China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator within the allied health professions
Published in Robert Jones, Fiona Jenkins, Penny Humphris, Jim Easton, Key Tools and Techniques in management and leadership of the Allied Health Professions, 2021
Doing this exercise illustrates a key way in which MBTI theory is different from most psychological theories. Most personality tests are based on a central core of normal behaviour—confidence, sociability, openness, optimism, and so on. These characteristics of personality, known as traits, are distributed along a normal distribution curve: put differently, most people are in the middle. (That’s why they’re normal.) People with too little or too much of the trait, those who deviate from the norm, are different—or deviant. At the extremes, you don’t want to employ someone like that, and that’s why personality tests can be very useful in selection.
Psychological Rehabilitation of COVID-19
Published in Wenguang Xia, Xiaolin Huang, Rehabilitation from COVID-19, 2021
A personality test, also called an individual test, measures the peculiarity and tendency of an individual’s behavior. The most commonly used methods are questionnaires and projection techniques. Standard personality questionnaires include the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), the Minnesota Multiple Personality Test (MMPI), and the Cattle 16 Factor Personality Test (16PF). The central projection techniques include the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Adversity Dialogue Test, the Sentence Completion Test, and the House-Tree-Person test.
Psychodiagnostics
Published in Albert A. Kurland, S. Joseph Mulé, Psychiatric Aspects of Opiate Dependence, 2019
Albert A. Kurland, S. Joseph Mulé
Initially, the psychometric personality tests employed were of the self-report type, i.e., a list of items purporting to reflect some area of psychological functioning, which an individual either affirms or denies as being true to him. These tests, at first, were crude and transparent, yielding only a single score indicating the sheer presence or absence of the purported measured variable. Subsequently, there were introduced groupings of items designed to measure the same variable. With this development, several scores would be obtained, which were thought to measure several different variables. These scores generally resulted in dichotomous distinctions, i.e., feelings vs. actual behavior and traits vs. states. Differentially, the criterion-oriented test differs from trait tests in that the criterion-oriented test does not need to be validated, since its validation is defined during construction (e.g., the MMPI). Trait tests need the usual validation and reliability studies before they can be utilized with any degree of confidence.
Why Should Assessment Clinicians Care about Factor Analysis?
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2022
Numerous developments in psychometric practices have occurred since Cronbach and Meehl (1955) shined a light into the darkness surrounding the question of how to evaluate the validity of personality tests. Cooke et al. (2021, this issue) describe in detail six steps for test validation originally proposed by Slaney and Maruan (2008). Cooke et al. apply this “S M framework” to the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Symptom Rating Scale (CAPP SRS), a clinician-rated instrument with 33 items organized into six symptom domains. Central to this framework is the assertion that confirmation of test structure with respect to theory is “the first and most important phase of test validation” (p. 2). The authors tender the hypothesis that psychopathy is a unidimensional construct and then present evidence to support it through application of the S M framework to CAPP SRS ratings of 314 men incarcerated in the United Kingdom.
Professional Practice Guidelines for Personality Assessment
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2022
Radhika Krishnamurthy, Giselle A. Hass, Adam P. Natoli, Bruce L. Smith, Paul A. Arbisi, Emily D. Gottfried
Accurate and useful interpretation of personality test data requires relevant training and expertise in a diversity of domains, combined with knowledge of personality theory, modern empirically-supported research, professional opinions, and best practices obtained through experience, continuing education, and familiarity with contemporary literature. Computer-generated interpretive reports are considered raw data and require integration with demographic and contextual data, other test data, and the totality of information gathered in order to be meaningful. In addition, psychologists want to carefully evaluate the foundational research of those computer-generated interpretive statements and be aware of the source and basis of such statements (Butcher et al., 2015). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the user of an interpretive report to be knowledgeable about the data source of the computer-generated interpretive statements incorporated in the final report.
Context-Driven Variability in Personality and Interpersonal Behavior: Evidence-Based Assessment Strategies
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2022
Using strategies derived from therapeutic assessment (TA; Finn et al., 2012), clinicians can employ a collaborative approach to integrate global/decontextualized personality test data with relationship-specific expressions of personality. To employ this approach patients would be asked to complete one or more standard personality measures, and would then be provided with their test results. Working together, clinician and patient can explore these results and generate more nuanced information regarding salient personality features. For example, if a patient scored high on a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) index of Social Discomfort (Butcher et al., 1990), the clinician might ask the patient to describe those situations (or those relationships) wherein they experience the highest levels of social discomfort, and those where they experience less anxiety. Similarly, if a patient obtained an elevated score on the Rorschach Performance Assessment System Oral Dependent Language scale (Meyer et al., 2011), the clinician can follow up and explore which of the patient’s relationships are characterized by problematic dependency, and which are not.