Evaluating Objective and Projective Assessments
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, review Chapters 8 and 9 in your textbook.
In this assignment, you will compare projective and objective methods of personality assessment. Research a minimum of three peer-reviewed articles in the Ashford University Library that were published within the last 15 years on these techniques. In your paper, you will provide an evaluation of these techniques organized according to the outline provided below. Use information from your researched peer-reviewed articles and required sources to support your work in each section.
Section 1: Objective Personality Assessment
Define the term objective in objective methods of personality assessment.
Summarize the features of objective methods of personality assessment and provide at least three examples of these types of measures.
Explain the assumptions on which objective methods are based and provide an analysis of empirical research testing the validity of the assumptions you identified.
Appraise the research exploring the technical adequacy (i.e., reliability and validity) of objective tests.
Describe the impact of social and culture variability on the administration and interpretation of objective tests.
Section 2: Projective Personality Assessment
Define the term projective in projective methods of personality assessment.
Summarize the features of projective methods of personality assessment and provide at least three examples of these types of measures.
Explain the assumptions on which projective methods are based and provide an analysis of empirical research testing the validity of the assumptions you identified.
Appraise the research exploring the technical adequacy (i.e., reliability and validity) of projective tests.
Describe the impact of social and culture variability on the administration and interpretation of projective tests.
Section 3: Synthesis, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Write a brief one-paragraph scenario for a fictitious client. Include the following information: presenting concerns (reason for referral), age, gender, ethnicity, language(s), and any other significant information (e.g., military status, health issues, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.).
Debate the arguments supporting and opposing the use of projective and objective personality assessments with your identified client.
Select a minimum of one objective and one projective measure to use with your client. Compare the use of the selected projective and objective personality measures with your identified client.
Analyze the advantages and limitations of each assessment measure you selected.
Compose recommendations to improve the validity of personality assessment.
The Evaluation of Objective and Projective Measures of Personality
Must use at least three peer-reviewed sources published within the last 15 years in addition to the course text
Course text: Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
According to Gregory 2014, objective methods of personality assessment. Although there are many methods for the assessment of personality and related qualities, broadly speaking two approaches have dominated the field: unstructured and structured. Unstructured methods such as the Rorschach, TAT, and sentence completion blanks permit broad latitude in the responses of the examinee. These approaches dominated personality testing in the early twentieth century but then slowly faded in standing. In contrast, structured approaches such as self-report inventories and behavior rating scales gained prominence in the mid-twentieth century and have continued to expand in popularity to the present time. Whereas only a handful of unstructured techniques has ever risen to distinction, the number of structured instruments for assessment has grown almost exponentially.
In the previous topic we introduced the reader to the many varieties of unstructured tests such as inkblots, stimulus cards, and sentence completion blanks. These methods are resplendent in the richness of the hypotheses they yield; however, projective techniques largely lack the approval of psychometrically oriented clinicians. In this topic, we focus on the more structured, objective methods for personality assessment favored by measurement-minded psychologists. We review a wide variety of true–false, rating scale, and forced-choice instruments for assessing personality and other qualities.
This review takes in a variety of personality tests, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, arguably the most famous personality test ever published. We also examine contemporary approaches that rely upon structured interview, behavioral observation, and ratings.
The self-report approaches to testing discussed in the following sections are steeped in the details of psychometric methodology. These tests feature prominent references to reliability indices, criterion keying, factor analysis, construct validation, and other forms of technical craftsmanship. For this reason, the approaches discussed here often are considered objective—as contrasted with projective. However, whether they are objective in any meaningful sense is really an empirical question that must be answered on the basis of research. Perhaps it is more accurate to call these methods structured. They are structured in the sense that highly specific rules are followed in the administration, scoring, interpretation, and narrative reporting of results. In fact, some of the approaches are so completely structured that an examinee can answer questions presented on a computer screen and observe a computer-generated narrative report spewed forth from the printer, literally seconds later.3
We begin our discussion of structured assessment by reviewing several prominent personality tests. Contemporary psychometricians have relied mainly upon three tactics for personality test development: theory-bounded approaches, factor-analytic approaches, and criterion-key methods. We will organize the discussion of personality inventories around these three categories. Of course, the boundaries are somewhat artificial, and many test developers use a combination of methods.
