PSYC 100 Paper 2
Wednesdays 9 AM
Resolving the conflict of Reliability vs. Accuracy in the 16 PF test
For psychologists, one of the more popular theories espoused is the trait approach to personality, or “the idea that people have consistent personality characteristics that can be measured and studied” (Kalat, 2002, 512). However there are several problems that arise. First, there are significant cross-cultural differences, so one set of personality traits for one culture may differ considerably for another. The next problem would concern the creation of a test that could accurately measure these traits. While psychologists have for the most ...view middle of the document...
These allow researchers to identify people who score within a certain range to be more typical of a particular disorder. While the 16 PF personality test meets these criteria, whether or not the test is accurate remains to be explored. Within the next couple of pages I will describe the results of the test and discuss whether or not the data is an accurate reflection of my own personality.
Discussion and Interpretation of Scores:
While the 16 PF personality test measured the strength of 18 factors, there were only 10 of which we were provided with useful information to interpret. Overall, I believe that the test was fairly accurate in measuring certain factors of my personality so much so that it was difficult for me to find certain factors that I did not agree with. However there were two factors, E (dominance) and Q1 (rebelliousness), which I believe were a bit overrated in myself. Aside from these the test seemed to adequately define facets of my personality. For “warmth” (factor A) my sten score read 4, indicating that I am slightly more reserved and critical that easygoing and good-natured. I scored a 7 in “ego strength” (factor C), classifying me as more stable and emotionally mature and less emotional and changeable in attitudes. In dominance (factor E) my sten score read 8, meaning I am more assertive, competitive and stubborn rather than submissive, dependent and humble. I received an average score of 5 in “impulsivity” (factor F) indicating a slightly more serious and sober approach to the world over the cheerful and enthusiastic view. As for “boldness” (factor H), I received a sten score of 4 signifying a more shy and restrained approach to things as opposed to an adventurous genial one. I received a median score of 5 for “emotional sensitivity” (factor I) demonstrating my slightly more tough-minded and self-reliant view in contrast to a sensitive insecure one. For “imagination” (factor M) a score of 8, indicating that I am more imaginative, unconventional and absorbed in ideas and am less so for practicality and the prosaic. Factor N measured “shrewdness,” and I received a sten score of 7, which is indicative of being emotionally detached and astute. I also received a score of 10 for “rebelliousness” (factor Q1) indicating a highly radical and liberal way of thinking. Lastly I scored 8 for “self sufficiency” (factor Q2) demonstrating resourcefulness. These purported measures of certain facets of my personality were based upon the standardized interpretations of the test. According to these interpretations I scored an average score in only impulsivity and emotional sensitivity. I scored above average in ego strength, dominance, imagination, shrewdness, rebelliousness, and self-sufficiency. And I scored below average in warmth and boldness.
In Relation to My Experiences: