Personality test is a method of assessing the construction of the human personality. Most of the personality assessment instruments (although loosely referred to as "personality tests") are actually introspective data (ie, subjective) self-report questionnaires (Q-data) sizes or reports of life records (L-data) such as rating scales. Attempts to build actual personality performance tests are very limited even though Raymond Cattell with his colleague Frank Warburton compiled a list of over 2000 separate objective tests that can be used in building objective personality tests. One exception however, is the Objective-Test Analytical Test, a performance test designed to quantitatively measure 10 dimensions of personality characteristic that are analytically undefined. The main problem with L-data and Q-data methods is that item transparency, assessment scales and self-report questionnaires are particularly vulnerable to motivational distortions and responses that range from lack of adequate self-insight (or other people's biased perceptions) to thoroughly dissimulation (pretending good/fake bad) depends on the reason/motivation for the current assessment.
The first personality assessment measures were developed in 1920 and are intended to facilitate the selection process of personnel, especially in the armed forces. Since this initial effort, various personality scales and questionnaires have been developed, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), Comrey Personality Scales (CPS), among many others. Although popular especially among personal consultants, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has many psychometric deficiencies. Recently, a number of instruments based on the Five Factor Personality models have been built like the NEO Inventory of Personality Changed. However, the Big Five and the Five Related Factor Models have been challenged to account for less than two-thirds of known variants of traits within normal personalities.
Estimates of how many personality assessment industries in the US are worth between $ 2 and $ 4 billion per year (per 2013). Personality assessment is used in a variety of contexts, including individual counseling and relationships, clinical psychology, forensic psychology, school psychology, career counseling, job testing, occupational health and safety and customer relationship management.
Video Personality test
Histori
The origins of personality assessment date back to the 18th and 19th centuries, when personality was assessed through phrenology, measurements of mounds on human skulls, and physiognomy, which assessed personality based on outward appearance of a person. Sir Francis Galton took another approach to judging personality in the late nineteenth century. Based on the lexical hypothesis, Galton estimates the number of adjectives depicting personality in an English dictionary. The Galton List is finally perfected by Louis Leon Thurstone into 60 words that are usually used to describe the personality of the moment. Through a response factor analysis of 1,300 participants, Thurstone was able to reduce this collection of 60 very limited adjectives into seven common factors. This procedure analyzes common adjective factors which are then exploited by Raymond Cattell (7 most quoted psychologists in the 20th century - based on peer-reviewed journal literature), who then used a set of data over 4000 to influence the terms of an English dictionary that ultimately resulting in the construction of Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) which also measures up to eight personality strata second factors. Of the many self-reported introspective (ie subjective) self-report instruments built to measure Big Five's alleged personality dimensions, perhaps the most popular are the NEO (NEO-PI-R) Person Inventory Revision. However, it should be noted that the psychometric properties of NEO-PI -R (including the validity of the analytical/constructive factors) has been heavily criticized.
Another early personality instrument was the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet, an inventory of self-reports developed for World War I and was used for psychiatric checks on new conscription.
Maps Personality test
Overview
There are different types of measures of personality assessment. Inventory self-reports involves the administration of many items that require respondents to introspectively assess their own personality characteristics. This is very subjective, and because of the transparency of the goods, measurement of Q-data is very susceptible to motivational and response distortions. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item using a Likert scale or, more accurately, a Likert type scale. Examples of items in the personality questionnaire, for example, may ask the respondent to rate the extent to which they agree with the statement "I speak with many different people at the party" on a scale of 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree").
Historically, the most widely used multidimensional personality instrument is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a psychopathology instrument originally designed to assess ancient psychiatric niasology.
In addition to the inventory of subjective/introspective self reports, there are other methods for assessing human personality, including observation, other people's judgments, projective tests (eg, TAT and Ink Blots), and actual objective performance tests (T-data).
Topic
Norma
The meaning of the score personality test is difficult to interpret directly. For this reason substantial efforts are made by manufacturers of personality tests to generate norms to provide a comparative basis for interpreting the test scores of the respondents. Common formats for these norms include percentile ratings, z scores, sten scores, and other forms of standard scores.
Development test
A large amount of research and thought has been the subject of developing personality tests. The development of personality tests tends to be an iterative process in which tests are increasingly perfected. Test development may be continued for theoretical or statistical reasons. There are three general strategies that are commonly used: Inductive, Deductive, and Empirical. The current scales will often combine elements of all three methods.
Construction of deductive assessment begins by choosing a domain or building to measure. Its construction is determined thoroughly by experts and items are created that fully represent all the attributes of the construct definition. Test items are then selected or omitted based on which will result in the strongest internal validity for the scale. The steps made through the deductive methodology are equally valid and take less time to build than the inductive and empirical steps. Clear questions and facing valid questions resulting from this process make them easy for people who take judgment to understand. Although fine items can be created through deductive processes, these measures are often unable to detect lies as other methods of personality assessment constructs.
