Validity, Reliability and Generalizability of Personality Tests

These flashcards cover key concepts related to validity, reliability, and generalizability of personality tests as discussed in the lecture.

Life-Outcome Data (L-Data)

Information gathered from events, activities, and outcomes in a person's life, providing 'real life' information about personality.

-public record

Observer-Report Data (O-Data)

Data collected from various observers such as friends, family, and teachers to gather insights about a person’s personality.

-multiple observers

Test-Data (T-Data)

Data collected from participants in standardized testing situations to observe if different people react differently to identical situations.

-Henry Murray’s bridge-building test

-9 dots challenge

-particpants can guess the trait being measured and alter their beheavior to create certain impressions

-researchers might influence how particpants beheave

Self-Report Data (S-Data)

Information provided by a person about themselves, often through surveys or interviews.

Validity

The degree to which a test measures what it claims to measure.

Reliability

The degree to which a measure represents the 'true' level of the trait being measured.

Generalizability

The degree to which a measure retains validity across different contexts, including different groups of people.

Construct Validity

The extent to which a test accurately measures the theoretical construct it aims to measure.

Convergent Validity

The degree to which a test correlates with other measures of the same construct.

Discriminant Validity

Whether a measure is not overly correlated with measures of different, unrelated constructs.

Predictive Validity

How well a test predicts outcomes or behaviors it is intended to forecast.

Test-Retest Reliability

Consistency of test scores over time when administered to the same individuals in similar conditions.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Consistency of results across items within a single test.

Inter-Rater Reliability

Degree of agreement between two or more raters or observers assessing the same phenomenon.

selecting observers

professional personality assessors

-people who know the target person

naturalistic observation

observers witness and record events that occur in the normal course of lives of the particpants in the normal course of lives of particapants

-realistic context and natural beheavior

-researcher unable to control events witnessed

artifical observation

occurs in artifical settings or situations

-researchers controls conditions and elicits relevant beheavior

-lacks realism

mechanical recording devices

-actometer which used to assess children’s activty

-activity level is stable over time

-not biasees of human observer

-may be used in naturalistic settings

-modern mechanical assessement

physiological data-heart rate, sweat, hormone levels

-functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)

-diffcult to fake responses

-awareness of being tested

projective techniques

-presented with ambigous stimuli asked to describe what they see

-assumption is that person projects personality onto ambigous stimuli

s-data personality tests

unstructed items-open ended

structured items-responses options provided

-easy to collect

-people may not respond honestly

-people lack accurate self-knowledge

evaluation of personality measures

-no evidence of validity or reliabliity

-evidence of reliablity but not validity

-evidence of validity but not reliablity

-evidence of reliablity and validity

5 types of validity

1. face validity

2. construct validity

3. convergent validity

4. discriminant validity

5. predictive or criteion validity

face validity

extent to which test appears to measure what it claims to measure at face value

-based on superfical judgement, intution and common sense

-example math test

constuct validity

-extent to which test accurately measures the theoratical construct it aims to measure

-IQ tests measuring intelligence

convergent validity

-degree to which test correlates with other measures of the same construct

-example is new anxiety scale correlating strongly with an established anxiety questionaire

discriminant validity

-whether is a measure is not overly correlated with measures of different, unrelated constructs

-example is depresion scale showing weak correlation with happiness scale

predictive/criteion validity

-how well a test predicts outcomes or beheavior it is intended to forecast

-example the famous marshmallow test

3 types of reliablity

1. test-retest reliablity

2. interal consistency reliablity

3. inter-rater reliablity

test retest reliablity

-consistency of test scores over time when adminstred to the same individuals in simillar conditions

-example is personality test given twice to the same particpants two weeks apart yields simillar results

interal consistency reliablity

consistency of results across items within single test

example is all items on depression scale measuring the same underlying construct of depression

inter-rater reliablity

degree of agreemenet between two or more raters or observers assesseing the same phenommeon

example s two clinicians independelty diagnosing the same pateint arrive at the same conclusion