Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:48:09.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Personality Assessment Methods

from Part II - Description and Measurement: How Personality Is Studied

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

By
Gregory J. Boyle  and
Edward Helmes
Edited by
Philip J. Corr  and
Gerald Matthews
Philip J. Corr
Affiliation:
City, University London
Gerald Matthews
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Get access

Summary

Given the enormity of the field of personality assessment, it is beyond the scope of the present chapter to provide an exhaustive review of the many approaches to personality assessment in common use today. With entire books and peer-reviewed periodicals devoted to a variety of personality assessment instruments, a brief chapter such as this is necessarily limited in its coverage of the personality assessment domain. However, this chapter provides a comparison of the multidimensional personality assessment instruments constructed empirically using the empirical factor analytic methods advocated by Raymond B. Cattell and his colleagues (e.g., Cattell, 1973, 1978, 1983; Cattell & Kline, 1977; Hall, Lindzey & Campbell, 1998; cf., Boyle et al., 2016) with a variety of other multidimensional assessment instruments constructed using nonfactor analytic approaches including the construct-oriented methods advocated by Jackson (e.g., 1970, 1984, 1989, 1994, 2000).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology , pp. 103 - 114
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achenbach, T. M., & McConaughy, S. H. (2003). The Achenbach system of empirically based assessment. In Reynolds, C. R. & Kamphaus, R. W. (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Personality, behavior, and context (pp. 406–430). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47 (211).Google Scholar
Angleitner, A., John, O. P., & Lohr, F.-J. (1986). It’s what you ask and how you ask it: An item metric analysis of personality questionnaires. In Angleitner, A. & Wiggins, J. S. (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires: Current issues in theory and measurement (pp. 61–108). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Austin, E. J., Boyle, G. J., Groth-Marnat, G., Matthews, G., Saklofske, D. H., Schwean, V. L., & Zeidner, M. (2011). Integrating intelligence and personality. In Groth-Marnat, G., Beutler, L. & Harwood, M. (Eds.), Integrative assessment of adult personality (3rd ed.) (pp. 119–151). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Bagby, R. M., Marshall, M. B., Bury, A. S., Bacchiochi, J. R., & Miller, L. S. (2006). Assessing underreporting and overreporting response styles on the MMPI-2. In Butcher, J. N. (Ed.), MMPI-2: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 39–69). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Barrett, P. T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: An examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 805–819.Google Scholar
Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 392–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (1988). Causal modeling via structural equation systems. In Nesselroade, J. R. & Cattell, R. B. (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 317–335). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (2007). Can scientifically useful hypotheses be tested with correlations? American Psychologist, 62, 772–782.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (2015). EQS structural equations program. Temple City, CA: Multivariate Software, www.mvsoft.comGoogle Scholar
Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets: Unconfounding meaning, acquiescence, and social desirability in the MMPI. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (1979). Delimitation of state‑trait curiosity in relation to state anxiety and learning task performance. Australian Journal of Education, 23, 70–82.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (1983). Higher‑order factor structure of Cattell’s MAT and 8SQ. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 6, 119–127.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (1984). Effects of viewing a road trauma film on emotional and motivational factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 16, 383–386.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (1985). Self‑report measures of depression: Some psychometric considerations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 45–59.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (1989). Sex differences in reported mood states. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1179–1183.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (1990). A review of the factor structure of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and the Clinical Analysis Questionnaire. Psychological Test Bulletin, 3, 40–45.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (2006). Scientific analysis of personality and individual differences. Unpublished Doctor of Science Thesis, St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (2007). An overview of contemporary personality assessment. Paper presented at the International Military Testing Association Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, 8–12 October.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (2008a). Critique of the five-factor model of personality. In Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G. & Saklofske, D. H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality theories and models (Vol.1, pp. 295–312). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (2008b). Simplifying the Cattellian psychometric model. In Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G. & Saklofske, D. H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality theories and models (Vol. 1, pp. 257–272). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (2009). Personality questionnaires and rating Scales: A flawed methodology? In Westen, D., Burton, L. & Kowalski, R. (Eds.), Psychology: Australian and New Zealand (2nd ed., pp. 436–437). Milton, QLD, Australia: Wiley.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (2019 ). Overarching personality paradigm: A neo-Cattellian psychometric model. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 317–325.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (2020). Biography – Raymond B. Cattell (1905–1998). In Carducci, R. et al. (Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences: Personality processes and individual differences (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., Helmes, E., Matthews, G., & Izard, C. E. (2015). Measures of affect dimensions. In Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H. & Matthews, G. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological construct (pp. 190–224). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., & Barton, K. (2008). Contribution of Cattellian personality instruments. In Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G. & Saklofske, D. H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality measurement and testing (Vol. 2, pp. 160–178). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., & Cattell, R. B. (1984). Proof of situational sensitivity of mood states and dynamic traits––ergs and sentiments––to disturbing stimuli. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 541–548.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., & Comer, P. G. (1990). Personality characteristics of direct-service personnel in community residential units. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 16, 125–131.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., Helmes, E., Matthews, G., & Izard, C. E. (2015). Measures of affect dimensions. In Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H. & Matthews, G. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 190–224). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, G. J., Neumann, D. L., Furedy, J. J., & Westbury, H. R. (2010). Sex differences in verbal and visual-spatial tasks under different hemispheric visual-field presentation conditions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110, 396–410.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (2004) (Eds.) Sage benchmarks in psychology: The psychology of individual differences (Vols. 1–4). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Matthews, G. (2015). Criteria for selection and evaluation of scales and measures. In Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H. & Matthews, G. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 3–15). Amsterdam: Academic.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., Stankov, L., & Cattell, R. B. (1995). Measurement and statistical models in the study of personality and intelligence. In Saklofske, D. H. & Zeidner, M. (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 417–446). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., Stankov, L., Martin, N. G., Petrides, K. P., Eysenck, M. W., & Ortet, G. (2016). Hans J. Eysenck and Raymond B. Cattell on intelligence and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, G. J., Stanley, G. V., & Start, K. B. (1985). Canonical/redundancy analyses of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, the Motivation Analysis Test, and the Eight State Questionnaire. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 7, 113–122.Google Scholar
Boyle, G. J., & Start, K. B. (1989). Sex differences in the prediction of academic achievement using the Children’s Motivation Analysis Test. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 245–252.Google Scholar
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148.Google Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Burdsal, C. A., & Vaughn, D. S. (1974). A contrast of the personality structure of college students found in the questionnaire medium by items as compared to parcels. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 135, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39, 214–227.Google Scholar
Burisch, M. (1986). Methods of personality inventory development: A comparative analysis. In Angleitner, A. & Wiggins, J. S. (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires: Current issues in theory and measurement (pp. 109–120). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. New York: World Book.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1983). Structured personality-learning theory: A wholistic multivariate approach. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1986a). General principles across the media of assessment. In Cattell, R. B. & Johnson, R. C. (Eds.), Functional psychological testing: Principles and instruments (pp. 15–32). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1986b). Selecting, administering, scoring, recording, and using tests in assessment. In Cattell, R. B. & Johnson, R. C. (Eds.) (1986). Functional psychological testing: Principles and instruments (pp. 105–126). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1986c). Structured tests and functional diagnoses. In Cattell, R. B. & Johnson, R. C. (Eds.), Functional psychological testing: Principles and instruments (pp. 3–14). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1986d). The psychometric properties of tests: Consistency, validity, and efficiency. In Cattell, R. B. & Johnson, R. C. (Eds.), Functional psychological testing: Principles and instruments (pp. 54–78). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1988). The meaning and strategic use of factor analysis. In Nesselroade, J. R. & Cattell, R. B. (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1994). A cross-validation of primary personality structure in the 16 PF by two parcelled factor analyses. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 10, 181–190.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1995, May). The fallacy of five factors in the personality sphere. The Psychologist, 207–208.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., Boyle, G. J., & Chant, D. (2002). The enriched behavioral prediction equation and its impact on structured learning and the dynamic calculus. Psychological Review, 109, 202–205.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1994). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Child, D. (1975). Motivation and dynamic structure. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Kline, P. (1977). The scientific analysis of personality and motivation. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Krug, S. E. (1971). A test of the trait-view theory of distortion in measurement of personality questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 721–734.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Krug, S. E. (1986). The number of factors in the 16PF: A review of the evidence with special emphasis on methodological problems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 509–522.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Schuerger, J. M. (1978). Personality theory in action: Handbook for the Objective-Analytic (O-A) Test Kit. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis (2nd ed.). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L. (1984). Comparison of two methods to identify major personality factors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 397–408.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754–761.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L. (2008). The Comrey Personality Scales. In Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G. & Saklofske, D. H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality measurement and testing (Vol. 2, pp. 113–134). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). Technical manual for the 16 PF (5th ed.). Champaign, IL, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners Rating Scales – Revised technical manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–303.Google Scholar
Cuttance, P. (1987). Issues and problems in the application of structural equation models. In Cuttance, P. & Ecob, R. (Eds.), Structural modeling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioral research (pp. 241–279). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuttance, P., & Ecob, R. (1987) (Eds.) Structural modeling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioral research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drasgow, F., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (1999) (Eds.) Innovations in computerized assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden.Google Scholar
