1115-Chapter11PersonalityAssessment

docx

School

South America University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

100

Subject

Psychology

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CasperNyoveri

Personality Assessment: An Overview In a 1950s rock ‘n’ roll classic song entitled “Personality,” singer Lloyd Price described the subject of that song with the words walk, talk, smile, and charm. In so doing, Price used the term personality the way most people tend to use it. For laypeople, personality refers to components of an individual’s makeup that can elicit positive or negative reactions from others. Someone who consistently tends to elicit positive reactions from others is thought to have a “good personality.” Someone who consistently tends to elicit not-so-good reactions from others is thought to have a “bad personality” or, perhaps worse yet, “no personality.” We also hear of people described in other ways, with adjectives such as aggressive, warm, or cold. For professionals in the field of behavioral science, the terms tend to be better-defined, if not more descriptive. Personality and Personality Assessment Personality Dozens of different definitions of personality exist in the psychology literature. Some definitions appear to be all-inclusive. For example, McClelland (1951, p. 69) defined personality as “the most adequate conceptualization of a person’s behavior in all its detail.” Menninger (1953, p. 23) defined it as “the individual as a whole, his height and weight and love and hates and blood pressure and reflexes; his smiles and hopes and bowed legs and enlarged tonsils. It means all that anyone is and that he is trying to become.” Some definitions focus narrowly on a particular aspect of the individual (Goldstein, 1963), whereas others view the individual in the context of society (Sullivan, 1953). Some theorists avoid any definition at all. For example, Byrne (1974, p. 26) characterized the entire area of personality psychology as “psychology’s garbage bin in that any research which doesn’t fit other existing categories can be labeled ‘personality.’ ” In their widely read and authoritative textbook Theories of Personality, Hall and Lindzey (1970, p. 9) wrote: “It is our conviction that no substantive definition of personality can be applied with any generality” and “Personality is defined by the particular empirical concepts which are a part of the theory of personality employed by the observer” [emphasis in the original]. Noting that there were important theoretical differences in many theories of personality, Hall and Lindzey encouraged their readers to select a definition of personality from the many presented and adopt it as their own. 391 JUST THINK . . . Despite great effort, a definition of personality itself—much like a definition of intelligence—has been somewhat elusive. Why do you think this is so?

For our purposes, we will define personality as an individual’s unique constellation of psychological traits that is relatively stable over time. We view this definition as one that has the advantage of parsimony yet still is flexible enough to incorporate a wide variety of variables. Included in this definition, then, are variables on which individuals may differ, such as values, interests, attitudes, worldview, acculturation, sense of humor, cognitive and behavioral styles, and personality states. Personality Assessment Personality assessment may be defined as the measurement and evaluation of psychological traits, states, values, interests, attitudes, worldview, acculturation, sense of humor, cognitive and behavioral styles, and/or related individual characteristics. In this chapter we overview the process of personality assessment, including different approaches to the construction of personality tests. In Chapter 12, we will focus on various methods of personality assessment, including objective, projective, and behavioral methods. Before all that, however, some background is needed regarding the use of the terms trait, type, and state. Traits, Types, and States Personality traits Just as no consensus exists regarding the definition of personality, there is none regarding the definition of trait. Theorists such as Gordon Allport (1937) have tended to view personality traits as real physical entities that are “bona fide mental structures in each personality” (p. 289). For Allport, a trait is a “generalized and focalized neuropsychic system (peculiar to the individual) with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior” (p. 295). Robert Holt (1971) wrote that there “are real structures inside people that determine their behavior in lawful ways” (p. 6), and he went on to conceptualize these structures as changes in brain chemistry that might occur as a result of learning: “Learning causes submicroscopic structural changes in the brain, probably in the organization of its biochemical substance” (p. 7). Raymond Cattell (1950) also conceptualized traits as mental structures, but for him structure did not necessarily imply actual physical status. Our own preference is to shy away from definitions that elevate trait to the status of physical existence. We view psychological traits as attributions made in an effort to identify threads of consistency in behavioral patterns. In this context, a definition of personality trait offered by Guilford (1959, p. 6) has great appeal: “Any distinguishable, relatively enduring way in which one individual varies from another.” JUST THINK . . . What is another example of how the trait term selected by an observer is dependent both on the behavior emitted as well as the context of that behavior?

This relatively simple definition has some aspects in common with the writings of other personality theorists such as Allport (1937), Cattell (1950, 1965), and Eysenck (1961). The word distinguishable indicates that behaviors labeled with different trait terms are actually different from one another. For example, a behavior labeled “friendly” should be distinguishable from a behavior labeled “rude.” The context, or the situation in which the behavior is displayed, is important in applying trait terms to behaviors. A behavior present in one context may be labeled with one trait term, but the same behavior exhibited in another context may be better described using another trait term. For example, if we observe someone involved in a lengthy, apparently interesting conversation, we would observe the context before drawing any conclusions about the person’s traits. A person talking with a friend over lunch may be demonstrating friendliness, whereas that same person talking to that same friend during a wedding ceremony may be considered rude. Thus, the trait term selected by an observer is dependent both on the behavior itself and on the context in which it appears. 392 A measure of behavior in a particular context may be obtained using varied tools of psychological assessment. For example, using naturalistic observation, an observer could watch the assessee interact with co-workers during break time. Alternatively, the assessee could be administered a self-report questionnaire that probes various aspects of the assessee’s interaction with co-workers during break time. In his definition of trait, Guilford did not assert that traits represent enduring ways in which individuals vary from one another. Rather, he said relatively enduring. Relatively emphasizes that exactly how a particular trait manifests itself is, at least to some extent, dependent on the situation. For example, a “violent” parolee generally may be prone to behave in a rather subdued way with his parole officer and much more violently in the presence of his family and friends. Allport (1937) addressed the issue of cross-situational consistency of traits—or lack of it—as follows: Perfect consistency will never be found and must not be expected. . . . People may be ascendant and submissive, perhaps submissive only towards those individuals bearing traditional symbols of authority and prestige; and towards everyone else aggressive and domineering. . . . The ever-changing environment raises now one trait and now another to a state of active tension. (p. 330) For years personality theorists and assessors have assumed that personality traits are relatively enduring over the course of one’s life. Roberts and DelVecchio (2000) explored the endurance of traits by means of a meta-analysis of 152 longitudinal studies. These researchers concluded that trait consistency increases in a steplike pattern until one is 50 to 59 years old, at which time such consistency peaks. Their

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

findings may be interpreted as compelling testimony to the relatively enduring nature of personality traits over the course of one’s life. Do you think the physically aggressive hockey player pictured in Figure 11–1 will still be as physically aggressive during his retirement years? Figure 11–1 Trait aggressiveness and flare-ups on the ice. Bushman and Wells (1998) administered a self-report measure of trait aggressiveness (the Physical Aggression subscale of the Aggression Questionnaire) to 91 high-school team hockey players before the start of the season. The players responded to items such as “Once in a while I cannot control my urge to strike another person” presented in Likert scale format ranging from 1 to 5 (where 1 corresponded to “extremely uncharacteristic of me” and 5 corresponded to “extremely characteristic of me”). At the end of the season, trait aggressiveness scores were examined with respect to minutes served in the penalty box for aggressive penalties such as fighting, slashing, and tripping. The preseason measure of trait aggressiveness predicted aggressive penalty minutes served. The study is particularly noteworthy because the test data were used to predict real-life aggression, not a laboratory analogue of aggression such as the administration of electric shock. The authors recommended that possible applications of the Aggression Questionnaire be explored in other settings where aggression is a problematic behavior. Sven Nackstrand/AFP/Getty Images Returning to our elaboration of Guilford’s definition, note that trait is described as a way in which one individual varies from another. Let’s emphasize here that the attribution of a trait term is always a relative phenomenon. For instance, some behavior described as “patriotic” may differ greatly from other behavior also described as “patriotic.” There are no absolute standards. In describing an individual as patriotic, we are, in essence, making an unstated comparison with the degree of patriotic behavior that could reasonably be expected to be exhibited under the same or similar circumstances. Classic research on the subject of cross-situational consistency in traits has pointed to a lack of consistency with regard to traits such as honesty (Hartshorne & May, 1928), punctuality (Dudycha, 1936), conformity (Hollander & Willis, 1967), attitude toward authority (Burwen & Campbell, 1957), and introversion/extraversion (Newcomb, 1929). These are the types of studies cited by Mischel (1968, 1973, 1977, 1979) and others who have been critical of the predominance of the concept of traits in personality theory. Such critics may also allude to the fact that some undetermined portion of behavior exhibited in public may be governed more by societal expectations and cultural role restrictions than by an individual’s personality traits (Barker, 1963; Goffman, 1963). Research designed to shed light on the primacy of individual differences, as opposed to situational factors in behavior, is methodologically

complex (Golding, 1975), and a definitive verdict as to the primacy of the trait or the situation is simply not in; however, the past several decades have seen growing consensus around the five-factor approach to personality. Personality types Having defined personality as a unique constellation of traits, we might define a personality type as a constellation of traits that is similar in pattern to one identified category of personality within a taxonomy of personalities. Whereas traits are frequently discussed as if they were characteristics possessed by an individual, types are more clearly descriptions of people. So, for example, describing an individual as “depressed” is different from describing that individual as a “depressed type.” The latter term has more far-reaching implications regarding characteristic aspects of the individual, such as the person’s worldview, activity level, capacity to enjoy life, and level of social interest. 393 At least since Hippocrates’ classification of people into four types (melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, and sanguine), there has been no shortage of personality typologies through the ages. A typology devised by Carl Jung (1923) became the basis for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & Briggs, 1943/1962). An assumption guiding the development of this test was that people exhibit definite preferences in the way that they perceive or become aware of—and judge or arrive at conclusions about —people, events, situations, and ideas. According to Myers (1962, p. 1), these differences in perception and judging result in “corresponding differences in their reactions, in their interests, values, needs, and motivations, in what they do best, and in what they like to do.” The MBTI enjoys great popularity, but it is not without its critics who have identified concerns about this measure’s validity and reliability (Boyle, 1995; Pittenger, 1993; Stein & Swan, 2019). JUST THINK . . . What are the possible benefits of classifying people into types? What possible problems may arise from doing so? John Holland (Figure 11–2) argued that most people can be categorized as one of the following six personality types: Artistic, Enterprising, Investigative, Social, Realistic, or Conventional (Holland, 1973, 1985, 1997, 1999). His Self-Directed Search test (SDS; Holland et al., 1994) is a self-administered, self- scored, and self-interpreted aid used to type people according to this system and to offer vocational guidance. Another personality typology, this one having only two categories, was devised by cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman (1974; Rosenman et al., 1975). They conceived of a Type A personality, characterized by competitiveness, haste, restlessness, impatience, feelings of being time-pressured, and strong needs for achievement and dominance. A Type B personality has the

opposite of the Type A’s traits: mellow or laid-back. A 52-item self-report inventory called the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS; Jenkins et al., 1979) has been used to type respondents as Type A or Type B personalities. 394 Figure 11–2 John L. Holland (1919–2008). John Holland was well known for the employment-related personality typology he developed, as well as the Self-Directed Search (SDS), a measure of one’s interests and perceived abilities. The test is based on Holland’s theory of vocational personality. At the heart of this theory is the view that occupational choice has a great deal to do with one’s personality and self-perception of abilities. Holland’s work was the subject of controversy in the 1970s. Critics asserted that measured differences between the interests of men and women were an artifact of sex bias. Holland argued that such differences reflected valid variance. As the author of Holland’s obituary in American Psychologist recalled, “He did not bend willy- nilly in the winds of political correctness” (Gottfredson, 2009, p. 561). John Hopkins University The personality typology that has attracted the most attention from researchers and practitioners alike is associated with scores on a test called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) (as well as all of its successors—discussed later in this chapter). Data from the administration of these tests, as with others, are frequently discussed in terms of the patterns of scores that emerge on the subtests. This pattern is referred to as a profile. In general, a profile is a narrative description, graph, table, or other representation of the extent to which a person has demonstrated certain targeted characteristics as a result of the administration or application of tools of assessment.1 In the term personality profile, the targeted characteristics are typically traits, states, or types. With specific reference to the MMPI, different profiles of scores are associated with different patterns of behavior. So, for example, a particular MMPI profile designated as “2–4–7” is associated with a type of individual who has a history of alcohol abuse alternating with sobriety and self-recrimination (Dahlstrom, 1995). 395

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Personality states The word state has been used in at least two distinctly different ways in the personality assessment literature. In one usage, a personality state is an inferred psychodynamic disposition designed to convey the dynamic quality of id, ego, and superego in perpetual conflict. Assessment of these psychodynamic dispositions may be made through the use of various psychoanalytic techniques such as free association, word association, symbolic analysis of interview material, dream analysis, and analysis of slips of the tongue, accidents, jokes, and forgetting. Presently, a more popular usage of the term state—and the one we use in the discussion that follows— refers to the transitory exhibition of some personality trait. Put another way, the use of the word trait presupposes a relatively enduring behavioral predisposition, whereas the term state is indicative of a relatively temporary predisposition (Chaplin et al., 1988). Thus, for example, your friend may be accurately described as being “in an anxious state” before her midterms, though no one who knows her well would describe her as “an anxious person.” JUST THINK . . . You experience “butterflies” in your stomach just before asking someone to whom you are attracted to accompany you to the movies. Would this feeling better be characterized as a state or a trait? Measuring personality states amounts, in essence, to a search for and an assessment of the strength of traits that are relatively transitory or fairly situation specific. Relatively few personality tests seek to distinguish traits from states. Charles D. Spielberger and his associates (Spielberger et al., 1980) led pathbreaking work in this area. These researchers developed a number of personality inventories designed to distinguish various states from traits. In the manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), for example, we find that state anxiety refers to a transitory experience of tension because of a particular situation. By contrast, trait anxiety or anxiety proneness refers to a relatively stable or enduring personality characteristic. The STAI test items consist of short descriptive statements, and subjects are instructed to indicate either (1) how they feel right now or at this moment (and to indicate the intensity of the feeling), or (2) how they generally feel (and to record the frequency of the feeling). The test-retest reliability coefficients reported in the manual are consistent with the theoretical premise that trait anxiety is the more enduring characteristic, whereas state anxiety is transitory. Personality Assessment: Some Basic Questions For what type of employment is a person with this type of personality best suited? Is this individual sufficiently well adjusted for military or police officer service?

What emotional and other adjustment-related factors may be responsible for this student’s level of academic achievement? What pattern of traits and states does this psychotherapy client evince, and to what extent may this pattern be deemed pathological? How has this patient’s personality been affected by neurological trauma? These questions are a sampling of the kind that might lead to a referral for personality assessment. Collectively, these types of referral questions provide insight into a more general question in a clinical context: Why assess personality? We might raise the same question in the context of basic research and find another wide world of potential applications for personality assessment. For example, aspects of personality could be explored in identifying determinants of knowledge about health (Beier & Ackerman, 2003), in categorizing different types of commitment in intimate relationships (Frank & Brandstaetter, 2002), in determining peer response to a team’s weakest link (Jackson & LePine, 2003), or even in the service of national defense to identify those prone to terrorism. Personality assessment is a staple in developmental research, be it tracking trait development over time (McCrae et al., 2002) or studying some uniquely human characteristic such as moral judgment (Eisenberg et al., 2002). From a health psychology perspective, there are a number of personality variables (such as perfectionism, self-criticism, dependency, and neuroticism) that have been linked to physical and psychological disorders (Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Klein et al., 2011; Kotov et al., 2010; Sturman, 2011; Zuroff et al., 2004). In the corporate world, personality assessment is a key tool of the human resources department, relied on to aid in hiring, firing, promoting, transferring, and related decisions. Perhaps as long as there have been tests to measure people’s interests, there have been questions regarding how those interests relate to personality (Larson et al., 2002). In military organizations around the world, leadership is a sought-after trait, and personality tests help identify who has it (see, e.g., Bradley et al., 2002; Handler, 2001). In the most general sense, basic research involving personality assessment helps to validate or invalidate theories of behavior and to generate new hypotheses. 396 JUST THINK . . . What differences in terms of accuracy and reliability of report would you expect when one is reporting on one’s own personality as opposed to when another person is reporting about someone’s personality?

