I would use Rorscharch’s Ink blot test which is an effective instrument for assessing personality in forensic settings. It is the best known projective test in which a series of ten irregular but proportioned inkblot designs are shown to the subject, who is then asked to explain their understanding of it (Cordon, 2005, pp. 201–204). Subjective interpretations of the ambiguous pictures, the response time taken and response to a picture by a subject relative to responses by other subjects would enable me to infer the thought structure and feelings.
I might also use the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2 RF), which is the latest revision of the MPPI personality tests that was released in 2003. It is popularly applied in forensic psychology as a self-report assessment of psychopathology (Goldstein, 2007, pp 73.). It consists of 567 items with true or false questions arranged on a hierarchical set of scales (Tellegan, 2003). I prefer it because its objectivity saves time and is easier to administer. It addresses adolescent problems more effectively through well-researched clinical and substance abuse measures as well.
Psychological tests should be appropriately selected for issues that are relevant to the plaintiff. Tests should account for plaintiff’s language, culture and its own appropriateness to legal decision-making. Failure to regard these issues may result in unreliable assessment (Goldstein, 2007, pp 272-273).
I have chosen to respond to Sharon’s posting to industrial settings. I agree with her point that testing plays a significant role in assessing trainees and applicants, and test their knowledge and skills in this area. Her choice of Assembly and Matching test and Blueprint test are important accordingly. However, the tests chosen by my colleague are not useful in psychological assessment of the employees as they are an assessment of job-specific skills, and do not test their