The Process of Evaluating and Measuring Personality - Assignment Example

? Assessment of Personality: Present Trends Zachary Operton ORG5100: Assessment - Tests & Measurements Kristen DiCerbo ? Introduction Human personality is a complex construct that can become difficult to define. The process of personality assessment or measurement often emphasizes one or the other aspect of personality in a bid to develop instruments that provide comprehensive and useful information about the individual that may be used in clinical and non – clinical settings (Gregory, 2004). Most tests of personality attempt to measure factors that are associated with motivations, attitudes, interpersonal interactions and emotions. Over the years, a number of tests have been developed to measure personality (Gregory, 2004). Some of these tests are very objective in nature so that they provide numerical scores that yield an interpretation that is not guided by the thoughts or opinions of the clinician administering the test (Gregory, 2004). On the other hand, there are a number of testing techniques that are quite subjective in nature and emphasize the clinicians’ opinions (Anastasi, 1997). Given the strengths and weaknesses that are inherent in each type of test, clinicians often prefer to use more than one instrument to collect information when they are required to make a clinical assessment of personality. These instruments include checklists, rating scales, interviews, clinical observation, situational response tests and projective techniques to name the commonly used methods (Gregory, 2004). Different tests are used in different situations; and as the understanding of the human personality improves, new tests and techniques are developed to be used in different settings (Anastasi, 1997). Through this paper the author shall attempt to understand some of the trends found in personality testing in recent years and will try to understand the direction that assessment of personality is taking as the understanding of the components of personality develops. Commonly Used Tests A number of different tests have been proposed over the years that provide insight into the construction of and individual’s personality. Tests like Cattle’s 16 factor personality test tried to evaluate personality by assessing the relative strengths of different traits, while the NEO – PI – R is based on a more generalized factor structure that emphasizes five factors that together provide a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s personality (Gregory, 2004). While these tests are often used in clinical as well as non – clinical settings, tests like the Myer’s – Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) were developed to be used primarily in non-clinical settings as an aid to improving self awareness (Anastasi, 1997). On the other hand, tests like the Beck’s Depression Inventory, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the Symptom Checklist and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – III are examples of tests of personality that have been developed for use particularly in a clinical setting (Gregory, 2004). These tests are typically used in a clinical or a research setting to help in the assessment of pathology. While most of these tests are objective, some subjective measures have been found valuable by clinicians working with populations who are not ideal candidates for objective self report measures (Anastasi, 1997). These include observation techniques like the Parent-Child Interaction Assessment-II (PCIA), The Parent-Child Early Relational Assessment and the MacArthur Story Stem Battery (MSSB) which provide systematic ways of collecting data about interactions and attitudes based on how children interact with their parents and with particular tasks during play or within a clinical setting (Gregory, 2004). Other popular subjective tests are those that provide ambiguous stimuli upon which an individual is able to project their latent and covert motivations and attitudes. Projective techniques are helpful particularly as they mask the nature of assessment, and the test taker has no indication of what the acceptable responses to the presented stimuli are (Anastasi, 1997). Widely used and studied projective techniques include the Rorschach Inkblot test, the Thematic Apperception test, the Children’s Apperception Test, the House – Tree – Person test and Attachment Projective test (Anastasi, 1997). These tools are valuable with young children and with individuals who are unable to provide responses on self rating measures for some reason. Although projective techniques provide a global evaluation of personality and are often criticized for low psychometric strengths, they have been found valuable in developing a comprehensive evaluation for a person when used alongside other measures of personality (Gregory, 2004). For example, the House – Tree – Person test can be used with young children who are unable to cope with complex constructs, or with children who may have suffered from a lack of education or those who may not be able to articulate themselves in the dominant language. Since the test involves the use if drawings of objects that are familiar to all children, it may provide valuable information where others cannot. These techniques have also been found to improve rapport and develop trust between the clinician and the client. Uses of Personality Tests Personality testing is carried out primarily in the clinical setting. The main focus of such assessment is to detect the presence and intensity of disorders and challenges. The DSM – IV and the ICD – 10 provide symptoms that may be observed for different disorders, and a number of tests have been developed to verify the presence of these symptoms (Gregory, 2004). Clinical assessment is not restricted to checking for symptoms; but also tries to understand the factors associated with the manifestation of the disorder and the possible causes from which the observed symptoms may arise (Anastasi, 1997). Beyond the clinical setting, personality tests are used during personnel selection and career counseling (Gregory, 2004). Personality tests provide information about the values, attitudes, and characteristics of an individual that may encourage or inhibit success in a particular professional setting. For example, the position that involves human interaction would be handled better by someone who scores high on extraversion. The use of information about personality allows an employer to select individuals who would enjoy and thrive when faced