Exner, J. (2005). A Rorschach workbook for the comprehensive system (5th ed.). Asheville, NC: Rorschach Workshops.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–673.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (junior and adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. T. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, G. A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (5th ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329–344.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & North, M. S. (2015). Measures of stereotyping and prejudice: Barometers of bias. In Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H. & Matthews, G. (2015) (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 684–718). Amsterdam: Academic.Google Scholar
Gillis, J. S., & Boyle, G. J. (2019). Factor analysis of trait names: Building on Cattell (1943). In Corr, P. (Ed.), Classic studies in personality psychology (pp. 47–68). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Goffin, R. D., Rothstein, M. G., & Johnston, N. G. (2000). Predicting job performance using personality constructs: Are personality tests created equal? In Goffin, R. D. & Helmes, E. (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 249–264). New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Exploratory factor analysis. In Nesselroade, J. R. & Cattell, R. B. (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 231–258). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.Google Scholar
Grimm, K. J., Steele, J. S., Ram, N., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2013) Exploratory latent growth models in the structural equation modeling framework. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20, 568–591.Google Scholar
Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., Borecky, C. M., McGahhey, R., Powell, J. L. III, Beavers, J., & Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C. S., Lindzey, G., & Campbell, J. B. (1998). Theories of personality (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hartup, W. W., & van Lieshout, C. F. M. (1995). Personality development in social context. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 655–687.Google Scholar
Helmes, E. (2000). The role of social desirability in the assessment of personality constructs. In Goffin, R. D. & Helmes, E. (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 21–40). New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Helmes, E. (2010). Response distortion in applications of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) in offender rehabilitation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 101–120.Google Scholar
Helmes, E., & Reddon, J. R. (1993). A perspective on developments in assessing psychopathology: A critical review of the MMPI and MMPI-2. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 453–471.Google Scholar
Helmes, E., Holden, R. R., & Ziegler, M. (2015). Response bias, malingering, and impression management. In Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H. & Matthews, G. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 16–43). Amsterdam: Academic.Google Scholar
Hojnoski, R. L., Morrison, R., Brown, M., & Matthews, W. J. (2006). Projective test use among school psychologists: A survey and critique. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 145–159.Google Scholar
Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Hough, L., & Paullin, C. (1994). Construct-oriented scale construction: The rational approach. In Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D. & Owens, W. A. (Eds.), Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and used of biographical information in selection and performance (pp. 109–145). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Hunsley, J., Lee, C. M., & Wood, J. M. (2003). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. In Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J. & Lohr, J. M. (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (pp. 17–38). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Hunsley, J., & Mash, E. J. (2005). Introduction to the special section on developing guidelines for the evidence-based assessment (EBA) of adult disorders. Psychological Assessment, 17, 251–255.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale construction. In Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.), Current topic in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 61–96). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. N. (1989). Basic Personality Inventory manual. Port Huron, MI & London, Ontario, Canada: Sigma Assessment Systems.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory – Revised manual. Port Huron, MI & London, Ontario, Canada: Sigma Assessment Systems.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. N. (2000). A perspective. In Goffin, R. D. & Helmes, E. (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 333–344). New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. N., Ashton, M. C., & Tomes, J. L. (1996). The six-factor model of personality: Facets from the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 391–402.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1971). The Differential Personality Inventory. London, Ontario: Authors.Google Scholar
James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131–163.Google Scholar
James, L. R., McIntyre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Green, P. D., Patton, T. W., LeBreton, J. M., Frost, , … & Williams, L. J. (2005). A conditional reasoning measure for aggression. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juni, S. (2006). Projective testing: A critique. Applied Psychology, 2, 789–793.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. (1959). Computer program for Varimax rotation in factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 19, 413–420.Google Scholar
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Krug, S. E. (1980). Clinical Analysis Questionnaire manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Krug, S. E. (1981). Interpreting 16PF profile patterns. Champaign, IL, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Krug, S. E. (2008). The assessment of clinical disorders within Raymond Cattell’s personality model. In Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G. & Saklofske, D. H. (2008) (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality measurement and testing (pp. Vol. 2, 646–662). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kurtz, I. C., Dawson, D. V., & Welsh, K. A. (1994). Caregiver ratings of personality change in Alzheimer’s disease patients: A replication. Psychology and Aging, 9, 464–466.Google Scholar
Kurtz, J. E., Lee, P. A., & Sherker, J. L. (1999). Internal and temporal reliability estimates for informant ratings of personality using the NEO-PI-R and IAS. Assessment, 6, 103–114.Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., Barksdale, C. D., Robin, J., & James, L. R. (2007). Measurement issues associated with conditional reasoning tests: Indirect measurement and test faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1–16.Google Scholar
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694.Google Scholar
Lubin, B., Swearngin, S. E., & Zuckerman, M. (1997). Research with the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL and the MAACL-R: 1960-1996). San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
