Personality testing is probably more of an art form than a science one. In an effort to offer it as a goal and to be as consistent as possible, generations of doctors came up with psychological tests and formal interviews. These are controlled under the same conditions and use the same motives to obtain information from respondents. Therefore, any differences in subject responses can be made and caused by the ambiguity of their personality.
In addition, many tests limit the repertory of approved responses. "True" or "false" is the only allowed answer to questions in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory II, for example. Scoring or entering the results key is the default process, where all "true" answers get one or more points on one or more scales and all "false" answers do not get one.
This reduces the tester's involvement in interpreting the test results (scale points). Granted, translation is undoubtedly more important than data collection. Therefore, the inevitable inclusion of human beings cannot and cannot be avoided in the process of evaluating and evaluating personality. But its harmful effects are said to be somehow enhanced by the orderly and impartial nature of sub-tools (experiments).
However, instead of relying on a single questionnaire and its definition, many doctors practice the same subject test battery and scheduled interviews. These often differ in key factors: their response forms, motivations, management processes, and point-out methods. In addition, in order to determine the reliability of the test, many diagnostic professionals treat it repeatedly over time in the same client. If the translated results are almost identical, the test is considered reliable.
The results of various tests should be consistent. Combined, they should provide a consistent and cohesive image. If a single test presents a study that always contradicts the conclusions of another questionnaire or interview, it may be invalid. In other words, he may not be able to measure up to what he claims to be measuring.
Therefore, self-assessment tests should be accompanied by a number of diagnostic tests that measure the reluctance to admit mistakes or the tendency to present a desirable and public-filled facade (“False Self”). If the grandiosity test is positively associated with insignificant, psychologically independent factors, such as intelligence or depression, it does not make it work.
Many experiments are intentional or rare. Psychologist George Kelly provided this definition of language in both of your articles in the 1958 article entitled “Building a Man in His Own Way” (included in The Assessment of Human Motives, edited by G. Lindsey):
“When a subject is asked to guess what an examiner thinks, we call it a purposeful test; when the examiner tries to guess what the subject is thinking, he calls it a machine.
Targeted test points are entered into a computer (no personal input). Examples of such standard tools include California Psychological Inventory (CPI), and a Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory II. Of course, one eventually finds a description of the information collected by this questionnaire. Interpretation ultimately depends on the knowledge, training, experience, skills, and natural gifts of the therapist or physician.
Expected testing is less formal and therefore more confusing. As L. Frank commented on a 1939 article entitled “Practical Ways to Study Personality”:
(The patient's response to such tests is speculative) his or her perception of life, its meanings, its significance, its patterns, and especially its emotions. ”
In the expected tests, the answers are not compulsory and scoring is done only by people and involves judgment (and, thus, a slight bias). Physicians do not always agree on the same definition and often use competing methods to obtain points, which produce different results. The personality of the diagnostician comes to the forefront. The best known of these “tests” is the Rorschach inkblots set.
You must be logged in to post a comment.