Introduction
Over the past few weeks, we have come to understand that psychological testing and assessment is quite complex. It is applicable in a number of settings and for myriad reasons. This week we focused a bit more on personality assessment, something quite monumental in that it enables us to understand why individuals act and respond in such diverse ways. In this paper, we will be focusing largely on objective and projective assessments of personality, and comparing the two in an effort to garner a more profound understanding of each categories strengths and weaknesses.
Section 1: Objective Personality Assessment
The term objective in objective personality assessment essentially signifies the approach being utilized to score an individual’s responses, and is relatively free of administrator bias. It is a term that means measurable, observable, and evidence/fact-based. Objective methods measure personality characteristics in such a manner that is not influenced by examiners’ beliefs; thus, objective tests are believed to be largely independent of rater bias. Objective methods of personality assessment are applicable in a number of diverse settings. They are employed in an effort to learn more about overall personality traits. Traits are essentially core components of who we are and play a key role in how we act, behave, and respond in any given situation. Three examples of objective approaches include: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), NEO personality inventory revised (NEO-Pi-R), and Cattell’s 16 factor theory of personality (16PF). The MBTI measures psychological predilections in how individual’s observe, understand, and make sense of the world, which ultimately influences decision-making. The NEO-Pi-R measures five chief personality domains, along with six factors that characterize each domain. The 16PF assesses individuals and provides data about personal style and behavior in a number of settings, which in turn exposes a person’s potential or areas of probable developmental needs (Hughes, 2008).
Objective personality assessments have an extensive history in psychological measurement, dating all the way back to James Cattell in 1890. More recently, however, objective personality assessments have been separated into two time periods, starting in the 1940’s with Raymond B. Cattell and the ideas to utilize T- Q- and L-data for personality investigation, effectively creating first generation objective personality assessments, and ending with current second generation personality measurements that have been developed through computer technology (Koch, Tobia, Ortner, Eid, Caspers, and Schmitt, 2014). In terms of empirical research testing and documenting the validity of aforementioned assumptions, again, this dates back decades upon decades. Through the use of objective measures like the MBTI, NEO-Pi-R, et cetera, research illustrates time and again the validity of the polarities assessed by such instruments (Gregory, 2014). Moreover, correlations have been found and noted between instruments like the MBTI and the NEO-Pi-R. These compelling correlations in procured data only further substantiate the validity and relative reliability of objective personality tests. Additionally, the 16PF is internationally known and utilized, and available in over 20 diverse languages.
When it comes to social and cultural variability on the administration and interpretation of objective tests, the primary thing to remember and take into account is that diverse cultures and social constructs will harness distinct, yet similar aspects of personality. Moreover, it is imperative to keep in mind that “Ecologies shape cultures; cultures influence the development of personalities” (Triandis and Suh, 2002, p. 133). Although the United States is home to many different people from a variety of cultures, most assessments have been created from predominantly white Western civilized men. Thus, administration and interpretation of personality assessment must be carried out in such a way that ensures bias and overgeneralizations are kept to a minimum, if at all present. Most importantly, when personality assessments are developed in one culture and then converted and translated for use in other cultures, these translations have the great potential to be insensitive to cultural divergences and may generate distorted results.
Section 2: Projective Personality Assessment
The term projective in projective personality assessments refers to an unconscious transfer of emotions, desires, fears, et cetera. As maintained by Gregory (2014), “In a projective test the examinee encounters vague, ambiguous stimuli and responds with his or her own constructions” (Ch. 8, section 8.7). Moreover, the projective hypothesis proposes that subjective understanding of inexplicit stimuli essentially exposes unconscious desires, drives, and conflicts of examinees. Overall, what this more or less means/entails is if an individual is asked to describe and/or interpret vague stimuli—things that can be understood numerous ways—the responses given will be influenced by nonconscious feelings, desires, and experiences. Three examples of projective assessments include the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and the Draw-A-Person test.
The assumptions of projective personality methods presume that the way an individual, as maintained by Botha (2008),
perceives, interprets and responds to the test material or task is influenced by his or her psychological functioning, perception, memory and personality dynamics. The degree of projection involved in the process of response generation is thought to be indicated by the extent to which the test response is influenced by the person’s unique personality dynamics or inner world (para. 1).
The concept of projection manifested with Sigmund Freud and his belief that it was a defense mechanism against things like anxiety. However, Freud later realized and determined that projection could take place in the absenteeism of conflict and/or anxiety (Botha, 2008). Frank came up with the “projective method” in 1939, and Bellak proposed the theory of ‘appreciative distortion’, which is the manner through which “a person tends to distort what he or she perceives because of his or her own personality dynamics” (Botha, 2008, para. 2). Thus, it follows that the more imprecise and inexplicit an assessment situation and/or stimulus, the more an individual’s response will be blemished and influenced by prior experiences, memories, desires, anxieties, etc. The validity of abovementioned assumptions are mainly seen in how projective tests are used in a variety of ways. They are used to measure personality (e.g. Rorschach Inkblot Test), cognitive development (e.g. Draw-A-Person-Test), interpersonal relationships (e.g. TAT), so on and so forth. However, there is also research literature that questions the reliability and validity of projective assessments. What the literature implies is that projective methods diverge sizably in terms of psychometric properties depending on a few variables. This includes: the type of task and/or answers, the interpretation and/or recording method utilized, and the magnitude to which the assessment responses are calculable and appropriate for numerical computations. Nevertheless, most projective measures harness objective scoring conditions, and it is advised that such assessments only be used and interpreted by trained professionals. Having the objective scoring systems seemingly helps in the validation and dependability of most projective methods.