Construction of inductive assessment begins with the creation of many diverse items. Items made for inductive size are not intended to represent a particular theory or construction. Once an item is created, they are given to a large group of participants. This allows researchers to analyze the natural relationship between questions and label the scale component based on how the group questions together. Some statistical techniques can be used to determine the constructs assessed by measurements. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmation Factor Analysis are two of the most common data reduction techniques that allow researchers to scale the responses on initial items.
The Five Personality Factor model was developed using this method. Advanced statistical methods include opportunities to discover previously unidentified or unexpected relationships between items or constructions. It also allows for the development of fine items that prevent test takers from knowing what is being measured and can represent the actual structure of a construct that is better than the pre-developed theory. Criticisms include the vulnerability to finding relationships of goods that are not applicable to a wider population, the difficulty of identifying what can be measured in each component because of a confusing product relationship, or a construction not entirely handled by a question originally made.
An empirically derived personality assessment requires statistical techniques. One of the main goals of empirical personality assessment is to create tests that legitimately discriminate against two different personality dimensions. Empirical tests can take a lot of time to build them. To ensure that the test measures what is meant to be measured, the psychologist first collects the data through self-report or observer, ideally from a large number of participants.
Self-vs observer-reports
Personality tests can be assigned directly to the person being evaluated or to the observer. In self-reports, individuals respond to personality items when they relate to the person himself. Self-reports are usually used. In the observer's report, a person responds to personality items as items related to others. To produce the most accurate results, the observer needs to know the individual being evaluated. Combining the scores of self-reports and observer reports can reduce errors, providing a more accurate picture of the person being evaluated. Self-reports and observers tend to produce the same results, supporting their validity.
Direct observation report
Direct observation involves a second party who directly observes and evaluates others. The second side observes how the target observation behaves in a particular situation (for example, how a child behaves in the school yard during breaks). Observations can be done in nature (eg, school yard) or artificial settings (social psychology laboratories). Direct observation can help identify successful job applicants (eg work samples) or motherly attachments in young children (eg, the odd situation of Mary Ainsworth). The object of this method is to directly observe the original behavior within the target. The limitation of direct observation is that target people can change their behavior because they know they are being observed. The second limitation is that some behavioral traits are more difficult to observe (eg, sincerity) than others (eg, socialization). A third limitation is that direct observation is more expensive and time consuming than a number of other methods (eg, self-report).
Personality tests at work
Personality tests can predict something about how job applicants will act in some workplace situations. Conscientiousness is one of five great personalities. A person of high conscience will usually tend to commit a crime (eg, stealing property) against an employer. Higher people in the nature of suave tend to tend not to fight or argue with other employees. It is possible that applicants may falsify responses to a personality test item to make the applicant appear more attractive to the employing organization than the actual individual.
Test evaluation
There are several criteria for evaluating personality tests . In order for the test to succeed, the user must ensure that (a) the test results can be replicated and (b) the test measures what the manufacturer claims to be measured. Basically, personality tests are expected to show reliability and validity. Reliability refers to the extent to which the test score, if the test is given to the sample twice in a short time, will be similar in both administrations. The validity test refers to evidence that a test measures a construct (eg, neuroticism) that should be measured.
Analysis
Responder is used to calculate the analysis. Data analysis is a long process. Two main theories are used here; The classical test theory (CTT) - used for observed scores, and item response theory (IRT) - "a model family for people's responses to items". Both theories focus on different 'levels' of responses and researchers are asked to use both in order to fully appreciate their results.
Non-response
First, non-response items need to be addressed. Non-responses can be 'units' - where someone does not respond to any of the items, or' items'- i.e., individual questions. Non-response units are generally handled with exceptions. Non-response items must be handled by imputation-the method used may vary between the test items and the questionnaire. Literature on the most appropriate method to use and when can be found here.
Scoring
The conventional method of making a score is to set '0' for the wrong answer '1' for the correct answer. When the test has more response options (eg some items option) '0' when it's wrong, '1' because part of it is true and '2' is true. Personality tests can also be assessed using a dimensional (normative) or typological (ipsative) approach. Dimensional approaches like Big 5 describe personality as a set of continuous dimensions in which individuals are different. From the item score, the 'observed' score is calculated. This is generally found by summing the score of items without weight.
Criticism and controversy
Interpretation of bias test taker
One problem of personality tests is that test users can only find it accurate because of the subjective validations involved. Users of personality tests should assume that the subjective responses provided by the participants on the test, representing the true personality of the participants. Also, one must assume that personality is a reliable and constant part of human thought or behavior.
In the 60s and 70s, some psychologists rejected the whole idea of ​​personality, given the many behaviors being context-specific. This idea is supported by the fact that personality often does not predict behavior in a particular context. However, broader research has shown that when behaviors are gathered throughout the context, that personality can be a good predictor of good behavior. Virtually all psychologists now recognize that both social and individual differences factors (ie, personality) affect behavior. The current debate is more on the relative importance of each of these factors and how these factors interact.
