Development of Personality Tests - Essay Example

? Assessing Psychology Personality tests are standardized tools or instruments used to study and reveal aspects of an individual’s character or their psychological composition. It can be a questionnaire, a device standardized to gauge a person’s psychological make up, or a behavioral sample obtained from this mechanization. This essay focuses on discussing the process of developing a personality test using workshop empirical data. In developing a personality test, there are certain goals or conditions that should be met to enable the test perform its intended role sufficiently. The test should first advance the concepts of validity and reliability. This means that the data on the results garnered from the test should represent the actual scenario or a near close up of what it is predicting. The reliability of the test should be above par in the determination of the core test parameters under consideration and the results attained are to be an almost certainty of that person’s character and unique patterns of traits (Weiner & Greene, 2011 p276). In developing a personality test, focus should be placed on how to conceptualize the test, in the real world, and how the test is going to impact on the subjects along with those involved, in administering the test. Conceptualization is a necessary aspect of personality test development because it determines if the test is going to be a key aspect, in furnishing those carrying out the test with useful data, to satisfy their query. The first step requires an identification and quantification of an individual’s variable difference. This process should factor that an authentic personality is augured on a person’s version of well being. Therefore, the test is supposed to consider the subject’s own perception of well being, and focus its item construction on the susceptibility of the subjects’ response, in relation to their social status and the degree of social esteem embodied by that person. Test conceptualization involves taking into account the objective of the study and whether its development is essential in ascertaining the personality of an individual or if other methods can be applied other than those that require a direct input by the subject (Weiner & Greene, 2011 p 291). In the narcissism questionnaire, I designed some questions such as “I fall asleep easily”, “I consider myself as unhappy person”, “I am anxious a lot of the time” and “I consider myself unhappy person”. These questions are responded to using three responses, which include “strongly agree”, “agree” and “strongly disagree”. When designing this test, I had a clear indication, of the target group, to ensure that the test precise is included in the questionnaires to be predetermined so that the later development stages of the test can be based upon its effectiveness. I also determined the frequency of the test so that respondent preparation can be accounted for, and the training necessary for the test taker to be implemented. After all this considerations were accounted for, the actual test construction then commenced, and I followed the appropriate stages in test development because a discrepancy in one developmental stage can mean or contribute to the failure of a personality test. Personality test items should be formatted and presented, in a design, which gives them full potential of execution and deliverance of the desired outcome. This is because they are the sole source of agitation that is required to see the personality test come to term. Therefore, the construction of test items is supposed to concentrate on their effectiveness at eliciting the desired responses from the subjects, bearing in mind that its characteristic and merit guide the direction of the test, and act as a benchmark for its reliability and validity. These are fundamental components of a personality test without, which the test’s authenticity and credibility would not be sufficient to support the assumptions generated by such a test. Item simplicity should be paramount because complex or ambiguous queries tend to confuse the respondent, and lead to generation of responses, which do not convey the targeted characteristic outcome of the research. Item design, in a personality test, is supposed to put the respondent at ease because, in this state, a subject is relaxed enabling a clear and conscious interpretation of issues that come to their direction. In a personality test development, the items constructed must consider the disposition of the test, in terms of the target group of individuals that the test is intended for, their number, and the circumstances that warrant the test to be carried out. This should be in relation to the aspect of considering the situation the target group is in so as not to antagonize the supporting conditions. Hersen argues that item analysis ought to be carried out to determine its effectiveness and suitability, in bringing out the true picture on the area of interest, by coming up with a formula for determining its difficulty, in terms of being understood by a respondent, and how this contributes to the final hypothesis of the individual’s personality. Item analysis also involves item discrimination, which entails working out the difference between those respondents in a high scoring group, and those in a low scoring group who produce the proper answer, which helps, ascertain the probable rationality employed by the subjects in coming to the same decision (Hersen, 2004 p 241). Item analysis requires test developers to gauge the performance of items, in a personality test, and in the process, gives them an opportunity to make improvements to ensure that the items focus on the subject matter, by avoiding irrelevant projections of a test item. A personality test can be developed successfully, but its effectiveness and ability to accomplish its task is dependent on its validity and reliability because, without these two components, the test cannot be regarded as having attained or qualified to analyze a person’s personality correctly. Reliability of a personality test or any other test ought to be established because the authenticity of the results computed can be disputed on the basis that data collected does not reflect the true scenario on the ground, or in this case the respondent’s contributions. Reliability is uniform and unwavering production of results, from an empirical undertaking, which takes into account the magnitude of the variables presented to the test subjects (Carter, 2007 p 200). The purpose of conducting the personality test impacts on the reliability of the test score because depending on the intended use the postulates derived from the test might not reflect the actual theme of the research, which diminishes the test score’s implications and assumptions. The nature of the respondents participating, in the test, is a key factor to consider when evaluating the reliability of a test because they introduce variables to a situation, which is composed of constants, and these additional elements contribute to the overall of the test. These elements, which include age, race and a social background that can be categorized as whether being poor or rich, have significant roles to play, in the development of a personality. The people involved in a personality test, as respondents, play a vital part in