with the particular challenges presented by a job. This information also helps in guiding a student towards training that would be optimally useful to them when choosing a profession (Anastasi, 1997). Personality testing is also used to help individuals’ select self development goals in professional as well as clinical settings. Personality tests are also used in research into the construction of the human personality and the differences seen amongst groups (Gregory, 2004). The data collected through such studies maybe used for developing a better understanding of the factors that influence personality and it’s manifestation as well as to improve the process of personality assessment. Choosing Measures of Personality Assessment Choosing the correct instrument is vital to the process of personality testing within a given setting. It is important that the test user understand the strengths and weaknesses of different instruments before choosing any one instrument. This has been demonstrated by Okada and Oltmanns (2009) through their comparison of three instruments used in a clinical setting. The researchers compared the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+), the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Questionnaire (SCID-IIQ) and the Multi-source Assessment of Personality Pathology (MAPP) and tried to assess the extent of convergence and divergence among the three tools. Analysis of data collected on college students over three administrations of each instrument that were conducted over a period of nine days so that any two administrations of a particular test were two days apart. The data collected was reduced and correlations were computed among scales. The results showed that while the tests shared some convergence; they could not be considered alternatives to each other as they differed in both the extent to which they measured factors of personality and the extent to which they are sensitive to symptoms of disorders. In another study, Miller, Price and Campbell (2011) found that the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) showed more validity in identifying symptoms of entitlement and grandiosity as well as predicting traits on the Five Factor Model of personality when compared to scales that specifically measured the symptoms of entitlement and grandiosity. Thus, the researchers caution against replacing the NPI with other scales when assessing narcissism. While some scales seem to be difficult to replace, test developers and researchers have also found that some tests may be used interchangeably. The Five Factor Model of personality postulates that a majority of human personality may be explained by studying five traits – i.e. – Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Contentiousness. Hofer and Eber (2002) describe the similarity shared by higher order factors derived by Cattel from the 16PF test and the factors that constitute the Five Factor Model. According to them, the description of the secondary traits as described by Cattel led to the development of the Five Factor Model as it is understood today. While the 16PF provides information on specific constructs, the interpretations based on the Five Factor Model is as comprehensive and useful as those based on the 16PF. The Five factor Model is based on more sophisticated factor analyses of data pertaining to personality of both clinical and non-clinical samples; and thus provides a statistically sound basis for assessment of personality. Given the popularity of the Five factor model and it’s utility in research and clinical work, Rammstedt and John (2007) have developed a short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-44) called the BFI-10. They found that the short ten item scale that was comprised of two items per factor was very similar to the original scale and to NEO – PI – R in terms of its psychometric properties. The correlation shared by the new instrument with established ones was found to be as high as 0.93, although the effect sizes for each factor were found to be somewhat smaller as compared to the original instrument. The authors recommend that the BFI – 10 may be used in research settings where time constraints and other issues can inhibit the use of the full scale. Concerns with the use of Personality tests The most frequent criticism of instruments measuring personality is that they do not display adequate psychometric properties like reliability and validity. In part this occurs due to the complex nature of the construct being measured so that a test is only able to measure certain aspects of personality. Objective measures typically measure behaviors, emotions and thoughts that the individual is aware of and are based on a multiple trait or type theory. Projective techniques on the other hand seem to mostly measure latent motivations that the person may be unaware of. A number of tests that evaluate the presence of particular disorders or symptoms are based in the understanding of the disorder and may not be considered valid as the understanding of the issue improves. Another problem is that not all behaviors are manifested at all times; and this affects the ability of the test to provide a comprehensive picture of personality. Some instruments are able to describe personality as observed, but may not be able to predict behavior at other times. Hart, Michie and Cooke (2007) find that Actuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAIs) that are often used to predict likelihood of future violent behavior do not reach statistical confidence in making these predictions when used alone. The authors believe that this is because these instruments typically ignore other factors that compound risk for violent behavior and use a rigid equation to calculate the possibility of violence. According to them, ARAIs should be used with caution or in addition to other measures, but should not be used by themselves. Another paper establishes that different techniques of assessment may not provide the same conclusions (Tyrer, Coombs, Ibrahimi, Mathilakath, Bajaj, Ranger, Rao & Din, 2007) and that it may not be possible to substitute one form of assessment – checklists, self report scales, interview, or observation for another. Co-morbidity does provide some concern about the validity of a diagnosis, as different disorders may influence behaviors so as to mask or exaggerate the effects of another disorder. Recent research has found that this does not significantly influence diagnosis or prognosis; but it is important for the clinician to be careful