Respondent pretending
One problem with the self-report size of personalities is that respondents can often change their responses. Emotional tests in particular can theoretically fall prey to unreliable results because people are trying to choose the answer they think is most appropriate of an ideal character and therefore not their real response. This is particularly problematic in the context of work and other contexts in which important decisions are being made and there are incentives to present themselves in a favorable way.
Working in an experimental setting also shows that when student samples have been asked to deliberately pretend on personality tests, they clearly show that they are capable of doing so. Hogan, Barett and Hogan (2007) analyzed data from 5,266 applicants who conducted personality tests based on the top five. In the first application, applicants are denied. After six months, the applicants reapply and complete the same personality test. Answers on personality tests were compared and there was no significant difference between the answers.
So in practice, most people are not significantly distorted. Nevertheless, a researcher should be prepared for such a possibility. Also, sometimes participants think that test results are more valid than they really are because they love the results they get. People want to believe that positive traits that, according to the results of the tests they have, are in fact present in their personalities. This leads to distorted results from people's sentiments on the validity of such tests.
Several strategies have been adopted to reduce the branching of respondents. One strategy involves warning the test that there are methods for detecting faking and that detection will produce negative consequences for the respondent (eg, not considered for the job). The ipsative testing format has been adopted which requires respondents to choose between alternatives of the same social will. Social disirability and the scale of lies are often incorporated that detect certain patterns of response, although these are often confused by the actual variability in social desires.
More recently, the Item Response Theory approach has been adopted with some success in identifying the response profile of items that mark the fakers. Other researchers looked at the response time on an electronically administered test to assess pretense. Although people can pretend in practice, they rarely do so at a significant level. To successfully faked means knowing what an ideal answer is. Even with something as simple as the assertiveness of the person who is not firm and trying to appear firmly often support the wrong item. This is because people who do not firmly confuse statements with aggression, anger, oppositional behavior, etc.
Psychological research
Research on the importance of personality and intelligence in education shows evidence that when others provide personality assessments, rather than self-assessment, the results are almost four times more accurate for predicting value. Therefore in terms of learning, personality is more useful than intelligence to guide students and teachers.
Additional apps
A study by the American Management Association revealed that 39 percent of companies surveyed used personality tests as part of their recruitment process. However, ipsative personality tests are often misused in recruitment and selection, where they are mistakenly treated as if they were normative actions.
More people use personality tests to evaluate their business partners, their date partners and their spouses. Salespeople use personality testing to better understand their customers' needs and to gain competitive advantage in closing transactions. Students have begun using personality tests to evaluate their roommates. Lawyers began using personality tests for analysis of criminal behavior, court profiles, examination of witnesses and jury selection.
Dangers
Personality tests have been around for a long time, but it is not until it becomes illegal for employers to use a polygraph that we begin to see the widespread use of personality tests. The idea behind this personality test is that employers can reduce their turnover rate and prevent economic losses in the form of people vulnerable to theft, drug abuse, emotional disturbance or violence in the workplace.
Employers can also see personality tests as a more accurate assessment of candidate behavioral characteristics versus job references. But the problem with using personality tests as a recruitment tool is that the idea of ​​a person's work performance in one environment will be brought to another. However, the reality is that one's environment plays an important role in determining job performance, and not all environments are created equal. One of the dangers of using personality tests is that the results may be skewed based on someone's mood so that a good candidate is potentially filtered because of an unfavorable response that reflects that mood.
Different types of Big Five personality traits:
- NEO PI-R, or the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, is one of the most significant measures of the Five Factor Model (FFM). The size was made by Costa and McCrae and contained 240 items in sentence form. Costa and McCrae have divided each of the five domains into six facets each, a total of 30 facets, and change the way FFM is measured.
- The Five-Factor Model Number Form (FFMRF) was developed by Lynam and Widiger in 2001 as a shorter alternative to NEO PI-R. It consists of 30 aspects, 6 aspects for each of the Big Five factors.
- Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) and Five Item Personality Inventory (FIPI) is a highly abbreviated form of assessment of the Big Five personality traits. The Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI-C) was developed to measure the personality traits in children based on the Five Factor Model (FFM). The Big Five Inventory (BFI), developed by John, Donahue, and Kentle, is a 44-item self-report questionnaire consisting of adjectives assessing the domain of the Five Factor Model (FFM). The 10-Item Big Five Inventory is a simplified version of an established BFI. It was developed to provide inventory of personality under time constraints. BFI-10 assesses 5 BFI dimensions using just two items each to reduce the length of BFI.
- Semi-structured Interview for the Five-Factor Model Rating (SIFFM) is the only semi-structured interview intended to measure personality models or personality disorders. Interviews assessed five domains and 30 aspects as presented by NEO PI-R, and it assessed the addition of both normal and abnormal extremities of every aspect.
See also
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments