Personality Assessment Instruments Comparison
April 16, 2012
This paper will explore the Myers-Briggs, Thematic Apperception Test, and self-help books for validity, comprehensiveness, applicability, and cultural utility. Evidence of reliability, validity, along with strengths and weaknesses of each instrument are also presented. Despite the controversy surrounding these measures, they continue to be among the most popular psychological assessment tools today.
Personality Assessment Instruments Comparison
Personality assessment instruments continue to be widely uses by the public and widely examined by the public. Since the early 20th century a number of personality instruments have been very useful in classifying personality traits, while other test instruments have shown to be antiquated. The Myer-Briggs, Apperception test and self-help books all have confidence that they can deliver a concrete view on differences in personalities. They allow you to know an individual's personality type along with an examination into how these different assessments may be of importance to the everyday person. As the degree to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure, validity is a difficult property to evaluate in a test. Consider tests of intelligence. Many people are skeptical of the results of these tests. Some people are concerned that the tests measure only book learning and do not test common sense (Anastasi, 1988). Other people feel that intelligence tests have cultural, racial, and gender biases. Therefore, to conclude that a test is a valid measure of intelligence, it must be shown that the test measures intelligence independent of the test subjects education, culture, race, and sex. The Validity of MBTI- Many studies over the years have proven the validity of the MBTI instrument in three categories: (1) the validity of the four separate preference scales; (2) the validity of the four preference pairs as dichotomies; and (3) the validity of whole types or particular combinations of preferences. The MBTI is a very popular test of personality. Each year millions of copies of the test are administered in the workplace, schools, churches, community groups, management workshops, and counseling centers. Many people see the MBTI as an invaluable tool that helps them understand their own behavior as well as the behavior of others. In spite of the popularity of the MBTI, there are many problems with its use. There is a large body of research that suggests that the claims made about the MBTI cannot be supported. While the MBTI appears to measure something, many psychologists are not convinced that any significant conclusions can be based on the test. The validity scores of a test estimate how well the test measures what it purports to measure. Personality assessment tests usually produce validity scores for each of the individual traits measured. When scores on the traits of a test compare well with scores on similar traits on other tests, the test is said to have good concurrent validity. Validity coefficients were computed on each of the four INSIGHT Inventory traits by comparing these to the traits measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Sixteen Personality factors (16PF), and Holland Self-Directed Search (SDS). This data comprises a large section of the INSIGHT Technical Manual and users are encouraged to review those pages and tables (Anastasi, 1988). Very strong support for the validity of the traits measured by the INSIGHT Inventory was garnered (Anastasi, 1988). Comprehensiveness of the MBTI prompts us of the truth that all people are not alike, but then claims that every person can be fit neatly into one of 16 boxes. The MBTI attempts to force the intricacies of human personality into a synthetic and restraining classification scheme. The focus on the typing of people reduces the attention paid to the unique qualities and potential of each individual. Because of its...
References: Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Butcher, J.N., & Rouse, S.V. (1996). Personality: Individual differences and clinical assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 87-111.
Hiller, J.B., Rosenthal, R., Bornstein, R.F., Berry, D.T., & Brunell-Neuleib, S. (1999). A comparative meta-analysis of Rorschach and MMPI validity. Psychological Assessment, 11, 278-296.
Hood, A.B., & Johnson, R.W. (1997). Assessment in counseling: A guide to the use of psychological assessment procedures (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Wood, J.M., & Garb, H.N. (2001). What’s wrong with this picture? Scientific American, 284, 80-87.
Locraft, C., & Teglasi, H. (1997). Teacher rated empathic behavior and children’s TAT stories. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 217-237.
Lundy, A. (1985). The reliability of the Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 141-149.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document