1. Issues in Personality Assessment
Chapter Three
Issues in Personality Assessment

2. Sources of Information
Ratings by others
Direct report by observer
Peer ratings
Self-reports
Scales—assess a single aspect of personality
Inventories—measure several distinct aspects of personality

3. Implicit Assessment
Indirect means of determining what a person is like
Example: Implicit Association Test (IAT)
People make categorical decisions rapidly
Response times can reveal how closely linked different concepts are in a person’s mind

4. Types of Information
Objective: measure of concrete reality that involves no interpretation
Example—counts of the time a person touches another in an interpersonal interaction
Subjective: measure that involves interpretation
Example—evaluation of facial expressions for signs of hostility

5. Reliability Consistency or repeatability of measurement
High reliability = greater consistency = lower randomness (error)
Low reliability = less consistency = more error

6. Types of Reliability
Internal reliability: reflects consistency within a set of items intended to measure the same construct
Test-retest reliability: reflects consistency of a measure across time

7. Validity
Accuracy of measurement—does it measure what it’s supposed to measure?
Types of Validity
Construct
Criterion
Convergent
Discriminant
Face

8. Construct Validity
Indicates a match between operational and conceptual definitions
Most important type of validity
Other types of validity help establish construct validity

9. Criterion (Predictive) Validity
Most important indicator of construct validity
Examines how well a measure correlates with a standard of comparison (criterion)
Example—does an aggression scale correlate with observer ratings of shoving on a playground?
Examines how well a measure predicts an appropriate outcome
Example—does a self-esteem scale predict who will volunteer answers in class?

10. Convergent Validity
Indicates appropriate correlation with assessment devices presumed to measure the same construct
Highly correlated
Indicates appropriate correlation with assessment devices presumed to measure conceptually similar constructs
Correlated, but not too high, not too low

11. Discriminant Validity
Indicates that scale does NOT correlate with other assessment devices presumed to measure conceptually dissimilar constructs
Example: Correlations with Sociability scale
Measure
Correlation
Demonstrates
Number of friends
.89
Convergent Validity
Hours spent alone
-.92
Neuroticism
.04
Discriminant Validity
Conscientiousness
-.06

12. Face Validity
Indicates that the item or scale measures what you think it is supposed to measure
Examples:
Construct Item
Depression Do you often feel sad or blue?
Optimism Do you generally expect good
things to happen?

13. Culture and Validity Important questions
Does construct exist in all cultures? (cultural universality)
Are items interpreted the same in each culture?

14. Classic Representation of Reliability and Validity
Not Reliable
Not Valid
Reliable
Valid

15. Challenges to Validity
Memory bias
Motivational bias
Response sets—readiness to answer in a particular way
Yea saying (acquiescence)
Nay saying
Social desirability

16. Two Approaches to the Development of Assessment Devices
Rational (Theoretical) Approach
Start with conceptualization
Select items to fit conceptualization
Test validity and reliability
Empirical (Data-Based) Approach
Empirically driven from many items
Use statistical methods to select items based on ability of items to differentiate criterion group

17. Example of Empirical Approach
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
Started with many self-descriptive statements
Administered to “normals” and groups with psychiatric diagnoses
Items selected for a scale were ones that differentiated a particular psychiatric group from all others

18. When Are Different Methods Used?
Rational Approach
Usually in connection with theory building
Empirical
Usually used in connection with practical needs
Example: Vocational interests