Lectures:
Project:
Define the content domain (including the theoretical specification of the construct) and then sample items from that domain
Collect data and leverage statistical associations (typically via correlation and factor analysis) to determine test content (e.g., which items to retain)
Note
8 clinical scales, 2 content scales (masculinity–femininity & social–introversion), & 3 validity scales were the original focus of the MMPI.
Started with a pool of 1000 items from case histories, psycholigcal reports, textbooks, & other tests.
Note
The process of using a known sample to determine which items to retain or delete based on empirical associations is also known as empirical keying
What was the test–taker’s attitude & were they honest while responding?
L scale was designed to detect individuals who present themselves in an overly favorable manner
K scale was also designed to detect individuals who present themselves in an overly favorable manner but was empirically keyed
F scale was designed to detect individuals who present themselves disfavorably (aka malingering)
Individual scales did not do a fantastic job of identifying the 8 focal psychological disorders
Clinicians started to look for configural patterns (e.g., Meehl & Dahlstrom, 1960)
Patterns of high (and low) scores across the feedback report constitute a profile
Revised to update and expand norms (\(n\)=2,600), revise “out–of–date” items, create a separate form for adolescents, and broaden the item pool (\(k\)=567) as well as number of scales/ constructs
Note
the MMPI–3 is actually the newest version (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020) – computer administration of 335 items in ~30 minutes
Similar to the MMPI, created via empirical–keying and scored true/ false, however, the intended population here is normally adjusted individuals
The 3rd edition is the most current version (originally created in 1950’s Gough, 1956)
Analytical procedure that helps discover or confirm the dimensionality of your measure (e.g., how many aggregate scales should be created from individual item responses?)
Assumes that underyling traits drive responses to inventory items:
Raymond B Cattell tried using factor analysis to help discover the major dimensions of personality (e.g., how broad is it?) by administering an exhaustive list of 171 adjectives (aka person descriptors)
Example of a primarily “theoretically–derived”1 personality inventory that retains Murray (1938)’s need system as a theoretical framework (15 specified in EPPS)
Concerned with socially desirable responses, so paired items matched in desirability & asked respondents to select the most descriptive item!!
Warning
This strategy results in some peculiar scoring consequences – every respondent has the same total score, but relative allocation of scores is different (this is referred to as ipsative measurement)
Some personality assessments are focused on manifestations of psychopathology (e.g., depression, anxiety, schizophrenia) – an alternative looks for resources an individual is endowed with that may help them successfully navigate the world
Structured to assess dimensions (and facets) of the five–factor model of personality
Note
Dimension (aka domain) names are reflective of only one pole of construct continuum – each has a corresponding opposing–pole alternative