Chapter 6 — Personality assessment

PERSONALITY — the CONTINUITY in a person’s behavior and emotional style over time

PERSONALITY TRAITS — stable and consistent way of seeing the world and behaving in it

May be influenced by things like

ENVIRONMENT i.e. learning and conditioning

BIOLOGY i.e. genetics and hereditary stuff

Or a combination of such factors

Personality traits are clinically VERY significant in lieu of everything i.e. people who have substance abuse problems mostly have anger issues, medical conditions and violence

i. Perspectives on the concept of personality

Clinical psychologists who work more with adults do a lot of assessing characteristics in personality

The GOAL of personality assessment is to

Clarify DIAGNOSIS

Guide INTERVENTIONS

PREDICT how people may RESPOND in other situations

The five factor model of personality (aka the big five)

The MOST well studied model of personality is the FIVE FACTOR MODEL (FFM) — says that all personalities have FIVE dimensions or traits

An individual is either HIGH or LOW on any of these dimensions and not really anything in between

Many people say that tests on personality are really comprehensive but critics say that the traits are TOO BROAD → not helpful for predicting emotions and behavior

Note — psychological scientists DO NOT study minors, if ever, rarely

Yes, childhood is a great determinant of personality → however, current work sees this as less relevant to child development

Furthermore, these traits are NOT STABLE in childhood yet

Below are the five factors of personality traits:

NEUROTICISM

Anxiety, hostility, depression and impulsivity

EXTRAVERSION

Warmth, assertiveness, excitement seeking, happiness and positivity

OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE

Fantasy, feelings, action taking and values

AGREEABLENESS

Niceness, trust, compliance, altruism

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Competence, order, duty, self discipline and achievement setting

The situational perspective

Not ALL clinical psychologists agree with the concept of personality

BEHAVIORISTS believe in a more SITUATIONAL PERSPECTIVE — your behavior is a result of the SITUATION you are in

Situational factors are things like environment, learning and conditioning

IOW personality traits don’t exist

i.e. assertiveness isn’t because you are just a confident person who is going to do whatever it takes (but in a respectful way) — rather, it is because of positive reinforcement from speaking up

EMOTIONS and BEHAVIORS are seen as resulting from BELIEFS about situations

i.e. fear is not from neuroticism and being a pessimist, but because of a fear that a dog will try to attack you because it happened before

CULTURE — shared beliefs and norms — also shapes behavior, as is who you grow up with and the kind of society you grow up into

The middle ground

The concept of personality is kind of a touchy subject in clinical psychology

While some people are at either end of the extremes, MOST people take a more middle ground

Most acknowledge that behavior and emotion is a result of BOTH personality traits and situational traits

ii. Personality traits

Useful personality tests have to be administered and scored the SAME WAY every single time aka STANDARDIZATION

Because personality is supposed to be a STABLE thing → the same person should get the same result if they take the test many, may times aka RELIABILITY

Tests should also tell us something more about the individual than what can be found in interviews and observations aka INCREMENTAL VALIDITY

Should be predictive of a person’s FUTURE behavior

i.e. if we find out from a test that a 70 year old widower seems to have loneliness, well yeah, no shit, that’s not incremental validity and it certainly isn’t giving us anything new

If the test tells us something NEW = good incremental validity

Something about her condition

Something about her lifestyle and her environment

Something about how she will respond to treatment and testing

One important CHALLENGE to personality tests is that unfortunately, PERSONALITY CAN’T BE MEASURED

Phenomena that describes how personality is like i.e. traits, drives and ego defense mechanisms, are HYPOTHETICAL CONSTRUCTS. They don’t really… physically exist

It is also HARD to establish CLEAR CRITERIA for validating those things

Types of personality tests

There are TWO broad approaches to testing personality:

PROJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE

These types of tests are based on different assumptions of what personality is and use DIVERGING METHODS to assess it

ORIGINS of personality testing is traced back to the creation of the RORSCHACH INKBLOT TEST