MacCallum, R. (1985). Some problems in the process of model modification in covariance structure modeling. Paper presented at the European Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1983). Multitrait–multimethod analysis: Distinguishing between items and traits. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 351–358.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1993). Multitrait–multimethod analyses: Inferring each trait-method combination with multiple indicators. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 49–81.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Application of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling in sport and exercise psychology. In Tenenbaum, G. & Eklund, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 774–798). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (2008). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: An important facet of personality. In Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G. & Saklofske, D. H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality theories and models (Vol. 1, pp. 447–469). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.Google Scholar
Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 675–680.Google Scholar
Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An introduction. In Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Greenwich, CT: IAP.Google Scholar
Mount, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically keyed biodata scales over GMA and the five factor personality constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53, 299–323.Google Scholar
Mulaik, S. A. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis. In Nesselroade, J. R. & Cattell, R. B. (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. (1947). Personality: A biosocial approach to origins and structure. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. G., Licht, B. G., & Pearl, R. A. (1982). Some dangers of using personality questionnaires to study personality. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 572–580.Google Scholar
Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 598–609.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In Angleitner, A. & Wiggins, J. S. (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires: Current issues in theory and measurement (pp. 143–165). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS): The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding-7. User’s manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In Braun, H. I., Jackson, D. N. & Wiley, D. E. (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 46–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Paunonem, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 821–835.Google Scholar
Pilar-Matud, M. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1401–1415.Google Scholar
Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J. W. (1989). Psychological testing in outpatient mental health facilities: A national study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20, 423–425.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children: Second edition manual. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Rudinger, G., & Dommel, N. (1986). An example of convergent and discriminant validation of personality questionnaires. In Angleitner, A. & Wiggins, J. S. (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires: Current issues in theory and measurement (pp. 214–224). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Sajatovic, M., & Ramirez, L. F. (2003). Rating scales in mental health (2nd ed.). Hudson, OH: Lexi-Comp.Google Scholar
Savalei, V., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling. In Weiner, I. B. & Craighead, W. E. (Eds.), The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1714– 1716). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schuerger, J. M. (1986). Personality assessment by objective tests. In Cattell, R. B. & Johnson, R. C. (Eds.), Functional psychological testing: Principles and instruments (pp. 260–287). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
Schuerger, J. M. (2008). The Objective-Analytic Test Battery. In Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G. & Saklofske, D. H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality measurement and testing (Vol. 2, pp. 529–546). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. (1999). Frequency reports of physical symptoms and health behaviors: How the questionnaire determines the results. In Park, D. C., Morrell, R. W. & Shifrin, K. (Eds.), Processing of medical information in aging patients: Cognitive and human factors perspectives (pp. 93–108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (1996) (Eds.) Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Smith, B. D. (1988). Personality: Multivariate systems theory and research. In Nesselroade, J. R. & Cattell, R. B. (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 687–736). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (1994). Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical information in selection and performance. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, M. E., Pasupathi, M., & Chatterjee, A. (1993). Concordance between observers in descriptions of personality change in Alzheimer’s disease. Psychology and Aging, 8, 475–480.Google Scholar
Strauss, M. E., & Pasupathi, M. (1994). Primary caregivers’ descriptions of Alzheimer patients’ personality traits: Temporal stability and sensitivity to change. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 8, 166–176.Google Scholar
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1931). Multiple factor analysis. Psychological Review, 38, 406–427.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tubré, T., Miotke, A., & Sawdy, M. (2017). Personality Research Form (PRF). In Zeigler-Hill, V. & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–2). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 1–28.Google Scholar
Weiner, I. B. (1997). Current status of the Rorschach inkblot method. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 5–19.Google Scholar
Welleford, E. A., Harkins, S. W., & Taylor, J. R. (1995). Personality change in dementia of the Alzheimer’s type: Relations to caregiver personality and burden. Experimental Aging Research, 21, 295–314.Google Scholar
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.Google Scholar
Wiggins, J. S. (1995). IAS. Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Professional Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wirth, R. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2007). Item factor analysis: Current approaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12, 58–79.Google Scholar
Wittenborn, J. R. (1951). Symptom patterns in a group of mental hospital patients. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15, 290–302.Google Scholar
Wood, J., Nezworkski, M., Lilienfeld, S., & Garb, H. (2003). What’s wrong with the Rorschach? Science confronts the controversial inkblot test. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1985). Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List – Revised. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1999). Manual for the MAACL-R Multiple Affect Adjective Check List San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×