Page 1: Personality Assessment Overview

Informant Personality Ratings

• Informant personality ratings are generally reliable and valid.

• Potential biases may affect the reliability of ratings, e.g., newly married individuals may rate their partners unrealistically positively.

Projective Tests

• Projective tests (e.g., Rorschach inkblot test) require spontaneous answers, allowing individuals to project their personality onto ambiguous stimuli.

Observing Real World Behavior

• Real-world behaviors (e.g., messiness) can provide clues to a person's personality traits.

Overview of Personality Assessment by David Watson

• The module discusses various methods for assessing personality:

  • Objective personality tests (self-report & informant ratings)

  • Projective tests and behavioral measures.

  • It highlights strengths, weaknesses, and validity of each method.

Learning Objectives

• Understand the diversity of personality measurement methods.

• Comprehend the logic, strengths, and weaknesses of each approach.

• Gain insights into the overall validity and applications of personality tests.

Introduction to Personality

• Personality involves studying normal individuals’ thoughts, feelings, behaviors, goals, and interests.

• Different theoretical models present varied strategies for measuring personality.

• Example Models:

  • Humanistic models: Focus on clear goals and self-reports.

  • Psychodynamic theories: Suggest lack of insight into feelings and motives; assess using different methods.

Objective Tests Definition

• Objective tests involve asking a standard set of items with limited response options (e.g., true/false).

• Responses are scored in a standardized way.

  • Example: Summing self-ratings on traits to create a score on extraversion.

• Objectivity refers to standardized scoring, not to the subjectivity of responses.

Basic Types of Objective Tests

1. Self-Report Measures

• Self-report measures allow individuals to describe themselves.

  • Advantages:

    • Access to personal thoughts and feelings.

    • Cost-effective and straightforward approach.

  • Items can be short descriptors or full sentences.

• Sample items may describe traits related to the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality.

2. Informant Ratings

• Another approach where individuals known to the person rate their personality.

  • Usefulness:

    • Especially useful for children where self-ratings are challenging.

    • Can combine with self-ratings for enhanced reliability.

• Informants typically have observed more behavior instances, providing a broader view of personality traits.

Limitations of Ratings

• Self-Ratings:

  • May be biased towards overly favorable self-presentation (social desirability).

  • Subject to self-enhancement bias and reference group effects.

• Informant Ratings:

  • Informants may lack full insight into the rated individual's thoughts and feelings.

  • Potential for biased ratings due to personal relationships (letter of recommendation effect).

Other Classification Methods

• Comprehensiveness:

  • Tests can focus on specific attributes (e.g., self-esteem) or comprehensive assessments (e.g., NEO-PI-3).

• Breadth of Target Characteristics:

  • Personality traits can be broad (e.g., extraversion) or specific (e.g., sociability).

Projective and Implicit Tests

Projective Tests

• Based on the projective hypothesis, individuals interpret ambiguous stimuli, revealing subconscious thoughts and motives.

• Examples: Rorschach Inkblot Test and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT).

• Reliability and validity concerns, especially with the Rorschach.

Implicit Tests

• These tests assess automatic associations people have based on prior experiences.

• Preliminary evidence suggests predictive validity similar to objective measures.

Behavioral and Performance Measures

• Assesses personality traits through direct observation of behavior in natural settings.

• Examples: Interactions in lab settings and analysis of ambient sounds.

• Advantages:

  • Provides rich data without the biases inherent in self-reports or informant ratings.

  • Challenges: Labor-intensive and limited in scope due to small sample sizes.

Conclusion

• No single personality assessment method is perfect; a combination of approaches can provide a fuller picture of personality.