houran and Ilona Jerabek and their teams I assume produced the final TCT described in the journal article. You are wrong, and Dr. Houran is right. After all, he would know while you would not.

Mr. Brown, show some respect and stop acting like a jerk. Dr. Houran has an education that you apparently do not. Show some respect when addressing him or writing about him.

Sincerely,

Randy Smith

I am someone with first hand knowledge of this. It should be said that the fine doctors Jim and Ilona are friends, as well as colleagues.

Now for the shocker…there were actually three compatibility tests at True. First there was the original test that had to be revised substantially to meet professional testing standards. Ilona created this first “core” test, and then Jim’s group worked on it to produce a new, revised test that would meet standards. Later, the fine management at True wanted the test to be even shorter, so Jim and Ilona and their teams worked together to shorten the test to what it is today — all the while maintaining its integrity re: professional testing standards.

Jim and Ilona’s groups also worked together to produce the Sexploration test currently being pushed hard at True. Ilona and the Psychtest group certainly deserve credit, but so does Dr. Jim! It should also be mentioned that True does credit Ilona’s contributions. Her name is listed as an author on the Technical Manual for the TCT, which is posted on True (go to the landing page, look at the footer, and click on “meets professional standards.”).

However, without question the psychological focus at True in terms of general testing, professional standards, content, media work, and other product initiatives was practically the entire brainchild and effort of Dr. Jim. Other testing sites are now trying to copy what Dr. Jim did at True. He did not invent compatibility testing and is not immediately associated with it like eHarmony’s Dr. Warren, but Houran raised the bar behind the scenes and in the academic literature (where he is known for compatibility testing issues).

While he is no longer at True (how incredibly stupid and short-sighted of them to let him leave), his efforts will undoubtedly impact the industry for a long time to come. Furthermore, to those with proper education and knowledge, it is clear that his team’s collaborative work with Ilona Jerabek sets the current standard for how a compatibility test should be constructed.

Lastly, from my information we have not heard the last from Dr. Jim and his contributions to compatibility testing and related products for the online dating industry. When I first met Dr. Jim, I thought he was dynamic and charismatic but too young to know his stuff. I was wrong. The guy is a psychology powerhouse on so many levels. I can’t wait to see what he does next!

~Your humble public servent and former True.com employee

Overview of the TCT
The TCT was constructed by the second author’s online psychological testing firm, Plumeus, Inc. (www.Queendom.com). Drawing on a thorough literature review, the test was designed to address 99 key variables that determine each test-taker’s long-term, romantic compatibility with potential partners. For some of the variables, complementary or opposite matches are deemed better; in others, a similar match is deemed more ideal (see e.g., Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Klohnen & Luo, 2003). The goal of the TCT is to pair people appropriately with potential partners across as many relationship variables as possible. The test is arranged by top-level areas (factors), 13 second-level, more specific factors (subfactors), and 65 third-level, narrow characteristics (subscales) that make up these factors.

Source : http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2005/True.htm

Fernando correctly noted that I indeed stated earlier on this blog and always that the True Compatibility Test was therefore a collaborative effort between the teams — hence note that both my name and Ilona Jerabek’s name on the journal article. This journal article states that the original, classical test theory test was the only part created by Jerabek. Its revision to be an Item Response Theory was my brainchild.

Unfortunately, MatchScale is not a test that seems to be based on the gold standard of professional tests and measurements (Item Response Theory), so it is extremely unlikely it has the same level of technical quality or validity as the True Compatibility Test.

I hope this clears this up and that uninformed people like “John Brown” stop posting errors. Oh, and it’s Dr. Houran, not Mr. Houran ;)

Thx, Dr. Jim

http://onlinepersonalswatch.typepad.com/news/2005/06/online_personal_1.html

posted after my comment could be read:

“Thanks for the comments, Fernando!

I had a few corrections and comments. First, the TRUE Compatibility Test (TCT) was created as an online compatibility test by Ilona Jerabek and her team at Plumeus, Inc. along with the psychology team at TRUE.com.
……………….

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com

Posted by: James Houran | June 18, 2005″

Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com