Tangentially, let’s note that a whole other perspective on the why of personality assessment emerges with a consideration of cross-species research. For example, Gosling, Kwan, and John (2003) viewed their research on the personality of dogs as paving the way for future research in previously uncharted areas such as the exploration of environmental effects on personality. Weiss et al. (2002) viewed cross-species research as presenting an opportunity to explore the heritability of personality. The fascinating research program of Winnie Eckardt and her colleagues at the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International is the subject of this chapter’s Close-Up. 397 CLOSE-UP The Personality of Gorillas* When he turned 17-years-old, a mountain gorilla named Cantsbee (see Figure 1) took over the leadership of what was to become the largest, ever-observed gorilla group (which included up to 65 members). At this writing, he has held this position for over 20 years, despite challenges from rivals within his group, and from outside attackers. Cantsbee also earned the respect and admiration of the field researchers and assistants who work with him. He leads his group in a sensible way and seems to know when it’s time to be supportive, administer discipline, take a strong leadership role, or adopt a laissez-faire approach. Figure 1 Cantsbee Cantsbee is the oldest silverback gorilla at the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International’s Karisoke Research Center in Rwanda. Prior to his birth in 1978, the researchers at Karisoke all thought that his mother was a male, not a female. Dian Fossey’s shocked reaction to the birth was encapsulated in her exclamation, “This can’t be!” Taking their cue from Fosse, the Rwandan field assistants promptly christened the newborn gorilla, “Cantsbee.” The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International So, what does it take for a gorilla to win such enviable status from gorilla peers and human observers? Apart from morphological traits that quite likely play a role, such as body size, there are personality traits

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

to be considered as well. This and other questions motivated Eckardt et al. (2015) to initiate the first study of mountain gorilla personality. Perhaps the ideal species for studying personality in wild ape populations is the Virunga mountain gorilla. This is so because over 70% of the remaining 480 gorillas of this species (Gray et al., 2013) are habituated to human presence and known by rangers and researchers individually, most since birth. The Karisoke Research Center in Rwanda is one of the longest-existing primate research field sites with almost 50 years of mountain gorilla monitoring in the Virungas. Well-trained trackers, data technicians, and researchers familiar with gorilla behavior follow about 40% of the population daily. Many years of experience and in-depth knowledge of each gorilla in various contexts make trackers as suitable for assessing the personalities of gorillas as parents are for assessing the personalities of their children. Between 2007 and 2008, eight of the most experienced Karisoke field staff assessed the personalities of gorillas that they knew well using a version of the Hominoid Personality Questionnaire (HPQ, Weiss et al., 2009). This questionnaire was derived by sampling traits from the human “Big 5,” and adapting them so that they are suitable for assessing the personalities of nonhuman primates. Specifically, each of its 54 items is accompanied by a brief description to set the item in the context of gorilla behavior. For example, dominant is defined as “Subject is able to displace, threaten, or take food from other gorillas” or “subject may express high status by decisively intervening in social interactions.” Another example: affectionate is defined as “subject seems to have a warm attachment or closeness with other gorillas. This may entail frequently grooming, touching, embracing, or lying next to others.” The HPQ was prepared in both English and French since both are official languages of Rwanda. The Rwandan raters were instructed to score gorillas on each trait using a Likert scale ranging from (1) “either total absence or negligible amounts” to (7) “extremely large amounts.” A prerating training session with a professional Rwandan translator (who held a Bachelor’s degree in French and English) was conducted to ensure that language barriers had a minimal influence on the understanding of the rating procedure and the meaning of each traits. Inter-rater reliability was checked and found to be satisfactory. Virunga mountain gorillas are folivorous, meaning that they eat mostly leaves, and that they live in what could be described as a “huge salad bowl” (Fossey & Harcourt, 1977; Vedder, 1984; Watts, 1985). The fact that food is plentiful and available all year round is believed to play a role in the lower level of aggression in and between groups of gorillas (Robbins et al., 2005). Other great apes, such as chimpanzees, depend on seasonally available, scattered fruit. As a result, competition for food and levels of aggression can be high in these species (Harcourt & Stewart, 2007). 398

Gorilla society is hierarchically structured. They live in relatively stable, cohesive social groups with male–female relationships forming the core of their society (Harcourt & Stewart, 2007). Emigration from the natal group is common for both males and females (Robbins et al., 2007; Watts, 1990). Females transfer between groups during intergroup encounters to avoid inbreeding, whereas males become solitary after leaving their natal group to increase breeding opportunities by recruiting females from existing groups. Because gorillas live in stable and predictable environments with limited food competition, and less vulnerability to the stressors present in the lives of other great apes, the researchers hypothesized that the subjects would be rated as emotionally stable, with generally low levels on traits related to neuroticism. Further, the researchers hypothesized that the subjects would be rated as low in aggression and high in sociability. As described in greater detail elsewhere (Eckardt et al., 2015), the researchers’ hypotheses were confirmed through evaluation of correlations between HPQ scores on personality trait dimensions and corresponding historical behavior of the subjects as noted in archival records. So, for example, in gorilla society, the role of dominant males includes group protection duties as well as the mediation of within- group social conflicts (Schaller, 1963; Watts, 1996). Thus, to ascend the gorilla social hierarchy in dominance, traits such as being protective, helpful, and sensitive would seem to be a must. In fact, Eckardt et al. (2015) reported that gorillas with a high social rank scored high on Dominance. Additionally, rate of intervening to mediate social conflicts in the group was also associated with gorilla Dominance. Another interesting finding was that gorillas high on Dominance stare less at other gorillas. Also, with regard to grooming behavior, gorillas tend to approach and groom group members with higher Dominance scores rather than vice versa. So, how does Cantsbee’s personality compares to other gorillas? Not surprisingly, Cantsbee scored second highest in Dominance. He also scored very high on the Sociability dimension, and his score on the Openness dimension was below average. What is the significance of findings such as these? Since Darwin (1872), personality research has included the study of personality in species other than our own (Gosling & John, 1999; McGarrity et al., 2015). Darwin believed that behavioral and affective traits evolve just like morphological traits. If that is the case, then we should be able to trace the origins of human personality—and more specifically, personality dimensions such as Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (otherwise known as the “Big 5” or five-factor model; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). But how do we do that? While fossils can tell us a lot about the evolution of physical features, they tell us nothing about the evolution of personality. Perhaps evolutionary insights can be gleaned by comparing the personality of humans with those of our closest, non-human relatives: the great apes, At the very least, the study of great apes holds the promise of learning how assorted variables (such as differences in ecology, social systems, and life history) may act to shape personality.

Used with permission of Winnie Eckardt. * This Close-Up was guest-authored by Winnie Eckardt who has worked with wild mountain gorillas for over 10 years at the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Karisoke Research Center in Rwanda, and Alexander Weiss of the University of Edinburgh and the Scottish Primate Research Group. Beyond the why of personality assessment are several other questions that must be addressed in any overview of the enterprise. Approaches to personality assessment differ in terms of who is being assessed, what is being assessed, where the assessment is conducted, and how the assessment is conducted. Let’s take a closer look at each of these related issues. Who? Who is being assessed, and who is doing the assessing? Some methods of personality assessment rely on the assessee’s own self-report. Assessees may respond to interview questions, answer questionnaires in writing; click responses on computers, tablets, or cell phones; blacken squares on computer answer forms; or sort cards with various terms on them—all with the ultimate objective of providing the assessor with a personality-related self-description. By contrast, other methods of personality assessment rely on informants other than the person being assessed to provide personality-related information. So, for example, parents or teachers may be asked to participate in the personality assessment of a child by providing ratings, judgments, opinions, and impressions relevant to the child’s personality. The self as the primary referent People typically undergo personality assessment so that they, as well as the assessor, can learn something about who they are. In many instances, the assessment or some aspect of it requires self- report, or a process wherein information about assessees is supplied by the assessees themselves. Self- reported information may be obtained in the form of diaries kept by assessees or in the form of responses to oral or written questions or test items. In some cases, the information sought by the assessor is so private that only the individual assessees themselves are capable of providing it. For example, when researchers investigated the psychometric soundness of the Sexual Sensation Seeking Scale with a sample of college students, only the students themselves could provide the highly personal information needed. The researchers viewed their reliance on self-report as a possible limitation of the study, but noted that this methodology “has been the standard practice in this area of research because no gold standard exists for verifying participants’ reports of sexual behaviors” (Gaither & Sellbom, 2003, p. 165).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Self-report methods are commonly used to explore an assessee’s self-concept. Self-concept may be defined as one’s attitudes, beliefs, opinions, and related thoughts about oneself. Inferences about an assessee’s self-concept may be derived from many tools of assessment. However, the tool of choice is typically a dedicated self-concept measure; that is, an instrument designed to yield information relevant to how an individual sees him- or herself with regard to selected psychological variables. Data from such an instrument are usually interpreted in the context of how others may see themselves on the same or similar variables. In the Beck Self-Concept Test (BST; Beck & Stein, 1961), named after senior author, psychiatrist Aaron T. Beck, respondents are asked to compare themselves to other people on variables such as looks, knowledge, and the ability to tell jokes. A number of self-concept measures for children have been developed. Some representative tests include the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale. The latter test contains 80 self- statements (such as “I don’t have any friends”) to which respondents from grades 3 to 12 respond either yes or no as the statement applies to them. Factor analysis has suggested that the items cover six general areas of self-concept: behavior, intellectual and school status, physical appearance and attributes, anxiety, popularity, and happiness and satisfaction. The Beck Self-Concept Test was extended down as one component of a series called the Beck Youth Inventories–Second Edition (BYI-II) developed by senior author, psychologist Judith Beck (Aaron T. Beck’s daughter). In addition to a self-concept measure, the BYI-II includes inventories to measures depression, anxiety, anger, and disruptive behavior in children and adolescents aged 7 to 18 years. 399 JUST THINK . . . Highly differentiated or not very differentiated in self-concept—which do you think is preferable? Why? Some measures of self-concept are based on the notion that states and traits related to self-concept are to a large degree context-dependent—that is, ever-changing as a result of the particular situation (Callero, 1992). The term self-concept differentiation refers to the degree to which a person has different self-concepts in different roles (Donahue et al., 1993). People characterized as highly differentiated are likely to perceive themselves quite differently in various roles. For example, a highly differentiated businessman in his 40s may perceive himself as motivated and hard-driving in his role at work, conforming and people-pleasing in his role as son, and emotional and passionate in his role as husband. By contrast, people whose concept of self is not very differentiated tend to perceive themselves similarly across their social roles. According to Donahue et al. (1993), people with low levels of self-concept differentiation tend to be healthier psychologically, perhaps because of their more unified and coherent sense of self.

JUST THINK . . . Has anyone you know engaged in “faking good” or “faking bad” behavior (in or out of the context of assessment)? Why? Assuming that assessees have reasonably accurate insight into their own thinking and behavior, and assuming that they are motivated to respond to test items honestly, self-report measures can be extremely valuable. An assessee’s candid and accurate self-report can illustrate what that individual is thinking, feeling, and doing. Unfortunately, some assessees may intentionally or unintentionally paint distorted pictures of themselves in self-report measures. Consider what would happen if employers were to rely on job applicants’ representations concerning their personality and their suitability for a particular job. Employers might be led to believe they have found a slew of perfect applicants. Many job applicants—as well as people in contexts as diverse as high- school reunions, singles bars, and child custody hearings—attempt to “fake good” in their presentation of themselves to other people. The other side of the “faking good” coin is “faking bad.” Litigants in civil actions who claim injury may seek high awards as compensation for their alleged pain, suffering, and emotional distress—all of which may be exaggerated and dramatized for the benefit of a judge and jury. The accused in a criminal action may view time in a mental institution as preferable to time in prison (or capital punishment) and strategically choose an insanity defense—with accompanying behavior and claims to make such a defense as believable as possible. A homeless person who prefers the environs of a mental hospital to that of the street may attempt to fake bad on tests and in interviews if failure to do so will result in discharge. In the days of the military draft, it was not uncommon for draft resisters to fake bad on psychiatric examinations in their efforts to be deferred. Some testtakers truly may be impaired with regard to their ability to respond accurately to self-report questions. They may lack insight, for example, because of certain medical or psychological conditions at the time of assessment. By contrast, other testtakers seem blessed with an abundance of self-insight that they can convey with ease and expertise on self-report measures. It is for this latter group of individuals that self-report measures, according to Burisch (1984), will not reveal anything the testtaker does not already know. Of course, Burisch may have overstated the case. Even people with an abundance of self-insight can profit from taking the time to reflect about their own thoughts and behaviors, especially if they are unaccustomed to doing so. 400

Another person as the referent JUST THINK . . . Do you believe meaningful insights are better derived through self-assessment or through assessment by someone else? Why? Another person as the referent In some situations, the best available method for the assessment of personality, behavior, or both involves reporting by a third party such as a parent, teacher, peer, supervisor, spouse, or trained observer. Consider, for example, the assessment of a child for emotional difficulties. The child may be unable or unwilling to complete any measure (self-report, performance, or otherwise) that will be of value in making a valid determination concerning that child’s emotional status. Even case history data may be of minimal value because the problems may be so subtle as to become evident only after careful and sustained observation. In such cases, the use of a test in which the testtaker or respondent is an informant—but not the subject of study—may be valuable. In basic personality research, this third-party approach to assessment has been found useful, especially when the third-party reporter knows the subject of the evaluation well. Proceeding under the assumption that spouses should be familiar enough with each other to serve as good informants, one study examined self-versus spouse ratings on personality-related variables (South et al., 2011). Self and spousal ratings were found to be significantly correlated, and this relationship was stronger than that typically found between self- and peer ratings in personality research. The Personality Inventory for Children (PIC) and its revision, the PIC-2 (pronounced “pick two”), are examples of a kind of standardized interview of a child’s parent. Although the child is the subject of the test, the respondent is the parent (usually the mother), guardian, or other adult qualified to respond with reference to the child’s characteristic behavior. The test consists of a series of true–false items designed to be free of racial and gender bias. The items may be administered by computer or paper and pencil. Test results yield scores that provide clinical information and shed light on the validity of the testtaker’s response patterns. A number of studies attest to the validity of the PIC for its intended purpose (Kline et al., 1992, 1993; Lachar & Wirt, 1981; Lachar et al., 1985; Wirt et al., 1984). However, as with any test that relies on the observations and judgment of a rater, some concerns about this instrument have also been expressed (Achenbach, 1981; Cornell, 1985). In general, there are many cautions to consider when one person undertakes to evaluate another. These cautions are by no means limited to the area of personality assessment. Rather, in any situation when one individual undertakes to rate another individual, it is important to understand the dynamics of the situation. Although a rater’s report can provide a wealth of information about an assessee, it may also be instructive to look at the source of that information.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Raters may vary in the extent to which they are, or strive to be, scrupulously neutral, favorably generous, or harshly severe in their ratings. Generalized biases to rate in a particular direction are referred to in terms such as leniency error or generosity error and severity error. A general tendency to rate everyone near the midpoint of a rating scale is termed an error of central tendency. In some situations, a particular set of circumstances may create a certain bias. For example, a teacher might be disposed to judging one pupil favorably because that pupil’s older sister was teacher’s pet in a prior class. This variety of favorable response bias is sometimes referred to as a halo effect. Raters may make biased judgments, consciously or unconsciously, simply because it is in their own self- interest to do so (see Figure 11–3). Therapists who passionately believe in the efficacy of a particular therapeutic approach may be more disposed than others to see the benefits of that approach. Proponents of alternative approaches may be more disposed to see the negative aspects of that same treatment. Figure 11–3 Ratings in one’s own self-interest. “Monsters and screamers have always worked for me; I give it two thumbs up!” ©Ronald Jay Cohen. All rights reserved. Numerous other factors may contribute to bias in a rater’s ratings. The rater may feel competitive with, physically attracted to, or physically repelled by the subject of the ratings. The rater may not have the proper background, experience, and trained eye needed for the particular task. Judgments may be limited by the rater’s general level of conscientiousness and willingness to devote the time and effort required to do the job properly. The rater may harbor biases concerning various stereotypes. Subjectivity based on the rater’s own personal preferences and taste may also enter into judgments. Features that rate a “perfect 10” in one person’s opinion may represent more like a “mediocre 5” in the eyes of another person. If such marked diversity of opinion occurs frequently with regard to a particular instrument, we would expect it to be reflected in low inter-rater reliability coefficients. It would probably be desirable to take another look at the criteria used to make ratings and how specific they are. 401

