PowerPoint PresentationSlide 2ObjectivesThe Nature of Personality AssessmentPersonality TestsIATSlide 7Slide 8Personality Tests: IATPersonality Tests: Projective TestsSlide 11Slide 12Slide 13Slide 14Slide 15Personality Tests: Evaluating the Rorschach and the TATPersonality Tests: Objective TestsSlide 18Methods of Objective Test Construction: RationalSlide 20Slide 21Methods of Objective Test Construction: Factor AnalyticSlide 23Music PreferenceSlide 25Slide 26Evaluating Assessment and Research: Significance TestingSlide 28Slide 29Slide 30Slide 31Evaluating Assessment and Research: Effect SizeSlide 33Slide 34Slide 35Funder & Ozer (1983)Ethical Issues: Purposes of Personality TestingSlide 38Slide 39Slide 40Ethical IssuesEthical Issues: DeceptionSlide 43Slide 44Slide 45Baumrind (1985)Think About Personality TestingDiscussion Question #1Discussion Question #2Discussion Question #3Assessment, Effect Size, and Ethics© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.The Personality Puzzle, Seventh Edition Copyright © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company•What does your major say about your personality?•http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/01/my-major-my-self/426984/?utm_source=SFFB© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Objectives•Discuss the nature of personality assessment•Discuss whether personality tests provide S or B data•Discuss projective and objective tests•Discuss methods of objective test construction•Discuss evaluation using significance testing and effect sizes•Discuss ethical issues related to assessment1© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.The Nature of Personality Assessment•Personality•Motives, intentions, goals, strategies, and how people perceive and construct the world–Happy v. Sad–Optimistic v. Pessimistic–Attracted to same- v. opposite-sex2Personality Tests•Widely used tests: MMPI, CPI, 16 PF–Omnibus inventories versus one-trait measures•Most tests provide S data•Some tests provide B data–MMPI, Implicit Association Test (IAT)•“I prefer a shower to a bath” – empathy?3© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.IAT4© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.IAT5© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.IAT6© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Personality Tests: IAT•Theory: People who implicitly, or nonconsciously, know they have a certain trait will respond faster when the trait is paired with “me”8© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Personality Tests: Projective Tests•Rorschach test•Draw-A-Person test•Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)–http://www.utpsyc.org/TATintro/1011© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Personality Tests: Projective Tests12© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Personality Tests: Projective Tests© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Personality Tests: Projective Tests•Analysis of content of stories, letters, and speeches•Mostly used by clinical psychologists•Provide B data13© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Personality Tests: Projective Tests•Disadvantages–Validity evidence is scarce–Expensive and time-consuming–A psychologist cannot be sure about what they mean14© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Personality Tests: Projective Tests•Advantages–Good for breaking the ice–Some skilled clinicians may be able to use them to get information not captured in other types of tests15© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Personality Tests: Evaluating the Rorschach and the TAT•Some evidence of validity•Rorschach–Used by 82% of clinical psychologists, fourth most used test–Best results with two scoring methods–Valid for predicting certain outcomes•Suicide, attendance at treatment sessions, commitment to mental hospital•TAT16© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Personality Tests: Objective Tests•Validity and the subjectivity of test items–“I like mechanics magazines”–Items are still not absolutely objective–Some subjectivity in interpretation of meaning may be good**•Why so many items?–The principle of aggregation–Spearman-Brown formula18© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.•10 items = reliability of .60•Adding 10 items (20 total) = .75•Double the items (40 total) = .8618© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Methods of Objective Test Construction: Rational•Based on theory, but sometimes less systematic•Provides S data, high face validity19© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Methods of Objective Test Construction: Rational•Four conditions for validity–Items mean the same thing to the test taker and creator–Capability for accurate self-assessment–Willingness to make an accurate and undistorted report–Items must be valid indicators of the construct20© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.21© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Methods of Objective Test Construction: Factor Analytic•Steps for using this method–Generate a long list of objective items–Administer these items to a large number of people–Analyze with a factor analysis–Consider what the items that group together have in common and name the factor21© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Methods of Objective Test Construction: Factor AnalyticWhat do these items have in common?1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal.2. The conditions of my life are excellent.3. I am satisfied with my life.4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in my life.5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.22© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Music Preference•Mellow•Unpretentious•Sophisticated•Intense•Contemporary 24© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.25© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Methods of Objective Test Construction: Factor Analytic•Limitations–The quality of information from the factor analysis is limited by the quality of items–Difficulty and subjectivity of deciding how items are conceptually related–Factors don’t always make sense•Uses of factor analysis–Reduce list of traits to an essential few–Refine personality tests23© 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Evaluating Assessment and Research: Significance Testing•Statistical significance definition: a result that would only occur by chance less than 5% of the time•Null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST)•p-level (<.05): probability that a difference of that size would be found, if the actual size of the difference were zero. If the result is significant, the common interpretation is that the statistic probably did not arise by chance; its real value is probably not