Strengths and Weaknesses of Personality Tests - Essay Example

? Strengths and Weaknesses of Personality Tests People have been interested in examining and understanding the make-up of human personality through human history. Through the last century, there have been many systematic attempts to study personality and personality differences that have been based on different theoretical structures (Wiggins, 2005). Some of these tests have been developed as diagnostic tools that have been used predominantly to examine for personality problems and disorders (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008), while others have been developed basically as tools to help understand the individual better(Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). A number of such personality tests have been used to assist in vocational guidance and professional recruitment (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008). Different tests are developed on the basis of different theories of personality ranging from trait and type theories to the psychoanalytic and humanistic theories (Wiggins, 2005). Thus, the manner in which these tests assess personality can be very different (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Some tests use a self report technique, while others are required to be administered by a professional. While a number of tests use rating scales and questionnaires; some use non-verbal stimuli (Kline, 2000). A few of the well known tests today include the 16-Factor test by Cattell and others and the MBTI which has been based on Jung’s classification of human personality. Non-verbal tests of personality that are often used with children include the use of Apperception tests that attempt to draw out unconscious thoughts and desires (Wiggins, 2005). The MBTI or the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator developed by Myers in 1962 and further refined with the help of McCaulley in 1985 draws from Jung’s classification of personality(Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008), and measures personality on the basis of four dichotonomies(Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). The rationale to the test is that a majority of human behavior can be explained based on the person’s combination of positions on these four variables (Wiggins, 2005). The variables used in the MBTI are Extraversion (E) – Introversion (I) which explain the desire to seek out other, Sensation (S) – intuition (N) which describe the way in which the person picks up information, Thinking (T) – Feeling (F) which describe the way people align to facts and Judgment (J) – Perception (P) which explains the way they interact with the outer world (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). The test makers believed that the stronger of each dichotonomy expresses itself into the individual’s behavior and influences their choices. Thus, they described 16 Types of individuals based on the combinations of the dominant aspect of the four dichotonomies. These types (coded as INTJ, ESFP, etc) describe personality in a non – judgmental manner with the object of promoting growth and believe that each type is as valuable as the next in a fully functioning society (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). It is a popular test in organizational training and selection as well as guidance and is usually used in conjunction to the individual’s explanation of the scores (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008). Although the MBTI enjoys immense popularity; it has been challenged on a number of methodological points (Kline, 2000). The most significant of all concerns is the forced dichotonomies; since it becomes difficult to assess the effect of the dormant aspect since it is not documented (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Differences in scores are not taken into consideration, and so it is quite possible to have people with the same classification to respond to their environment in very different ways (Kline, 2000). Although there is reluctance in the scientific community to use simplistic types to explain behavior, recent research by Meehl (in Anastasi & Urbina, 1997) has found evidence that supports the use of types. On the other hand, Dhalstrom (1995 in Anastasi & Urbina, 1997) believes that such simplistic explanations allow for considerable error and should be avoided. Thus, there seems to be some debate about the validity of the MBTI. The reliability of the test has also come into question, as different studies show that although about 70 – 83% of those tested show the same type classification on a second testing, their actual scores for both the dominant and the dormant preference fluctuates along a bell curve (Kline, 2000). As the duration between testing increased, the number of people who retained a classification reduced drastically. The test also lacks in falsiblity (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Kline, 2000); and thus it is difficult to test the robustness of the conceptual basis on which it has been built. In spite of these issues, the MBTI continues to be used across cultural boundaries and with diverse groups to help understand personal preferences and incorporate this understanding into personal and professional choices (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008). Another personality instrument is the 16 Personality Factor or 16PF questionnaire developed by Cattell and colleagues through 1949 till 1993 (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008). This test is based on a Trait approach to personality; and attempts to explain human personality on the basis of the comparative standing of an individual on 16 trait dimensions visa-via the other dimensions being studied (Wiggins, 2005). The fifth edition that is currently in use differs to some extent from the first edition (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008) in terms of the understanding of the factors examined and the psychometric qualities of the test itself. Cattell based his theory of 16 primary factors on intensive factor analysis of the data taken from personality research (Kline, 2000); and has discussed the validity of the chosen factors in great detail. Research also show that the 16PF may be reduced to 5 higher order factors akin to the Five –Factor model although initial research on higher order factors has identified between 4 – 8 