When another person is the referent, an important factor to consider with regard to ratings is the context of the evaluation. Different raters may have different perspectives on the individual they are rating because of the context in which they typically view that person. A parent may indicate on a rating scale that a child is hyperactive, whereas the same child’s teacher may indicate on the same rating scale that the child’s activity level is within normal limits. Can they both be right? The answer is yes, according to one meta-analysis of 119 articles in the scholarly literature (Achenbach et al., 1987). Different informants may have different perspectives on the subjects being evaluated. These different perspectives derive from observing and interacting with the subjects in different contexts. The study also noted that raters tended to agree more about the difficulties of young children (ages 6 to 11) than about those of older children and adolescents. Raters also tended to show more agreement about children exhibiting self-control problems (such as hyperactivity and mistreating other children) in contrast to “overcontrol” problems (such as anxiety or depression). The researchers urged professionals to view the differences in evaluation that arise from different perspectives as something more than error in the evaluation process. They urged professionals to employ context-specific differences in treatment plans. Many of their ideas regarding context-dependent evaluation and treatment were incorporated into Achenbach’s (1993) Multiaxial Empirically Based Assessment system, the predecessor of the current Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (Achenbach, 2009). The system is an approach to the assessment of children and adolescents that incorporates cognitive and physical assessments of the subject, self-report of the subject, and ratings by parents and teachers. Additionally, performance measures of the child alone, with the family, or in the classroom may be included. JUST THINK . . . Imagining that it was you who was being rated, how might you be rated differently on the same variable in different contexts? Regardless whether the self or another person is the subject of study, one element of any evaluation that must be kept in mind by the assessor is the cultural context. 402 The cultural background of assessees Test developers and users have shown increased sensitivity to issues of cultural diversity. A number of concerns have been raised regarding the use of personality tests and other tools of assessment with members of culturally and linguistically diverse populations (Anderson, 1995; Campos, 1989; Greene, 1987; Hill et al., 2010; Irvine & Berry, 1983; López & Hernandez, 1987; Nye et al., 2008; Sundberg & Gonzales, 1981; Widiger & Samuel, 2009). How fair or generalizable is a particular instrument or

measurement technique with a member of a particular cultural group? How a test was developed, how it is administered, and how scores on it are interpreted are all questions to be raised when considering the appropriateness of administering a particular personality test to members of culturally and linguistically diverse populations. We continue to explore these and related questions later in this chapter and throughout this book. In Chapter 13, for example, we consider in detail the meaning of the term culturally informed psychological assessment. What? What is assessed when a personality assessment is conducted? For many personality tests, it is meaningful to answer this question with reference to the primary content area sampled by the test and to that portion of the test devoted to measuring aspects of the testtaker’s general response style. Primary content area sampled Personality measures are tools used to gain insight into a wide array of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with all aspects of the human experience. Some tests are designed to measure particular traits (such as introversion) or states (such as test anxiety), whereas others focus on descriptions of behavior, usually in particular contexts. For example, an observational checklist may concentrate on classroom behaviors associated with movement in order to assess a child’s hyperactivity. Extended discussion of behavioral measures is presented in Chapter 12. Many contemporary personality tests, especially tests that can be scored and interpreted by computer, are designed to measure not only some targeted trait or other personality variable but also some aspect of the testtaker’s response style. For example, in addition to scales labeled Introversion and Extraversion, a test of introversion/extraversion might contain other scales. Such additional scales could be designed to shed light on how honestly testtakers responded to the test, how consistently they answered the questions, and other matters related to the validity of the test findings. These measures of response pattern are also known as measures of response set or response style. Let’s take a look at some different testtaker response styles as well as the scales used to identify them. Testtaker response styles Response style refers to a tendency to respond to a test item or interview question in some characteristic manner regardless of the content of the item or question. For example, an individual may be more apt to respond yes or true than no or false on a short-answer test. This particular pattern of responding is characterized as acquiescent. Table 11–1 shows a listing of other identified response styles. 403

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Table 11–1 A Sampling of Test Response Styles Response Style Name Explanation: A Tendency to . . . Socially desirable responding present oneself in a favorable (socially acceptable or desirable) light Acquiescence agree with whatever is presented Nonacquiescence disagree with whatever is presented Deviance make unusual or uncommon responses Extreme make extreme, as opposed to middle, ratings on a rating scale Gambling/cautiousness guess—or not guess—when in doubt Overly positive claim extreme virtue through self-presentation in a superlative manner (Butcher & Han, 1995) Impression management is a term used to describe the attempt to manipulate others’ impressions through “the selective exposure of some information (it may be false information) . . . coupled with suppression of [other] information” (Braginsky et al., 1969, p. 51). In the process of personality assessment, assessees might employ any number of impression management strategies for any number of reasons. Delroy Paulhus (1984, 1986, 1990) and his colleagues (Kurt & Paulhus, 2008; Paulhus & Holden, 2010; Paulhus & Levitt, 1987) have explored impression management in test-taking as well as the related phenomena of enhancement (the claiming of positive attributes), denial (the repudiation of negative attributes), and self-deception—“the tendency to give favorably biased but honestly held self- descriptions” (Paulhus & Reid, 1991, p. 307). Testtakers who engage in impression management are exhibiting, in the broadest sense, a response style (Jackson & Messick, 1962). JUST THINK . . . On what occasion did you attempt to manage a particular impression for a friend, a family member, or an acquaintance? Why did you feel the need to do so? Would you consider your effort successful? Some personality tests contain items designed to detect different types of response styles. So, for example, a true response to an item like “I summer in Baghdad” would raise a number of questions, such as: Did the testtaker understand the instructions? Take the test seriously? Respond true to all items? Respond randomly? Endorse other infrequently endorsed items? Analysis of the entire protocol will help answer such questions. Responding to a personality test in an inconsistent, contrary, or random way, or attempting to fake good or bad, may affect the validity of the interpretations of the test data. Because a response style can affect the validity of the outcome, one particular type of response style measure is referred to as a validity

scale. We may define a validity scale as a subscale of a test designed to assist in judgments regarding how honestly the testtaker responded and whether observed responses were products of response style, carelessness, deliberate efforts to deceive, or unintentional misunderstanding. Validity scales can provide a kind of shorthand indication of how honestly, diligently, and carefully a testtaker responded to test items. Some tests, such as the MMPI and its revision (to be discussed shortly), contain multiple validity scales. Although there are those who question the utility of formally assessing response styles (Costa & McCrae, 1997; Rorer, 1965), perhaps the more common view is that response styles are themselves important for what they reveal about testtakers. As Nunnally (1978, p. 660) observed: “To the extent that such stylistic variables can be measured independently of content relating to nonstylistic variables or to the extent that they can somehow be separated from the variance of other traits, they might prove useful as measures of personality traits.” 404 Where? Where are personality assessments conducted? Traditional sites for personality assessment, as well as other varieties of assessment, are schools, clinics, hospitals, academic research laboratories, employment counseling and vocational selection centers, and the offices of psychologists and counselors. In addition to such traditional venues, contemporary assessors may be found observing behavior and making assessments in natural settings, ranging from the assessee’s own home (Marx, 1998; McElwain, 1998; Polizzi, 1998) to the incarcerated assessee’s prison cell (Glassbrenner, 1998). How? How are personality assessments structured and conducted? Let’s look at various facets of this multidimensional question, beginning with issues of scope and theory. We then discuss procedures and item formats that may be employed, the frame of reference of the assessment, and scoring and interpretation. Scope and theory One dimension of the how of personality assessment concerns its scope. The scope of an evaluation may be wide, seeking to take a kind of general inventory of an individual’s personality. The California Psychological Inventory (CPI 434) is an example of an instrument with a relatively wide scope. This test contains 434 true–false items—but then you knew that from its title—and is designed to yield information on many personality-related variables such as responsibility, self-acceptance, and dominance. It was originally conceived to measure enduring personality traits across cultural groups, and predict the behavior of generally well-functioning people (Boer et al., 2008).

JUST THINK . . . Suppose you would like to learn as much as you can about the personality of an assessee from one personality test that is narrow in scope. On what single aspect of personality do you believe it would be most important to focus? In contrast to instruments and procedures designed to inventory personality as a whole are instruments that are much narrower in terms of what they purport to measure. An instrument may be designed to focus on as little as one particular aspect of personality. For example, consider tests designed to measure a personality variable called locus of control (Rotter, 1966; Wallston et al., 1978). Locus (meaning “place” or “site”) of control is a person’s perception about the source of things that happen to him or her. In general, people who see themselves as largely responsible for what happens to them are said to have an internal locus of control. People who are prone to attribute what happens to them to external factors (such as fate or the actions of others) are said to have an external locus of control. A person who believes in the value of seatbelts, for example, would be expected to score closer to the internal than to the external end of the continuum of locus of control as opposed to a nonbuckling counterpart. To what extent is a personality test theory-based or relatively atheoretical? Instruments used in personality testing and assessment vary in the extent to which they are based on a theory of personality. Some are based entirely on a theory, and some are relatively atheoretical. An example of a theory-based instrument is the Blacky Pictures Test (Blum, 1950). This test consists of cartoonlike pictures of a dog named Blacky in various situations, and each image is designed to elicit fantasies associated with various psychoanalytic themes. For example, one card depicts Blacky with a knife hovering over his tail, a scene (according to the test’s author) designed to elicit material related to the psychoanalytic concept of castration anxiety. The respondent’s task is to make up stories in response to such cards, and the stories are then analyzed according to the guidelines set forth by Blum (1950). The test is seldom used today; we cite it here as a particularly dramatic and graphic illustration of how a personality theory (in this case, psychoanalytic theory) can saturate a test. 405 The other side of the theory saturation coin is the personality test that is relatively atheoretical. The single most popular personality test in use today is atheoretical: the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), in both its original and revised forms. Streiner (2003) referred to this test as “the epitome of an atheoretical, ‘dust bowl empiricism’ approach to the development of a tool to measure personality traits” (p. 218). You will better appreciate this comment when we discuss the MMPI and its subsequent revisions later in this chapter. For now, let’s simply point out one advantage of an atheoretical tool of personality assessment: It allows test users, should they so desire, to impose their own theoretical preferences on the interpretation of the findings.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Pursuing another aspect of the how of personality assessment, let’s turn to a nuts-and-bolts look at the methods used. Procedures and item formats Personality may be assessed by many different methods, such as face-to-face interviews, computer- administered tests, behavioral observation, paper-and-pencil tests, evaluation of case history data, evaluation of portfolio data, and recording of physiological responses. The equipment required for assessment varies greatly, depending upon the method employed. In one technique, for example, all that may be required is a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. The assessee is asked to draw a person, and the assessor makes inferences about the assessee’s personality from the drawing. Other approaches to assessment, whether in the interest of basic research or for more applied purposes, may be far more elaborate in terms of the equipment they require (Figure 11–4). Figure 11–4 Learning about personality in the field—lterally. During World War II, the assessment staff of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) selected American secret agents using a variety of measures. One measure used to assess leadership ability and emotional stability in the field was a simulation that involved rebuilding a blown bridge. Candidates were deliberately supplied with insufficient materials for rebuilding the bridge. In some instances, “assistants” who were actually confederates of the experimenter further frustrated the candidates’ efforts. In what was called the “Wall Situation,” candidates were thrust into a scenario wherein the structure pictured above was a wall obstructing their escape from enemy forces. The group’s task was to get everyone over it. Typically, the first person to survey the situation and devise a plan for completing the task emerged as the group leader. Courtesy of the National Archives 406 Measures of personality vary in terms of the degree of structure built into them. For example, personality may be assessed by means of an interview, but it may also be assessed by a structured interview. In the latter method, the interviewer must typically follow an interview guide and has little leeway in terms of posing questions not in that guide. The variable of structure is also applicable to the tasks assessees are instructed to perform. In some approaches to personality assessment, the tasks are

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

straightforward, highly structured, and unambiguous. Here is one example of the instructions used for such a task: Copy this sentence in your own handwriting. Such instructions might be used if the assessor was attempting to learn something about the assessee by handwriting analysis, also referred to as graphology (see Figure 11–5). Intuitively appealing as a method of deriving insights into personality, graphology seems not to have lived up to its promise (Dazzi & Pedrabissi, 2009; Fox, 2011; Gawda, 2008; Thiry, 2009). Figure 11–5 Three faces (and three handwritings) of Eve. Three Faces of Eve was a fact-based, 1957 film classic about three of the personalities—there were more over the course of the woman’s lifetime—manifested by a patient known as “Eve White,” “Eve Black,” and “Jane.” Prior to making that film, the 20th Century–Fox legal department insisted that the patient on whom the screenplay was based sign three separate contracts, one for each of her personalities. Accordingly, the patient was asked to elicit “Eve White,” “Eve Black,” and “Jane,” and then sign an agreement while manifesting each of these respective personalities. According to Aubrey Solomon, co- author of The Films of 20th Century–Fox (Thomas & Solomon, 1989) and commentator on the DVD release of the film, the three signatures on the three separate contracts were all distinctly different— presumably because they were a product of three distinctly different personalities. John Springer Collection/Corbis Historical/Getty Images In other approaches to personality, what is required of the assessee is not so straightforward, not very structured, and intentionally ambiguous. One example of a highly unstructured task is as follows: Hand the assessee one of a series of inkblots and ask, What might this be? 407 The same personality trait or construct may be measured with different instruments in different ways. Consider the many possible ways of determining how aggressive a person is. Measurement of this trait could be made in different ways: a paper-and-pencil test; a computerized test; an interview with the assessee; an interview with family, friends, and associates of the assessee; analysis of official records and other case history data; behavioral observation; and laboratory experimentation. Of course, criteria for what constitutes the trait measured—in this case, aggression—would have to be rigorously defined in advance. After all, psychological traits and constructs can and have been defined in many different ways, and virtually all such definitions tend to be context-dependent. For example, aggressive may be defined

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

in ways ranging from hostile and assaultive (as in the “aggressive inmate”) to bold and enterprising (as in the “aggressive salesperson”). This personality trait, like many others, may or may not be socially desirable; it depends entirely on the context. In personality assessment, as well as in assessment of other areas, information may be gathered and questions answered in a variety of ways. For example, a researcher or practitioner interested in learning about the degree to which respondents are field-dependent may construct an elaborate tilting chair/tilting room device—the same one you may recall from Chapter 1 (Figure 1–5). In the interests of time and expense, an equivalent process administered by paper and pencil or computer may be more practical for everyday use. In this chapter’s Everyday Psychometrics, we illustrate some of the more common item formats employed in the study of personality and related psychological variables. Keep in mind that, although we are using these formats to illustrate different ways that personality has been studied, some are employed in other areas of assessment as well. 408 EVERYDAY PSYCHOMETRICS Some Common Item Formats How may personality be assessed? Here are some of the more typical types of item formats. ITEM 1 I enjoy being out and among other people. TRUE FALSE This item illustrates the true–false format. Was your reaction something like “been there, done that” when you saw this item? ITEM 2 Working with fellow community members on organizing and staging a blood drive. LIKE DISLIKE

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

This two-choice item is designed to elicit information about the respondent’s likes and dislikes. It is a common format in interest inventories, particularly those used in vocational counseling. ITEM 3 How I feel when I am out and among other people Warm __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Cold Tense __:__:__:__:__:__:__Relaxed Weak __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Strong Brooks Brothers suit __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Hawaiian shirt This item format, called a semantic differential (Osgood et al., 1957), is characterized by bipolar adjectives separated by a seven-point rating scale on which respondents select one point to indicate their response. This type of item is useful for gauging the strength, degree, or magnitude of the direction of a particular response and has applications ranging from self-concept descriptions to opinion surveys. ITEM 4 I enjoy being out and among other people. or