Was a method of diagnosis in the early 1920s

Rorschach believed that someone’s psychological characteristics could be seen from how they responded to an AMBIGUOUS SITUATION

Personality assessment and test interpretation is now a MAJOR part of training in psychology and one of the main activities in clinical and forensic studies

iii. Projective tests

PROJECTIVE PERSONALITY TEST — test with AMBIGUOUS (vague, abstract, incomplete) stimuli → assess how people RESPOND to such stimuli

IOW people “project” what they think onto the test

Based on PROJECTIVE HYPOTHESIS — test takers unconsciously reveal aspects of their personality while trying to understand those tests

A properly trained psychologist will be able to WORK BACKWARDS from the test and see their needs, wishes and personality conflicts

Idea is from Freud’s concept of PROJECTION — the ego defense mechanism where you use other nonrelated things as “emotional punching bags” that you divert your feelings onto

Projective tests can BYPASS consciousness

Provide GOOD INCREMENTAL VALIDITY over other forms of assessment

Have the following characteristics:

AMBIGUOUS STIMULI

INDIRECTNESS

Remember that examinees CAN’T CENSOR the data they provide on tests → they have to be kept UNAWARE of what the test will measure (bad validity?)

NO DIRECT QUESTIONS on thoughts, feelings and other problems

Not knowing much = more honest and LESS BIASED response

RESPONSE FREEDOM

Use of OPEN ENDED = infinite range of responses

Better than questionnaires that restrict responses to some number

QUALITATIVE response interpretation

Objective personality tests are more focused, quantitative and spit out a single score that is interpreted like an exam would be

Projective tests are interpreted QUALITATIVELY along MANY dimensions i.e. needs, adjustment, diagnostic category

NO STANDARDIZATION

Can’t be standardized bc everyone is UNIQUE → interpretation is an “art form”

As can be seen, determining the reliability and validity of such projective tests is HARD

Reliability is often confounded by the reliability of WHO is giving the test in the first place and looking at it

Used for lots of purposes → there is NO POINT in asking questions like if the tests are any good

Questions should be more SPECIFIC and to the point

The Rorschach inkblot test

Came up with the rise of PSYCHOANALYTIC paradigm in the 1930s

Many people criticized it for its reliability and validity solely because there are TOO MANY versions of this approach

Approaches differ in how they

Administer

Score

Interpret test results

Instructions provided to examinees

The aforementioned have created a lot of problems in INTERPRETATION and CROSS GENERALIZATION from study to study

Administration:

There are lots of ways we can administer the Rorschach test, however, many clinicians just ask the client to tell them what they see

All cards are given in the SAME WAY and in the the SAME ORDER

Clinician must write down VERBATIM what the client says

Responses may VARY by amount

After this, move towards INQUIRY PHASE

Respondent is reviewing the previous responses and is asked what PROMPTED each response to come up

Scoring:

There are THREE major determinants in Rorschach testing:

LOCATION — what SPOT on the card did the person choose to respond to?

Whole thing

Large detail

White space

CONTENT — what did the person SEE in the card?

Rocks

Frogs

People

DETERMINANT — what things PROMPTED the person’s answer?

Form of the blot

Color

Texture

Shading

White space

Things like the Exner Comprehensive System for scoring the test is the MOST FREQUENTLY used scoring system

More focus is on the DETERMINANTS (what causes the response) than the content of the responses

Interpretation:

Rorschach interpretation is hard i.e. overuse of form may suggest conformity, while poor form + unusual responses = psychosis

COLOR is supposedly related to EMOTIONALITY i.e. blue means sad → if accompanied by GOOD form = they are very IN TUNE with their emotions i.e. maybe impulsivity

Too much WHITE SPACE = oppositional or psychotic nature

Too much use of DETAIL = OBSESSIVE tendencies

Content based:

Small animals = cute and passive

Blood, claws and teeth = hostility and violence

Taking card and turning it over = SUSPICION of what there is

Another issue with interpretation for projective tests is the clinician’s tendency to rely on intuitive and SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID associations between response and personality

i.e. someone seeing eyes in the inkblots = someone who thinks another is always watching them = paranoid

None of these “assumptions” can actually be proven and it is hard to avoid making these ILLUSORY CORRELATIONS between pictures and personality

Reliability and validity:

Rorschach tests are not that high on inter rater reliability

Two clinicians may train together and get different reliabilities in their Rorschach responses

Tendency for clinicians to use FREE WHEELING interpretative approaches → makes reliability hard to standardize

Rorschach tests LOW on incremental validity

Findings from research say that although it FAILS in incremental validity in scoring → less emphasis should be placed on actually using the Rorschach tests

Advocates of the Rorschach test say that it is useful for UNCONSCIOUS findings and PROBLEM SOLVING STYLES

However, it is not really useful in terms of reliability and (incremental) validity)

The thematic apperception test

THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST (TAT) — reveals a person’s personality through how they interpret their IMAGINATION to a series of pictures

Designed to reveal things like:

CONFLICT

ATTITUDES

GOALS

REPRESSED content (like the unconscious)

In actuality, it produces material that is a blend of the aforementioned plus:

SITUATIONAL influences

CULTURAL stereotypes

The GOAL of such a test is to DISTINGUISH valuable information from useless things

Most people using the TAT use it as a way of

INFERRING NEEDS i.e. see what the client wants, like achievement, power and sex

Seeing how the client INTERACTS with their ENVIRONMENT

In contrast to Rorschach, the TAT is used to infer the CONTENT of personality and the MODE of social interactions

More SPECIFIC → more likely to be able to derive specific judgments from it i.e. this person is hostile towards some people yet seeks their approval vs. they are a violent person

Not really used in things like MALADJUSTMENT than to reveal the root of problems and to help in RELATIONSHIPS (which is one of the most central functions)

Description:

Consists of 31 cards which depict people in a whole lot of situations, objects and more

Is NOT (as) AMBIGUOUS like the Rorschach test

Not always clear what the GENDER of the people in the picture is, who they are or what they are doing and thinking

Several administrations done for youth, depicting animals in anthropomorphic activities and stories

Administration:

Select between 6 -12 cards for administration to give to a client

Make up a story about what is happening in the cards and your interpretation of the cards

Scoring and interpretation:

Most clinicians undersatnd that quantified scoring can cause useful evidence to be lost or distorted and so should only be used for research purposes

It is HARD to test for the test’s VALIDITY → this is because there are a lot of INTERPRETATIONS that can be made from the cards themselves

PARANOIA indicated by phrasing used in the stories

ANXIETY indicated by accidents and traumas seen in the cards

DEPENDENCY indicated by references to family members

Problems with SEX indicated by avoiding mentioning gender cues in some of the pictures

However, not really much research in lieu of TAT’s usefulness

Reliability and validity:

It is HARD to assess both the reliability and the validity of the TAT because there is so much VARIATION in how to give and interpret the test

Furthermore, most clinicians don’t even compute the scores themselves

Reliant on QUALITATIVE impressions of the stories provided by the respondents

iv. Objective tests

OBJECTIVE PERSONALITY TEST — standard set of questions with a FIXED set of options

MEASURABLE

T/F

YES/NO

DIMENSIONAL i.e. 0 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree

Objective tests came out of a DISSATISFACTION with subjectivity of projective tests and LACK of reliability and validity

With objective tests, NO INTERPRETATION is needed because the numbers tell everything

The client’s response = VALUABLE as opposed to being the “royal road to the unconscious” as it was for Freud

Since the 1940s, the objective tests have been used in light of the development of clinical psych because of its advantages

Some advantages include:

ECONOMICAL and efficient — large groups can be tested SIMULTANEOUSLY

SCORING IS SIMPLE → interpretation easier and less skill needed for clinician

However, while this simplicity is good, it does NOT mean that it is very valid

Can lead to lots of MISUSE by people who don’t know how to use it

OBJECTIVITY and RELIABILITY — solves the problem caused by projective tests

The items on many tests may or may not CHARACTERIZE who is responding to it

Objective tests are not for identifying motives or personality dynamics that lie in the unconscious

i.e. although two individuals have the same behavior (insomnia), they may do so for entirely different reasons.