factors(Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008). The test also contains three validity scales that help in interpretation of scores. The test is written in simple language and can be used with all individuals above the age of 16 years (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). It has been translated into as many as 35 languages as it has shown utility across cultural boundaries when it is adapted instead of simple translation (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). It still does pertain best to the American context than others; but there has been success in applying the 16PF to a number of settings. The factor structure of the 16PF has been difficult to validate; and most attempts at factor-analysis have yielded only the higher – order factors described by Cattell (Kline, 2000). The test has been validated against other measures like the NEO-PI and the MBTI; but there is still a lack of evidence for all 16 sub-scales (Kline, 2000). The test demonstrates sufficient reliability, with the 5th edition showing higher internal and test – retest reliability as compared to previous editions (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008). The 16PF does describe human personality in great detail, and also accounts for the need for Impression management and pleasing others through its validity scales (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). It has been adapted for use with adolescents, as well as in personnel selection and research. The 16PF Select is a shorter version and has been developed specifically for recruitment purposes, and the 16PF express has been used largely in research into human personality (Anastasi &Urbina, 1997). A third test that has enjoyed application in a number of situations is the Apperception test developed by Murray in 1938(Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). The Thematic Apperception Test or TAT was developed as a means of studying human personality and needs as they were manifest through the information collected using Apperception stimuli (Wiggins, 2005). The test was administered to a particular individual contains a set of 20 cards including a blank cared. The test contains a total of 4 overlapping sets of 20 cards; and the choice of the actual stimuli for each individual is often left to the test user (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Cards with stimuli on them are ambiguous in terms of emotional content and event. The individual is required to describe the scene on the card, describe the emotions of persons depicted, and provide a story about the event that they perceive (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008). Data gathered is subjectively analyzed on the basis of the length of the story, the emotional content, and the identification of figures and speed of responses. When any particular set of norms is used, the test shows high inter-scorer reliability (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997); but there are often particular differences between different sets of norms that are developed for specific uses of the test (Kline, 2000). Although originally designed as a one-on-one test that elicits verbal responses, it has been shown to be useful in group testing and when used to elicit written responses as well (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2008). The TAT has been used as the basis for the development of the Children’s Apperception test or CAT as well as the RATC (Robert’s Apperception Test of children), TEMAS (Tell me a story test) and the GAT (Gerentological Apperception test) (Anastasi &Urbina, 1997). The original TAT material has been criticized for being Caucasian oriented and culture specific, although it was touted to be a culture-free test. Recent changes and adaptations of the test have included a more inclusive approach; and adaptions in different countries have been made keeping local cultural motifs in mind (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Although the Apperception tests are difficult to examine for their psychometric proprieties (Kline, 2000); they do show internal consistency and inter-rater reliability as well as criterion validity (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). These tests have shown themselves to be powerful tools that help in both clinical practice and research and help in eliciting valuable information about individual needs, attitudes and desires. The tests have also been found useful with individuals with limited literacy and disturbed populations (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). In spite of all the criticism that subjective techniques of personality testing receive; the Apperception techniques are an integral part of the personality testing material. It is evident from the descriptions of these tests that they differ in a number of ways. The MBTI is a largely non-clinical test that shows high utility, but is suspect in its reliability and validity; while the 16PF provides a more clinical analysis and shows strong reliability; but its factor structure is difficult to replicate. The Apperception tests are difficult to assess for psychometric properties, but they show valuable application regardless. While they are ideally applied to a one-on-one setting, the other two can easily be used for group testing, and versions and adaptations for industry use have been developed. The tests differ in their abilities to work with different age and gender groups; and different versions have been developed where a test id used with minors (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). On the other hand, all three tests have shown that theories of personality are essentially global through their international acceptance and adaptation. These three tests approach the study of human personality from different directions – behavioral, unconscious needs and trait; but each of them provides us with valuable information about the individual being tested (Wiggins, 2005). References Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing (7th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Kaplan, R.M. & Saccuzzo D.P. (2008). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (7th ed.). Belmont, C.A.: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing. New York: Psychology Press. Wiggins, J.S. (2005). Paradigms of Personality Assessment. New York: Guilford Publications. Read More