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

I have an interest in learning about art. ITEM 5 I am depressed too much of the time. or I am anxious too much of the time. These are two examples of items written in a forced-choice format, where ideally each of the two choices (there may be more than two choices) is equal in social desirability. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1953) is a classic forced-choice test. Edwards (1957a, 1957b, 1966) described in detail how he determined the items in this test to be equivalent in social desirability. ITEM 6 naughty needy negativistic New Age nerdy nimble nonproductive numb This illustrates an item written in an adjective checklist format. Respondents check the traits that apply to them.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

ITEM 7 Complete this sentence. I feel as if I _____________________________. Respondents are typically instructed to finish the sentence with their “real feelings” in what is called a sentence completion item. The Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank (Rotter & Rafferty, 1950) is a standardized test that employs such items, and the manual features normative data (Rotter et al., 1992). Can you distinguish the figure labeled (b) in the figure labeled (a)? This type of item is found in embedded-figures tests. Identifying hidden figures is a skill thought to tap the same field dependence/independence variable tapped by more elaborate apparatuses such as the tilting chair/tilting room illustrated in Figure 1–5. Part 4:The Assessment of Personality This is an item reminiscent of one of the Rorschach inkblots. We will have much more to say about the Rorschach in the following chapter. Courtesy of Ronald Jay Cohen Much like the Rorschach test, which uses inkblots as ambiguous stimuli, many other tests ask the respondent to “project” onto an ambiguous stimulus. This item is reminiscent of one such projective technique called the Hand Test. Respondents are asked to tell the examiner what they think the hands might be doing.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Frame of reference Another variable relevant to the how of personality measurement concerns the frame of reference of the assessment. In the context of item format and assessment in general, frame of reference may be defined as aspects of the focus of exploration such as the time frame (the past, the present, or the future) as well as other contextual issues that involve people, places, and events. Perhaps for most measures of personality, the frame of reference for the assessee may be described in phrases such as what is or how I am right now. However, some techniques of measurement are easily adapted to tap alternative frames of reference, such as what I could be ideally, how I am in the office, how others see me, how I see others, and so forth. Obtaining self-reported information from different frames of reference is, in itself, a way of developing information related to states and traits. For example, in comparing self-perception in the present versus what is anticipated for the future, assessees who report that they will become better people may be presumed to be more optimistic than assessees who report a reverse trend. Representative of methodologies that can be readily applied in the exploration of varied frames of reference is the Q-sort technique. Originally developed by Stephenson (1953), the Q-sort is an assessment technique in which the task is to sort a group of statements, usually in perceived rank order ranging from most descriptive to least descriptive. The statements, traditionally presented on index cards, may be sorted in ways designed to reflect various perceptions. They may, for example, reflect how respondents see themselves or how they would like to see themselves. Illustrative statements are I am confident, I try hard to please others, and I am uncomfortable in social situations. One of the best-known applications of Q-sort methodology in clinical and counseling settings was advocated by the personality theorist and psychotherapist Carl Rogers. Rogers (1959) used the Q-sort to evaluate the discrepancy between the perceived actual self and the ideal self. At the beginning of psychotherapy, clients might be asked to sort cards twice, once according to how they perceived themselves to be and then according to how they would ultimately like to be. The larger the discrepancy between the sortings, the more goals would have to be set in therapy. Presumably, retesting the client who successfully completed a course of therapy would reveal much less discrepancy between the present and idealized selves. 409 Beyond its application in initial assessment and reevaluation of a therapy client, the Q-sort technique has also been used extensively in basic research in the area of personality and other areas. Some highly specialized Q-sorts include the Leadership Q-Test (Cassel, 1958) and the Tyler Vocational Classification System (Tyler, 1961). The former test was designed for use in military settings and contains cards with statements that the assessee is instructed to sort in terms of their perceived importance to effective

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

leadership. The Tyler Q-sort contains cards on which occupations are listed; the cards are sorted in terms of the perceived desirability of each occupation. One feature of Q-sort methodology is the ease with which it can be adapted for use with a wide population range for varied clinical and research purposes. Q-sort methodology has been used to measure a wide range of variables (e.g., Bradley & Miller, 2010; Fowler & Westen, 2011; Huang & Shih, 2011). It has been used to measure attachment security with children as young as preschoolers (DeMulder et al., 2000). An adaptation of Q-sort methodology has even been used to measure attachment security in rhesus monkeys (Warfield et al., 2011). Two other item presentation formats that are readily adaptable to different frames of reference are the adjective checklist format and the sentence completion format. With the adjective checklist method, respondents simply check off on a list of adjectives those that apply to themselves (or to people they are rating). Using the same list of adjectives, the frame of reference can easily be changed by changing the instructions. For example, to gauge various states, respondents can be asked to check off adjectives indicating how they feel right now. Alternatively, to gauge various traits, they may be asked to check off adjectives indicative of how they have felt for the last year or so. A test called, simply enough, the Adjective Check List (Gough, 1960; Gough & Heilbrun, 1980) has been used in a wide range of research studies to study assessees’ perceptions of themselves or others. For example, the instrument has been used to study managers’ self-perceptions (Hills, 1985), parents’ perceptions of their children (Brown, 1972), and clients’ perceptions of their therapists (Reinehr, 1969). The sheer simplicity of the measure makes it adaptable for use in a wide range of applications (e.g., Ledesma et al., 2011; Redshaw & Martin, 2009; Tsaousis & Georgiades, 2009). 410 JUST THINK . . . Envision and describe an assessment scenario in which it would be important to obtain the assessee’s perception of others. As implied by the label ascribed to these types of tests, the testtaker’s task in responding to an item written in a sentence completion format is to finish the rest of a sentence when provided with a sentence stem. Items may tap how assessees feel about themselves, as in this sentence completion item: I would describe my feeling about myself as _____. Items may tap how assessees feel about others, as in My classmates are _____. More will be discussed on sentence completion methods in the following chapter; right now, let’s briefly overview how personality tests are scored and interpreted. Scoring and interpretation Personality measures differ with respect to the way conclusions are drawn from the data they provide. For some paper-and-pencil measures, a simple tally of responses to targeted items is presumed to

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

provide a measure of the strength of a particular trait. For other measures, a computer programmed to apply highly technical manipulations of the data is required for purposes of scoring and interpretation. Yet other measures may require a highly trained clinician reviewing a verbatim transcript of what the assessee said in response to certain stimuli such as inkblots or pictures. It is also meaningful to dichotomize measures with respect to the nomothetic versus idiographic approach. The nomothetic approach to assessment is characterized by efforts to learn how a limited number of personality traits can be applied to all people. According to a nomothetic view, certain personality traits exist in all people to varying degrees. The assessor’s task is to determine what the strength of each of these traits are in the assessee. An assessor who uses a test such as the 16 PF, Fifth Edition (Cattell et al., 1993), probably subscribes to the nomothetic view. This is so because the 16PF was designed to measure the strength of 16 personality factors (which is what “PF” stands for) in the testtaker. Similarly, tests purporting to measure the “Big 5” personality traits are very much in the nomothetic tradition. In contrast to a nomothetic view is the idiographic one. An idiographic approach to assessment is characterized by efforts to learn about each individual’s unique constellation of personality traits, with no attempt to characterize each person according to any particular set of traits. The idea here is not to see where one falls on the continuum of a few traits deemed to be universal, but rather to understand the specific traits unique to the makeup of the individual. The idiographic orientation is evident in assessment procedures that are more flexible not only in terms of listing the observed traits but also of naming new trait terms.2 The idiographic approach to personality assessment was described in detail by Allport (1937; Allport & Odbert, 1936). Methods of assessment used by proponents of this view tend to be more like tools such as the case study and personal records rather than tests. Of these two different approaches, most contemporary psychologists seem to favor the nomothetic approach. Another dimension related to how meaning is attached to test scores has to do with whether inter- individual or intra-individual comparisons are made with respect to test scores. Most common in personality assessment is the normative approach, whereby a testtaker’s responses and the presumed strength of a measured trait are interpreted relative to the strength of that trait in a sample of a larger population. However, you may recall that an alternative to the normative approach in test interpretation is the ipsative approach. In the ipsative approach, a testtaker’s responses, as well as the presumed strength of measured traits, are interpreted relative to the strength of measured traits for that same individual. On a test that employs ipsative scoring procedures, two people with the same score for a particular trait or personality characteristic may differ markedly with regard to the magnitude of that trait or characteristic relative to members of a larger population. JUST THINK . . .

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Place yourself in the role of a human resources executive for a large airline. As part of the evaluation process, all new pilots will be given a personality test. You are asked whether the test should be ipsative or normative in nature. Your response? Concluding our overview of the how of personality assessment, and to prepare for discussing the ways in which personality tests are developed, let’s review some issues in personality test development and use. 411 Issues in personality test development and use Many of the issues inherent in the test development process mirror the basic questions just discussed about personality assessment in general. What testtakers will this test be designed to be used with? Will the test entail self-report? Or will it require the use of raters or judges? If raters or judges are needed, what special training or other qualifications must they have? How will a reasonable level of inter-rater reliability be ensured? What content area will be sampled by the test? How will issues of testtaker response style be dealt with? What item format should be employed, and what is the optimal frame of reference? How will the test be scored and interpreted? As previously noted, personality assessment that relies exclusively on self-report is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the information is from “the source.” Respondents are in most instances presumed to know themselves better than anyone else does and therefore should be able to supply accurate responses about themselves. On the other hand, the consumer of such information has no way of knowing with certainty which self-reported information is entirely true, partly true, not really true, or an outright lie. Consider a response to a single item on a personality inventory written in a true–false format. The item reads: I tend to enjoy meeting new people. A respondent indicates true. In reality, we do not know whether the respondent (1) enjoys meeting new people; (2) honestly believes that he or she enjoys meeting new people but really does not (in which case, the response is more the product of a lack of insight than a report of reality); (3) does not enjoy meeting new people but would like people to think that he or she does; or (4) did not even bother to read the item, is not taking the test seriously, and is responding true or false randomly to each item. Building validity scales into self-report tests is one way that test developers have attempted to deal with the potential problems. In recent years, there has been some debate about whether validity scales should be included in personality tests. In arguing the case for the inclusion of validity scales, it has been asserted that “detection of an attempt to provide misleading information is a vital and absolutely necessary component of the clinical interpretation of test results” and that using any instrument without validity scales “runs counter to the basic tenets of clinical assessment” (Ben-Porath & Waller, 1992, p. 24). By contrast, the authors of the widely used Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), Paul T.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Costa Jr. and Robert R. McCrae, perceived no need to include any validity scales in their instrument and have been unenthusiastic about the use of such scales in other tests (McCrae & Costa, 1983; McCrae et al., 1989; Piedmont & McCrae, 1996; Piedmont et al., 2000). Referring to validity scales as SD (social desirability) scales, Costa and McCrae (1997) opined: SD scales typically consist of items that have a clearly desirable response. We know that people who are trying falsely to appear to have good qualities will endorse many such items, and the creators of SD scales wish to infer from this that people who endorse many SD items are trying to create a good impression. That argument is formally identical to asserting that presidential candidates shake hands, and therefore people who shake hands are probably running for president. In fact, there are many more common reasons for shaking hands, and there is also a more common reason than impression management for endorsing SD items—namely, because the items are reasonably accurate self- descriptions. (p. 89) 412 JUST THINK . . . Having read about some of the pros and cons of using validity scales in personality assessment, where do you stand on the issue? Feel free to revise your opinion as you learn more. According to Costa and McCrae, assessors can affirm that self-reported information is reasonably accurate by consulting external sources such as peer raters. Of course, the use of raters necessitates certain other precautions to guard against rater error and bias. Education regarding the nature of various types of rater error and bias has been a key weapon in the fight against intentional or unintentional inaccuracies in ratings. Training sessions may be designed to accomplish several objectives, such as clarifying terminology to increase the reliability of ratings. A term like satisfactory, for example, may have different meanings to different raters. During training, new raters can observe and work with more experienced raters to become acquainted with aspects of the task that may not be described in the rater’s manual, to compare ratings with more experienced raters, and to discuss the thinking that went into the ratings. To include or not include a validity scale in a personality test is definitely an issue that must be dealt with. What about the language in which the assessment is conducted? At first blush, this would appear to be a non-issue. Well, yes and no. If an assessee is from a culture different from the culture in which the test was developed, or if the assessee is fluent in one or more languages, then language may well become an issue. Words tend to lose—or gain—something in translation, and some words and expressions are not readily translatable into other languages. Consider the following true–false item

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

from a popular personality test: I am known for my prudence and common sense. If you are a bilingual student, translate that statement from English as an exercise in test-item translation before reading on. A French translation of this item is quite close, adding only an extra first-person possessive pronoun (“par ma prudence et mon bon sens”); however, the Filipino translation of this item would read I can be relied on to decide carefully and well on matters (McCrae et al., 1998, p. 176). In addition to sometimes significant differences in the meaning of individual items, the traits measured by personality tests sometimes have different meanings as well. Acknowledging this fact, McCrae et al. (1998, p. 183) cautioned that “personality-trait relations reported in Western studies should be considered promising hypotheses to be tested in new cultures.” The broader issue relevant to the development and use of personality tests with members of a culture different from the culture in which the test was normed concerns the applicability of the norms. For example, a number of MMPI studies conducted with members of groups from diverse backgrounds yield findings in which minority group members tend to present with more psychopathology than majority group members (see, e.g., Montgomery & Orozco, 1985; Whitworth & Unterbrink, 1994). Such differences have elicited questions regarding the appropriateness of the use of the test with members of different populations (Dana, 1995; Dana & Whatley, 1991; Malgady et al., 1987). A test may well be appropriate for use with members of culturally different populations. As López (1988, p. 1096) observed, “To argue that the MMPI is culturally biased, one needs to go beyond reporting that ethnic groups differ in their group profiles.” López noted that many of the studies showing differences between the groups did not control for psychopathology. Accordingly, there may well have been actual differences across the groups in psychopathology. The size of the sample used in the research and the appropriateness of the statistical analysis are other extracultural factors to consider when evaluating cross-cultural research. Of course, if culture and “learned meanings” (Rohner, 1984, pp. 119–120), as opposed to psychopathology, are found to account for differences in measured psychopathology with members of a particular cultural group, then the continued use of the measures with members of that cultural group must be questioned. 413 In the wake of heightened security concerns as a result of highly publicized terrorist threats, stalking incidents, and the like, new issues related to privacy have come to the fore. The number of assessments administered in the interest of threat assessment seem ever on the increase, while professional guidelines and legislative mandates have lagged. The result is that the public’s need to know who is a legitimate threat to public safety has been pitted against the individual’s right to privacy (among other

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

rights). The topic is delved into by no less than a threat assessment expert in this chapter’s Meet an Assessment Professional. Armed with some background information regarding the nature of personality and its assessment, as well as some of the issues that attend the process, let’s look at the process of developing instruments designed to assess personality. Developing Instruments to Assess Personality Tools such as logic, theory, and data reduction methods (such as factor analysis) are frequently used in the process of developing personality tests. Another tool in the test development process may be a criterion group. As we will see, most personality tests employ two or more of these tools in the course of their development. Logic and Reason Notwithstanding the grumblings of skeptics, there is a place for logic and reason in psychology, at least when it comes to writing items for a personality test. Logic and reason may dictate what content is covered by the items. Indeed, the use of logic and reason in the development of test items is sometimes referred to as the content or content-oriented approach to test development. So, for example, if you were developing a true–false test of extraversion, logic and reason might dictate that one of the items might be something like I consider myself an outgoing person. Efforts to develop such content-oriented, face-valid items can be traced at least as far back as an instrument used to screen World War I recruits for personality and adjustment problems. The Personal Data Sheet (Woodworth, 1917), later known as the Woodworth Psychoneurotic Inventory, contained items designed to elicit self-report of fears, sleep disorders, and other problems deemed symptomatic of a pathological condition referred to then as psychoneuroticism. The greater the number of problems reported, the more psychoneurotic the respondent was presumed to be. A great deal of clinically actionable information can be collected in relatively little time using such self- report instruments—provided, of course, that the testtaker has the requisite insight and responds with candor. A highly trained professional is not required for administration of the test. A plus in the digital age is that a computerized report of the findings can be available in minutes. Moreover, such instruments are particularly well suited to clinical settings in managed care environments, where drastic cost cutting has led to reductions in orders for assessment, and insurers are reluctant to authorize assessments. In such environments, the preferred use of psychological tests has traditionally been to identify conditions of “medical necessity” (Glazer et al., 1991). Quick, relatively inexpensive tests, wherein assessees report specific problems have won favor with insurers.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

