Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:56:13.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Questionnaire Measures and Psychiatrists' Ratings of a Personality Dimension

A Note on the Congruent Validity of Caine's Self Description Questionnaire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

John Graham White
Affiliation:
Department of Mental Health, The Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland

Extract

Foulds (1961) has drawn what appears to be a useful distinction between personality traits and neurotic and psychotic symptoms and signs. This distinction is helpful both in diagnosis and in the assessment of treatment. Within the framework of this personality-trait and symptom-sign differentiation, Caine and Hawkins (1963) introduced a measure of what they describe as the hysteroid-obsessoid dimension of personality; and reasons in defence of this admittedly rather ugly terminology have been stated recently by Caine and Hope (1964). The self assessment hysteroid-obsessoid questionnaire (HOQ) was developed as a refinement of the hysteroid-obsessoid rating scale previously devised by Foulds and Caine (1958), which they had not found to be adequate in differentiating between groups of obsessoid and groups of hysteroid persons. The questions in the HOQ are framed in simple language and require only a true-false response. Caine and Hawkins have reported the results they obtained from administering this questionnaire to neurotic in-patients, some of whom also completed the Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI), albeit at different stages of treatment. Although the MPI has been used extensively with samples drawn from non-psychiatric populations, both in the United States and the United Kingdom, Caine's questionnaire, a relatively new instrument, has not been as widely tested.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1966 

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

Caine, T. M. (1963). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Caine, T. M., and Hawkins, L. G. (1963). “Questionnaire measure of the hysteroid-obsessoid component of personality” J. cons. Psychol., 27, 206–9.Google Scholar
Caine, T. M., and Hope, K. (1964). “Validation of the Maudsley Personality Inventory E scale” Brit. J. Psychol., 55, 447–52.Google Scholar
Carstairs, G. M. (1962). The Burden on the Community. The Epidemiology of Mental Illness. London: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1959). “The differentiation between normal and various neurotic groups on the Maudsley Personality Inventory” Brit. J. Psychol., 50, 176–7.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J., and Claridge, G. (1962). “The position of hysterics and dysthymics in a two-dimensional framework of personality description” J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 64, 4655.Google Scholar
Eysenck, S. B., and Eysenck, H. J. (1963). “The validity of questionnaire and rating assessments of extraversion and neuroticism and their factorial stability” Brit. J. Psychol., 54, 5162.Google Scholar
Eysenck, S. B., and Eysenck, H. J. (1964). “Personality of judges as a factor in the validity of their judgments of extraversion-intraversion” Brit. J. soc. clin. Psychol., 3 (2), 141148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulds, G. A. (1961). “Personality traits and neurotic symptoms and signs” Brit. J. med. Psychol., 34, 263–70.Google Scholar
Foulds, G. A., and Caine, T. M. (1958). “Psychoneurotic symptom clusters, trait clusters and psychological tests” J. ment. Sci., 104, 722731.Google Scholar
Lewis, A. (1953). “Health as a social concept” Brit. J. Sociol., 4, 109–24.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.