And personality correspond theories who assessment how
|Years:||I'm 38 years old|
If two concepts e. First, self-raters have access to an unparalleled wealth of information: After all, who knows more about you than you yourself? Furthermore, in many studies, individuals are allowed to nominate or even recruit the informants who will rate them. Most reviews acknowledge that Rorschach scores do show some ability to predict important outcomes. As noted by Meyer and Kurtzp. Some popular personality instruments are deed to assess only the broad, general traits. Moreover, similar to projective tests, behavioral measures generate a rich set of data that then need to be scored in a reliable and valid way.
Overview of personality assessment
In contrast, psychodynamically oriented theories propose that people lack insight into their feelings and motives, such that their behavior is influenced by processes that operate outside of their awareness e. Given that people are unaware of these processes, it does not make sense to ask directly about them.
It, therefore, makes sense to ask them directly about themselves and their goals. Responses to these items then are scored in a standardized, predetermined way. For instance, they are not immune to the reference group effect.
In studies of older participants, informants may be friends, roommates, dating partners, spouses, children, or bosses Oh et al. Projective tests represent influential early examples of this approach. At the same time, however, this approach also has some disadvantages. First, because behavior is sampled directly, this approach is not subject to the types of response biases e.
A final approach is to infer important personality characteristics from direct samples of behavior. These general dimensions can be divided up into several distinct yet empirically correlated component traits.
One general issue is the level of relevant information that is available to the rater Funder, For instance, even under the best of circumstances, informants lack full access to the thoughts, feelings, and motives of the person they are rating.
At the other extreme, a of omnibus inventories contain a large of specific scales and purport to measure personality in a reasonably comprehensive manner. In addition to the source of the scores, there are at least two other important dimensions on which personality tests differ. Although validity evidence for these measures still is relatively sparse, the to date are encouraging: Back et al. As Funder and Dobrothp.
It describes the basic features of each method, as well as reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, and overall validity of each approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97— Bagby, R. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure.
The biggest challenge, however, has been to develop a reliable and valid scheme to score the extensive set of responses generated by each respondent. Personality is the field within psychology that studies the thoughts, feelings, behaviors, goals, and interests of normal individuals. Follow-up analyses indicated that conscientious students had neater rooms, whereas those who were high in openness to experience had a wider variety of books and magazines.
It therefore covers a very wide range of important psychological characteristics. Moreover, different theoretical models have generated very different strategies for measuring these characteristics.
Second, personality characteristics can be classified at different levels of breadth or generality. These tests are based on the assumption that people form automatic or implicit associations between certain concepts based on their experience and behavior. One, therefore, needs to adopt an entirely different approach to identify these nonconscious factors. Not surprisingly, researchers have adopted a wide range of approaches to measure important personality characteristics.
For example, self-ratings on items assessing talkativeness, assertiveness, sociability, adventurousness, and energy can be summed up to create an overall score on the personality trait of extraversion. The first such dimension concerns the extent to which an instrument seeks to assess personality in a reasonably comprehensive manner.
The most widely used Rorschach scoring scheme is the Comprehensive System developed by Exner The validity of the Rorschach has been a matter of considerable controversy Lilienfeld et al. No single method of assessing personality is perfect or infallible; each of the major methods has both strengths and limitations.
For instance, one TAT picture depicts an elderly woman with her back turned to a young man; the latter looks downward with a somewhat perplexed expression. Informant ratings are particularly valuable when self-ratings are impossible to collect e.
Indeed, informants typically have strong incentives for being accurate in their judgments. The most widely used strategies will be summarized in the following sections. Informant ratings also are subject to some of the same response biases noted earlier for self-ratings. By using a diversity of approaches, researchers can overcome the limitations of any single method and develop a more complete and integrative view of personality. The former asks respondents to interpret symmetrical blots of ink, whereas the latter asks them to generate stories about a series of pictures.
Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, and Goldberg reported that self-rated personality predicted occupational attainment, divorce, and mortality. The first type—which easily is the most widely used in modern personality research—asks people to describe themselves. Validity evidence is more impressive for the TAT. In particular, reviews have concluded that TAT-based measures of the need for achievement a show ificant validity to predict important criteria and b provide important information beyond that obtained from objective measures of this motive McClelland et al.
They also may be combined with self-ratings of the same characteristics to produce more reliable and valid measures of these attributes McCrae, Informant ratings offer several advantages in comparison to other approaches to assessing personality. Because of this, it most often is the case that informants who, as noted earlier, may be friends, relatives, or romantic partners like the people they are rating.
This assessment strategy clearly is much more cumbersome and labor intensive than using objective tests, particularly self-report. Furthermore, given the relatively weak associations between objective and projective measures of motives, McClelland et al.
As was the case with self-report, items may consist of single words, short phrases, or complete sentences. In the case of children or adolescents, the informant is most likely to be a parent or teacher. Indeed, they outperform self-ratings in certain circumstances, particularly when the assessed traits are highly evaluative in nature e.
At one extreme, many widely used measures are deed to assess a single core attribute. This module provides a basic overview to the assessment of personality.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 3823— Baumeister, R. A well-acquainted informant presumably has had the opportunity to observe large samples of behavior in the person he or she is rating. Another approach is to ask someone who knows a person well to describe his or her personality characteristics. Generally speaking, informant ratings are similar in format to self-ratings. Table Self-report personality tests show impressive validity in relation to a wide range of important outcomes.
Objective tests involve administering a standard set of items, each of which is answered using a limited set of response options e. For instance, more frequent talking over this two-day period was ificantly related to both self- and observer-ratings of extraversion. Second, asking people to describe themselves is the simplest, easiest, and most cost-effective approach to assessing personality.
Its critics, however, argue that it fails to provide important incremental information beyond other, more easily acquired information, such as that obtained from standard self-report measures Lilienfeld et al.
What stories could you generate in response to these pictures? Finally, self-reported personality has important and pervasive links to psychopathology. Informant personality ratings have demonstrated a level of validity in relation to important life outcomes that is comparable to that discussed earlier for self-ratings. Indeed, many popular instruments include parallel self- and informant-rating versions, and it often is relatively easy to convert a self-report measure so that it can be used to obtain informant ratings.
Second, as is illustrated by the Mehl et al. Behavioral measures offer several advantages over other approaches to assessing personality.
Figure Back, M. Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. This approach offers two key advantages. For example, similar to the sample instrument displayed in Table In contrast, many instruments—including several of the omnibus inventories mentioned earlier—were assessment primarily to assess a large of more specific characteristics. Objective personality tests can be further subdivided into two basic types. In comparison to objective tests, projective tests tend to be somewhat cumbersome and labor intensive to administer.
For example, Oh et al. Nevertheless, informant ratings also are subject to certain problems and limitations. Similarly, Oltmanns and Turkheimer summarized evidence indicating that informant ratings of Air Force cadets predicted early, involuntary discharge from the military better than self-ratings. Countless studies, for instance, have involved administering self-report measures to personality students, who are provided some relatively simple incentive e.
This, in turn, means that informants may produce overly favorable personality ratings. Another picture displays a man clutched from behind by three mysterious hands. At the same time, however, and is clear that this method is limited in a of ways. For example, the theory dimension of extraversion contains such specific component traits as dominance extraverts are assertive, persuasive, and exhibitionisticsociability extraverts seek out and enjoy the correspond of otherspositive emotionality extraverts are active, energetic, cheerful, and enthusiasticand adventurousness extraverts enjoy how, exciting experiences.
For instance, if you tend to work harder than most of your friends, you will see yourself as someone who is relatively conscientious, even if you are not particularly conscientious in any absolute sense. For example, self-ratings of conscientiousness are ificant predictors of both overall academic performance e.
The items included in self-report measures may consist of single words e. As noted earlier, some personalities to personality assessment are based on the belief that important thoughts, feelings, and motives operate outside of conscious awareness.