A typical companion to logic, reason, and intuition in item development is research. A review of the literature on the aspect of personality that test items are designed to tap will frequently be very helpful to test developers. In a similar vein, clinical experience can be helpful in item creation. So, for example, clinicians with ample experience in treating people diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder could be expected to have their own ideas about which items will work best on a test designed to identify people with the disorder. A related aid in the test development process is correspondence with experts on the subject matter of the test. Included here are experts who have researched and published on the subject matter, as well as experts who have known to have amassed great clinical experience on the subject matter. Yet another possible tool in test development—sometimes even the guiding force—is psychological theory. 414 MEET AN ASSESSMENT PROFESSIONAL Meet Dr. Rick Malone Iam Colonel Rick Malone, MD, an active duty military forensic psychiatrist, currently serving as a behavioral science officer with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (still known by its historical abbreviation, CID). In this capacity I consult with CID Special Agents on a variety of investigations. My work assignments include behavioral analysis of crime scene evidence, the conduct of psychological autopsies, and what I will discuss in more detail here: threat assessment. As its name implies, threat assessment may be defined as a process of identifying or evaluating entities, actions, or occurrences, whether natural or man-made, that have or indicate the potential to harm life, information, operations and/or property (Department of Homeland Security, 2008). The practice of threat assessment can take many forms depending upon the setting and the organization’s mission. In our setting, the mission of threat assessment entails, among other things, the gathering of intelligence designed to protect senior Department of Defense officials (referred to as “principals”). The tool of assessment we tend to rely on most is what is called a structured professional judgment (SPJ). The structured professional judgment is an approach that attempts to bridge the gap between actuarial and unstructured clinical approaches to risk assessment. Unstructured clinical approaches are based on the exercise of professional discretion and usually are justified according to the qualifications and experience of the professional who makes them. Of course, given the variance that exists in terms of the qualifications and experience of professionals making such judgments, SPJ as a tool of assessment is vulnerable to criticism on various psychometric grounds such as questionable or unknown reliability and validity. Also, given the wide range of actions that may be launched as a result of such professional discretion, another issue relevant to SPJ is accountability.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

In contrast to SPJ as the primary tool of assessment, an actuarial approach employs a fixed set of risk factors that are combined to produce a score. In turn, this score is used to gauge an individual’s relative risk compared to a normative group. One of the disadvantages of such strictly “objective” procedures is that they typically prohibit the evaluator from considering unique, unusual, or context-specific variables that might require intervention. RICKY D. MALONE, MD, MPH, MSSI COL, MC, SFS Forensic Psychiatry/Behavioral Science Consultant, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command Ricky D. Malone The SPJ relies on evidence-based guidelines that are directly informed, guided, and structured by the scientific and professional literature, but allows the evaluator discretion in their interpretation. The word “structured” in this term refers to a minimum set of risk factors that should be considered and how to measure them. However, “structured” in this context stops short of requiring that the identified risk factors be combined according to a specific algorithm (Hart & Logan, 2011). In our setting, we are often asked to assess the threat posed by a person who has demonstrated an “inappropriate direction of interest” toward one of our designated principals. Such an individual will typically come to our attention through attempts to communicate directly with one of these principals by telephone, mail, or e-mail. Occasionally—and even of greater concern—the individual has even directly come in contact or approached a designated principal. In recent years, our attention has been focused on such persons of interest as a result of some posting on social media. Communications of concern may contain anything from an outright threat to a complaint symptomatic of inappropriate or exaggerated anger or blame. Another variety of communication that will get our attention is one that makes an inappropriate plea for help with some personal issue that the writer perceives to be within the public official’s sphere of influence. As one might imagine, senior military officials in the public eye can and do receive such inappropriate communications from all over the world. So what is done in response? 415 In some cases, not very much is done. Given relatively limited resources, we need to pick and choose which communications warrant a response (or a formal investigation) and what the level of that response should be. So what we do for starters is a brief, indirect assessment to estimate the level of concern that the person of interest warrants. If our level of concern is high, a formal law enforcement investigation will be launched. If our level of concern is below the threshold of triggering a formal

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

investigation, we will simply continue to monitor their attempts to communicate and related activities. Useful in this context is Meloy’s (2000) biopsychosocial (BPS) model, which identifies individual/psychological factors, social/situational factors, and biological factors that have been shown to be associated with higher rates of interpersonal violence. It avoids the use of numerical scores and assigning ranges for threat levels, but instead recommends that each factor be assessed and weighted according to case-specific circumstances. While the BPS model was not designed specifically for targeted violence towards public figures, it is useful in this context because it relies primarily on readily obtainable information (as opposed to the level of information required for performing a formal investigation). Perhaps the best source of data for making inferences as to how dangerous persons of interest may be are the communications created by those person themselves. Notes, electronic postings, and other communications frequently contain relevant personal details. These details can provide leads and clues that yield informed insights into the individual’s mental state. Hypotheses about the person’s mental state and the severity of disorder may be supported or rejected through the examination of other sources such as the individual’s social media presence. Often, postings on social media can be quite revealing in terms of things like an individual’s daily activities, interests, and political leanings. And looking beyond the obvious, postings on social media may also be revealing in terms of personality and the possible existence of delusional beliefs. Complementing analysis of material readily found on social media websites is another potential gold mine of relevant information: public records. A search of public records can yield valuable insights into variables as diverse as financial status, residential stability, geographic mobility, and social support systems. The information derived from such publicly available sources is then incorporated into the biopsychosocial assessment and examined for evidence of the warning behaviors (Meloy et al., 2012). Based on the amount and quality of information we have in hand, as well as the level of concern, the threat management team decides whether to proceed with an investigation and/or take steps to mitigate the threat. In both its investigative capacity, and its efforts to mitigate a threat, the team is challenged to balance the protection of the principal’s safety with the need to preserve a citizen’s civil rights (including one’s right to free speech and privacy, and the right not to be falsely imprisoned). Investigative activities alone can have a significant negative impact on the individual’s life. During the investigation, any questionable behavior on the part of a person of interest will be revealed to friends, family, and business associates. One danger here is that the mere revelation of such behavior to third parties will be damaging to the person of interest. From the perspective of the agency, conducting an investigation has its own dangers as it may “tip off” the person of interest and give rise to an escalation in that individual’s plans—all before an effective strategy for threat mitigation has been devised or put in place. Alternatively, the “tip off” may serve to impact the person of interest with the reality that it is now time to abandon the suspect activity.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Threat assessment is both an art and a science; it requires the ability to know how to use evidence- based risk factors and to integrate them with relevant insights from the individual narrative. Effective assessment and mitigation of threat further requires the ability to work as part of a multidisciplinary team with a diverse group of professionals such as law enforcement officers, prosecutors, mental health professionals, and corporate security experts. Students who are drawn to this type of work will find indispensable a firm foundation in forensic psychology coursework, and more specifically, coursework in forensic psychological assessment. Beyond formal coursework, read the published works of expert threat assessors such as J. Reid Meloy (e.g., Meloy, 2001; 2011; 2015; Meloy et al., 2008, 2015; Mohandie & Meloy, 2013). Also, consider doing volunteer work, or an internship in a setting where threat assessments are routinely conducted. There, an experienced forensic professional can serve as a model and a mentor in the art and science of unraveling the workings of a mind based on information gathered from a variety of sources. Used with permission of Ricky D. Malone. 416 Theory As we noted earlier, personality measures differ in the extent to which they rely on a particular theory of personality in their development as well as their interpretation. If psychoanalytic theory was the guiding force behind the development of a new test designed to measure antisocial personality disorder, for example, the items might look quite different than the items developed solely on the basis of logic and reason. One might find, for example, items designed to tap ego and superego defects that might result in a lack of mutuality in interpersonal relationships. Given that dreams are thought to reveal unconscious motivation, there might even be items probing the respondent’s dreams; interpretations of such responses would be made from a psychoanalytic perspective. As with the development of tests using logic and reason, research, clinical experience, and the opinions of experts might be used in the development of a personality test that is theory-based. Data Reduction Methods Data reduction methods represent another class of widely used tool in contemporary test development. Data reduction methods include several types of statistical techniques collectively known as factor analysis or cluster analysis. One use of data reduction methods in the design of personality measures is to aid in the identification of the minimum number of variables or factors that account for the intercorrelations in observed phenomena. Let’s illustrate the process of data reduction with a simple example related to painting your apartment. You may not have a strong sense of the exact color that best complements your “student-of- psychology” decor. Your investment in a subscription to Architectural Digest proved to be no help at all.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

You go to the local paint store and obtain free card samples of every shade of paint known to humanity —thousands of color samples. Next, you undertake an informal factor analysis of these thousands of color samples. You attempt to identify the minimum number of variables or factors that account for the intercorrelations among all of these colors. You discover that there are three factors (which might be labeled “primary” factors) and four more factors (which might be labeled “secondary” or “second-order” factors), the latter set of factors being combinations of the first set of factors. Because all colors can be reduced to three primary colors and their combinations, the three primary factors would correspond to the three primary colors, red, yellow, and blue (which you might christen factor R, factor Y, and factor B), and the four secondary or second-order factors would correspond to all the possible combinations that could be made from the primary factors (factors RY, RB, YB, and RYB). The paint sample illustration might be helpful to keep in mind as we review how factor analysis is used in test construction and personality assessment. In a way analogous to the factoring of all those shades of paint into three primary colors, think of all personality traits being factored into what one psychologist referred to as “the most important individual differences in human transactions” (Goldberg, 1993, p. 26). After all the factoring is over and the dust has settled, how many personality-related terms do you think would remain? Stated another way, just how many primary factors of personality are there? 417 As the result of a pioneering research program in the 1940s, Raymond Bernard Cattell’s answer to the question posed above was “16.” Cattell (1946, 1947, 1948a, 1948b) reviewed previous research by Allport and Odbert (1936), which suggested that there were more than 18,000 personality trait names and terms in the English language. Of these, however, only about a quarter were “real traits of personality” or words and terms that designated “generalized and personalized determining tendencies —consistent and stable modes of an individual’s adjustment to his environment . . . not . . . merely temporary and specific behavior” (Allport, 1937, p. 306). Cattell added to the list some trait names and terms employed in the professional psychology and psychiatric literature and then had judges rate “just distinguishable” differences between all the words (Cattell, 1957). The result was a reduction in the size of the list to 171 trait names and terms. College students were asked to rate their friends with respect to these trait names and terms, and the factor- analyzed results of that rating further reduced the number of names and terms to 36, which Cattell referred to as surface traits. Still more research indicated that 16 basic dimensions or source traits could be distilled. In 1949, Cattell’s research culminated in the publication of a test called the Sixteen Personality Factor (16 PF) Questionnaire. Revisions of the test were published in 1956, 1962, 1968, and 1993. In 2002, supplemental updated norms were published (Maraist & Russell, 2002). Over the years, many questions have been raised regarding (1) whether the 16 factors identified by Cattell do indeed merit the description as the “source traits” of personality, and (2) whether, in fact, the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

16 PF measures 16 distinct factors. Although some research supports Cattell’s claims, give or take a factor or two depending on the sample (Cattell & Krug, 1986; Lichtenstein et al., 1986), serious reservations regarding these assertions have also been expressed (Eysenck, 1985, 1991; Goldberg, 1993). Some have argued that the 16 PF may be measuring fewer than 16 factors, because several of the factors are substantially intercorrelated. With colors in the paint store, we can be certain that there are three that are primary. But with regard to personality factors, certainty doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Some theorists have argued that the primary factors of personality can be narrowed down to three (Eysenck, 1991), or maybe four, five, or six (Church & Burke, 1994). At least four different five-factor models exist (Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1992), and Waller and Zavala (1993) made a case for a seven-factor model. Costa and McCrae’s five-factor model (with factors that have come to be known as “the Big Five,” sometimes also expressed as “the Big 5”). has gained the greatest following. Interestingly, using factor analysis in the 1960s, Raymond Cattell had also derived five factors from his “primary 16” (H. Cattell, 1996). A side-by- side comparison of “Cattell’s five” with the Big Five shows strong similarity between the two sets of derived factors (Table 11–2). Still, Cattell believed in the primacy of the 16 factors he originally identified. Table 11–2 The Big Five Compared to Cattell’s Five The Big Five Cattell’s Five (circa 1960) Extraversion Introversion/Extraversion Neuroticism Low Anxiety/High Anxiety Openness Tough-Mindedness/Receptivity Agreeableness Independence/Accommodation Conscientiousness Low Self-Control/High Self-Control Cattell expressed what he viewed as the source traits of personality in terms of bipolar dimensions. The 16 personality factors measured by the test today are: Warmth (Reserved vs. Warm), Reasoning (Concrete vs. Abstract), Emotional Stability (Reactive vs. Emotionally Stable), Dominance (Deferential vs. Dominant), Liveliness (Serious vs. Lively), Rule-Consciousness (Expedient vs. Rule-Conscious), Social Boldness (Shy vs. Socially Bold), Sensitivity (Utilitarian vs. Sensitive), Vigilance (Trusting vs. Vigilant), Abstractedness (Grounded vs. Abstracted), Privateness (Forthright vs. Private), Apprehension (Self- Assured vs. Apprehensive), Openness to Change (Traditional vs. Open to Change), Self-Reliance (Group- Oriented vs. Self-Reliant), Perfectionism (Tolerates Disorder vs. Perfectionistic), and Tension (Relaxed vs. Tense). The Big Five

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) is widely used in both clinical applications and a wide range of research that involves personality assessment. Based on a five- dimension (or factor) model of personality, the NEO PI-R is a measure of five major dimensions (or “domains”) of personality and a total of 30 elements or facets that define each domain. The original version of the test was called the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985), where NEO was an acronym for the first three domains measured: Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness. The NEO PI-R provides for the measurement of two additional domains: Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Stated briefly, the Neuroticism domain (now referred to as the Emotional Stability factor) taps aspects of adjustment and emotional stability, including how people cope in times of emotional turmoil. The Extraversion domain taps aspects of sociability, how proactive people are in seeking out others, as well as assertiveness. Openness (also referred to as the Intellect factor) refers to openness to experience as well as active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, intellectual curiosity, and independence of judgment. Agreeableness is primarily a dimension of interpersonal tendencies that include altruism, sympathy toward others, friendliness, and the belief that others are similarly inclined. Conscientiousness is a dimension of personality that has to do with the active processes of planning, organizing, and following through. Each of these major dimensions or domains of personality may be subdivided into individual traits or facets measured by the NEO PI-R. Psychologists have found value in using these dimensions to describe a wide range of behavior attributable to personality (Chang et al., 2011). 418 The NEO PI-R is designed for use with persons 17 years of age and older and is essentially self- administered. Computerized scoring and interpretation are available. Validity and reliability data are presented in the manual. Perhaps due to the enthusiasm with which psychologists have embraced “the Big 5,” a number of tests other than the NEO PI-R have been developed to measure it. One such instrument is The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 1991). This test is made publicly available for noncommercial purposes to researchers and students. It consists of only 44 items, which makes it relatively quick to administer. Another instrument, the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), contains only two items for each of the Big 5 dimensions. Educated on matters of test construction and test validity, you may now be asking yourself how a test with so few items could possibly be valid. And if that is the case, you may want to read an article by Jonason et al. (2011), which actually has some favorable things to say about the construct validity of the TIPI. Another major force in the Big Five literature, Lewis Goldberg, is author of an adjective marker measures of the Big Five (c, 1992). He also oversees the International Personality Item Pool, an online repository of more than 3000 items and 250 scales of free personality and individual difference measures (https://ipip.ori.org/). A nonverbal measure of the Big 5 has also been developed. And once again, educated on matters of test construction as you

