The measurement of personality constructs - Essay Example

The measurement of personality Which types of personality tests do you find the most intriguing? Why? Rosenzweig’s Picture Frustration Study is a good example of the ingenuity that goes into the construction of some projective tests. The subject is presented with 24 cartoon-like pictures involving two central characters, one of whom is involved in a frustrating or annoying situation. The other character is depicted as saying something that adds to the frustration of the first character or helps to define the nature of frustration. The subject is asked to supply the reply that would be made by the first character in each cartoon. Responses are scored in terms of whether they indicate a tendency to express aggression against the environment or toward the self, or whether the subject tries to gloss over or belittle the frustration. Why is empirical validation of personality assessments important? Empirical validity is the degree to which the test actually measures what it purports to measure. This also provides a direct check on how well the test results function. Validity coefficient enables us to determine how closely the criterion performance could have been predicted from the test scores. The more valid and reliable the test, the smaller the margin of error. What are your impressions of using test/retest reliability on an instrument that measures a state (e.g., anxiety) versus a measure of a trait (e.g., personality disorder)? What would be a better method for measuring reliability? Empirical Trial is the only way to answer the reliability of a psychological test and it is also and objective evaluation of psychological tests. Test reliability is the consistency of scores obtained by the same persons when retested with identical test or equivalent form of the test. What are the ethical considerations associated with conducting assessments and writing psychological reports? Consider the welfare of the patient. A question arising particularly in connection with personality tests is that of invasion of privacy. In a report entitled Privacy and Behavioral Research, the right to privacy is defined as the right to decide for oneself how much one will share with others one’s thoughts, feeling, and facts about one’s personal life; this right is further characterized as “essential to insure freedom and self-determination”. Insofar as some tests of emotional, motivational, or attitudinal traits are necessarily disguised, the examinee may reveal characteristics in the course of such a test without realizing that he or she is so doing. Whatever the purpose of testing, the protection of privacy involves two key concepts: relevance and informed consent. The information that the individual is asked to reveal must be relevant to the stated purposes of the testing. An important implication of this principles is that all practicable efforts should be made to ascertain the validity of tests for the particular diagnostic or predictive purpose for which they are used. The concept of informed consent also requires clarification; and its application in individual cases calls for the exercise of considerable judgment. The Ethics Code principle on competence states that psychologists “provide only those services and use only those techniques for which they are qualified by education, training, or experience”. With regard to tests, the requirement that they be used only appropriately qualified examiners is one step toward protecting the test taker against the improper use of test. Psychological testing should only be used with the close supervision of a psychometrician if the investigator did not have training in psychometrics. A 3-unit course or even six units in psychometrics does not qualify anyone to handle psychological testing without supervision. In all cases, the ethics of psychological testing in particular, and of psychological measurement in general, should be strictly followed. How are the results of a personality assessment used by the courts, employers, therapists, and the educational system? What are the ethical implications for each of these uses? Personality tests primarily aim to identify personality traits. Results are used for guidance purposes. Poor academic performance could be more of a function of personality rather than inadequate IQ, poor teaching, an uncooperative environment or some other factors. As will be more fully discussed on guidance, guidance is not only for those who are failing in school. At its best, guidance is also for learners who do not manifest behavior problems or who are performing well academically. Different careers demand specific personality traits. Results of a personality test will then be useful in determining whether or not an individual’s personality jibes with the demands of a particular career. If a job requires working with people, one who has tendencies to withdraw may not fit well into the job. In the classroom, the withdrawing type may not do well in group work unless he is helped to work with others. The withdrawing child may choose to sit all by himself while his classmates enjoy being together. Personality tests that have been developed in the West and therefore have norms not appropriate to other cultures do not truly measure their personality. Translations of these tests into other setting do not necessarily make them valid. These translations are not equivalent with the original. Despite the weaknesses of foreign-developed personality test both in the original and translation forms, the development of personality test within the context of other culture has been very slow and is no better than IQ and aptitude test. Two instruments have been developed however. Although the use of both instruments has been limited for research purposes awaiting their further validation, these are worthwhile contributions of personality assessment in the country. The more commonly used personality test in schools are the Edwards Personality Preference Schedule (EPPS), Cattell 16 PF Personality Factor (16 PF Test), Mooney Problem Check List (MCL) and the Minnessota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). The last is primarily used for clinical purposes. What are the differences in test construction between the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the NEO Personality Inventory? Which do you think is more valid? Explain your responses. For the MMPI (a personality inventory used in mental health), the Compulsive scale is correlated with the NEO facet Anxiety at 0.51, the Borderline scale is correlated with the NEO facet Angry hostility at 0.47, the Avoidant scale is correlated with the NEO facet of Self-consciousness at 0.58, and the Schizoid scale is correlated with the NEO facet Gregariousness at 0.66. Your client has t-scores greater than 70 on depression, psychopathic deviance, and schizophrenia on the MMPI-2. Would you feel comfortable diagnosing mental illness based on these results? Why or why not? It will be best to conduct other types of psychological tests aside from MMPI-2 to be able to measure and validate other criteria that need to be considered before diagnosis of mental illness. In a nonveteran sample, null hypothesis of no difference in an adjustment criterion of number of T scores 70 or above on the MMPI between appropriate and inappropriate choice groups was not rejected. In veteran sample, null hypothesis was not rejected for the number of peaks above 70 but was rejected for the Pd and Mf scales, with the inappropriate choice group scoring higher. It was concluded that inappropriate vocational choices for the population may not be associated with personality maladjustment as measured by the MMPI or with most aspects of paternal work experience. Blinkhorn,S.F & Johnson, C. (1990). "The insignificance of personality testing" Nature,348,671-672. Hathaway, S. R. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press Briggs, S. R. (1989). The optimal level of measurement for personality constructs. In D. M. Buss, & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 246-260). New York: Springer-Verlag. Conard, M. A. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(3), 339-346. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Read More