Some objective tests have a MIXTURE of

BEHAVIOR (actions)

COGNITION (thoughts)

EMOTION (feelings)

Inventories only spit out a SINGLE score → may reflect a combination of the aforementioned behaviors, cognitions and emotions

This makes it so that two individuals with the same score (let’s say 5) may actually be different in nature

There are difficulties that involve the transparency in inventory questions → FAKING on part of the test taker

FORCED CHOICE ITEMS i.e. true/false

These PREVENT individuals from ELABORATING responses → some significant data is always LOST

Things like experience, culture and context also influence how the tests are understood by the person

i.e. the context for test questions that ask about advanced things like morality and achievement, is more likely to be understood by the WEIRD society people (white rich and educated)

LIMITED UNDERSTANDING = misinterpretation = not good data

Constructing objective tests

Content validation:

The MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD way for us to decide what we wish to assess is to just ASK the person for information

CONTENT VALIDATION involves three things:

SPECIFY what you want to measure

WRITE test items and ask EXPERTS to assess their relevance to the variable of interest

Use PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSES (measures, like Likert tests and statements) to evaluate each items’ performance before inclusion (basically do a test run)

There are many limitations of content validity:

Not every test taker will INTERPRET the item the same way

Some individuals can MISREPORT their behavior

Respondents can answer in SOCIALLY DESIRABLE ways to get what they want, not personally in line with the clinician

Experts may not be able to CORRECTLY DEFINE the concept they are trying to measure

Empirical criterion keying:

The most common example of this is the MMPI inventory test

This way, you don’t have to consider whether the person is telling the truth or not → certain groups of people (with a particular diagnosis) WILL respond to the questions in the same way

We do NOT need to select test items in a RATIONAL fashion

All that is required is that members of a specific group respond to questions the same way

Test response = “sign” of this behavior or characteristic

UTILITY of an item is determined by how much it DIFFERENTIATES (or discriminates) among groups

There are several limitations with this:

Sometimes it is HARD TO INTERPRET the meaning of a score

Sometimes the lack of ability to read doesn’t mean they have a personality resembling schizophrenia, but that they just come from a poor educational background

Factor analysis:

The MAJORITY of test developers use the factor analytic approach to test construction

FACTOR ANALYSIS — statistical procedure for determining which items are SIMILAR → so that we can REDUCE the number of items measuring basic things i.e.

Personality

Adjustment

Diagnostic affiliation

The best thing about factor analyses is that we put a lot of emphasis on EMPIRICAL WORK to measure variables in a dimension of personality → if empirical that means we can trust that it will be 99% reliable

Limitation is that it DOESN’T demonstrate whether these items are ACTUALLY MEASURING the variable of interest

All we know is that the items we’ve grouped together are measuring the same thing → poor validity?

Construct validity approach:

Combines many aspects of the above:

CONTENT VALIDITY

EMPIRICAL CRITERION KEYING

FACTOR ANALYSIS

Scales and measurements are developed so that they measure only VERY SPECIFIC concepts from a theory of personality

It is valid whenever the given scale MEASURES WHAT IT NEEDS TO MEASURE

i.e. a construct valid measure of extraversion means it tests extraversion and only that

Test developers also conduct ITEM ANALYSIS — responses to individual test items are examined to assess whether they are UNCLEAR or MISLEADING

Factor analyses and other procedures used to ensure scale is HOMOGENOUS — all items test the SAME thing

Construct validity is the MOST DESIRABLE but most LABOR INTENSIVE method in personality testing