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

are, you may be asking yourself something like, “How in blazes did they do that?!” The Five-Factor Nonverbal Personality Questionnaire (FF-NPQ) is administered by showing respondents illustrations of behaviors indicative of the Big 5 dimensions. Respondents are then asked to gauge the likelihood of personally engaging in those behaviors (Paunonen et al., 2004). One study compared the performance of monozygotic (identical) twins on verbal and nonverbal measures of the Big 5. The researchers concluded that the performance of the twins was similar on the measures and that the similarities were attributable to shared genes rather than shared environments (Moore et al., 2010). Such studies fueled speculation regarding the heritability of psychological traits. We began our discussion of personality test development methods with a note that many personality tests have used two or more of these strategies in their process of development. At this point you may begin to appreciate how, as well as why, two or more tools might be used. A pool of items for an objective personality measure could be created, for example, on the basis of logic or theory, or both logic and theory. The items might then be arranged into scales on the basis of factor analysis. The draft version of the test could be administered to a criterion group and to a control group to see if responses to the items differ as a function of group membership. But here we are getting just a bit ahead of ourselves. We need to define, discuss, and illustrate what is meant by criterion group in the context of developing personality tests. 419 Criterion Groups A criterion may be defined as a standard on which a judgment or decision can be made. With regard to scale development, a criterion group is a reference group of testtakers who share specific characteristics and whose responses to test items serve as a standard according to which items will be included in or discarded from the final version of a scale. The process of using criterion groups to develop test items is referred to as empirical criterion keying because the scoring or keying of items has been demonstrated empirically to differentiate among groups of testtakers. The shared characteristic of the criterion group to be researched—a psychiatric diagnosis, a unique skill or ability, a genetic aberration, or whatever— will vary as a function of the nature and scope of the test. Development of a test by means of empirical criterion keying may be summed up as follows: Create a large, preliminary pool of test items from which the test items for the final form of the test will be selected. Administer the preliminary pool of items to at least two groups of people: Group 1: A criterion group composed of people known to possess the trait being measured.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Group 2: A randomly selected group of people (who may or may not possess the trait being measured) Conduct an item analysis to select items indicative of membership in the criterion group. Items in the preliminary pool that discriminate between membership in the two groups in a statistically significant fashion will be retained and incorporated in the final form of the test. Obtain data on test performance from a standardization sample of testtakers who are representative of the population from which future testtakers will come. The test performance data for Group 2 members on items incorporated into the final form of the test may be used for this purpose if deemed appropriate. The performance of Group 2 members on the test would then become the standard against which future testtakers will be evaluated. After the mean performance of Group 2 members on the individual items (or scales) of the test has been identified, future testtakers will be evaluated in terms of the extent to which their scores deviate in either direction from the Group 2 mean. At this point you may ask, “But what about that initial pool of items? How is it created?” The answer is that the test developer may have found inspiration for each of the items from reviews of journals and books, interviews with patients, or consultations with colleagues or known experts. The test developer may have relied on logic or reason alone to write the items, or on other tests. Alternatively, the test developer may have relied on none of these and simply let imagination loose and committed to paper whatever emerged. An interesting aspect of test development by means of empirical criterion keying is that the content of the test items does not have to relate in a logical, rational, direct, or face-valid way to the measurement objective. Burisch (1984, p. 218) captured the essence of empirical criterion keying when he stated flatly, “If shoe size as a predictor improves your ability to predict performance as an airplane pilot, use it.”3 420 Now imagine that it is the 1930s. A team of researchers is keenly interested in devising a paper-and- pencil test that will improve reliability in psychiatric diagnosis. Their idea is to use empirical criterion keying to create the instrument. A preliminary version of the test will be administered (1) to several criterion groups of adult inpatients, each group homogeneous with respect to psychiatric diagnosis, and (2) to a group of randomly selected non-clinical adults without any diagnoses. Using item analysis, items useful in differentiating members of the various clinical groups from members of the non-clinical group will be retained to make up the final form of the test. The researchers envision that future users of the published test will be able to derive diagnostic insights by comparing a testtaker’s response pattern to that of testtakers in the non-clinical group.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

And there you have the beginnings of a relatively simple idea that would, in time, win widespread approval from clinicians around the world. It is an idea for a test that stimulated the publication of thousands of research studies, and an idea that led to the development of a test that would serve as a model for countless other instruments devised through the use of criterion group research. The test, originally called the Medical and Psychiatric Inventory (Dahlstrom & Dahlstrom, 1980), is the MMPI. Years after its tentative beginnings, the test’s senior author recalled that “it was difficult to persuade a publisher to accept the MMPI” (Hathaway, cited in Dahlstrom & Welsh, 1960, p. vii). However, the University of Minnesota Press was obviously persuaded, because in 1943 it published the test under a new name, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). The rest, as they say, is history. In the next few pages, we describe the development of the original MMPI as well as its more contemporary progeny, the MMPI-2, the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (the MMPI-2-RF), and the MMPI-A. The MMPI The MMPI was the product of a collaboration between psychologist Starke R. Hathaway and psychiatrist/neurologist John Charnley McKinley (Hathaway & McKinley, 1940, 1942, 1943, 1951; McKinley & Hathaway, 1940, 1944). It contained 566 true–false items and was designed as an aid to psychiatric diagnosis with adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older. Research preceding the selection of test items included review of textbooks, psychiatric reports, and previously published personality test items. In this sense, the beginnings of the MMPI can be traced to an approach to test development that was based on logic and reason. A listing of the 10 clinical scales of the MMPI is presented in Table 11–3 along with a description of the corresponding criterion group. Each of the diagnostic categories listed for the 10 clinical scales were popular diagnostic categories in the 1930s. Members of the clinical criterion group for each scale were presumed to have met the criteria for inclusion in the category named in the scale. MMPI clinical scale items were derived empirically by administration to clinical criterion groups and normal control groups. The items that successfully differentiated between the two groups were retained in the final version of the test (Welsh & Dahlstrom, 1956). Well, it’s actually a bit more complicated than that, and you really should know some of the details . . . 421 Table 11–3 The Clinical Criterion Groups for MMPI Scales Scale Clinical Criterion Group 1. Hypochondriasis (Hs) Patients who showed exaggerated concerns about their physical health

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

2. Depression (D) Clinically depressed patients; unhappy and pessimistic about their future 3. Hysteria (Hy) Patients with conversion reactions 4. Psychopathic deviate (Pd) Patients who had histories of delinquency and other antisocial behavior 5. Masculinity-femininity (Mf) Minnesota draftees, airline stewardesses, and male homosexual college students from the University of Minnesota campus community 6. Paranoia (Pa) Patients who exhibited paranoid symptomatology such as ideas of reference, suspicious ness, delusions of persecution, and delusions of grandeur 7. Psychasthenia (Pt) Anxious, obsessive-compulsive, guilt-ridden, and self-doubting patients 8. Schizophrenia (Sc) Patients who were diagnosed as schizophrenic (various subtypes) 9. Hypomania (Ma) Patients, most diagnosed as manic-depressive, who exhibited manic symptomatology such as elevated mood, excessive activity, and easy distractibility 10. Social introversion (Si) College students who had scored at the extremes on a test of introversion/extraversion Note that these same 10 clinical scales formed the core not only of the original MMPI, but of its 1989 revision, the MMPI-2. The clinical scales did undergo some modification for the MMPI-2, such as editing and reordering, and nine items were eliminated. Still, the MMPI-2 retained the 10 original clinical scale names, despite the fact that some of them (such as “Psychopathic Deviate”) are relics of a bygone era. Perhaps that accounts for why convention has it that these scales be referred to by scale numbers only, not their names. To understand the meaning of normal control group in this context, think of an experiment. In experimental research, an experimenter manipulates the situation so that the experimental group is exposed to something (the independent variable) and the control group is not. In the development of the MMPI, members of the criterion groups were drawn from a population of people presumed to be members of a group with a shared diagnostic label. Analogizing an experiment to this test development situation, it is as if the experimental treatment for the criterion group members was membership in the category named. By contrast, members of the control group were normal (i.e., nondiagnosed) people who ostensibly received no such experimental treatment. JUST THINK . . . Applying what you know about the standardization of tests, what are your thoughts regarding the standardization of the original MMPI? What about the composition of the clinical criterion groups? The normal control group?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The normal control group, also referred to as the standardization sample, consisted of approximately 1,500 subjects. Included were 724 people who happened to be visiting friends or relatives at University of Minnesota hospitals, 265 high-school graduates seeking precollege guidance at the University of Minnesota Testing Bureau, 265 skilled workers participating in a local Works Progress Administration program, and 243 medical (nonpsychiatric) patients. The clinical criterion group for the MMPI was, for the most part, made up of psychiatric inpatients at the University of Minnesota Hospital. We say “for the most part” because Scale 5 (Masculinity-Femininity) and Scale 0 (Social Introversion) were not derived in this way. 422 The number of people included in each diagnostic category was relatively low by contemporary standards. For example, the criterion group for Scale 7 (Psychasthenia) contained only 20 people, all diagnosed as psychasthenic.4 Two of the “clinical” scales (Scale 0 and Scale 5) did not even use members of a clinical population in the criterion group. The members of the Scale 0 (Social Introversion) clinical criterion group were college students who had earned extreme scores on a measure of introversion- extraversion. Scale 5 (Masculinity-Femininity) was designed to measure neither masculinity nor femininity; rather, it was originally developed to differentiate heterosexual from homosexual males. Due to a dearth of items that effectively differentiated people on this variable, the test developers broadened the definition of Scale 5 and added items that discriminated between normal males (soldiers) and females (airline personnel) in the 1930s. Some of the items added to this scale were obtained from the Attitude Interest Scale (Terman & Miles, 1936). Hathaway and McKinley had also attempted to develop a scale to differentiate lesbians from female heterosexuals but were unable to do so. JUST THINK . . . Write one true–false item that you believe would successfully differentiate athlete from non-athlete testtakers. Don’t forget to provide your suggested answer key. By the 1930s, research on the Personal Data Sheet (Woodworth, 1917) as well as other face-valid, logic- derived instruments had brought to light problems inherent in self-report methods. Hathaway and McKinley (1943) evinced a keen awareness of such problems. They built into the MMPI three validity scales: the L scale (the Lie scale), the F scale (the Frequency scale—or, perhaps more accurately, the “Infrequency” scale), and the K (Correction) scale. Note that these scales were not designed to measure validity in the technical, psychometric sense. There is, after all, something inherently self-serving, if not suspect, about a test that purports to gauge its own validity! Rather, validity here was a reference to a built-in indicator of the operation of testtaker response styles (such as carelessness, deliberate efforts to deceive, or unintentional misunderstanding) that could affect the test results.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The L scale contains 15 items that, if endorsed, could reflect somewhat negatively on the testtaker. Two examples: “I do not always tell the truth” and “I gossip a little at times” (Dahlstrom et al., 1972, p. 109). The willingness of the examinee to reveal anything negative of a personal nature will be called into question if the score on the L scale does not fall within certain limits. JUST THINK . . . Try your hand at writing a good L-scale item. The 64 items on the F scale (1) are infrequently endorsed by members of nonpsychiatric populations and (2) do not fit into any known pattern of deviance. A response of true to an item such as the following would be scored on the F scale: “It would be better if almost all laws were thrown away” (Dahlstrom et al., 1972, p. 115). An elevated F score may mean that the respondent did not take the test seriously and was just responding to items randomly. Alternatively, the individual with a high F score may be an eccentric individual or someone who was attempting to fake bad. Malingerers in the armed services, people intent on committing fraud with respect to health insurance, and criminals attempting to cop a psychiatric plea are some of the groups of people who might be expected to have elevated F scores on their profiles. Like the L score and the F score, the K score is a reflection of the frankness of the testtaker’s self-report. An elevated K score is associated with defensiveness and the desire to present a favorable impression. A low K score is associated with excessive self-criticism, desire to detail deviance, or desire to fake bad. A true response to the item “I certainly feel useless at times” and a false response to “At times I am all full of energy” (Dahlstrom et al., 1972, p. 125) would be scored on the K scale. The K scale is sometimes used to correct scores on five of the clinical scales. The scores are statistically corrected for an individual’s overwillingness or unwillingness to admit deviance. 423 Another scale that bears on the validity of a test administration is the Cannot Say scale, also referred to simply as the ? (question mark) scale. This scale is a simple frequency count of the number of items to which the examinee responded cannot say or failed to mark any response. Items may be omitted or marked cannot say for many reasons, including respondent indecisiveness, defensiveness, carelessness, and lack of experience relevant to the item. Traditionally, the validity of an answer sheet with a cannot say count of 30 or higher is called into question and deemed uninterpretable (Dahlstrom et al., 1972). Even for test protocols with a cannot say count of 10, caution has been urged in test interpretation. High cannot say scores may be avoided by a proctor’s emphasis in the initial instructions to answer all items.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The MMPI contains 550 true–false items, 16 of which are repeated on some forms of the test (for a total of 566 items administered). Scores on each MMPI scale are reported in the form of T scores which, you may recall, have a mean set at 50 and a standard deviation set at 10. A score of 70 on any MMPI clinical scale is 2 standard deviations above the average score of members of the standardization sample, and a score of 30 is 2 standard deviations below their average score. In addition to the clinical scales and the validity scales, there are MMPI content scales, supplementary scales, and Harris-Lingoes subscales. As the name implies, the content scales, such as the Wiggins Content Scales (after Wiggins, 1966), are composed of groups of test items of similar content. Examples of content scales on the MMPI include the scales labeled Depression and Family Problems. In a sense, content scales “bring order” and face validity to groups of items, derived from empirical criterion keying, that ostensibly have no relation to one another. JUST THINK . . . If you were going to develop a supplementary MMPI scale, what would it be? Why would you want to develop this scale? Supplementary scales is a catch-all phrase for the hundreds of different MMPI scales that have been developed since the test’s publication. These scales have been devised by different researchers using a variety of methods and statistical procedures, most notably factor analysis. There are supplementary scales that are fairly consistent with the original objectives of the MMPI, such as scales designed to shed light on alcoholism and ego strength. And then there are dozens of other supplementary scales, ranging from “Success in Baseball” to—well, you name it!5 The publisher of the MMPI makes available for computerized scoring only a limited selection of the many hundreds of supplementary scales that have been developed and discussed in the professional literature. One of them, the Harris-Lingoes subscales (often referred to simply as the Harris scales), are groupings of items into subscales (with labels such as Brooding and Social Alienation) that were designed to be more internally consistent than the umbrella scale from which the subscale was derived. Historically administered by paper and pencil, the MMPI is today administered by many methods: online, offline on disk, or by index cards. An audio-augmented computerized version is available for semiliterate testtakers. Testtakers respond to items by answering true or false. Items left unanswered are construed as cannot say. In the version of the test administered using individual items printed on cards, testtakers are instructed to sort the cards into three piles labeled true, false, and cannot say. At least a sixth-grade reading level is required to understand all the items. There are no time limits, and the time required to administer 566 items is typically between 60 and 90 minutes.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