in evaluation so as to provide an appropriate evaluation. For example, Morey, Shea, Markowitz, Hopwood, Gunderson, Grilo, McGlashan, Yen, Sanislow, and Skodol (2010) found that co-morbidity of personality disorders with major depression did not change the prognosis significantly at the end of six years. The researchers collected data from 668 participants using a number of self report checklists and scales as well as using a structured interview. Of these, 552 participants were available for analysis till the end of the six – year study. The authors found that individuals diagnosed with only major depressive disorder were doing significantly better than those who suffered from an Axis II (according to the DSM – IV – TR) personality disorder alone and those who had co-morbid depression and personality disorder (Morey et al., 2010). The researchers also found that there was no difference for individuals in the latter two groups indicating that personality disorders were associated with a worse prognosis at the six year mark regardless of whether they suffered from co-morbid depression or not (Morey et al., 2010). Test developers understand the concerns raised about personality tests, and where possible, attempts have been made to improve the psychometric soundness of instruments of personality assessment. Westen and Shedler (2007) have described the development of the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP – II) and how the instrument is able to provide a statistically significant prediction for different issues. The instrument uses a schedule that helps in making assessments using interviews and has been shown to help in improving the existing diagnostic criteria and to establish new criteria as they are understood. The authors also believe that a trait model of personality may be developed that is able to adequately address concerns about personality in clinical and non – clinical settings; and that the SWAP – II can help in the development of symptoms and disorders. Similarly, the study by Gibbons, Weiss, Kupfer, Frank, Fagiolini, Grochocinski, Bhaumik, Stover and Immekus (2008) showed that using a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) process in administering the Mood and Anxiety Spectrum Scales (MASS) improved discrimination between individuals with depression and bipolar disorder correlating very strongly with the original scale. The CAT versions also required fewer items to come to a full diagnosis. The authors collected data from 800 outpatient participants, of whom a large proportion was women over a period of two years. Participants responded to the paper-and-pencil test, a simulated CAT version and a live CAT version of the test and the different groups were compared. This evidence in favor of the CAT may be used to support the value of computerized testing for personality that helps standardize the process of assessment and improves discrimination among disorders. Thus, through the use of sophisticated statistical and administration techniques it is possible to enhance the psychometric qualities of different personality assessment instruments. Conclusion Based on the research evidence, it may be said that there are a number of different methods that are used to assess personality; but no method may be considered as being able to provide accurate and full information in all situations. While some instruments are more appropriate for screening and research, some others prove to be more valuable in diagnosis of a particular disorder or assessing the extent to which the disorder is manifested in the individual’s behavior. The value of personality assessment tools is often dependent on the situation in which it is used and many instruments seem to suffer from a lack of psychometric strengths. Research in the field of personality has offered solutions that involve the use of sound statistical methods like factor analysis, the use of computerized testing and standardization of modes of interpretation as means of enhancing the strengths of these instruments. As the understanding of the construction of personality improves and as the symptoms of different disorders are classified on the basis of empirically tested data, it will be possible to expect personality tests to be more accurate and useful within the conditions that define their scope. References Anastasi, A. (1997). Psychological testing. (7th ed.). New York: McMillan co. Gibbons, R.D., Weiss, D.J., Kupfer, D.J., Frank, E., Fagiolini, A., Grochocinski, V.J., Bhaumik, D.K., Stover, A., Bock, R.D. & Immekus, J.C. (2008). Using Computerized Adaptive Testing to Reduce the Burden of Mental Health Assessment. Psychiatric services, 59(4), 361–368. Gregory, R.J. (2004). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education. Hart, S.D., Michie, C. & Cooke, D.J. (2007). Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: Evaluating the `margins of error' of group v. individual predictions of violence. The british journal of psychiatry, 190, 60 – 65. Hofer, S.M. & Eber, H.W. (2002). Second-order factor structure of the Cattel Sixteen Personality Factor Inventory (16PF). In De Raad, B. & Perugini, M. (Eds.). Big-Five Assessment. (pp. 397-404). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber publishers. Miller, J.D., Price, J. & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Is the narcissistic personality inventory still relevant? A test of independent grandiosity and entitlement scales in the assessment of narcissism. Assessment, 20(10), 1–6. Morey, L. C., Shea, M. T., Markowitz, J. C., Hopwood, C. J., Gunderson, J. G., Grilo, C. M., McGlashan, T. H., Yen, S., Sanislow, C. A., & Skodol, A. E. (2010). State effects of major depression on the assessment of personality and personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(5), 528-535.Okada, M. & Oltmanns, T.F. (2009). Comparison of three self-report measures of personality pathology. Journal of psychopathology and behavior assessment, 31(4), 358–367. Rammstedt, B. &, John, O.P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of research in personality, 41, 203–212. Tyrer, P., Coombs, N., Ibrahimi, F., Mathilakath, A., Bajaj, P., Ranger, M., Rao, B. & Din, R. (2007). Critical developments in the assessment of personality disorder. The british journal of psychiatry, 190, 51-59. Westen, D. & Shedler, J. (2007). Personality diagnosis with the shedler-westen assessment procedure (SWAP): Integrating clinical and statistical measurement and prediction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(4), 810 – 822. Read More