Assessing Personality Step 1: Take At Least Two Of The Pers
Assessing Personality STEP 1 : Take at least two of the personality tests mentioned in this module (or other legitimate tests)
Assessing Personality involves administering at least two well-established personality tests, analyzing the results, and evaluating their validity and reliability. The recognized tests include the Big Five personality test, Kiersey Temperament Sorter, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Cattell's 16PF questionnaire, and the basic color personality test. Once the tests are completed, the participant should discuss their results with someone who knows them well to determine if the outcomes accurately reflect their personality. The assignment requires writing a short essay that describes each test and provides an analytical evaluation of their validity (the extent to which the tests measure what they claim to measure) and reliability (the consistency of the test results over time and across different populations). An APA-formatted title and reference page should also be included.
Sample Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
Personality assessments are crucial tools in understanding individual differences and predicting behavior. They provide quantifiable insights into traits, temperament, and psychological patterns that shape our personalities. This paper explores two widely recognized personality tests: the Big Five personality test and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). I will analyze the results from these tests in consultation with a knowledgeable acquaintance, then evaluate their validity and reliability based on psychological research.
Overview of Tests
The Big Five personality test, also known as the Five Factor Model, measures five broad traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (McCrae & Costa, 1998). It is supported by extensive research demonstrating its robustness across cultures and populations (John et al., 2008). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator categorizes individuals into 16 personality types based on four dichotomous preferences: extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and judging/perceiving (Myers & McCauley, 1985). While popular in organizational settings, the MBTI’s scientific validity and reliability have been questioned (Pittenger, 2005).
Results and Validation
After completing both assessments, I discussed the results with my close colleague, who has known me for over five years. The Big Five results indicated high extraversion and openness, aligning with my social nature and curiosity. The MBTI classified me as an ENFP ("Champion"), which I found consistent with my spontaneous and enthusiastic personality. However, I remain cautious about overgeneralizing; numerous studies have questioned the MBTI's consistency over time (Furnham & Crump, 2004). Conversely, the Big Five is consistently supported by empirical evidence, making it a more valid and reliable measure (De Raad & Hofstee, 2000).
Analysis of Validity and Reliability
The validity of the Big Five lies in its comprehensive trait structure, which aligns with biological and social perspectives of personality (Digman, 1998). Its reliability is proven through test-retest studies, showing stability over months and years (McCrae & Costa, 1998). The MBTI, while appealing due to its enterprise and personality typing, suffers from limited predictive validity and inconsistent results over repeated administrations (Pittenger, 2005). Therefore, while both tests offer valuable insights, the Big Five provides a more scientifically sound assessment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, personality testing can shed light on individual traits and behaviors, but the choice of instrument matters significantly. The Big Five’s empirical support makes it a superior tool for academic and clinical purposes, whereas the MBTI remains popular for organizational and personal development contexts despite its methodological shortcomings. Combining self-assessment and external perspectives enriches the understanding of personality, yet critical evaluation of each test’s scientific basis is essential for meaningful interpretation.
References
De Raad, B., & Hofstee, J. K. (2000). The Big Five personality factors and their relevance to personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 14(4), 393–406.
Digman, J. M. (1998). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(6), 873–885.
Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2004). The Theoretical and Empirical Status of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Psychological Reports, 95(2), 583–592.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the Big Five. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3, 114–158.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1998). The five-factor theory of personality. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2, 139–153.
Myers, I. B., & McCauley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–221.