It is possible to score MMPI answer sheets by hand, but the process is labor intensive and rarely done. Computer scoring of protocols is accomplished by software on personal computers, by computer transmission to a scoring service via modem, online through the Q-global interface, or by physically mailing the completed form to a computer scoring service. Computer output may range from a simple numerical and graphic presentation of scores to a highly detailed narrative report complete with analysis of scores on selected supplementary scales. 424 Soon after the MMPI was published, it became evident that the test could not be used to neatly categorize testtakers into diagnostic categories. When testtakers had elevations in the pathological range of two or more scales, diagnostic dilemmas arose. Hathaway and McKinley (1943) had urged users of their test to opt for configural interpretation of scores—that is, interpretation based not on scores of single scales but on the pattern, profile, or configuration of the scores. However, their proposed method for profile interpretation was extremely complicated, as were many of the proposed adjunctive and alternative procedures. Paul Meehl (1951) proposed a 2-point code derived from the numbers of the clinical scales on which the testtaker achieved the highest (most pathological) scores. If a testtaker achieved the highest score on Scale 1 and the second-highest score on Scale 2, then that testtaker’s 2-point code type would be 12. The 2-point code type for a highest score on Scale 2 and a second-highest score on Scale 1 would be 21. Because each digit in the code is interchangeable, a code of 12 would be interpreted in exactly the same way as a code of 21. By the way, a code of 12 (or 21) is indicative of an individual in physical pain. An assumption here is that each score in the 2-point code type exceeds an elevation of T = 70. If the scale score does not exceed 70, this is indicated by the use of a prime ( ) after the scale number. Meehl’s ′ system had great appeal for many MMPI users. Before long, a wealth of research mounted on the interpretive meanings of the 40 code types that could be derived using 10 scales and two interchangeable digits.6 Another popular approach to scoring and interpretation came in the form of Welsh codes—referred to as such because they were created by Welsh (1948, 1956), not because they were written in Welsh (although to the uninitiated, they may be equally incomprehensible). Here is an example of a Welsh code: 6* 78 1-53∕4:2# 90 F L-∕K ′′′ ′ To the seasoned Welsh code user, this expression provides information about a testtaker’s scores on the MMPI clinical and validity scales.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Students interested in learning more about the MMPI need not expend a great deal of effort in tracking down sources. Chances are your university library is teeming with books and journal articles written on or about this multiphasic (many-faceted) instrument. Of course, you may also want to go well beyond this historical introduction by becoming better acquainted with this test’s more contemporary revisions, the MMPI-2, the MMPI-2 Restructured Form, and the MMPI-A. A barebones overview of those instruments follows. The MMPI-2 Much of what has already been said about the MMPI in terms of its general structure, administration, scoring, and interpretation is applicable to the MMPI-2. The most significant difference between the two tests is the more representative standardization sample (normal control group) used in the norming of the MMPI-2. Approximately 14% of the MMPI items were rewritten to correct grammatical errors and to make the language more contemporary, nonsexist, and readable. Items thought to be objectionable to some testtakers were eliminated. Added were items addressing topics such as drug abuse, suicide potential, marital adjustment, attitudes toward work, and Type A behavior patterns.7 In all, the MMPI-2 contains a total of 567 true–false items, including 394 items that are identical to the original MMPI items, 66 items that were modified or rewritten, and 107 new items. The suggested age range of testtakers for the MMPI-2 is 18 years and older, as compared to 14 years and older for the MMPI. The reading level required (sixth-grade) is the same as for the MMPI. The MMPI-2, like its predecessor, may be administered online (with or without the audio augmentation) or offline by paper and pencil. It takes about the same length of time to administer. 425 The 10 clinical scales of the MMPI are identical to those on the MMPI-2, as is the policy of referring to them primarily by number. Content component scales were added to the MMPI-2 to provide more focused indices of content. For example, Family Problems content was subdivided into Family Discord and Familial Alienation content. The three original validity scales of the MMPI were retained in the MMPI-2, and three new validity scales were added: Back-Page Infrequency (Fb), True Response Inconsistency (TRIN), and Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN). The Back-Page Infrequency scale contains items seldom endorsed by testtakers who are candid, deliberate, and diligent in their approach to the test. Of course, some testtakers’ diligence wanes as the test wears on and so, by the “back pages” of the test, a random or inconsistent pattern of responses may become evident. The Fb scale is designed to detect such a pattern. JUST THINK . . .

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

To maintain continuity with the original test, the MMPI-2 used the same names for the clinical scales. Some of these scale names, such as Psychasthenia, are no longer used. If you were in charge of the MMPI’s revision, what would your recommendation have been for dealing with this issue related to MMPI-2 scale names? The TRIN scale is designed to identify acquiescent and nonacquiescent response patterns. It contains 23 pairs of items worded in opposite forms. Consistency in responding dictates that, for example, a true response to the first item in the pair is followed by a false response to the second item in the pair. The VRIN scale is designed to identify indiscriminate response patterns. It, too, is made up of item pairs, where each item in the pair is worded in either opposite or similar form. The senior author of the MMPI-2, James Butcher (Figure 11–6),8 developed yet another validity scale after the publication of that test. The S scale is a validity scale designed to detect self-presentation in a superlative manner (Butcher & Han, 1995; Lanyon, 1993a, 1993b; Lim & Butcher, 1996). Figure 11–6 James Butcher (1933– ) and friend. That’s Jim, today better known as the senior author of the MMPI-2, to your right as an Army infantryman at Outpost Yoke in South Korea in 1953. Returning to civilian life, Jim tried various occupations, including salesman and private investigator. He later earned a Ph.D. at the University of North Carolina, where he had occasion to work with W. Grant Dahlstrom and George Welsh (as in MMPI “Welsh code”). Butcher’s first teaching job was at the University of Minnesota, where he looked forward to working with Starke Hathaway and Paul Meehl. But he was disappointed to learn that “Hathaway had moved on to the pursuit of psychotherapy research and typically disclaimed any expertise in the test. . . . Hathaway always refused to become involved in teaching people about the test. Meehl had likewise moved on to other venues” (Butcher, 2003, p. 233). ©James Butcher JUST THINK . . . Of all of the proposed validity scales for the MMPI-2, which do you think is the best indicator of whether the test scores are truly indicative of the testtaker’s personality?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Another proposed validity scale, this one designed to detect malingerers in personal injury claims, was proposed by Paul R. Lees-Haley and his colleagues (1991). Referred to as the FBS or Faking Bad Scale, this scale was originally developed as a means to detect malingerers who submitted bogus personal injury claims. In the years since its development, the FBS Scale has found support from some, most notably Ben-Porath et al. (2009). However, it also has its critics—among them, James Butcher and his colleagues. Butcher et al. (2008) argued that factors other than malingering (such as genuine physical or psychological problems) could contribute to endorsement of items that were keyed as indicative of malingering. They cautioned that the “lack of empirical verification of the 43 items selected by Lees- Haley, including examination of the items’ performance across broad categories of people, argues against its widespread dissemination” (pp. 194–195). A nagging criticism of the original MMPI was the lack of representation of the standardization sample of the U.S. population. This criticism was addressed in the standardization of the MMPI-2. The 2,600 individuals (1,462 females, 1,138 males) from seven states who made up the MMPI-2 standardization sample had been matched to 1980 U.S. Census data on the variables of age, gender, minority status, social class, and education (Butcher, 1990). Whereas the original MMPI did not contain any non-whites in the standardization sample, the MMPI-2 sample was 81% white and 19% non-white. Age of subjects in the sample ranged from 18 years to 85 years. Formal education ranged from 3 years to 20+ years, with more highly educated people and people working in the professions overrepresented in the sample. Median annual family income for females in the sample was $25,000 to $30,000. Median annual family income for males in the sample was $30,000 to $35,000. 426 As with the original MMPI, the standardization sample data provided the basis for transforming the raw scores obtained by respondents into T scores for the MMPI-2. However, a technical adjustment was deemed to be in order. The T scores used for standardizing the MMPI clinical scales and content scales were linear T scores. For the MMPI-2, linear T scores were also used for standardization of the validity scales, the supplementary scales, and Scales 5 and 0 of the clinical scales. However, a different T score was used to standardize the remaining eight clinical scales as well as all of the content scales; these scales were standardized with uniform T scores (UT scores). The UT scores were used in an effort to make the T scores corresponding to percentile scores more comparable across the MMPI-2 scales (Graham, 1990; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 1992). Efforts to address concerns about the MMPI did not end with the publication of the MMPI-2. Before long, research was under way to revise the MMPI-2. These efforts were evident in the publication of restructured clinical scales (Tellegen et al., 2003) and culminated more recently in the publication of the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The MMPI-2-RF The need to rework the clinical scales of the MMPI-2 was perceived by Tellegen et al. (2003) as arising, at least in part, from two basic problems with the structure of the scales. One basic problem was overlapping items. The method of test development initially used to create the MMPI, empirical criterion keying, practically ensured there would be some item overlap. But just how much item overlap was there? Per pair of clinical scales, it has been observed that there is an average of more than six overlapping items in the MMPI-2 (Greene, 2000; Helmes & Reddon, 1993). Item overlap between the scales can decrease the distinctiveness and discriminant validity of individual scales and can also contribute to difficulties in determining the meaning of elevated scales. 427 A second problem with the basic structure of the test could also be characterized in terms of overlap— one that is more conceptual in nature. Here, reference is made to the pervasive influence of a factor that seemed to permeate all of the clinical scales. The factor has been described in different ways with different terms such as anxiety, malaise, despair, and maladjustment. It is a factor that is thought to be common to most forms of psychopathology yet unique to none. Exploring the issue of why entirely different approaches to psychotherapy had comparable results, Jerome Frank (1974) focused on what he viewed as this common factor in psychopathology, which he termed demoralization: Only a small proportion of persons with psychopathology come to therapy; apparently something else must be added that interacts with their symptoms. This state of mind, which may be termed “demoralization,” results from persistent failure to cope with internally or externally induced stresses. . . . Its characteristic features, not all of which need to be present in any one person, are feelings of impotence, isolation, and despair. (p. 271) Dohrenwend et al. (1980) perpetuated the use of Frank’s concept of demoralization in their discussion of a nonspecific distress factor in psychopathology. Tellegen (1985) also made reference to demoralization when he wrote of a factor that seemed to inflate correlations between measures within clinical inventories. Many of the items on all of the MMPI and MMPI-2 clinical scales, despite their heterogeneous content, seemed to be saturated with the demoralization factor. Concern about the consequences of this overlapping has a relatively long history (Adams & Horn, 1965; Rosen, 1962; Welsh, 1952). In fact, the history of efforts to remedy the problem of insufficient discriminant validity and discriminative efficiency of the MMPI clinical scales is almost as long as the long history of the test itself. One goal of the restructuring was to make the clinical scales of the MMPI-2 more distinctive and meaningful. As described in detail in a monograph supplement to the MMPI-2 administration and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

scoring manual, Tellegen et al. (2003) attempted to (1) identify the “core components” of each clinical scale, (2) create revised scales to measure these core components (referred to as “seed scales”), and (3) derive a final set of Revised Clinical (RC) scales using the MMPI-2 item pool. Another objective of the restructuring was, in essence, to extract the demoralization factor from the existing MMPI-2 clinical scales and create a new Demoralization scale. This new scale was described as one that “measures a broad, emotionally colored variable that underlies much of the variance common to the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales” (Tellegen et al., 2003, p. 11). Employing the MMPI-2 normative sample as well as three additional clinical samples in their research, Tellegen et al. (2003) made the case that their restructuring procedures were psychometrically sound and had succeeded in improving both convergent and discriminant validity. According to their data, the restructured clinical (RC) scales were less intercorrelated than the original clinical scales, and their convergent and discriminant validity were greater than those original scales. Subsequent to the development of the RC scales, additional scales were developed. For example, the test authors developed scales to measure clinically significant factors that were not directly assessed by the RC scales, such as suicidal ideation. They also saw a need to develop scales tapping higher-order dimensions to provide a framework for organizing and interpreting findings. These higher-order scales were labeled Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction, Thought Dysfunction, and Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction. The finished product was published in 2008 and called the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben- Porath & Tellegen, 2008). It contains a total of 338 items and 50 scales, some of which are summarized in Table 11–4. 428 429 Table 11–4 Description of a Sampling of MMPI-2-RF Scales Clinical Scales Group There are a total of nine clinical scales. The RCd, RC1, RC2, and RC3 scales were introduced by Tellegen et al. (2003). Gone from the original MMPI (and MMPI-2) clinical scales is the Masculinity-Femininity Scale.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Scale Name Scale Description Demoralization (RCd) General malaise, unhappiness, and dissatisfaction Somatic Complaints (RC1) Diffuse complaints related to physical health Low Positive Emotions (RC2) A “core” feeling of vulnerability in depression Cynicism (RC3) Beliefs nonrelated to self that others are generally ill-intentioned and not to be trusted Antisocial Behavior (RC4) Acting in violation of societal or social rules Ideas of Persecution (RC6) Self-referential beliefs that one is in danger or threatened by others Dysfunctional Negative Emotions (RC7) Disruptive anxiety, anger, and irritability Aberrant Experiences (RC8) Psychotic or psychotic-like thoughts, perceptions, or experiences Hypomanic Activation (RC9) Over-activation, grandiosity, impulsivity, or aggression Validity Scales Group There are a total of eight validity scales, which is one more validity scale than in the previous edition of the test. The added validity scale is Infrequent Somatic Response (Fs). Scale Name Scale Description Variable Response Inconsistency-Revised (VRIN-r) Random responding True Response Inconsistency-Revised (TRIN-r) Fixed responding Infrequent Responses-Revised (F-r) Infrequent responses compared to the general population Infrequent Psychopathology Responses-Revised (Fp-r) Infrequent responses characteristic of psychiatric populations Infrequent Somatic Responses (Fs) Infrequent somatic complaints from patients with medical problems Symptom Validity (aka Fake Bad Scale-Revised; FBS-r) Somatic or mental complaints with little or no credibility Uncommon Virtues (aka Lie Scale-Revised; L-r) Willingness to reveal anything negative about oneself Adjustment Validity (aka Defensiveness Scale-Revised; K-r) Degree to which the respondent is self- critical Specific Problem (SP) Scales Group There are a total of 20 scales that measure problems. These SP scales are grouped as relating to Internalizing, Externalizing, or Interpersonal issues and are subgrouped according to the clinical scale on which they shed light. Scale Name Scale Description

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI)a Respondent reports self-related suicidal thoughts or actions Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP)a Pervasive belief that problems are unsolvable and/or goals unattainable Self-Doubt (SFD)a Lack of self-confidence, feelings of uselessness Inefficacy (NFC)a Belief that one is indecisive or incapable of accomplishment Cognitive Complaints (COG)a Concentration and memory difficulties Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP)b Difficulties at home or school, stealing Substance Abuse (SUB)b Current and past misuse of alcohol and drugs Sensitivity/Vulnerability (SNV)c Taking things too hard, being easily hurt by others Stress/Worry (STW)c Preoccupation with disappointments, difficulty with time pressure Anxiety (AXY)c Pervasive anxiety, frights, frequent nightmares Anger Proneness (ANP)c Being easily angered, impatient with others Behavior-Restricting Fears (BRF)c Fears that significantly inhibit normal behavior Multiple Specific Fears (MSF)c Various specific fears, such as a fear of blood or a fear of thunder Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP)c Difficulties at home or school, stealing Aggression (AGG)d Physically aggressive, violent behavior Activation (ACT)d Heightened excitation and energy level Interest Scales Group There are two scales that measure interests: the AES scale and the MEC scale. Scale Name Scale Description Aesthetic-Literary Interests (AES) Interest in literature, music, and/or the theater Mechanical-Physical Interests (MEC) Fixing things, building things, outdoor pursuits, sports PSY-5 Scales Group These five scales are revised versions of MMPI-2 measures. Scale Name Scale Description Aggressiveness-Revised (AGGR-r) Goal-directed aggression Psychoticism-Revised (PSYC-r) Disconnection from reality Disconstraint-Revised (DISC-r) Undercontrolled behavior Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised (NEGE-r) Anxiety, insecurity, worry, and fear