Finally, as with objective methods, projective assessments have their limitations. This is seen substantially in their overall usefulness. Because projective assessments are largely subjective, test bias is a major implication. This presents unique challenges when it comes to social and cultural constructs. It becomes increasingly challenging to measure the lifestyles, behaviors, and personalities of people from widely differing cultural/ethnic groups utilizing personality methods based on data from a solitary culture and/or race. Thus, cultivating additional personality assessments that survey language, race, acculturation, etc. is crucial. Moreover, something worth noting in regards to projective methods is that an individual’s personality should not be based solely on ONE measure, rather findings should be concluded based on a cross-battery assessment.
Section 3: Synthesis, Conclusions, and Recommendations:
In this section, a fictitious scenario with a made-up client will be presented and followed by a brief discussion on whether or not an objective and/or projective approach is best in measuring the client’s personality. The paper will conclude with recommendations on improving the validity of personality assessment.
The presenting patient is an 18-year-old Caucasian female. The patient’s primary language is English and she comes from a wealthy suburban family. The reason for referral is extreme emotional instability, instability in interpersonal relationships, impulsivity/risky behaviors, inappropriate rage, and a pattern of disturbance in identity. These behaviors have been taking place for a minimum of five years and throughout this time, have progressively gotten more severe. The patient is reported to “act out” frequently, yelling and raging at both her parents and teachers, throwing and/or breaking things, and has been caught on numerous occasions engaging in risky/impulsive behaviors, to include: sleeping with multiple partners, running away from home, and self-harm.
While it would be easy to take the presenting symptoms and compare them to DSM-5 criteria and come up with a tentative diagnosis, another approach would be to administer objective and/or projective assessments. An objective method would enable us to establish the way the client thinks, feels, and behaves overall and the results may help us come to a possible specific condition that can be diagnosed and properly treated. However, this will only be possible if the client answers the self-report measures honestly and accurately. A projective method would likely reveal more subjective aspects of the client’s general personality. However, the biggest limitation here is that we cannot conclude anything definitively based on a single projective measure.
An object assessment that would be most applicable with this client would be the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). This is a self-administered inventory of 344 items wherein respondent’s respond with ratings, such as “‘totally false’, ‘slightly true’, ‘mainly true’, or ‘very true’” (Hughes, 2008, para. 3). This assessment is designed for individuals 18 and older, affords four validity scales and as long as these validity scales are within established reasonable limits, the assessment offers eleven (11) clinical scales and five (5) treatment items (Hughes, 2008). Overall, this assessment is both valid and reliable. However, it should be noted that this measure does not identify and measure all personality traits and behaviors. Thus, pairing this measurement with a variety of additional assessments and analytical methods would be most beneficial in conjuring a more comprehensive understanding and picture of this patient’s personality and who she is as a whole being. A projective assessment that would be applicable with this client would be Rorschach Inkblot Test. This assessment could provide profound insight into the patient’s defenses, aggression, object relations, et cetera. However, though there have been a few positive findings, for the most part, this assessment has illustrated little validity in terms of being a diagnostic tool. Therefore, it would be recommended to couple this assessment with other measures to come to a clearer understanding of the patient’s overall personality and potential underlying condition.
Finally, and to conclude, the validity of personality assessment can be improved in a number of ways. First and foremost, cross-validation should be a primary in any and all assessments. Just because a measure produces a handful of positive outcomes does not mean that it is valid and reliable. It is imperative to conduct additional cross-validation studies to effectively, ethically, and soundly confirm stability. Moreover, personality assessments would be more reliable and authentic if they were redesigned to account for the ethnic, linguistic, racial, and cultural divergences that make up respondents’ populations. And finally, personality assessment should be administered as a cross-battery assessment. One assessment is not enough to come to a definitive conclusion about an individual or their personality. It would be both unprofessional and unethical to rely solely on one distinct measure. More is better!
References
Botha, P. A. (2008). Personality assessment (projective). In G. J. Towl, D. Farrington, D. Crighton, & et. al. (Eds.), Dictionary of forensic psychology. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/content/entry/willanfp/personality_assessment_projective/0
Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hughes, G. (2008). Personality assessment (objective). In G. J. Towl, D. Farrington, D. Crighton, & et. al. (Eds.), Dictionary of forensic psychology. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/content/entry/willanfp/personality_assessment_objective/0
Koch, T., Ortner, T. M., Eid, M., Caspers, J., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Evaluating the construct validity of objective personality tests using a multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion-(MTMM-MO)-approach. European Journal Of Psychological Assessment, 30(3), 208-230. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000212
Triandis, H. C., and Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural Influences on Personality. Annual Reviews Pyschology, 53, 133-160. Retrieved from http://web.yonsei.ac.kr/suh/file/Cultural%20influences%20on%20personality.pdf
Comments