molding the credibility and reliability of a test coupled with the characteristic of the test itself, which focuses the tests’ goals in a particular direction, taking into account the variable features that come into play to influence the outcome of a test score. The techniques and maneuvers used to administer a test play a key role because there two commonly used methods, which include random administration and specific target group administration. Random test administration aims to generalize the elucidation of personality traits. It just focuses on revealing the trait, which can be deduced from the individual. A specific test administration is aimed at revealing a particular trait, in a person, and the test items are designed, in such a manner as to the best way, to compel the revelation of this trait. The consistency of items, to one another, is a measure of reliability because it shows that the focus of the test is not wavering, and the test score attained will be consistent with the nature of the research. External reliability is used to gauge the stability of the test, by conducting the test in two or more varying situations, or different environments, and this is achieved by using the test-retest method and alternate forms method. An internal reliability test is used to measure how constant the test items are, and it is determined using the split half method by applying the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula or the inter-item consistency method, which can be calculated using the Kuder-Richardson formula and the Coefficient alpha (Weiner & Greene, 2011 p 389). The validity of a test means that test items address the query under investigation because, if it fails to do this, the purpose of the test will not be realized and the results garnered will not be a true reflection of the intended objective. This makes it possible use the tests scores as a reference and reliably make conclusions on their implications. In a personality test, reliability of a test score does not necessarily warrant the validity of a test, but every attempt should be made to harmonize the two as without both, the test’s objectives could be diminished or detracted. The validity of a test score is established by evaluating the construct and content validity of the test items and their ability to reveal the desired outcome. Construct validity is a measure of the extent to which a test item gauges a concept, or belief harbored by an individual, and it is mostly used in personality testing, gauging ability towards a certain elemental focus, and determining an individual’s ability to learn, in the future, basing the analysis on present parameters. Criterion validity is a measure of the extent to, which test items, can be considered as being effective in foretelling a person’s execution a certain task successfully. Criterion validity is related to predictive validity through an index of the test score’s ability to determine the degree of outcome. When these two elements are applied in a personality test they can be used to select and short list candidates in a school intake and military recruitment. It can also be applied to predict an individual’s behavior in relation to an associated parameter. Basing clinical diagnosis, on these two, can be used in psychological diagnosis of the possibility of an individual developing a psychological disorder, in the future, basing the theory on the test scores they produce. Norms in the personality test development are parameters that are included to act as quality control devices in psychological testing and analysis. Tests are designed and constructed to measure defined characteristics, and test user personality related to a given test, and the aims of establishing norms are to standardize the test and help eliminate undesirable responses, which can be elicited by respondents wanting to give answers, in a socially desirable manner. A norm-establishing standard can be in the example of a lie detector, like the Eysenk’s lie scale, which can help streamline ethical implications of the test score, which could mean less legal complications on the part of the administrator. Applied statistics research methods are used to transform test scores because without this, they would be meaningless. Standardization enables comparison of individuals and helps in creating a distinction between ability test scores and personality test scores using norm tables. It involves the use of stens’ and stanine’s formula rather than t-scores or percentiles that are used for determining the content for ability. It is comprised of a 1-10 continuous scale, which can be separated by type measures, where 1-5 equates to one pole and 1-6 equates to other remainder. The Stanines eliminates the possibility of a cut off to split two poles making it preferable for interpreting trait scores on a continuum scales. Norm tables are similar to ability norms because they can be used to compare scores and norms against relevant populations. On the other hand, norm tables establish types that use standardization samples that utilize more widespread and large demographics creating a scenario where the type can change. It has been established that there are 16 definite separate elements of personality that are known as primary factors. This can be grouped into wider areas known as global factors, which equate to the five used in most type models, which include Warmth, Social Boundaries, Liveliness, Privateness and Self Reliance. These also link together to Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Apprehension and Tension link on Anxiety, Sensitivity and Dominance link on Tough-mindedness, Abstractedness and Openness to change the link on Independence and finally Rule consciousness and perfectionism link of self-control. In this case, the use of Stanines in personality analysis is recommended to develop feedback detail and transformation of scores from raw data to standardized form. The use of sten scores can be used to gauge the admissibility of the relation between a test and criterion to determine the type of test that fits that particular category to make the test accomplish its objective (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009 p 316). Development of personality tests majorly depends on the content and construct of the test items, which determine the validity, and reliability of a test. Reliability in a test must be established to give the test scores authenticity and a clear focus on the objectives of the test. It ensures that the results generated are applicable and depict the true value of the respondent’s personality. Validity of a test is also significant because it gives the test credibility, and its outcomes can be referenced to make clear deductions and conclusions and a person personality. Bibliography Weiner I. B and Greene R. L. Handbook of Personality Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Hersen M. Comprehensive Hand of Psychological Assessment, Personality Assessment. Illustrated Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Carter P. J. IQ & Personality Tests: Testing Series; Careers & Testing. Illustrated Edition. London: Kogan Publishers, 2007. Kaplan R. M and Saccuzzo D. P. Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications and Issues. 7TH Edition. Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2009. Read More