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised (INTR-r) Social disengagement and absence of joy or happiness Note: Overview based on Ben-Porath et al. (2007) and related materials; consult the MMPI-2-RF test manual (and updates) for a complete list and description of all the test’s scales. a Internalizing scale that measures facets of Demoralization (RCd). b Internalizing scale that measures facets of Antisocial Behavior (RC4). c Internalizing scale that measures facets of Dysfunctional Negative Emotions (RC7). d Internalizing scale that measures facets of Hypomanic Activation (RC9). JUST THINK . . . What is a scale that you think should have been added to the latest version of the MMPI? Since the publication of Tellegen et al.’s (2003) monograph, Tellegen, Ben-Porath, and their colleagues have published a number of other articles that provide support for various aspects of the psychometric adequacy of the RC scales and the MMPI-2-RF. Studies from independent researchers have also provided support for some of the claims made regarding the RC scales’ reduced item intercorrelations and increased convergent and discriminant validity (Simms et al., 2005; Wallace & Liljequist, 2005). Other authors have obtained support for the Somatic Complaints RC scale, the Cynicism RC scale, and the VRIN-r and TRIN-r validity scales (Handel et al., 2010; Ingram et al., 2011; Thomas & Locke, 2010). Osberg et al. (2008) compared the MMPI-2 clinical scales with the RC scales in terms of psychometric properties and diagnostic efficiency and reported mixed results. The MMPI-2-RF technical manual provides empirical correlates of test scores based on various criteria in various settings including clinical and nonclinical samples. The MMPI-2-RF can still be hand-scored and hand-profiled, although computerized score reporting (with or without a computerized narrative report) is available. 430

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The MMPI-3 Newly released in Fall 2020, the third edition of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI- 3) is offered electronically either online through Pearson’s Q-global or locally through Q-local or in a paper-and-pencil format for hand-scoring or through a mail-in scoring service. Authored by Ben-Porath and Tellegen, this latest version is shortened to a 25– to 50-minute administration requiring a 4.5 grade reading level. It is offered in three languages: English, Spanish, and Canadian French. Its normative sample was matched to the U.S. Census Bureau demographic projections for 2020 with a total of 1,620 testtakers in the sample (810 men and 810 women) all aged 18 years or older. The Spanish sample included 550 U.S. Spanish Speakers (275 men and 275 women). It includes 72 new items, 24 updated items, and 4 new scales. The MMPI-A-RF Although its developers had recommended the original MMPI for use with adolescents, test users had evinced skepticism of this recommendation through the years. Early on it was noticed that adolescents as a group tended to score somewhat higher on the clinical scales than adults, a finding that left adolescents as a group in the unenviable position of appearing to suffer from more psychopathology than adults. In part for this reason, separate MMPI norms for adolescents were developed. In the 1980s, while the MMPI was being revised to become the MMPI-2, the test developers had a choice of simply renorming the MMPI-2 for adolescents or creating a new instrument. They opted to develop a new test that was in many key respects a downward extension of the MMPI-2. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent (MMPI-A; Butcher et al., 1992) was a 478- item, true–false test designed for use in clinical, counseling, and school settings for the purpose of assessing psychopathology and identifying personal, social, and behavioral problems. The individual items of the MMPI-A largely parallel the MMPI-2, although there are 88 fewer items. Some of the MMPI- 2 items were discarded, others were rewritten, and some completely new ones were added. Recently, the MMPI-A was restructured to mirror the MMPI-2-RF. The MMPI-A-RF (Archer et al., 2016) uses the same norms as the MMPI-A, but has reconfigured the scale items to reduce item overlap and sharpen the theoretical meaning of the scales. The MMPI-A-RF contains 10 clinical scales (identical in name and number to those of the MMPI-2-RF) and seven validity scales. In addition to basic clinical and validity scales, the MMPI-A contains many supplementary scales for evaluating aspects of internalizing, externalizing, and somatic symptoms of distress. It also provides a succinct summary of psychopathology with the Personality Psychopathology Five scales: Aggressiveness, Psychoticism, Disconstraint, Negative Emotionality, and Low Positive Emotionality. The normative sample for the MMPI-A-RF consisted of 805 adolescent males and 815 adolescent females drawn from schools in California, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. The objective was to obtain a sample that was nationally representative in

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

terms of demographic variables such as ethnic background, geographic region of the United States, and urban/rural residence. Concurrent with the norming of the MMPI-A-RF, a clinical sample of 713 adolescents was tested for the purpose of obtaining validity data. However, no effort was made to ensure representativeness of the clinical sample. Subjects were all drawn from the Minneapolis area, most from drug and alcohol treatment centers. JUST THINK . . . Your comments on the norming of the MMPI-A? In general, the MMPI-A and MMPI-A-RF have earned high marks from test reviewers and may well have quickly become the most widely used measure of psychopathology in adolescents. More information about this test can be obtained from an authoritative book entitled Assessing Adolescent Psychopathology: MMPI-A/MMPI-A-RF, Fourth Edition (Archer, 2017). 431 The MMPI and its revisions and progeny in perspective The MMPI burst onto the psychology scene in the 1940s and was greeted as an innovative, well- researched, and highly appealing instrument by both clinical practitioners and academic researchers. Today, we can look back at its development and be even more impressed, as it was developed without the benefit of high-speed computers. The number of research studies that have conducted on this test number in the thousands, and few psychological tests are better known throughout the world. Through the years, various weaknesses in the test have been discovered, and remedies have been proposed as a consequence. The latest “restructuring” of the MMPI represents an effort not only to improve the test and bring it into the twenty-first century but also to maintain continuity with the voluminous research addressing its previous forms. There can be little doubt that the MMPI is very much a “work in progress” that will be continually patched, restructured, and otherwise re-innovated to maintain that continuity. JUST THINK . . . What should the next version of the MMPI look like? In what ways should it be different than the MMPI- 2-RF? Personality Assessment and Culture Every day, assessment professionals across the United States are routinely called on to evaluate personality and related variables of people from culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Yet personality assessment is anything but routine with children, adolescents, and adults from Native American, Latinx, Asian, Black/African American, and other cultures that may have been

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

underrepresented in the development, standardization, and interpretation protocols of the measures used. Especially with members of culturally and linguistically diverse populations, a routine and business- as-usual approach to psychological testing and assessment is inappropriate, if not irresponsible. What is required is a professionally trained assessor capable of conducting a meaningful assessment, with sensitivity to how culture relates to the behaviors and cognitions being measured (López, 2000). Before any tool of personality assessment—an interview, a test, a protocol for behavioral observation, a portfolio, or something else—can be employed, and before data derived from an attempt at measurement can be imbued with meaning, the assessor will ideally consider some important issues with regard to assessment of a particular assessee. Many of these issues relate to the level of acculturation, values, identity, worldview, and language of the assessee. Professional exploration of these areas is capable of yielding not only information necessary as a prerequisite for formal personality assessment but a wealth of personality-related information in its own right. Acculturation and Related Considerations Acculturation is an ongoing process by which an individual’s thoughts, behaviors, values, worldview, and identity develop in relation to the general thinking, behavior, customs, and values of a particular cultural group. The process of acculturation begins at birth, a time at which the newborn infant’s family or caretakers serve as agents of the culture.9 In the years to come, other family members, teachers, peers, books, films, theater, newspapers, television and radio programs, and other media serve as agents of acculturation. Through the process of acculturation, one develops culturally accepted ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving. A number of tests and questionnaires have been developed to yield insights regarding assessees’ level of acculturation to their native culture or the dominant culture. A sampling of these measures is presented in Table 11–5. As you survey this list, keep in mind that the amount of psychometric research conducted on these instruments varies. Some of these instruments may be little more than content valid, if that. In such cases, let the buyer beware. Should you wish to use any of these measures, you may wish to look up more information about it in a resource such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook. Perhaps the most appropriate use of many of these tests would be to derive hypotheses for future testing by means of other tools of assessment. Unless compelling evidence exists to attest to the use of a particular instrument with members of a specific population, data derived from any of these tests and questionnaires should not be used alone to make selection, treatment, placement, or other momentous decisions. 432 Table 11–5

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Some Published Measures of Acculturation Target Population Reference Sources African-American Baldwin (1984) Baldwin & Bell (1985) Klonoff & Landrine (2000) Obasi & Leong (2010) Snowden & Hines (1999) Asian Kim et al. (1999) Suinn et al. (1987) Asian-American Gim Chung et al. (2004) Wolfe et al. (2001) Asian (East & South) Barry (2001) Inman et al. (2001) Asian Indian Sodowsky & Carey (1988) Central American Wallen et al. (2002) ChineseYao (1979) Cuban Garcia & Lega (1979) Deaf culture Maxwell-McCaw & Zea (2011) Eskimo Chance (1965) Hawaiian Bautista (2004) Hishinuma et al. (2000) Iranian Shahim (2007) Japanese-American Masuda et al. (1970) Padilla et al. (1985) Khmer Lim et al. (2002) Latino/Latina Murguia et al. (2000) Zea et al. (2003) Mexican-American Cuéllar et al. (1995) Franco (1983)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Mendoza (1989) Ramirez (1984) Muslim American Bagasra (2010) Native American Garrett & Pichette (2000) Howe Chief (1940) Roy (1962) Puerto Rican Tropp et al. (1999) Cortes et al. (2003) Vietnamese Nguyen & von Eye (2002) Population nonspecific measures Sevig et al. (2000) Smither & Rodriguez-Giegling (1982) Stephenson (2000) Unger et al. (2002) Wong-Rieger & Quintana (1987) A number of important questions regarding acculturation and related variables can be raised with regard to assessees from culturally diverse populations. Many general types of interview questions may yield rich insights regarding the overlapping areas of acculturation, values, worldview, and identity. A sampling of such questions is presented in Table 11–6. As an exercise, you may wish to pose some or all of these questions to someone you know who happens to be in the process of acculturation. Before doing so, however, some caveats are in order. Keep in mind the critical importance of rapport when conducting an interview. Be sensitive to cultural differences in readiness to engage in self-disclosure about family or other matters that may be perceived as too personal to discuss (with a stranger or otherwise). Be ready and able to change the wording of these questions should you need to facilitate the assessee’s understanding of them or to change the order of these questions should an assessee answer more than one question in the same response. Listen carefully and do not hesitate to probe for more information if you perceive value in doing so. Finally, keep in mind that the relevance of each of these questions will vary with the background and unique socialization experiences of each assessee. 433 Table 11–6 Some Sample Questions to Assess Acculturation Describe yourself.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Describe your family. Who lives at home? Describe roles in your family, such as the role of mother, the role of father, the role of grandmother, the role of child, and so forth. What traditions, rituals, or customs were passed down to you by family members? What traditions, rituals, or customs do you think it is important to pass to the next generation? With regard to your family situation, what obligations do you see yourself as having? What obligations does your family have to you? What role does your family play in everyday life? How does the role of males and females differ from your own cultural perspective? What kind of music do you like? What kinds of foods do you eat most routinely? What do you consider fun things to do? When do you do these things? Describe yourself in the way that you think most other people would describe you. How would you say your own self-description would differ from that description? How might you respond to the question “Who are you?” with reference to your own sense of personal identity?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

With which cultural group or groups do you identify most? Why? What aspect of the history of the group with which you most identify is most significant to you? Why? Who are some of the people who have influenced you most? What are some things that have happened to you in the past that have influenced you most? What sources of satisfaction are associated with being you? What sources of dissatisfaction or conflict are associated with being you? What do you call yourself when asked about your ethnicity? What are your feelings regarding your racial and ethnic identity? Describe your most pleasant memory as a child. Describe your least pleasant memory as a child. Describe the ways in which you typically learn new things. In what ways might cultural factors have influenced the ways you learn? Describe the ways you typically resolve conflicts with other people. What influence might cultural factors have on this way of resolving conflicts? How would you describe your general view of the world? How would you characterize human nature in general?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

How much control do you believe you have over the things that happen to you? Why? How much control do you believe you have over your health? Your mental health? What are your thoughts regarding the role of work in daily life? Has your cultural identity influenced your views about work in any way? If so, how? How would you characterize the role of doctors in the world around you? How would you characterize the role of lawyers in the world around you? How would you characterize the role of politicians in the world around you? How would you characterize the role of spirituality in your daily life? What are your feelings about the use of illegal drugs? What is the role of play in daily life? How would you characterize the ideal relationship between human beings and nature? What defines a person who has power? What happens when one dies? Do you tend to live your life more in the past, the present, or the future? What influences on you do you think helped shape this way of living?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

How would you characterize your attitudes and feelings about the older people in your family? About older people in society in general? Describe your thinking about the local police and the criminal justice system. How do you see yourself 10 years from now? 434 Intimately entwined with acculturation is the learning of values. Values are that which an individual prizes or the ideals an individual believes in. An early systematic treatment of the subject of values came in a book entitled Types of Men (Spranger, 1928), which listed different types of people based on whether they valued things like truth, practicality, and power. The book served as an inspiration for a yet more systematic treatment of the subject (Allport et al., 1951). Before long, a number of different systems for listing and categorizing values had been published. Rokeach (1973) differentiated what he called instrumental from terminal values. Instrumental values are guiding principles to help one attain some objective. Honesty, imagination, ambition, and cheerfulness are examples of instrumental values. Terminal values are guiding principles and a mode of behavior that is an endpoint objective. A comfortable life, an exciting life, a sense of accomplishment, and self-respect are some examples of terminal values. Other value-categorization systems focus on values in specific contexts, such as employment settings. Values such as financial reward, job security, or prestige may figure prominently in decisions regarding occupational choice and employment or feelings of job satisfaction. Writing from an anthropological/cultural perspective, Kluckhohn (1954, 1960; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961) conceived of values as answers to key questions with which civilizations must grapple. So, for example, from questions about how the individual should relate to the group, values emerge about individual versus group priorities. In one culture, the answers to such questions might take the form of norms and sanctions that encourage strict conformity and little competition among group members. In another culture, norms and sanctions may encourage individuality and competition among group members. In this context, one can begin to appreciate how members of different cultural groups can grow up with vastly different values, ranging from views on various “isms” (such as individualism versus collectivism) to views on what is trivial and what is worth dying for. The different values people from various cultures bring to the assessment situation may translate into widely varying motivational and incentive systems. Understanding an individual’s values is an integral part of understanding personality.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Also intimately tied to the concept of acculturation is the concept of personal identity. Identity in this context may be defined as a set of cognitive and behavioral characteristics by which individuals define themselves as members of a particular group. Stated simply, identity refers to one’s sense of self. Levine and Padilla (1980) defined identification as a process by which an individual assumes a pattern of behavior characteristic of other people, and referred to it as one of the “central issues that ethnic minority groups must deal with” (p. 13). Echoing this sentiment, Zuniga (1988) suggested that a question such as “What do you call yourself when asked about your ethnicity?” might be used as an icebreaker when assessing identification. She went on: How a minority client handles their response offers evidence of their comfortableness with their identity. A Mexican-American client who responds by saying, “I am an American, and I am just like everyone else,” displays a defensiveness that demands gentle probing. One client sheepishly declared that she always called herself Spanish. She used this self-designation since she felt the term “Mexican” was dirty. (p. 291) Another key culture-related personality variable concerns how an assessee tends to view the world. As its name implies, worldview is the unique way people interpret and make sense of their perceptions as a consequence of their learning experiences, cultural background, and related variables. 435 Our overview of personality began with a consideration of some superficial, lay perspectives on this multifaceted subject. We made reference to the now-classic rock oldie Personality and its “definition” of personality in terms of observable variables such as walk, talk, smile, and charm. Here, at the end of the chapter, we have come a long way in considering more personal, nonobservable elements of personality in the form of constructs such as worldview, identification, values, and acculturation. In the chapter that follows, we continue to broaden our perspective regarding tools that may be used to better understand and effectively assess personality. Self-Assessment Test your understanding of elements of this chapter by seeing if you can explain each of the following terms, expressions, and abbreviations: acculturation acquiescent response style

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Big Five control group criterion criterion group empirical criterion keying error of central tendency forced-choice format frame of reference generosity error graphology halo effect identification identity idiographic approach

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

impression management instrumental values IPIP leniency error locus of control MMPI MMPI-2 MMPI-2-RF MMPI-3 MMPI-A-RF NEO PI-R nomothetic approach personality personality assessment personality profile

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

personality trait personality type profile profile analysis profiler Q-sort technique response style self-concept self-concept differentiation self-concept measure self-report semantic differential severity error state

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

structured interview terminal values Type A personality Type B personality validity scale values Welsh code worldview

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

1115-Chapter11PersonalityAssessment

Related Documents