Methods of personality assessment

Dr. Shraddha Tripathi

• What is personality?
• What is personality assessment?
• Uses and value of personality assessments
• Measurement methods:
• Projective tests
• Objective tests
• Type-Based
• Trait-Based
• For lay people, personality refers to aspects of a person that elicit
positive or negative reactions from others:
• Someone who elicits positive reactions has a "good personality"
• Someone who elicits negative reactions has a "negative personality"
• We also hear people described with adjectives like
• aggressive, warm, or cold
• For psychologists the terms tend to be better specified and more
descriptive
•The most adequate conceptualisation of a person’s behaviour in all its detail
(McClelland, 1951, p.69)
•The individual as a whole ... it means all that any- one is and is trying to
become (Menninger 1953, p.23)
•Personality is defined by the particular empirical concepts which are a
part of the theory of person- ality employed (Hall and Lindzey, 1970, p.9)
•An individual’s unique constellation of psy- chological traits—
values, interests, attitudes, worldview, cognitive style—that is
relatively stable and enduring over time
 Personality assessment
• Personality assessment is the measurement and evaluation of psychological traits,
states, values, interests, attitudes, worldview, cognitive style and related individual
characteristics
• Methods of personality assessment we will consider today include:
1 Projective tests
2 Objective tests
• We first consider the distinction between personality traits, types, and states
• Any distinguishable, relatively enduring way in which one
individual varies from another (Guildford, 1959, p.6)
• Distinguishable indicates that behaviours labelled with different
trait terms are actually different from one another
• Context is important when applying trait terms to behaviours
• Relatively enduring implies that traits are relatively consistent
across the lifespan but how they manifest is partly dependent
on the situation
• A trait is a way in which one individual varies from another The
attribution of a trait term is always a relative phenomenon
• A constellation of traits that is similar in pattern to one identified category of
personality within a taxonomy of personalities
• Traits are characteristics possessed by people, whereas types are descriptions of
people
• Personality typologies are common:
• Carl Jung (1923) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & Briggs,
1943/1962)
• Holland’s six personality types (Holland, 1999): artistic, enterprising, investigative,
social, realistic, or conventional
• Type A personality vs. Type B personality (Freidman & Rosenman, 1974)
• MMPI personality profiles (Dahlstrom, 1995
 The transitory exhibition of some personality state

• Unlike a trait—which is a relatively enduring behavioural

predisposition—a state is a relatively temporary predisposition
• For example, you may be in an anxious state before an exam but
that does not mean you are an anxious person
• Measuring personality states is the search for traits that are relatively
transitory or situation specific
• Personality inventories—like the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)
—have been developed to distinguish various states from traits
 There are broadly two types of personality
assessment methods

• Projective methods
• Objective methods
• Some of the first personality tests to be used and investigated Usually consist
of ambiguous stimuli
• A judgement of the assesses personality is made according to her ability
to impose some structure on the unstructured stimuli—projective method
• The underlying theme is that you cannot rely upon people’s conscious
awareness of themselves for the purposes of understanding their true
nature
• The projective hypothesis states that an individual supplies structure to
unstructured stimuli in a manner consistent with their underlying
personality
• Projective tests are indirect methods of personality assessment—
assesses are not asked to disclose information about themselves
• Their task is to talk about something else (e.g., inkblots, pictures, sounds)
• Through such indirect responses, the assessor draws inferences
about the personality of assesses
• The ability and inclination to "fake" is minimised
• So too is proficiency in the English language—increases cross-cultural
utility
• Assumed to tap conscious as well as unconscious material
• Hermann Rorschach (1921) developed what he called a "form interpretation
test"
• It has since come to be known as The Rorschach Test
• 10 bilaterally symmetrical inkblots printed on white cards
• Five are achromatic
• Two are black, white, and red
• Three are multicoloured
• Inkblots used to incite the testtaker to free-associate
• Responses are then coded according to guidelines
 Stage 1

• The cards are presented in numbered order

from 1–10
• Testtaker initially asked "What might this be?“

• Examiner records testtaker’s verbatim

responses, nonverbal gestures, first response
time, position of card etc.
• Examiner does not engage in any discussion at
this stage
• Focus is on allowing testtaker to project, free
from distraction
Stage 2

• The cards are re-administered in a second stage known as the inquiry

• Examiner attempts to determine what features of the inkblot played a
role in the formulation of the testtaker’s percept
• Examiner asks questions such as "What made it look like [whatever]?"
to clarify what was seen
• Goal is to identify which aspects of the inkblot were most influential
in forming the perception
• Provides opportunity to detect whether any new responses are
perceived
•Stage 3
• In a final stage, known as testing the limits the
examiner asks specific questions
• Testtaker asked to elaborate on aspects of the inkblot
• The examiner might say "sometimes people use a
part of the blot to see something" or "what does this
look like?"
• Goal is to obtain additional information concerning
personality functioning
Responses scored according to several categories
1 Location
• part of the inkblot used to form the percept
2 Determinants
• qualities of the inkblot (form, colour, movement) important to a
testtaker’s percept
3 Content
• content category (human, animal, anatomical figures) of responses
4 Popularity
• frequency with which a response to part of an inkblot has been observed
5 Form
• how well the individuals percept matches the corresponding part of
the inkblot
• Very difficult to calculate internal consistency reliability
• Test-retest reliability has been observed to be high
• Inter-rater reliability is fairly high (.80)
• So far so good ...
• Accuracy of predictions of future behaviour based on Rorschach
scores has been found to be low
• Some of the research has tried to find correlations with self-report
personality questionnaires
• Correlations are very low
• But is the Rorschach trying to measure conventional personality?
• Criterion group validity studies would be especially useful
• For example, compare responses from clinically depressed and
non-depressed individuals
• Are there any differences in typical responses?
• Sensitive to rater’s beliefs
• Suffers from lack of objectivity in scoring
• Absence of adequate norms
• Relation between responses and personality is as
ambiguous as the inkblots themselves
• Poor predictive validity
• The rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well
be measured by the speed and thoroughness with which it gets
over the Rorschach (Jensen, 1965, p.509)
• Pictures as projective stimuli
• Thematic Apperception Test
• Words as projective stimuli
• Word Association Test
• Sentence Completion Test
• Sounds as projective stimuli
• Like auditory inkblots (Skinner, 1979)
• Rarely used and little supporting evidence
• Though controversial, they are still used in clinical
and forensic settings
• There are many contemporary publications advocating
the use of the Rorschach
• Responses on the Rorschach are accepted by the
courts
• "The rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology"
has evidently been a crawl
Objective methods
• Objective methods of personality assessment contain short-
answer items
• Individuals respond to items, usually on a scale (e.g., agree / disagree)
• May also be complemented with acquaintance-report
• They are objective in the sense that they employ short answer
(typically multiple choice) format—provides no room for
discretion in scoring
• The most common method of personality assessment by far
Type-Based vs. Trait-Based Approaches

• People can be sorted into categories

Type-Based • More popular in commercial settings

• People differ based on stable attributes

Trait-Based • Characteristics lie on a continuum
• Very popular in research settings
• The Myers-Briggs Type Inventory
(MBTI; Myers & Briggs, 1943/1962)
• Based on the idea that people exhibit
stable preferences in the way they
take in information and make decisions
• Widely popular:
• Taken by more than
• 2.5million people a year
• Used by 89 of Fortune 100 companies
• Very serious concerns have been raised about the
psychometric soundness of the MBTI
• The test lacks reliability—specifically test-retest
reliability
• It also lacks predictive validity
• Regardless of such criticism, the test (regrettably)
remains very popular
• Examines individual characteristics, each measured
separately and more precisely
• Emphasis placed on differences between people
• Subtle differences may be important
• Each person comprises a unique constellation of traits
• There are thousands of personality descriptive adjectives in the English
dictionary (e.g., affable, agreeable, charming, polite, likeable, arrogant,
self-centred, cynical, boastful, pompous, patronising)
• Often there are too many to use, and there is a lot of overlap
• Thus, there is a need to categorise these traits into a smaller number of
groups
• This can be done using data reduction methods like factor analysis or cluster
analysis
• Permits identification of the minimum number of variables or factors that
account for the inter-correlations in observed phenomena
• Based on a five-dimension (or factor)
model of personality
• The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a
measure of five major dimensions (or
"domains") of personality and a total
of 30 elements or facets that define
each domain
• It is easily the most dominant model of
personality (especially in research)
• Lexical Approach: Based on a factor
analysis of adjectives in the English
dictionary
1 Openness to experience
• preference for variety, intellectual curiosity
2 Conscientiousness
• planning, organising, and following through
3 Extraversion
• assertiveness and proactivity in seeking out others
4 Agreeableness
• altruism, friendliness, sympathy toward others
5 Neuroticism
• emotional stability, coping in times of emotional turmoil
 Big Five Facts (NEO PI-R)
NEUROTICISM EXTRAVERSION OPENNESS AGREEABLENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
• Anxiety • Warmth • Fantasy • Trust • Competence
• Angry Hostility • Gregariousness • Aesthetics • • Order
• Depression • Assertiveness • Feelings Straightforwar • Dutifulness
• Self- • Activity • Actions dness •
• Altruism
Consciousness • • Ideas Achievement
• • Compliance Striving
Impulsiveness Excitement- • Values
• Vulnerability Seeking • Modesty • Self-Discipline
• • Tender- • Deliberation
Positive Mindedness
Emotions
• 5 traits × 6 facets × 8 items = 240 items total
• Items are all very face valid
• Anchored by strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)
• Norms provided for adults (21 and up) and college age
individuals (17-20)
• Norms come from 500 men and 500 women (U.S.)
• There is a lot of validity for the Big Five personality factors
• Barrick and Mount (1991) examined whether the Big Five could
predict job performance across a range of occupations
(professional, police, managers, sales, skilled, semi-skilled)
• Openness to experience = .04
• Conscientiousness = .22
• Extraversion = .13
• Agreeableness = .07
• Neuroticism = .08
• Multiple raters of the same person tend to provide
similar ratings for the same person
• Inter-rater reliabilities for the Big Five dimensions
range from
• .69 to .81
• Consensual validity: correlation between self-report
ratings and rater-report ratings for the Big Five
dimensions range from .46 to .62
• Type-Based:
• Credits: Simple, attractive
• Debits: Poor predictors, questionable validity, unreliable
• Example: MBTI
• Trait-Based:
• Credits: Comprehensive, valid descriptions, valid predictions,
reliable
• Debits: Complex
• Example: NEO PI-R, HEXACO
Any Question